Wild at Heart

[ischus]

Sigh, This thread made me disheartened. I haven't read this book. But a guy at my church did a study on it and he said it was really good and helped him in being a husband and a man. I think it's important to remember that John Eldridge is not God and that this book is not the word of God. It's going to help a lot of people, but it's not going to help everybody. Meaning: It's not going to be for everybody. And that's ok. It's also ok if you got a lot out of it. The point is not to bash the author, the book or each other. I think that if it's inspiring some men to be better for God and make them more hungry for God and being a man of God then that's a good thing. Praise God for that! But of course it's not the inspired word of God so it's not going to inspire every Christian on Earth. There are a lot of Christian writers out there that I don't like to read, but that doesn't mean that they aren't a good Christian and didn't mean what they wrote or wrote what they wrote just to annoy me. One of the great things about how God made us is that he gave us brains and intelligence to decide what we like and what we agree with. We are allowed to think. We can read things that we don't exactly agree with to try and understand others, it does not mean we have to agree with it ourselfs. Nor does it mean that people that do agree with those things are any less intelligent or good than us.

Amen, Mina ! Thanks for this great post !!!

 

[merryheart]

You understand, of course, that when someone says "all," they generally mean "for all practical purposes, all." This is not to mean there aren't a couple freaks out of the population that don't adhere to otherwise universal criterion.

This is - in a nutshell - is the biggest problem I have with this book and the plethora of others out on the market that are like it. They "educate" the reader to believe that people who don't fit into whatever mold they have cast (based on gender in this case) are freaks! The contribution to this mindset far outweighs the benefits. A gender based mold meant to keep *individuals* whether male or female from using their God-given talents to accomplish their God-given tasks is a prison. The Good News of the Gospel is that Jesus has set us free from these man-made prisons. The Gospel is for all Men and Women. There is only one. We don't need a separate gospel for men.

 

[Cordy]

The reason I dislike this book is not simply because it doesn’t quite meet my personal taste in subject matter, or that I simply find it inapplicable in my own life (or the men therein). I just think the whole underlying concept is wrong. I think it is wrong to tell guys who don’t feel the need to be competitive, or struggle with need to be a “real man” that they should. Even the posts on this thread give the impression that men who don’t conform to this stereotype are freaks. One would think that a book that is supposed to encourage men in their walks would show them how to love their brother rather that place labels on them for not following the author’s ideal for males. I think it could cause some very happy and satisfied men who are serving the Lord in the way they are called, to question themselves and become something they are not. It is dangerous to tell men their way of living for the Lord is be so narrow – considering that such a path is NOT found in scripture. And so in that way, I think this book is for nobody. If a man likes to do “wild” things, go for it, but don’t think that it is the “manly” thing that all men are supposedly called to do. God calls each one to his or her own place, and nobody should be knocked for not fitting the cookie-cut-out expectations laid down by one man (or culture).

Theologically, I think this book is dangerous as well.

 

[ischus]

The reason I dislike this book is not simply because it doesn’t quite meet my personal taste in subject matter, or that I simply find it inapplicable in my own life (or the men therein). I just think the whole underlying concept is wrong. I think it is wrong to tell guys who don’t feel the need to be competitive, or struggle with need to be a “real man” that they should. Even the posts on this thread give the impression that men who don’t conform to this stereotype are freaks. One would think that a book that is supposed to encourage men in their walks would show them how to love their brother rather that place labels on them for not following the author’s ideal for males.

mbams,

respectfully, what the author is trying to convey is that people who have your view have been too far syncretized into our culture, and are the way they are because our culture has taught them to be this way. What Eldredge is suggesting is that our culture has drastically changed the definition of 'male' from what it has been throughout history, and that he believes this is too different from how God intended males to be.

Now, for the males who find this to be true of themselves and have a desire to return to the 'ancient paths,' I see nothing wrong with this. True, we must love one another deeply, but we can do this in many different ways.

On the other hand, I agree with you that not all males are going to have this desire... and while the author would consider this unfortunate, I would agree with you that it is not necessarily bad to fit the mold of a western male in 2000 A.D. The author does not condemn the common male of our society, but rather warns against the effects of it. I completely understand how some could find this offensive, however, I do not.

 

[Jedi]

No, my opinion is not void.
See, I don’t have to read through the entire book to know that is has some major fallacies. This one for instance.

