Mating in Captivity: Chapters 9-11

mating in captivity

Mating in Captivity: Reconciling the Erotic and the Domestic, by Esther Perel. Originally published in 2006. 272 pages.

This is the last post analyzing the Mating in Captivity since chapter 11 is the last chapter in the book. This trio of chapters also makes it very clear why Esther Perel is something of a lightning rod to those of us who marry fully committed to monogamy. She asks some pretty inflammatory questions and her answers are every bit as controversial. However, most of that is in chapter 10, and we need to touch on chapter 9 first.

Chapter 9: Of Flesh and Fantasy

This is basically a defense of sexual fantasy. The entire chapter is an exposition of various patients, most married, but not all, and one homosexual patient. There’s not a lot here worth delving into, so I’ll simply offer the chapter’s main idea, which is also its last paragraph:

Giving voice to our fantasies can liberate us from the many personal and social obstacles that stand in the way of pleasure. Understanding what our fantasies do for us will help us understand what it is we’re seeking, sexually and emotionally. In our erotic daydreams, we find the energy that keeps us passionately awake to our own sexuality p.174

The only other thing I will add about this chapter is that it underscored to me how a dangerous idea was suddenly very prevalent in this book. It was always there as a subtext, but it stood out more here, and the idea is that there is an inherent disconnect between sexual excitement and emotional intimacy and comfort. The overwhelming assertion seems to be that if a couple embraces and understands that these two seasons alternate back and forth while rarely overlapping, they can find a healthy sexual balance.

I vehemently disagree with this assertion, not only based on personal experience, but based on my understanding of marriage. Furthermore, accepting this premise as true undeniably sets the stage for what comes in chapter 10.

Chapter 10: The Shadow of the Third: Rethinking Fidelity

If I had to offer a one line synopsis it might be, You Americans might be able to save more of your families if you weren’t so dogmatic about fidelity.

Despite a 50 percent divorce rate for first marriages and 65 percent the second time around; despite the fact that monogamy is a ship sinking faster than anyone can bail it out, we continue to cling to its wreckage with absolute faith in its structural soundness. p.178

And this section, more than almost any other, flies in the face of the ideals of Christian marriage:

Fidelity, as a mainstay of patriarchal society, was about lineage and property; it had nothing to do with love. p.178

This may have some truth historically and biologically, but love is very much at the center of a Christian marriage, cementing everything from the mundane daily tasks to the sexual relationship. Our Bible makes it clear; we can be both sexually connected and spiritually connected. Perel propagates the idea that the two are different things, and again there may some truth to that but when you start from that premise, it’s a short leap from there to “rethinking fidelity”.

One thing that is crystal clear here is that Perel sees the strict adherence to fidelity as a condition of continuing the marriage as a uniquely American phenomena, including the notion that the only way forward is for the offending spouse to come clean:

In other cultures, respect is more likely to be expressed with gentle untruths that aim at preserving the partner’s honor. A protective opacity is preferable to telling truths that might result in humiliation. Hence concealment not only maintains marital harmony but is also a mark of respect. In formed by my own cultural influences, I defer to Doug’s decision to remain silent, and at the same time I encourage him to pursue other ways to reconnect with his wife. p.186

Perel tries to make the case that she isn’t promoting infidelity, rather attacking the ideal that marriage means the death of the individual self. However, the non-judgemental stand comes off as if she is an adultery apologist. She makes the case that we have set up a culture which is, in effect, disastrous to monogamy. There is a bit of wisdom tucked into all of this:

This isn’t a justification of infidelity, or an endorsement. Temptation has existed since Eve bit the apple, but so, too, have injunctions against it. The Catholic Church is expert at not only avoiding temptation but also meting out penance for those we couldn’t resist. What’s different today is not the desires themselves but the fact that we feel obligated to pursue them- at least until we tie the knot, when we’re suddenly expected to renounce all we’ve been encouraged to want. Monogamy, like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dike, trying to hold back a flood of unbridled licentiousness.

There is again, a grain of truth here, but the answer to the dilemma is the exact opposite of what she has promoted in several other chapters. Rather than release and indulge our erotic imaginations, we should harness, restrain and control them, saving them for monogamy where they can be explored within a legitimate context. Of course, we are living in a culture awash in the flood of unbridled licentiousness.

