Cinderella Theology (Addendum)
Boundless.org write Suzanne Hadley has just wrote something about Michael Lawrence's theory on physical attraction (a matter I addressed in a previous post). From the comments in my previous post, I fear that some may misunderstand my views on physical attraction, so let me boil it down as best I can:
Physical attraction isn't everything--it's not even the main thing--but it's something. Yes, if the choice is between a spiritual girl who looks like a 5 and a worldly girl who looks like a 9, then I would go for the girl who is a 5. However, in real life, the choice is not so simple. There are plenty of worldly girls who are controlling, mean-spirited ... and are plain looking. There are some girls who are spiritually-minded, have great personalities ... and are drop-dead gorgeous. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out who is going to get asked out for dates. We would like to believe that there are plenty of super-spiritual women out there that make up in piety what they lack in body shape. But I don't think they are any more common than the bombshells. I go into churches and I see that the both the average-looking and stunning women have pretty much the same degree of religious devotion. Go figure. Sure, good looks are not an indicator of spirituality, but neither are average to below-average looks. The same goes for men.
I agree that getting to know someone will affect how you view their attractiveness. I don't think men should write off women just because they aren't fashion model material. However, there has to be at least some degree of physical attractiveness present (at least the outset of the relationship). If a woman looks unfeminine or looks like she doesn't care about her health, she shouldn't expect that men will date her just because she's active teaching bible classes to the 5 year olds. Simply put, I reject the politically correct idea that men can just turn on or turn off the Physical Attraction Switch as religious leaders dictate. I have shown it to be unscriptural and unscientific.
One more thing: I wonder if some religious leaders are confused about what men are saying. When a man says, "I'm not just attracted to her," it could mean that he has some unrealistic standards about how a woman should look. Yet, it can also be the case that when a man meets a woman, he finds nothing significant about her personally that inspires him to pursue her at that given time in his life. This could be the case even though the man might fall head over heels for a more average-looking woman down the road. I think woman fail to realize that men are not some monolithic class of simple-minded creatures that can be easily enticed (or shamed) into pursuing women with a few pat techniques. One of my readers told me that attraction is subjective, and indeed, that's why I take issue with folks like Michael Lawrence, Suzanne Hadley, and others who seem to want to lay down one-size-fits-all, hard-and-fast, extrabiblical rules for what physically attracts us. That old duck won't hunt.
Physical attraction isn't everything--it's not even the main thing--but it's something. Yes, if the choice is between a spiritual girl who looks like a 5 and a worldly girl who looks like a 9, then I would go for the girl who is a 5. However, in real life, the choice is not so simple. There are plenty of worldly girls who are controlling, mean-spirited ... and are plain looking. There are some girls who are spiritually-minded, have great personalities ... and are drop-dead gorgeous. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out who is going to get asked out for dates. We would like to believe that there are plenty of super-spiritual women out there that make up in piety what they lack in body shape. But I don't think they are any more common than the bombshells. I go into churches and I see that the both the average-looking and stunning women have pretty much the same degree of religious devotion. Go figure. Sure, good looks are not an indicator of spirituality, but neither are average to below-average looks. The same goes for men.
I agree that getting to know someone will affect how you view their attractiveness. I don't think men should write off women just because they aren't fashion model material. However, there has to be at least some degree of physical attractiveness present (at least the outset of the relationship). If a woman looks unfeminine or looks like she doesn't care about her health, she shouldn't expect that men will date her just because she's active teaching bible classes to the 5 year olds. Simply put, I reject the politically correct idea that men can just turn on or turn off the Physical Attraction Switch as religious leaders dictate. I have shown it to be unscriptural and unscientific.
One more thing: I wonder if some religious leaders are confused about what men are saying. When a man says, "I'm not just attracted to her," it could mean that he has some unrealistic standards about how a woman should look. Yet, it can also be the case that when a man meets a woman, he finds nothing significant about her personally that inspires him to pursue her at that given time in his life. This could be the case even though the man might fall head over heels for a more average-looking woman down the road. I think woman fail to realize that men are not some monolithic class of simple-minded creatures that can be easily enticed (or shamed) into pursuing women with a few pat techniques. One of my readers told me that attraction is subjective, and indeed, that's why I take issue with folks like Michael Lawrence, Suzanne Hadley, and others who seem to want to lay down one-size-fits-all, hard-and-fast, extrabiblical rules for what physically attracts us. That old duck won't hunt.