Yes, your opinion is void. How can you possibly discuss a book you have not fully read? You might as well reject the Bible and say it promotes violence after reading about the conquest of the land of Canaan (one part of the whole). This is exactly what you’re doing.

To say “every man” means that ever single man on earth is like this. If one man does NOT have this “desperate desire”, then this statement then becomes false.

Then you’re misunderstanding the book completely. Look around you, my lady, and tell me the sort of things targeted at men insofar as their interests are concerned. What do male-targeted movies contain? Battles, adventure, a beauty to rescue perhaps? This is also not strictly a cultural issue as this desire is played upon throughout the world regardless of culture. What does this mean? It is a universal principle. It is like the statement “human beings are able to see color.” Simply because there is something not quite right with a few examples does not make that principle not universal.

My husband, father, cousins, best male friends growing up, and husband’s of friends now are not like this!

Quite frankly, I find this impossible to believe. In fact, if this were true, you would not be married (since your husband would not want “a beauty to rescue”).

hm… maybe you didn’t read my post. I have read portions of the book.

Oh, but I did. You still speak out of ignorance from not reading the entire book. Simply because you might have read bits and pieces does not mean you know what the book is about any more than someone who has read bits and pieces of the Bible is now all of a sudden a Bible expert.

They "educate" the reader to believe that people who don't fit into whatever mold they have cast (based on gender in this case) are freaks! The contribution to this mindset far outweighs the benefits. A gender based mold meant to keep *individuals* whether male or female from using their God-given talents to accomplish their God-given tasks is a prison. The Good News of the Gospel is that Jesus has set us free from these man-made prisons. The Gospel is for all Men and Women. There is only one. We don't need a separate gospel for men.

This is nothing more than a straw man again. People keep thinking Wild At Heart is somehow chauvinistic and puts ideas into men’s minds. Let me assure you that this is untrue, so your complaints are baseless. Like I said before, these desires are ALREADY in us men, but people in the church often times want to snuff it out. We are told not to be wild, that we should be docile, good little boys. This will kill the heart of any man who truly knows Himself and how God made males to be. Far too often, the church and especially women want to clip the claws of the lion of the tribe of Judea.

I just think the whole underlying concept is wrong. I think it is wrong to tell guys who don’t feel the need to be competitive, or struggle with need to be a “real man” that they should.

And I think that’s exactly what needs to be taught. So many men have become pansies, not willing to fight for anything or stand up for important matters because they’re too busy being “good little boys.” This nonsense must stop. Jesus wasn’t just a “nice guy.” How would telling people to be nice to one another get a man crucified? What government would execute Mister Rogers or Captain Kangaroo? If you want a bunch of wussy, fake men who don’t reflect Christ’s strength, then hey, by all means, throw this book out the window.

Even the posts on this thread give the impression that men who don’t conform to this stereotype are freaks.

Thanks for the additional straw man. The book never does such a thing, but describes men who have lost touch with their strength/passion/wild side as wounded men.

I think it could cause some very happy and satisfied men who are serving the Lord in the way they are called, to question themselves and become something they are not.

If they take seriously the message of Wild At Heart, I simply don’t see how that’s possible. You might as well say, “I think if someone reads Song of Solomon they might actually think sex is a good thing and question themselves all this time for thinking it was dirty.”

It is dangerous to tell men their way of living for the Lord is be so narrow – considering that such a path is NOT found in scripture.

This attitude is found within scripture in the form of Narratives. Have you read any of the narratives? What are the characters like? Samson, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, David, Jesus, Paul… they were “wild” men in the sense that they didn’t just sit at home and go to church hoping to be good little boys. You would have to turn a blind eye to somehow not see the principles discussed in Wild At Heart not already expressed in the most influencial Biblical characters.

Theologically, I think this book is dangerous as well.

And as a theology major at college, I adamantly disagree with you. Not only is your claim completely baseless, but Wild At Heart heavily relies upon Narrative Criticism, that is, examining characters and plots found within the Bible to learn what principles the author is trying to convey as desirable and the examples that should be followed.

 

[MrsGnomeCrusher]

I saw this book in the bookstore last night. Picked it up. When I found out it was geared towards men, I put it back down.

After this thread I want to read it. It's caused quite a stir!

 

[Apollonian]

So, I've read the book now. Goodness, people, I've seen far more discussion here purely about opinion and semantics than about any particularly productive concept!