Chapter 11: Putting the X Back in Sex- Bringing the Erotic Home

This final chapter of the book is one with which I agree in part, and disagree in part. The overarching thesis is that people indulge in all kinds of sexual imagination and shenanigans pre-marriage and extra-marital (pornography, cybersex, affairs, etc), while being tamed and “puritanical” in their intimate relationship with their spouse.

She is in no way condemning any of the stuff I outlined above; the cybersex, pornography, or feverish daydreams.  I would, but she’s not. She is saying they should indulge these things in the context of their marriages to keep the home fires burning, so to speak.

Because, she asserts, passion is destined to be short-lived, couples have to open to one another and be more experimental and honest about what they want. She distinguishes eroticism from sex, asserting that fun, playful, erotic intimacy leaves most marriages “after the housewarming”. I’ll leave her to her assumptions, being the expert and all, but the very idea of almost worshiping a vaguely described idea of eroticism -one which includes perversion- leaves me cold.

The sum total of this book was informative, and the case studies in the form of patient stories was interesting. There were even a few philosophical gems tucked here and there. Overall, however, I don’t think help the average Joe and Jane do anything other than play act at eroticism, entertain infidelity, and believe they are doomed to enter a sexual desert unless they take her advice to heart, and not all of it is good advice.

For informational purposes and the ability to hold my attention, I’ll give it:

3 out of 5 stars

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mating in Captivity: Chapters 6-8

mating in captivity

Mating in Captivity: Reconciling the Erotic and the Domestic, by Esther Perel. Originally published in 2006. 272 pages.

Chapter 6- Sex is Dirty: Save It for Someone You Love

The subtitle of this chapter is “When Puritanism and Hedonism Collide”, which bugs me because it continues the myth of the Puritans as a repressed people who hated sex and all things sexual. While it’s absolutely true that they shunned and condemned extra-marital sex and fornication) as the illicit acts that they are, the Puritans had a much healthier and robust attitude towards marital relations than most Americans do today, if the studies and interviews that spawned this book are any indication. Boston Magazine debunks Puritan myths in this interesting article.

This chapter is the first since beginning the book where I was nearly completely diametrically opposed to Perel’s positions from its beginning to its end. I say nearly because the chapter’s title takes a very insightful turn at what happens in the minds of many religious wives when it comes to marital intimacy, especially after children arrive, which is covered in chapter eight.

The politics and economics of sex and the diametrically opposed attitudes we witness daily penetrate the American bedroom and insinuate themselves into the creases of our intimacy. The couples I see live at the intersection of this ambivalence, and must negotiate amid these competing value systems. The legacy of Puritanism, which locates family at the center of society, expects marriage to be reasonable, sober, and productive. But alongside this very American notion of individual responsibility and moderation is the equally apple- pie notion of individual freedom. p.90

There’s a layer of truth in that, but the rest of the chapter felt like one long exercise in cognitive dissonance. There was a repeated insinuation (and even insistence) that any external restraints on sexual activity for anyone teenaged or older is repressive. The European standard, along with the dichotomy of their later age of first sex and lower teen preganacy rates, were offered as evidence of their superior sexual attitudes and  practices.

That this approach inherently undermines the ability of married couples to fully embrace and engage with one another erotically seems completely lost on Mrs. Perel, but I knew what I’d be getting going into this one.

Chapter 7- Erotic Blueprints: Tell Me How You Were Loved, and I’ll Tell You How You Make Love

This chapter is all about the connection between how people received love, affection, freedom and pleasure in childhood and the way it crosses over into how they navigate their adult relationships; in this context, their marital relationships.

I was slightly concerned that we were heading into Freudian territory but was relieved  that this was not the case. There are connections between childhood relationship patterns and  adult relationships. I also believe, having lived it, that when partnered with a spouse who makes you feel you can safely be vulnerable, a lot of relational challenges can be overcome. This is particularly so in the area of marital intimacy. To her credit, Perel doesn’t counsel her patients that they are stuck in their patterns.