posted by Anakin Niceguy at 10:42 AM
4 Comments:
One more thing: I wonder if some religious leaders are confused about what men are saying. When a man says, "I'm not just attracted to her," it could mean that he has some unrealistic standards about how a woman should look. Yet, it can also be the case that when a man meets a woman, he finds nothing significant about her personally that inspires him to pursue her at that given time in his life. This could be the case even though the man might fall head over heels for a more average-looking woman down the road. I think woman fail to realize that men are not some monolithic class of simple-minded creatures that can be easily enticed (or shamed) into pursuing women with a few pat techniques. One of my readers told me that attraction is subjective, and indeed, that's why I take issue with folks like Michael Lawrence, Suzanne Hadley, and others who seem to want to lay down one-size-fits-all, hard-and-fast, extrabiblical rules for what physically attracts us. That old duck won't hunt.
A solid enough conclusion, Anakin, and one clearly justified.
But (and you knew that conjunction was probably coming)... many folks, as I'm sure we both know, have a rather high opinion of themselves in today's culture. In other words, the saying, "life is all about me, deal with it", is alive, well, and prospering in many hearts.
Alternatively, I wonder how much of the female mandater's rankings of men is not necessarily defined as subjective. Instead, I wonder how much of their ranking is based on financial attraction.
Hear me out.
You see, I can understand to a degree why many "average women" will seek out not only a spiritually attractive man, but one also whom is physically of higher grade than she herself would be considered if there were a consensus poll taken. After all, it should come as no red herring that a physically attractive man brings to the table a higher mating value.
Physically attractive people earn more money and are more confident about themselves. And if there's one thing women love more, it's a highly confident man.
Having acknowledged this criteria, I believe financial attraction weighs in just as heavy with women, as physical attraction holds with men in regards to women. For instance, if a below average looking male (this is all subjective, of course) were a '4' on the physical scale, a '7' on the spiritual front, and has deep pockets in the caliber of a '9', his mating value will skyrocket. All of a sudden that '4' in appearance looks more like a '7'.
I wanted to go further in depth but Blogger erased some of my stuff. I figured what I have written already is more than enough to get a general idea of where I was heading.
All this quibbling about attraction, though, makes one ask a very important question: "So where does the 'love' ever come in?"
Cheers.
MYOB
~ The Protracted Singleness Fan Club
"The fact that a beer guzzling, Nascar watching, porn-viewing, minimum-wage earning loser thinks that church is not for him; well, he is right." - Debbie Maken
Of course, this "Jesus ain't for you" attitude is present in other Debbie Maken gems such as her belief that only married upper-middle-class professionals should be allowed into Christianity.
Jesus spent the majority of His time with the broken, the lost, the wretches of society. It is the opposite of Christianity to heap scorn on single Christian men who don't measure up to an arbitrary standard of male perfection.
The more Debbie Maken resists the label of "feminist", the more she proves the charge. Her perspective on marriage and dating is wrapped in a fundamental disrespect for men.
Her latest charge is that men made the Church too feminine, so why should men complain? More sophistry. Effeminate pastors and homosexual priests have been destroying Christianity and remaking churches into "girl's clubs". The real men are gone because who wants to hang out with a bunch of busy-body women and their effeminate pastor?
I hope Debbie Maken's followers wake up as soon as possible. Maken's message is absolute poison. Her contempt for men is breathtaking and completely un-Christian. I am absolutely convinced that Debbie Maken is doing great damage to her follower's lives. How can a single Christian woman who desires marriage ever find happiness when she is constantly drinking the bile of Debbie Maken? If year after year rolls by with no hope of love or happiness, how does dramatically increasing one's standards for acceptable men help the situation?
It's simply depressing that these women are being led down another road which goes nowhere.
It seems these women only have two roads to follow: be content with singleness until you lose hope, or shout the name of Jesus while making yourself as unattractive and unwanted as possible. Debbie Maken is helping lots of women achieve the latter option.
Most people have the ability to stop and assess how their beliefs are impacting their lives. I pray the Maken supporters will be honest with themselves and realize how toxic her message is.
If Debbie Maken is right about men, why is her message considered downright offensive by most men?
If Debbie is right about men creating the problem of "feminine churches", why would she want men back in the church to do even more damage?
If single Christian women continue to elevate their expectations of potential husbands, won't they find less and less men to choose from?
