Spiritual Self-Defense: Part One - Commentary Two

It's rare - but so satisfying for me - when I find a CP/QF quote that encapsulates the major flaws within the mindset.   Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin served one up on a platter for me in their blog series "Spiritual Self-Defense".   The very first paragraph  of the series serves up several in a row:

We’ve all experienced that moment of panic, that sense of paralysis, after a man just said something or did something to us that crossed the line. We’ve all faced the crisis of, “Was what he just did OK?” …followed by the next crisis of “What should I do? Should I be smooth and pretend this didn’t happen, or should I do something that will feel very awkward, hard, rude, and uncomfortable for everyone? Should I roll with this, or fight it? Do I have a responsibility to do something? Didn’t Jesus turn the other cheek? What would God want me to do?” And probably the most terrifying moment of all: When we realize the strength we need and thought we had simply isn’t there.

Notice how the woman in this thought experiment has no volition in this situation.  The two things that matter are what the man did and a list of acceptable actions for men to do to women.  The woman's feelings, thoughts, and beliefs are overlooked entirely.   I suppose this will mark me as a raging out-of-control feminist, but the important question for me would be "Am I comfortable with what just happened?"  The rest of the paragraph is a mess - but most of the mess arises from the woman's failure to decide how she feels about what happened.   The paragraph pairs extremely divergent choices, skips the most common intermediate course of action, ignores any complications and devolves into a theological mess before encouraging self-blame.

Let's hit the theology first.  The "turn the other cheek" doctrine is generally applied to persecution due to religious beliefs.   Sexual harassment and assault does not fit in that category.  I think that God gave us brains and the power to use them - so we do what God wants when we respond in the way we feel is appropriate.

Let me sketch this out in real life. 

When I was a cashier at a busy grocery store, I was doing my job at a lane when someone goosed me.

The first - nearly instant - decision I made was that I DID NOT LIKE THAT.   I didn't need to think about whether what the person did was right or wrong; I just needed to be clear that I - myself - did not like it at all.

The second decision was knowing my options for response.  Here's a list of possible options:

1. No response.  This would be most acceptable for me if I felt that any resistant response on my part would place me or someone else in danger.  I rejected this response because I was a well-liked worker in a busy grocery store and was certain that a resistant response on my part would bring more help/support from co-workers and shoppers.
2. Verbal reprimand.  Lots of options available here ranging from "Knock it off" through a profanity laced dressing-down.    This was going to be my response if I felt physically threatened because a torrent of profanity would bring scads of attention my way.
3. Physical attack.  I keep this in reserve for times when I am physically at risk and cannot get help otherwise.  On the other hand, this was the end of a long shift; I was hot, tired, hungry and getting goosed shoved me into the enraged category.  When I swung around to confront the person who goosed me, I was mentally ready and had my arm drawn back to deliver a left-handed uppercut to the jaw.
4. De-escalation.  There was the possibility that I'd turn around and realize that the person who goosed me was holding a weapon - or was very drunk and aggressive - or set off my "dangerous person" alarm in some way.  In that case, I'd do whatever I needed to do to get them the hell away from me.  I'd smile, flirt or seem pleased in someway - because this is NOT a hill for me to die on.

From the options, I whipped around in my lane ready to give the person who goosed me a tongue-lashing they'd never forget and possibly deck them. 

Much to my surprise, there was no one there.  There was a woman unloading her cart too far away to have goosed me and no one else I could see anywhere around. 

I was confused as all get out.  Then, I felt a tug on my pocket and a little voice cried out "birdy!"  I looked down at a little snippet of a kid who was hanging onto my pocket.

I had been goosed by a 3 year old who had tried to grab the stuffed bird I kept on my keyring...and missed.

I busted out laughing and explained to the cashier behind me and the guest in my lane that I had just been goosed by a future bird watcher...maybe even a goose researcher!

The Botkin Sisters make it seem like the two available options are to respond positively to the breech of a boundary or be ready to fight to the death and involve the police.   "Rolling with it" or "being smooth" are not good choices if a person wants the behavior to stop.  On the other hand, there's a far wider range of responses for minor issues - which have been far more common in my life.  Looking back on various moments when I was in situations where something untoward happened, my standard reactions ran a much smaller continuum from a neutral response to glaring at the person to saying firmly "Don't do that!"

Here are some examples:

A boss (who is pretty bad at his job all around) tells a story involving a jargon term for vagina.  My response was to look at him as if he were nuts, then disengage from the conversation.  I add this to my detailed list of "issues with boss" - but it's never repeated again so I don't go any further in terms of seeking union representation or reporting him to HR.

Some co-workers are telling some pretty raunchy stories in the break room when I came in for break.  I change the topic of conversation by asking what they think of the new scheduling system; they hate it and tell me why in great detail.

A older man crashes into me outside of a historical exhibit making contact mostly with my breasts.  I'm about to say something sharp when I realize he's pale and shaking while wearing a "Korean War" hat.  The fort nearby had just fired a cannon - and he's having a fight-or-flight reaction.  I talk to him quietly about what a nice summer day in Mackinac it is and encourage him to have a seat on a nearby bench.  In a few minutes, he's extremely apologetic - and I tell him that he's got nothing to apologize for at all.

I'm waiting for a city bus when a guy I've never seen before starts complimenting me on how pretty I am.  I'm a little skeeved out - but there's no people around for backup and I need to get on this bus to make an appointment.   I say, "Thank you, but I'm engaged" and proceed to create an entire imaginary fiance.  The guy backs off when I explain how much I like ImaginaryBoy and how excited I am about our wedding.

I'm making out with a boyfriend.  He moves a hand to a part of my body where I don't want it.  I gently move his hand to a location I am ok with.  Problem_solved.

What concerns me is that the Botkin sisters don't seem to realize that there's a huge range of boundary violations - and an equally huge range of responses.   I think this happened because they have such limited life experiences.  My experiences involve three separate jobs, one vacation with a female friend, taking public transportation alone and romantic relationships - experiences the Botkin sisters have never, ever had.  The truly toxic issue is that the Botkin Sisters have been taught they should expect boundary violations and that the only way to deal is to never go anywhere without a male chaperone.  That is a terrible message to teach young women!  My parents taught us that we had the right to speak up if we didn't like something someone else did - and that as we got older we would get better and better at responding to the situations.   The advantage of my parents' teachings is that we were prepared for both strangers or acquaintances to transgress boundaries  - but we also knew we could respond if the person was a boss, teacher, relative or religious leader.

Here's one last point/theme.  The Botkin Sisters provide lots of condemnation about evil outsiders by name (like Larry Nassar) - but they stay strangely silent about Doug Phillips.  He was the leader of their cult who was accused of molesting his kids' nanny.  The entire Botkin Family was good buddies with Phillips.  It was a win-win situation.  The Botkin Sisters gave him a set of attractive role models for young women along with profit from their first book; in return, they received income from speaking fees and went on vacations with the Phillips clan. 

Remember that the Botkin Sisters have remained completely silent about Phillips' misdeeds - and the benefits their family has received from association with Phillips as we move through the blog series.

Dominion Orientated Femininity: Part Two

The first part of Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin's podcast "Dominion-Oriented Femininity" was a fun little ramble through their minimal understanding of the lives of Pilgrim women interspaced with fantasies about how much everyone will adore them when the US is destroyed by God.   In my Bible reading right now, I just finished the major prophets and am moving into the minor prophets of the Old Testament.  Unlike Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin, the prophets were not excited on any level about the suffering and destruction that comes when their people were conquered.  I assume the prophets felt fear and desperation about the judgement that God told them was coming because the prophets did not want to see the people they know go through pain and fear.

Anna Sofia/Elizabeth Botkin  (AS/EB) shares their views on the effects that feminism has had on women...kind of...sort of...

Feminism has separated us from the historical legacy that we had and has left us desolate and confused. Two or three hundred years ago a young lady would be taught to act like a strong woman by her great-great-great grandmother, great-great grandmother, great-grandmother, mother. We don't have that legacy any more. Feminism just broke that link. So now I kind of feel like we're living on an island. We don't have examples to look to; we have our mothers but most of our mothers did not have examples to look to. They didn't have mentors. They didn't have grandmothers and great-grandmothers that they could look up to.

I've met very few young women in their late teens or early twenties who are desolate  and none of those were desolate because of a lack of female role models from their own family line.   I've met far more who are confused - but I think that's a normal state of affairs when people are actively deciding important items like who they are attracted to, what they want from a career and what they want from the world.

"Two or three hundred years ago" is a huge time period.  That's the difference between 2018 and 1918.  If the Botkins sisters had even a rudimentary understanding of American history, they would recognize that the US looked very different in 1600, 1650, 1700, and 1750.   And, you know, some women lived to be great-grandmothers in 1600 or 1800 or 1900 - but a lot of women counted themselves as blessed to survive to be grandmothers.  Many more women died in the process of becoming mothers or before their children were grown.   It's been quite rare in human history for a young woman to have an unbroken line of three older maternal relatives alive - let alone an unbroken line of 4 or 5 women.