Those of us who were raised with a strong sense of duty, hard work, and self-deprivation, Perel argues, often have trouble with the duality of marital intimacy. Specifically, she helps her clients see that you can be physically attuned to your mate without completely denying your own desire for satisfaction. Conversely, she asserts that one can be aware of and open to your own desire, acutely so (she used the wording ruthlessly so) without being unloving towards your mate.

We are socialized to control ourselves, to restrain our impulses, to tame the animal within. So as dutiful citizens and spouses we edit ourselves and mask our ravenous appetites and conceal our fleeting need to objectify the one we love. p.122

According to Perel, in a loving marital relationship, the self-absorption inherent in sexual excitement collides with our ideal of emotional intimacy. I believe openness and vulnerability frees us and reconciles that tension. But we’re taught to be invulnerable and look for ourselves because no one else will, so Perel’s patient list and popularity are set to continue to grow unabated.

Chapter 8- Parenthood: When Three Threatens Two

This is a topic that has been discussed, written about, and debated ad nauseum, so I won’t spend a lot of virtual ink telling you what you already know is in the book. That many women absorb themselves into motherhood and have nothing to give their husbands. Also, that some men (albeit significantly fewer) find it hard to connect intimately with their wife once she has become a mother.

Nothing new about that, or even about the advice she gives the couple she uses as the object lesson for most of the chapter, whom she refers to as “Warren” and “Stephanie”.

I did find this bit insightful, worth sharing and pondering, as it speaks to a large part of why so many couples find the bridge between parenting and a return to marital intimacy such a long one:

Her intense focus on her kids is not a mere idiosyncrasy–not simply her own personal style. In fact, this kind of overzealous parenting is a fairly recent trend that has, one hopes, reached the apex of its folly. Childhood is indeed a pivotal stage of life that will inevitably shape the child’s future. But the last few decades have ushered in an emphasis on children’s happiness that would make our grandparents shudder. p. 133

Amen to that, and this was also a good bit of advice to the couple she focused on. It stood out to me not because it was revolutionary. It’s as natural to us as breathing and always has been, but I’d never really stopped to consider what it indicates:

With him and through him, she potentially can begin to disentangle from the bond with the children and redirect some of her energy back to herself and her relationship with Warren. When the father reaches out to the mother, and the mother acknowledges him, redirecting her attention, this serves to rebalance the entire family. Boundaries get drawn, and new zoning regulations are get put into place delineating areas that are adults only. p. 135

That is sound counsel. Kids need to know and understand that Mommy and Daddy have a relationship that is not about them.

Until next time…

Related:

Preview of Coming Attractions: Mating in Captivity

Mating in Captivity: Intro-Chapter 2

Mating in Captivity: Chapters 3-5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mating in Captivity: Chapters 3-5

mating in captivity

The analysis of the introduction through chapter two can be read here.

Chapter 3- The Pitfalls of Modern Intimacy: Talk Is Not the Only Avenue to Closeness

Of the three chapters outlined in this post, Chapter 3 is the one in which I find the most valuable insights. By valuable, I mean I agreed. It basically expands on what its title implies; that talking is not the only way to cultivate marital intimacy.

Given the topic of the book, it’s obvious that Perel is making the case that sexual communication is a valid avenue to close connection. And that for some people, most notably men, it is the primary route to emotional connection within marriage. I agree with her that we both talk to much and prioritize talking too much:

Interestingly, while our need for intimacy has become paramount, the way we conceive of it has narrowed. We no longer plow land together; today we talk. We have come to glorify verbal communication. I speak; therefore I am [els: I laughed]. We naively believe that the essence of who we are is most accurately conveyed through words. Many of my own patients whole heartedly embrace this assumption when they complain, “We’re not close. We never talk.” p. 41

In an insightful turn, she notes that despite their happy union, her own parents (Perel is 61), would struggle to find the relevance in questions about emotional intimacy. She continues to explore what she describes as the “feminization of intimacy” being as harmful to women as it is men. She’s staunchly feminist in outlook but it doesn’t make this any less true:

If one consequence of the supremacy of talk is that it leaves men at a disadvantage, another is that it leaves women trapped in a repressed sexuality. It denies the expressive capacity of the female body, and this idea troubles me.