Perhaps, for those of you who wish to critique the book, we may focus on specific things which Eldridge presents?

I for one thing that the concept of battle, adventure, and the search for beauty may very well be sound psychological models of the average male mind. I recognize that there are some aberrations from this, however, I also recognize that aberration is a necessary sociological concept. In other words, we may never avoid labelling people as "freaks" because the only way in which to do so is to eliminate all of the extremely useful models which allow us to understand so much about each other. Without stereotypes, I, for one, would have no simple means to organize our ideas about other people to be effective in society. I simply must recognize that I need to check to see if the stereotypes are true, so I don't hold people to them!

-Apollonian

 

[Cordy]

Yes, your opinion is void. How can you possibly discuss a book you have not fully read?

Just curious, but have you read the entire Bible? (including every single line in Levitucus). How about in the original languages? Kudos of you have. Most Christians have not. Does that make their opinions void? Hardly. I haven’t read the entire works of Shakespear or Beowulf but I know quite a bit about them, and have an opinion nonetheless. I find that telling others that their opinion is void is rather condescending.

 

[Cordy]

Quite frankly, I find this impossible to believe. In fact, if this were true, you would not be married (since your husband would not want “a beauty to rescue”).

Not every real-life story is a fairy tale or a Hollywood film. Real life is very different from fantasies.

People keep thinking Wild At Heart is somehow chauvinistic and puts ideas into men’s minds. Let me assure you that this is untrue, so your complaints are baseless. Like I said before, these desires are ALREADY in us men, but people in the church often times want to snuff it out. We are told not to be wild, that we should be docile, good little boys...

Hm… humans also have an innate desire to lust, hate and kill. It is called sin. Does that mean it should be nurtured? The argument of innate desires does not work.

And I think that’s exactly what needs to be taught. So many men have become pansies, not willing to fight for anything or stand up for important matters because they’re too busy being “good little boys.” This nonsense must stop. Jesus wasn’t just a “nice guy.” How would telling people to be nice to one another get a man crucified? What government would execute Mister Rogers or Captain Kangaroo? If you want a bunch of wussy, fake men who don’t reflect Christ’s strength, then hey, by all means, throw this book out the window.

That is why I think this book is wrong. It teaches men that if they don’t think and act a certain prescribed way then they are mocked and ostracised. It was these men that you are mocking and exclude from the “real man” club that Jesus loved and reached out to.

I cannot tell you how many people said they are turned off by Christians because rather than show love and humility to their neighbour and turn the other cheek, Christians display a “righteous battle” toward anyone that is not like them.

 

[Cordy]

And as a theology major at college, I adamantly disagree with you. Not only is your claim completely baseless, but Wild At Heart heavily relies upon Narrative Criticism, that is, examining characters and plots found within the Bible to learn what principles the author is trying to convey as desirable and the examples that should be followed.[/size][/font]

If anyone is willing to correct me if I am wrong (nicely), then please do so, but does not the book state that one of the reasons men need to be wild and take risks is because they are made in the image of God, and that is what God does? Does the author not state that an example of this found in the Garden of Eden – that it was a risk because there were different outcomes that could take place? A risk is a risk because one can’t know the outcome. If I knew 100% that a certain stock was going to rise for the next few months, then it would not be a risk to buy some. To say that God takes risks is to imply that he is not omniscient or omnipotent. I think those are VERY important attributes to God. It would appear that the author is trying to justify the behaviour of men by attributing these characteristics to God. Pretty dangerous grounds if you ask me.

 

[Jedi]

Just curious, but have you read the entire Bible? (including every single line in Levitucus). How about in the original languages? Kudos of you have. Most Christians have not. Does that make their opinions void? Hardly.

At least in part, yes. The more you know a particular subject, the more credible your take is on that subject. This is why Bible scholars are more credible when they speak about the Bible than non-Bible scholars: they have more knowledge of the subject.

I haven’t read the entire works of Shakespear or Beowulf but I know quite a bit about them, and have an opinion nonetheless. I find that telling others that their opinion is void is rather condescending.

Stepping on toes is sometimes necessary for the sake of the truth, my lady. If someone very clearly does not understand a book, they haven’t read it, but take the liberty to condemn it, how should others respond? Pointing out their lack of knowledge in the matter is a good place to start.

Not every real-life story is a fairy tale or a Hollywood film. Real life is very different from fantasies.

I never said it was and my point stands. If your husband did not want a beauty to rescue, you would not be married. It’s that simple.

