In doing the series on John Eldredge’s other work (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4), Captivating, I found it interesting to read Wild At Heart, so the works could be contrasted.
I found the book to continue the theme of Captivating from a quality standpoint. While not as outwardly terrible towards the nature of men as Captivating was in lifting women up, it was horrific from a theological standpoint (he warps the first Scripture he uses to make it fit his theme), as all the one star reviews will attest. At points the book seems almost balanced in how it deals with men. But in a way, it’s been fortunate that I’ve gotten to deal with the books in the order I have, because it puts the whole narrative of traditional feminism out there. To that end, I’m considering this Part 5 of the series compared to a new one, because both books fit together. How?
No, we have not been poisoned by fairy tales and they are not merely “myths.” Far from it. The truth is, we have not taken them seriously enough . . . If masculinity has come under assault, femininity has been brutalized. Eve is the crown of creation, remember? She embodies the exquisite beauty and the exotic mystery of god in a way that nothing else in all creation even comes close to. And so she is the special target of the Evil One; he turns his most vicious malice against her. If he can destroy her or keep her captive, he can ruin the story. (1)
The Basis Of The Fairy Tale
In a way, Eldredge is defending the typical fairy tale narrative in the course of both books, which is consistent with traditional feminism. To that end, it is constructive to review. First, it is mindful to remember that tradition is something that we do habitually without understanding why we do it, or even think about it. Eldredge habitually places men and women into the narrative roles in both books, seeing them as natural when they are not. People generally accept what they are presented with without question, and people aren’t aware they are even being presented with it. A fish doesn’t know anything about water, for instance, because it’s just part of the fish’s existence.
To move on, feminism is female-supremacy. The traditional feminist model lifted up women via the idea of bridal mysticism:
In the eleventh century the worship of the Virgin Mary became widely popular; the reverence bestowed upon the Virgin was extended to the female sex in general, and as a vassal owed obedience to his feudal overlord, so did he owe service and devotion to his lady.
They were closer to God and more like God (reflecting the substitution of Mary for Jesus), since they were the brides of Christ. Women were brides of the Lord, while men remained mere servants. This core theory was extended into practice by the idea of chivalry, or that since women are spiritual betters (holy), that the men (profane) are there to serve them. This is reflected in rituals such as The Ring and the practice of genuflection in a man asking a woman for marriage; these are reflections of the vassal pledging himself to his lord.
Deconstructing The Fairy Tale
Why is this story so deep in our psyche? Every little girl knows the fable without ever being told. She dreams one day her prince will come. Little boys rehearse their part with wooden swords and cardboard shields. And one day the boy, now a young man, realizes that he wants to be the one to win the beauty. . . From ancient fables to the latest blockbuster, the theme of a strong man coming to rescue a beautiful woman is universal to human nature. It is written in our hearts, one of the core desires of every man and woman. (2)
Eldredge reveals that he has fallen to tradition in this passage (how do they get these ideas?), as has most everyone. But he relays the pattern of the fairy tale too. We all know it: Once upon a time, there was a princess. She was the most beautiful maiden in the land. But she was a prisoner in the dark keep with a big bad dragon guarding it. But she got saved when the heroic man braved the elements and injury and slayed the dragon and rescued her. And they lived happily ever after. This is literally how a large number of stories go, both of fantasy like fairy tales, and more reality-based stories. As the older literature is described:
Many medieval romances recount the marvelous adventures of a chivalrous, heroic knight, often of super-human ability, who, abiding chivalry’s strict codes of honor and demeanor, goes on a quest, and fights and defeats monsters and giants, thereby winning favor with a lady.
A perennial theme was the rescue of a lady from the imperiling monster, a theme that would remain throughout the romances of the medieval era.
Having the conceptual plot of the fairy tale established, it’s useful to look at the principal actors:
If we lived back in Ancient Greece, Rome or anywhere else we would view sexual intercourse as little more than a bodily function. . .After the Middle Ages, however, it developed into a commodity to pimp and trade [interesting], and the new cult of sexualized romance that arose from it resulted in a frustration of our more basic attachment needs – a frustration aided and abetted by social institutions placing sexual manipulation at the center of human interactions. This development entrenched a new belief that beauty was the native possession of women, and only women, and conversely that the desire to possess beauty was the lot of males alone, thus creating a division between the sexes that remains in place today.
