Making Great Conversationalists: Chapter Eleven - Part Two

I had an interesting week.  Two of my subbing positions were standard secondary classroom positions - nice kids, interesting enough lessons, but nothing much out of the ordinary.  The other two days I subbed in an SXI (severe multiple disabilities) classroom for 3-5th graders and as a gym teacher for K-5th graders at a regional EI (Emotional/Conduct disabilities) program.

 I had an absolute blast in both programs! 

The SXI classroom had six kids who each had a slew of goals for physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech, academics and living skills.  Two of the kids were working at speech and academic goals of 3-4 year olds while the rest were at goals between a few months to two years.  As I'm writing this, I realize this sounds rather grim on paper - but the kids had lots of fun during the day.  Each kid spent at least an hour a day integrated into a traditional classroom.  I worked with the most severely affected kid - and she loved having a third-grade buddy who would read her stories.  Her third-grade buddy was super-excited when I showed him that the other student could pick between two books if he held them about three feet apart.  Most of the day, the students were in a self-contained classroom within a 4th-5th grade building.  Students from that building would volunteer to take the students to play in the gym before school, eat lunch together and take the kids in wheelchairs for adventures during recess.  The biggest help was having a mass of helpers to keep track the one boy who was independently mobile.  He was the littlest kid in the class, showed the most skill at pre-planning escapes and was a fast and silent runner.  The only problem I had was that when chasing our little escape artist, I tripped over a PT mat, flew through the air and landed on the mats.  If all of me had hit the mats, I'd have forgotten the incident by now - but my right thumb landed between two mats.  The mats held my thumb in place while most of my body weight crashed down onto my thumb while my thumb twisted slightly.   I managed to sprain both of my thumb joints on that hand about two hours into the day.  This greatly messed with my ability to fasten the scads of belts and harnesses needed by the kids when they were in various adaptive devices.  Luckily, the kids were big enough that I could use my forearms as the main lifting points under their arms rather than hands/thumbs.

My day at the EI program was pretty much the same as every other gym class I've ever taught.  The youngest group of K-2 (who were mostly 2nd graders) enjoyed trying to shoot baskets and working at dribbling basketballs.  The oldest group of 5th graders took to shooting soccer balls and passing back and forth like future soccer phenoms.   The group of 3rd and 4th grade boys played more tag than I've played in years - and they were very careful to avoid touching my visibly bruised and taped right thumb.

I had a blast - and I feel kind of sad.  See, both programs had an insanely hard time recruiting subs and paraprofessionals.  I look at all the blogs of stay-at-home daughters who are young, unencumbered by needing to earn enough to live independently and bored out of their minds waiting at home for someone to marry them - and I wonder how much more enjoyable their lives would be if they filled one of those empty parapro positions in a local school.   Sure, sure - they wouldn't want to parapro in a "traditional school" since that would be turning their backs on homeschooling as the only way to Jesus - but working in a self-contained classroom with severely disabled kids is so clearly one of those Christian things to do that only a lunatic would object to that.  Plus, it's so very motherly; I joked that both days I pretty much did what I would normally do with my son - but for cash.

Seriously - what's a better preparation for being a wife and mother: writing occasional blogs / instagram posts / vanity-published books while mostly doing nothing at home OR helping kids learn the skills they need in day-to-day life?

This struck me as I was reviewing this chapter.  Steven and Teri Maxwell spend most of chapter 11 in "Making Great Conversationalists" explaining that the major goal of conversation is to convert random stranger to fundamental evangelical Christianity.  Now, I've never hidden my skepticism around the likelihood that these methods provide any long-lasting conversions to Christianity.  Reading this chapter failed to change my mind mainly because the following conversation feels so contrived:

Bob goes to church with his wife, but over time it has become obvious to Jim that Bob doesn't have a relationship with Jesus. Jim has been praying for Bob's salvation ever since he realize the Bob wasn't saved. Today appears to be the perfect time to share the gospel with Bob. After some small talk, Jim decides to take the plunge.

[...]

"Bob, I used to go to church just like you, but there came a time when I realized heaven isn't just a matter of going to church. That was the best day of my life, and that is what I wanted to talk to you about. I'd like to share a few of the Ten Commandments with you and ask how you have done in keeping them. Bob, have you ever told a lie?"

"Sure I have, Jim. Hasn't everyone?"

" Bob, I have too, but that doesn't mean it is acceptable to God. God's law says," Thou shalt not bear false witness," which means to lie. If we have ever told a lie, we have broken one of God's commandments. Have you ever stolen anything, even a paperclip? (pg. 179)

Yup.  Every bit of that conversation feels so natural and realistic, doesn't it?   No, seriously, this reads like how the Maxwells' dream of conversations going instead of the normal response of people visibly trying to get out of a conversation that has turned awkward as hell without insulting the other person. 

Let's run over the weirder bits one by one. 

People inside CP/QF land - heck, evangelical Christians in general - must not realize how arrogant they sound when they decide that another person must not be a saved Christian in spite of the target attending a Christian church.   Here's a little hint: the idea of needing a personal relationship with Jesus that includes a deeply emotional moment where they realize how much of a sinner they are is a relatively recent construct in Christianity.  This idea popped up in a few different Protestant branches.  The older denominations including Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Coptic Churches along with the majority of Protestant denominations do not require moment of being born-again for salvation to occur.   The absence of born-again theology in the largest groups in Christianity doesn't mean that being born-again is a bad thing; the experience is clearly deeply moving and important for many Christians.  My issue comes when people decide that their salvation requirements trump the requirements of the church that a person belongs to.

Bob launches himself into "The Good Person Test" disseminated by Living Waters Ministry.  If you've never taken "The Good Person Test" the link above takes you to an entirely online version.  The Maxwells drag Jim through recognizing that he's a thief and a liar and stop before Bob attempts to convince Jim that Jim's an adulterer, a murderer and a blasphemer. 

There's a reason the Maxwells stopped there; the test falls apart hilariously over the next few steps in real life.  See, the test becomes super-creepy when a random person starts pressing in casual conversation to make the other person admit that they've looked at another person with lust.   The conversion-hound is forced to imply the other person is lying or change the meaning of "lust" to include "desire".  The Bible, of course, views desire as being natural and healthy.  Lust requires treating the other person as an object for the purpose of sexual pleasure only - and that's not a major issue for a lot of people.

Let's say the conversion-pusher gets through adultery and decides to try to convince the other person that the fact that they've been angry means they are a murder.  People who have read the Bible realize that the conversion-o-holic is really stretching Jesus' teachings to make that connection.  A more accepted understanding is that a person who allows anger to mutate into hatred and a desire for revenge is moving in a dangerous direction.  Jesus spends most of the Gospels being angry.  He's angry at his disciples for being prats, at various religious groups for being judgemental, at religious authorities in general and goes a bit bonkers on the money-changers at the temple.  Christians are allowed to feel anger when treated unjustly or when seeing others being treated unjustly.   Anger can be a motivating force - but it must not be allowed to change into hate. 

The blasphemy bit is relatively easy. 

Most of the time the conversion target will simply nod along while regretting letting this person into their life.   Added fun occurs, though, when the target refuses to play along.   One option is arguing about the meaning of the verses as I did above.  A more amusing option is to ask the conversion-eer if each of the statements about them is true since they've been saved.   Imagine if Jim - poor Jim who was expecting a social conversation with Bob - asked Bob if Bob has lied since he's been saved.  Bob, I assume, would say "no".  What if Jim pushed a bit?  After all, this entire test is a series of lies.  Bob lies when he says that his goal is to talk to Jim about what commandments Jim has disobeyed; Bob's goal is to convert Jim.   The Maxwells lie by omission all the time when it suits them.  The Maxwells set up a balloon animal and face-painting booth at the county fair every year to attract people to give out informational fliers to.  That's a pretty mundane and harmless activity - except that the Maxwells allow their daughters to paint images that the Maxwells view as improper for their own family to view.  The Maxwells teach that professional sports fandom is a one-way street to alcoholism, underemployment and marital discord - but they let Mary paint little Kansas City Royals logos on kids' faces in hopes the kids will pick up a tract.   That's a bit discordant, isn't it?

I hope someone calls Steven Maxwell on the hypocrisy of using this test when he dishonored his father and mother in "Preparing Sons....Families".   In that lovely book, Steven Maxwell blamed his dad for Steven Maxwell's teenage drinking.  Was his dad abusive?  Neglectful?  Absent from the home?  No, Steven Maxwell's dad let young Steven have a sip of his beer when Steven brought him one from the kitchen.   That's insanely disrespectful towards his father because I also had sips of alcohol as a kid....and didn't drink prior to turning 21.  Steven Maxwell didn't drink as a teenager because his father gave him sips of beer; he drank because he wanted to drink beer. 

According to the online version of the test, eventually the converter will lead the convert-mark through a theological awaking of their need for Jesus.   I've never made it to that part because I leave after pointing out that the other person's born-again moment didn't seem to make much of a difference if he or she is still a lying, murdering adulterer who is also saved. 

After getting "The Good Person" test out of their system, the Maxwells gush over "Roman's Road" (sic) as a method of conversion.  The Maxwells lost me as soon as they misspelled "Romans' Road" - the book of the Bible is the Letter to the Romans so the correct possessive form is either "Romans'" or perhaps "Romans's". 

Personally, I've got a soft spot in my heart for Romans' Road because some of the most fun I've had with former evangelicals is asking them to remember the verses in Romans' Road after trying to remember how many verses are in Romans' Road.  As a Catholic for whom Romans' Road is supposed to magically lead to born-again salvation, my experience is that even the most excited Romans' Roadie gets completely turned around and lost by about the third verse in.   I don't blame my roadie friends for that; the verses are taken from all over the Letter to the Romans so there's not a very good connectivity between them.  That lack of connectivity also makes it nearly impossible to finish if a person completely forgets a verse.  Since Romans' Road has five, eight or ten verses that need to be delivered in the correct order, I'm always amazed that anyone thinks that this is likely to end well.

Added bonus: getting out of a Romans' Road conversation is so easy! 

