Making Great Conversationalists: Chapter 10 - Part Three

Subbing for a few middle school classrooms last week brought back memories of how new, wonderful and completely exasperating the waves of adolescent emotion are.  Watching and dealing with pre-teens and young teenagers was rather tiring for me - but that's nothing compared to the exhaustion that comes from managing the sudden thirst for independence that hits right around the time that young people first look at another person in their age group and think, "I really want to kiss them!"  One of my strongest memories was of a substitute teacher we often had.  Most of the other students didn't like her because she was rather strict, but I liked her because she generally brought a knitting or crocheting project to keep her hands busy.  In other words, pre-teen Mel saw a kindred spirit.   One of my compatriots asked her if she missed being in junior high.  Without missing a stitch, she laughed and said "Never.  No one could pay me enough to be a junior high school student again. I know well meaning people are always telling you that you have it made - no job, free schooling, no worries - but I found junior high to be one of the most frustrating and least enjoyable experiences of my life.  High school was better.  College was much better - but being an employed adult was far better than any of those times."   Hearing that was such a relief to me!  I wanted to do more, to know more, to be more - but I didn't know if I was ever going to feel less haphazard, lost and angst-ridden.  What if the rest of my life I kept feeling like I did at 11 or 12 or 13 - but picked up more responsibilities?  Would I ever be able to talk to a boy without turning beet-red and alternating between awkward silence and a torrent of words?  Would a boy ever like me?  Would I find a boy that I liked - and who liked me?

Everything felt completely overwhelming at the time - but looking back 25 years later I have to admit that the substitute teacher's statement that junior high sucks was dead-on.  Academics got harder as time went on, but I also became much more skilled in logic, mathematics, critical thinking, research, writing and speaking so the overall process was easier.   Working at a job did bring different demands, but even being a bagger-utility-worker-janitor brought a feeling of satisfaction and spending cash.   As I became more skilled at communicating with boys I was attracted to, I realized in hindsight that I probably could have gone on "dates" - such as they were - with 4-5 of my classmates in junior high if I had recognized the fact they were attracted to me.  The biggest breakthrough I made in my life was realizing that if I avoided romantic relationships to prevent the pain of a broken heart, I'd end up suffering more pain by closing down otherwise healthy, happy relationships.  I'd be paying interest on a debt that never came due.   Equally important was the realization that broken hearts heal.  I've had more crushes than I can remember, more first dates than I can remember easily, and a handful of long-term relationships.  Obviously, all of those except one ended.   Sometimes I was crushed, but the pain does fade over time.

Presumably if you ask Steven and Teri Maxwell or Geoffrey and Victoria Botkin to honestly recount their romantic experiences prior to marrying their spouse, you'd get a story not dissimilar to mine.  Lots of crushes, some dating experience, dating your future spouse and eventually marrying your spouse is a pretty standard trope.   And yet, they state that the dating process has ruined marriages beyond repair.  They've created an alternate, non-standard form of romantic pairing known as "courtship" that is supposed to protect the hearts and bodies of their kids prior to marriage - but the track record on protecting hearts, protecting bodies and finding suitable marriage partners is shaky at best.  The Maxwells have married off four of their sons, leaving one son and three daughters unmarried.  The Botkins have fared worse with three married sons along with two unmarried sons and two unmarried daughters.  Sons have a better chance at marrying for a few reasons.  Males are allowed to earn a living which takes them out of the family enclave into the wider world where they can meet eligible women.  Males are allowed to initiate courtships without the involvement of their families of origin.  The reproductive penalty of age is much weaker for men than women so that a CP/QF man who decides to marry at age 35 could still have a very large family if he marries a woman in her early twenties.  For example, Sarah Maxwell's brother Christopher married a woman nearly 10 years younger than him when he was 32 and they currently have 5 children.   Meanwhile, Sarah is unmarried at 36.

I bring this up because the Maxwells use the end of Chapter 10 to harp on the importance of deciding in advance how unmarried children should deal with conversations with people of the opposite gender.  The Maxwells try to seem impartial, but based on the stories they chose to share, they show a tendency towards preventing communication between girls and boys.  Let's move into the quotes:

We encourage families to discuss and to set guidelines for boy/ girl conversations. Some think nothing of girls initiating conversations with boys or vice versa. Other say that they shouldn't be allowed until the young people are ready for courtship. Some families only want their children involved in conversations with the opposite gender once a courtship is started. (pg. 170)

The first memorable fact in this quote for me was the fact that the guidelines that my husband, myself, and everyone I know from our generation who is happily married was completely skipped over.  My parents didn't worry about me talking to boys.  I could initiate the conversation or the guy could.  They trusted that my crushes of my tween and early teen years wouldn't kill me - and emotional purity wasn't on their radar.  Actually, it was barely on anyone's radar since "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" wasn't written until 1997 when I was a 9th or 10th grader.

The second interesting idea for me was how absolutely silent our junior high years would have been if only guys were allowed to initiate conversations with girls.  Looking back, there were two...perhaps three.... guys in my class of 34 6th graders who might have been brave enough to start a conversation with a girl.  Not letting girls start conversations with boys is crazily archaic - and I'm pretty sure it would make a church youth group an ice-cold war zone with all of the girls staring wistfully at boys who are mostly oblivious to the romantic longings of the boys.  Since the girls can't talk to the boys to realize that the boys are just not that into them yet, the girls would end up jockeying for position with other girls to catch the boy of their dreams.