So…
Woman is the absolute beauty and pearl of great price, and man is to desire the possession of that beauty.
It is important to remember that the concept of romance was invented in this same time to describe this dynamic, as well. Song of Solomon is often brought up as an ideal of “romantic love” (Eldredge does too – 3), but it is well to note that the fairy tale dynamic and hence romance does not apply to it:
Another example comes from the Biblical Song of Solomon, in which the appreciation of beauty and associated longing flows both ways between the man and women, whereas in romantic love beauty is ascribed only to the female, and desire only to the male – the roles are radically split. Moreover, in the Song of Songs there is no hint of the gynocentric arrangement; no appearance of man as a vassal towards women who are both Lord and deity. For the lovers in Song of Songs there already exists a God and so there is no worshiping of the woman as a quasi divinity who can redeem the man’s pathetic existence – as in “romantic” love.
Concluding The Matter
This is only a reflection of the typical narrative men are faced with in life when it comes to women. Unwittingly, man is made the play the role of unworthy liege in these fairy tales, chasing after, pursuing after, rescuing, and fighting for the beauty, the pearl of great price – in other words offering himself (4) and making her feel loved as her Personal Jesus loves her (5).
She’s even to play hard to get, hide herself away, and continue to put up barriers before men that do find her. In other words, she continually recreates the fairy tale in her head and uses her absolute moral authority to demand men to play their part in the fairy tale properly or else. The concepts of headship and submission are even redefined in the tradcon feminist mindset to meet these roles.
It’s so easy to be blind to these dynamics (the power of tradition!) in action, but in looking at both of Eldredge’s books with this in mind, the entire content begins to make sense (and you see why I had to go back to pick up the beauty passages). According to Eldredge, a woman has “to be romanced, to play an irreplaceable role in a great adventure, and to unveil beauty” (6), and a man has “a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue” (7). What both books teach fit right into the fairy tale narrative of traditional feminism. Woman is the Queen, Princess, Beauty. Man is the Knight in her service, the one sent to rescue her and offer his strength to her. The one to battle all odds, slay the dragons, and generally sacrifice himself for her glory. The one so many do not see being played out repeatedly, again and again. The one that keeps showing up in numerous books, shows, and movies for a reason. It’s because society, steeped in traditional feminism, demands men and women to play these roles.
(1) Wild At Heart by John Eldredge p 183-184. (2) ibid p 182. (3) ibid p 34-35. (4) p188. (5) p192. (6) Captivating by John and Stasi Eldredge p 8-9. (7) Wild At Heart p9-10.
Ballista74's Blog 
Speaking of fairy tales, I believe Cervantes’ “Don Quixote” is a satire on chivalry. Don Quixote de la Mancha is a nobleman who goes insane after reading too many books on chivalry and knights-errant. Of note is the title character’s delusional / chivalric view of the whore Aldonza as the fair maiden “Dulcinea”. The 60s musical version “Man of la Mancha” transmogrifies Don Quixote into an idealistic noble dreamer (“The Impossible Dream” is one of the songs), women hungrily gobble it down. A perfect message for women as they embraced whoring themselves out in the sexual revolution.
LikeLike
I think your link to Mary is correct, and is one reason I think not only is Catholic Mariology wrong, it produces bad fruit.
Your link of romance to the Middle Ages is an interesting one. As you note, Eldridge isn’t wrong about the fairy tales. I’m also reminded of Kirkegaard’s claim that the idea of the sensuous came out of the Middle Ages as well (it’s in his famous essay on Don Giovanni from Either/Or I). It would be interesting to study the development of these ideas.
I own the book and should re-read it but it’s been a while. As I recall, there are a few major problems.
1. As Dalrock constantly notes, chivalry was a system that imposed duties on women as well, and also provided countervailing privileges for men. Eldridge follows the feminist view in retaining women’s privileges and men’s duties, but junks anything that was to the benefit of men.