• Option one: When the person is struggling through a verse, say "I don't think that's the right verse.  I'll catch you later." and run away.    
• Option two: Wait until the person is visibly lost in the middle of a verse, get their attention and say, "Wait, I was just thinking about the previous verse, but I can't remember the exact words.  Can you tell me that one again?"  Then loop to option one.   Ok, it's a bit mean, but no one practices Romans' Road in reverse.   
• Option three can be used if the person includes the chapter and verse and makes it to the third verse.  The first verse is from chapter 3 followed by a verse from chapter 6...then a verse from chapter 5. Remark on that fact then ask, "If this is such an integral part of the Letter to the Romans, why are the verses so scattered and so out of order?"  
• Option four is for church members who listen to entire chunks of scripture at church each week including Catholics: When you get bored, interrupt the person and remind them that your church reads ALL of the Letter to the Romans yearly.  Follow up by asking how the person thinks the Romans' Road fits in the broader theme of the salvation of Christians through the salvation offered to the Jewish people found in the Letter to the Romans.
• Option five - Romans' Road Drinking Game!  One drink of whatever you have handy for each awkward pause in a verse. Two drinks every time the person starts a verse over.   Three drinks if they realize the verse they are reciting is out of order.    Another drink for every less than smooth explanation of what the recited verse means.  One drink for every nervous gesture, tic or involuntary bodily reaction like sweating the other person shows.   Finish the drink when the other person gives up in exhaustion. This is a good option when you feel sympathy for the other person and want to seem engaged....but you know it's not going to end well.

So...you can spend a lot of time trying to teach your offspring hokey or misleading ways to convert random stranger or you could teach them the skills needed to genuinely help other people.  Use your time wisely.

Spiritual Self-Defense: Fight This Fight

I hate this post with a deep and abiding passion.  The very first paragraph is the only part of the whole damn thing that I find funny (and let me be honest - I often find the Botkin Sisters writings to be unintentionally rip-roaringly funny):

As we all arm ourselves to walk through our still-very-present culture of harassment and exploitation, there are countless things we’ll need to study outside the scope of what this series has touched on: practical issues like how to recognize a predator’s tactics, or how to build our own self-defense strategies and arsenals; legal issues like how and when and to whom to report; spiritual issues regarding things like recovery, true forgiveness, and identity; ecclesiastical issues like what to do when your church won’t help.

Pssst!  I've got a tip, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth!  "I need more time to study" is a plausible argument for why you two didn't understand the legal issues surrounding sexual assault and harassment when you were teenagers.  You could even stretch that argument into the first year or two of your twenties but no later.  See, lots of freshly minted college graduates of age 21-23 enroll in law school and learn  the intricacies of sexual assault and harassment laws in their state.  By the time a person is in their early to mid-thirties, they should be able to explain the laws of sexual assault in their state even if they've never gone to college.

The kicker is that the same argument applies for all of the other "topics beyond our scope" that the Botkin Sisters never bother to follow-up on.   Therapists are great at identifying predatory tactics; they are also fully minted after a Masters or Doctorate degree at a lower age of 26-30.  Spiritual issues are handled by clergy of all stripes who are often fully fledged between 24-30 depending on denomination.  Ecclesiastical issues is a hoot; in my church, that's implying that someone should consult a canonical lawyer - but even those people are as young as 30-35.   In CP/QF land, there's a bias against secular and theological training so pretty much any man who is married and has produced a kid can pronounce his beliefs on the issues around a church.

My very favorite, though, is the refusal to take on a serious discussion of self-defense and which guns to buy.  Believe me, plenty of teenagers have very, very detailed and well-thought out ideas about how to defend themselves in a pinch and what to use. 

Next, the Sisters give a longish rant about why abusers, feminists, Good Christians(TM), and the legal system tell victims not to report abuse.  I've pulled out the sections on feminists and Christians:

On the other side, feminist voices tell us: If you feel that what he did was not consensual, then it was wrong, and if you feel that it would be more empowering to you to resist or report, then go ahead… but it really all comes down to what you personally want right now, and no one should expect you as a woman to have to do something you don’t want to do. This is only worth fighting if you feel like it.

Too many Christian voices tell us: You just need to forgive and turn the other cheek; bringing consequences for sin isn’t loving and isn’t forgiveness; it will really damage the reputation of Christ to have things like this brought to light in the Christian community; you’re a sinner too, so you have no right to point a finger at him. It’s not Christian to fight back.

I think the strawman feminist created by the Botkin Sisters comes from two places.  First, the Botkin Sisters cannot handle the cognitive dissonance that would come from admitting that feminism's push to bring sexual assault, sexual harassment and sexual abuse into the light of day is an exceptionally moral action.  I'm afraid they would die from shock if they agreed right now. 

The second issue is that the Botkin Sisters lack the mental habit of running through all the possible permutations of a situation.   Not all inappropriate sexual behaviors are criminal.  Not all criminal actions are prosecutable.  Not all people can handle one more stressor at a given time.  The Botkin Sisters' impassioned defense of what women are supposed to do reminds me of a quiz I read that discussed the level of Natural Family Planning (NFP) privilege a person enjoyed.  One end of the spectrum was "I can't wait to practice NFP someday when I eventually get married."  The Botkin Sisters sound like that end of privilege "I'd totally report a sexual assault or harassment if I was abused or harassed!".  Good on you - let me know how you feel once you have actually experienced life.    The opposite end of the NFP spectrum was "Even your NFP instructor thinks using NFP is a horrible idea for you!"   And you know what?  That happens with sexual assault or abuse or harassment, too.   What if the abuser is dead?  What if there is no overarching authority available to intervene?  What if you can't identify your assailant? The emphasis that feminism places on doing what feels acceptable to the victim is because often there is no straightforward or simple choice - and feminism focuses on helping the victim heal regardless of if the perpetrator is adequately punished.

I've heard of the "don't damage the reputation of the Church" line of logic for dismissing abuse victims.  The Catholic Church tried it - and that course of action makes everything worse.  The Church is complicit in child abuse and there is no positive way to "spin" that.  The victims are hurt worse while the criminal is protected and allowed to continue attacking people.   The best course of action is whatever protects the innocent and provides consequences to the attacker within the scope of justice.  That line of action creates a church that is reflective of the love of God.

As for the other justifications - you're fucking kidding me, right?  Turning the other cheek occurs within the idea of handling religious persecution - not rape, not molestation, not sexual harassment and not sexual abuse.  The entire Bible - the whole thing - is about how God is one day going to bring a whole lot of hurt down on unrepentant sinners.  That's a whole lot of consequence for sin - so why pretend that sending someone to jail for rape is unchristian?  And let's be honest - I don't believe for a second that the people who want to sweep sexual assault under a rug take the same line when someone breaks into their house, steals their car or sucker-punches them during a dispute.  If these Christians really bought into the belief that 1) consequences are wrong and 2) no sinner can judge anyone else, they would have to be as willing to forgo any interactions with the justice system as the Amish are. (In fairness to the Amish and other non-resistance groups, none of  their beliefs are based in either of these toxic reasonings.)   Since CP/QF groups are all about legal remedies for perceived slights, their sudden expectation of humble piety from sexual assault victims is sick.

Moving on.  The Botkin Sisters manage to mangle retelling Rachel Denhollander's brave action to move forward against Larry Nassar.  The most charitable way I can explain the mauling of  Rachel Denhollander's brave story by the Botkin Sisters is that Anna Sofia and Elizabeth either didn't bother to read the materials they linked in their fourth post or that their reading comprehension is so poor that they are genuinely confused.   If they did competently read Rachel Denhollander's victim impact statement and her op-ed to the NY Times, the Botkin Sisters are guilty of erasing Ms. Denhollander to pursue their own agenda - and that's abusive, too.  To keep myself from throwing my laptop, I'm just going to shoot down the untruths sequentially.

It would be hard to be in a much more vulnerable and powerless position than 15-year-old Rachel during the year that her physician, Larry Nassar, repeatedly sexually abused her on the therapy table, and when people she trusted to help her hushed her instead. But later, as an adult, she was convinced that “a swift and intentional pursuit of God’s justice” was worth attempting again. “I made this choice knowing full well what it was going to cost to get here,” she said, “and with very little hope of ever succeeding. I did it because it was right.” What Rachel did not know is that hundreds of other Nassar victims were waiting, silently, for someone else to go first.

1) No one shushed Rachel Denhollander until she came forward in 2016.  Like many victims of sexual abuse in a medical setting, she thought what he was doing must be wrong on a gut level - but assumed that since he did this a lot and hadn't been stopped she as a 15-year old girl must have been misunderstanding something.   Thankfully, the people she disclosed the abuse to in 2004 were willing to support her when she came forward in 2016.   The tricky bit is that if she had disclosed in 2002 (at age 17) the medical professional she disclosed to would be legally required to report the abuse.  Once she turned 18, medical professionals generally follow the lead of the victim if there is not an open-and-shut case for physical violence.  Rachel Denhollander did nothing wrong by not telling anyone; I only bring that up to explain why there wasn't an report filed by the medical professional she disclosed to.

2) Prior to Nassar's assault of Denhollander in 2000, there had been four separate accusations of sexual misconduct against him by gymnasts or female athletes at MSU.  

3) Allegations of sexual misconduct during therapy sessions continued to be reported to MSU and the US Gymnastics Association between 1998-2016.

Plenty of girls, teenagers and women trying to get someone - anyone - to stop Larry Nassar from raping patients.  For any of the women attacked in Michigan, forced digital penetration is first-degree rape - but MSU and USAG ignored, belittled or patronized the victims and protected Nassar.

My two-cents: Teach your kids about medical consent in an age-appropriate way.  The rough rules of thumb are that kids under the age of 7 need to rely on their parents' decision for medical treatment.  I love my toddler - but he'd be dead if we needed to get assent for medical treatment because he is far too young to understand the importance of medical treatment compared to his dislike of people messing with him.  I do let him express his anger, frustration and rage as loudly as he wants and I acknowledge his feelings when they happen.   Ages 7-13 need to have procedures explained in an age appropriate way and a good faith effort made to secure the kid's assent to the procedure - but parental consent still can override the child, especially at the lower end of the age range. (Like if you are a 12 year old who is refusing to get an MMR...in spite of knowing people who suffered severe disabilities from measles and congenital rubella because you abhor shots.  Thanks, Mom. I love you!)  Age 14 and up has the mental maturity to decide if a treatment is appropriate.   Rachel Denhollander had the legal right to say "Stop" or "I don't want to have this treatment done" when Nassar was assaulting her - but she didn't know that.

Rachel’s courage, conviction, and thoroughly-prepared legal case was enough to break the previously-impenetrable dam;

Why did Ms. Denhollander succeed when so many women and girls had failed before?  It's not because she is a conservative Christian.  It's certainly not because she followed the Botkin Plan for dealing with sexual abuse.  No, Ms. Denhollander succeeded because she is a lawyer.  She attended college and graduated from law school.  Ms. Denhollander knew what materials she could collect to make a strong legal case against Nassar for assaulting her.  Ms. Denhollander walked into the Michigan State Police Department with an entire file of evidence including statements from people who were willing to testify that she disclosed the abuse between 2000-2004, proof of real pelvic floor physical therapy techniques from journals, expert witnesses willing to testify that what Nassar did was NOT therapeutic, and statements from two other women abused by Nassar.   She collected and handed the police department everything they needed to start a criminal case against Nassar - and that lead to contacting MSU and USAG who had multiple "resolved" cases that added new victims to Nassar's crimes. 