CP/QF land has a truism - no matter how crazy one idea is, there is someone who holds a more extreme idea that make the first crazy idea seem sane.  Teaching daughters to let guys lead a conversation seems surprisingly sane compared to making them wait to talk to boys until the teens are courtship age....or actively in a courtship.   I'm assuming most families put off courtship until a teen is of marriageable age so I'm thinking there are families that instruct their teenagers to avoid conversations with the opposite sex until age 18-20.  For the Maxwell males, courtship age is based mainly on their ability to own a home outright which means they can't court until they are in their early 20's.   Many people put off dating seriously until at least their early twenties - but I've never met anyone who avoided conversations with the opposite sex before then.  I'm sure people of certain groups who prefer extremely structured arranged or semi-arranged marriages do that, but I've never known someone from one of those groups well. 

Putting off any conversation with the opposite sex until a young adult is in a courtship sounds like a recipe for disaster for fundamentalist Christians.   The leaders creating the courtship models are trying to force the most extreme form of parental involvement available in arranged marriages along with highly chaperoned interactions with the opposite sex without changing the US narrative that people fall in love first and get married second.  Let's write out what that looks like in the ideal outcome: two extremely sheltered young people who have had very little experience outside of their own family system are talking to each other trying to decide if they should get married.  That would be insanely awkward at best - and a total train wreck at worst.

For any poor deluded souls who think like I do, the Maxwells spell out the possible consequences:

Please realize that there can be dangers with boy / girl conversations. While it starts innocently, heart attachments can easily grow. That is a total unknown when of the first conversations occur. Many grieving parents have come to us when a child has become emotionally and then sometimes physically involved. That could have been avoided if the family had boy/girl conversation policies in place and adhered to. (pg. 171)

The Maxwells must have much looser standards for physical intimacy than I do.  I can safely say that I've talked to a few hundred thousand men in my life between school, church and, oh yeah, working as a cashier/bagger/pharmacy clerk/ men's department clerk for eight years.  Of all of those men, I probably went on dates with 15 of them total and have had sex with one of them.   In other words, talking with a guy - even an attractive, funny, smart, kind guy - is not even associated with sexual activity in my life let alone a causal effect. 

The emotional purity component is even stupider.  Why are romantic attachment the only form of relationships that "give pieces of your heart away"?  The only time I've felt like I lost a chunk of my heart is when I had my younger brother die and when my best friend died.   I have fallen deeply in love with men other than my husband and the break-up of those relationships hurt - but even that pain paled in comparison to losing a sibling and a friend who was like a sister to me.   

I love my husband in a way that is similar to and yet completely different than the ways I loved other men.  We had that whole infatuated-walking-on-air-he's-the-bestest-person-ever phase that I've had with other men - but my husband is the only person I've built a life with.   We own a home together.  We've weathered career changes together.  We've cared for elderly relatives together.  We produced an amazing child whom we are raising together.   None of those life-giving activities have been undermined by the fact that we had kissed other people (and each other) before we married. 

Our last vacation together before our son was born was a trip up to Mackinac Island.  We had both been there previously with other people we were dating - and our trip together was phenomenal!  Being up their gave us a chance to share all of our previous memories with each other and create new ones.  Awesome new memories like trying to help a guy in a rented surrey get his understandably confused horse to turn left.  See, the guy was reining his horse in and holding the reins out to the left which made the horse stop while failing to signal the horse to go left.  We explained that he needed to release the reins so the horse could move its head, then gently pull the left rein back so the horse could move her head to the left and her body would follow.   My husband and I started encouraging the horse to move left by talking calmly, but firmly to her like "Hey, now, boss* now.  Let's go left, girlie.  There you go.  Goooood, boss. Gooood, boss" while pointing left.  The horse looked relieved like "Oh, Thank you, Horse God for sending these nice people to help the weird stranger to stop pulling my head back."  The horse was easing into a nice left turn when the driver decided to pull back on the reins again causing the horse to prop to a stop.   We wished him a nice day and wandered off since we only had so many times we were willing to help someone who wasn't listening to directions :-).   

Guess what?  That's a unique memory that I share with my husband that is completely different from my memories of other trips to Mackinac.  Corollary: If I am widowed or divorced someday, I may well remarry.  Visiting Mackinac with my second spouse would be equally awesome because we'd create our own memories separate from our previous relationships. 

I'm so over this EmoPure crap. 

In case there was any question about where the Maxwells fall on the spectrum, they included this lovely guideline from some other family shared with them.

Here's an example one family shared with us on the boundaries they place on the boy / girl conversations for their family. " When we hand out tracts or do any ministry, we always pair the children. Even in business, we try to have Isaac talk with a male customers and Morgan with the female customers. We know there could be danger with lengthy conversations with those of the opposite gender." (pg. 171)

*blinks*

Here's a conversation that's never happened to me in 8 years of customer service:

Me: "Hello!  Did you find everything you needed today?"

Customer: "I sure did!  You are so great!"

Me: "That's great.  Can I interest you in a fountain pop?"

Customer: "I love you so much!  I want to spend my life with you!"

Me: "......so that's a "no" on the pop, I guess."

Customer: "Ha, ha, ha!  No pop - just a lifelong romance with you!"

Me: "Huh.  I could do worse, I guess.  Let's have sex.  I'm scheduled for a break in 20 minutes."

Yeah, that's palpably absurd - but it's the type of situation that the Maxwells and Maxwellite followers imply will happen if Morgan is allowed to give out tracts to men or Isaac answers a woman's questions at his family's business.    I'm starting to believe that the CP/QF folk have much lower boundaries for sexual activity to occur since they live in dread fear that their kids will have sex with random business customers if left to their own devices.

Good news: The end of this book is rapidly approaching!