Huh.  I missed the geography module that discussed how islands lack cultural continuity.   That's really ironic from two young women who lived in New Zealand.  Under that model, I would expect that Iceland, Japan, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, England and Ireland all have identical cultures - and yet 30 seconds with an encyclopedia shows the Botkin girls to be wrong.

I actually see this as a great opportunity because when you think about it it's going to be up to us to rebuild the culture of strong, real womanhood in the world. And we have the chance now to build it afresh on the foundations of sola scriptura. And this will require examining every stereotype, every picture, every example, every image. We can look at them. We can disregard the bad and learn from the good but this really is an incredible opportunity and when you think about it when we live in a culture that doesn't understand what womanhood is you young ladies are going to be the models of this next generation. They're going to be looking to you to set the new standard. This is an incredible opportunity. And what Elizabeth and I will be doing in this lecture is that we will be examining 10 characteristics that constitute the kind of strength and character that our generation will need to face the hardships that are coming and we'll need to rebuild what we've lost.

Well, I now understand why Anna Sofia and Elizabeth have dropped off the face of the planet.  They are cataloguing every stereotype, form and example of womanhood from all of history.  Every_single_one.  This means that we will never see them again.  Becoming comfortable with one much more narrow humanities subject at the PhD level takes an average of 12 years to complete.  If AS/EB started on all cultural images and stereotypes of white, upper class women who lived in the US from the time of the Pilgrims to modern day, they would each use up their entire (God-willing long) lifetime and still not be done.  Multiply this by each socio-economic status and each minority status in the US - then by all of the culture in written history. 

Vaya con Dios, queridas.....

Number One: A dominion woman is a woman of God.

When it comes to becoming the sort of woman that we want to be the first thing that we need to understand is that what we want really doesn't matter. Around the time that we started writing our book - and I'm sure that you young ladies have experienced this as well -people would be asking us, "Ok, so what do you want to do? What are you going to do with your life? What do you want to do?" And I actually know that that's a loaded question. It... it doesn't just mean what kind of career do you want to have; it really means what causes will you be giving your life for? What God are you going to serve? What are you going to live and die for? What is your life going to count for? That's really what the question means. And it comes down to this ultimately: are we going to pursue what we want for our lives or what God wants for our lives?

There is nothing that I enjoy more than when young people inform me that a question that is truly a form of small talk is actually deeply loaded.   When acquaintances ask, "So what are you going to do now that you've left school?", they are simply giving a young person a chance to discuss their near-to-the-future plans.   Believe me, responding with "Well, I've decided that God has called me to protect the future of narwhals.  I'm certain that that's the cause I'm supposed to live and die for" will stop the other person dead in their tracks - and not only because they're not 100% sure what a narwhal is.

Most religions do not imbue using the aptitudes or skills given by God as being selfish or turning away from God.   Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin have abdicated all responsibility for choosing a career onto their father.  Oh, sure, they wrap the idea in a lot of flummery language about authority and protection - but they've essentially decided that they have no responsibility to determine how their skills could be used to further God's kingdom.  Likewise, the girls behave like girls in that they will not challenge their father on his failure to find them a spouse.  The Botkin family believes in a courtship/engagement/marriage series that is much closer to an arranged marriage than couple-initiated style of the US.  That's fine - as consenting adults, if the Botkin sisters want arranged marriages, I support their right to do so.  The problem facing Elizabeth and Anna Sofia is that the trade-off in an arranged marriage is that the children give their parents the right to arrange a match in exchange for being presented with one or more suitable option of spouse.   Geoffrey Botkin has utterly failed to hold up his end of the bargain and needs to either find spouses for the girls or free them to choose their own spouses.  That will not happen unless the Botkin sisters stand up for themselves.

There's an ancient saying that I first read in Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" which goes like this, "What every woman wants most is to have her own way." I think that's true. And I think this statement captures the essence of feminism. It's a desire to be a law unto ourselves. It's a desire basically to usurp God's authority and to determine what is right and wrong for ourselves. It's a desire to be God. Or to be a goddess. And it's stands against God's Law his law of hierarchy and authority and ultimately against God Himself. And the dominion oriented woman is submitted to God. And she's submitted herself entirely to what his will for her life will be. She said, "I am not God; you are God. Not my will be done but your will be done." And the way that she know what His Will is is that she seeks the Scriptures diligently on her own for herself. She doesn't wait for someone else to tell her what to do or how to live and the principles that Elizabeth and I are about to bring to you today really aren't going to make sense and they're not going to work if you don't have this attitude.  If you don't fear God. And they might sound like good ideas, they might sound romantic, they might sound practical, but if you don't have the right attitude, if you don't truly fear God as your sovereign, as your head, then they are really not going to work for you. So dominion oriented femininity requires understanding that we've been bought with a price we do not belong to ourselves it's not our way it's God's way. And now I think Elizabeth's bringing us number two.

I hate how the Botkin Sisters drop quotes from famous works into their speeches and books.  The intended implication is that Anna Sofia and Elizabeth are educated to standards that far exceed public school education.  The problem occurs when someone who knows the work hears the quote.  Anna's point in this section of the speech is that feminism over turns God's Divine Plan for humanity which is that women are subservient to men.  To support that theme, she picked lines 111-112 from the Wife of Bath's Tale which I have as "Some say the things we most desire are these / Freedom to do exactly as we please".  (I'll assume that they have a very different translation that ignored meter and rhyme....)  And that's the issue.  If Anna Sofia had really read "The Wife of Bath's Tale", why didn't she pick lines 214-216 " A woman wants the same self-sovereignty / Over her husband as over her lover, / And master him; he must not be above her." Those verses are spot-on for the overall theme - but they would require having read the work since the second set of verses don't have the wide appeal that the first set does.

What really kills me is that "The Wife of Bath's Tale" is an easily accessible piece of literature.  It was written in Middle English so reading a Modern English translation is perfectly acceptable outside of advanced post-secondary studies.  The story is relatively short and snappy.  There's not a lot of obscure references or ideas that need to be ferreted out; the Wife of Bath is a breezy, bawdy old woman who is reminiscing over her husbands, her choices on who to marry and how to live in marriage, and what women inside a patriarchal society really want.   It's an easy, fun read for high school students - so why didn't the Botkin Sisters read the Tale?

The idea that a dominion-oriented woman doesn't wait for other people to tell her what to do is deeply, though unintentionally, ironic.    A dominion-orientated woman will spend her entire life doing what a man tells her to do.  She will follow her father's orders prior to marriage and her husband's orders after marriage.  Sure, AS/EB will expect women to so completely absorb their father's or husband's goals that the women can act independently to fulfill that goal - but that's not really the sign of independent thinking. 

I think I'm going to start adding the caveat that any advice I give other humans will only work if the other humans are right with God.  That's such an amazingly universal cop-out that it will cover any horrible advice I give.  My advice caused the engine of your car to seize into a ton of solid metal?  No, that happened because you weren't right with God.  Your boss fired you when you responded to a normal office request by screaming, "I am not in submission to you!  THIS is the hill I'm going to die on!" as I told you to.  No...you'd still be employed if you were right with God.   

The next post on this topic is long - and it's not my fault.  From this point on in the podcast, AS/EB are expounding on the 10 characteristics of dominion women.  The issue is that point number two is discussed for an insanely long period of time....and in the process they skip point three entirely.  Whoops.

Maidens of Virtue: Introduction and Chapter One

After a short break from emotional purity (Emo-Pure) books,  I'm moving into books on how to raise children to be Emo-Pure.

The first book that I am reviewing is "Raising Maidens of Virtue: A Study of Feminine Loveliness For Mothers and Daughters" by Stacy McDonald.

I discovered this book thanks to Amazon's "Recommended for You" feature.  Yes, I've bought enough CP/QF books that Amazon now finds me new ones to read on my own.  *sighs*   The one redeeming feature is that Amazon's big data has rather confusing data point now; I also enjoy biographies of spunky "feminist" women and every non-fiction analysis of natural disasters or shipwrecks I can find.

Stacy McDonald writes at the blog "Your Sacred Calling" which hasn't been maintained much in the last few years - but she does have an active Facebook feed.  She has 10 kids and has managed to marry off 5 of the 10 - which is pretty good for a CP/QF family with a lot of daughters.

The hardest part about starting this book is trying to figure out how to describe it.  Amazon and Mrs. McDonald describe it as a Bible study; I disagree.  Snippets and dabs of the Bible are included throughout - but the book is not about the Bible really.  The closest I can come is a collection of essays or an anthology that has been poorly edited.   A good anthology - or Bible study for that matter - arranges the works by connecting themes.  This gives a smooth transition between items. This collection has no transition between items and only a rough idea of themes across chapters.

The chapters are kind of arranged by topic - but the topic changes are jarring.  The first chunk of chapters are on how feminism has ruined chastity, how un-modest the Western world is and how much prettier the world was a long time ago (presumably in a galaxy far away as well....).

The middle chunk is by far my favorite because the reader is thrown between the evils of blue jeans - an entire chapter! - to how being dowdy is as bad as being impure to why God expects women to smell good all the time.  (These chapters caused me to laugh so hard while I was reading in bed that I woke my husband up - and he's a deep sleeper.)