Plenty of courageous women, teens and girls had attempted to stop Nassar before; the Botkins' dismissal of those heroes is sick and a sign of the Botkin Sisters' dismissal of unpleasant realities.  Ms. Denhollander brought a brilliant mind, a stellar education, and a mountain of evidence for her case to support the courage and bravery of so many other women.  Those women together took down a monster - and they deserve our recognition of their individual and collective acts of bravery.

Shame on you, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin.  Shame on you.

Spiritual Self-Defense: Master Your Greatest Enemy - Part Four

We survived the first half of Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin's exposition on how various vices can lead to sexual sin in their blog series "Spiritual Self-Defense".  Personally, I found their logic underwhelming and their childish dismissal of abuse victims disturbing.   Thankfully, there are only four vices left.  Amusingly, the Botkin Sisters invented one vice I've never heard of before - and I'm clueless how that vice is different from another vice they listed.

Fear – the fear of loss, of retribution, of shame, of the unknown; of making a scene, of taking a risk; of rational things, of irrational things. It doesn’t make a difference what it is: Once we fix our fear on something other than God, we are bound and gagged. 

Oh, Anna Sofia and/or Elizabeth - your innocence surrounding fear is sweetly touching.  Believe you me; the world is full of scary, scary situations for people who fear God.   When the very young resident OB told me I had HELLP syndrome, I was absolutely terrified.  Not because my faith faltered; no, I was retroactively fucking terrified that if I hadn't had some random abdominal pains, my husband would have come home from work to find me dead on the couch when I laid down for a nap just before I had a stroke or heart attack.  Or perhaps he would had found me comatose in the time between seizures from eclampsia with a dying or dead baby.  I was well aware that I could bleed to death during the C-section in spite of the best efforts of my amazing care team.  I was even more petrified that my son could die before we got to know him and before he got to live. 

I don't believe God wants us to know fear or pain or suffering or death.  I believe that the people doing God's work that day were the multitude of medical professionals who kept me and my son alive.   I know that my faith helped me survive - if only because praying was something I could do while laying in a hospital bed attached to IVs and deep breathing.   But I was scared - very, very scared - and I don't believe that fear is a sign of a lack of faith.

We’ll need to practice keeping these truths at the forefront of our minds when we’re around other people, and we’ll need to practice speaking up and taking a stand for these truths when it’s scary and makes us unpopular. The more we do this, the more the focus of our fear will be shifted from people to God, and we’ll develop a reputation for being the kind of girl that would get an abuser in deep trouble.

Mmm-k.  This is sadly ironic coming from two women who have been told repeatedly since childhood or infancy that women are incapable of detecting deceit or malice in a potential suitor.  According to the Botkin Family line, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth have been completely sheltered from any bad influences their entire lives.  Who knows if that is true - but I hope for their sake it isn't.  As women in their thirties, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth should be experienced at comparing the actions of people with their words and alleged values.    Anna Sofia and Elizabeth were among the monied royalty of Vision Forum.  That's all good fun - but what does it say about the values of Vision Forum that there was a clear separation between the families with money and the far more common families that struggled to make ends meet?  The Sisters have never spoken out in any way shape or form about economic inequality in CP/QF.  My guess is that the Sisters have never thought about economic fairness at all - but they really should.  After all, that would give them plenty of practice taking a stand for a basic Christian belief that will evoke strong feelings from other monied former Vision Forum folks.  That would probably be quite scary for Anna Sofia or Elizabeth - but they are old hats at this, right?

Selfish ambition – wanting the perks (you name it – favorite-status, admiration, promotion, money, fame, popularity) that would come with being on this person’s good side. There is a kind of covetousness and ambition that women are very prone to when it comes to men, especially when it involves competing with other women.

*blinks*

I've never met a woman who had consensual sex with a guy for the sole purpose of competing with other women.  Like....never. 

I've never met a woman who abused or raped a man for the sole purpose of competing with other women.  Never ever.

And honestly, I've never seen women get particularly competitive with each other around dating.  I think this is because for women outside of CP/QF lifestyles, we have many other options for satisfying our competitive spirit.  There's a plethora of competitive sports for adult women.  Women can compete for employment or academic accomplishment.  The entire blot on Western society known as "Mommy Wars" comes from women (and men) treating child-rearing as a form of competition.  Dating as competition feels rather dull compared to joining a softball team, earning an advanced degree or landing a great job.

That's why I completely believe that Anna Sofia and Elizabeth's target audience IS tempted to look at romantic relationships as a competition.  They've got damned few legitimate avenues to compete with other women so courting a highly attractive suitor may well be counted as a win.

The suggested solutions for being ambitious are off-the-wall....as well as in sentence fragments.

For instance, to start thinking of the other girls as being more important than we are (which would even include seeing their relational lives or marital prospects as more important than ours). To stop seeing ourselves as the main character in the story, and all the other girls as supporting characters (or villains). To consider the souls of the young men around us (including their focus and their purity) more important than the ego boost we could get from them.

Yup.  Imagine living a life where a young woman is more involved in the marital prospects of church acquaintances because she knows she's not the main character in her own life and doesn't want to erode the focus of a young man by showing her interest in him.    That sounds like the beginning of a CP/QF version of "Single White Female" rather than a solid life choice.

Ladies, you are allowed to be the main character in your own life.  Full stop.  Other people do not need you to elevate them to the main character position of your life because they are the main characters in their life.  It's a win-win-win-win for all people to take center stage in their own lives.  If you don't, you risk becoming a passive-aggressive martyr who expects to control other people's lives as repayment for never living their own life.  Hint: passive-aggressive martyr is not an attractive character to play.

The next vice is the mostly made-up idea of "instability of soul".  Every time I read that section, I have a mental image of Geordi LaForge discussing how the Enterprise's engine is becoming unstable - and then an explosion of soul-goo.....

Instability of soul – 2 Pet. 2:14 says that men who have “eyes full of adultery” “entice unstable souls.” The word “unstable” means “unfixed,” “vacillating,” “unsteady.” An unstable girl is one who is not solidly, unshakeably rooted in what God says – she can be drawn or persuaded or manipulated by some other voice telling her “I’m only doing this because I love you so much…” “Did God say it’s a sin to do X? Don’t be such a legalist!” “It’s actually your fault I did Y, because you tempted me…” “If you tell anyone, my life will be ruined, and you’ll have to live with that!”

Man, that whole "CP/QF homeschoolers are smarter than the brainwashed masses"  idea keeps taking a beating every time Anna Sofia or Elizabeth defines a word that native English speakers over the age of 12 should already know. 

Apparently "instability of soul" is also a synonym for "not bright" or "very gullible".  The first three arguments given by "other voices" are easily proven false.

•  "You love me?  Then stop doing _____ because I don't like it."  Problem solved.
• "Don't insult me for holding a boundary with you.  I expect an apology."  Problem solved.
• "Bullshit. You made a choice;  you need to own your actions." Problem solved.

The fourth one is a little more complicated - but only because people often feel guilty when doing a morally right action sets morally right consequences in action against someone they love.  Here are some options to try mentally:

• "If it was ok for you to do ______, it's ok for me to tell people about it."
• If _______ couldn't deal with the consequences of their action being known publicly, they shouldn't have done it in the first place.
• "I can live with that.  I won't let ______'s dislike of consequences dictate my actions"
• "Why do I have to keep a secret to protect _____ from the consequences of their actions?  That's unfair."

To be clear, you may not feel safe saying these things to the other person.  You don't have to; you do not need their permission or blessing to discuss actions that have affected your life.  

Spiritual laxness – when we identify as the Lord’s servants, and yet are not actively seeking out our Master’s will and striving to understand what He wants us to do.

By this definition, everyone is spiritually lax multiple times a day.  I don't have the skill set to seek out God's will while mowing my lawn or shopping for groceries.   I figure God wants me to exercise to keep my body healthy - but does God prefer when I go for a walk, mow the lawn, do water aerobics or swim laps?   What is the correct ratio of "play with the toddler" compared to "complete household chores"?  Before anyone quotes the story of Mary and Martha, remember that there was not a toddler in that story covering his glasses in barbeque sauce while crawling after an unguarded electrical cord.... 😜

But too often, we have adopted a brand of personal faith that expects God (and other people) to do all the work of seeking, buffeting, and striving for us. We may call this “letting go and letting God” – God calls this being wicked and lazy servants.

What is the last example of the Botkin Sisters dealing with any buffeting?  When have either of them strove for anything?  In their free podcasts, the Sisters claim that the second-generation of CP/QF homeschoolers have entire areas of theology to reconquer; remember their argument that they would personally need to look at every example of femininity ever to come up with an comprehensive new Christian form of femininity?  That's time consuming for sure - but they've dropped off producing anything new.  So....how does that fit in striving to change the world?

Good news: We've finished this post.  Bad news: there's still one post left.

Spiritual Self-Defense: Master Your Biggest Enemy - Part Three

I'm going to start this blog post with my overarching thought process about the entire "Spiritual Self-Defense" series on the Botkin Sisters blog:  Why is this series SO LONG?   I know that I often post long posts myself - but a six-part prattling reflection on why sexual abuse or assault won't happen to the Botkin Sisters as long as the Sisters stay firmly within the lines drawn by their father is five parts too long.

I digress.

After explaining all of the things that Emily did wrong that led to whatever the hell happened between her and Bryan, the Botkin Sisters decide to explain an entire list of vices that Anna Sofia and Elizabeth are certain put women at higher risk of being victims of sexual assault or abuse.  Now, I can see the argument - kind of - that indulging certain vices could lead a person to compromise their previously held beliefs on sexual purity.  That could lead to that person participating in consensual sexual activity.  It's a bit of a stretch, but I could see the rationale.  The problem is that this series is supposed to be about women who are victims - not consensual actors.  The Botkin Sisters' inability to differentiate consent from non-consent creates the galling situation where victims of abuse are told that they didn't do anything to deserve being attacked - but it's kind of their fault for being vain or needy.

That's not how the world works.

Vanity – the pride that makes us find our worth in how much men notice us, admire us, and want us. When men’s affirmation of us becomes something we’re dependent on, something we use to feed our egos and puff us up, something we’ll strive for at all costs (even the cost of sinning), we’re in trouble already.