In so much as my dear fellow Christians have almost completely obliterated any notion of sexual pleasure in marriage as something women need and desire as well as (if not quite as much as) men, it troubles me, too.  When a secular, feminist psychotherapist hits on a truism that the church has denied (more accurately abandoned), something is amiss. The freedom of a wife to express amorousness towards her husband is important, because not every woman is wired to bridge the gap to intimacy through verbal chatter.

Chapter 4- Democracy vs. Hot Sex: Desire and Egalitarianism Don’t Play by the Same Rules

This chapter is most accurately summed up as “Americans are politically correct prudes who don’t appreciate that some women enjoy being a submissive in the bedroom as a counterbalance to relief from the dominant roles women now occupy in almost every other sphere of public life.”

It’s basically a passionate defense of S &M and the role it can play in some relationships as the only escape from reality the parties might employ. Apparently, her American clients and colleagues see such behavior in the intimate realm as demeaning to the women involved. She disagrees, as do I, but that’s not to say I agree completely with her conclusions either.

She tried to balance it with male and female and examples, but I stand by my aforementioned summation of the chapter. Although re-assessing realities one feels a need to escape is probably the first order of business, I don’t have the mental space to wrestle with what another married couple does in their boudoir.

Chapter 5: Can Do! The Protestant Work Ethic Takes on the Degradation of Desire.

This chapter takes on the Western idea of fixing whatever is broken by reducing it to the sum of its parts. The idea that something as existential as passion burning out can be fixed by scheduling, lingerie, more talking or even a prescription, is an idea that Perel finds counterintuitive at best:

But this can-do attitude encourages us to assume that dwindling desire is an operational problem that can be fixed. From magazine articles to self-help books, we are encouraged to view a lack of sex in our relationships as a scheduling issue that demands better prioritizing or time management, or as a consequence of poor communication. If the problem is testosterone deficiency, we can get a prescription- an excellent technical solution. For the sexual malaise that can’t be so easily medicalized, remedies abound: books, videos, and sexual accoutrements are there not only to assist you with the basics, but to bring you to unimagined levels of ecstasy. p.72

Perel isn’t intensely averse to some of these remedies, particularly if there is a clear medical reason for the dilemma. In general however, she sees our American predilection to stripping the problem into parts rather that acknowledging the complexity of desire and the unpredictability of eroticism in ways that will help couples reconnect.

Later in the chapter, after much questioning of the sexual performance industry, Perel returns to her original thesis of the importance of a level of separateness. Using one couple and a single male patient as her examples, she takes pains to invite the readers to understand how much of these issues are rooted in the mentality each marriage partner brings with them into the sexual relationship.

In general, I think she’s on to something, although our over sexualized culture places its own pressures onto couples to meet arbitrary standards set by the nebulous “they” as well as movies and other forms of entertainment media.

I also think that while she places far too much emphasis on eroticism as a gauge of relational health, she’s right that the ability keep that part of a marriage alive over time requires a level of surrender that many people find hard to achieve. More than ever, we are almost always on guard. The ability to drop those walls and *go there* with your spouse makes all the difference.

Until next time…

 

 

 

 

 

Mating in Captivity: Introduction – Chapter 2

mating in captivity

Mating in Captivity: Reconciling the Erotic and the Domestic, by Esther Perel. Originally published in 2006. Hardcover; 272 pages.

I decided to break this review up into several posts because, as with The Feminine Mystique and Modern Romance, the scope of ideas in the book are so wide-ranging I wanted offer a clear picture of what you’ll find within the book’s pages. Rather than removing the possibility of ever reading the book, in my own reading life I have found that such analyses propel my resolve to read the books for myself to better draw my own conclusions. Because of that, I have no qualms about doing chapter by chapter analyses of nonfiction books.

When considering my analysis, a few stipulations:

  • This is a purely secular book written by a Belgian psychotherapist and relationship counselor.
  • My opinions in these analyses are offered from the perspective of my Christian faith.
  • My position on reading varieties of views and schools of thoughts can be found on my standards and quotes page.