The last chunk is a mish-mash of Emo-Pure hype, glorifying homemaking/farming and promoting unquestioning obedience in women of all ages.

The minor problem with this book is that Stacy McDonald and I are very, very different women.  She enjoys warmth, enclosed spaces, houses decorated with lots of tasteful odds and ends, and talking quietly with your girlfriends while drinking tea.   I wear sandals until the danger of frostbite requires shoes and am routinely upbraided by little old ladies for wearing too few layers of clothes during Michigan winters. (One little old lady recently told me to start dressing myself in as many layers as I put on my son.  That made me laugh.)   I believe in functional beauty which means I pick colorful objects that I use frequently so I don't have to deal with decorative junk.  I'm notoriously bad at picking the right vocal volume for talks - and it's not because I'm quiet.

The book starts with a foreword by Jennie Chancey who coauthored another book with Mrs. McDonald, Mrs. McDonald's acknowledgements, and a detailed description of how to use the book before reaching Chapter One.  In a 200(ish) page book, the introductory material takes up 13% of the book - and adds nearly nothing to the material.

The first chapter is a three-page humble-brag by Mrs. McDonald over how excited she is to review her work after 10 years and find that's it's still pretty darn accurate.  Most of the writing is about how moms need to focus to make sure that their daughter's inner heart is as pure as the outer Emo-Pure image that the rest of the book cultivates.

For me, the first few paragraphs of the chapter are a glimpse into a common issue in CP/QF life - pride.

When I was a young, twenty - something, pregnant mom without varicose veins, without morning sickness, and free of any back pain or fatigue, I arrogantly wondered what all the fuss was about. Pregnancy was fun! When I heard older women talk about the difficulties of pregnancy, I presumed that perhaps I was simply stronger than other women or maybe I just loved motherhood more than they did. I hardly even felt pregnant... until I went into labor.

However, each of my successive pregnancies became increasingly difficult. (Yes, I know, I deserved it!) Finally, I had to admit that maybe the women who struggled during pregnancy weren't whiny or discontent; they simply had a little more experience. They hadn't been speaking from the fresh zeal and vigor of youth, as I had been; they had simply lived through a few more days of harsh reality.

In my arrogance, I hadn't yet discovered that, although motherhood is deeply satisfying and children are indeed a blessing, some days, pregnancy is painful, and weariness is almost always inevitable. Even after they're born, children are hard work! (pg. 21)

I suppose "arrogant" is one description of Mrs. McDonald's attitude during her first pregnancy - but I see it as an expression of too much pride.  My understanding of pride is when a person gives themselves too much credit for a situation that ended well because of outside forces. 

In this example, Mrs. McDonald mentions that even as a young woman she knew on some level she was having an easy pregnancy.  She had no morning sickness, no fatigue (which boggles my mind), no back pain and no varicose veins.  That pregnancy sounds like fun - or even magical!  Instead of being grateful for the luck of the draw that gave her an easy pregnancy, she ascribes the easy pregnancy to "being stronger" than other women.

Look, even when I was in my early-twenties, I knew the difference between strength and luck.  Strength is what those older women who survived rough pregnancies had.  Luck is what Mrs. McDonald had with her first pregnancy.

I don't know if Mrs. McDonald was into CP/QF when she was first pregnant - but she describes a mind-set that makes her very susceptible to high-demand groups.  She believed that her good pregnancy might be a sign that she "loves motherhood more" than the other women.  That's a strange belief from objective standards - but the statement demonstrates a belief that the correct mental state directly affects the world.  That's a great sign for someone who is recruiting for a high-demand group; the high-demand group is offering a newly discovered set of methods that will allow her to control her life through correct thought! 

Welcome to "Maidens of Virtue"!  I hope you enjoy the wild and crazy ride.

Completely off-topic: My son is old enough that he's starting to be able to pincer-grip objects.  This means he finds paper fascinating.  Rather than waste good scrap paper, I've been ripping apart my copy of Anna Sophia and Elizabeth Botkin's "It's (Not That) Complicated" and giving him a few pages to play with at a time.  Watching him crumple and gnaw on the pages has been deeply satisfying for both of us!

Babblin' Botkins: "Good Girls and Problem Guys" The Four Types of Guys -Part One

At long last, I've finally had enough free time to start transcribing the free podcasts on the Botkin Sisters website.  I'm starting with Good Girls and Problem Guys: Taking the Moral High Road with Men who are in sin.

Because this is a transcribed talk, I had to make some decisions about where to place punctuation and divide topics into paragraphs.  (IOW, blame me for errors in that department.)  I've chosen to include filler word like "um" and "like" as well as times that the speaker laughed because I believe unplanned verbal reactions like those can be telling of the speaker's emotional state.  I've included time-stamps in case anyone finds errors in the transcription - and please let me know if you do!

After trying a variety of tricks, I've realized that I cannot reliably differentiate Anna Sophia's voice from Elizabeth's voice.  The audio recording of the talk is good - but they are sisters who have very similar vocal characteristics. Plus, there's no reason Anna or Elizabeth to identify themselves in the talk because the talk is being given at some sort of conference in front of a multi-age audience.  Their audience could tell very clearly who was talking by looking up at the speaker in front of them.

I'm not certain when or where this conference occurred - but I suspect it occurred within 6 months of Vision Founder leader Doug Phillips being accused of grooming and assaulting his children's nanny.  The Botkin Sisters reference a disturbing or shocking revelation that happened recently that they expect other members of Vision Forum to be aware of.

Needless to say, the Botkin Sisters spend most of the talk rehashing the book "It's (Not) That Complicated" but deviate from the text to add more victim-blaming.  If you are triggered by dumb-ass Biblical interpretation being used to victim-blame, please stop reading and go do something pleasant.  It's not worth the stress; let the rest of us handle these ding-bats.

At 37(ish) minutes into a 50-odd minute talk, Elizabeth gets around to explaining the "Four Types" of guys that girls need to be prepared for.

Type One - by the Botkin Sisters:
"

[00:37:30] "Anna and I are going to quickly give you some practical thoughts on preparing to deal with four different kinds of guy. These thoughts are not Scripture, not canon. It's not ex cathedra. This is just some big sisterly advice based on some things we've learned from our experiences of the last ten years. So, the first type of boy, and probably the one we all deal with the most is the nice boy who just doesn't have very good boundaries or maybe is just not very emotionally self-controlled and tends to be a little too emotionally intense in his relationships.

Before You Meet Prince Charming: Chapter Seven - Part One

This chapter promises to show us how parents can help young women during their wait for Prince Charming.  I'm skeptical about this chapter since the King and Queen have provided precious little support or help to their daughter so far in the book.

In the last chapter, we found out that the Princess is now at least 19 years old and is moping about not being married yet.  This chapter begins with the Princess crying in the courtyard because she's become an old maid.  The King tells her that God wants her to learn to be happy at home now before she moves into the next phase of her life.

I find the King and Queen's lack of any empathy or attempts at comforting their daughter disconcerting.  I was a high-strung child who grew into an anxious teenager.  I remember many times where I was worried or upset about a small issue that seemed huge to me.  My parents always attempted to comfort me before helping me put the issue I was worried about in proper context.  

The Princess settles down a bit when she remembers that she wanted to ask the King about doing something that would allow her to have a bit more autonomy for a period of time.

"Remember that time we talked about the Spring Fair? You said it was permissible for me to go, but explained how I must be a candle and a rose."

" Yes, I remember. You met Sir Eloquence there, " replied the king.

" Um, yes, " she said, not wanting to be reminded of him. Then she continued with her question. "I was wondering, thinkest thou that I should attend the Merchants' Fest in Carnalville? I realize it is not the manner of event which we approve-- " (pg. 124)

• I am so sick of the damned "rose and candle" metaphors.  The metaphors are not deep or original to start with - but Mally's staid and heavy-handed use of them in every chapter drag the narrative to a halt each time.
• The King's not-so-subtle reproach of the Princess' last attempt at being a normal teenager is trite.  
• For those of you who have forgotten Sir Eloquence,  here's a plot summary:  Sir Eloquence meets the Princess and likes her.  He talks to her when she's in town.  He comes to the castle and asks to marry the Princess.   The King scares him off.    Nothing terribly remiss happened.  The Princess didn't give a hunk of her heart away let alone do something really scandalous like meet with him alone, kiss him or have sex.
• The King is reproaching the Princess for Sir Eloquence's behavior - not the Princess' behavior.  I guess that's the natural outcome in a society where women are held responsible for men's attraction - but it makes no sense.
• The Princess went to the Spring Fair when she was 16.  She is now at least 19 years old.  Most 19-year-olds are substantially more mature than they were at age 16.  The Princess may not be - but if that's the case, her parents have a lot to answer for in how she was raised since the Princess seems to be a dutiful daughter.
• Let's talk about the newest plot hole.  The Princess has spent the last few years reaching the level of master craftsman in baking, painting, weaving, candle-making, dyeing and goldsmithing.  We know she made these levels because she's been allowed to teach the other young women of the village these skills.  (Who'd of thought the anachronisms still burn every time I read this....).  Why is anyone surprised that she'd want to go to the Merchants' Fest?  She's been working as a merchant for years now!  And yet - instead of having the King freak out about the fact he's been letting his daughter do work well below her station in life - Ms. Mally needs to clobber us with the fact that the real problem with the Fest is that it's in Carnalville.  
• In terms of destroying her marriageability,  having her train as a dye master was a far more severe problem than worrying about a potential flirtation with Sir Eloquence.

