Dominion Orientated Femininity: Part Three

This post covers all of the second point in Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin's podcast "Dominion-Orientated Femininity".   The Botkin Sisters are solid public speakers, but would greatly benefit from one or two classes in public speaking.  The lecture/conference breakout session/podcast covers the ten most important points about dominion-orientated femininity - but the discussion of two of the points take up half of the time.  Since the introduction to the topic took 25% of the podcast's running time, this left seven topics to be covered in about 6 minutes. 

Somewhere in the melee, point three got lost all together.

I'm really curious - but will likely never know - if the error occurred at the original conference and no one noticed in post-production....or if point three was lost during post.   I find it depressing that a family that prides themselves on starting an alternative media empire missed a mistake as obvious as this one.  Was it too much effort for one of the brothers to listen through the entire 37 minute podcast and pay attention?

Well, here we go:

Point number two is: a dominion woman understands what the difference is between real femininity and false femininity. This is important.

There are a lot of theories of femininity going around that we need to examine Biblically. For example, some people say, "Femininity is the opposite of masculinity". Well, certainly, we are supposed to be different from men, but that doesn't necessarily mean opposite.

Another one is some people think femininity is whatever the feminists have rejected. Well, that's bad hermeneutics. "Cause we have to be careful that we don't build our philosophy of womanhood or of anything else on a knee-jerk reaction to something bad as though the thing that's bad is what actually determines our morality. The Bible is our only standard and it should be our motivation to do right.

Some people say that Biblical femininity is any picture of womanhood that was around before the Woman's Suffrage Movement. Well, the thing is feminism has been around since the garden of Eden and it's had advocates in every single century.

This is entirely personal preference on my part - but do not give counter-examples before giving me the working definition. 

I agree that morals and principles should be defined positively instead of in reaction to negative things.

I've been thinking really hard about Genesis 1 +2 and I have no idea why Eve's decision to eat the apple counts as a feminist act.  No idea at all.   Adam ate the apple, too, then attempted to shift blame to Eve.  Does that mean failure to own and accept responsibility for one's actions is a masculine trait?  (You know, in CP/QF land, the answer to that question might be "yes" - and that scares me even more.)

So the actual meaning of femininity is really extremely simple and we see it in the first couple of chapters of the Bible. So here in Genesis 2 God reveals to us the essence of femininity when he shows us how Eve was meant to correlate to Adam. He said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a helper suitable for him." So, here we see the woman was made for the man like it says in 1 Corinthians 11:9. We see she's a different creature. She's made for a different purpose and her role is different which we see in Genesis 3. She is supposed to look different as we see in Deuteronomy 22:5. And we should rejoice in that difference because that is the difference that makes us complimentary to the man. And the purpose of this difference which we call femininity is to help masculinity and to suit masculinity. To compliment it and complete it. And the two of them together will be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it. We could sum up by saying, "True femininity is about helping men fulfill their calling. "

Who's up for a round of Bible Bingo?

Anna Sofia/Elizabeth Botkin starts out by quoting Genesis 2:18 - which is a strange choice out of all the options in that chapter.  The next action that follows God's statement isn't the creation of Eve, but the creation of animals meant to be partners for Adam.  None of the animals are suitable partners for Adam so God created Eve from his rib.   When Adam awakes, he doesn't proclaim "I've got a helper!".  No, he recognizes and rejoices that he has another person who is made of the same flesh and bone as him.    The major moral I've always heard from that story is that males and females are partners in doing God's will since God commanded Adam to care for the garden - and created Eve because humans need friends.

No discussion of female submission is complete without 1 Corinthians 11:9 "Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man."  Oddly enough, people who pull the previous verse generally miss 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman.  For just as the woman came from man, man comes through woman; but all things come from God."  Equally important, verses 2-16 are discussing which genders should keep their heads covered during prayer.   The full argument follows that God created Adam in God's image, but Eve was created in Adam's image only so men who are the image of God should keep their heads uncovered during prayer while women who are images of humans should cover their heads.     Since Genesis 1:27 explicitly states that God created male and females in the image of God, we can safely disregard the questionable logic within 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 about female submission.

I'm very worried about what I'm going to find in Genesis 3 because I think Anna Sofia/Elizabeth has confused the gendered curses for eating the forbidden fruit with God's purpose in creating humans. 

*drums fingers nervously while waiting for a page to load*

Yup.  Yup.  Anna Sofia/Elizabeth has confused women's curse of the pain and danger associated with pregnancy and childbirth and men's curse of physically crushing subsistence agriculture with God's purpose for creating men and women.   I'm blushing on behalf of Anna Sofia/Elizabeth right now; I would have gotten marked down SO badly if I screwed that interpretation up in a high school essay.  I can't even imagine the level of embarrassment if I did that in my one college level religion class. 

OT: English needs a word for the emotion of embarrassment felt on behalf of another person who is completely oblivious to the fact that their action was awkward or inappropriate.  Do we have that word? 

And, yes, Deuteronomy 22:5 does state that men and women should wear different clothing.  That's the same chapter that states that it's immoral to plow with a donkey and an ox yoked together, immoral to plant a second crop in a vineyard and that linen-wool blend clothing is also immoral.  So...yeah.  Some Biblical precepts are not as universal as others.

The definition of "femininity" is "helping men do stuff".   How does that work in day-to-day life -even CP/QF life?  When a guy helps his friend do a project, is the first guy behaving femininely?  Is every man who works for wages feminine? 

I don't think the Botkin Sisters have really thought this definition out very well. 

Any departure from this is a departure from Biblical femininity. Throughout the Bible and throughout history we actually only see two kinds of womanhood. The kind that devotes its identity to helping men fulfill their calling and the kind that wants power over men. The first one lives a life of self-sacrifice; the later wants to have its own way. The later is what we call feminism.

 A lot of us think of feminism as being ugly and androgynous, but feminism appears in many guises throughout history. Sometimes it's trying to subdue masculinity with its womanly wiles and charms. Sometimes feminism is vain and narcissistic and self-absorbed. It's ornamental. It's useless. And it's not interested in helping men take dominion. It's interested in itself. And sometimes, it's trying to compete with masculinity and out man it. But there's one thing that consistent in all of these manifestations. Feminism is always independent and always self-seeking and its desire is to weaken and dominate men.

The Botkin definition of feminism is "women who want their own way in a self-important method for the aim of weakening and dominating men."   (That's the best working definition I can cobble together from the word salad in the last section of the podcast.)  In Botkin-land that definition makes some sense because they treat all rights as being a zero-sum game.  If women gain the right to vote, men lose.  When women work outside the home, men lose.  Clearly, that's not how the world works.  When women became voters, men had more potential voters to motivate to support ideas that were important to the men.  Having women in the workforce benefits male employers through the largest possible pool of qualified candidates and benefits male workers who are married by having a second income in the family economy. 

The argument that feminism is never self-sacrificial makes it clear that the Botkin Sisters have never cracked a history book open.   Issues that everyone agrees are feminism issues like voting rights, property rights and economic rights for women moved forward because groups of women were willing to sacrifice their time, energy and talents for the greater good of the movement. 

Of course, in writing the last two paragraphs, I've put more thought into the subject than the speaker ever has.  My rationale for that is that Anna Sofia/Elizabeth claims that CP/QF women believe that feminism was "ugly and androgynous."  That is a shallow and trite description even if feminism was horrifying evil that stretched over millenia that the Botkin sisters attempt to make it. 

On the other hand, perhaps the lack of depth in the description reflects cursory education of the speakers.  That might be more disturbing.

I generally listen to the podcast straight through at least twice while walking before trying to transcribe it.   I remember very clearly listening to this part and thinking, "Is she going to make a reference to Delilah?  She's not walking into that trap, right?"

Understanding this is extremely helpful when it comes to sorting through all the images around us. And there are two in particular that we believe are leading girls away from Biblical femininity. One is floozy femininity which uses its beauty to show off and try to gain power over men. It's what the world call femininity, but we cannot let it confuse us. It's distinct from masculinity, but it's not gentle and quiet. It's not modest and discreet. We should ask ourselves, "Is this an asset to mankind or is it a liability? Is it like Mary the Mother of God or is it like Delilah?" If we ask these questions and judge by these standards, it becomes clear that this kind of femininity is not Biblical femininity.

And then in the opposite camp, we've known girls who have turned away from femininity because they learned from Barbie dolls that femininity is for bimbos. And so they become bitter about their God-given femininity. They become ashamed of it. They try to hide it under men's clothes. Sometimes they become bitter towards men as well. And they're not complimenting men and filling that which is lacking.

