Monday, January 27, 2020

The Battle of Peer Dependency: Chapter Three - Part One

In working on a post on Jasmine Baucham's "Joyfully At Home" a few days ago, I recognized that CP/QF life advice for young women is "Be someone else!".  Young women are supposed to mold themselves to be the perfect wife for a future husband.  Because they are so young and so inexperienced, those young women don't recognize the impossibility of preparing to be a perfect wife for a man who doesn't exist yet.   I also doubt those young women can conceptualize that the process of finding a spouse and settling into married life changes both parties.   That's looking at the short-term; trying to become the woman your future husband needs 30 years down the road rapidly descends into chaos.

Now, at least young Jasmine was keeping her audience somewhat confined by focusing on the needs of a future husband with glancing references to the completely imaginary children of that marriage.  Marina Sears joins Geoffrey Botkin and Steven Maxwell in thinking far more radically about what one human being can plan.    Why limit control to conforming yourself to a future husband when you can control your children forever?

This quote from Chapter Three of "The Battle of Peer Dependence" clarifies the goal of parents - and the bolded section is from the original:
As the years have passed, I know why many parents are broken-hearted after giving their lives to see their children to follow the Lord. These young people have grown into adults grieving in spirit for their failures and living with the consequences of poor choices they made as teenagers. Sadly, they grow up, marry, and have children of their own, still locked in peer dependency. Many are not understanding that they have a greater desire to please others or to be like others, then the individual God has created them to be. It is tragic that young people do not understand that their identities must come from God, his word, and their families, instead of their peers. (pg. 29)
In the United States and most of Europe from the Middle Ages onward, a nuclear family created at marriage gained the largest degree of freedom that any person received during their lifetime.    That nuclear family was deeply interconnected with obligations to their parents, their siblings, their neighbors and the larger society - but each nuclear family unit was allowed to make decisions.  Because of this, men and women both received greater levels of freedom upon marriage.  Men's freedom came from becoming the head of the household.  Women's freedom came from being the right-hand of the head of the household.

That is not the only family system, however. 

A different system that was prevalent in Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece and many civilizations in Asia places the responsibility for all family decision making on the eldest male in the family.   In this system, all males, their wives and their unmarried children are under the authority of that eldest male - whom I am going to refer as the paterfamilias from the Latin term - until he dies.   At his death, the power passes to the next eldest male.  In this system, marriage does nothing in terms of raising the amount of freedom for young men or women.  In fact, marriage timing and partner was generally decided by the paterfamilias based on the needs of the larger family.   Let's say that the family would benefit from a connection to the Smiths.  The paterfamilias for the two families meet and decide that the younger daughter from Family A should marry the Smith's middle son.    Neither of the people involved in the wedding are consulted for trivialities about personal preferences because neither of the people have any level of freedom over marriage choices.

Marina Sears works under the assumption that God expects children to remain under the parents' authority forever.   Now, Mrs. Sears - and Geoffrey Botkin and Steven Maxwell who espouse similar beliefs - would never be so crass as to declare themselves the paterfamilias of their children and grandchildren.   That would be too obvious of a power-play in the United States where people expect grown adults to show certain levels of independence from their parents.  Instead, the paterfamilias wannabes support keeping children and teenagers isolated from pretty much everyone outside the immediate family so that the family members never see any other options for living during their formative years.   By the time the now-adult kids are looking to marry, the kids should have internalized the family culture perfectly and live exactly like their parents want them to live.

Does it work?   Well, I have no idea how well Marina Sears kept her kids under her control as they got older - but the outcome has been decidedly mixed for the Botkin and Maxwell clans. 

The Botkin clan married off the three oldest sons who have had a few kids each - but the Botkin daughters are well beyond the expected age of marriage for CP/QF girls and the two youngest sons are unmarried in their late 20's.   The middle son Benjamin seems to be supporting himself by composing music; the remainder of the family works for Lucas' T.Rex Arms business of producing specialized weapon accessories by CNC machine.   That sounds nice enough - but nine grandkids from three sons is hardly the massive brood of Botkin grandchildren Geoffrey envisioned in his 200-year plan.