The Princess concedes that the King told her that the Fest would be dangerous because there would be dancing and evil talk at the big party, but the Princess promises to stay away from trouble and mentions that she thinks she should be meeting more guys.  (Personally, I am deeply disappointed that the dangers of CARNALville are dancing and gossip. )  She also mentions that she's nearly 21 years old.

The King freaks out.  He tells the Princess that she has no idea what she's talking about and implies that if she goes to Carnalville now, she'll be immediately swept up by an unsuitable guy because the Princess has the audacity to admit she's lonely.

Personally, the King's overwrought protection of the Princess' virtue has gotten old by this point in the book.  The Princess wants to go somewhere that may expose her to "adult themes".  Let her go!  She's more than old enough to hold her own.

For the first time in the book, the Princess tries to press her point after the King has expressed disapproval.

"The alligator speaks of the festivities and the social banquets to be enjoyed, " she continued.

"The alligator eats the scum at the bottom of the moat, " the king added drily. (pg. 125)

• This was the point I realized that I was making the book far more interesting by viewing the Alligator as a manifestation of the Princess' psyche.  After all, the Alligator never appears around others.  No one else has ever mentioned an Alligator living in the moat.  I enjoyed the idea of the creeping insanity that comes from solitude breaking out in the increasing frequency of visits of the Alligator who both comforts and torments the Princess.  Then, Ms. Mally ruins it by having the King casually allude to the Alligator that lives in the moat.  
• Alligators do not eat scum.  Pond scum is a mixture of algae, phytoplankton, zooplankton and small invertebrates.  Animals that eat pond scum have mouths adapted for filter feeding.  Alligators have large, sharp teeth and powerful jaws.  This is because alligators are obligate carnivores and mature alligators are apex predators.  The fact that I have to explain this after reading a book written by an adult home-schooling graduate is not a strong recommendation for the Mally's home schooling methodology.
• Turning the Alligator into an actual living reptile that skulks in the moat causes another gaping plot hole.  The King refuses to let the Princess go to any sort of social gathering for fear of corrupting her - but he lets the Alligator act as her sole companion.  Is he clueless, negligent or sadistic?  I'm starting to lean towards sadistic.
• Random factoid: Alligators are native to two places.  One is China; the other is the southeastern USA.  This book is clearly NOT located in either place - so why is there an alligator living in the moat?

"The other maidens will all be going, and I will stay with them, " explained the princess as she began to wander slowly through the courtyard. "They mingle often with the young men in the village. The alligator says such relationships are healthy. "

" But you are forgetting that thou art a princess," said her father, following her. " Remember thou also that the alligator has dragon's blood in his veins."

"But, others - -"

" Others do not understand that a little foolishness ruins the testimony of one who has wisdom and honor. "

" But others - -"

" Others do not have me as their father. Others do not represent the royal family." (pg. 125)

• The stage directions in this novel make no sense.  In the middle of a conversation with her father, the Princess walks away from him while still speaking as he follows her.  That's not how people interact in the real world.  It's plausible that the two of them would be walking together during the conversation - but having the Princess wander about as the King chases after her is an odd choice.
• The Princess is forgetting that she's royalty - but we've established already that she's never acted like royalty before in the entire book.  This is one of those points where Mally would have been better off having the King reprove the Princess for acting inconsistently as a Christian (well, as interpreted through Christian Patriarchy).  Otherwise, the reproof about her testimony makes no sense; royalty have divine right of rule, not testimonies.
• There are exactly two people who care about the Princess' testimony in the book - the King and the Queen.  If their nearly 21 year old daughter isn't into protecting her testimony, maintaining it through forced isolation is pointless.  After all, she's not a candle shining outwards if she's maintained her purity by avoiding all interactions with people her own age.  None of the young townspeople are going to look at the lonely Princess in the castle and think "Huh.  I should totally recreate that in my own life.  Let me go sit alone in my cottage for the next few years."

The King spends a long paragraph belaboring the point that when the Princess chose the way of purity no one said that it would be easy to follow through on.  That brings up an important point.  The Princess hasn't chosen the way of purity freely.  She might have picked to follow that way at some point in the past, but she's being railroaded into staying on the path now.  If she's never allowed to leave the path, that's coercion.

The King walks back into the castle leaving the Princess crying by the moat again.  This attracts the Alligator...again.  If Sarah Mally's life is as monotonous as this book is, I pity her.  The Alligator tells the Princess that she should go to the Merchant's Fest since her father never forbade her from going.  The Princess replies that her parents have given her good advice all her life so she prefers to obey the King's advice this time.  While I disagree with her choice, this is the first time she makes a choice and is able to coherently describe why she made the choice.

That's the end of the allegory for Chapter 7.  The advice portion is equally brief, thankfully.

Before You Meet Prince Charming: Chapter Five-Part Three

Welcome to the last installment of Chapter Five on how to deal with crushes.   The advice and exhortation section in this chapter is pretty formulaic while the anecdotes run the gauntlet between terrifying and sad.

The first chunk of the chapter addresses the fact that most people have crushes during their life and explains that the issues surrounding crushes have to do with how people behave when they have a crush, not the fact that you are attracted to someone.  None of this is particularly ground-breaking, but it's nice that Ms. Mally at least sets a reasonable bar that actions matter more than thoughts.

The first anecdote is a doozy:

"What if I have a crush?

Have you ever made your dad panic?

Once when I was about 8 years old, I scampered into the house and with a mischievous smile I announced, "Dad, I fell in love today!"

Believe me, that got his attention! He looked up at me with a worried expression on his face and said, "You did?"

"Yup! I fell in love with this adorable Dalmatian puppy at the pet store. Can I get it? Please?" Dad smiled with a look of relief. "(pgs. 91-92)

*blinks*

• I've never made either of my parents' panic before - and Sarah's Dad didn't panic in this anecdote either.
• If this story is true, Sarah's Dad needs to get a freaking life.  I had a crush on a kid in my first-grade class named Brad.  We were inseparable for a few months and then drifted apart over the summer - mainly because we were EIGHT years old!  That was the same age that I wanted to visit the Starship Enterprise from "Star Trek: The Next Generation" because I thought it existed somewhere.  When my parents tried to explain the idea of movie sets, I just figured that someone built an entire replica of the actual Enterprise and was filming the series inside the life-size replica.  An elementary school crush is very normal - and not something for an actual adult to panic about.
• I am very skeptical of the authenticity of that story, though.  With Sarah Mally being a few years older than I am, this story apparently happened before 1988.  This either means that the Mally Family was way ahead of the curve on implementing Emo-Pure or the anecdote has been burnished a bit to make the Mally Family seem more like the ideal CP/QF family of the 2000's. 

This leads into a few paragraphs describing how everyone will have crushes from time to time (which is true) and how hard it is to train your mind not to dwell on a crush.  I don't remember my crushes being all-consuming, but I had a lot of things to keep me busy between school and sports when I was in junior high followed by harder classes and extracurricular activities in high school.  This meant that I didn't have a lot of extra time to think about my romantic interests outside of when we were interacting.

"When I was about 13, our family became acquainted with another Christian family who had a son a few years older than I was. I liked him right away. He seemed so considerate and nice. I admired some of his talents, and most of all, he seems like such a strong Christian leader. He was the first guy I ever really liked, and I felt so embarrassed. I didn't want anyone to know how I felt about him. After all, I was only thirteen! I wasn't considering getting married for years. I tried to avoid him so that no one would guess that I was attracted to him. I tried not to talk about him with my family or others because I worried that they might be able to figure out that I liked him. "(pg. 92)

• I find 13-year-old Sarah's attraction to a "strong Christian leader" who is 15 or 16 years old absolutely adorable.  That's such a normal 13-year-old thing to do!  (Well, maybe not the "strong Christian leader" bit, but I've had crushes on equally flimsy footing before.)
• I was pretty embarrassed about having crushes - but not because I was too young to get married.  A crush is an intensely personal experience and I was acutely aware that my view of Matt or Jason or Patrick was not shared by the entirety of human kind.  The embarrassment phase passed quickly for me because my parents and friends didn't tease or bother me about my crushes.
• For me, the issue wasn't that I didn't want anyone to know how I felt; it was that I had no idea how to explain how intensely I felt attracted to Scott or David or whoever.  There are just not enough adjectives and adverbs in the English language to describe how floatingly giddy I felt when I was around my newest crush.
• Like Sarah, I completely believed that I could avoid anyone knowing when I had a crush by keeping my cards close to my chest.   Looking back, the only person that tactic fooled was myself - and I'm willing to bet that no one was fooled by Sarah's tricks either.

"But inwardly I was struggling. Even though I didn't see him very often, I frequently found myself wondering when I might see him again and questioning if he could be the right one for me. I remember that when I would practice the piano, ride my bike, or have spare time, I would frequently be struggling with these thoughts and asking the Lord to help me not be so distracted.