Now that that’s out of the way, we can take a look at what this increasingly popular lady has to say about the “reconciling the erotic and the domestic”.

Introduction

The introduction of the book lays the groundwork for what lies ahead. It’s a short explanation of the problem Perel is going to describe and then aim to solve:

Psychologists, sex therapists, and social observers have long grappled with the Gordian knot of how to reconcile sexuality and domesticity. p.xiii

In essence, Perel sets out to figure out why long term married couples (in aggregate) report a sharp decrease in desire for one another over time. She explores this by offering different examples of real life couples she has counseled over the years and the suggestions and homework she gave them which helped to reignite some of what they felt for one another in the beginning.

Being almost completely unfamiliar with this particular marital malaise, I am finding the book somewhat fascinating, even as I disagree with many of her bedrock assertions.

Chapter 1: From Adventure to Captivity

At some point, we can thoroughly address the whole notion of this “captivity” thing, but not quite yet. Chapter 1 begins with Perel describing the scene at a party for authors she attended several years ago. Different writers were mingling about with each other, sharing what types of books they were writing. When she shared that she was writing about, she was suddenly the star attraction.

Everyone in her vicinity had strong opinions and wanted to weigh in, with two distinct, caricaturish camps emerging; the romantics and the realists. The romantics“refuse a life without passion”, squared off versus the realists for whom “maturity prevails. The initial excitement grows into something else-deep love…diminishing desire is inescapable. You tough it out and grow up”.

Perel makes the case that our modern expectations of marriage are wildly out of proportion to anything out ancestors would have expected, and I agree with her. The demise of religion, long held traditions and community institutions (not to mention distances between extended families) have caused the majority of people to expect their spouse to replace everything that these support systems used to provide. She conversely asserts, and I agree, that deep love and desire are not mutually exclusive; that these can be maintained in the same relationship over time.

She rounds out the first chapter with a look at two of the couples she has counseled in her practice as an example of one of the things (I presume) she is going to use as a basis of foundation for her solution to the problem. Each of the couples entered territory where they sacrificed or hid parts of who they are for the sake of the whole, new entity they were creating as they merged their lives together. Perel asserts, and again, I partly agree, that a large part of the excitement of a new relationship is the unknown factor. The unpredictability and instability of a new relationship is the accelerant for the fire that ignites the desire.

At the beginning, she mistakenly calls this phenomena love, asserting that “love is inherently unstable”.  I disagree. Love isn’t inherently unstable. Real love is the most stable thing you can build any life on, the only thing really, and plenty of people experience the fire and excitement of desire without ever getting to love. Later, she reworks her terminology, correcting this earlier misstep of interchanging love for desire. It made for a much clearer communication of her points going forward.

She’s wrong to dismiss the need of sacrificing parts of oneself for the greater whole, but she’s absolutely right that being able to see our spouse as an individual, separate and distinct from us goes a long way to fight off the malaise that diminishes desire over time. There’s a lot more to unpack there, but not without quoting the whole book.

Chapter 2: More Intimacy, Less Sex

In this chapter, Perel expands on her preceding intimation about the need for separateness as a prerequisite for desire, using the example of a unmarried couple she saved by counseling the woman to move out, and how the shift re-ignited their relationship. As if often the case when Big T truth isn’t the foundation of counsel, we skip around the edges of truth just enough to sound good, but miss the heart of the matter. The thesis, if you will, of Chapter 2 is that when we become too enmeshed, we lose the ability to see our mate’s “otherness” enough to want them:

With too much distance, there can be no connection. But too much merging eradicates the separateness of two distinct individuals. There is nothing more to transcend, no bridge to walk on, no one to visit on the other side, no other internal world to enter. When people become fused-when two become one-connection can no longer happen. There is no one to connect with. p.25

Sigh. So much potential, so little Truth! Being a Christian, I am solidly and immovably in the camp of husband and wife being no longer two but one. Merging is a beautiful thing. Mrs. Perel got that part wrong. The intertwining of souls, however, doesn’t negate the reality that the differences between men and women, coupled with the reality of growth and change over time leaves us plenty of bridges to cross to one another as well as internal worlds to enter. The problem is that we often don’t want to do the work or experience the discomfort of crossing those bridges or even acknowledging the bridges.

