06.26.07

“Does This Dress Make Me Look Fat?”

Posted in family, life happens, marriage, reviews, theology at 6:33 am by len

Earlier Internet Monk reviewed the pair of books by Stephen James and David Thomas, and found them engaging and entertaining. I confess I still have not read the second book which is “Yup. Nope. Maybe. A Woman’s Guide..” But I did make it halfway through the title at left.

The writing style is engaging. These guys know how to tell a story. That’s a plus… I think. I am hedging a bit because the story content is quite long. I am wondering how many men will pick up the book, hoping to find some insight and er.. solutions (we do tend to fall on the “quick fix” side of things don’t we).. and then put it down again because it is just a bit too touchy-feely. Remember, I am speaking as a fifty year old white male, I can’t speak for the thirty somethings who may be picking this up at the book store.

In chapter one of “Does This Dress Make Me Look Fat?” the authors discuss what men should do when their wives/girlfriends ask the dreaded question: “Does this dress make me look fat?” Their advice follows:

“This is where a man can really bless a woman. This is the moment when he can help her grew in maturity, wisdom and love. This is a moment when he can help her see herself as God sees her. She asks, ‘Do I look fat in this dress?’ He answers, ‘No, and I really like the way the dress shows off your eyes. Do you want to know what I like more than that?’ …Dramatic pause… ‘How you are so generous with your friends. You care for them so well.’ This would surprise her. It would speak to her character. She would know that he really notices her.”²

I found myself wondering if they had tried this. While it would likely “work” for some women, it wouldn’t work for my wife. She would feel patronized and diminished. I think the authors are correct that the question is loaded and is about more than weight or appearance, but some women also work beyond the level of intution and emotion and such a question, or a close variant, may genuinely be looking for specific information.

What follows is perhaps more interesting, and I found myself asking questions about the theology and anthropology of the authors. There are some key questions to ask about where they stand, and those questions break down into sets:

* psychological and personality theory
* therapeutic schools or narratives (the “practice” end)
* theology and anthropology (two sides of a coin)

My own graduate studies in counselling psychology spent a good deal of time considering personality theories and their foundational place in popular psychology. Assumptions about the nature of humankind as created in the imago Dei always have practical implications for therapeutic practice.

Here is the answer the authors give if the questioner does look fat in the dress.

“So he says, ‘Yes.’ There is a blessing to be given here too. ‘Yes, you do look fat in that dress, and I wonder if you already thought that. If you really want my opinion, I like the blue dress you wore last week. You look great in that dress. But you know what I really see when you ask me that?’ …Dramatic pause… ‘I see a woman who hates her body, and it breaks my heart for you. I wish you could see yourself the way God sees you.’ It takes a good deal of courage to do this. It also takes equal measures of strength and tenderness…Any guy who can candidly tell a woman she looks fat with gentleness has credibility. He’s a man that tells the truth.”³

This may leave you wondering, as I was, where the authors are coming from. In the same chapter they write: “Women are made to reveal beauty. Men are made to view it. This is how beauty can be redeemed. Men are made to delight in the beauty of a woman.”³

Now that sounds reductionistic, but hang on. Let’s acknowledge that we all have a hunger for beauty, both male and female, and their is something creational in this perspective. We are all made to delight in beauty. Beauty expresses something at the heart of God’s design, and at the heart of the Trinity. Are the authors intending to say that all women have to do in life is to reveal her beauty – and then men can enjoy it – and all will be well? Some reviewers interpret the statement that way.

With regard to the anthropology behind the psychology, these brothers are trained at Mars Hill. Naturally, they are going to reflect the influence of people like Dan Allender, Mark Driscoll, and John Eldredge. (Personally, I have appreciated both Eldredge and Allender, though I sometimes find Eldredge too simplistic). They are going to reflect a certain view of men and women and their interaction as a result. My own study and training biases me toward systems theory, psychodynamics (object relations theory) and narrative approaches to therapy. I hope I have been critical of all these logia and isms, but we are all finite and we are all situated.

But the authors say other things that place, “women created to reveal beauty,” in perspective. They also talk about our being “cocreators and costewards” (33) when they discuss the Genesis account. And the stories they tell seem to place “beauty” in a larger light than merely physical.. ie. the stories of the creativity of their wives and how they seem to turn everything they do into art.

Well – the best way to discover what the authors meant is to ask them. I fired off an email to Stephen and requested an interview. He agreed, and I offered a list of questions. Hopefully I’ll be able to expand the conversation later this week.

Permalink