The first thought is "On which planet do these women live?" I generally have this reaction from their revisionist histories (feminism is really a plot by Marxists to subsume the American way!) or when they make a sudden, breathless declaration that they think they've realized something that no one else has ever (paintings from the Romantic period ignore historical realities!).
My second thought is "You've really bought into this, haven't you?" in response to their wishy-washy efforts to justify their beliefs. My personal favorite is the podcast "What It Means to Honor Our Parents" where each kid at some point attempts to explain that the word "honor" really means "obey"...but the results are atrocious because the two words aren't synonyms in English. A close second is Anna Sophia and Elizabeth's adoration of comparing and contrasting the stories of Abigail and Bathsheba in the Bible - but they always miss the fact that the woman who bore David's eventual heir Solomon was....Bathsheba.
The third thought is often the most disturbing because "You really believed that?" comes from those glimpses into the culture in which they were raised. The first quote I'd like to discuss comes in the middle of a paragraph that breathlessly proclaims that people are learning about the extent of abuse for the first time ever! That's hardly true - but I'm sure it's the first time the Botkin Sisters have been unsheltered enough to hear about it. The paragraph continues with this gem:
This is not just a threat that lurks far away, in dodgy places where we never go – it’s all around us. And it doesn’t just threaten “bad girls,” “immodest” women, or black sheep who have stepped outside of some sort of “umbrella of protection” – strong Christian women face this evil, even in their own homes and churches.
Seriously? This is NOT new information in wider US culture. Women have been working at dismantling victim-blaming during rape by strangers since before the 1970's as well as the fact that sexual abuse occurs in families. By the mid-1980's when my personal memories started, people were well aware that childhood sexual abuse could occur from outside authority figures (i.e., teachers, priests, coaches) and activists were trying to raise awareness of rape by acquaintances. The 1990's brought widespread understanding of sexual harassment in the workplace and a huge breakthrough in awareness of consent (thanks in part to media sources).
I'm always a bit boggled when the Botkin Sisters excitedly explain that they've realized something that larger society figured out 40 years ago or more. But once they've done it once, they decide to double-down by declaring that no-one's been trying to teach women how to prevent sexual harassment and assault either!
The culture of victim-blaming has been a major culprit in keeping the culture of abuse alive, first by taking the responsibility off of the abuser and keeping his crimes from being taken seriously – but also by creating a fear of honest discussion about whether there is anything we potential victims could or should do to fight against abuse.
I completely agree with them prior to the dash in the quote. One reason that victim-blaming lives on is that it allows attackers to avoid responsibility for their crimes. The problem is that the Botkin Sisters miss the second reason - and it's the reason they were more than willing to believe that rape or harassment only happened to "bad" women. Blaming the victim allows other people to feel safer. After all, if bad things only happen to bad people, then good people will never suffer.
Like victim-blaming, advocates working to empower women to avoid, stop or report abuse, attacks or harassment have been busy since at least the 1980's. I remember talking about "good" and "bad" touches in elementary school. We discussed rape and sexual abuse in junior high - along with the immorality of victim blaming - and again several times in high school. I can't remember a time where adult women weren't teaching teens and young women basic safety techniques.
- Be aware of your surroundings.
- Trust your instincts and don't be afraid of hurting someone's feelings if you are feeling uneasy.
- If you feel afraid, return to a safe place and seek help.
- If you think you are being followed, make it clear that you see the person who is following you - it often discourages attackers who are looking for someone who is unaware.
- Take advantage of offers to be escorted to cars after dark.
- If people are nearby who can help, don't let feelings of embarrassment keep you from screaming for help.
- If you have to fight, fight as dirty as you can- bite, scratch, eye-gouge and kick as well as punch.
- If you are alone, do whatever you think will keep you alive and as safe as possible. This might mean not fighting an attacker because survival matters more than avoiding rape.
- Keep an eye on friends at parties - doubly so if people are drinking alcohol.
- Know the signs of abuse in relationships. You always have the right to leave a relationship if your partner is abusive.