Marriage as a destination rather than a journey is at the heart of a lack of desire is what Perel seems to be trying to get at, and she’s not wrong. That, and the tendency we have to set up our lives where we never have the opportunity to see our spouse’s otherness, to view them with new eyes, or outside of the context of very narrowly proscribed parameters.  Christians can be particularly susceptible to this tendency. When there are opportunities to see your mate within the context of the environments that intrigued and captivated you at the beginning of the relationship, desire can’t help but re-emerge.

This one has the makings of another one of those books that occasionally parks right alongside the curb of truth, but never makes it across the lawn to the front door.

We’ll see.

 

Preview of Coming Attractions: Mating in Captivity

Ever since reading a snippet of her writing in Aziz Ansari’s Modern Romance, I’ve been trying to get a read on what author and marriage therapist Esther Perel actually counsels. Her influence is increasing in the marriage and relationship industry, so regardless of whether I am personally affected by what she espouses, it interests me on a larger scale.

Just when I thought I had it figured out, and that she is extremely damaging, I’d hear or read something that made me think maybe she isn’t as bad a counselor as I thought.  I had ruled out reading any of her books because my reading queue is so full -and backed up- already. However, I changed my mind and decided to take the time to read Mating in Captivity, which I’ll start today over lunch. Soundbites and extemporaneous commentators are no substitute for reading her book for myself.

After I get underway with it, I’ll decide whether to write one comprehensive review at the end or if it is meaty enough to divide into several discussion posts.

Incidentally, this is a slow blog even by slow blog standards, but my posts on Modern Romance consistently report higher stats every week, from readers all over the world; even when little else is being read here. Two years since I first reviewed it, readers are still drawn to it.

Clearly, Ansari struck a chord with many people. Modern Romance is a very insightful, honest, and informative book. Surprisingly so, given that it’s written by a left-leaning American comic. It strikes at the heart of mating difficulties in our current culture, while stopping short of offering anything approaching a realistic solution. For those who haven’t read them:

Look forward to my review -or chapter summations- of Mating in Captivity sometime next week!

Girl, Wash Your Face

girl wash your face

Girl, Wash Your Face: Stop Believing the Lies About Who You Are So You Can Become Who You Were Meant to Be, by Rachel Hollis. Published in February, 2018. 240 pages.

This book is burning up the best seller’s list, and a dear friend of mine really liked it, so I decided to give it a read. I figured going in that anything being read in the numbers that this book is would be a fairly quick read, and I was right. I think I read it in about three days.

I did something with this book that I rarely do when I read, but I almost always do when I read something that is current, popular, and marked Christian. I read reviews from other sources, starting with Amazon, and ending with a couple of reviews from Christian websites. Before I delve anymore into the whys and wherefores of that, I’ll preface it and my review with a short description of the book and its author.

Rachel Hollis is a lifestyle blogger turned motivational speaker and guru who savvily used social media to propel her brand into the mainstream. She’s the wife of a Hollywood distributor who recently left that job to run her company, which exploded in 2015. She’s the mother of four children, and is well loved in Christian cricles for her real talk and vocal profession of faith.

Girl, Wash Your Face is equal parts memoir, motivational pep talks, and self help advice. It was published by Christian publishing giant Thomas Nelson. This last bit of information sent me looking for reviews from other sources even while I was reading this book, because despite the occasional nod to faith and one or two Scriptures here and there, I wasn’t getting what I was expecting to find from a book categorized by Amazon as “Christian Living”.

None of this is to say that I ddn’t enjoy the book. There were parts I enjoyed quite a lot. Hollis has a funny way of telling her stories and an enchanting tone. There are also a few pieces of advice that I strongly disagree with, but overall, it isn’t a bad book. The problem is that it isn’t, to my mind, a “Christian” book.