Femininity is the process of getting things done for men (as defined before) - so why does gentleness, quietness, modesty and behaving discreetly have anything to do with femininity?  Sometimes a problem needs someone who can be loud and assertive.

Putting Mary the Mother of God as an opposite to Delilah is a hoot.  To her neighbors, Mary was an engaged woman who got pregnant by someone who was not her betrothed.  Later in life, Mary ordered Jesus to turn water into wine at a wedding after he had specifically said it was not time for him to reveal himself yet in John 2:3-5 and brought his siblings along to meet with him once he was preaching in Mark 3:31-35.   That's hardly the quiet, docile woman idolized by the Botkin Sisters  Delilah, on the other hand, was completing the job given to her by the leaders of her people the Philistines; she was finding out how to defeat the best warrior of her enemies according to Judges 16:4-6.   As near as I can tell, this means Delilah was a dominion-oriented woman since she helped men achieve their goals and Mary was a raging feminist because she placed her goals ahead of Jesus.

So this is the challenge of trying to rediscover Biblical femininity, trying to sort through all the images and stereotypes from the past. Looking for good examples. There are many great legacies for us in history if we can find them. We have to remember no era and no image is perfect.

We have an amazing opportunity before us right now to build a new culture of femininity. Something completely new and different on the foundation of the Bible alone. Now, Reverend William Einwechter who's one of our favorite theologians, he explains, "The Hebrew word for help - as in helpmeet - ezer- comes from two roots. The first meaning "to rescue or save" and the second meaning "to be strong". It indicates one who is able and who has what it takes to come to the aid of someone who is in need. Thus God created the woman so that she would be able to come to the aid of the man and be his support and help". She's only going to figure out her purpose if she realizes his. "And thus it is absolutely keeping with Biblical womanhood, imperative even, for a woman to understand and appreciate men and their world."

One request to the universe: I never, ever want to read another CP/QF book that includes a discussion of the root basis of the Hebrew word for "help meet".   Those kind of discussions can be fascinating when there is some disagreement over the basis of the word or when there isn't a great English equivalent for the word.  When the words "help meet" is pretty darn close to "ezer", the author is simply wasting time and increasing the word count. 

And so people have often asked us, "Is it feminine for girls to be inspired by the masculinity of their brothers and their fathers and to enjoy the things that their brothers are doing?" I would say the answer is yes. I think it's feministic for girls to grow up having a contempt for those things. And girls who are trying to understand their position as women need to eschew the false notion that women live in different worlds. We were created to be different, but we live in the same world we have the same goal. And in our pursuit of being women, we need to make sure we don't abandon our men and one thing we need remember is that brave adventurous men need women who can come alongside them in the rigors of their lives. And sometimes that means going outside and helping your brother build a tree fort. Sometimes it means when you're married helping your husband build his house. Femininity is not all about staying inside the house and feeding upon sugar and cream and and cross-stitching. That's another thing that Elizabeth and I had to figure out along the way.

Anna Sofia has painted herself into a corner again.  The Botkin definition of femininity is "helping men do dominion-oriented tasks" so presumably the definition of masculinity is "initiating and doing dominion-oriented tasks."   Female humans of all ages are supposed to feel inspired by men who do dominion-oriented tasks and should lend a hand.   I can follow the logic - such as it is - up to this point.  But why shouldn't women also initiate and complete dominion-oriented tasks?   According to Anna Sofia, women do not have a unique set of skills like being sheltered and cross-stitching that needs to be preserved.  If that's the case, why shouldn't a girl build a tree fort even if her brothers aren't into that? 

I think Anna Sofia and Elizabeth have only worked out part of the puzzle and I hope they figure out the rest this side of heaven. 

Preparing Sons: Chapter 10 - Part One

Welcome to Steven Maxwell's chapter in "Preparing Sons to Provide for a Single Income Family" on how to raise sons between the ages of 13 and finishing school!  I feel more competent to discuss this age-group than any of the other ones since I've spent most of my working life teaching this age group.  Personally, I enjoy working with pre-teens, teens and young adults.  They are in a period of life where they are sampling and re-assessing the world for themselves.  Often, this requires occasional moments of friction against authority figures - but those stages are important for growth.

Like the two previous chapters, the first section in this age group deals with the teenager's spiritual growth.  A large portion of the section involves teaching the teen to use the Bible like an instruction manual:

You can also use this approach to help your son  "practice" making Biblical decisions on situations he might face in the future, such as: What if your boss asked you to lie? Would it be proper for a married man to have lunch alone with a woman not his wife? What if the other woman were sales representative, and it was strictly a business lunch? What if a woman co-worker asked for help to save her marriage? Let him study God's words on these issues as part of his training and applying scripture to decision-making. Not only will that skill be developed, but he will also be equipped with a Biblical basis for facing such situations if they ever arise. This will help him to see that the Bible can be applied to discerning God's direction. (pg. 140)

Oh, Lord.  The Maxwells have a stricter version of the Pence Rule than Mike Pence does. 

Equally disturbing - why would a teenager not already know the accepted moral answers to most of these questions?  Small white lies for a boss are okay like screening calls to avoid sales representatives or helping set up a surprise retirement party.  Big lies are not a good sign and should be avoided.  Yes, business professionals have lunch with people of the other gender all the time.  That was relatively rare in education (mainly because teachers tend to go to lunch or dinner in massed clumps) but I had plenty of lunches with my male advisor without a smidgen of attraction between us.  Don't help co-workers with their marriage.  Especially important: do not help subordinates with their marriages.

The second section covers how to get the teenager into the masculine world of preaching or teaching:

If you are not aware of preaching or teaching opportunities, ask the Lord where you and your son could share publicly. Our country is full of nursing homes with residents who are hungry for someone to spend time with them. What better use of time than to share God's word with them? (...)

You can make your ministry at the nursing home a church-type service, as our family does, and include many of the children. Take turns with your son being the preacher or teacher. You share one week, and he can the next. If any of your children are learning to play an instrument, let him play while you or an older child leads the group in singing. It will be an incredible time of growth and service! (pg. 141)

Leave it to the Maxwell family to add a new terror to old age.

 A music group I was involved with in high school performed at local retirement and nursing homes.  We bought a variety of standard Christian hymns along with pop hits from the 1930's and 1940's.  The hymns were nice - but people got really into hearing the songs from when they were teens.  More importantly, we stayed afterwards and chatted and played games with the residents.

The biggest irony for me about reading this book is that the Maxwells have managed to isolate their kids even while attending "church".   By holding services at a retirement home, the Maxwell kids are kept away from pesky children, teens or adults who have different worldviews.  Elderly folk may have a different worldview from the Maxwells - but Steven's got that covered by having his kids kept busy between playing music or preaching.

All the bragging rights of attempting to convert a captive audience with none of the risks of having the kids being exposed to other people.

Now, we've covered pretty extensively how sheltered and micromanaged the Maxwell Family is.  For anyone who is unfamiliar with "Managers of Their Homes" the Maxwell Family routinely schedules every activity from rising to sleeping.  I can see the benefits of having a daily schedule especially when homeschooling a massive family - but when a 23-year old Sarah is still being scheduled right down to a slot for showering, things have gotten weird.   Based on that level of control, you might assume that Steven could rest assured that his teens were gaining plenty of character simply by living.  You'd be wrong; that's why Steven has weekly meetings with each kid aged 12 and up:

Any topic is fair game for meeting as long as it is discussed calmly, in a spirit of love. Most weeks I will ask a son how is quiet time is going, what struggles he is having, and if he's having trouble with his thoughts. If there are problems with his other siblings, these will be discussed. If there are character issues I've observed, I will bring these up. Seldom is there a negative reaction from my son as he received the concerns from a loving daddy's heart. In addition, I asked my son whether I'm doing anything that is causing him difficulty. Occasionally I will question him to areas of hypocrisy in my life to which I am blind. I absolutely love my meeting time with my children. Friend, I treasure those minutes! (pg. 142)

Goody goody gumdrops.  Not only is the Maxwell Family constrained to a life of stultifying boredom but the boredom is only broken up by the fact that Steven Maxwell is making lists of character issues and intersibling spats to drag up weekly.  At least, I hope that the sentence about siblings describes inter-sibling issues; I'd hate to think that Steven discloses character issues that his other kids are struggling with. 

I can't imagine trying to get through my teenage years without having the sanctuary of my own thoughts.  I could rage against my parents, fume about my sister and I's last spat or fantasize about my dream boyfriend without having to confess everything to a prying, controlling father.