A few years later I got to know this young man a little bit better and realize he was definitely not the right one for me. I lost interest, but I wondered when my next crush might happen and if I would be able to handle it any better (pg. 93)

• Ironically, 26-year-old Sarah isn't much better at putting the dots together than she was at 13.  
• The best way to keep a crush going is to never interact with the person you have a crush on at all.  I've had a crush on Geordi LaForge for Star Trek: The Next Generation for 20 years or so.  He's smart, handsome and imaginary so I never have to deal with any of the annoyances of finding out the flaws and irritations that come with real people.
• Conversely, the fastest way to get rid of a crush is to spend a lot of time with the person you have a crush on.  Everyone has really annoying habits and quirks.  Since a crush is predicated on having the ideal romantic partner, finding out your crush has the table manners of a hyena or sniffles all the time can do a lot to end a crush.
• The last paragraph is inadvertently terrifying.  First, it implies that Sarah kept a candle burning for this guy for three years at least!  Second, she only had a single crush on that one guy in those three years.  I'm chalking that as another unintended example of how lonely her life was as a home schooled teenager with two siblings in Iowa; it sounds like she didn't meet enough guys to have more than one crush.
• For me, having crushes on real guys disappeared pretty rapidly in my late teens because I had no exposure to Emo Pure doctrines.  I had plenty of male friends.  When I found myself highly attracted to a guy - friend or not - I could get to know him better without obsessing over giving pieces of my heart away.  On top of that, I could date.  That means I didn't have to keep my expectations low while waiting for my crush to notice me, become marriage-eligible, and get my father's approval before finding out that my crush bores me to death.

The rest of the chapter is how to deal with crushes.  I can condense the gist into a nice bulleted-list for you!

• When you have a crush, hide your emotions so deeply inside of you that no one - not even you - can feel what's going on.
• Pray.  A lot.  Pray for him, for you, for your future husband, and his future wife.  (She missed "his future kids", "your future kids" "all of both lines eventual descendants", and "the livestock acquired when you and/or he marry including, but not limited to pets".  May as well be thorough.)  Don't forget to memorize chunks of Scripture.  
• Get your parents involved.

Ms. Mally shares how getting your parents involved helps:

"The second way to deal with your crush is to talk to your parents about it. This might be difficult, scary, or embarrassing for you, but most likely your parents have already guessed how you are feeling. If you tell them, they will be better able to pray for, protect, and advise you. Confiding in your parents often relieves the pressure on you and may lighten the intensity of your "secret" crush. Sometimes they're able to help you think more realistically about your future and give you a new perspective about what type of man they believe the Lord has in store for you.

Several times when I've told my dad or brother that I've noticed a certain young man, they have said that if they get a convenient opportunity they will try to get to know him better. Often they're able to come up with interesting observations that I didn't see, and they will come to me saying,"Sarah, have you noticed this area?" Dad usually say, "I question "such-and-such". My brother Stephen will say, "He's kind of weird!" But I'm serious - dads and brothers can be great analytical agents! When they notice an area of weakness in a young man, it gives me a clearer perspective of the whole situation and makes it easier for me to stay focused on the Lord, rather than dreaming about the possibility of "so-and-so" . It frees me from any pressure or temptation I might be feeling to try and get to know him better, and keeps my emotions from getting involved unnecessarily. (pg. 94-95)

• I don't think that it is a good idea to chat with your parents about a crush if you feel scared at the prospect of doing so.  That's a sign something the kid is picking up on something being off in their family dynamic.
• I know lists are supposed to have at least three items, but the prayers of a parent do not become magically more effective when the parent is sure that their kid has a crush on their classmate instead of being mostly sure.
• Talking about your crush may lighten the intensity - but so will doing almost anything!  Crushes are most intense when a person sits around and broods on the subject alone and least intense when the person is doing a captivating activity.
• Crushes do not require a chat about your kid's future since crushes dissipate once your kid gets to know their crush better.  Plus, that's bringing an AK-47 to a longbow archery demonstration in terms of overkill.  
• When your children are infants, parents can plan just about every aspect of their lives.  By the time your children are teenagers, parents guide and facilitate the teen's plans for their lives.  If your kids are old enough to be considering marriage, parents need to have stopped planning their offspring's lives for them - and that includes detailing who the parents thought the kid should marry.  After all, CP/QF is a small, insular community.  Describing the type of person a parent thinks the kid should marry has a huge overlap with saying "I've always thought you would marry Billy-Bob's son Jimbo".
• Nothing says placing your daughter's interests first like trying to get to know her romantic interest if an opportunity happens to appear.  Getting to know a person with the undeclared intent of figuring out if they are good marriage material for your child is so creepy - and generally a case of putting the cart before the horse since the other person has not expressed an interest yet!
• Taking your brother's advice on dating can make sense if your brother has enough life experience.  Sarah Mally was 26 when this book was written and Stephen is about 6 years younger than her.   I might have taken my younger brother's advice on if he liked my boyfriend when he was 20, but only in terms of "my boyfriend is non-crazy, right?"  Since this book seems to be written for girls in their teens, I would hope that Sarah Mally wasn't sending her 13 year old brother out to do recon on her crushes when she was 18 because that's just odd.

This whole book is about ways to avoid interacting with guys, honestly.  There is a palpable sense of relief in each anecdote when Sarah has collected enough negative information from her family to shut down any more contact with a specific guy.   That theme reaches back into the allegory for the last few chapters as well; Sir Eloquence's main flaw was that he was attracted to the Princess - the rest of the negatives about Sir Eloquence were based on the King's gut feeling that Sir Eloquence was not telling the truth.  Likewise, Sir Valiant's only demonstrated virtue is that we are not certain he knows the Princess exists.   That's one of the largest flaws in raising kids to value Emo-Pure.  When a person has been raised to fear accidentally giving away a chunk of their heart, reaching out to form a bond with a romantic partner can be impossible.

The next chapter is titled "When God Says To Wait" which feels redundant to me; the Princess has spent five chapters waiting around the castle daydreaming already.

It's Not That Complicated: Chapter 12-Part Three

Oh, Botkin Sisters. I haven't missed you at all. But we do have to finish this book before I ceremonially burn my copy, so here we go.

Most CP/QF female bloggers stick to a healthy dose of slut-shaming to justify picking on the looks of other women.   For Anna Sofia and Elizabeth, however, that's too one-dimensional.

Join me as we venture into their shallow and petty logic.

"We were still in our hooded sweatshirt and baggy-jeans days when we first discovered this facet of biblical femininity, and it was (as you can imagine) revolutionary to us. We were clothing ourselves to communicate what we wanted to be (invisible, and totally above thinking about clothes). We didn't realize that a woman's appearance, countenance, speech, and attitude don't just communicate who she is - it says something to the world about who her husband or father is. Whether intentionally or not, we don't just communicate our identity - we communicate theirs too." (pg. 220)

It's Not That Complicated: Chapter 12-Part 2

I love this section!  There are two themes running through the middle of this chapter.

 Theme one: A pair of highly sheltered very young women have determine what ALL men need in a wife. This theme is a hoot because any person who has been in a satisfying long-term relationship can shoot massive holes in this theme (and believe me, you will be seeing me take aim.)

Theme two: Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin are the most eligible women ever since they have all of the skills a man needs! This theme is rather depressing because it shows that neither of the Botkin Sisters - or their "editors" - can recognize a massive personal bias.

For every girl we know asking why so few young men are "ready," we know a young man asking where the ready and eligible girls are. Our brothers and their friends have told us that many of the qualities girls have cultivated to make themselves "eligible" are things that won't come up on young men's radar screens, and the qualities that young men are most looking for have been neglected. [...]
The first step in understanding how we can become "helper suitable" is to understand what exactly a man is supposed to be doing that he would need help with. A man who is taking Dominion (Genesis 1: 28), discipling the nations (Matthew 28: 19), and feeding Christ's sheep (John 21: 15 - 17) is going to require more of his wife then the ability to iron a shirt, cook a meal, and look good on his arm. We may not be able to predict whether our husbands will have a use for stenography skills over musical proficiency or business acumen, but what every good man we'll need from his wife (no matter what he does) will be a willingness to get her hands dirty, be stretched, learn new things, work hard, and die to herself. (pg. 215)

• Ninety percent of my graduate program is learning how to read technical papers and how to check for mistakes in the procedure.  
• Tip One: Make sure that the reference group or sample group is representative of the population as a whole.
• The reference group for this "case study" is the Botkin Bros - two of which would have been teenagers when this book was written - and the friends of said brothers.
• Implications: The reference group is highly sheltered and members of the same closed system of beliefs.  At the same time, many of the members have been raised by the same people and are more similar in beliefs than an average random sample from a closed system.
• Outcome: This "case study" may be of value if you are a) a Botkin Brother, or  b) a friend of the Botkin Brothers, but is of limited value for the rest of humanity.
• I don't mean to be wry, but being a good cook IS a way of feeding Christ's sheep.  See most ministries involving homeless people.  
• I'll be willing to bet that business acumen - as indicated by the ability to hold a job, grow a career, or build a business - will be much more in demand than either stenography skills or musical proficiency in the absence of business skills.
• In the real world, relatively few available men are in business for themselves.  Most people work for other people.  As such, most men (and most women) don't need specific skills from their spouse to grow their career.  My husband gave me a few new ideas for labs to do with my students and a listening ear when I needed to blow off steam.  That's honestly about as much as most spouses do directly for the other spouse's career.