That's not the definition of vanity.  Vanity is excessive pride in one's looks or achievements.  I highlight the second example because the Botkin Sisters drop the fact that they've written books in podcasts, blogs and lectures all the time.

I am not seeing how vanity would lead to breaking sexual mores consensually for the readers of the Botkin blog let alone how vanity would lead to being the victim of a violent crime.    I've known a handful of women (out of thousands of women) who might sleep with a guy who admired her or flattered her - but that's pretty rare and often time-limited.  As women grow up, most women I know are looking for longer-term relationships and raise the bar for men they want to be around.

Because this is a Botkin blog post, the prerequisite female-bashing comes into play:

By the way – though we pointed out in the first article that a man’s choice to commit the sin of lust is his own responsibility, we do need to acknowledge that doing anything calculated to provoke their lust is our own sin of lust (the lust to be lusted after), and our own kind of being predatory.

*Blinks*

That's all kinds of confused.  That convoluted "lust o' lust" rationale is extraneous on top of badly thought out; if the person is acting out of lust - they are guilty of lust. 

Equally importantly, there is a bright, clear, clean line between the morally acceptable actions of being attractive and approachable towards available romantic partners, the morally illicit action of being lustful, and the potentially illegal actions of a predator.    The Botkin Sisters have staked their livelihood on teaching young women that any movement towards a young man prior to paternal approval is immoral - and we can see that the proof of their system has lead to two women who are "aged-out" of the marriage market for their society.

Unbiblical neediness, or emotional idolatry – having needs that we feel cannot be or are not being met by God – whether for companionship, love, affection, security, comfort, or a sense of worth – that we depend on other sources to meet. If we feel like we would die without attention/a boyfriend/a particular guy, and attaining that is the main thing that drives us, we are putting our faith in an idol and not God.

I agree that placing a romantic interest in the first place in a girl's life or heart prior to engagement or marriage is a terrible idea.   A woman old enough to date is old enough to have responsibilities to herself, her family, her community and her church.   As two people date, it's natural and healthy for the romantic interest to move higher in the list of responsibilities - but not right off the bat.   Of course, CP/QF young ladies are at much higher risk of this because they are prevented from having a form of external employment or much involvement in the wider community.  When the only form of change available in life is finding someone to marry, women and men both are far too likely to invest in a relationship that should have been discarded.

 I don't believe that falling in love is a form of idolatry; CP/QF writers use the charge of idolatry to cover sloppy reasoning.   At the risk of being crass, God doesn't provide sexual satisfaction or the chance to bear a massive number of offspring to single women no matter how pious she is.

The Botkin Sisters' solutions the moral problems are vague or strangely detailed while being completely unbelievable:

This will probably involve an overhaul of the minute-by-minute choices we make throughout the day: to either spend 30 minutes shopping for a particular clothing item we hope will impress a certain someone, or to spend it engaged in the good works of (invisible) service that we know will please the Lord; to listen to a song that stirs up our inner romantic neediness, or to listen to a sermon; to spend an hour texting a particular person, or to spend that hour reading the Word and communing with Christ.

I have never spent 30 minutes shopping for clothes to catch a man.  The Botkin Sisters are old enough to realize women mostly dress to impress other women; picking an outfit for a date night takes a tenth of the time as it does for a women's ministry meeting.    In picking out an outfit to wear on a date with my husband, I only needed to see if the outfit fitted well - e.g., showed off my excellent chest and hips while minimizing my stomach.  For a meeting with other women, my outfit needs to complement my coloring, be fashionable without being overly faddish, be impeccably clean, and draw out the better features of my figure.

The fact that the Botkin Sisters view 30 minutes as plenty of time to complete a real work of service in their lives makes me believe they do little or no service work.    Most real service requires a few hours of work, not 30 minutes.

How long are songs in Botkin-land?  I can only think of a few songs that are longer than 2-3 minutes.  Perhaps sermons have been trimmed down to mini-sermons that fit in 2-3 minute frames.  Or perhaps the only secular songs the Botkin Sisters know are "In a Gadda Da Vida" by Iron Butterfly and "Hey Jude" by the Beatles.

I'm amused that the Botkin Sisters inadvertently implied that religious topics cannot be texted or discussed for an hour.....

Lack of steadfastness – the inability to persevere. After battling to make a hard decision, sometimes we’re not prepared for how many times we’ll have to fight the same battle over and over again. And we get worn down. We get tired of saying no. We say “Don’t call me again,” but we answer the phone as soon as they do. The ability to win the battle depends on having the steadfastness to stick to our own principles, and that’s hard when other people and our own flesh are battering, relentlessly, against our resolve.

I wonder how much of this moral exhaustion comes from being raised in a protected greenhouse of like-minded homeschooling families.  One of the benefits of traditional schooling is that students learn how to defend their right to live as they choose.  All of your classmates drink chocolate milk - but you prefer white or strawberry milk.  You want to play on the twisty slide when your friends want to play on the swings.  You realize that one of your friends isn't a good friend and need to confront them about their behavior - or cut off contact.   These are all real-life examples of drama I faced prior to third grade.  I learned how to stand up for my own wants in decidedly low-stakes times.  As I got older, the stakes got a bit higher - but so did my ability to deal with my emotions.

I bring this up again - getting education, vocational training or even a minimum wage job provides a form of relief from the "relentless battering of resolve".  If a woman is living at home - especially a home as monotonous and dreary as most CP/QF homes - she can obsess over how the end of a relationship would feel for hours or days.  Put the same woman in the same home with a job as a part-time cashier and she's got blocks of time where she has to ignore the obsession over a relationship to remember the PLU for kale or how to ring up a marked-down cut of meat.  Give her a chance at training to become a nurse, an ironworker or a chef and the appeal of obsessing over breaking up with Mr. Stud Muffin of the Soul drops more.

Next, the Botkin Sisters make it clear that victims who maintain a relationship with their abuser are at fault:

The recent flood of scandals, including in the Christian community, includes far too many examples of women essentially saying, “Oh, I did rebuff his advances – every time we went out! I was never OK with the things he was pressuring me into doing, and I would tell him so every time it happened.” As a critically-injured young woman said when asked by her doctor why she didn’t just leave her abusive boyfriend: “Oh, but I have, Doctor – dozens of times!”

Why is the person at fault the woman who said "I don't like that" and gave the guy another chance when he stopped?  The guy is the one who crossed boundaries that were clearly stated.  The Botkin Sisters are far too willing to give ground to men who misbehave when they state that women should leave when men act inappropriately.  Following their advice means that misbehaving people gain access to everything while moral people are hiding in their homes.  I don't think that's going to fulfill the Great Commission any time soon, ladies.

The Botkin Sisters are also old enough to realize that their little vignette about a critically-injured woman is manufactured and cruel.   I've been critically ill before; you don't have the energy to make small talk with doctors because you feel horrible - and I wasn't in much pain when I was in the labor and delivery ICU.  Being critically injured is even worse since that means the woman is dealing with major injuries from a beating, strangling or attack with a weapon which means she's in pain, shock and traumatized.  If the Botkin Sisters were as in to doing service work as they claim, they would have been around people who were ill.  Every congregation I've been a part of has plenty of elderly people who are in and out of the hospital and congregants with chronic health issues.   The fact that the Sisters believe that a critically-ill abuse victim would sound like a debutante at a tea party shows how sheltered the sisters are.

 Why does the woman bear the stigma of not leaving her abusive boyfriend?  He's the one who beat, strangled, stabbed or shot her!  Her mistake was believing that he chose to change or that she simply didn't get out in time - neither of which is a crime or a sin.   The most I could say is that the abuse victim lacked the self-preservation instinct that is so important in adults - but, hey, how many of the Botkin family friends were left without jobs or contacts when Vision Forum folded? 

Taking cheap shots is easy; practicing compassion and steadfastness in the face of real human mistakes is hard.

The actions to learn steadfastness are so vague as to be ironic:

So let’s practice sticking to our resolves (even the little ones) whenever temptation is calling to let them go. Let’s practice standing firm on something we know is right when the pressure of the crowd is against us.

You first.  Anna Sofia, go tell your dad that you are going to study to pass the GED and plan to start attending college next year.  Elizabeth, go get a job as an in-home caregiver and tell your parents afterwards.  Make sure you stand firm in the face of their disapproval. 

If the Sisters can't do that, they have no right to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

I looked at this post and realized that it's huge - and we're about half way through the subject of what vices lead women to be victimized.  I'll discuss the other half in the next post.  With a bit of luck, I should post that on Thursday or Friday - God willing and I don't get a migraine.  :-)

Spiritual Self-Defense: Master Your Biggest Enemy - Part Two

The second section in "Master Your Biggest Enemy" by Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin attempts to finally work out the spiritual aspects of Bryan and Emily's story.  Since this series is long and convoluted, I've pulled out the entirety of the original story in case we've forgotten any pertinent details:

Bryan is pushing his girlfriend Emily’s physical boundaries. Emily says no, I don’t want to do this. Bryan pushes harder. Emily finally gives in, but reluctantly. Afterwards, she’s furious and devastated and blames him for forcing her. Bryan says, What are you talking about? You were going along with it the whole time, and besides, look how you were dressed. Don’t try to tell me you weren’t asking for this. It was half your fault; don’t you go trying to get me in trouble like you’re some victim here.

Re-reading this synopsis, I'm reminded of the problems with attempting to write a scenario about a situation that you've never experienced.  Or perhaps the problem is a lack of deciding what actually happened between Bryan and Emily.  For people in the non-CP/QF world, the confusing bit is that the idea of consent between adults is totally absent.  I've read that story a billion times and I'm still unsure if what happened between the two of them qualified as rape/criminal sexual conduct or just miserable consensual sex. 

Let's look at the details more closely.  The first five sentences are a mess.  For example, the verb "push" is used twice in five sentences - but obscures the actions performed by Bryan.   Was Bryan threatening Emily physically?  Was Bryan threatening to harm Emily in a serious way in the future if she did not comply?  If he was, he's guilty of rape or criminal sexual assault by force or coercion even if Emily consented later on.  Was Bryan asking Emily to perform a sexual act repeatedly without threats of a serious nature?  Was Bryan threatening to break up with Emily if they didn't have sex? That's legal - although  red-flag towards Bryan's suitability as a boyfriend. What's the difference between "is pushing" and "pushes harder"?  Did Bryan start in an area that is legal and move into illegal territory?