The Maxwells have certainly succeeded in that they've managed to land all four married sons in homes within 0.7 miles of  Steve and Terri's home and have so far produced 17 grandchildren with one more to be born next summer.  On the flip side, the families of Nathan, Joseph and John Maxwell seem to be much more relaxed in clothing styles than Steve and Terri were at the same age.  (Meanwhile, Christopher Maxwell's family is now more conservative in clothing than the remaining unmarried Maxwell kids.)  Similarly, Joseph and John Maxwell's families appear on the blog much less frequently than the other two married brothers and the unmarried sisters.  Those two brothers might simply want less internet exposure for their children - or they might have carved out slightly more space for their families from the clan.

"The Battle of Peer Dependency" is cult-speak for "No one can question the will of the parents".

That's going to make for some fun reading, I'm sure.

*Speaking of the Maxwell Family,  Anna Maxwell - wife of Christopher Maxwell - could use some thoughts and prayers right now.  She developed a breast lump during her most recent pregnancy that was managed with imaging until the lump grew rapidly in her third trimester.  There is a very high likelihood that the lump is cancer based on the imaging done when it began to grow.   She was induced at late 36 weeks or early 37 weeks of the pregnancy and delivered a healthy baby boy.   They've got six kids under the age of 8 and she's facing some combination of surgery, chemo and/or radiation.  Our lives are very different - but no one ever should have to face cancer - let alone while having large, young family to care for at the same time.*

8 comments:

  1. I hear so many echoes of my mother in this. I had no friends from the time she married my dad until I went to college, and the college friends were suspect. I think two things saved me: a "rebellious streak" that made me inwardly vow that I would never marry the person she chose for me, and the fact that she had been widowed and therefore insisted that all of her children (girls included) were able to support themselves without a husband. It was a weird mix, because she didn't ever really adopt the Quiverfull mentality, or the ATI standards of dress for women, but the Pearls discipline methods and the whole "peers are evil and parents are god" were both ideas out in full force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm very glad you had that rebellious streak, NotMy! I'm terribly sorry that she adopted the Pearls' discipline methods. My son is three and I've never hit or spanked him; the thought of hitting him with plumbing supply line as an infant sickens me - and I hate that anyone else would do that to kids.

      From what I've seen, CP/QF life attracts people with a variety of untreated mental health issues and control issues. The control issue attraction is simple since CP/QF gives a detailed rule book for living if the person you want to control is yourself (or a mental illness) AND free rein to control your kids for as long as you can keep them drinking the Kool-Aid.

      The next book in this theme - "Keeping Kids' Hearts" by Steven Maxwell - is a step-by-step manual in how to act out control issues through your children. It's also filled with stories that demonstrate that the person with the issues is Maxwell himself.

      Delete
    2. I've come to recognize the control issues; she has since been diagnosed with anxiety as well, which is partially manifested in her control issues. Do you think that the (however fringe) position that mental health issues are not "real" but rather evidences of not putting enough faith in God is part of the problem here? In other words, they have these health issues, but have to justify them somehow as holy or better in order to not be criticized as not being good enough Christians. They then extend this justification by proceeding to tell everyone else to develop these traits that are incredibly unhealthy in order to achieve their same level of enlightenment. Maybe that's a jaded way of looking at it.

      Delete
    3. I don't think that's jaded, NotMy; it's a pretty common phenomenon among people with mental illness plus certain personality traits.

      We've come a long way in destigmatizing mental illness - but there's still a long way to go. I grew up in a family who actively sought treatment successfully for mental illness, but telling people that I, myself, had mental illness and need active treatment was hard until I was in my late twenties (which was around 10 years after I started treatment).

      So it makes sense that people would seek options that seem to treat mental illness by giving people lots of rules to control their lives and teaching that mental illness symptoms are due to failure in following the rules rather than, you know, mental illness.