I believed Hollis’ Christian testimony, so that wasn’t the problem. Mostly, the problem was that fully 90% of the advice in this book was advice any secular self-help person would dole out, because it put so much of the onus for your success, as it were, in your ability to be the hero in your own story. That was unfortunate, because the lies that Hollis induced women to overcome in each corresponding chapter are actually pretty good lies to be rid of:

  • The lie: Something else will make me happy
  • The lie: I’ll start tomorrow
  • The lie: I’m not good enough
  • The lie: I’m better than you
  • The lie: Loving him is enough for me
  • The lie: No is the final answer
  • The lie: I’m bad at sex
  • The lie: I don’t know how to be a mom
  • The lie: I’m not a good mom
  • The lie: I should be further along by now
  • The lie: Other people’s kids are so much cleaner/better organized/more polite
  • The lie: I need to make myself smaller
  • The lie: I’m going to marry Matt Damon
  • The lie: I’m a terrible writer
  • The lie: I will never get past this
  • The lie: I can’t tell the truth
  • The lie: I am defined by my weight
  • The lie: I need a drink
  • The lie: There’s only one right way to be
  • The lie: I need a hero.

Because this is a memoir, each corresponding lie (chapter) begins with a story from the author’s life, relates it to the things many women similarly struggle with, and follows that with admonitions and advice. The advice is usually along the lines of:

“You, and only you, are ultimately responsible for who you become and how happy you are.”
Or:
“When you really want something, you will find a way. When you don’t really want something, you’ll find an excuse.”
And ultimately:

Your life is up to you.

If we can identify the core of our struggles while simultaneously understanding that we are truly in control of conquering them, then we can utterly change our trajectory.

God, your partner, your mama, and your best friends—none of them can make you into something (good or bad) without your help.

You need to prove to yourself that you can do it. You need to prove to yourself you are capable of anything you set your mind to. You have the power.

Being a gal who leans more towards duty and a perpetual battle to learn selflessness, it might just be that I was reading the whole thing from a wrong perspective, and I acknowldge that. However you cut it, this falls woefully short of Christian counsel. That isn’t to say there are no gems tucked away in this book, because there are. For instance, this was one of my favorites:

“Someone else’s opinion of you is none of your business.” Let me say that again for the people in the cheap seats.”

And this made me laugh:

“Our society makes plenty of room for complacency or laziness; we’re rarely surrounded by accountability. We’re also rarely surrounded by sugar-free vanilla lattes, but when I really want one, I somehow find a way to get one.”

As far as light reading goes, this was a nice diversion and in some cases, served as a humorous reminder of things I already know. But nothing about it deepened my faith or propelled me to go deeper into the Scriptures. That was the crux of the very few negative reviews this book received; that whatever it is, it’s not a Christian book. Most of the review, however, were overwhelmingly positive which is why this baby is selling like hot cakes.

For entertainment value and cute story telling, I’ll give it:

3 out of 5 stars

The Feminine Mystique: Ch. 10

feminine mystique

This is the 6th post in the series on The Feminine Mystique.

I’ve tired of Betty Friedan’s commentary, despite this book being on the list of books that helped shape America. Although I concede that she made a few valid arguments, this book grew increasingly redundant as it went on. I’m not sure if I’ll add any more posts to this series, mainly because the more I read, the more narrow Friedan’s analysis and study appears. I recognized early that her attempt to liberate “American women” had nothing to do with my mother or grandmothers for obvious reasons.

However, I now see it had very little to do with the mothers and grandmothers of my many friends from different backgrounds, ethnicities, and regions of this country. This book, as feminism has always done, speaks for a privileged and elite group of women. The fact that they propagandized their complaints well enough to trick the rest of us into believing that feminism was also about us does nothing to change the ultimate truth. Chapter 10, however, is an interesting one. It’s about a topic that interests me as well, so let’s explore it.

Chapter 10: Housewifery Expands to Fill the Time Available.