The total lack of a timeline in the paragraph is another issue.  If the paragraph happens in a single, date night  between Bryan and Emily, that's deeply concerning.  On the other hand, this could be a sloppy synopsis of days or weeks or months of Bryan wanting to do more physical interaction while Emily doesn't want to do more - which Bryan accepts for days or weeks or months.

Emily's response to everything is another hot mess.  Emily says no.  According to later portions of posts, Emily says no over and over.  Meanwhile, Bryan keeps asking until Emily eventually changes her mind and says "yes" - albeit reluctantly.  I'm not a fan of reluctant consent - and I don't think the Botkin Sisters are doing anyone any favors by writing up a female example who says "yes" then tells Bryan she was forced afterwards.   Yes, Bryan should have picked up on the fact that Emily didn't seem that into whatever they were doing since they were dating - but unless Emily did or said something that clearly delineated that she revoked her consent - Emily's on very shaky ground for arguing that Bryan forced her. 

Truthfully, I'm not entirely sure what's going on with Emily emotionally.  At some point she made a choice to do something sexually with Bryan.  What is missing is how Emily reached a point where she made a choice and then freaked out about the choice she made afterwards.  Emily seems oblivious to the fact that "bad sex" - a consensual encounter that one or both parties regrets afterwards - is not the same as rape or criminal sexual conduct.  From my read, the story is closer to "bad sex" than rape - but it's still a mess. Emily's reaction to blame Bryan for her choice is not a healthy or fun way to live when you don't have the skills to make choices and manage feelings that come after the choice.

Finally, Bryan is an ass based on his reaction to Emily's emotion.  I'm cutting him some major slack because his girlfriend is accusing him of rape - but the whole victim-blaming spiel is deeply disturbing and is a sign that Emily should run away from her relationship with him. 

The saddest bit is that the Botkin Sisters act as if all romantic relationships are adversarial when it comes to sexuality.  In reality, most relationships manage sexual issues just fine.  Partners understand that everyone has different likes, dislikes and boundaries.  If the two people are too discordant, the general outcome is that they break up - not that one person decides to bend their boundaries markedly and then regrets it.

After that long digression, we can move into these added reflections by the Botkin Sisters:

Emily truly did want to do the right thing in her relationship with Bryan. She genuinely believed that the things Bryan continually pressured her to do were wrong, and she really did mean “no” every time she said it. But in each encounter, her resolve crumbled under the pressure of his arguments and pleadings, the fear of hurting or angering him… and honestly, sometimes, the overwhelmingly strong desire for what he offered her. Emily’s no floozy, but her natural desires are simply a lot stronger than her spiritual ones. Does this feel familiar?

Honestly, no, this does not feel familiar to me at all.  I make decisions about what I want to do sexually based on what I want to do sexually.   For me, it's based on if I feel that doing something more sexually fits the relationship based on where the relationship is at on emotional and commitment levels plus what I feel comfortable doing as a person.   My partner's wishes, wants and desires matter exactly as far as letting me know if they are comfortable with doing something.  Outside of that, I expect my partner to be an adult and treat me as one as well.  IOW, if a person starts arguing or pleading with me about a sex act I don't want to do, I am leaving that relationship pronto.

Again, the Botkin Sisters miss a chance to talk about the different degrees of "fear of hurting or angering him".  Bryan is guilty of rape if Emily has a rational reason to think that Bryan is going to cause her physical pain, injury or harm to herself, love ones or personal property if she refuses sex with him.   If Emily's fears are the more germane type where she doesn't want to hurt Bryan's feelings or is afraid that Bryan will be angry enough that he will break up with her, Emily's consent still stands legally.  After all, Bryan didn't sign off all autonomy when he started dating Emily.  He has a right to have feelings and to act on those feelings as long as he doesn't break any laws.

The last problematic issue is that the Botkin Sisters ignore the fact that Emily may have given honest consent - in spite of the nagging ghosts of her fundamentalist upbringing saying she was a floozy - and struggled with her feelings afterwards.   Those ghosts might have hit Emily with a wave of guilt, anxiety and self-loathing after the fact.  Emily deserved help dealing with those feelings preferably from a trained professional.  Instead, she blamed Bryan - which isn't terribly helpful.

So that paragraph tipped the story towards "consensual sex with later regret" - and yet the very next paragraph labels Bryan as a predator...and Emily as a weakling:

We can’t say often enough that Bryan and Bryan alone bears the blame for what Bryan did. Emily’s weaknesses didn’t force Bryan to sin against her, and also didn’t mean that she deserved it. But they did betray her into the hands of a predator when it was fully in her power to escape.

How does a weak woman become strong? Does Emily have any hope of becoming the fearless champion of right that she aches to be… a woman who could actually stand by her words, who could actually walk away from her encounters with Bryan without regrets, who could dare to ask trusted friends for help without fear of Bryan’s fury…? What do you do when you know you don’t have the strength you need?

The first paragraph crystalizes the major flaw with the CP/QF views on morality in sexual encounters.  According to CP/QF logic, procreative sex between married heterosexual adults is licit; everything else is illicit.    Because of that fuzzy logic, the dueling scenarios of rape vs. sex with later regret have the exact same level of moral blame for Bryan.  In CP/QF land, Bryan is always wrong for having sex with Emily premaritally; Emily, on the other hand, is not morally culpable if she was raped.   The scary side-effect of CP/QF morality is that the ONLY way Emily is not culpable is if she was raped.  The Botkin Sisters throw the word "floozy" around quite easily; I'm sure they've got other more descriptive and crude ones available once they've learned that Emily and Bryan had consensual sex. 

The vast majority of Christian churches take a more....well, nuanced....view of human sexuality.  My Catholic schooling was pretty clear on the fact that people should wait for sex until they were married - but an awful lot of my classmates were born well under 40 weeks after their parents married.   As we got older, it became pretty clear that real adults - people who were financially independent of their parents - who were in committed relationships could do more sexually than was viewed as being OK for teenagers because adults can make adult decisions.  Equally importantly, gossiping about adults' sexual matters was more morally abhorrent than having sex.  After all, sex is an expression of love between two adults; gossip is a form of hate.  We also had a church-sanctioned method of repairing our relationship with God if we had premarital sex and felt bad known as the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  The simple existence of that Sacrament tends to mess up the gossip chain anyway because gossiping about someone else's forgiven sin is really, really crass (and probably a sin as well, now that I think about it) and you never know if they've repented or not.

What do you do when you don't know if you have the strength? Guess what?  No one ever feels strong in the middle of a crisis!  Adults simply do what needs to be done. Yeah, having a tough conversation with a boyfriend about ending the relationship because you have different sexual needs or wants is hard.  Applying for jobs and not getting a job over and over is hard.  So is supporting a spouse through a medical crisis.  So is sitting by an incubator with a tiny infant who will die without advanced life support - and the only thing to do is wait for him to grow.  Caring for a person with complicated medical needs is hard.  Saying goodbye when loved ones die is hard, too.  Here's the upside to all of those hard things - doing hard things is the only way to gain wisdom.  I've known people who have chosen to run away from hard situations in life.  That makes me angry at times - but I also have a great deal of pity for those people since they are choosing to live as children instead of adults.

If we’re using music, movies, or novels, to sow to inappropriate fantasies, misplaced longings, or emotional roller-coasters, we must not expect to reap purity, clear-mindedness, emotional self-control, and a strong grip on reality. If we’re sowing to moral confusion by sympathizing with people in those movies, music, or novels doing things we know are wrong, we must not expect to reap moral clarity and resolve in the times when we need it most. If we’re sowing to an affection for the wrong things in men, we must not expect to be more drawn to godliness and holiness than good looks, rakish charm, and edgy humor. And if we’re sowing thoughts and actions from our natural desire for men to notice us, like us, want us… we must not expect to respond really selflessly, righteously, and uncompromisingly when one does. Because God’s laws of sowing and reaping don’t work that way.

*rolls eyes*

That's the most absurd thing I ever heard. 

I grew up hearing about how people defrauded Meijers on a regular basis from my mom who worked in Loss Prevention.  In other words, we had all the information we needed to be super-thieves - and yet I've never stolen anything. 

My favorite Star Trek: Deep Space Nine character was Kai Winn who managed to set up a contract killing before killing a servant for trying to stop her evil plan - and yet I started crying in my yard yesterday when I thought I had hit a rabbit's nest.  (The baby bunny survived unharmed; I rebuilt the cover of the nest as best I could because otherwise the little kit kept trying to hide in the middle of our driveway.)

I've been listening to Shakespeare's plays being rehearsed and performed since I was a toddler.  I was awash in a sea of alcohol, drugs, illicit sex and violence - and yet my life has been so vanilla that I describe my alcohol usage in drinks per year, have dabbled in no illegal drugs, and have only ever fought my twin sister.

My favorite two binge-watching shows are "White Collar" and "Arrested Development" - but I have no interest in becoming a white-collar criminal or joining a passive-aggressive dysfunctional family for that matter.

So, no, I don't think any part of Emily's issues with Bryan come from her love of Christian romance novels or the fact that she listens to contemporary Christian music.

Finally, beware quashing all of desire to have someone be attracted to you sexually...to want to have you as a life partner...to travel through life's good and bad times together if you want to be married to someone who likes you and is sexually attracted to you.   Yeah, it's a terrible idea to get so fixated on marriage that you marry the first guy who seems attracted to you - but it's an equally bad idea to send out the vibe of "I'm not into you romantically" if you want a romance.

Think about it.  If I walked around all the time looking mostly unexcited about teaching, why would anyone offer me a teacher's job?  How is marriage different?

Spiritual Self-Defense: Master Your Biggest Enemy - Part One

Well, we've made it to the confusing-as-ever fifth installment of Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin's blog series "Spiritual Self-Defense".  In a refreshing change, this post attempts to focus on the spiritual aspects of how we choose to live.  As always, I disagree with 90% of their beliefs - but I am happier when the post fits the overall theme.

The first three paragraphs rehash the Botkin Sisters theme of "Biblical heroines fought back!".  Honestly, I'm not in the mood to explain why most of the references are misrepresentations, but maybe someday I'll feel like going on a Bible quest.  Ironically, many of the women the Botkin Sisters lionize from the Bible used sex as part of their plot but the Sisters ignore that simple reality.

The fourth paragraph, though, begins with a set of questions that threw me a bit:

Those of us who have never faced intense pressure from a seducer or predator may wonder: How would we actually respond to a situation like that? How strong are we, really?

My train of thought: "Of course I know how strong I am!  After dealing with the interpersonal warfare between girls that is late middle school/junior high...oh, but the Botkin crowd didn't....huh.  That's a bit of a puzzler for them..."

