The Man-Woman Thing Explore More Content
Either extreme is destructive: a woman put under a man's heel so she can't do anything because a man is insecure, or a woman competing with a man to prove her own self-worth and who is therefore not capable of surrendering. Both are cut off from themselves and therefore they have less to give to each other.
We've had some conversations these past weeks on what I call "The Man Thing," the notion that men are different from women in very fundamental and valuable ways, but that for some reason--and I don't pretend to know what that is--men, for lack of a better word, have become feminized.
Probably a simple way to explain that is to say that all human beings share common elements of personality. However, men and women experience them in different degrees and in different ways. Women "major" in some and "minor" in the others; men do the same in opposite areas. Where women major in nurturing and sensitivity and minor in aggression and conquering territoriality, men minor in nurturing and sensitivity and major, among other things, in what I've been calling the hunter/warrior. And its the hunter/warrior, the aggressive/providing/protective part of man's personality that I think American males are being estranged from.
By the way, keep in mind the minors are not inconsequential; they're just not majors.
I talked about how this is producing "men without chests," to use a phrase from C.S. Lewis, and how it may be producing a nation without a chest. A big part of my support for our involvement in Somalia is that we are not just putting our resources on the line, we're putting our bodies on the line--our own flesh and blood, as it were--to save the lives of weak and defenseless people that cannot give us anything in return. This is not the hollow sound of chest thumping and saber rattling; this is the action of a nation that actually has a chest, at least with regards to this enterprise. And, as a man, I'm proud of that.
Today I want to continue to explore that concept, but I want to return to a microscopic application of it, as opposed to the macroscopic, national application of it in Somalia. I may have even made some of these remarks before but they bear repeating. I want to talk a little about how I think this hunter/warrior notion--"the man thing"--translates into male/female relationships. I call it "the man/woman thing."
My premise is simple and it has three parts. A man naturally wants to protect a woman. A woman wants to be protected by a man. Both want to be respected.
A man will respect a woman that's on his own level but he won't cherish a woman that is utterly competitive with him because she is simply not stimulating that thing which evokes his cherishing. She doesn't need protection. But if a strong woman expresses vulnerability to a man, that will both encourage his respect for her because of her strength and will cause him to cherish her because she's inviting him to protect her, not because she's incapable of taking care of herself. In fact, I respond to a woman who has some kind of expertise, something that they're really good at. That engenders respect in me. She is capable but not completely self-sufficient. This sense of protectiveness is so strong it even extends to protecting a woman from himself. I've known this experience.
If you want to call it a "mating game" and you're above "playing games" then that's your business. Call it whatever you want but it's not infantile or shallow; it's human nature. And those that don't play by the rules of human nature may find themselves not playing at all.
Grant's point in the book is that a woman will experience her most satisfied life if she's in a committed, submitted relationship with a man she can trust. This is not because a woman can't take care of herself, it's just that a woman experiences more of her womanliness if she has a strong man to care for her in a kind, gracious and appropriate way. That encourages and brings out the femininity of a woman. She gets a chance to major in her major.
I think a woman can be competent and surrendered. I think, by the way, this is a skill women need to learn if they're going to relate well with men. They need to retain their own individual competence but at the same time be able to communicate to men that they have a vulnerability and they want a man's protection. I think that helps to assuage any kind of conflict that some men, out of their own sense of inadequacy, feel about the competition thing. On the other hand, I think part of what men need to do is to respect a woman's capability so it helps to meet her emotional need to be respected and so she won't feel a need to compete. Both have a part to play in responding to each other's needs.
Either extreme is destructive: a woman put under a man's heel so she can't do anything because a man is insecure, or a woman competing with a man to prove her own self-worth and who is therefore not capable of surrendering. Both are cut off from themselves and therefore they have less to give to each other.
I'll venture another observation. Though it takes time for a man to develop a cherishing affection for a particular woman, I think men know very quickly if the woman he's involved with is someone that he can connect with; but I think it takes a little while for a woman to know that. Let me prove that for you. I have never heard of a circumstance where a man said, "The first time I met my wife I thought she was a total loser, a real snoozer, a nothing. But then I got to know her and found an inner beauty, etc." A guy that's turned off to a girl from the beginning will usually stay turned off. He'll almost never develop a deep love for her, though I know there are exceptions. But the opposite is almost proverbial. I think in the broader perspective women respond much less to those initial first impressions and more to the person deeper inside which may come out after a while. This is a fundamental difference between men and women.
If this is true--and I think it is--then there's a very practical application here for dating.
Guys, date more girls at least once, be persistent in a gracious way if she doesn't respond at first. Girls, go out more frequently with the same guy if he shows interest and is pleasant to be with, but don't pursue a man who doesn't show interest in you once he's had a real opportunity to do so. Now this is sometimes very offensive to women because they read it as men just sizing them up physically and they resent that. Of course, sometimes that happens but I don't think that's what's always going on. I can see on the surface how it would appear that men are just looking at the physical, but I don't think that's true if what you mean by physical is the physical exterior look of the woman that they're responding to. You know, like she's not a ten and she's only a nine and a half, or she's only a seven and I'm into eights and above. That's not what I mean by this.
But men do respond to the physical in the sense that the only thing that a man has access to when he meets a girl is that which confronts him physically. What confronts him physically is not just a snapshot of a woman's body. There is a lot more that comes across in that physical impression--the way she carries herself, how she expresses herself, if she expresses confidence and a good sense of herself. Is she shy or frightened or retiring? Is she composed? Does she have an air of dignity about her? Does she look in control of herself? Does she look sloppy, or does she look like she takes care of herself? All of these things come across in a flash of a second when people meet. It's called a first impression and I think men key in on that more than women. But I do think there's an inherent thing in men and women's responses. That's why as Dr. Toni Grant has mentioned a man knows within a few minutes whether this is the kind of woman he can hang out with.
And it's not just about looks. I can think of a lot of women I have met that if you took a snap shot of them they'd be considered very attractive, even stunning in some cases but simply do nothing for me in person. On the other hand, a snap shot of some people may, by most physical standards, make them look rather ordinary but when you actually meet them they have this certain something, you can't put your finger on it, a je ne sais quoi --"I don't know what"--that you can't explain, that puts an edge on their personality, that makes them appealing. So men do respond to something that comes across physically, but it's not merely the physical, necessarily, that men are responding to.
At least that's the way I see it.