*I'm really not a horse person, but I'm aware the term "boss" is supposed to be used for cows, not horses.  Since I spend most of my time around cows, "boss" just slipped out.  Ironically, most of the people who staff stables during the busy season on Mackinac Island are ex-Amish or Mennonites who speak Pennsylvania Dutch so the horse visibly relaxed when I said "boss" because the professional teamsters pronounce "horse" as "hoss"....so from the horse's point of view I must know what I was doing.

Making Great Conversationalists - Chapter Seven

After two weeks of working outside of the house again (YAY! YAY! YAY!), I can confirm a sneaking suspicion of mine surrounding Steven and Teri Maxwell's book "Making Great Conversationalists".  The Maxwells have created a problem by severely restricting homeschooled children's chances to talk to other people - and are now profiting by selling a book on how to correct the problem they created.  That feels something the horrifyingly dysfunctional Bluth family would pull off - or the craven capitalist Montgomery Burns on the Simpson - rather than something a nominally Christian family would do.   I've been working with kids from age 8-19 from a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, ability levels and English fluency - but all of the kids were capable of starting a conversation without needing extensive teaching.

That's one of the benefits of traditional schooling methods.  Most societies encourage kids and teens to interact and form relational bonds with other kids and teens.  These bonds benefit communities because most teenagers will eventually marry other teenagers and form economic entreprises with other teens.  Peer-to-peer bonds provide a form of insurance against bad events in the future.  For example, women in the Hidsa people formed sororal bonds with girls of a similar age.  If a woman was ill or recovering from childbirth when her garden was supposed to be planted, her sororal sisters would plant the garden for her - just as she would do for them. 

A side-benefit of being expected to spend time among unrelated peers is learning how to talk to other people.   Dumping a bunch of toddlers together means that the toddlers will eventually use words to work out who gets what toy or what game they want to play.  From there, it's just a natural progression of adding new topics while teaching societal expectations.  The first part of Chapter Seven is about teaching "beginning" conversationalists about basic US norms for non-verbal cues during conversations.   Kids are expected to look the person who is speaking in the eye and smile.  I have no problem with those conventions per se - but they are not universal.   I've worked with international students from diverse areas where the convention of looking directly at an authority figure and smiling while they talk is viewed as being disrespectful and rude.   Since the Maxwells are supposed to train their kids to convert people to Christianity all over the world, they probably should introduce the concept of cultural norms early on....

The Maxwells move on to the idea that kids should speak slowly and clearly.  I agree - but again, this is an issue that the Maxwells' obsession with extreme sheltering created.   In a traditional school setting, kids pick up pacing and volume control naturally over time.  When kids speak too fast, their friends can't understand the words and the kid slows down.   Yup, kids occasionally need tweaks, but parents aren't doing all the work of teaching kids to speak more slowly and calmly.  At the end of this section, Teri Maxwell includes an intriguing quote from her mother:

Recently, I (Teri) was talking to my mom and sharing the section with her. Immediately she said, " Please tell your readers to let their children answer when someone is interested in the in their children to ask them a question. So often when I try to talk to a child, his parents will answer for him rather than letting him speak for himself." (pg. 115)

I...have never had that experience.  My general experience with talking with small children is one of two outcomes.   Outcome one is that I ask the kid a question and the kid responds.  Outcome two is that the kid has no response when I ask them the question and after a long-ish pause the parent answers the question.   I've not known many parents who jump in to answer a question before their kid has had a chance to answer. 

There is a tad more ironic possibility.  Steven Maxwell has stated frequently in this book that he dislikes it when his kids act like knowledgeable experts in areas where the other person knows more than the kid does.  Maxwell has created many dialogues in this book that imply that the main purpose of children's conversation is to keep the conversation on topics of interest to their father and listen rapturously as the father holds forth on his personal favorite topics.   Finally, Maxwell seems to live in dread fear of being embarrassed by his kids talking like a normal kid.   With that background, I wonder how often Steven Maxwell answers questions for his kids when asked by his mother-in-law.  Maxwell doesn't strike me as a person who handles a request to change his habit gracefully - so maybe his mother-in-law took a different method of passing on a request.

The worst advice comes in a section about dealing with shyness.   The Maxwells seem to take shyness as a person insult instead of a passing stage that many kids go through - and also age out of.  The first bit from that section is odd, but most likely harmless advice:

This is also an important time to teach your children to rely on the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives. They aren't the ones responsible for coming up with an answer to a question. The Lord will do that for them. (pg. 115)

Mmmm-kay.  That's strange advice.  First, what does it mean when an observant, saved kid has one of those moments when their mind blanks out during an attack of social anxiety?  As a kid, I would have been terrified that the Holy Spirit was mad at me or was somewhere else.   Second, how the hell do all of us unsaved folks manage to talk?  I'm religious - but I'm not saved under the Maxwell/Botkin/CP/QF theory of salvation.  In spite of that, I'm delightfully chatty!  I have a point of personal pride that I can talk to any willing person about a topic of interest to them for as long as they want to talk - but how can I have that skill if I'm unsaved?   Finally, why would the Lord have two or more saved people talk to each other anyways?  That would literally be the Lord holding both sides of the conversation....

The next bit of advice is a quick refresher on how to be a helicopter parent in case any of the readers have forgotten:

You could talk to the adult beforehand, explaining how you are working with your child and what you are trying to teach him. Give me adult two or three questions to ask your child that you will have had your child practice giving answers for. That way your child will have extra confidence because when the question is asked, he will know the answer. (pg.116)

Or....and I'm just spit-balling here....the parent could practice the 3-4 most common topics that adults ask kids they know.   If the nervous kid knows how to answer "How is school going?", "How is (choose an after-school activity) going?",  "Do you have pets?" and a stock response for "Wow! I like your item of clothing!", the kid should be golden for over 90% of conversation starters from adults.  If this is a kid in the real world, adding "What do you like to do/watch on TV/read/favorite movie?" covers 99% of the conversation starters. 

