Maidens of Virtue Review: Chapter Three

Chapter Three is a poorly designed fable involving flowers.

I'm a life-long botanist.  My great-uncle Tom stood in as a grandfather to his great nieces and nephews after his brother Robert died at age 52.  He was a pathologist so we all called him Doc Tom.  He would take us out for walks in the woods and he could identify all of the plants and mushrooms we found.  I thought his naturalist abilities were amazing - and wanted to be as good as he was in the woods when I grew up.

I find plants fascinating on many levels - so I am a harsh judge when CP/QF writers decide to pull out flowers as a metaphor.

The fable starts with a few paragraphs describing the beautiful garden filled with flowers and winding paths. It's pretty clear that the flowers are women and the Gardener is God.

Next to the beautiful garden was a rock quarry, grey and cold. The flowers by the fence nearest the quarry began to turn their faces towards the rocks on the other side and wonder what it would be like to be strong and smooth.

It was true that rocks had no roots, but the flowers did not really care about roots. Who could see those?  It would be so much nicer to be big and strong so everyone could behold their powerful shape. (pg. 35)

What do the rocks stand for?

 I think that the rocks stand for men.  The only negative adjective applied to the rocks is "cold" - compared to the positive adjectives of "strong"(twice), "smooth", "big", and "powerful".   Christian Patriarchy writers love to divide women and men into neat, discrete groups so the flower garden vs. the quarry seems apropos.  Finally, women are always being counseled not to step out of their "God-given roles" as nurturing comforters that must be protected from dangerous things which feels right in this fable.

As they gazed upon the grey lifeless rocks, the flowers begin to covet the rocks' strength and coolness. They grew discontent with their purpose and design and began to despise the beautiful colors and delicate leaves and petals with which they were adorned. No longer were they satisfied with their own simple beauty. The wayward flowers rejected their delicate leaves and vibrant colors and instead wished to be made of stone - - desiring only the strength, weight, and power of the granite. These errant flowers became known as the Fence Dwellers.

The Fence Dwellers began to rip off their beautiful petals and leaves and refuse to produce seed. After all, the rocks did not produce seed, so why should they sacrifice in such a selfless manner? The Fence Dwellers covered themselves in clay in order to hide their vibrant colors. Soon they began to crouch low to the ground, trying desperately to resemble the Rocks they so deeply admired.

Heavens. Some of these sentences need to be shortened for my sanity.

The first paragraph seems to be about women who take on masculine traits.  Men are supposed to be big, brawny, hulking lumberjacks who can protect decorative, fertile and flexible waifs from the dangers of the world outside.  I feel compelled to point out that the CP/QF ideal of a "weak" woman is badly misaligned with historical and practical life skills for women.  Yeah, there have always been a few princesses - but far more tenant farmers, artisans, and charwomen.  A strong back, stiff-upper lip and willing work ethic has mattered far more than looking lovely and delicate.  Even today, caring for small children is physically demanding.  Cuddling my son for hours while he was in the NICU left me with a sore neck and arms once he got over 3 pounds.  Now, the boy is close on 18 pounds and needs to be carried upstairs, brought back downstairs, lifted onto his changing table, picked up to move to the high chair, and brought over to his play area many times each day.

The second paragraph is a bit loosey-goosey.

• If an annual plants loses all its leaves, it will die pretty quickly unless the leaves regrow - but perennial plants do that all the time to survive times of drought.  
• The whole "children are a selfless martyrdom" theme is overwrought.  
• If the flowers have ripped off their petals and leaves, what colors are left to be covered by clay? 
• Plants can crouch?  Really?  How did I miss that on my walks?

I find the insinuation that feminism has lead women astray by allowing some women to have small families or no children insulting. 

Yes, family sizes are smaller now than they used to be - but that's mainly because many people in the past couldn't limit their family size as effectively.  My dad is one of 8 siblings born in 11.5 years.  I highly doubt my grandparents wanted to have a baby every 13 months with two spaces of 2.5 years when my grandmother had second trimester miscarriages.  (For those counting, that's 10 confirmed pregnancies in 12.5 years!)  My mom's mother had 5 living children - but my mom was born when her oldest sister was 17.  I know that Grandmother always said that having teenagers and a toddler at the same time was NOT her idea of a good time.

Assuming that big families of the past were always wanted and appreciated is as vapid as assuming the people enjoyed getting the measles since it was prevalent back then.

As the older herbs, ivies, and bushes that lived farther inside the garden began to notice the strange behavior of the flowers, they laughed. How foolish the flowers looked: barren of petals, covered in clay, attempting to be something they were not.

But soon, the new seedlings within the garden began to listen to the stories of the Fence Dwellers. And as they grew, they too tore their own delicate petals and dusted themselves with clay - - halfway up their stems ; they were not yet as daring as the Fence Dwellers who are tempted daily with the sight of the rock.

The young plants wished desperately they could uproot and live next to the quarry like the Fence Dwellers so they too could see the magnificent boulders and witness the impressive nature of stone. (pg. 36)

I got lost in this section. My main take home message - although I'm not sure if it was the author's point - is that mild ridicule is not a particularly strong form of social control.  Duly noted.

The objection of the older, wiser perennial plants is trite and superficial.  They don't object to the Fence Dwellers' dangerous behaviors of self-mutilation, suicidal tendencies or disease-breeding mud habits.  No....they scorn the fact that the Fence Dwellers look foolish and stupid. 

Then again, many CP/QF writers strike me as the type of "Christians" who are outraged at the homeless' lack of jobs and hygiene rather than being outraged at the systemic problems that create and sustain homelessness - so the description of the older perennial's reaction is dead on.