Godly men need women who have intrepidity, courage, and sturdy virtue to come alongside of them in the rigors of  their lives. They also need wives who have a good grasp of such things as current affairs, worldview, and politics, and who care about the things their husbands are interested in and involved in. They need helpers who recognized that loving their men means loving the mission and the work their men are called to do (pg. 215-216).

• OMG!  All men totes need the three things that the Botkin Family likes to pretend they are good at - current affairs, "worldview" and politics!   You should totes marry us!
• Any bets on how much the Botkin Sisters understand about:
• Educating politicians about the benefits and drawbacks of using Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMP) as guidelines for nuisance suits involving farms?  
• The potential benefits and problems with implementation of Common Core standards with the legal testing requirements in Michigan? 
• Common issues with the standardized testing options available for determining how well secondary and post-secondary students understand the nature of science?
• And yet, I know single men who work in each of these areas - and really don't want to hear about "worldview" or - God forbid - Geoffrey Botkin's thoughts on Brexit.
• The best irony - the Botkin Sisters know women who were poorly prepared for what their husband actually needed from them in terms of career skills!  To be fair, this example was published after the book, but the Botkin Sisters have never retracted their views on this point.  I've linked the blog post about Genevieve (Smith) de Deugd's experiences of her first four months of marriage.  I've also pulled some choice sections: 

"We knew that working together on projects and in Pete’s sawmilling/woodworking business would add another dimension to our relationship, strengthen our marriage, grow our friendship and be a whole lot of fun!"

• I'll give the de Deugds' credit: working in a spouse's business can either be great for a marriage or destroy a marriage in short time.  
• For our marriage, we've decided it's healthiest for me to stay outside of the farm in terms of a career.  Family businesses can bring a lot of family baggage and I'm a better resource for my husband as a person outside of the system.  

 "Being a daughter in my father’s home and helping him was predominantly an intellectual and sedentary lifestyle. Being a wife in my husband’s home and helping him involves a lot of manual work and is a very active lifestyle. I’ve had a lot to learn."

• I am intrigued by the fact that Genevieve thinks her dad's ministry that promotes homeschooling was more intellectual than doing sawmilling and woodworking.  I'm guessing that that dichotomy is mainly due to the fact that she's still learning about running a sawmill and woodworking.  The more advanced woodworking and sawmilling skills require some pretty solid mathematics skills.  
• Is having Genevieve learn how to do some really basic work on the machinery really the best use of her talents?  Presumably, she learned a bit about marketing and website design in her work with her dad.  Rather than have her duplicate what her husband is doing, wouldn't the family have been better served by having her work to increase business?  (Or - gasp- bring in independent income through a job/career of her own?)
• When I was first dating my husband, I thought that I would be learning how to milk cows and do other basic labor around the farm.  When we got more serious, my husband was very clear that he wanted to marry a wife who would be a partner in his life - not a substitute milker.  Plus, I could bring in more income and benefits by having an outside career.  When I moved out to the farm, I realized that my main benefit to the farm was understanding more about human resource management to give my husband support as the amount of time he spent managing workers increased.   I've still never milked a cow or driven a tractor; it's just not a good use of my time or skills.
• I hope that she learned that wearing skirts around a shop and in junkyards is not a safe idea.  I've given up wearing shorts on the farm when I'm working in the shop or up in the haymow because my legs get cut up but good.  

Back to the Botkin Sisters....

A girl recently asked us what is the number one thing that most girls fail to learn in order to be ready for marriage. For years, we've been advocates for girls amassing a rigorous education, vast inter-disciplinary knowledge, boatloads of practical skills, and the like. But since watching two of our brothers choose their companions for life, we've had a slight shift in our understanding of what men really need. "The capacity for deep relationships," we replied. A wife and mother's job will call out many different strengths and abilities and each of us, we explained her, but the most important of all will be our ability to develop real relationships. If we get married, the biggest impact of our lives will come from our relationships with our husbands and our relationships with our children. If we never marry, the biggest contributions of our lives should still be our fruit for relationships with those around us (pg. 218).

• Again, the Botkin Sisters begin with a vision of wifehood in which the wife is mainly a tool.  Actually, they never move off of the idea that women are supposed to be handy tools for men.  Their view of marriage isn't two people joined and growing within a marriage and raising up kids to be healthy adults; instead, women are a tool to develop relationships between people.
• I do appreciate the Botkin Sisters' understanding that our main legacy is from our relationships with others; that's a worldview I can support.  I am disappointed, however, that the Sisters can't make the next connection that our relationships outside of our families can be as vital, as fulfilling and as live-changing as being a daughter, sister, wife and/or mother.

There is one post left in this series!  One post.  Wow.  There is an entire chapter on contentment, but there's no meat to it so I'm not going to waste time going over it.  I've got my next book picked out - a short one for a break from the Botkin Sisters for a month or two.   Last post: The Botkin sisters make a list of things that they are allowed to judge people on.  Plenty of fat-shaming, too.  May as well go out on a "high" point.

It's Not That Complicated: Chapter 12 - Part One

Chapter 12 is titled "What a Man Needs at His Side: How to Become a Girl a Man Would Want as a Wife as Well as a Friend.  Ironically, I can start by parsing the problems with the title of the chapter.

• The first word of the chapter title is an interesting Freudian slip.  The Botkin Sisters use "What" - a term used to designate an object in English - instead of "Who".  A man apparently doesn't need a woman; he needs a tool.
• Girls shouldn't marry.  Girls are by definition immature and still growing.  A man who is looking for a wife is looking for a woman or a lady.  (If a man is looking to marry a girl, he's not going to be a good husband.)
• A healthy friendship is the cornerstone of a marriage.  CP/QF bloggers and talking heads get all wound up about sex and raising children - and forget the basics.  The tools used to keep a long-term friendship going are the same tools that are used in a marriage.

We knew from the beginning that this could not be a book about how to get married, as neither of us have had any personal experience doing that. However, in writing about how to be the kind of woman that the men around us need us to be, we knew that we couldn't ignore the elephant in the room: girls want to know what young men need in the one woman that is going to stand by them for the rest of their lives. What do they need in their best friend? What do they need their helpmeet? (pg.209)

It's Not That Complicated: The Boys - Part 8

In our latest installment of "The Boys of Botkin", we get to hear the Botkin Sisters' male friends views on pitfalls in guy-girl relationships.  After transcribing the quotations, I am extremely doubtful that any of the guys (including their married brother Ben) have actually had a relationship with a woman.

Overarching Theme: Girls are TERRIFYING!  I'm so afraid!

Jack, inventor, says ...
Guys appreciate a girl who is emotionally stable and exhibits self-control. We can have actual friendships with girls who don't jump to conclusions and misconstrue small acts of kindness as signs of love and devotion. Presumptuous girls can create situations that are painful for us, but we are also concerned about their feelings. As frustrating as it can be to receive unwanted attention, it's far worse to be the cause of a disastrous heartbreak, even when it's no fault of your own.
It can feel like you're walking on eggshells when we're trying to be brothers in Christ to unpredictably hot-headed girls, never knowing whether the slightest word or gesture might start an emotional roller-coaster and misery for our sisters in Christ. Our gratitude for the more self-possessed girls who refused to indulge in every dreamy  whim cannot be overstated. (pg. 194)

It's Not That Complicated: Chapter 11 - Part Four

We're down to the last two "stories" from Chapter 11!  The first story illustrates why Emo-Pur (Emotional Purity) is a giant waste of time and energy for everyone involved.

Candie is only 16, and knows that she and Jacob aren't ready to get married; but since they're officially just friends, they feel free to become as close as they like. Down inside, she knows this friendship trying to spin out of control - he's becoming more important to her than anything else in the world. He's always in her thoughts (and constantly popping up in her chat window); he's starting to monopolize her time and her focus, even coming between her and her parents. It's turning into a re-run of her friendship with Jonathan last year, which ended in her never being allowed to see him again - but she just can't stop...(pg.192)

It's Not That Complicated: Chapter 11-Part Three

If the scenario that the Botkin Sisters are laying out in this bit is common in home schooled young adults, people need to rethink how they are raising their daughters.  The "girls" in this section manage to be both wimpy and overly rigid at the same time.  Let's go....

"Lauren is 22, and wondering how to handle the continual over-friendliness of Marshall, and his hints about someday making something happen, when she knows he's not ready and hasn't talked to her father about a relationship. She doesn't want to end our friendship, but also doesn't want to hurt to get too involved in something that may never happen... (pg. 192)."

• Apparently, Lauren isn't worried about wasting time on non-existent problems.  
• Marshall is interested in Lauren - at least kind of - and mentions it occasionally.  
• Lauren, on the other hand, has meticulously determined Marshall's lack of readiness.
• She's also worried because Marshall - who doesn't want a relationship right now - has NOT talked to Lauren's dad about starting a relationship.  It makes no sense at all for Marshall to ask Lauren's dad about a courtship right now.
• The problem here is NOT Marshall.....