I bring this up repeatedly - but how many of the issues in conversations for excessively sheltered homeschooled kids come from lack of exposure to any activity of wider interest?   When families are prevented from doing sports, theater, dance, watching TV, movies, listening to most music and highly restricted in reading habits, they've reduced their kids down to a handful of topics to talk about.  Since many of these families are also paranoid that the government is going to crack down on homeschooling, I suspect many of the kids have picked up some level of nervousness around talking about school.  By my count, that leaves pets as a safe topic of conversation....

The last quote clarifies that shyness is a sin:

Prepare the children ahead of time for answering questions they are asked. Don't excuse shyness. Don't even use the word! If your child refuses to speak, treated as a discipline issue just as you would treat any other disobedience. Do not discipline in public, however, but keep the discipline for when you are home, whether it is a simple verbal correction or a consequence. If you allow a child to choose not to speak when spoken to, you facilitate that behavior. Their disobedience is a symptom of a heart that isn't willing to listen to you or follow you. (pg.116

To be clear, the Maxwells believe that if parents want their kids to talk in public, the kids should do it - and failure to do so is disobedience which is a sin.   Presumably, the converse is also true - if parents don't want their kids to speak in public, kids who do so are sinning and should be punished. 

The problem with this belief is two-fold. 

First, social anxiety is a real thing.  When I was a kid and a strange adult asked me questions, my mind would go blank and I'd hear a loud buzzing in my ears.  I wanted to respond as smoothly and well as my parents did - but I literally couldn't do it.   My parents were sympathetic; they gave me time to answer and if I couldn't, they answered the question for me.  That took the stress off of me - and generally let me respond to the next question or ask a question of my own once my body settled down a bit.   They also told me to watch how they interacted with other adults and mimic that.  That was a great tip for me; I find practice conversations stilted - but watching my parents let me connect stimuli found in real life.   This is a pretty common story among shy or timid people; you want to be involved - but your body gets in the way. 

Understanding and patience is helpful.  Having parents who both support you - and challenge you within reasonable limits - is helpful, too.  In my case, while my parents knew I struggled at the first exchange with a strange adult, they expected me to be able to greet them with a polite "Hello" and say goodbye as well.  They gave me positive feedback when I joined the conversation.

If my parents had punished me in any way, I believe my social anxiety would have gotten worse over time rather than better.   It was hard enough to push through when I was anxious, but I knew my parents had my back.  If I was anxious and knew I was disappointing my parents and that I would be punished....well, yeah, I'd be even more blank....and probably progress into a crying ball of Mel.  That'd be impressive to the poor adult who asked me how school was going....

The other problem is the Maxwell belief that parents have the unquestioned right to control their children's every action.   That's completely nuts - and totally insane coming from parents of eight children.   My son is a whopping 18 months adjusted and I can't control his every action!  Honestly, I would never try that.  Right now, I demonstrate appropriate social customs like saying "Hi!" "Bye!" and waving at people.  Sometimes my son mimics me by saying "Hi, car!" or "Hi, cat!" and he's just started waving spontaneously when he sees people - but I'd never try and reinforce that through negative consequences.   I let the natural positive consequences happen like when he waves at a cashier the cashier smiles at him and verbally reinforce that behavior by saying "Oh, it's so nice when you wave at people!". 

I want my son to be a functional member of society - but I also want him to be able to follow his gut, too.  That means that he's allowed to have people he likes and dislikes.  That means he can say "no" to a hug from a family member and offer a handshake instead.  That means he can choose not to talk to random strangers - even if doing so would make me proud. 

The rest of the chapter rehashes topics covered previously so I'm going to stop there.   The next chapter is really short.  The Maxwells try to create an "intermediate" level of conversation and fail miserably.  The most memorable bit for me - and presumably you - is the list of questions that kids should be taught to ask each other...and adults.

Making Great Conversationalists: Chapter Six - Part Two

Everyone survived the goofy conversational start to Chapter Six, I hope.  I wish I could tell you that the chapter improves immensely from there, but this is written by the Maxwells. 

 "Making Great Conversationalists" by Steven and Teri Maxwell rarely brings helpful advice or sensible activities.  This strange lack of useful information, however, is off-set by quirky insights into their writing process or the general rhythms of their lives.  In Chapter Six, the Maxwells decide to answer the question "Can Conversational Skills Be Taught?" .   I agree that teaching conversational skills is possible and an admirable goal - but I question the wisdom of waiting to answer the question until page 96 of a 200 page book.  I think I would enjoy the book more if the Maxwells admitted at this point that they personally are not the people to each this skill.

With the standard absence of transition between subjects, the Maxwells insert a page of rhetoric about why movies, television, video games, computers and books stifle conversation rather than promote it.  The crux of their argument is that when people are engrossed by media, they do not talk.  If someone interrupts them while they are engrossed by the media, the person will be shushed and conversation will be crushed. 

The problem I see with their logic is that good media either allows for conversations while being consumed or inspires topics of conversation after the media is done.   When I was college-aged, my teenage brother saved up and purchased an X-Box along with Mario-Karts.    Within a few months, my mom, my sister, my brother and I ended playing marathon sessions of Mario-Karts against each other.   We were capable of talking while playing Mario-Karts - although it was generally a series of rants about how horribly we were doing interspaced with hysterical laughing when one of us realized we were doing so badly that we were screwed.   