I would be much less skeptical if Steven would elaborate in a serious manner some of the areas that he's been hypocritical - especially those areas pointed out by his sons.   First, Steve has always minimized his flaws compared to everyone else's in the universe.   Steven's habit of flying small planes was setting his family back a huge chunk of cash - but Steven weeps when service workers discuss which casinos they like.  Guess what?  Visiting a casino on a service worker's income is much less of an imposition than flying planes are for a family of 5.

Second, Steven has controlled the money, career, educational, and shelter options of his sons.  Only Nathan, Christopher and perhaps John have careers that are mostly independent of Steven - and I'm far from certain that Christopher and John are fully financially independent.  Joseph and Jesse are in a business at least partially owned by Steven.  When this book was written, only Nathan had his own house.  The other four boys lived at home.  How honest  could (or should) those sons be about any hypocrisy they see in their dad?

Next, Maxwell discusses how to promote leadership among sons.  I pulled out this quote because it reminded me of efforts by college applicants to make participating an average volunteer experience sound like the most amazing life-changing experience ever:

Each year Christopher organized the group's spelling bee. He oversaw it from beginning to end. First he had to locate and motivate the children to participate. Then, over time, he would check with the spellers to make sure they were working on their word list. He recruited judges, a pronouncer, and a refreshment coordinator and made sure that they each understood their role. He confirm the facilities were reserved and set up. Those of you who have overseen an event know there are other jobs that need to be managed as well, but you get the idea. All in all, it was an excellent chance for Christopher to lead.

Christopher, with Sarah's help, was also responsible for organizing the children's programs that were held during the parents' meeting. They had to plan every minute of the evening so that the children would spend their time productively. The goal was to teach the children material that was profitable and practical. Christopher and Sarah would recruit other young people to help. They work through the details of the evening and often had an organizational meeting. The children's programs were an excellent opportunity to practice leadership while ministering to others (pg. 143-144)

The "group" was a pre-existing homeschool support group.  Finding children to participate was as simple as sending home a flyer with the parents.  I don't know where the spelling bee was located, but we can rent a community room at the local library for free.  Reserving the room took about 10 minutes on the phone at most - and probably a lot less now if I can do it online.  Since Sarah and Christopher were already seeing the kids at the children's program,  checking in on the spellers means saying "Hey, champ!  Getting ready for the big spelling bee?"  The hardest bit would be finding judges and a pronouncer if they weren't using parents of the kids in the bee.   Personally, I'd start bothering all the English teachers I know, but I don't know how the Maxwells dealt with that.  I love the title of "refreshment coordinator"!  I'd have just set up a list of items to bring by last name of families involved in the bee and called it good. 

I hope Christopher and Sarah found other teenagers to help with every children's program - and held multiple organizational meetings for each one.  That gives me hope that they might have had a few moments of unsupervised time with peers at some point during their teenage years.

The last section of the chapter I'm going to discuss today loosely fits the idea of training a son to a vocation.

An important method to raise successful sons is to never, ever miss a chance to bring up how not following Steven Maxwell's advice lead to a business failure.   The next quote section is about Eric's Christopher's first business that failed:

Eric had his own graphic design business for two years. He loved throwing his heart into making successful. Unfortunately, he would have starved had he not been living with his parents. His father wanted to teach Eric programming, But Eric only had eyes for graphic design and wasn't interested. (pg. 17)

One excellent way to stir the desire for working is by helping your son start a business. Remember Eric? Even though he was not learning programming as his father wanted, he still benefited greatly from his startup graphics design business. By staying busy, Eric did not have the time or the desire to hang around with the guys. For 2 years, he poured his heart into making his business successful. (pg. 146)

The "best" thing about the Maxwell's belief in all children living at home prior to marriage is the financial and career control Steven Maxwell maintains.   

Nathan showed interest in computer programing and Steven Maxwell approved of that.  Steven Maxwell used his connections to help Nathan land his first external job at Maxwell's employer.

Christopher was interested in graphic design and that was not an approved choice by Steven.  Graphic design can be a hard field to get started in - especially without a college degree or work experience in the field.  Perhaps Steven tried to drum up some business for Christopher; perhaps the collapse of the aerospace engineering firm Steven worked at made that impossible.

Oddly enough, Christopher never was encouraged to go to college to get a graphic design degree. Was that because Steven Maxwell knew (at some level) that the homeschool education provided to his sons was subpar?  Graphic design might avoid the pitfalls in science and math - but the family's absolute lack of study in fictional literature would be painfully obvious in a humanities class. The existing websites created by the family show some writing quirks shared among the boys that might signal lack of experience in writing.  The Maxwell kids studied instrumental music since it was a way for the parents to show off the skills of the kids - but they received minimal visual art exposure or training. 

Apparently Joseph learned from Nathan's and Christopher's examples.  Joseph demonstrated an interest - and hopefully some talent - in programing - so his dad opened his wallet.

Leading your son towards more work and less play may mean providing him with the necessary work tools. When Joseph was 12, he was progressing well in programming, web page layout, and graphic design. Unfortunately, we did not have a computer available as often as he needed it. So we found a refurbished, brand name system that was very inexpensive, but quite powerful. Then Joseph had his "own" system and was able to spend more time on the projects that challenged him. Parents should be willing to invest financially in sons, if necessary. (pg. 146)

For reasons of honesty, the last sentence should strike "if necessary" and replace it with "to reward those who follow the family plan".   

According to the last chapter, the Maxwells had already spent at least $1,000 dollars to buy a professional copy of Delphi for Joseph - so dropping another $200-500 dollars on a solid refurbished computer system sounds like the next illogical step.   Now, a full-time course load of classes at a local community college for Christopher would run around a total of $1,300 dollars - and he'd likely qualify for financial aid or loans.  But funding a traditional college education for Christopher would reward him for disobeying Steven Maxwell's whims and possibly lead Christopher to question the Maxwell way of life so best to nip that in the bud.

The last quote is an excellent example of Maxwell's completely non-descript inspirational characters:

Billy, a sixteen-year-old, had been helping the young man who owns his own service business. Billy is not able to work full-time because of school, but with the hours he's putting in, he's gaining significant experience in this trade. By the time he graduates high school, he will know if this is something that he wants to pursue full time.

Troy chose to attend college. The vocation skills he learned during his high school years enabled him to have a high paying contract job while he attended college. If young people would concentrate on learning marketable skills at this age instead of majoring in entertainment, many would not have to borrow for college, vehicle, or house. (pg. 147-148)

I am very much in favor of vocational training especially for students who are clear on the fact that going to college sounds like hell.  I believe that the US system of education took a wrong turn when vocational training was eliminated due to a combination of cost and concerns about overly rigid tracking.   Many community colleges and unions have excellent vocational training available at reasonable rates.  On the other hand,  CP/QF families are at higher risk for being scammed by for-profit vocational training institutes that do not deliver on their promises.  The example I was aware of in my area was ITT Tech before it went bankrupt.  Male members of ATI/IBLP are at risk of being scammed through the ALERT Academy  (mainly because I don't trust any organization that offers EMT prep without disclosing the pass rate of the graduates.)

Is Billy's boss ITT Tech or the local community college?  Is he learning responsible management of hazards or is he learning shortcuts that can lead to massive fines later on?  Is Billy really learning the trade or is he getting a valuable shadowing experience while doing menial tasks?  Is Billy working on customers' jobs and is he fully qualified to do so?    I'm all about an enthusiastic 16-year old changing the oil on my car; I don't want the teen to be replacing my brakes unsupervised.

Anyone remember Troy?  Troy was the high schooler who started schlepping boxes around at a business and was promoted to archive manager within a year.  He also made a really nifty set of Excel documents to keep track of the archival materials.   Troy may have been the lucky soul who landed contract work making Excel documents while going to college - but plenty of successful college graduates I went to school with worked at local retail or restaurant establishments during college and still became lawyers, doctors and teachers.   Don't overthink it.

Well, that's it for today.  In the next post, I try and track down all of the Maxwell Family businesses.....

Maidens of Virtue: Chapter 17

Well, the chapter "Daddy's Fair Maiden" in Stacy McDonald's mother-daughter book "Maidens of Virtue" does an excellent job of portraying how creepy the idea of a father keeping his daughter's heart safe prior to marriage sounds to the rest of humanity.  Along the way, Mrs. McDonald takes swipes at non-CP/QF teenagers, offering age-appropriate Sunday Schools at churches, and the entire idea of Youth Group at churches.  Really, all this has done is make me extremely worried about any churches that hired her husband James McDonald as a pastor. 