Eventually, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth flounder into the most obvious question about why they are focusing on the victim rather than the attacker:
Absolutely the main problem we’re dealing with is the abuse and the abusers – not the things that victims do or don’t do. So why are we not focusing this series on those evils? Why not just tell abusers to stop abusing? Why “add burdens” to possible victims by talking to them about things they could or should do?
Because even victims have been given authority and power by God for responding to evil, and He wants us to use it. And because we each have the power to do a lot more damage to this abuse stronghold than we realize.
Because even victims have been given authority and power by God for responding to evil, and He wants us to use it. And because we each have the power to do a lot more damage to this abuse stronghold than we realize.
Mmm-kay. Did that convince anyone? Show of hands, please.
I feel like I write scads of obvious crap on this blog - and here's we go again: The most effective way to prevent crime is to stop the criminal from doing the crime.
This is why high school health classes have added discussions about consent to curriculum. In 2000, I got around 3 hours of training on "No means No!" during freshmen orientation. The benefits of these discussions is two-fold. People who are of more aggressive personalities are reminded that consent matters - and that non-consensual sexual activity is a crime. At the same time, everyone is shown one way of stating their desire to stop a sexual activity from happening.
I won't pretend that this is a cure-all - but man, it's a whole lot better than only training women to a rigid form of self-defense....
Let's be honest about why Anna Sofia and Elizabeth can't tell abusers to stop. The two of them are in the second least powerful group of people in CP/QF society through no fault of their own. Near as I can figure, CP/QF has a rigid power structure that places married men at the top followed by single men, married women, single women and children at the bottom.
The Botkin Sisters are stuck lecturing other single women and children about their responsibilities when being attacked because they don't have any standing over any men...or most women, really.
I need to point out again how creepy and skeevy and wrong it is for the Botkin Sisters to create a series of responsibilities for other people WHILE facing abuse or attack. I don't understand how they reached adulthood without developing the sense of compassion or common sense that the vast majority of people have - because most people would never write the first post in this series let alone the remaining five.
The next quote is so very strange on a few levels:
Whether we’re still dreading our first bad encounter; we’re in the middle of an uncomfortable relationship; our bodies, hearts, and consciences are wracked over past incidents; or we’re just a bystander agonizing over whether to keep quiet about something we know about… these are spiritual as well as physical battles, and they require spiritual as well as physical strength and preparation.
Um... three of the four examples have no physical strength or preparation required. Angst about future incidents (which may never happen), negative feelings about past events and decisions about information involving a third-party have no physical component.
I'd like to reiterate that hand-wringing about potential future issues is a waste of time and energy. I believe there is great benefit to learning about situational awareness and how to defend yourself if you need to - but those are empowering skills just like learning CPR and First Aid makes people feel more confident about helping injured or hurt people. Anxiety is paralyzing - and normalizing it does not help Anna Sofia and Elizabeth's readers. A far better choice is to believe that you are capable of handling situations as they come.
What we will be focusing on is one specific sliver of the topic: The spiritual side of the battle the average young adult woman faces as she encounters challenges with male friends, boyfriends, employers, workmates, etc. – challenges in which she does have a degree of agency and control, and where her own preparedness can make all the difference.
Hoo-boy.
Well, I guess my minor issue is that people always have a degree of agency as long as they are conscious and not severely incapacitated by pain or paralysis. Likewise, people generally have some degree of control over their action albeit sometimes the amount of control can be extremely curtailed.
My larger point is by what standing do Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin have for discussing the spiritual (or physical or economic or socio-governmental or whatever buzzword they like today) battle that women face with friends, lovers, employers and coworkers? By their own admission, they keep male friends at a distance emotionally through keeping conversations academic, religious and impersonal. There has never been a publicized courtship for either Anna Sofia or Elizabeth - and based on "So Much More" I feel safe assuming that neither woman would be left alone with their potential spouse until after they were married - and that's hardly a safeguard against domestic abuse including spousal rape. The work experience of the two of them is so limited that they don't realize that for most teenage or young women the workplace involves three groups of men, not two: supervisors, coworkers and clients/customers.