Now, my dad would join us when we went to see local theater.  Unlike video games, other audience members do appreciate silence during acts.  In exchange for two hours of silence, we gained hours of conversational material.   Most recently, Dad played Firs in Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard".   We've discussed the staging, casting, costume and lighting choices of the play - but the longest lasting topic of conversation is Anton Chekhov's surprise that a play he wrote to be a comedy is at best a tragicomedy...and most of the play is simply tragic.

The subject of the evils of modern media wraps up with a very detailed description of how Teri Maxwell always turns to see people who enter the room where her computer is and states that she needs to finish up before talking to the person if she cannot talk right away.   I am astonished by the detailed description of what should be a mundane and workaday habit related to common courtesy.  It's like the Maxwells have cut themselves so far off from most humans that they've forgotten which pieces of information are common - like the phrase "Gotta finish this; be with you in a minute, kiddo" - leading to them feeling like they've made a major breakthrough by being polite.

Speaking of being isolated from all people, the next section about ideas for good talking times with your kids contains no new ideas.  The only one I remembered after reading was the decent idea that some kids relax more when a parent lies on a bed with them.   The reason I remembered that is I ran into a set of pictures of the bedroom of the Maxwell "girls" where Sarah, Anna and Mary sleep.  Anna and Mary share bunk-beds that might not work so well for those two girls.

The benefits of setting up relaxing talking times evaporate if readers follow the questionable advice over the next two pages.  Steven Maxwell is all about having individual meetings with each kid once a week to talk.  If families followed that idea, I'd think it a bit hokey, but harmless.  The problem comes when people follow Maxwell's ideal of using those meetings to go over the personal failings of the kid with an occasional sop of pretending to take the kid's feedback about where Maxwell is currently failing.  I don't remember having major character flaws when I was growing up that required in-depth serious conversations weekly; if I did, the repeating nature of the conversations would make me nervous.

Once we've slogged this far in the chapter, we are rewarded with plans to carefully - oh, ever so carefully - allow kids to practice conversations with people outside of their family.  Let's be honest; this is crazy even for CP/QF families.  Most people let their kids interact with other kids at school, at church and in the neighborhood.   Not the Maxwells - and the control freak moments seep out.

You can also invite another person or family over from your church for dinner. It is certainly a bit easier if it is just one person, such as a young, single adult or a widow or widower. That allows the conversation to focus on that particular person so it doesn't have to be spread among a couple or a whole family. (pg. 102)

Imagine you are a teenager in a family of eight kids with two adults.   In which scenario would it be easier to talk: when one adult visitor is over for dinner or when a similarly large family is over for dinner?   Based on my experience, it's a lot easier to find a person to talk when there are lots of available people to talk with.  The only reason that I can think of for the Maxwells to restrict the visit to a single person is to control the access of their kids to conversation and possibly to control the conversation focus to remain on the parents.

As conversation experience grows, having a family from church over for dinner allows a greater degree of not only practice but also ministry. The girls can have conversations with the visiting daughters and mom while the boys engage the other families' sons and father. (pg. 102)

Goody-goody-gumdrops!  Once the kids have demonstrated that they will not spill deep family secrets or embarass the parents (like 5 year-old Cynthia when she didn't want to talk to a stranger), the kids will be allowed to interact cautiously with other like-minded families.  Now, I'm not sure how that would work for the Maxwell Family since they've always managed to skirt the theology mind field of home-church vs. joining a congregation by running a "congregation" that consists entirely over retired home aged-folks.   The best bit, though, is training kids early to not interact with kids of the opposite gender.   Romeo and Juliet can't be emotionally impure - let alone secretly married and having sex - if they've never spoken to each other, after all.

The next rung on the experience ladder will the conversations with non-believers. When you invite them into your house, you will be cautious to oversee conversations between them and your children. They will not have sensitivity to what a Christian would consider appropriate topics for children's ears. Parents can stop or forestall what they don't want their children to hear. (pg. 103)

Boy, I had so much fun imagining the type of non-believer that couldn't handle being around children or teens without launching into profanity, epic stories of drug use or hedonistic orgy stories - while also trying to figure out where the average CP/QF adherent would find this interesting of an adult.  And then I realized the problem: I was using the standards of mainstream USA to determine what stories are inappropriate for kids.   In Maxwell-land, I am a great example of a non-believer who could warp their kids.  I attended college - and liked it!  I have worked in a career - and found it beneficial!  I married late in life and *gasp* waited to have a baby for several years!  I watch TV! I believe in evolution!  Oh - there are so many ways I could contaminate their children...and I'd never even know.

Anytime your family is out in public, there are conversation possibilities. It could be talking to the checkout person while at the store. Maybe it is the teller at the bank when you stop by to do some banking. What about when you were waiting in line to return or purchase an item and there are people in front of you and behind? When you are out, be watchful for people with whom your children could begin a conversation, and help them initiate the conversation. (pg. 103)

Um.... yes.  That is a possibility - but why do the Maxwells need to explain this?  I generally strike up conversations with people in the wider world - and presumably my son will learn that from watching me like I learned it from watching my parents. 

The next chapter discusses teaching children how to have conversations....which is so weird.....

Making Great Conversationalists: Chapter Three - Part Two

The first post on the third chapter in "Making Great Conversationalists" by Steven and Teri Maxwell focused on the first meeting between two neighbors.  The ideal Maxwell conversation wallpapers over the fact that the new neighbor clearly bought a lemon of a house by either employing a ragingly incompetent inspector or doing the inspection themselves.   