2. The damsel in distress in those fairy tales really was in distress and was in danger from an external power. The power Eldridge posits that that they are held captive by today is their own brokenness. Mostly it seems their problem is not recognizing just how amazing God created them (self-esteem). This is a completely different dynamic.
3. After the knight actually won the woman, they lived happily ever after. He didn’t have to keep re-winning her over and over again. In general, such rescues occurred prior to them being in a relationship, not afterward.
4. Fairy tale knights won the woman through their demonstration of traditional alpha masculine traits such as killing a dragon (martial prowess). Thus they validate creating a high level, high value masculinity in boys. By contrast, Eldridge’s woman is rescued via beta supplication.
5. Related to the above, fairy tales were just that. They were in a sense mythic stories designed to illustrate something, but not intended to be used as a literal template. In what other context of life is patterning your behavior after a fairy tale considered a good thing to do?
6. His notion of the quest for union with our opposite seems as much Jungian as Biblical. He also seems to elevate having a woman to the level of necessity and implicitly perpetuates the soul mate idea. (I’m a bit hazy on this point I’ll admit). In short, it almost elevates having a woman to an idol by positing a man’s rescue operation for his woman as a holy mission. The truth is otherwise: it’s better not to marry if we have the ability to remain celibate. So says the Bible. I think marriage is normative, but also that if we can’t be comfortable living alone and not making a woman our mission in life, we’re ill-equipped for marriage.
I should re-read it, but there are many reasons to be suspect of this book, especially when it comes to women.
LikeLike
By linking to my comment at Donal, are you implying that I am demanding men play their part?
LikeLike
@Neguy No kidding. Catholic Mariology produced the whole dynamic of feminism as we know it today. As for a general observation of your commentary, it is notable that the whole concept of courtship (e.g. engaging in the act of courtly love, or acting this fairy tale dynamic out) came out of the Middle Ages as well. As I understand it, there are a number of guides that were published in that time as well.
I never have found any evidence that indicates this to be so. If there is any perception of such things, it’s by comparing it against modern Marxist feminism (the usual mistake of perception regarding feminism). The difference I note is in direct enforcement of the feminist principles, as opposed to general moral dictates – the difference between should and must. Though it is well noted that the phrase “white knight” comes from original direct enforcement of these things in medieval society. I can see where the absence of such enforcement could be construed as “duties on women” and “privileges for men”.
Indeed. While true, Eldredge ignores in the process of claiming “beauty” in women that all women are in fact ugly as all get out. Just like us men. But what he posits repeatedly is that Satan is this dragon, this Big Bad, the external force in the story. Satan is the one that keeps women from realizing their full power as God’s Glory Incarnate in human flesh (note the worship there), and the one her Knight must save her from. You will note this will come up repeatedly in the quotes I’ve used (including the first one in this post) and will continue to come up.
This is a symptom of women buying into this narrative. Once she gets bored and unhaaaaapy, she puts herself back in the keep and demands the man rescue her. As stated before, It’s a self-esteem issue.
Actually, the Knight by purest definition is a beta supplicant. This is illustrated by all the old traditional rituals where the man places himself below the woman and the fact that the man must continually prove himself before the woman. By contrast, the woman does not have to qualify herself in any way before the man, and that she is to not take responsibility for herself in any way.
A woman is virtuous by being. A man actions are what give him virtue.
The whole fairy tale dynamic is one of beta supplication. In fact, the whole dynamic predicates the notion that woman is the savior of the man (yes in the Jesus is my Lord and Savior way). By gaining beauty (woman), the man gains his salvation. Since he requires “beauty” to have good standing towards God and does not have it, he must possess it in the form of woman. Eldredge argues this in a rather confusing way in Captivating and intimates it in Wild At Heart. I have these quotes in my lists for both books, but was unsure of how to fit them together into the other quotes as a theme.
The salvation dynamic, and the idea that the pursuit and attaining of “beauty” is the man’s chief goal in life explains all the “you’re not a real man if you’re not married” garbage out of the tradcon world. It even explains much of the feminist nature of the manosphere. PUAs and their practices of Game are really feminist practices for this reason. As well, the “you’re not a real man if you’re not banging chicks” ethos comes from such ideology.