We may as well jump in at the beginning:

Emily waited for her parents by the water fountain, the designated meeting place after Sunday school class was over. She watched the young people file out of the classroom. Many, she knew, did not claim Christ, although they came to church and Sunday school each week - a prerequisite for attending Friday night youth group. Youth Group - this was one of the seemingly many activities she wasn't allowed to join. Emily tried to shrug off growing sense of resentment. Why did her family always have to be so different?

Emily's parents had asked her if she would join them in their adult Sunday school class, so they could all learn together. She already attended the worship service with her parents, instead of sitting with the " youth kids." Emily had begged to remain in the teen Sunday school class at least until the end of the year, and her father reluctantly agreed. All the other kids at church were in age segregated classrooms -she didn't want to be different again. (pg. 155)

An important technique for creating a realistic fictional character is to map out their backstory.  An author would be well served by answering some questions about Emily like how many siblings she has, where does she fit in the family birth order and how old Emily is before launching into writing the story.   I bring this up because I have no idea why Emily is waiting for her family at a water fountain if she's old enough to be in a youth group and around people who are old enough to date.  If she has a ton of younger siblings who can't be trusted to head out to the car, that makes sense.  If not, is Emily too immature to make it to the car?

Let me get this straight: Emily's family attends an age-segregated church where they allow her to attend the teenage section under protest but won't let her go to the youth group or sit with the other teenagers at the service.  Those kind of parents tend to bring up three possible concerns for me.  First concern: the teenager is in a domestic abuse situation with one or both parents and is being isolated to prevent intervention.  Second concern: massively over controlling parents who are trying to keep their teens dependent on them.  Third concern: the teenager has such severe behavioral issues that they cannot be left alone without potentially bad outcomes. 

Has Emily's family asked anyone about if Emily (and any younger siblings) are welcome into the adult study group - or are they simply going to spring this on the facilitator/pastor? 

The parish I grew up in was relatively low on age groupings simply because it was a small parish focused on reaching Catholics who felt marginalized in "normal" parishes.  We had a much higher than average population of single parents, divorced parents, members with developmental or intellectual disabilities, and an entire group of Deaf Catholics.   In that setting, most of the classes held in the day or evenings were open to anyone who wanted to attend - usually.  The major exception was that some classes were covering topics that might be disturbing to kids, involved a long-term committment to a project, or involved people sharing life experiences like abuse or drug addiction.  Parents were assumed to steer their kids away from classes like that. 

I'd hate to be the presenter covering sexuality in marriage on the day that Emily's clueless parents trot their extremely sheltered daughter in to class....

Mrs. McDonald spends a few paragraphs making sure everyone knows that the other teenagers at Sunday School are unsaved heathens who are not worth the time to characterize.  Eventually, she drifts back to her main character:

Although Emily had many good friends, at the moment it seemed as though she didn't have a friend in the world. Confused by her intense desire to fit in, she temporarily lost sight of the wonderful family she had. For a moment she even seem to forget God. (pg. 156)

That paragraph was written to immunize the mothers reading this book against taking their daughters' heartfelt loneliness too seriously.  See, Emily isn't really lonely; she's got good friends who are so great that they don't even get names*!  Emily can't be lonely if she has a family!  Families fulfill every need a human has!  Loneliness is a sign of idolatry because if Emily is lonely she's putting humans before God!

*I described this quote to my husband.  He blinked, paused for a moment and said, "They name their girl children?  Shouldn't their names be given by their husbands?"  He paused for a moment and said, "Saying that makes me feel gross." 

Yes, my love, reading these books makes me feel gross, too.  That's why I write the blog.

She knew Brittney's dress and behavior did not honor God, yet Emily found herself drawn to her magnetic personality and even a little jealous of her sophisticated appearance.

Emily look down at the simple, pretty dress she was wearing. Her mother had made it for her last summer, and Emily had relished the time spent alone with her helping to sew on the lace trim and silk buttons. She had thought at the most beautiful dress she had ever seen and had twirled around as fast as she could to make the skirt form a circle in the air. Somehow, she now felt strange and conspicuous in her beautiful dress - maybe even a bit silly. (pg. 156)

*gasps and clutches pearls*

If Emily's behavior doesn't honor God....does that mean that works matter?  What kind of hard-core Calvinist are you! Brittney might be a member of the Elect -and won't Mrs. McDonald feel bad when she find that out later.

The second paragraph is a sweet reflection on the joys of sewing that leaves me wondering just how many siblings Brittney has.  If Brittney's an only child or youngest child at home, cherishing time alone with her mom doesn't make much sense.  If she's an oldest daughter in a massive family, it makes more sense (along with the water fountain meeting point) but makes me worried about how many kids are going to be dragged to the adult Sunday school class. 

On the sewing point: what kind of dress was Brittney wearing?  Lace trim goes into and out of fashion pretty regularly so that seemed reasonable on a teenager's church dress.  Silk buttons, though, were jarring.  I've only ever worn silk buttons on prom and wedding attire.  Maybe Mrs. McDonald meant fabric covered buttons which would have been dowdy on a teenager in the 1980's - but I think it would have been possible.  Or perhaps Mrs. McDonald knew exactly what she meant and Emily wearing a potential wedding dress to church every week to signal that she's of marriageable age....

Brittney sashayed passed Emily with an entourage of admiring boys. Emily wondered what it would be like to have boys look at her the way they looked at Brittney. She blushed as she imagined dressing in Brittney's clothes and enjoying the same attention. Emily knew Britney dated; she imagined what it to go out with a boy. Her mind continue to wonder...

Her thoughts suddenly switch to her father and how disappointed he would be with her recent thoughts. She found herself feeling ashamed and confused. (pg. 156-157)

CP/QF authors often describe teenage vignettes that I've never seen before.  I've never seen a teenage girl with such raw sexual appeal that scads of young men follow her around like ducklings to the exclusion of all other girls.   Teenagers are descended from people who managed to mate successfully.  Finding a potential mate or romantic interest is as much a numbers game as anything else.  Unless Brittney has a group of wing-women with her, guys who she's not that into will break off and find other girls.  Heck, if Emily wants the guys to notice her in her wedding dress Sunday dress, she could try talking calmly and attentively to Brittney..

Ew....

Emily feels ashamed because she thinks her father would be disappointed that she has sexual feelings.   That's a seriously messed up way to raise a kid. 

She's more than old enough to have sexual feelings and thoughts.  Emily's not done anything wrong under the vast majority of moral codes.  She's not leering or behaving in behaviors that make others uncomfortable.  She's not engaging in premarital flirtation let alone premarital sex. 

Teaching Emily to associate sexual feelings or thoughts with shame is setting her up for a hard transition to married sexuality....

Emily had felt secure and protected the day her father had taken her hands in his and promised to protect her until the day he placed her hand in that of her husband. She had agreed not to give her heart away, but instead to remain emotionally and physically pure before marriage, and trust her parents guidance through courtship instead of dating (Isaiah 62:5)

"Where's my fair maiden?" asked a strong, loving voice behind her. Emily snapped out of her reverie of discontent and faced her protector ashamed. He stood beside her mother, his admiring eyes and cheerful words reminding her of who she truly wanted to be - her father's fair maiden. (pg. 157)

Did Emily truly have the option of saying no to her father's offer of "protection" in return for accepting a courtship model of dating?  If a person can't say no, they cannot really say yes either. 

That quote from Isaiah 62 has nothing to do with courtship, emotional purity or dating.  It's describing that God rejoices in Israel in the same way that a groom rejoices in his bride. 

There is a clear, bright line between the familial affection between parents and children and the inappropriate incestuous abuse.  This story is on the moral side of the line - but, damn, it's close to that line.   My dad and mom were often proud of me and happy about how mature and grown-up I was becoming.  The word "admiring" is a bit more ambiguous since it can imply an ownership of the other person or can be used to describe appreciating someone's sexual attractiveness.  With the public testimony of the Willis family's oldest daughter that she was sexually abused by her father starting in early childhood through when she left her home, I'm very sensitive right now to readers of this book who might be in a similar situation.

Then another thought hit her. What if she were to dress and act like Brittney? Not only would she not be able to bear the disapproving gaze of her father, but what would her future husband think of her? Would he turn and run? Would he want to marry someone who behaves like a loose, silly girl? Or would he be waiting for a true maiden of honor-has her father had done? Emily glance tenderly at her mother.