The rest of the chapter alternates between implying that CP/QF homeschooling families don't really know anything about their kids while giving sample conversations that feel sinister since the ideal Maxwell conversation is as much about concealing information as sharing it. 

First up: undermine the last whiffs of self-confidence that the Maxwells' loyal clients might have in their parenting skills:

Within your family, how much do you really know about your children? How much do they know about you? How much do they know about their siblings? Does each love the others enough to open up his life to his family? (pg. 42)

Time out. 

I thought the main difference between homeschooled CP/QF families and the rest of us was that the CP/QF homeschool families had emotional family bonds that could not be replicated by families that spend eight hours apart everyday.  The spouses are bound rock-solidly together forever.  Each parent bonds deeply with their children who they spend mountains of unpressured time each day.  Meanwhile, all of the siblings are best friends with each other.   In exchange for giving up having friends outside of the family and most careers, families are guaranteed an idyllic, deep and satisfying family circle.

Heh.

Of course, if this lifestyle was so natural and God-ordained, the adherents wouldn't need to build so many boundaries between themselves and the rest of the universe. Teenagers and young adults would be able to meet their spouses through church friends or Christian singles groups and date.  Married men and women could trust themselves around people of the opposite sex without fearing an affair.  Mothers and fathers would get to their children simply as their parents - trusting that their life-long relationship had more weight than could be threatened by outside adults.    Women could take pleasure in career and family while allowing men the pleasure of helping keep a home and raising children.   Siblings would learn the truly complementary difference between siblings and best friends.

Or you can follow the Maxwell lead and decide that the only way to cement family bonds is to isolate your family from nearly everyone.

This next conversation between makes me wonder if this is what Lydia sounded like in her surprise courtship to Billy Hill - the one where she ended up sobbing a prayer on a run that God would let her fall in love before she married.

"Hi Ashley. How are you?" Amy asks.

" I'm really good. I have exciting news!"

" What's that?"

" I just started a courtship with Chad Swisher. My dad has been talking to him for months, and I never knew it. My dad just told me last night and asked if I wanted to enter a courtship with Chad."

"Ashley, I'm so happy for you. This will be a very exciting time for you and Chad. I'll add you to my prayer journal. I'd love to hear the whole story," Amy replies. (pg. 45)

Wowzer.

 So...Chad's been talking to Ashley's dad for months - MONTHS - about being allowed to court Ashley.  That's a heap of opportunity costs for Chad and Dad if Ashley replied, "I'm not that into Chad."  If a parent has a good relationship with their kid, the adult child can benefit from having parents who listen to how a romantic relationship is going and make sure that the romantic interest is a good person.   This only works as long as the adult child is more invested in the romantic relationship than the parent is.

Chad's been talking to Ashley's dad for months - and Ashley had no clue. I'm trying to figure out how this all went down.  The easiest way would be to pull a Jim Bob Duggar and screen guys long before the guy is allowed to meet the chosen daughter.  In that case, Ashley's dad's a control freak - but at least Ashley and Chad start a relationship on even footing.   What if Ashley already knew Chad?  Were Chad and her dad lying to her -directly or by omission - about their meetings?   I'd refuse to marry someone who could  lie to me for months even under the guise of protecting my "emotional purity".  Heck, my husband won the "Least Convincing Liar Ever" award for his performance the night he asked my parents for their blessing on asking me to marry him as part of his plan for a surprise proposal on his birthday.  He had been so nervous that the dinner went on way longer than he anticipated...because he kept pushing off asking them.   Well, this meant that I fell asleep on the couch of my apartment at 6:00pm expecting him to be there by 6:30pm - and woke up at 8:30pm with no boyfriend in site.  I got a hold of him and he apologized since he had gotten distracted while shopping but he'd be right over.  He gets to my apartment, I give him a big hug and a kiss, and ask cheerfully, "Where were you shopping that you got distracted for two hours? " expecting to hear about a new store.  My future husband turned as white as a sheet, is visibly sweating, and blurts out, "I can't tell you!".   I blink and respond, "Um....ok. "  That gives him time to start breathing again and slightly more smoothly he replied "After all, you have a birthday coming up..."   We got engaged later that week - and I've always taken some comfort in the fact that he's a pretty terrible liar.

Has Ashley had time to be with Chad as her...suitor?  (What do you call a romantic interest in a courtship anyway?)  Ashley and her dad had their big talk last night so I don't think she's had time to be around Chad since then if he works a standard schedule.  Perhaps courtships work best when the two people speak more to other people than they do to their romantic partners....

Later, the Maxwells wax poetic on the benefits of conversations in life:

Conversations open up a window into another's life. The quality and length of the conversation determines how wide that window is open. Our children's conversations with others will give spice to each day. Many spend precious time reading novels or watching movies, but conversations are true life, not made up fiction. We're able to talk to real people with real adventures, real needs, real hurts, and real joys. Conversations are wonderful opportunities to get a mind off of itself and onto others. (pg. 45)

About that: What are Maxwellian followers supposed to talk about?  Television, movies, theater, dancing, and the majority of books (and I'm assuming music) are off-limits along with all sports that Steven Maxwell doesn't personally like, most outdoor activities, gambling and alcohol.  For the women and homeschooled family members, the family was together during the day so that's not going to lead a lot of new, novel or spicy events to talk about over dinner.  Talking with your family all day sounds great - but if everyone's needs, hurts, adventures, and joys revolve around the same small group of people it doesn't take much for internecine warfare to break out.