My last point for Part One is that preparation is wonderful, but it never promises a good outcome. Learning CPR is admirable and beginning CPR on a non-responsive person is a good deed - but the person may still die. Asserting the right to have a harassment-free workplace may cause the situation to worsen over the short-term - and may require legal intervention to resolve. Being mentally (or spiritually) ready to resist an attacker doesn't prevent all attack from happening.
It's never the victim's fault. It's not her fault if she was completely prepared - and her preparations didn't work.. It was not his fault if he was completely unprepared - because he never thought it would happen to him. The only person at fault is the attacker.
Pretending that excellent preparation will completely prevent sexual harassment, assault or abuse is a form of whistling in the dark at best - and is likely to hurt victims.
"Let's stop blaming victims, by blaming victims..."
ReplyDeleteI will say - although it's not much of a consolation - that they are so sheltered and inexperienced in life that I'm not sure they can actually conceptualize the issues I've raised.
DeleteIt's hard to think like an adult when you've only lived as a junior-high student your whole life.
"I need to point out again how creepy and skeevy and wrong it is for the Botkin Sisters to create a series of responsibilities for other people WHILE facing abuse or attack"
ReplyDeleteI got why they want women to be prepared. But the layers of responsibility they pile on women otherwise, including the UNBELIEVABLE assertion they've made before about how our ability to fight is based on how much we love God's justice, is unfathomable. When I first heard that in their awful podcast about problem guys, I sent them both FB messages saying loving justice had nothing to do with fighting an attacker.
I agree. I am all about sensible preparation - but that includes recognizing that some horrible situations may mean that a trade-off of not resisting a survivable crime is the best (and IMHO equally moral) solution to escalating a situation to where the victim is killed.
DeleteThe only way the Botkin Sisters pseudo-Biblical take on self-defense makes any sense is if they believe that being raped is really a fate that is worse than death. (I can't condone that belief on either a logical or Biblical basis - but I suspect that's what they believe.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think they believe we have a moral obligation to resist rape. This is what confuses the situation; people already don't want to be assaulted. It doesn't need to be said!! It's like stating that people should try not to be stabbed or shot! Adding a moral obligation to it makes it worse for women who couldn't prevent it*. Same thing goes for telling women they have a moral obligation to drag the attacker to justice. That's the thing: we ALREADY encourage women in TV shows, books, news and otherwise to fight the bastards and report them. But adding God to it puts undue and confusing pressure on them, and the indication that they're sinning if they don't do this?..It's so deeply offensive and stunningly clueless. When you counsel women on this topic, you should make it clear you're doing it out of concern and care for THEM, not some moralistic parade. They usually already know what was done to them was wrong and abysmal, thanks, on a level outsiders like QF folks esp don't seem to grasp.
Delete*In their original podcast they inflated that tenfold by telling women if they don't scream, they might be considered partly culpable for the crime against them. (The fact that this was actually a gentler response than their horrid father's, who said in a sermon that women would be considered worthy of death like the rapists if they didn't scream, is terrifying. It's amazing, really, the Botkin girls aren't total sociopaths with a father like that). I was glad to see they departed even further from that horrid sentiment in this series, but it's time to realize the laws in Deuteronomy are not valid anymore.
I'll discuss it more in the next few posts on the subject - but CP/QF girls probably do need to be literally told that they are allowed to fight back and report an attacker to the police. They've been raised to suppress every personal wish, want, desire or talent if it conflicts with the whim of a man - so I can see where CP/QF girls are much, much more likely to not defend themselves at all.
DeleteThe Botkin Response - however - is not a solution. There are a lot of issues with it, but most of them boil down to "explain how this works in a given situation".
Yeah, that's true. Maybe it also explains the girls' emphasis on how it happens even to girls who don't step out from under the umbrella of authority: regular people already know this, but their audience isn't girls living in the regular world.
DeleteHow have these two not gotten someone hurt by now? I mean, really?
ReplyDeleteWell, following the Botkin Family level of requiring male chaperones on most trips while obeying a curfew and restrictions on where they are allowed to go (all of which the Sisters mention casually like this is normal) probably decreases the risk of being attacked by a violent stranger.