"There are such things as scoundrels and rakes; there are young men who genuinely don't know the right channels; there are good boys who aren't ready to get married yet; there are guys who are more interested in fun than commitment; and there are nice guys were just way too friendly with girls. How do we handle them?
Girls often come to us distraught over problems like, "He keeps telling me he really cares about me, but I know he hasn't talked to my dad..." "He's too friendly and I don't know what to do about it..." "He asked me for a date, but I'm committed to courtship!" "He keeps sending me gushy Facebook messages!" "He's not marriage material yet but I hate to push someone away who likes me so much..." "He stopped me in the store and asked me for my name and phone number..." "He follows me everywhere and asked me really personal questions!" "He is just so sensitive and sweet and affectionate towards me - I know he's pushing his boundaries, but I'm starting to fall for him anyway..."(pg. 196 )"

• The Botkin Sisters have an entire podcast on the topic brought up in the first paragraph.  I do not recommend it; it's terrifying for multiple reasons.
• The book takes multiple pages to come up with "answers" for each situation, but I think I can do it in much less.
• "He hasn't talked to Dad."  If that's important to you, load him up with Pop's contact information.  If the guy doesn't call, move on.
• "He's too friendly."  Is that really a problem?  If you don't like his friendliness, ignore him.  Cold-shoulder him.  Avoid him like the plague.  That will usually do the trick.
• "Asked for a date; I want courtship." Explain the difference to him. Who knows?  He might be OK with that or he may move on.  Either way, you've made your expectations known.
• "Stopped in a store for name and number."  I've never had that happen, but a "Who the (insert swear word of your choice) are you?!?" should stop that dead.
• "Follows me everywhere" That sounds like a stalker.  Reach out to your local police to find out what you need to do.
• "He's pushing his boundaries."  Chica, God did not make you responsible for him stepping over his boundaries.  Is he stepping over YOUR boundaries?  If he is, tell him to stop.  If not, stop worrying about it and enjoy the relationship.

These are the sort of situations that can be uncomfortable to deal with, but they don't have to get truly sticky unless we let them. We often have more power to direct this sort of situation than we realize. Young men have told us time and time again: girls are really the ones who set the tone for the interaction. (pg. 196)

• This is true.  Women have power in relationships!  The vast majority of guys will respect boundaries you set - either by backing away from the boundary or leaving the relationship.
• I never thought I'd agree with the Botkin Sisters on something, but this is decent advice.

In the case of Lauren and Marshall, Lauren is feeling overwhelmed with confusion over how to handle Marshall's clear interest, knowing that he's not marriage material yet, and hasn't approached to father. The solution, however, is very simple. Lauren simply needs to do three things:

Talk to her parents about the situation, and let them know her true thoughts and feelings regarding Marshall. Our parents can  help keep us accountable if our own hearts are swaying.  Our fathers are also our secret weapons in the area of dealing with guys. They are the strength that we don't have - they are the ones who can force the issues for us, the ones who can find out what a young man's intentions are towards us, the ones who can make sure no one leads us on. What if Marshall was only playing with her while he waited for something better to come along? (pg. 198)

• Oh, good.  The world has righted itself again.  You can talk to your parents, or your friends or whoever - but this isn't an actual romantic relationship and putting this much time and energy into it is messed up.
• Teaching your daughters that they can't determine a guy's intention and that they are too weak to do anything about issues that come up is sick, sick, sick, sick.  
• Reality check:
• Do you think these problems are going to disappear when you marry?  Issues will arise with your spouse; you need to know what your spouse's intentions are and you sure as hell better be able to figure out if you are being led on by your spouse!
• What happens when you interact with the real world?  Even if you plan on being a SAHM, you will need to interact with men who are not your husband on a regular basis.  Being a push-over who can't read body language or actions is NOT going to work.
• Notice how warped the Botkin Sisters view of men is; Marshall, who has done nothing wrong by most courtship standards, is dangled out as a potential playboy.  

"Interact with Marshall as a sister and not a girlfriend, as if nothing is going on... Because nothing is, right? Are pure and sisterly conduct can remind young men with their own should be.


Resist the urge to keep a candle burning for him in her heart just in case. We don't know who God intends for us to marry; we don't know who God intends for them to marry. What's important is that we keep our hearts open to what God wants. And that's going to be a lot harder if we already filled that spot with a certain someone. (pg. 198)"

• The first step to treating Marshall as a brother-in-Christ or simply as a friend is to stop obsessing over this relationship.  Truly, Marshall is not the person with a problem here.
• Yeah, it would be hard to find the person God wants Lauren to marry if Lauren is so focused on not getting into a relationship with Marshall that she's not looking at anyone else....

We're rolling through Chapter 11!  One more chunk of Botkin "Wisdom" then another session with the Boys.

It's Not That Complicated: Chapter 11 - Part 2

Welcome to the dangers of online relationships per the Botkin Sisters!  Let's dive in because there is a LOT to cover here:

Jessie is 18, sweet, naive, and longing for love and attention, but too shy to talk to the boys she knows. Online is easier. So is Omar, a wonderful charming new cyber friend. Within months, he's convinced her that no one could ever love her like he does that he's even urging her to "escape" from her home, and has bought her plane ticket to the city where he lives... (pg. 192).

It's Not That Complicated: Chapter 11 - Part 1

Ahh.  Now we launch into all the fun of reading about how Anna Sofia and Elizabeth have judging all their  friends failed (or not so failed) relationships.

I'm sure I'm going to say this a lot, but I find it crass that two young women who have had a grand total of a single rumored courtship between the two of them expect us to listen to them about how to have a healthy relationship with men.

Actually, I'm being overly optimistic.  We're going to hear about how all of their "friends" have shitty relationships.

Bluntly, I learned most of what I know about relationships from listening to adults discuss the positives and negatives of ongoing relationships going on around them.  I also watched the adults around me to see how people treated each other and which relationships I wanted to emulate some day.

"Ashley, 24, has known since she was 17 the Bradley was The One. All these years she's clung to every possible reason to hope, cherishes every friendly gesture... and now she's really from his announcement that he's just become engaged to one of her friends... (pg. 191)"

It's Not That Complicated: The Boys - Part 7

For people who have been reading along with Botkin Sisters through this series what I will say next will surprise no one. The Botkin Sisters  manage to find guys who are willing to talk about how girls should talk to each other about guys when no guys are around.
Let that sink in for a minute.
I find the idea of receiving moral advice on how I'm supposed to interact with other young women condescending.  Equally disturbing is the idea that all moral information has to be filtered through men. Heck, in this case the moral orbiters are not men but half-grown boys.
Ugh.  Here we go:

James, producer, says... Girls up and wonder why guys won't take the lead in approaching girls or simply initiating conversation. The truth is, that many guys I know are unwilling subject themselves to the gossip that they know will occur if they have a conversation with a girl. " Did you see Tommy talking to Sue? I wonder if he's interested in marrying her?" Worse yet are the mothers to try to play matchmaker. "So... When are you going to get married? What about Ruth? She's a nice girl. I saw you talking to her this afternoon. Are you guys courting?" It's not fun walking into a room and feeling like a fresh hunk of meat thrown into a shark tank, just waiting for the circle and women to attack. (pg. 181)

It's Not That Complicated: Chapter 10 - Part 3

This is the section where the Botkin Sisters decide to act as the arbitrators of how girls should interact with each other.  You might expect that they would have some personal experience in this area.  After reading this chunk, I don't think they have much more experience with female friends than they do with male friends.

Contributing to the delinquency of another  

They're not supposed to be head hunting... so don't ask them, “Who do you think is cute?” or “Who do you want to marry?” They don't need help thinking the wrong kinds of thoughts towards young men, or trying to pick out specific ones as if it were their place to do the choosing (pg 186).

It's Not That Complicated: Chapter 10-Part Two

I've started blogging again after a several month break.  I'm pregnant and my body responded to the change in hormones by having my digestive system go berserk and my hips widened by two inches from relaxing soft tissue which lead to lots of hip and back pain.  So, yeah, I spent most of the summer curled into a ball.

Good news is between a doctor-recommended mix of Unisom and B6 that caused me to stop vomiting and start eating again and lots of stretching, I'm back to my usual sardonic self.

Added bonus: when I restarted my grad school program, I found a free voice-based transcription software package online to help me transcribe the interviews I am collecting for my thesis.  This package lets me prepare selected quotes from the Botkin Sisters book in a quarter of the time it took me to type myself from the book.  Plus, reading this book aloud is a simple pleasure.  It reads a bit like a 1950's etiquette manual written by a grandmother rather than a 21st century book written by two women in their early twenties.

Let's dive back in:

Overarching Theme: Being involved in starting a romance is horrifyingly wrong! 