I just realized that I feel that a lot of CP/QF households are like polar exploration voyages during the late 1800-early 1900's. Good planning and lots of money generally lead to a crew that can tolerate each other; poor planning or bad supplies devolve into hellish conditions. 

Before we dive into the last quote, think about all of the "good: conversations modeled so far by the Maxwells.  For all of their stilted, canned ways, the conversations do demonstrate that a good conversation involves communicating in a way allows all people in a conversation to stay engaged and active.   Think of that - and read this next "good" real-life conversation:

Recently 16 year old Mary and I (Teri) were returning a couple of items to Sam's Club. The customer service lady looked at Mary and asked her, "What grade are you in?"

Mary responded, " Tenth grade."

"Where are you planning to go to college?" the lady asked.

"I am not planning to go to college. I would like to be a wife and mother someday. In the meantime, I am studying art so I can illustrate children's books. I can do that at home and save all the money that college costs while not being exposed to the negative influences of college."

The grandmotherly customer service lady seemed a little surprised, but Mary had presented her case so well that her only reply was, "That's nice."

In a short conversation, Mary was able to clearly state her goals for her life and persuasively speak against the customary thinking that young people should go to college. She gave a very different view to this woman than what the lady was probably used to hearing. (pg. 49)

As a survivor of guest service work, let me divulge a secret.  "That's nice" with a look of surprise generally means "Are you on crack? What fresh hell is this? I don't get paid enough for this"

On the other hand, I think Teri Maxwell's motherly pride in Mary's response is sweet and loving.  That same maternal pride is why I know I can never homeschool my son (and any other children we're blessed with).  Maternal pride messes up your ability to look dispassionately at your own child's performance.

As an outsider, Mary's response was a conversation-killer, not a perfect response.  Mary has packed so many tropes from CP/QF surrounding the role of women in society, the role of education, the assumption that anything can be learned at home, and the decline of higher education  that the nice lady at Sam's is left gaping.   It's not considered polite to start arguing with a 16-year old at a guest service desk - and where would she even start? 

The kicker is that plenty of teens are not planning to go to college directly after high school - or ever.  Mary's statement of her future career plans only got really jarring when she added the bit about being a wife and mother in the middle.   If she dropped that along with the random dig about "negative influences at college", her response would be within the norms of conversations while signaling that she'd be willing to discuss studying art at home or her interest in illustrating children's books. 

The final awkwardness is that books can't erase passages a few years later.  Mary is now 22.  She has not gone to college, is not married and doesn't have any children.   She has illustrated two children's books - but they were written by her older sister and published by their parents' ministry-business.   So far, she's not making any headway on her goals.  I hope for her sake she'll make good on her dreams - but her family has not managed to find acceptable suitors for her two older sisters and using the three adult daughters as cheap, semi-skilled laborers benefits their parents and brothers so I'm not terribly optimistic.

Next post: Checked-out dads, teaching your kids to narc on each other properly, and nagging your friends to let their younger siblings hand out with you.  Good times.

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?

Making Great Conversationalists: Chapter One - Part Two

Before my son was born, I was a slightly-above average user of the medical system in the US.  I got an annual physical and a few same day appointments for rashes or various minor ailments that I was a bit concerned about.  Additionally, I'd need 2-3 urgent care visits for asthma, injuries or rashes that seemed to be going systematic.  (I'm a 21st level Eczema Goddess.)  About once every 5 years, one of my legs goes wonky and I return to physical therapy for a few weeks to a few months.

Since Jack's been born, I've become a medical appointment guru.  I've met so many specialists, generalists and therapists that I have difficulty listing them all.   Because of this, I feel plenty confident to discuss Steven and Teri Maxwell's odd take on "Making Great Conversationalists" at medical appointments.  Let's jump into the first "typical" example:

You are missing work to take your 14 year old son, Gerald, to a doctor because of a stomach ache he has had for the last week. You and he have been waiting in silence for 20 minutes, and now the doctor comes into the examination room.

" Hi, Gerald, my name is Dr. Grote. What can I do for you today?"

Gerald looks at you as if you were going to answer, but you nod so Gerald says, "Well, my stomach hurts."

" How long has it bothered you?" Doctor Grote queries.

" Well, I'm not sure, you know, ah, it's been a while," Gerald manages.

" It's a week yesterday, Doc," you add.

" Show me where it hurts and describe the pain."

" Right here, and it really hurts. You know?" Your son shows the doctor where it hurts.

" Would you describe it as sharp, aching, cramping, or throbbing pain?"

" Oh, maybe, no, let's see. I guess I'd say sharp," Gerald half mutters.

"Did it start quickly or gradually?"

" I don't know for sure." At this point, you are wondering what Doctor Grote thinks of your parenting skills when your teenager can't respond to him any better than this.(pg. 11)

Similarly to my critique of Cynthia's parent, the only person who is behaving neurotically in this sketch is Gerald's dad.  Personally, I foresaw that having children would mean taking them to a doctor from time to time - especially since minors need permission from a parent or guardian to receive most forms of medical treatment.  Similarly, if my spouse and I had more than one kid and both of us worked, fitting medical appointments into working schedules would require that the primary breadwinner would take time off every now and again for kids' medical appointments.  I feel like the queen of obvious for stating this - but parenthood brings mostly responsibilities and a handful of rights.  I know this - so why doesn't Steven Maxwell, the father of eight children?  His implication that Gerald's father has been greatly inconvenienced by taking his son for a needed medical appointment irritates the hell out of me.