CP/QF families live a strange contradiction.  They are lights on a hill to reform the entire world - but they raise their children to be exceptionally sheltered from all peers who aren't exactly like their family of origin in terms of belief.    There's a whole spiel about protecting their children from bad influences that will lead the kids astray and not throwing pearls before swine... but they are also sending the message to their kids that the kids cannot be trusted to stand firm against temptation.

If I wanted to raise little Christian war-arrows (*rolls eyes*), I'd be dumping said arrowlets into peer groups all_the_time starting when they could talk.   The best way to figure out what strengths and weaknesses a kid has is to watch the kid in action.  I'm sure parents could figure out which kids are likely to flee the family belief system and which are super-straight arrows pretty early on.

After this question is a long, jumbled list of actions that a reader can use to see how well they might stand up to an attacker, an abuser or a boyfriend who wants some physical affection.  I've sorted the list by topic.  The first theme I want to discuss can be labeled as "stuff most people work on with platonic friends long before they start dating".

• Do we say “yes” to the fears that make us keep silent when we know there’s something that needs to be said?
• Do we say “yes” to the pressure to go along with things friends want to do, even when we know it’s a bad idea?
• Do we say “yes” to the temptation to do nothing, when doing something sounds really hard and scary?
• Do we back up the things we say with our actions?

If a child is raised in a diverse peer group, they've gotten some practice in these skills long before they are old enough to date.    Even among a close group of friends, there are always times where one person is out of line and needs to be told to stop their behavior.   

• I had three close friends - E., B., and J. - in junior high.  E and B  had a love-hate relationship where they would be inseparable for 1 week (to the point of excluding J and I), interact normally for two weeks, then have a blowout fight and refuse to be around the other person - which meant I had to hang out with E while J friend hung out with B which meant J and I couldn't spend much time together until E and B made up.  J and I realized this pattern sucked for us - so we had a sit-down discussion with the other two during their "calm" period.  We informed them that they could do whatever they wanted - but we were not going to be forced to partner up with them while they weren't speaking to each other.  E and B thought this was funny; they weren't ever going to fight again!   Well, during the next explosive period, J and I ended up sitting together at lunch while E and B each sat alone scowling at each other and us.   This repeated a few times - and then E and B stopped having blowout fights!  Turns out the fun of dramatics fights aren't worth 1-2 weeks of sulking alone....
• I went to a massive sleepover where all the girls from our class were invited in 6th or 7th grade.  E and B were at different schools by then and J wasn't interested in going so it was just me and 15 female classmates.  We had fun.  A few guys from our class came over and we did their make-up.   Eventually, things settled down when three of the girls decided to pull a prank on a former classmate who lived a few blocks away.   I demurred; pulling a prank on someone we hadn't seen in years seemed really mean and sneaking out at night was one of those things that my mom would react very strongly to when she found out about it.  (I was a pragmatist even then; I didn't trust that my classmates would be able not get caught - or keep their mouths shut if they pulled it off.)  So....I was left behind with three other girls who had some common sense.  Ironically, we four were the people who could have probably pulled the prank off, but I digress.  Turns out that four girls in a small house sounds remarkably different than 15 girls...and they were busted about 10 minutes after they left the house and long before they had gotten off the block.
• I really enjoy public speaking now, but for years I was terrified of giving speeches or presentations.  I nearly passed out before giving a presentation in my freshman English class; I remember sweating profusely while shaking nearly uncontrollably in the hallway before I began.  After that, I decided I needed to get over that fear.  I started by offering to do readings at church since that was about the least threatening audience I could think of.  I also read books to groups of kids at the library. When I was older, I would volunteer to do daily readings at Mass - with only a single silent read-through just before Mass began.  Over time, the fear faded and was replaced with excitement and anticipation as I became a talented speaker.

Parents who homeschool well make sure their kids have experiences like these by giving them unsupervised peer time when they are old enough and by keeping their kids involved in outside activities that challenge the kids.   Parents who are more dedicated to indoctrination through homeschooling don't.

Scattered in the list is the second theme of "If you've had sexual feelings, you're not a real victim".

• Do we say “yes” to inner emotional warm-fuzzies after a guy has flattered us?
• Do we say “yes” to the temptation (we all have it) to dress or act in a way that will draw men’s eyes to us?
• Do we say “no” when a guy friend gives us attention as though we were something other than “a sister, with all purity”?

More victim-blaming from the Botkin - but the questions are really bad advice in a culture that requires marriage to become an adult. 

 The second question is deeply ironic coming from the Botkin Sisters who espouse that women shouldn't dress to attract men - but being frumpy is an offense to God's Creation. 

Assuming girls can find an outfit they feel is pretty but not attractive to men, the other two ideas are going to send potential suitors the wrong message.  Jane Austen made this clear about Jane Bennet in "Pride and Prejudice" since Jane was so shy and undemonstrative naturally that Mr. Darcy was able to convince Mr. Bingley that Jane wasn't that into him.  At least Jane Bennet was allowed to dance with Mr. Bingley and have unchaperoned conversations with him; what hope is there for a good CP/QF boy to figure out which girls may be willing to court him?  God knows I wouldn't want to be dragged into the level of insanity that Geoffrey Botkin would level on a potential suitor unless I was certain the person I wanted to marry liked me!

The last theme is "Weird theology begets weird actions":

Do we say “no” to the inner voice that says “You’re not in any position to call someone to account for something – you’re a sinner too!”

Do we own the responsibility for our own sin, without blaming others?

Do we let other people dictate our sense of right and wrong, to the point that we feel guilt over things that weren’t wrong?

Do we ask first what God thinks about everything, before consulting our own inclinations and feelings?

Do we approach situations asking what we have to personally gain or lose?

The first question is based on the strange theological premise that sin is sin and therefore all sins are equally bad.   I don't understand the rationale for that - at all - because I grew up in a church where sin is bad - but sins that hurt other people are a whole lot worse than theological sins.   For example, skipping church on a Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation or eating meat on a Friday in Lent are both sins in the Catholic Church.  Murder, rape and adultery are also in the Catholic Church.  The second batch is a whole lot more serious - with much more serious consequences - than the first batch. 

This is why so many Catholics were horrified when the sexual abuse cover-ups became widely known.  Enabling someone to abuse a child or parishioner is SO MUCH WORSE than causing the Church to get bad press.  The laity in the pews know this - so how the hell did a bunch of bishops and cardinals fuck that up? 

The Botkin Sisters have made ONE statement that deviates slightly from their father's belief system; they don't believe that rape victims who didn't cry out should be killed.  I'm glad they've made that slight step away - but I'm not going to be lectured by two women who have internalized their family-cult beliefs sans one example.   Let's be blunt - they've got a long way to go since they still believe victims who didn't cry out should feel guilty and ask for God's forgiveness.   That's a twisted, harmful belief that needs to be rejected!

I'm not being wry in this next statement.  I don't know what God thinks about.  Saying that I know what God's preferred way of dealing with everything is a form of blasphemy to my way of thinking.  God is the Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer of the Universe who knows the struggles of all people and all things!  I've got some basic guidelines like "Make the World a Good Place for All" and "Don't be a Jackass" - but I'm making wild guesses most of the time.  Thomas Merton wrote a prayer that I find meaningful that includes the idea that we're probably screwing up when we do what we think God wants us to do - but hopefully God is pleased by the fact we're doing what we think God wants.

Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin - along with other SAHD in economically secure families like Sarah Maxwell or Jana Duggar - can afford to NOT count the cost of a personal decision to do right or wrong.  They've internalized their family's values so much that the likelihood of doing something that would get them kicked out of their comfortable paternal home is close to nil.   In their cosseted prisons, they don't have to worry about the economic effects of offending an outsider.  Sarah Maxwell posted  a quick blog post about why she lives at home where she claims that she's completely capable of living on her own - but chooses not to.  A few sentences later, she explains that her life is totally full between her Titus 2 work, working as a part-time bookkeeper for her brothers' businesses, and working on her next self-published book.   

Only a woman  girl living at home with her parents would confuse four marginally paid contract jobs (which includes the books she writes) for the amount of income needed to live independently of her family at the same socioeconomic level. 

The next post in the series covers the confusing, poorly written incident between Emily and Bryan.

Spiritual Self Defense - Get Ready For War - Part One

The fourth installment of the Botkin Sisters blog posts on sexual abuse, rape, harassment and consensual sexual relations that don't fit the CP/QF courtship mantra "Get Ready For War" is an astonishingly tone-deaf work about how victims of abuse, rape or harassment absolutely have to do something to stop their attackers from hurting anyone else afterwards. 

At the end of reading this section, I had two basic observations.  First, most people who want their readers to do something include direct, clear, specific directions for the next steps.  If I want my readers to learn CPR, I'd include a blurb for the Red Cross or American Heart Association.  If I wanted readers to understand how to report child abuse/neglect or domestic abuse, I'd tell them that they call 911 if a child/erson is in immediate danger (e.g., a passerby sees a child being harmed by a parent; the couple in the apartment next door has a screaming, crying fight that includes the sounds of objects being thrown followed by dead silence) or the non-emergency line for their local police department for more chronic issues (e.g., concerns about a sister's refusal to get her niece medical attention for an ongoing issue).   The Botkin Sisters include absolutely nothing about how or even to whom to report abuse, rape, harassment. 

Why do they repeatedly - and annoyingly coyly - state that their podcast and blogs aren't the right venue to discuss the nitty-gritty details of reporting?  I believe they refuse to do so because of the second observation: the Botkin Sisters are completely unable to function as adults.  That's a harsh assessment - but I believe this section highlights how unprepared and inexperienced the sisters are for women who are 32 and 30 years old respectively.

Take a second to think about what you have experienced in your life prior to age 32-30 years (for those who are old enough) or what you've experienced so far if you are younger. 

• In terms of education, I had earned a high school diploma and college credits through AP tests by 18.  I completed a bachelor's degree in Biology/Education with a minor in Chemistry and was a certified teacher for 6-12th grades in Biology and Chemistry.
• In terms of a career, I had worked as a bagger/cashier/department clerk for 8 years and a teacher for 5-7 years. I earned tenure the year I turned 32.  I had held a variety of short term or contract jobs for supplemental income or experience building concurrent with my main income from working at Meijers or teaching.
• In terms of building my nuclear family, I started dating seriously when I was 26 (I think...).  Most relationships petered out when the guy I was dating and I realized we simply were not suited for each other - but I did have one serious relationship with a depressed functional alcoholic who dumped me on his way to a vocational retreat for future priests after lying about his intentions to look into the priesthood.  He never made it into the priesthood - or back into my life.  After that cluster-fuck, I decided dating online could not possibly be worse than that last relationship so I went online and met my husband six months later.  We dated for about a year, and we were engaged for 9 months before we married.  We supported each other through depressive episodes, family squabbles and major surgery for my husband. 