It’s amazing, really. The idea that most people do not pattern their gender mating on anything like Scripture (or even logic) but the scribblings of perverted minds who lived in the 12th century is almost amazing, if you didn’t stop to consider the average nature of most people.
Indeed, the lack of the removal of desperation towards seeking women, or even MGTOW becomes a severe threat and offense towards women. To not care about marriage so much to be desperate puts power in the hands of men. And women can’t stand that.
Thanks for the opportunity to continue discussing this and make the whole of this stronger in argument.
LikeLike
Interesting thing I just learned that kind of fits into all of this: All 3 of Esther Vilar’s books on feminism were written and released first in the German language. To that end, the title of the first book in German was somewhat mistranslated. The German word used is dressierte, which answers more accurately to our English word dressage instead of the word “manipulated”. Dressage, as you will see if you follow the link, is the art of training a horse in obedience to its rider. If you don’t want to use such a fancy word, a better translation of the first book is “The Trained Man”. (Edit: Google translate agrees with this translation)
Vilar’s first story in The Manipulated Man is one that follows the fairy tale model. A woman blows a tire. She gets out and . . . looks around. A man finally pulls up and changes the tire for her. They’re trained into it.
Interesting…
LikeLike
A long time back I read the Book of Chivalry written by a French knight in the late 1200’s. It has nothing to do with putting women on a pedestal; it’s mostly about honor due fighting men and which acts are most heavy honorable. Big eye opener along these lines.
Seems to me, catholic worship of Marry helped create all this mess, though I am not well read on the topic.
LikeLike
Peter Blood said:
Your summation is correct, and that is why I chose this name as my online persona, Don Quixote is a man who when mad from reading too many books about chivalry. The example about Aldonza is incorrect. Aldonza Lorenzo was an ordinary girl from a nearby village, and Don in his fantasy world called her “Dulcinea del Toboso”, she was not a whore.
However, in Don’s second adventure he rides to an inn and sees two whores [wenches] standing around near the gate, and when he first spoke to these wenches he called them “virgins”, much to their amusement.
It has some really funny adventures described in the book and it’s worth the read, but the author’s style can be very drawn out, and often you must read dozens of pages before the next laugh. The book is nearly 500 pages long with fine print.
LikeLike
I think it was Podles that described the feminisation of the church here:
http://www.podles.org/church-impotent.htm
The book is a free pdf download.
[B: Been well aware of this book for some time. It’s listed in the “Recommended Reading” links to the right.]
LikeLike
Thanks for the insights. As I said in a previous post, I need to go re-read Wild at Heart, which I previously read twice in a blue pill frame and liked at the time.
LikeLike
@Neguy
I should note that Eldredge formerly was a minion in Focus On The
FamilyFemale. I didn’t know that until I looked up his bio.That said, his compatriot, Glenn Stanton did a talk that someone linked me to.
Needless to say, he’s very forward about the ideas of female supremacy and that men should submit to women. The whole formula matches up exactly with the traditional feminist model espoused in this post and others on the site.
LikeLike
You are being quite manipulative with your picking from this book, Ballista.
I could just as easily pick from it and make it look like entry book into red pill (end of the fifth chapter)
And by the way, you are wrong about that
is just some modern (well, medieval/romantic) invention – it’s actually in Bible too – have you forgotten about Jacob working 14 years just to get Rachel?
P.S.: I’d really appreciate if you could cite that part about “and making her feel loved as her Personal Jesus loves her” – I read the book in the Czech translation, and just downloaded some english version for reference, which is reformatted and has different number of pages
LikeLike
The quote you put here is a one-off that is inconsistent with the theme of the book, and is fact contradicted by other parts of the book (namely the whole “beauty to rescue and fight for” garbage that appears repeatedly throughout the book). While both terrible books, a broken clock still indicates the time correctly twice a day, and you can pick small “good” passages out of any piece of trash book.
This was “paying the bride price” which is Scriptural (Genesis 29:15-18). It is not an example of romance as he is not working to either “rescue” Rachel or directly working to gain the favor of Rachel. He is negotiating with Laban. Period.