In stark contrast, she turned to see Brittney hanging on a boy's arm, laughing indiscreetly. She contemplated further: if he were interested in someone like Brittney, would Emily really want to marry him- a man with no depth, no standards or wisdom, lit only by his visual, temporal pleasures? No way! (pg. 157)

Hi, Emily's mom!  I'm glad you've received a token acknowledgement of existence.  This whole story makes me wonder if post-menopausal women continue to exist in CP/QF life - or do they disappear after they can no longer reproduce?  Equally importantly, women have traditionally been in charge of teaching their daughters the sexual mores of a community.  Women also take on the majority of monitoring their daughters' adherence to the mores.  Handing that job off the to men - even the girl's father - feels inappropriate.

Notice that Mrs. McDonald is slut-shaming Brittney for being more popular with the boys than Emily.  Brittney's not done anything inappropriate so far.  She's touched a guy's arm while flirting and laughed loudly.   That's normal operating procedure for Midwestern/Great Lakes teens.  In terms of wisdom, Brittney's not spent the last few minutes obsessing over what her father thinks of her budding sexuality so I'm giving the wisdom badge to Brittney.

So...Emily wants to marry someone as judgmental towards others as she is and expects him to be as confused and conflicted about sexuality as she is.  Cool.  That sounds like a match made in heaven.  *shudders*

The story wraps up with Emily giving her dad a hug followed by a completely far-fetched change of heart by Brittney:

Emily didn't notice, but Brittney had caught sight of the precious father -daughter embrace, and a curious pang of longing struck her heart. What was it like to be loved and protected the way this young girl was loved and protected? How much does it feel to be so confident of God's love that you didn't have to beg for the wrong kind of attention by stooping to flirtatious stunts? Emily was one of the only girls at church who appear different to Brittney.

[...]

Brittney had met many Christians at this church, but she hadn't met anyone who seemed to be so much different than anyone else you knew. Maybe Emily and her family were really different - maybe they had some answers. She decided to ask. (pg. 158)

Yes!  Go have dinner with Emily's family.  That will end well.   Emily is smouldering with barely repressed jealousy towards Brittney who she's pre-judged to be a whore.  Emily is transferring all of her budding sexual energy into her relationship with her dad.  I'm sure Emily's mother is totally ok with all this energy between her husband and daughter. 

In real life, teenagers will pick a budding romantic relationship with a peer over a healthy hug between a random father and daughter.  Thank God for that - it will keep Brittney away from this crazy family.

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.

Preparing Sons: Chapter Nine - Part Two

This chapter from Steven Maxwell's "Preparing Sons to Provide for a Single Income Family" discusses how to raise 7-12 year old boys.  A previous post covered the sections on spirituality, vision, and teaching kids to work hard.   The next section covers the importance of having kids do chores.  Maxwell and I agree in broad strokes - kids reap a lot of benefits to doing age-appropriate chores.  Keeping a home running is a lot of work and it's fair for kids to help out with that work.  Chores involve using a lot of gross muscle, fine muscle and cognitive skills so learning to do chores helps develop new skills for little ones.   I'm less than impressed with one of Maxwell's rationales:

One of the many benefits of chores is that our children will appreciate how much work it is to keep house. We do not want to be guilty of raising a son who takes the work his wife does for granted. He should know how to help his wife with household chores in addition to being grateful for all she does. (pg. 125)

My first issue is that this paragraph normalizes the Maxwell ideal of all offspring living at home until they are married.  The reality is that most men and women live as single adults at some point during their lives.  Most men and women live as single adults if they become financially independent prior to marriage - and all marriage.

My second issue is the normalization of expecting a wife to do all the household chores as an ideal situation.   My husband and I agree - as my parents did - that raising children (with all the associated tasks) is more than enough of a full-time job for a stay-at-home mother. Most couples split up the rest of the household chores between them.   I do the majority of the daily chores around the house right now, but my husband does a lot of the care for our son when he's home in the morning and evening.  Maxwell's description of a husband "helping" his wife makes the husband sound like an eager, but relatively unskilled elementary school kid rather than an adult.

From chores, Maxwell moves into the idea of having kids help out on projects. Personally, my family has treated projects as a one-time or recurring large chore.   Everyone was expected to help out to the best of their ability to get the work done quickly and well.    The first anecdote in the section is supposed to inspire readers about what their kids can do when all extraneous "fun" activities are removed from their lives.  I was not inspired; I was horrified:

When Joseph was seven years old and John was five, they asked if they could landscape the front of  the house. The job involved digging up sod in the heat of summer. After some persistence on their part, I agreed to give them the project. I was concerned about the shovels and tools they would be using so I presented them with some rules aimed at protecting them from injury. Every day, out those two little boys would go with their shovels, digging and sweating. I helped them at times, but it was their project. For the final steps, we worked together putting the black weed preventer down and then planting the bushes. I cannot imagine a trophy on a shelf meaning more to me than that landscaping! (pg. 126)

I like gardening and was trained as an under-gardener by both my mother and father.  Age-appropriate chores for a 5-7 year old kid include transplanting small annuals, watering plants, deadheading flowers, harvesting vegetables and raking leaves.   Kids that young should not be breaking sod!  I started breaking sod at around age 12.  At that age, I was tall enough to use an adult shovel, heavy enough that my body weight would drive the point through the sod, and strong enough to flip the broken sod onto a tarp to dry.   I'm pretty sure that if I had tried to break sod at age 5, I would have stepped on the shovel, had the point barely break the surface, and fallen over when I lost my balance.  I know that that happened when my dad finally gave in my pleas to let me help him break sod when I was 7 or 8.

I hope one of the safety concerns Maxwell was keeping an eye on was heat-stroke!  I live in Michigan where July and August temperatures are between 80-90 degrees F with 90% humidity or more.  Based on my memories of watching the Weather Channel as a kid, Kansas is like Michigan but 10 degrees warmer.   Overheating while doing vigorous exertion happens frequently out here and parents keep a close eye on their young kids who are playing outside.

The arborist in me is cringing at the idea of planting bushes mid-summer surrounded by black plastic mulch.   If Maxwell is going to let his kids do projects that are too advanced for their age, he should at least teach them the correct times of year to transplant trees and bushes.  Transplantation is very stressful for trees and bushes.  To minimize stress on the plant, most people transplant woody plants in early spring or late fall.   The plants are usually in a dormant period which can tolerate stress better and the mild temperatures do not stress the plants.   If someone has to transplant in mid-summer, the best bet is to add a heavy layer of mulch to cool the nearby soil (and cool the microclimate by the tree if at all possible).     We had to transplant a half-grown Japanese maple in the middle of the summer a few years ago.   I made sure to deeply water the tree twice a week because we live in an extremely windy exposure that causes soil to dry out rapidly.  I would also run a sprinkler on sections of the lawn nearby in the mid-afternoon when the temperature was hot and the tree was in the sun to cool the area around the tree.

After that rousing story, Maxwell explains his philosophy on having his kids learn new skills:

Don't begin by trying to decide if your son has the skills for the job. If you approach training your son that way, he will seldom be qualified for anything. In our home the rule is: " If you haven't done something before, or think it is impossible, then we will give you a little more time to do it." Set high goals and learning expectations for your children.

How many of us adults have been required to do something that you have not done before? I'm confident everyone has had this experience. It's part of life, isn't it? Therefore, why not get your children accustomed to doing projects that they have never done before? When I asked my child to undertake a new task, I will facilitate him slightly. I want to see him thinking about how he will tackle the job and what he may need to learn before he can begin. He will need to be able to do whatever research is required. There is no reason for a son to be spoon-fed unless you were planning on being by his side when he is providing for his family. If you want a son who is an independent adult, he must learn how to learn on his own and be willing to tackle unknown projects when necessary. (pg. 127)

I know I keep saying this - but this section is written for elementary school kids, not high school students!  Many of the kids in this age-group will be missing the thinking skills needed to plan out the details of a project that they have never done before because of their developmental age.   For kids who are developmentally ready to make a plan, remember that they have relatively little life experience.  Many activities that are simple to an adult are completely mind-boggling to an elementary student. 

I don't like telling kids that they have to do a project even if they think the project is impossible to complete.  The kid has a reason for thinking that a project is impossible.  The least I can do is listen to the kid to find out why they think the project is impossible.  In my experience, kids think something is impossible when they misunderstand what needs to be done so all I need to do is clarify the project.  On the other hand, the kid might see something that I don't that makes the project impossible.