Hm… humans also have an innate desire to lust, hate and kill. It is called sin. Does that mean it should be nurtured? The argument of innate desires does not work.

Nice try, but I never said something is good because it is innate. I simply refuted the idea that Wild At Heart places these desires there. It does not. If you actually read the bloody book and read the Bible through Narrative Criticism, you’ll find out that being wild at heart is a GOOD thing. You imply it’s a very bad, even sinful thing, and nothing could be further from the truth.

That is why I think this book is wrong. It teaches men that if they don’t think and act a certain prescribed way then they are mocked and ostracised. It was these men that you are mocking and exclude from the “real man” club that Jesus loved and reached out to.

If you'll excuse my being blunt, my lady, this is a load of crock. If you really think that teaching men should act in a certain fashion is wrong, then what in the world are you doing being a Christian (where men are taught to be like Christ)? You are using a very obvious double-standard and so your objection crumbles to dust. Those who don’t fit the mold are, like I said earlier, “wounded men.” Not once does Wild At Heart “mock,” “ostracize,” or “exclude” these men as you so blindly accuse. Perhaps if you actually read the book…

Christians display a “righteous battle” toward anyone that is not like them.

Now look who’s generalizing.

If anyone is willing to correct me if I am wrong (nicely), then please do so, but does not the book state that one of the reasons men need to be wild and take risks is because they are made in the image of God, and that is what God does?

Yep, and if you’ll read the Bible, you’ll find that John Eldgredge is very correct in what he says. Read Revelation some time, or perhaps God torching Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground. Perhaps the story of the exodus from Egypt where God declares war against Pharaoh. What about the conquest of the land of Canaan? God very clearly has a wild side to Him, and if we are made in His image…

A risk is a risk because one can’t know the outcome. If I knew 100% that a certain stock was going to rise for the next few months, then it would not be a risk to buy some. To say that God takes risks is to imply that he is not omniscient or omnipotent.

I knew this would come up, but it’s a nonsensical objection. Simply because God is omniscient and omnipotent doesn’t mean He must apply these things at all times. Tell me, how does free will work? Does God create people so that they are programmed to either hate or love Him? If not, according to your logic, then God is not omniscient, as He would know the outcome of His creation while creating it. Thus He would be specifically creating a person to hate Him. However, this is impossible due to 2 Peter 3:9 (God is not willing that any perish but that all come to repentance).


So to any Bible-believing Christian, your logic must be flawed, since there are very clearly people who do not come to repentance. Thus God takes a “risk” when creating people: they might choose Him, they might not. If there was no risk, then God made these people do what they did (whether they chose Him or not), so it makes no sense at all to blame the people for their actions. If someone has no choice but to reject God, you cannot blame him when he does. Likewise, if someone has no choice but to accept God, it makes no sense to reward him – he could have done nothing else.

Also keep in mind that "God does not show favoritism" (Romans 2:11), ruling out the idea that God picks and chooses who will love Him and who will not; who will be with Him in paradise, and who will not. This rules out the idea that God programs people to accept or reject Him, but if He does not, then he takes a risk (gasp!) as to how these people will respond to His call. Your argument is really an attack on God and the Christian system of salvation, my lady, and your theology is extremely dangerous.


Though omniscient, Biblically speaking, there are matters in which God takes risks. There is no other ideology that makes a worse mockery of God, morality, and Biblical salvation than the ideal of fatalism.

It would appear that the author is trying to justify the behaviour of men by attributing these characteristics to God. Pretty dangerous grounds if you ask me.

Read the Bible some time. You’ll find out through Narrative Criticism that God is very wild at heart and so are the greatest prophets and leaders in scripture. Ignoring the facts doesn’t mean they’re not there.

 

[Cordy]

Jedi,
Your comments are rather condescending and your argument ad hominem. I simply explained why I don’t agree with the book, and you start attacking me (logical fallacy, by the way) and the comments seems rather rude if not arrogant. Maybe that wasn’t your intent, but I think it comes off that way. I thought this could be a potentially interesting discussion, but I try to limit my discussions to those that use logic, reason and respect rather than labels and mud slinging.

If what you say is any reflection of the book, then I certainly hope others avoid it.