Trying to start things
Not that it's wrong to introduce people or say nice things about person A to person B and if one's interests are known to be bigger than love and marriage- if one of the general relationship broker and not just a romance broker - people will likely take such things in the healthy spirit in which it was meant. But then there's a kind of matchmaker that a friend of ours described as "much to be feared". Like the kind that sets up introductions and tete-a-tetes as though they were directing their own personal soap opera, and stand off to the side to watch and giggle. Or like the man who once called out loudly during a large dinner, "so X wants to marry one of the Y girls, and can't decide which one!" leaving X sitting at that very moment across from the Y girls to choke on his soup and turn purple. Not only did no marriage is come of it but the friendship possibilities were largely spoiled as well (not to mention the appetites). Or like the matchmaker that has a dreadful taste and keeps trying to set us up with her the lonely, strange friends. (pg. 181-182)

So now the only people allowed to act as matchmakers are the parents of the teenagers? I've never liked playing matchmaker but some people are quite good at it. if I were the Botkin Sisters, I would NOT hesitate to turn my nose up at a good date or courtship or whatever.

Yes, standing off to the side and watching two people you've introduced meet each other and giggling is immature. Like Junior High-level of immaturity . That's why we don't let junior high students be matchmakers. However, real adults generally do not behave like this. if you are a real adult and your friends behave like this, you need to find new friends.

Be honest now. How many married couples do you know that never had an awkward moment while dating due to an odd family member making an offhand reference? X may marry one of the Y girls someday and this would be a hilarious story to pass on in the family.

The Botkin sisters think that their friends keep setting them up with lonely, strange dates. Pot, meet kettle.

I am amazed at how bitchy the Botkin Sisters are towards their “friends”. Yeah, they lob some half-hearted criticisms at nameless feminists, but they save most of their venom for people they actually know. That's quite disturbing.

Trying to stop things
Often this is because the meddler actually wants to start something else. We've seen good conversations hijacked by jealous third parties. We've seen people try to sabotage other people's relationships (sometimes throwing themselves in the way or interposing other people). We've seen girls complain about guys talking to and befriending other girls which would normally be the kind of thing that they would promote, were not their own interests in the way) and raising motions to get these things stopped. (pg. 182)

• I really think the Botkin Sisters need new friends. This behavior is age appropriate between 12 and 14 years of age and should be completely gone by age 20.
  

• When they use the word "interposing" this is actually a long set up for a footnote that invokes the Doctrine of Interposition as a joke. Look, I love academic jokes as much as the next person but your audience has to know the doctrine for the joke to make any sense. Based on my Google search, very few people study or use the Doctrine of Interposition on a regular basis.
  
• Man, talk about cutting off your own nose to spite your face. Trying to get boy-girl talk banned will come back to bite you when you meet the next cute guy. Of course, most of us learn that lesson in - surprise, surprise! - Junior High.
  

Looking out for number one
Rather than looking out for everyone else is good, sometimes we're actually just looking out for our own good. Maybe we're not trying to set and match someone else's game. Maybe our own love life is the soap opera that we're trying to write and direct. Maybe we're manipulating circumstances and engineering stale mates among our friends because we want something or someone for ourselves. We interpose, hijack, flatter, slander, stalk and show two faces so that we can win this game. (pg. 185)

• Welcome to reality. Most adults are in control of their own love life. They choose to take an active role in it. This is not new nor should it be condemned.
• Ahh. Another example of "one thing is not like the other" from the Botkin Sisters. Flattery can be a part of romantic relationship. Hijacking, slandering, stalking and being two-faced is likely to end badly in the long run – and stalking is illegal. (Well, so is hijacking, but they are using a different use of the word....)
  
• Looking back over various relationships and people who try to sabotage other people's relationships, I can't think of many examples where the relationship actually ended because of the sabotuer's actions. I mean, the couple isn't stupid; you can tell when someone is messing with you. Plus, I can't think of any time that the sabotuer ended up in a long-term relationship with the person whose relationship they ended.
  

Well, the Botkin Sisters are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now for stories. Next up, lots of really helpful lists – especially if you want to get rid of any female friends you currently have.

It's Not That Complicated: The Boys - Part 6

There are just a handful of quotes left from the Boys in Chapter Nine.  What I can't get over is how similar each of the guys' complaints about women is.

Overarching Themes:
What's good for the gander is unacceptable for the goose.....
From "Jack, inventor"

"I once had a long, tedious conversation with a girl who essentially introduced herself as the kind of person who read the dictionary from cover to cover, presumably because she thought this incredible feat made her seem intelligent.  When I admitted that I had never read through an entire reference book, she simultaneously bragged and lamented that guys didn't like talking to her because they thought she was "too smart".
She must have noticed my increasing discomfort, because she pointed out that she was smarter than me, and asked why that bothered me.  I found it difficult to politely explain that her intelligence was not what was bothering me.  Looking back, I think she probably was smarter than me, but that didn't stop her from doing dumb things, like bragging about reading dictionaries cover-to-cover or trying to bully guys into feeling guilty about not liking her.
Given half a choice, I'd much rather spend time with people who are smarter than I am.  Dumber people are far less stimulating, far less educational, and way harder to find.  Without exception, the guys that I know will actively pursue girls who are smart, will probably put up with girls who think that they are smart, and run away from girls who define themselves as smart." (pg. 171)

• Jack thinks this anecdote makes him seem superior to a woman.  Actually, this anecdote makes him seem trite, self-important and socially impotent in one fell swoop.  Ironically, the two words I use to describe this quote are long and tedious.
• The Botkin Sisters have harped on - and will continue to harp on - the importance of edifying and enlightening men in conversations.  When that's the stated goal of all conversations, why shouldn't a girl lead off by explaining that she's read an entire dictionary?  Perhaps the girl was attempting to tell Jack that he needed to broaden his vocabulary or that Jack uses words in an inappropriate way.
• Notice that Jack never thought of changing the topic.  I know that silently judging people takes a lot of mental effort, but most people would have simply introduced a new topic like hunting small game.
• The last sentence is a strange shade of Michael Pearl.  The ideally intelligent woman according to James is smart, but neither thinks of herself as smart nor defines herself as smart.  Good luck finding that, James.
• Corollary: How many intelligent women would want to be around James?

From "Chas, networking guru"

"Sarcasm in a woman is particularly unattractive, even to sarcastic men.  The idea of spending the rest of my life in a house with a sarcastic woman is enough to drive me to take vows of lifelong celibacy. Proverbs talks about that, actually." (pg. 175)

• Sarcastic men are unattractive as well, Chas.  Sarcasm is a backhanded indirect form of anger. 
• I cannot find Chas' verse in Proverbs about sarcasm and women so the Botkin Sisters should have done a better job editing their quotations for accuracy.

This is speaking hypothetically since I've never actually been around a girl....
From "Jack, inventor",

"There are many different levels of flirtation, but most guys are frustrated than flattered by conversations that exist only to be flirtatious.  It's like the female equivalent of pickup lines, or the kind of baby talk that people lapse into when around kittens - seemingly fun, then pointless, and ultimately irritating to the target.  When girls want to talk to me, but will only talk about superficial things, it's obvious that they only have a superficial interest in me.  If simply "talking to a guy" seems to be more important to a girl than actually communicating with a fellow human being, it's hard not to jump to conclusion about her motivation and maturity." (pg. 175)

• Signs that you have never flirted with another person include believing that there are "levels" of flirtation.
• Not everyone wants to have a deep conversation every moment of the day.  Not every woman is deeply interested in every man.  Expecting every woman to be willing and able to jump into a deep, meaningful conversation on your terms is extremely self-centered and not Christian.
• The level of self-importance in these quotes is breathtaking.  Jack - along with many of his fellow boys - cannot conceptualize that a topic that is important to a girl may seem superficial to him.  Honestly, based on the limited exposure I've had to the Botkin Family through their books and their atrocious podcasts, I think their interest in history, art and religion is extremely superficial in spite of the sheer amount of time and energy that they claim to spend on it.

From "Robert, entrepreneur"

"Without taking the reins on a conversation, women can be very influential in its direction just by the nature of the women they are.  A woman whose identity is firmly rooted in every word of God, who can't discuss any topic without looking through a lens of biblical conviction, will have a tremendous influence on the nature of a conversation, without even thinking about it.  I've watched conversations amongst chums turn almost 180 degrees, simply because an honorable woman stepped near the group to politely listen in.  Good men, even just decent men, will raise themselves to the level of identity of the young woman in the conversation.
Every interaction inspires either good or bad works.  Even if it's "shunning".  Sisters, brothers, girls and guys, even parents, look on at the actions of young men and women in a community, and have their convictions shaken or awakened by what they see. There is no such things as being invisible, and inspiring no works at all.  To not encourage, is to discourage." (pg. 176)

• If men are the God-ordained spiritual leaders of humanity AND the CP/QF folk are the reborn spiritual prophets of the Reformation, men's topics of conversation should be lofty, educational and edifying regardless of who is present in the room.
• Notice, yet again, the passive nature of women.  A woman listens.  A woman parrots Biblical truth.  Women shun bad ideas and works.  Women in BotkinLand never speak, lead or reprove.  How dull.
• Even Rob-Bob manages to find a new way to shame women for failing to be a cheerleader since NOT ENCOURAGING => DISCOURAGING.  Sorry, dude, in real-life there is the neutral option.

In the next post wins my favorite/most insane moment in the whole book.....