Oh, the last few sentences made me laugh.  Maxwell has eight kids.  Of those eight kids, only Nathan has a documented history of working outside of the family business away from Steven.  Nathan eventually returned to Communication Concepts, INC which was started by Steven and appears to be running it now.  Christopher and Joseph have started similar computer-based businesses.  John has an agricultural business that might not be viable along with selling homes as a realtor; if someone can show that he's sold a house, that would be a second kid working independently.  The youngest son Jesse is working at Joseph's business.  Sarah's been running Titus 2 Ministries since she was in high school - although it takes some careful reading of the "Managers of Their ....." books to put it together.  Anna is working as a customer-service representative for Nathan's business.  I have no idea what Mary's doing outside of being a mother's helper for her three sisters-in-law who have children.

If you are able to ensure your children safety, give them tools. Real tools make great gifts, and if they are good quality, you are building a tool chest your son will need in the future.

[...]

Teri and I like to give our sons tools on special, gift-giving occasions. The tools we choose usually have lifetime warranties so we know they're built to last. If the tool ever breaks, it can be exchanged. Screwdrivers, pliers, sockets, and wrenches are all great gifts. How thrilling to a little boy's heart to help Daddy with home repairs using his own tools! As always, it is critical that great caution be exercised to be sure the tools are used safely. I have my sons keep their tools away until Dad is available to work with them. (pg. 127-128)

I like tools.  I like the idea buying tools for gifts - but starting in elementary school is a bit young.   The tools that a kid can use most effectively are not the same size or weight as a tool that an adult can use the best.   Plus, getting lifetime warranted tools for each son in a CP/QF family is going to get expensive in a hurry.     A cheaper option would be to buy a variety of sized tools divided into "kids", "teens" and "adults" sets so that family members can choose the equipment that works best for them. 
As always, I think that girls would benefit from having a tool set as well.  Steven Maxwell likes using his kids as workers on home-construction projects.  Perhaps the girls would like to do something besides digging ditches, moving random material and painting.

Steven moves from tools into allowances (which he's in favor of; that's a third thing we agree on) to schooling in a mildly disconcerting way.   Most of the section on education is a long discussion of why education doesn't have to be fun because life isn't always fun.  He's not going to get any disagreement from me on that point - but I do try and make education appealing by interspersing independent work like reading or writing with short group activities or hands-on projects. 

We've covered that Steven Maxwell and his kids have benefited from Maxwell's college education - but I'm not sure that Maxwell understands that benefit.  He's got a strangely cavalier attitude to teaching kids academic subjects.

Obviously, the education he receives from his schooling is vital to him having marketable skills. Frequently these days, we hear news reports on the high number of high school graduates who are illiterate. Illiteracy will certainly limit a man's potential for earning a livable wage. You want a son who is comfortable with reading, spelling, writing, and math skills. In addition, you would like for him to have a basic knowledge of many other disciplines such as History, Science, Health, art, music, government, and economics. You have many years to instill this fundamental information into your sons, but don't lose sight of the fact that school is necessary part of preparing a son. (pg. 129)

I'll write up a separate post some day about the Maxwell homeschool education - but I promise that it is underwhelming.  He didn't forget to include English/Language Arts; the Maxwells don't study it at all.  The highest math level the family has finished is Algebra II - but they take Algebra II immediately after Algebra I without a separate Geometry class.   The kids only take one year of high school science which is a very basic physical science class.  I'd forgive a weak STEM curriculum if the family compensated with an intensive humanities curriculum - but they don't study art, music, any form of fiction/poetry or foreign languages with the level of intensity that would be expected by high school.

That last sentence is a bit terrifying since the Maxwells are taking 12 years to teach a curriculum that is equivalent in most subjects to an 8th grade curriculum.  (I'll give them 10th grade in math - but they are at 3rd or 4th grade in English/Language Arts....yikes.)

If it is obvious your son already has a bent and leading from the Lord towards a particular vocation, you can also begin at this age to allow some school time for him to pursue the appropriate studies in that direction. Not only does this begin his education specifically applicable for his future, it also helps discern whether this is really a viable career direction for him. Even if you don't have an indication of your son's future work, you can use school time to help you towards this discernment. For example, schedule computer time. Does he like it? Does he have an aptitude for it? What about shop time? Can he build a project? Does he enjoy working with his hands? Perhaps you will plan a foreign language into your son school day. Does he have a natural ability to learn a foreign language? Is it exciting for him? (pg 131)

Um...yeah.  Look, it's great if a kid shows some aptitude for a career at age 7 or 8 - but that's way too young to start slotting kids into academic or vocational tracks.   I highly doubt that the posters we made in third grade about the careers we wanted to pursue as adults have a strong correlation to what people are actually doing now.

The Maxwells have a relatively small number of kids spaced over a long period of time. This meant that Teri Maxwell generally only had 2 kids who needed a lot of attention from her as a teacher.  The rest were either graduated, old enough to work independently or preschoolers.  That makes adapting curriculum for computer time, woodworking time or a foreign language possible for his parents.

How does that work in the Duggar or Bates family?  At least those two families have cash from their TV shows.  How about the Rodrigues family when they were traveling and living in an RV with 13 children?  How about the Pearl family when they were living Tennessee and had no money for food?

Let's be honest: the Maxwell family is in an entirely different economic sphere than the average CP/QF family.  Need more proof?  Check out this last quote:

When Joseph was 10 years old, we purchased the professional version of Delphi for him. It is an extremely powerful computer programming language. He spent many of his "free" hours learning to program. He had no other instruction than what he could dig out of the books we had. He still has a long way to go, but he has learned a tremendous amount already. (pg. 132)

Maxwell is right; Delphi is a very powerful computer programing language.  What he doesn't mention is that the Maxwell Family dropped at least $1,000 to purchase that.   Joseph also benefited from the fact that the Maxwell Family apparently had books on using Delphi to program laying around the house.  That's not a given in most families. 

Either the Maxwell Family has way more disposable income than my family ever did - or Steven Maxwell is being loosey-goosey with language again.  I learned how to use a lot of programs by working on my dad's computer at school.  I didn't own a copy of a program - but I used a copy outside of working hours to type papers or crunch data.   Similarly, purchasing a copy of Delphi for Communication Concepts, INC would make sense if that was when Nathan, Christopher and Steven were pivoting from selling copying services and internet forms to providing internet security features.  Letting Joseph use their Delphi program outside of company hours would let him build skills in programing without dropping an insane amount of money in case a 4th grader had latent programing skills. 

I know which scenario I'm putting my money on.

The rest of the chapter is filler on not letting kids watch TV, go on the Web unsupervised or letting kids play with evil toys.  I wish he had been more descriptive about the evil toys; I'm not sure if he's talking about not letting kids run around with weapons and Ouija boards - or if he's certain that giving kids a Disney character toy that came in a Happy Meal will doom their souls to hell.

I know which scenario I'm putting my money on. 

Preparing Sons: Chapter Nine - Part One

The next chapter in Steven Maxwell's "Preparing Sons to Provide for Single-Income Families" describes raising boys age 7-12.  To my mind, that age span involves so many changes in cognitive, emotional and physical development that few dictates will work across the entire span. 

The introduction to the chapter implies that parents will be under extreme pressure to move away from Maxwell's dictates for raising kids - and that any variance from Maxwell's plan now will lead to chaos in the teenage years.  I suspect Maxwell is right about the first idea.  A preschooler or kindergartener is a bit young for extensive extracurricular activities and unlikely to be very far behind in education since early education is most beneficial for kids who live in low-stimulation environments.  A preteen, on the other hand, will generally be involved in something outside of their family circle.  It could be scouting, 4-H, sports, volunteering at the library....the list is nearly endless - but they have generally move out of the family circle a bit.  Plus, Steve's mandate that all fun things must be nipped in the bud to promote hard work is likely to grate on a kid at these ages.

The first topic in the chapter is about salvation.  Apparently, if your kid hasn't been saved by this age, parents are supposed to start encouraging them to get a move on.  I find that a bit ironic since Steve was stating in the last chapter that salvation should not be forced on kids..