DeleteThe fact that random, violent stranger attacks are insanely rare - and that being visibly aware of your surroundings reduces the risk - is a point that they probably miss. Probability is not their strong point.
More realistically, their readers are at higher than normal risk for being attacked by someone they know. CP sends out a beacon of normalization for unbalanced men (and certain women) to use plus the attraction of sheltered women who have been socialized more than normal to submit to men must be appealing. The main difference is that due to the short time frame between courtship and marriage the most dangerous spousal abuse patterns won't hit the lethal level until after the woman has married her spouse - at which point this isn't the Botkin Sisters problem any more since they're only talking to unmarried women.
Tl;dr - People probably have been hurt - but the danger spot is in marriages, not knife-wielding lunatics in dark alleys.
I had trouble following their line of logic from the start because I didn't know exactly what they had in mind when they were describing these things. I so distrust the definition of "abuse" that I've heard from CP/QF circles that I'm not at all sure what they mean.
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to bet that if I were a fly on the wall I would feel like I'm seeing abuse of power every day in their home. I have no way of knowing if that would extend to physical, sexual or mental abuse.
And one thing in these excerpts that stood out to me was that they would list"dreading our first bad encounter" as a thing. I mean, on so many levels... .wut? Listen, Botkin ladies: if you or your followers are seriously sitting around anxiously worried about the the day you'll have your first "bad encounter" (again, whatever they really mean by that) then you definitely need bigger things to think about in life. Have some tools handy, then put your shoulders back and live your life!
Their logic only makes sense if you know that their definition of moral and immoral is based solely on a strict Biblical interpretation. In CP land, licit sexual activities are those that take place between a married man and woman. Everything else is immoral.
DeleteThere are so many problems with this - but one of the biggest is that activities that other Christians may view as moral or immoral, but not criminal are lumped in willy-nilly with actions that everyone agrees is a crime.
This creates the mind-blowing "Good Girls and Problem Guys" podcast where 'Problem Guys' are classified in four types:
1)Guys who show inappropriate interest in girls who want to have a model courtship (IOW, guys who have the audacity to flirt with a single, attractive woman)
2) Guys who want to move at a faster pace on sexual activities (including hand holding or a chaste kiss) - but show no signs of aggression.
3) Guys who manage to convince girls to move at a faster pace (e.g. "seducers), and any form of sexual abuse where the victim knows the attacker prior to the attack
4) The random, violent, stranger attack.
For most Christians, 1+2 aren't immoral, the consensual couple in 3 might be behaving immorally - but since it's consensual, it's not a crime (and generally not worth bothering the couple about). Abuse and rape, however, are both immoral and criminal in a way that is completely unacceptable and requires action on the part of anyone who knows about it.
One problem that I think CP/QF women and girls may have in identifying abuse lies with the words: assault and attack. I’m betting that they see this problem through a lens in which an abuser always uses violence. As a result, the grooming and slow encroachment of boundaries used by many abusers go unnoticed and unaddressed.
ReplyDeleteIt is more than likely that many victims of abuse in CP/QF environments don’t recognize what has happened to them as assault or abuse because the perpetrator didn’t use physical violence to achieve his ends.
The Botkins might do better to talk about appropriate boundaries and ways to identify when someone is violating your boundaries subtley. Not all sexual aggressors charge at you with a knife: sometimes, they spend a lot of time talking to you and laughing while ‘jokingly’ touching etc. Many, many abusers manipulate their victims over a long period of time. Being able to spot some of their tactics would be especially useful for these young women since the entire structure of their system works to undermine their autonomy.
They do talk about grooming kind of - but even that is tainted by implying that the major issue that stops women from reporting is that they enjoy the grooming in some way rather than being afraid of the consequences.
DeleteIt misses the point because grooming is supposed to increase the sense of connectedness between the abuser and the potential victim while slowly training the victim to not respond to boundaries violation.
I doubt that Doug Phillips molested Ms. Torres on the first night she lived with them.