I see the pain of these women who are so desperate for the love of a man and the possibility of children. I know they are unhappy, but Debbie Maken's message is not the answer. Alienating men by blaming and shaming them is not going to make them want you. I think the Maken supporters know this, and it is also why I am now convinced that the most strident fans of Maken don't really want to marry.
It's far too much fun to attack men for realities women created. It's much more enjoyable to wallow in self-pity and projected hatred than to face reality.
The Maken crowd aren't interesting anymore, just sad and somewhat comic. Much like a small group of Mrs. Havishams sitting around an aging wedding cake with no groom in sight, but a lot of very harsh things to say about men in general.
Being in a marriage is an amazing thing. Debbie Maken is married, so she can throw out theories and twist scripture to make points, but the women she advises are missing the big picture.
Marriages aren't always perfect, and some fail, but if both parties are putting in effort, the result can be fun and happiness every day. Sure you have each other for emotional support and fulfilling appropriate roles, etc., but a good marriage simply makes life more fun, happy and rewarding.
Having a child within a marriage is truly a transcendant experience. You don't have to work very hard at having faith because the experience of having a child proves to your spirit that there is a wondrous and good God in the universe.
It is sad that many Christian women have impossibly high standards; and still think they can wait for many years for the perfect man to appear. The Makenites believe it's not selfish to want a very successful and attractive man - by the worlds' standards. It's fine to hold that opinion, but it means a lot of women will be waiting until it is too late.
How many women wait past the age of 35, 40, or even 50, and still have no husband? They miss out on so much of life while clinging to the outrageously bad advice of women like Debbie Maken. They miss out on love, romance, youthful passion, children - and simply just spending time together with someone they love.
I know there are a lot more single Christian women than available men, but I wonder if the Maken girls set the bar far too high. I wonder if only a woman's perspective is the right one.
Men are not robots who only respond to Maken-directed stimuli. If these sad Makenites only follow her dating and marriage advice, they will never find a man to love them.
It is too late when you turn 45 or 50. It's too late when you are 60 and unmarried to suddenly realize that Debbie Maken was wrong about men, and a great many other things.
Consider, secular women marry easily and happily and enjoy men as they are.
Maken women consider men to be beer-swilling, minimum-wage earning losers who have failed in every area of their lives.
I'm a blue-collar worker, but I earn over $90,000 per year. I could support a good Christian wife and family, but I don't meet the ideal Maken model of a real Christian man. It doesn't make me happy knowing a popular Christian writer is telling most available Christian women that I don't "measure up" for whatever reason.
Girls, you are missing out on life by following Debbie Maken. But let's say for argument that you and Debbie are right, that most of us Christian men aren't good enough for you. If that is the case, we'll marry non-Christian women and get on with life. You'll be 65 years old clutching your copy of Debbie's book and still cursing men.
Are you really ready to commit to lifelong spinsterhood? That is what loyalty to Maken is going to create. A self-righteous, bitter woman with a fundamental disrespect for men. Is that the future you want, or do you want to start living a truly Christian, happy married life?
Lately, the Maken girls have become so desperate, they are blaming men for creating Church environments only women could tolerate. They are also suggesting Satan has tricked women into working for him!!!
I've actually spoken to my pastor about this and he is reluctant to say anything on record about this as it would offend the "marriage mandate" crowd.
Just know that Maken and company aren't helping with the lack of men in Church. If anything, Maken is making the problem much worse.
Nobody is working with Satan.
Men aren't feminising the churches.
Social trends and a lot of silly women have taken over where they shouldn't have. Led by effeminate men who cater to their views, these women have made churches inhospitable.
The best advice? Live your life and be open to ideas that don't exclusively come from (and must be approved of) by women ONLY. We have a short time on this planet. Complaining for years about no perfect men is going to get you ladies nowhere. And for the record, sisters, you aren't any better than the men out there.
Cheers,
B.L. ZeBubb
(just a pen name, really...)
Yeah, Anakin, I agree with you. Maken's view on men really sucks. She is lumping men in the trades as being "beer guzzlers". One of my most godly friends is a carpenter and he is extremely intelligent. Union electricians and union plumbers could make a lot more money that educators.
I think that a lot of healthy, reasonable people will pay attention to appearance and attitude. A person's appearance can say a lot about how much she respects herself.
As a moderate Christian woman, I am thankful for your blog and your realistic outlook.
Take it from me, pitting happiness on nabbing a godly husband is just plain sad..and idolotrous.
-From a nonMakenite.
Post a Comment
<< Home