The next topic discusses how Teri and Steven wanted their kids to become servants of God.  That's probably the last way I would phrase that concept - but I agree with the idea that parents should teach their kids to help out others within their communities in an age-appropriate manner.  At that point, Steven launches into a paragraph that is both underwhelming and hilarious:

If you don't have any serving opportunities, don't worry. Simply pray. God will direct you to them! For example, eight years ago God lead our family to conduct semi-monthly church services for residents of a local nursing home. During a portion of the service, Christopher plays the piano while we sing hymns. However, I've been grooming twelve-year-old Joseph to take Christopher's place. Joseph has been learning to play the piano for six years. Over the last several months, I have asked Joseph to play a hymn each time we are at the nursing home. There have even been a few weeks where Christopher was not available. Then Joseph accompanied all our singing. He's a bit rough, but so was Christopher when he began playing for us. Start grooming your child to serve. If your son is taking music lessons, I would encourage you to be sure he is using the talent in a meaningful way. (pgs. 121-122)

Reality check: Every community be it rural, suburban or urban has volunteer or service opportunities that need to be filled.  A family that cannot find any serving opportunities is not integrated into the larger community - and that's an issue.  Kids at the lower end of this age range will generally need to do volunteer work alongside their parents - but kids at the upper end can do some projects independently.  I remember doing summer volunteer work at the local library starting when I was 10 or 11.  I worked under the general supervision of a librarian and mostly shelved books in the correct spaces in the kids and teenage sections.  I had a blast!

The second half of that quote reveals a lot about the Maxwell Family and how insular their lives are today.  Whenever they mention going to church in their home area, they mean that they are running a religious service at the local retirement home.  Essentially, the clan can claim they are members of a church since some people from the retirement home attend the services while maintaining the isolation of a home-church.  The Maxwells manage to avoid interacting with any pesky kids, teens, young adults or adults who might rock the boat by questioning Steven's mandates or doing any of the forbidden activities.   Offering musical service at a church is a gift - but CP/QF families often overestimate their family's skill level due to an absolute lack of comparison.  Twelve-year-old Joseph was probably a strong piano player for his age - but every church I've belonged to had a list of adults who were professional or semi-professional level piano players to accompany hymns at church.  Similarly, most famous CP/QF families can throw together a group of their kids to sing hymns that sound pretty - but even the teenagers have very untrained voices compared to a local high school choir let alone a competition choir.

That's the unspoken downside of family sheltering.  When your siblings and carefully chosen church members are the only people a kid can compare their skill level to, kids are likely to overestimate their proficiency compared to the world at large.

The next topic mentioned is teaching kids to work hard.  Now, Steven worries me whenever he discusses human motivation.  I don't think he's got a very good concept of the importance of setting parameters for the end result of a project beforehand or the importance of communicating the parameters to his kids before sending them off to do the project:

I'm constantly trying to find the balance that encourages the children to try harder while not discouraging them over what they have done. There have been times when I have seen my son's spirit "deflating" when I was encouraging him to redo a project. I know then that I've gone too far. It is time to regroup and start " pumping" him up a bit. (pg. 122)

Remember, Steven's not talking about teenagers or young adults.  He's talking about elementary and middle school kids.   In this age band, parent-teachers need to start teaching their kids how to evaluate their own work compared to a set of standards.  For the youngest kids in the age band, this should start with one criteria that could be as simple as "Did you sweep everything off the floor in the kitchen?"  As the kid becomes proficient in judging the completion of a task by one standard, the parent adds more. 

Why do I bring this up?  Maxwell's not doing anyone any favors by waiting until his sons think a project is completed well to tell them that the output is not good enough.  That's pretty emotionally draining for confident, highly-resilient kids; try that with a kid who has perfectionist tendencies and soon the kid will never "finish" a project.  (I was surprised at first the number of teenagers in my alternative education school who failed out of classes because of perfectionist tendencies.  Roughly 20% of the kids became so afraid of turning in an assignment that was less than perfect that they balked at turning in any assignments... and failed.)  On the other hand, Maxwell's decision switch over to "pumping" them up based on an emotional reaction can be manipulated by savvy kids.

It's simply easier and more fair to set expectations ahead of time, look at a project based on those expectations, and help kids manage their emotions either way.

I included this next snippet because I find it grossly hypocritical based on Steven Maxwell's abhorrence of "fun" or non-working activities:

....we must praise and encourage him on. When Teri and I were first married, my form of exercise was running. I became interested in running a marathon. During preparation for my first marathon, I injured my knee and was forced to stop running for a couple of months while it healed. Unfortunately, when I was able to run again, I did not have sufficient time to be properly conditioned for the race. As youth would have it, I ran that marathon anyway. I don't think I was ever so sick or hurt so badly as during that race! There was one bright spot, though. My sweet wife made every effort to keep ahead of me by driving to points along the race route. When I arrived, there she would be, by the side of the road, cheering me on and encouraging me to keep going. Friend, this is exactly what we must be doing for our sons! (pg. 123)

Most people need regular aerobic exercise to stay healthy.  Training for a marathon, on the other hand, involves a major time commitment that increases the risk of injury to the athlete.  I don't view training for a marathon as morally objectionable - but if Steven Maxwell views hunting and fishing as morally objectionable for taking men away from their families, he's being ragingly hypocritical to not condemn long-distance running for the same reasons. 

Teri Maxwell is making the best of the situation by being "involved" as best she can with her husband's hobby - so which of Teri's hobbies is Steven making a major effort to support?

Every Christian man should expect to spend the majority of his day working and serving. Isn't it reasonable that as our sons approach manhood, they shift towards more work and less play? If so, then why is this the age range when their entertainment level begins increasing? Boys see all the fun things our world offers, and they want to participate like everyone else their age. There will be tremendous peer pressure from relatives, neighbors, and even the church. This is your opportunity to show how committed you are to the goal of preparing your son to be the provider for a single-income family. (pgs. 123-124)

Yes, it is very reasonable that people work more and play less as they become adults - but this chapter is not about high school kids!   This is about 1st through 5th or 6th grade students!

Unstructured free play is very, very important for kids of all ages.  Boys and girls in this age group are growing quite a bit each year.  Physical play like running, crouching, jumping, climbing and throwing balls help kids learn how to use their bodies and build strong bones during a critical window.  Playing games in groups teaches kids all sorts of social and leadership skills.  This includes skills like negotiation, communication of ideas and emotional regulation. 

I find the idea of labeling a neighbor asking if your kids can play kickball with the rest of the kids as "peer pressure" to be absurd.  Ditto for someone handing you a flyer for youth sports or encouraging you to send your kids to Vacation Bible School this year. 

Notice how Steven makes it clear that the parents' goal for their son's future is more important than any discussion of how the method of reaching that goal is harmful to the kid.  Apparently, no one should ever question if the parents' goals for their kids are appropriate or realistic....

Next, Steven remind readers of the benefits of keeping kids away from peers their own age:

By spending time with our sons, we avoid some of the negative behaviors that most boys this age exhibit. Have you observed how silly preteen boys can be when they get together? The truth of scripture becomes very obvious. " Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child" (Proverbs 22: 15). If you want amateur son, have him spend time with you. If you want a foolish son, let him spend quantities of time with boys his own age. (pg. 124)

Pre-teen boys can be quite silly.  Teenage boys can be crazy.  Neither of these groups do as much damage as a man who micromanages his children to keep them dependent on him.   After all, that's the real outcome of the Maxwell family.  Sure, the family is tight-knit - but mainly because no one has been allowed to choose otherwise.  Yes, they run family businesses - but until very recently, Steve Maxwell was involved with the most successful ones.  It's a family that appears successful as long as no one looks very closely.

ATI Wisdom Booklet: First-Aid in a cult

I feel like these ATI Wisdom Booklets were created to see how many followers of Bill Gothard they could kill off. 

I was first certified for CPR and First Aid sometime after I turned 18 but before I graduated college.  There's a Red Cross facility not far from the college I went to so I remember taking a long, single day course that covered Infant/Child and Adult CPR with AED followed by First Aid.    I got another long course when I was a camp counselor followed by a refresher class just before I started student teaching.  Once I landed a teaching job, I signed up to be on the Medical Emergency Response Team for my school so I got a full-day course on CPR and First Aid yearly plus I got to participate in random emergency drills throughout the school year. 

ATI manages to forget the first rule of first aid response - be safe.   At my very first CPR class, the instructor got us all on the floor with our dummies and gave us this scenario: "You walk into a Red Cross training room and find 15 people unresponsive on the floor.  What do you do next?"

 My classmates launched into detailed triage ideas.

 I said, "Get the hell out of there and call for help.  Fifteen people down means something really bad like a gas leak, stray voltage, or an axe murderer and I don't want to be number 16.  Especially if it's an axe murderer. "

Yup.  I know when I'm completely inadequate for a job and I know when to call for help.

Once you've verified that there's not an immediate danger, you check to see if the person is really unconscious by yelling at them or flicking at their feet if they are a baby.  Being a camp counselor is even more fun when any counselor who drifts off to sleep in a moment of downtime immediately has another counselor screaming "Are you ok?  Name, ARE YOU OK?" at them.  (I do have a quirky sense of humor, I admit, but I had fun.)