The phrase is a buzz phrase on the blog that is used to describe a certain phenomena, which is reflected in the Captivating commentary as well as other posts. In this case, the definition of “loving a wife as Christ loves the Church” has been remade into “making her feel loved as she perceives it”.
LikeLike
I could say the same about the quotes you picked being inconsistent with the rest of the book. Anyway, beauty to rescue and fight for doesn’t mean that you have to pedestalize her and make her your moral compass or whatever, that’s just something you are reading into it. (and the last quote about emptiness of Eve was actually from the chapter “Beauty to rescue”, so it’s not like there was only one short part of the book where he got it right by accident)
There is no practical difference between working for Laban to get her and slaying the dragon to rescue the lady. Period (interesting how writing “period” in the end of bad argument makes it look somehow stronger). Btw, in your post you also mixed fairytales with chivalric romances, while in fairytales there is usually no winning of favor of lady, just ordinary “slay the dragon and as a reward get princess and half of the kingdom”.
I read you for more than a year, I know what you mean. What I noticed though is that you’re on the quest for exposing of femdom church and such as often reading too much into text to support that. I take that there is actually nothing in this book saying that, just stuff that you believe implies it. Also I don’t think that there is anything bad about loving her in a way she perceives it, and I’m definitely not the only one around here.
I challenge you to quote part of any Eldredge’s book (I read only Wild at Heart, but I’m feeling generous today) that says that female is absolute moral authority and male should be subservient (and like really says it, not that you interpret it like that).
LikeLike
@ballista74,
“That said, his compatriot, Glenn Stanton did a talk that someone linked me to.”
Wow, Glenn Stanton relies on a number of unbiblical, and discredited sources:
A novel, Lord of the Flies. Glenn, this is fiction!
Margaret Mead – her early research was based on a sample size of two!
George Gilder – debunked by Dr. Daniel Amneus.
Some movie, did not catch the name, that shows men playing with their kids in a park while the wives watch.
LikeLike
“To not care about marriage so much to be desperate puts power in the hands of men.”
This is key.
A man who has control of his biology, or a man like myself who is asexual, is like that snake that fascinates the bird in those old wildlife programs. He’s an object of fascination and threat. Western women have been catered to all their lives for the past 40 or so years, and being told “No” is something that throws them for one hell of a loop.
I’ve been working on expanding my social circle in recent months to “replace” the lack of companionship I’ll have in refusing the godless sham that is Western marriage.
LikeLike
Not really, especially compared to the Captivating quotes. As stated in many sources (a few findable on other posts on this blog), including Eldredge’s books, a woman’s desires are reflective of God’s desires. Men are supposed to listen to the “heart-cry” of women and heed it. Women are victimized and “brutalized” (see quote #1 on this post, that’s language consistent with much of what Eldredge writes) because men won’t do this.
I think this shows your position quite clearly, as you can not read this Scripture for what it truly is. You believe in the feminist model of marriage.
Do you believe Eldredge is honestly that stupid that he will be open about these messages? That’s not how deception works. The only thing that really makes the Stanton video that was posted remarkable was that he wasn’t even trying to cloud this pattern in a deception.
And Dalrock is a bad party to cite, as he has always been a party in the outer fringe of the manosphere, trying to straddle that and the traditionalist position (as espoused by Stanton, Eldredge). He also supports Game, which adds fuel into this model.
LikeLike
Why not care to put page cites out so we can put these quotes you lifted into context shall we?
Looking at the last one of yours, here’s the first two sentences of that paragraph.
He’s offering that to try and counter “but my poor pitiful offering isn’t good enough for my personal goddess” objection. This passage leads into my pull reference on p192.
The whole thing is pure heresy that falls in exactly with what I’ve been writing. A real man was made to “Fear God, and keep his commandments” (Ecc 12:13), not to “offer his strength to a woman”.
Once again, a few good passages (I have six written down for Wild At Heart) doesn’t outweigh a book full of garbage.
LikeLike
Another bad source referenced positively by Glenn Stanton is the book by a former editorial page Editor of the New York Times, Gail Collins. Collins also wrote the introduction for the 50th anniversary edition of “The Feminine Mystique” by Betty Friedan.