I thought the rocks were men - but how would the seedlings never see rocks if children see men?  Maybe the rocks stand for the corrupt "world" that CP/QF adherents fear so deeply.    I think that still works with the earlier portion - but now the whole seedling bit needs some clarification.  The older plants have seen the quarry, I guess, because the first generation of CP/QF adherents were immersed in popular culture before withdrawing.  The youngsters born into CP/QF would be like the seedlings who grew up sheltered from the quarry but long to see it.   Who are the Fence Dwellers then?  People within CP/QF lifestyle who don't adhere to the McDonald's Family belief system om pop culture - or are they people outside of CP/QF who interact with CP/QF families?

I hope this is clearer to people within the system than it is to me; I'm lost.

Within a short period of time, the vibrant color and stunning beauty of the garden were covered in mire. Instead of the sweet perfume of lavender, rosemary, lemon verbena, and blooming flowers, the stench of decay prevailed. Birds look elsewhere for a home. They were not interested in sheltering in their young in a place void of greenery and lacking in beauty. The bees, butterflies, and other insects and wildlife found little nourishment here anymore and visited the garden less and less often. (pg. 35-36)

Oh, good Lord.   Who does the assorted collection of wildlife stand for?  Are they people who would normally be attracted to the CP/QF lifestyle instead of the quarry?  Or are they simply the side effect of lazy writing?

The bit about how insects would avoid the garden because it lacks food is spot-on.  My appreciation for that is dampened by the fact that the author believes that birds mainly look for beauty when building nests.  Hint: that does not seem to be the case - a secure site and access to building materials matters more.  Plus - and this is nit-picky - a lush garden is not the ideal nesting site for all birds.  Killdeer, for example, look for a patch of gravel on the edge of a slightly overgrown field - like a soccer field during the off-season. 

The Gardener comes back and is horrified at how shitty the garden looks.  The question of why the Gardener has been missing in action while his garden has a complete breakdown is never addressed.

"Why have you covered yourself in clay and removed your petals?" cried the Gardener. " I have created you in the way of my choosing - - for my own purpose. But you have rejected my ways and set your eyes upon foreigners and have adorned yourself in mud and grime. You have ravaged and exposed your own bodies."

"Do you not know that you belong to me? This is a wicked and foolish deed. You have emulated the Fence Dwellers and have followed after those preferring death. They've chosen cold and hard barrenness over the true beauty of a warm and tender life-giving experience. Do not attempt to mimic those of the Quarry or their followers - - those who never belonged to me. There you will find only death and desolation." (pg. 36)

Wait.  I thought the Fence Dwellers were plants IN the garden but along the fence - plants that "belong" to the Gardener instead of rejected outsiders.

I am so lost - and thoroughly annoyed at how slap-dash this fable is.

The complaint that the plants have "ravaged and exposed" themselves is richly humorous.  The herbs listed before are grown to be harvested so it's not like they'd stay in the garden forever.  Those stunning flowers are the highly ornamented sex-organs of the plant; ripping the petals off is far more "modest" and more in-line with CP/QF living standards than a blooming plant.

The Fence Dwellers' life choices do bring death - but I can't figure out how any of them lived long enough to tell the seedlings how amazingly awesome the quarry was.  Ripping off the petals of a plant shouldn't kill it and removing flowers is a time-honored way of helping a sick or struggling plant focus energy on growing leaves and roots.  Removing the leaves will eventually kill the plant - especially if the rest of the plant is painted with a pigment that blocks light like mud.  At the same time, mud and dirt often carries molds, bacteria and viruses that can infect plants with diseases.  This means the Fence Dwellers' choices are more along the lines of sharing needles to use IV drugs while failing to seek treatment for active, acute hepatitis; the Fence Dwellers may have a message to share, but most people will see visible signs of severe illness and ignore the message.

The fable rambles on for another two pages - but I can summarize it in a few sentences.  The Fence Dwellers are dead.  The Gardener washes off the "half-way" plants.  Everyone lives happily ever after. 

Yipee.  Now I know what to do when I have suicidal plants!  I also now appreciate why solid writers do lots of preparatory work on the characters within a fable so that the author doesn't accidentally praise the rocks so highly at the beginning that a reader thinks they stand for men instead of the outside world.  Which reminds me: why did she praise the outside world so strongly?  Mrs. McDonald is old enough that she was a teenager in the 1980's and fully partook in the "modern" world before turning to CP/QF after she was saved in her early twenties.  Does she miss being a part of a world where she could be confident, strong and calm without being accused of being masculine?

The last two quotes are from the final discussion section:

Why were the fence dwellers uninterested in whether or not they had roots? How is this similar to someone who is unconcerned over the state of her own soul? (pg. 38)

Mothers, do you see any areas where your young maiden dabbles in forbidden activities "halfway" ( music, clothes, rules, moral choices)? If so, discuss the possible effects of this behavior by considering the overall appearance and condition of the garden. (pg. 39)

Time out. When were root discussed in this fable? *looks back*  Two sentences in the first page of this production are about roots. 

My answer to the first question is "No one in the fable gives a shit about roots.  The mature perennial plants weren't worried over the "roots" of the Fence Dwellers or the seedlings; their only concern was that the Fence Dwellers looked silly or ugly.  This is similar to the common CP/QF theological quirk that external features are a honest and reliable guide to a person's salvation status - and that people who cannot reach standards of white, middle-class Americans in clothing, skin coloring, hair style or hygiene deserve scorn and ridicule rather than acceptance as a child of God"

As for the second question, I pity the girls who now get to hear how their harmless hobby of listening to contemporary Christian music or desire to join a local sports team is a sign that they are going to become suicidal and lose their salvation.