      That connection between rules and stopping mental illness is both the carrot and the stick. Would the Duggars have been as easy pickings for ATI if Michelle was in active treatment for her bulimia? The Maxwells went from reasonably mainstream Christians to extreme CP/QF folk in part because Terri has struggled with chronic, severe depression triggered by postpartum depression. Obs, the other half of the equation is Steven Maxwell - a driven man who believes every problem can be solved through rigorous design. Leave those two together and you've got a family based cult who literally wrote a book about how everyone outside of the family doesn't communicate right since the Maxwells have a hard time finding people to talk to at conferences....

      People like Terri Maxwell who are lower-energy, a bit more introverted or just worn down by mental illness will just suffer in silence. Add a bit of drive or ambition or pride or anxiety or mania and you get Steven Maxwell or Marina Sears who decides to reform everyone else as well.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for passing along the news about Anna. I agree, no matter how much I disagree with someone's lifestyle, cancer is a bitch and I wish her an unusually speedy recovery.

    Re: the whole peer dependency thing.... it just seems like it's weird to be so fixated on it. It's like they picked *one* thing and decided everything evil stems from it.
    Even the name ... peer dependency.... it's weird. Wouldn't it be more accurate if they said something like peer pressure? Or fear of what other people think? Wonder why they called it this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my (limited) experience, it's not really accurate to equate what they are calling "peer dependency" to what is commonly referred to as peer pressure. Their ideal state of "peer independence" is a state in which your peers do not matter to a child - at all. Friends are not important, or even desired; the family is all. It is almost an active rejection of normal friendships rather than an attempt to only avoid the bad influences of peer pressure. I was repeatedly told that no one needs friends, that my siblings, with whom I constantly argued, were better to have than any friends. If I in any way indicated that this was not enough for me, I was put in my place with accusations of disloyalty to the family, ingratitude toward my parents, and rebellion, all of which were punishable by spanking. The whole concept is weird, but in my case, it was attractive to a mother with anxiety who decided that her word was law and no one could question it.

      I guess my take on it is that avoiding peer pressure means "don't have bad friends" while avoid "peer dependency" means "all friends are bad friends waiting to happen, and therefore potential evils to be avoided."

      Delete
    2. @Shelflife,

      NotMY hits it on the nose.

      Peer dependency is the idea that a Godly Christian Family will fulfill every emotional need of all of the family members without every reaching outside the family circle.

      Peer pressure - in a normal context - describes the urge of growing youngsters to want to try different life choices both to fit into their peer group AND also to simply try different things.

      Let me give you a really quick description of some "peer dependency" moments. Mrs. Sears older sons - who are like 14 and 12 - go to play volleyball with friends. Her youngest son - who is barely 7 - expresses frustration that he will never be old enough to go with them. Mrs. Sears blames her youngest's frustration on the older kids' peer dependency - rather than the normal frustrations of wanting to do something that a kid is just not ready for.

      The Maxwells describe cutting off unsupervised playdate with another Good Christian Family because the kids play a game that the Maxwells agree is totally moral, but not one that fits the Maxwell worldview. Just the theoretical situation where the kids might end up playing the game was enough to end the relationships.

      It's much more about absolute control than it is about being concerned that a kid might be exposed to sexual situations or drugs/alcohol before the kid is old enough to be able to cope (which is the usual purview of peer pressure concerns).

      Delete
    3. oh my goodness!!!!! That's HORRIBLE!
      It's like having your own little cult in your home!
      Oh, NotMy, I'm so sorry you lived with that.
      And Nature Lover thank you for expounding as well. This helped me understand the kind of situation they're really talking about.

      My heart is so sad to think those kids lost friends because of a GAME! I'm assuming it was probably more like "Go Fish" than a ouija board, since they said it wasn't immoral. I just can't imagine how deep down those kids felt (even though I'm sure they couldn't admit it).

      Delete