 

[Jedi]

Your comments are rather condescending and your argument ad hominem

Condescending, perhaps, but not ad hominem. Not only have your arguments against Wild At Heart been baseless, but the fact that you have never read the book cannot be ignored. This is not against you personally (which would be ad hominem) but a simple pointing out of your lack of substance and the probable cause for it.

You slam a book you’ve never read and I have defended it against your accusations. Like I said in post 71, “If someone very clearly does not understand a book, they haven’t read it, but take the liberty to condemn it, how should others respond? Pointing out their lack of knowledge in the matter is a good place to start.” Simply put, it seems you’re throwing another baseless accusation in the air now: that I’ve somehow attacked you rather than your arguments. Go back and look at the discussion and you’ll see that’s not true.

If what you say is any reflection of the book...

That’s interesting, since I’ve been getting PM’s commending me for my defense of Wild At Heart here.

…then I certainly hope others avoid it

I’ve never been a big fan of willful ignorance, but it seems you don’t share my preference of knowledge in reading books and making my own decisions on the credibility of the book based on reason (It’s difficult to really evaluate a book when you’ve never read it).

 

[Apollonian]

Alright you two (Jedi, Mbams) that's enough. Seriously, I've been skimming your responses and I seriously don't think either of you realize your own viewpoints anymore. Please stop to think about how to focus on saying something beyond just an argumentative response. We don't need a flame war here. We need productive discussion.

Jedi, I won't tell you what to do, but if I were you I would refrain from comments such as "That's a load of crock". I appreciate your defense of Wild at Heart. However, there is a line between defense and open offensive. Focus on the possitive aspects of the book. Otherwise, arguing about the negatives will only make them seem more true (even if they are not).

Now, to respond to Mbams interesting post on page 7...

If anyone is willing to correct me if I am wrong (nicely), then please do so ...

A risk is a risk because one can’t know the outcome. If I knew 100% that a certain stock was going to rise for the next few months, then it would not be a risk to buy some. To say that God takes risks is to imply that he is not omniscient or omnipotent. I think those are VERY important attributes to God. It would appear that the author is trying to justify the behaviour of men by attributing these characteristics to God. Pretty dangerous grounds if you ask me.

This is an interesting point since it has a subtlety to it. I would say, however, that it is still possible for God to "take a risk". The reason is this: even if I have a source and a means to know the nature of the stock market, I may still choose to ignore this ability in order to take the risk. In other words, Eldridge is saying that the profundity of God taking the 'risk' in free-will lies not in that God is suddenly not omniscient but rather that God chooses to let us determine our future.

Now, to clarify the subtlety, I believe that God really did know what was going to happen, so in that sense it actually wasn't a risk. The thing is, we don't really have anything else to call it! In a sense, God took the risk even though He knew the outcome would cost Him. It would be like knowing the stock market would go down but still going through with the 'risk' anyway. So, finally, it comes down to the fact that I believe the nature of God is much more clearly understood by looking at the Will of God rather than attributes such as omniscience and omnipotence.

I ask you, just because God has the power and the knowledge to change the world, does that mean that He is required to excercize that power?

Similarly, I believe that men have the potentials in them that Eldridge talks about, but does that mean that all men exhibit them (or should exhibit them) ??

The primary point of this book is not to present some final theological or sociological theory on Man or on God. I believe that the heart of Wild at Heart lies in its attempt to express eloquently the common longings in the hearts of men in a society where such roles have begun to be obscured by the very 'outcasts' that are mentioned here. (The argument goes both ways - ie Wild at Heart may create outcasts, but those outcasts, when justified, may begin to hinder the growth of those who would benefit from this book) I think that Eldridge is not saying that the battle, adventure, and search for beauty are essential parts of the heart of a man, but rather they are common ones. And, like God taking the risk with us, we may take a risk with our own natures in order to experience life fully.

-Apollonian
20/M INtj

PS: As a separate point, I'd like to point out that I think it is important to keep in mind that not all media (books, television, movies, etc) are intended for you. I have seen many people make this mistake and critisize media for portraying a certain group incorrectly when the media wasn't trying to portray that group in any particular way in the first place.

 

[mina]

All this controversy has made me want to read the book! lol

 

[Jedi]

Jedi, I won't tell you what to do, but if I were you I would refrain from comments such as "That's a load of crock".

I had thought about omitting that phrase, but it captured the meaning I wished to convey perfectly. Saying “that’s nonsensical” didn’t quite cut it in that instance.

