Because this is a transcribed talk, I had to make some decisions about where to place punctuation and divide topics into paragraphs. (IOW, blame me for errors in that department.) I've chosen to include filler word like "um" and "like" as well as times that the speaker laughed because I believe unplanned verbal reactions like those can be telling of the speaker's emotional state. I've included time-stamps in case anyone finds errors in the transcription - and please let me know if you do!
After trying a variety of tricks, I've realized that I cannot reliably differentiate Anna Sophia's voice from Elizabeth's voice. The audio recording of the talk is good - but they are sisters who have very similar vocal characteristics. Plus, there's no reason Anna or Elizabeth to identify themselves in the talk because the talk is being given at some sort of conference in front of a multi-age audience. Their audience could tell very clearly who was talking by looking up at the speaker in front of them.
I'm not certain when or where this conference occurred - but I suspect it occurred within 6 months of Vision Founder leader Doug Phillips being accused of grooming and assaulting his children's nanny. The Botkin Sisters reference a disturbing or shocking revelation that happened recently that they expect other members of Vision Forum to be aware of.
Needless to say, the Botkin Sisters spend most of the talk rehashing the book "It's (Not) That Complicated" but deviate from the text to add more victim-blaming. If you are triggered by dumb-ass Biblical interpretation being used to victim-blame, please stop reading and go do something pleasant. It's not worth the stress; let the rest of us handle these ding-bats.
At 37(ish) minutes into a 50-odd minute talk, Elizabeth gets around to explaining the "Four Types" of guys that girls need to be prepared for.
Type One - by the Botkin Sisters:
"
[00:37:30] "Anna and I are going to quickly give you some practical thoughts on preparing to deal with four different kinds of guy. These thoughts are not Scripture, not canon. It's not ex cathedra. This is just some big sisterly advice based on some things we've learned from our experiences of the last ten years. So, the first type of boy, and probably the one we all deal with the most is the nice boy who just doesn't have very good boundaries or maybe is just not very emotionally self-controlled and tends to be a little too emotionally intense in his relationships.
Maybe it's a boy who is just naive. Maybe it's a guy who comes from a different background where different levels of familiarity are totally fine and they don't mean anything to him. Maybe it's somebody who just doesn't have a lot of maturity or self-control or hasn't have a lot of discipleship in this area or maybe he hasn't had much experience dealing with girls.
You probably know several fellows like this and what they need isn't the cold shoulder. It isn't rudeness or cruelty. I think what they need is a kind of very kind, dignified, sisterly, um...........,. dignity [laughs] might be the word I'm looking for to just kind of show them what good boundaries look like but in a spirit of Christian love. Because I think we can actually, we can actually give a guy a taste for the right kind of interaction and the right kind of relationship. And you know what, we can also give a guy a taste for the wrong kind and feed an appetite for the wrong kind and that's the thing that you most don't want to do with a boy like this.
Let me condense this: Group One is any guy who isn't observing your family's unwritten emotional purity (Emo-Pure) and courtship rules perfectly. Your response is to convert him to your family's way or drop him like a hot potato.Maybe it's a boy who is just naive. Maybe it's a guy who comes from a different background where different levels of familiarity are totally fine and they don't mean anything to him. Maybe it's somebody who just doesn't have a lot of maturity or self-control or hasn't have a lot of discipleship in this area or maybe he hasn't had much experience dealing with girls.
You probably know several fellows like this and what they need isn't the cold shoulder. It isn't rudeness or cruelty. I think what they need is a kind of very kind, dignified, sisterly, um...........,. dignity [laughs] might be the word I'm looking for to just kind of show them what good boundaries look like but in a spirit of Christian love. Because I think we can actually, we can actually give a guy a taste for the right kind of interaction and the right kind of relationship. And you know what, we can also give a guy a taste for the wrong kind and feed an appetite for the wrong kind and that's the thing that you most don't want to do with a boy like this.