Mrs. Friedan discusses the ways which women -together with the educators, functionality experts and expert marketers- contrived to convert housekeeping from work that “can be capably handled by any eight-year-old child”, to a full-time occupation which takes 6 hours a day to complete. Friedan and one of her experts assert that the work is often incomplete by dinner  despite a wife working diligently all day to complete it:

But when the mystique of feminine fulfillment sent women back home again, housewifery had to expand into a full-time career. Sexual love and motherhood had to become all of life, had to use up, dispose of women’s creative energies. The very nature of family responsibility had to expand to take the place of responsibility to society. As this began to happen, each labor-saving appliance brought a labor-demanding elaboration of housework. Each scientific advance that might have freed women from the drudgery of cooking, cleaning, and washing, thereby giving her more time for other purposes, instead imposed new drudgery, until housework not only expanded to fill the time available, but could hardly be done in the available time. p. 286

Here, Friedan parks right alongside a good point. However, due to her adamance that a career was the answer to the disillusion women faced, she missed a valuable opportunity. Instead of denouncing the increasing materialism and isolation of suburban family life, she decided that what women really need is be more like men. Eight years ago a writer friend of mine took an excellent turn at expressing the problems that came with the increase of ‘labor saving” devices, the nuclear family as the center of life to the exclusion of broader community cohesiveness, with emphasis on the sexual domain as the sole purpose of a woman’s life. From her 2011 article, Return of the Washerwoman (link unavailable):

Yes, you have a washing machine in your basement, but you used to only have three changes of clothes per person, and many had their laundry washed for them. I know this for certain, as my aunt’s family used to run a laundry service and she swears that her family washed the laundry for the entire urban neighborhood. Women bought washing machines, which killed the washerwoman business, but then everyone’s wardrobes grew exponentially.

For all of the talk of “pioneer women”, they were a small minority of women and many tended to be dead before they hit 50. Most women 100 years ago were doing a similar level of housework and homeschooling as I am, but they didn’t have to take on the additional chauffeuring duties, they weren’t as isolated, and they weren’t expected to look like a lingerie model and turn tricks in the bedroom that would put some prostitutes to shame. The workdays were also shorter before cheap electric lighting and most people got more sleep.

In other words, Friedan was right about the evolution of the suburban housewife, and she was even right about the changing nature of the work women did in and around the home:

And yet, for the suburban and city housewife, the fact remains that more and more of the jobs that used to be performed in the home have been taken away: canning, baking bread, weaving cloth and making clothes, educating the young, nursing the sick, taking care of the aged. It is possible for women to reverse history- or kid themselves that they can reverse it-by baking their own bread, but the law doesn’t permit them to teach their own children at home, and few housewives would match their so-called generalist’s skills with the professional expertise of doctor and hospital to nurse a child through tonsillitis or pneumonia at home.

A lot has changed since this was written, as most of us can -many do- educate our children at home.  Even the brightest among us, however -and I know a lot of very bright women-find that we are helped immensely in that endeavor by educational support systems which include other women, a point which brings me to the overwhelming flaw in Mrs. Friedan’s conclusion. The flaw is assuming that being a housewife and contributing to the larger world are mutually exclusive endeavors.

Unfortunately, it’s also a trap that a lot of well meaning Christians mistakenly fall into, believing that we can bring back the good old days simply by doing things the ways our grandmothers did them in order to fill the days. Ask any woman who sews her own clothes how expensive it is to purchase high-quality woven fabrics and this notion is quickly disabused. Fortunately, it is possible to “be all you can be” as a woman without doing so on man’s terms nor pretending we can live a 1919 existence in 2019.

Women are supposed to be contributing to society outside of the four walls of our homes, we are supposed to be serving people besides our own immediate families, and we are  to use our gifts, creative energies and talents to the fullest. We should be volunteering in our churches. We should be active in our children’s schools. We should be visiting the elderly and extending ourselves to those in various states of need.

Life has provided me ample opportunities for intellectual stimulation,  to utilize my talents, and to contribute to society in ways I never imagined when I was a 23-year-old  housewife. I spent years living under the delusion that being at home might waste my talents. I realized early on that I could not have been more mistaken.

Mrs. Friedan’s assertion that the only way women contribute or exercise their potential is through careerism is wrong. The dissolution of community and the disappearance of engaged extended families has proven that her prescription, rather than freeing women, has only served to increase their burdens. Women who work, whether at subsistence jobs or in “fulfilling careers”, still have to endure the “drudgery” of housework. It’s just added on as a second shift, and they have to do it without much support.