Keep your real life experiences in mind as we discuss some of the more jaw-dropping, eye-popping moments from the Sheltered Sisters:

In response to the deluge of sexual abuse and harassment reports, it’s astonishing to hear so many voices – even from the feminist camp – implying that we can’t ask or expect a woman to do something that would be hard or require personal sacrifice. “She couldn’t have refused him… she might have lost her job!” “She couldn’t have told anyone; she knew a previous woman had told someone and gotten in trouble.” “She couldn’t have fought back; she had so much to lose here.”

See, not all difficult personal sacrifices have the same costs attached.  Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin are kept women; their family's income is enough that they can live as upper-middle class adults without having to do anything as distasteful as finding jobs that support their accustomed lifestyle..   If you read the "About" section on their website, they include a non-descript statement that they 'collaborate' with the rest of their family on ministry items...and the only other item they include that describes work is house-cleaning for their immediate family and child-care for their niece and nephews.  I strongly believe that a lot of traditionally women's work like childcare, support for ill or elderly relatives, and care for a home is devalued since it doesn't earn wages.  Having said that, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth are kidding themselves if they think serving their immediate family including siblings is anything similar to the grind they would have to do if they had to earn their own living.  Their home includes six adults (Geoffrey, Victoria, Anna Sofia, Elizabeth, Lucas and Noah) and no young children or adults with needs for extensive caregiver needs.  Even if the male members do nothing but create messes, that's full-time work for one adult woman if she cooks three meals a day from scratch and does all the laundry.  A second woman might be useful if she gardens and keeps enough animals for food - but that doesn't sound like the Botkin Sisters.   Likewise, sporadic childcare duties and housecleaning support for the 2-3 kids of their married brothers is probably a great relief for their sisters-in-law - but it's nothing like trying to support a middle class lifestyle on house-cleaning and babysitting. 

It's easy enough to preach while sheltered from reality.  Of course, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth would quit a job (or classily submit to being fired) if they were harassed; their income is pin-money for them.  How about if the two of them were supporting the other four adults in the home?  Would it be so easy to walk away from even a single babysitting or house cleaning job with a leering man if that job literally paid the rent?  That requires a bit of imagination on Anna Sofia and Elizabeth's part so let me make it more simple: why haven't Anna Sofia or Elizabeth categorically denounced Doug Phillips after Ms. Torres' accusations?  All the Sisters would be risking is whatever income they receive from lectures involving former Vision Forum members and potentially the disapproval of their father who holds the purse strings in the family.  Huh.  Not that easy, is it?    Hmm....what do we call people who tell other people to do a course of action that they themselves won't do because of the consequences of their actions?  Hypocrites. 

Of course, we must sympathize with these women’s pain, fear, and prospective loss. Saying no or speaking up can cost a woman everything, and it has for many brave silence-breakers. But we also have to realize that statements like this send a message to young women: Doing the Right Thing is what you do when it’s not hard, when it’s not scary, and when there’s no danger that you’ll lose anything.

Or...you know....we can speak out against the structural issues that cause people to lose everything when they speak up about unfair practices.   Let's start with an easy one: gossip.  The Botkin Sisters have managed to turn gossip-mongering into an income stream.  Their two books are filled with little anecdotes of how people they know personally have failed morally.  Is that kind?  Is that going to induce victims to feel confident that Anna Sofia and Elizabeth will support them in the aftermath of going public?  Heck, their podcasts subtly mock young women who ask them very specific questions about what is allowed and not allowed for women to do.  If they are that unthinkingly cruel to people who already trust them and confide in them, who in their right mind would disclose sexual harassment to them?

Their spiel about doing the right thing even when it is hard is a hoot!  These two women have never traveled without a male immediate family member.  They've never volunteered to do physically or emotionally messy work in the community.  The thirty-something women live with their parents and don't have to cover the entirety of their expenses.  The "family ministry" that keeps them SO BUSY is moribund.  In thirteen years, they've written two books, made one documentary, and created one webinar.  They produce about 2 posts a year for their website - and their father's site is even less frequently updated.

I know the two sisters find the idea of moving out of their parents' home morally repellent so I'll make this easier for them.  They should spend a year trying to earn enough money to cover what they would need if they were living independently.  They can do it however they want - home business, working for church members or revitalizing their ministry - but if they want to be taken seriously, the two of them need to start clearing enough income from their endeavors to pay for a two-bedroom apartment, transportation to and from their jobs, food, health insurance (or cost-share ministry), renter's insurance, clothing, and utilities.  Looking up apartment or house rental comps isn't hard; they can track their own needs for food, clothing and transportation; the rest they can get from talking to other people in their church or in their jobs.   On the months they fall short - and there will be months they fall short - they need to cut back in real life the same way they would if living separately from their parents.  (Added benefit: they'll understand the jokes people make about living on Ramen noodles, Tina's burritos, and bargain-basement pot pies since cooking from scratch falls apart when working 60+ hours a week with $100 a month for food.)

Erin Lovette-Colyer, director of the University of San Diego Women’s Center, says that when it comes to dealing with and reporting harassment, “I tell students that whatever feels the most empowering for them is what they should do.” Which, we’re pretty sure, is how Harvey Weinstein’s whole network of effectual accomplices covering things up to protect their own careers and success were operating all along. Actually… we’re pretty sure that’s how Harvey Weinstein was operating, too.

*slow claps*

This is the level of analysis I would expect from a last-minute slapped together essay from a young high school student. 

Harassment is a civil matter.  The most severe remedy for extreme cases involves filing a civil suit. Like many civil matters, there are relatively few hard-and-fast rules for how best to handle a given situation.  The Botkin Sisters - and the rest of their family as well - try to make the world black and white when it's filled with grey areas.  How a person chooses to react to harassment with vary depending on the severity of the incident, how the offender was connected to the person, the options the person thinks are available and the likelihood of the incident happening again.   IOW, getting harassed by a drunk stranger at a baseball concession stand will likely have a different response than the same behavior from a classmate, a professor or a supervisor.    Bluntly, "being empowered" in this situation is a different way of saying "listen to your gut."  If telling the guy at the lab table behind you that you don't want to overhear explicit stories of his sexual exploits sounds like the right response, it is the right response.  An undergraduate might choose to ignore a single issue with a professor that might be harassment as long as it doesn't reoccur - or they might feel the best option is to say to the professor that that interaction made them uncomfortable - or they might need to report the interaction through the college's system. 

I don't know how Harvey Weinstein's associates justified dismissing Weinstein's reputation, but I suspect the process was pretty similar to how Geoffrey and Victoria Botkin managed to miss Doug Phillip's skeevy behavior when it benefited their family.  The family made at least one podcast based on their trip to Boston in 2009 for Vision Forum's Reformation 500 where Anna Sofia and Elizabeth got to do cos-play under the guise of representing important women in the Reformation.  A variety of bloggers from both the upper-class royalty of Vision Forum and the working class supporters describe how chummy the Botkin and Phillips families were - so how did the paragons of virtue in the Botkin family miss Doug Phillip's predilection to molest their nanny?
  (Side note: the description of Anne Boleyn's execution as being caused by her support for the Protestant religion in England is a hoot. A more accepted reading was that her inability to give birth to a healthy son doomed her to fall the internecine power-plays of the court...)

This last quote is sad simply because the Botkin Sisters confuse feminism with the daily restrictions they place on themselves as members of a cult:

With all its promises of strength and liberation, feminism leaves women in the ultimate bondage, the bondage to their own natural sinful tendencies. Bondage to the fear that says, “I just can’t.” To the apathy that says, “It’s not worth it.” To the ambition that says, “It would be OK to trade my principles for success.” To the pragmatism that says, “What would it profit me if I think about my soul and lose the whole world?”

I'm sure the Botkin Sisters know fear; they believe they are too gullible to discern the difference between a potential rapist and a potential suitor.  They believe that listening to a college lecturer who is an atheist discuss any topic will cause them to lose their belief system.  They believe they need their father to dictate where, when, and with whom they go places. 

I'm sure the Botkin Sisters know apathy; descriptions of their busy life is somewhat less than the amount of work, fun, family time and community responsibility that an adult woman has - split across two single women.  I managed to keep up my blog while caring for a medically complex newborn; I have no idea why the Botkin Sisters can't do theirs except apathy or burnout.

We've already discussed how the Botkin Family has chosen silence to maintain their standing in the CP/QF society - so deriding other people's ambition is hypocritical.

Pragmatism - I would say that the Botkin Sisters have made a pragmatic choice.  To enjoy their lifestyle, they've passed up any opportunity to serve among the lost, forsaken, and hurting of the world so that they can be safely ensconced in the Botkin Family enclave.  By not reaching out, the Sisters avoid running into any of the inconvenient moments when life challenges their deeply beloved thoughts and actions.  After all, deviating from Geoffrey Botkin's plan means that they would risk having to support themselves like adults - so pragmatism dictates that it's better to skimp on following Jesus than risk losing their paycheck. 

Maidens of Virtue: Scrapbooking Hell

I have a confession to make.  I hate scrapbooking with a passion that I generally reserve for important matters.   My mother-in-law made one good-hearted and genuine attempt to sell me on the joys of making scrapbooks soon after I married.   She loves scrapbooking and hoped it would be something we could do together.  I made it clear that was never going to happen.   I have a hard time explaining exactly why I hate it - but let me give it a shot.

• With mild cerebral palsy, using scissors to cut little shapes out of colored papers is physically painful when the muscles in the palms of my hands cramp up and exasperating because I will have a spasm that causes the scissors to cut in the wrong place destroying the shape.  
• I like looking at photos.  I like arranging and curating descriptions for photos if needed.  Adding a bunch of doo-dabs and frills around the photo distracts from the photos themselves in my opinion.  
• Those doo-dabs and frills seem insanely expensive especially since the final project must be carefully protected from all forms of liquid or oil or light. 

I think most of these issues boil down to the fact that I arrange my home on utilitarian principles. That's my fancy way of  saying I don't like knick-knacks or purely decorative items that require more care than being hung on a wall and dusted every few months.   I add color and interest by purchasing or making visually interesting functional items.  I crocheted a three-color interlocking block patterned afghan made with 7 bold colors to add a splash of color to my beige apartment; it looked good and was warm.   I made a wall of metal hooks in our kitchen to hang pans, skillets, strainers and oddly shaped utensils; it's visually catching and freed up a lot of space in the cupboards.  The central decorative focus in bedrooms is a brightly colored or intricately patterned quilt; they are easy to swap out for guests and provide lots of warmth in an old farmhouse.