I can't wait to see how that advice works out for real young women.
Before I forget, Elizabeth certainly presents better by the spoken word than I expected from reading her two books. The bit about how her talk is not "canon, scripture or cathedra" is delivered so that it's funny. I chuckled when I heard it for the first time. On the flip side, her humor - and perhaps Anna's humor - is lost by the crowd because it is very dry and obscure at times. After all, most Catholics would miss the "ex cathedra" joke so I question how well it landed in her denomination / conglomerate of totally unaffiliated believers.
Type Two - in the Botkin Sisters words:
[00:39:14] So, then the next type would be the charmer or the flirt. You know, the guy who doesn't know how to have a conversation with a girl that isn't flirtatious. He doesn't know how to have a relationship with a girl that isn't romantic. Sometimes guys like this do actually have good hearts but they've just never met a girl who wanted anything but flirtation. We known some guys like that. Good guys, but with bad baggage and bad habits and only used to bad women [laughs].
You might be the very first girl to try and engage the mind and the soul and the conscience of a guy like that. You might be the first girl who ever treated him as a human being with a brain and a soul instead of just a fine head of hair [laughs]or a sense of humor. [laughs] Because we know guys who are used to being treated as nothing more than that. By girls.
And you can try to show this kind of guy from your example what good brother-sister interaction looks like. Really, don't underestimate the power you have to set the tone for these sorts of interactions. We've actually had a lot of guys tell us that most men tend to sort of defer to what the young lady feels comfortable with and really let her set the tone for the interaction. So don't just follow his goofy, flirtatious lead. Don't, don't laugh at all his dumb jokes. Don't respond to all his, you know, charming little come-ons. I think this kind of man usually test the water to see what kind of girl he's dealing with and what he can get away with and you know what? You don't have to play his game.
My take: Group Two is any man who shows that he's attracted to a woman and acts accordingly. The correct response is to freeze him until he gets that you are not interested in him - especially if you are attracted to him. You might be the very first girl to try and engage the mind and the soul and the conscience of a guy like that. You might be the first girl who ever treated him as a human being with a brain and a soul instead of just a fine head of hair [laughs]or a sense of humor. [laughs] Because we know guys who are used to being treated as nothing more than that. By girls.
And you can try to show this kind of guy from your example what good brother-sister interaction looks like. Really, don't underestimate the power you have to set the tone for these sorts of interactions. We've actually had a lot of guys tell us that most men tend to sort of defer to what the young lady feels comfortable with and really let her set the tone for the interaction. So don't just follow his goofy, flirtatious lead. Don't, don't laugh at all his dumb jokes. Don't respond to all his, you know, charming little come-ons. I think this kind of man usually test the water to see what kind of girl he's dealing with and what he can get away with and you know what? You don't have to play his game.
This is an example of where Elizabeth's laughs are instructive.
In the first section, she laughed gently to relieve her internal tension after she had a moment where she struggled to find the right word - e.g., "kind, sisterly, dignified, um .....(momentary pause)....dignity"
In this section, she laughs after describing 1)women who want flirtation with a man, 2) being attracted to a guy's hair and 3) being attracted to a guy's sense of humor. Women often unconsciously use laughter to minimize the impact of their verbal statement. Admitting that she wants to be in a flirtatious conversation with a man is completely and totally unacceptable in the Botkin worldview since women and men are supposed to strive at all times to take dominion of the universe - so she reduces the impact by laughing. Good girls aren't attracted to a man's body so the comment about hair is potentially threatening and needs a laugh. In fact, even being attracted to a guy's sense of humor is wrong in their world view and leads to a laugh.
This is a bit of a short post - but the next two groups are long and toxic. I've started Group Three - but I can't fit them in this post without getting insanely long. Yeesh. Just....just don't depend on the Botkin Sisters for teaching about human sexuality or consent or ..... or anything really. Just say no.
No comments:
Post a Comment