In other words, Eldridge is saying that the profundity of God taking the 'risk' in free-will lies not in that God is suddenly not omniscient but rather that God chooses to let us determine our future.

You’ll notice that I gave the same response, if only more brief in this respect, when I replied to her objection – we’re on the same wavelength, it seems.

All this controversy has made me want to read the book! lol

Everyone I’ve talked to who has actually read the book (except for one person at this forum) has nothing but praises about it. I highly recommend it, if only to have a basis to make your own decision about the material presented to you. Keep in mind, however, that it is a book geared heavily toward men.

 

[mina]

[
Everyone I’ve talked to who has actually read the book (except for one person at this forum) has nothing but praises about it. I highly recommend it, if only to have a basis to make your own decision about the material presented to you. Keep in mind, however, that it is a book geared heavily toward men.

I knew it was a book for men. I mainly haven't read it b/c of time issues and I would have to buy it and I don't have much spending money to buy everything I want to read. I've heard it was good and it sounds intriguing. Even if I don't agree with everything, it's not going to hurt to see what it's about. I rarely agree with every little thing in books anyways no matter who the author is. I think it's good to recognize that the author is a human that is different from who you are so they aren't going to agree on everything with you or you with them. If y ou are grounded in the word of God, then you can read anything and not be afraid of making up your own mind about it. JMO

 

[JPPT1974]

There will be always a lot of things that we don't agree with and still will be so that is what makes America and the whole entire world not runned by dictators is that we are free to express our opinions and thoughts. It is good the author is human and that is a big plus.

 

[Living4Him03]

I popped in to see how this thread is going after finishing getting my apartment set up.

First, I don't need to read the Book of Mormon to know that it is false doctrine and does not contain the truth. So, I don't think you must read a book to know what it is about. I have read sections of this book, although I admit I have not read the entire book.

I never said some of it does not make sense. The problem I had was that Eldridge does gear this book towards men. He asserts that men are made in God's image and are therefore "wild at heart" just like God. However, he seems to assert that women are different in that respect. I am sorry, but my personality is very much wild. And not in the party all the time sense. I like taking risks, adventure, action movies, the thrill of life, etc. This seems to be an innate desire within, yet Eldridge asserts these innate desires are reserved for men. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that's what he is trying to say. There are definitely differences between the sexes, but I think Eldridge goes too far in saying women aren't just as "wild at heart" as men, or if he doesn't say that he sure implies it.

Everyone has their opinion. If this book has made you want to be a better man and truly live for God great. But, don't read books like this and take them as gospel. There is no book that can substitute for the gospel! Also, if you are a guy and you have been offended by my posts I apologize (or if females have been offended). Any information that I post on CF is for the benefit of the readers, not to put people down. Yes, my What Guys Need to Understand post was sarcastic and taken wrong by many, so I'm sorry. Perhaps I should have explained my intentions with that post more clearly. I guess I was trying to point out that some advice benefits some people and some is not good advice for other people, if that makes sense! It was me being sarcastic about this book and trying to find out what exactly guys really think in general. Anyway, God bless!

Melissa

 

[Apollonian]

...He [Eldridge] asserts that men are made in God's image and are therefore "wild at heart" just like God. However, he seems to assert that women are different in that respect.

...yet Eldridge asserts these innate desires are reserved for men. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that's what he is trying to say. There are definitely differences between the sexes, but I think Eldridge goes too far in saying women aren't just as "wild at heart" as men, or if he doesn't say that he sure implies it.

...I guess I was trying to point out that some advice benefits some people and some is not good advice for other people, if that makes sense!

Melissa

Eldridge in fact does talk about women in his book, however, contrary to what it seems (that he implies women are not adventurous) he quite specifically says that women are indeed adventurous! More specifically, he relates that men should not relegate women in this manner but instead bring them along on the adventures of life. So, for those who have not read the book, please do not get the wrong impression. The only point which he makes about the fundamental difference between men and women is that whereas women focus on being beautiful, men focus on searching for beauty. The other two concepts, the spiritual battle, and the adventure are more or less common between men and women.

He never asserts that this adventure is reserved for men - quite the contrary in fact.

Melissa, your last statement is ironic, I think, since you seem to be taking Eldridges book out of context when you apply it to women. Eldridge isn't talking, implying, or otherwise asserting anything about women specifically. So, if you try to figure out what Eldridge is saying about women, instead of figuring out what he is saying men should see in women, you are going to get the wrong idea.