Keep this in mind as we slog through the scrapbook section; it's pretty close to my version of hell.

The scrapbook appendix starts with a nostalgic fable about how current maidens will someday show their scrapbook of purity to their grandkids:

"This is the scrapbook your mother and I made together during our Maidens of Virtue study. She was 14 and so full of questions. I felt terribly ill equipped to teach her since no one had ever taught me. As God faithfully revealed his truth to us both, I learned what it means to be a true maiden of virtue by watching God create one- your mother."

Elizabeth hugged her grandmother tightly. " Grandma!" she cried, " I want to become a maiden of virtue just like Mommy was. Do you think that's why Daddy wanted to marry her so much?"

" Yes, Elizabeth, I think your mother's purity and virtue probably had quite a bit to do with your father's interest in her." She smiled. (pg. 195)

First, I enjoy how Stacy McDonald manages to imply that Grandma was a sexual pervert; after all, Grandma had never been a "Maiden of Virtue".  (Also, I read "Maiden of Virtue" in a combination superhero-Oprah voice which makes the entire experience more pleasant.)

Second, don't marry a guy who is interested in your "purity".   That's a sign of abnormal psychology and you don't want to get into that mess.

Third, my husband's grandmother who recently passed away had been married to Opa for 66 years.  He first saw her on a boat passing under a bridge in the Netherlands.  He turned to a friend of his and asked "Hey, who's woman with the great knockers?"  (*After many detailed discussions with native Dutch speakers, the general consensus is that the closest English terms for breasts would be "tits", "knockers" or "hooters" depending on region.)  The well-endowed woman was the friend's younger sister - and Opa lost his ride home.  To this day, he swears it was worth walking 4 miles (and pissing off his friend) to find out who that lovely young woman was.   Their marriage survived living in two different countries where they didn't speak the language, four children and the problems of farm life - so I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the importance of "purity" in a marriage partner.

Virtue, on the other hand, is important - but only if it includes the virtues of patience, forbearance, courage, justice, faith (in the broader sense of believing in goals larger than self), hope and love.  If virtue is being used as a signal word for "I'm sexually inexperienced, see the third section.

Apparently, a major part of making the scrapbook of a "Maiden of Virtue" is forcing yourself to enjoy one specific style of femininity as evidenced by this strangely detailed list of ideas for page decorations:

Antique engravings or illustrations from books beautiful, feminine images cut out of old stationary, calendars, or greeting cards ( examples: flowers, babies, leaves, herbs, dresses, ladies, carriages, perfume bottles, bonnets, Victorian-style letters and graphics, teacups, teapots, baking scenes, and cottages) (pg. 197)

Yeah.  The Victorian Era - especially for middle/upper class women - is my version of hell.  I can visualize what that scrapbook page looks like and I want to consign the page to a bonfire.

What is the purpose of idolizing this anyways?  A young woman can fill a scrapbook with pictures of hoop-skirts, ball gowns and bonnets, but she's not going to spend her life wearing them especially if she's from the lower income levels of CP/QF.  I enjoy flower arranging, growing herbs and cooking - but making a scrapbook page of those things doesn't increase a girl's skill level in those areas nearly as much as actually doing those things.

Probably not allowed to make the babies look like they're getting drunk on perfume bottles that look like tiny flasks, huh?  And yet....that's what mine would have looked like.

Final note: Please don't destroy real books to make a scrapbook; that's gross and short-sighted.

The next series of projects is categorized under "Memory Making Projects" - but one of the projects feels a lot like a biography report I did in 4th-6th grade:

Memory making projects

Read a biography, or glean information from the encyclopedia or Internet about her life. Make sure you use the sources and take plenty of notes. Write down specific anecdotes or sketches from her life. Was she married? How many children did she have? Will she persecuted or murdered for her faith? What makes you think she was a Godly woman? (...)

Lady Jane Grey

Katie Luther

Corrie Ten Boom

Sarah Edwards

Susanna Wesley

Anne Bradstreet

Elizabeth Prentiss

Florence Nightingale

Your mother or grandmother

a Godly Titus 2 woman in your life (pgs. 201-202)

Good luck finding a biography, reference book or online encyclopedia on your mother, grandmother or that nice lady from your church. 

I ran quick internet searches for the other ladies - there's plenty of information on all of the women (especially if you recognize "Katie Luther" as Katharina Luther or Katharina von Bora) except Sarah Edwards.  She was the wife of Jonathan Edwards who preached "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God".  All I could scratch together on her was the fact that she was married to Edwards who was impressed by her piety and that they had eleven children.  I suppose Mrs. McDonald may view that as an adequate amount of information to scatter on a page among pictures of children playing with flowers in carriages with Gothic font - but I wouldn't send a kid off after such a scantly researched person.  Of course...she might have meant Esther Edwards Burr.  The third daughter of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards, she left behind a series of letters in a journal that describe her life and theological leanings.

I wonder if it is by design that the two women who were unmarried and childless were Ten Boom (who is about the only person on the list I would recommend a kid research because she's awesome) and Florence Nightingale.  I've got no beef with Nightingale - but I doubt McDonald has really looked into her actual life accomplishments in statistics, epidemiology, and professionalizing nursing compared to the romantic myth of "The Lady with the Lamp".

Mrs. McDonald has a thing about baths and cleanliness being next to godliness.  Enjoy this insanely detailed outline of how to make a page about the joys of bathing.

Powdered and perfumed

Create a "Powdered and Perfumed" page. Find Scripture verses pertaining to cleanliness and purity, and place them in hand-drawn "bath bubbles." Write out short statements that were meaningful to you during the section of study. Be sure to communicate why you think cleanliness is important.

Use graphics, photos, stickers, or drawings of things pertaining to the bath. Decorate further with dried lavender, rose petals, or decorative soap wrappers.

Graphic or drawing suggestions:

Old fashioned bathtub, shampoo bottles, perfume bottles, herbs, soap, towels, bubbles, bathroom, Victorian dressing down, vanity table, slippers, rubber duck, scrub brush, water faucet, clotheslines, wash bucket. (pg. 203-204)

I can see an immediate problem for me.  I do not own and do not want to own decorative soaps - or the wrappers they are sold in.    I'm sure there are ways to place decorative soap wrappers in a scrapbook tastefully, but mine would end up being crumpled messes held in place with Scotch tape.  Eventually, the wrappers would drop into the lap of unsuspecting victims like a mis-sized glitter bomb.

Earlier, Mrs. McDonald rightfully pointed out that floral material needs to be stored in waxed paper envelopes within the scrapbook.  Decorating the bath section with rose petals and lavender will both hasten the breakdown of the scrapbook from acids within the plants and attract a fascinating series of mites.  (Ask me how I know...)

The repeated descriptions of lotions, soaps and powders are making my skin itch.....

The best way to normalize a new, strange ritual is to include descriptions of a daughter pledging her heart to her father over and over and over:

A daughter's heart

Compose a poem or letter to your father describing your trust in his guidance. Let him know by your words that you are committed to remaining pure and are thankful for his protection and leadership.

You could take the idea from chapter 18 and plan to give a symbolic " heart" to your father as a gift. www.jamesavery.com has various unique and reasonably priced heart charms to choose from. Ask your mother if she is interested in contributing to your project by buying a chain or pin from which the charm can dangle. It will be a great blessing for him to have a reminder that you have willingly surrendered your "heart" to him.

Make a "kingly protector" scrapbook page. Fill it was father-daughter momentos. Include poems, letters, photos, postcards, or other reminders of your relationship. Be sure to include special photos of the giving or receiving of heart charms, promise rings, or other symbolic gifts. (pg. 204)

I laugh every time I think of the poor fathers whose daughters stumbled into EmoPure themselves who get this insane letter from their daughters.  I suspect that if I had handed that letter to my dad, either he - or more likely my mom - would have had a serious sit-down talk with me about....dunno really.....growing up?  Being an adult? Not letting fear control my life?  The creepiness of an Electra complex? 

Much to my surprise, the www.jamesavery.com site is still fully operational - but hardly what I would call affordable for most CP/QF families.  The cheapest heart charms are $30.00 each.  I also cannot find any masculine jewelry that could hold a heap of heart charms. 

How many letters can you fit on a scrapbook page?  One?  For families in which the father doesn't do long distance travel, how many letters or postcards do dads write to their kids?   Of course, mine would be decorated with scraps of theatrical lighting gels that I purloined interspaced with Canadian coins and bills. When I was a kid, I was fascinated by lighting gels - but I wasn't allowed to play with them because the oils on hands can degrade the material... so I collected the tiny scraps leftover from burnt gels from my Dad's productions.   Dad took a yearly trip to Stratford, Canada with his high school students to watch a well-done Shakespeare play.  He brought us back souvenirs - but my favorite was always the far-cooler Canadian coins.   Long live the loonies and toonies!

Courtship and marriage
 Write a short letter to God indicating your trust in him and that you are committed to remaining faithful to your future spouse (whether a husband or the Lord, if God calls you to remain unmarried). Decorate it with beautiful fonts, stickers, flowers or other embellishments, and place it in your scrapbook. Include Scripture that relates to purity, trust, faithfulness, contentment, and joy. Pray that God will guard your future husband's heart and help him to remain pure in thought and deed for you as well. Ask the Lord to bless your womb and give you children to train up for his glory.

Warning! Be careful to guard your heart against of obsessing. Remember that God is sovereign and it is possible he may call you to single maidenhood. Remember, God will not only equip and give you special grace for whatever he calls you to do, he will also give you joy in it! Therefore, be content. Ask your mother if she feels it is wise for you to do this project. If it might cause you to fall into temptation, it is better that you skip this one. (pg. 204)

Warning!  This is a bad idea.  If young women are following this advice literally, they are stuck writing a strangely divided letter that declares their trust in God who will decide if they should marry or stay single - but the girl would really appreciate it if God keeps her future husband's heart pure...and blesses her womb with kids....unless she's going to be single. 

I don't know which would be worse - coming upon this letter years later as a SAHD in her late thirties who expected to be a mother celebrating her 15th anniversary by this point or coming upon this letter as an unhappily married woman who is feeling trapped because of her large family and few job prospects.

We have one post left in this series: A series of ridiculously shallow questions on the great classic novel "Jane Eyre" by Charlotte Bronte!