LikeLike
@Bee You have to wonder if Stanton, Eldredge, Dobson, et. al. have the same goals as the radical feminists. Indeed they do.
LikeLike
Good stuff, Ballista. And Don Quixote, I finally had the lightbulb go off about why you have that as your online name. DOH! Loved that story when I read it in highschool. I think it’s neat that reading it now would have an entirely new meaning for me.
There ARE some good things to pull out of both Wild at Heart and Captivating, but it requires much discernment to be able to pull those and sort them out amongst all the garbage and chaff and very, very misleading messages that make up the majority of these books. It is my belief the enemy almost always uses bits and pieces of truth to help make his lies more believable and acceptable.
LikeLike
“It is my belief the enemy almost always uses bits and pieces of truth to help make his lies more believable and acceptable.”
He tried it with Jesus in the desert.
LikeLike
Anyway, to finish dealing with this, the rest of the pull quotes are from p116, 117, and 119, encapsulated in two of the passages I have marked as “good” by themselves. The problem though is that it contradicts much of the rest of it – namely in the idea that men are supposed to be “offering themselves” to women. Surrounding statements even poison the “good” in the passages that I saw. For instance:
In other words, the function of the helpmeet for a husband is for him to SERVE HER WISHES, not act as a support and help to him. In other words, instead of being there to be
a fit companion for him:
she is supposed to be the shrill voice of the Holy Spirit to him, wherein he is responsible for “following her heart-cry” – in other words, she is to be rescued, fought for, and generally “offered his strength”.
It is more accurate to say that a woman’s purpose as a wife is to offer her strength to her husband.
LikeLike
Pilgrim of the East said:
I have not read the book being discussed, but I would like to say concerning the bride price
or dowry as it is often referred to. There are numerous example in the Old Testament of this, so much so that Moses called it the dowry of virgins, was often paid in silver. Jacob didn’t have cash so he worked instead. David didn’t have cash so he worked [killed and circumcised Philistines] instead.
If any romance was involved it was in the mind of the groom, this would be a great bargaining lever for the father to extract a higher price for his daughter. The father knows the daughter. The potential groom can only guess [fantasize] about her. A perfect situation for a clever man to put-lipstick-on-the-pig.
[B: Yet the groom never did this to win the favor of the woman, in the hopes that she might be his bride. As a result, the bride had to gain favor with the groom in order for him to make the choice to take a woman as his wife. Herein lies the difference.]
LikeLike
@Ballista74:
no, that doesn’t follow – Eldredge wrote that women reflect beauty and mystery of God, not God’s desires. If you deduced that from that victimization part, than allow me to present my take on this part – he basically says, that women tend to be even more fucked up than men do.
I see, it’s true because you say it, right?
no, I don’t believe Eldredge is that stupid to actually believe that at all and your arguments against don’t seem very convincing.
Actually, you are by far further on the outer fringe of the manosphere than he is (judging from number of readers, comments and numbers of links from rest of the manosphere). And yeah, we all know that (you think) Game is bad and doesn’t work and even if it worked it would still be bad and the parts of it that aren’t bad and work are actually common sense and such as shouldn’t be called Game at all…
eh, maybe because I said that I quote from reformatted ebook (which has acctually ~60 pages)?
Great! Thanks for providing clear example of your reading into text – offering strength to woman obviously means that man submits to woman. It’s not that relationship is in any way transactional and man offers to woman what she lacks and vice versa, because it’s better for a man not to be alone… Yeah, offering strength to protect your wife means that:
so I guess that you aren’t commanded to love your wife, am I right? Married men are called to love their wives and even sometimes sacrifice themselves for them (Eph 5:25), I think that offering their strength can be included in that to. (also, Ecc 12:13 actually doesn’t say that it’s what man was made for, if I were to nitpick… I think that it’s more in term of having a relationship with God, but I’m afraid that classifies me as “Personal Jesus is your friend, everything is relative” heretic in your eyes)
LikeLike
Over at the RPW reddit…someone asked for book recommendations…..and this is one comment….
[–]aiofa 2 points 2 hours ago
If you like Christian literature, the books Captivating (for you) and Wild at Heart (for him) are really great!
LikeLike