Speaking of inconveniences - why is Gerald required to amuse his dad with conversation while Gerald's dealing with a long-term stomach ache? If I was nervous before a doctor's appointment, I tended to talk nonstop.  If I was actively feeling sick, on the other hand, I curled up into the most comfortable chair and tried to sleep until the medical assistant or doctor came in.   As I was typing this, I realized I'd never really thought of the amount of conversation I had when I was a waiting patient in a medical office.  My parents and spouse never seemed to care if I wanted to talk the entire time or attempt to sleep; they were fine either way.  This boggled my mind for a full minute before I remembered the obvious - none of us pride ourselves on being cut off from popular media.  If the sick person wanted to sleep, their driver would pull out a book, grab a magazine from the rack, enjoy the antics of healthy young children playing or watch the TV that was on.   There was no reason for the driver to be beholden on the sick person for entertainment (and expecting the sick person to do so would be viewed as childish, selfish or simply crass in my family.)

I am disturbed by the fact that a teenager still defers to his father before responding to a direct address from a doctor.  I went through a phase when I didn't know if doctors wanted to hear from me or my mom.  I was between the ages of 8-10 years old.   By the time I was a teenager, my parents had long convinced me that if the doctor addressed me that meant the doctor wanted to hear from me - not them.  Since married women don't work outside the home in CP/QF land, the parent accompanying Gerald can be assumed to be his father - and we can also assume that Dad hasn't been around 24/7 for the last week.    That's why I find Gerald's father's interruption to explain that Gerald's been sick for a week to be odd.   Gerald might have been sick for a week - or Gerald might have realized that he's been dealing with less severe, but similar symptoms for two weeks or two months.  That's why it's best to let the patient answer the question.  I've added additional information before when my husband (or parent) has been ill enough that I'm worried they missed part of the doctor's question - but that's pretty rare.

I highly doubt Dr. Grote has questioned the parenting skills of Gerald's father since Gerald's not showing any signs of abuse or neglect and Gerald is acting like a perfectly normal teenage patient.   Doctors know that patients come in a wide range of ability when it comes to describing symptoms.  It is so normal for the average patient to not know the answer to all of the doctor's questions - and doctors can make reasonable estimates of the answer sometimes.  For example, the fact that Gerald doesn't remember the sudden onset of severe, stabbing pain in a localized spot in his abdomen makes a decent case to assume the pain came on gradually.   I'm sure doctors like it when they can figure out most of the medical clues from the discussion with the patient - but the doctor also uses a physical exam as well as blood tests to confirm the doctor's diagnosis.

My final two cents - Gerald's dad is more worried about what the doctor thinks about the dad as a father than he is that his son has been having sharp abdominal pains for a week.  That's seriously messed up. 

Let's look at the "ideal" conversation:

Let's look at how the interaction could go if Gerald has learned how to talk to others, answer questions, provide information, and carry on a conversation.

" Dad, I sure hope Dr. Grote will give me something for the stomachache. I really don't want to miss choir practice tomorrow night. I already missed last week's practice."

" Son, I hope so too. What songs are you learning in choir right now?"

Your father and son conversation goes on for the 20-minute wait, and then Dr. Grote enters the room.

" Hi, Gerald, my name is Dr. Grote. What can I do for you today?"

" Well, sir, I've had this sharp pain in my stomach for the last week."

Dr. Grote nods and asks, "Why don't you lay back on the table here and point to where exactly it is hurting?"

" It's right here. It hurts the worst for about an hour after I eat. Then it is better, but it never really goes away. I have tried taking TUMS for it, but that hasn't helped. My mom thought I should try the BRAT diet which was bananas, rice, applesauce, and toast. I did that for two days, but there wasn't any difference."

Gerald's interaction with Dr. Grote is one with which you could be pleased. He answers questions, gives extra useful information, and is easy to understand. The time before the doctor came into the room was profitable fellowship between you and your son. (pgs 11-12)

See, Maxwell likes the second situation much more because the father gets entertained for 20 minutes followed by having his son perform well for the doctor.   Ironically, the conversation between the doctor and son has revealed less information in the second conversation than the first one.  In the first conversation, the doctor learns the place and severity of the pain, the fact that the pain has been around for at least a week, but possibly longer and that the pain came on gradually.     In the second conversation, the doctor has learned the position, severity of pain and length of time the pain has been present - but the implication changed so that the pain started clearly one week ago and nothing has been said about if it was gradual or sudden. 

  Now, Gerald offered a whole bunch of information about his eating habits and the effect on the pain - but not all abdominal pain is related to food.   I have this mental image of Gerald pointing at an area of his lower abdomen that could be related to things like his bladder, appendix or prostate while reciting how his family has been trying to treat that using the BRAT diet and TUMS.  (Added bonus that Gerald is a boy; a similar spot in a girl could be one of a dozen issues with the reproductive system.)

Throughout this book, the Maxwells include tidbits that show incidentally how isolated they've become from interacting with other human beings.  The example here is that Gerald feels compelled to explain the BRAT diet to his pediatrician or family practitioner.  Trust me; Dr. Grote knows what the BRAT diet is.  Dr. Grote is more than capable of explaining why the BRAT diet works well at quelling certain gastrointestinal issues - and why the BRAT diet will make other issues worse.  If Dr. Grote works in a diverse practice, he knows how to adapt the BRAT diet for recent immigrants who don't regularly eat applesauce or toast.    I remember my mom explaining the BRAT diet to me when I was a teenager in terms of teaching me a form of good self-care when recovering from a stomach bug.  The diet made a lot of sense to me - and I assumed that most - if not all - adults knew the rough outline of the BRAT diet. 

I hope you enjoyed this section as much as I did - the best is yet to come!  The next post is on when your son calls the father of the girl he's sweet on to ask permission to court.