If they are unconcious, you check to see if they are breathing.  If they are not, you move into the ABC's of cardiopulmonary resuscitation where "A" stands for airway, "B" stands for breathing, and "C" stands for "Circulation" or "Compressions".  The idea is pretty straightforward.  First, a rescuer checks to see if the airway is open by tilting the head and lifting the chin to prevent the tongue from blocking the airway.  If the person doesn't start breathing, the rescuer administers two rescue breaths.  Once the two rescue breaths go in, the rescuer either checks for a pulse or begins chest compressions. 

It's not complicated - yet ATI manages to fuck that up:



First aid procedures are created to remedy the most common life-threatening health issues in a target population first.  For adult victims, the most common cause of cardiorespiratory failure is cardiac issues so solo first aid responders are taught to call for help before starting chest compressions because the sooner a victim has access to an AED and cardiac life support the better their chances of survival.  In contrast, infants and small children have a much higher rate of respiratory failure and choking than adults do so solo responders are instructed to give one minute's worth of breaths and compressions before calling for help. 

Civilian responders are unlikely to run to a situation where the main cause of cardiorespiratory failure is catastrophic bleeding - but ATI manages to even mess that up!  Military members in combat have a much higher chance of treating a comrade who has had a traumatic amputation with massive bleeding.  Because of that, soldiers are trained to apply tourniquets to amputated limbs before beginning CPR.  If ATI was aping military first response, the "bleeding" section should be moved first.   Equally importantly, ATI does nothing to differentiate massive, life-threatening bleeding from a nasty laceration that can wait until the person is breathing with a heartbeat. 

ATI next moves into an EFG mnemonic that I cannot find anywhere.  Don't get me wrong; there are protocols for life-support that include "EFG" - but they are not for minimally trained civilian responders and none of them involve E = eyes, F = fractures and G = Get help. 

Having "Get Help" come last makes no sense.  The best thing a first responder can do is to get the attention of another human being who can call 911 and send fully trained emergency responders to the rescue.  During one of MERT team drills, our slightly sadistic nurse-trainer decided to keep all of the other adults "trapped in an office" while I was stuck with a downed student in another room that didn't have any dangerous situations.  I started the ABCs while screaming like a stuck-pig.  I'm not kidding; I let out a series of blood-curdling screams.  Suddenly, the room was filled with teenagers who bailed from the class next door to see what was going on.  I called the name of the most responsible one and told them to pretend to call 911.    Not exactly what our trainer expected - but hey, I got the attention of someone with a phone. Problem solved. :-)

 In ATI-land, "E" is where the responder checks for pupil size and responsiveness and protects the head and neck.  The Red Cross and the American Heart Association both train civilian responders to hazard an educated guess about head and neck injuries in the initial airway phase.  If there is more than one responder and a head or neck injury is suspected, a different way of opening the airway by thrusting the jaw down and out is used by the responder who is keeping the head and spine immobilized.    If there is only one responder, the head tilt-chin lift is used because the responder needs to be at the person's side instead of stationed above their head.   

Doing a quick check to see that the person is neurologically ok is probably not going to hurt at this stage - but in my experience civilian first responders like me spend more time keeping the injured person calm and gently encouraging them to not move around.   Frightened injured people do really weird shit under the influence of "fight or flight" so focusing on keeping them from hurting themselves worse will probably pay off more than staring intensely at their eyes. 

Speaking of bad ideas, ATI also recommends "gently pressing" on people's bodies to look for fractures or joint damage. 

That's insanely bad advice for so many reasons. 

People in fight or flight can react violently to another person intruding in their personal space.  A few years ago, I had a bad case of pleurisy that landed me in the ER.  Every breath caused pain to shoot through my rib cage so I was breathing very rapidly and very shallowly and my heart-rate went through the roof to try and compensate. The pain was so bad that I couldn't talk - but when my blood oxygen level started to drop, a lot of people came in the room.  I was so out of it that I would try and hit anyone who touched me.  According to my husband, the medical staff took it all in stride because this happens a lot apparently.  Someone talked to me quietly and calmly and I let them put the cannula on me. 

If a person is not in fight or flight, the responder can simply ask them if any of their limbs hurt. 

And let's be honest.  ATI has a horrible history when it comes to molestation.  Let's not give cult members any reasons to start feeling up injured folks, ok?

If you want to be trained in CPR or first aid, there are plenty of places that provide both trainings like the Red Cross or the American Heart Association. 

Maidens of Virtue: Chapter 16

"Raising Maidens of Virtue: A Study of Feminine Loveliness for Mothers and Daughters" by Stacy McDonald is final.  We've got 20 chapters in total plus I have to cover the "Literary Luncheon" idea that involves the worst reading questions on "Jane Eyre" ever.  "

So this is...Love?" is an essay written by Mrs. McDonald's daughter Jessica.  Mrs. McDonald includes a thrifty preface that mentions that Jessica was 13 when the book was originally published.  At the time of the second publication, Jessica was 23 or 24.  No matter how many times I read the introduction, I am uncertain how old Jessica was when she wrote the essay.   For a 13-year old, the essay show a lot of potential.  Sure, there are the usual awkward transitions and anecdotes that need to be fleshed out a bit more - but the writing is solid and the essay moves along at a good clip.  If she was 23 when this was written, she needs substantially more training in writing.

Jessica's essay begins with the standard spiel that Hollywood is the cause of all that is wrong with dating today.   Personally, I believe most women are more than intelligent enough to realize that romantic comedies are filled with completely unbelievable tropes like a man falling madly in love with a woman at first sight or the idea that a man who leaves a committed relationship for a woman he just realized is the perfect match for him makes a great husband.  After all, superhero movies are stuffed to the brim with equally implausible backstories but no one worries that young men are going to become superheros instead of starting a real career. 

To transition into the standard page on how women shouldn't tempt men physically and men shouldn't tempt women emotionally (yawns),  Jessica McDonald falls back on a tried-and-true technique to fatten the word count up.  She starts by writing out the dictionary definition of "love" and follows up with 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a.   I remember doing that in essays during junior high and having the technique shot down by eighth grade at the latest.  I do have to give Ms. McDonald props, though; she uses the Dictionary.com definition - which is referenced like that - instead of the Webster's 1828 dictionary beloved by the Botkin Family, the Maxwells and most other CP/QF families.   I feel refreshed that someone knows that other dictionaries have been published in the last 190 years and that the dictionaries have not been critically compromised by addition of new words or concise definitions or....you know, I really have no idea why they love the 1828 Webster so much.  I just assumed that I would find the answer to be petty.

The next half-page is devoted to how men and women shouldn't tempt each other because Jesus cares deeply about emotional purity.   As always, Bible quotes to support Jesus' love of emotional purity are completely absent.  Heck, Jesus didn't care that much about physical purity except when he was yelling at the Pharisees to stop being judgemental jerks.   It's probably best for CP/QF followers to avoid mentioning Jesus too much.  The irony of people marrying very young and birthing massive families in order to follow a man who was probably married but whose wife and family are totally absent from the writings about him is too much.

After exhausting Jesus, Jessica McDonald is still short on the word count.  (I wonder how long this essay was required to be; it's already longer than half of Stacy McDonald's chapters.) Jessica McDonald pulls out a paragraph written by Paul Tripp in a book titled "What Did You Expect?"  I've never heard of Paul Tripp, but thirty seconds on Google confirms that he's a minister-professor-author of Christian  self-help books.  He can also grow an amazingly thick moustache that could even be described as luxurious that may well have been the inspiration for Ned Flanders on the Simpsons.   Tripp and McDonald agree that love mean being a completely selfless martyr to everyone else for the rest of your life.  The fact that Tripp's definition of love is at odds with definitions from Dictionary.com and the Bible is never discussed.  I'm left wondering if Ms. McDonald ever realized the incongruencies between the three definitions.  If she was 13, that's probably a function of her age.

 Immediately after Tripp's quote, Jessica launches into a two-page story of how a guy was interested in her and flirted with her so much that other people noticed!  She liked it - but it was selfish wrong of both of them to flirt.  Eventually, the guy lost interest and moved on.  Jessica was hurt because she felt used even though she wasn't interested in him courting her.    I remembered this anecdote for two reasons.  First,  Jessica spends lots of energy declaring that she didn't give the guy any pieces of her heart in a way that is creepy to anyone who has not bought into emotional purity.  In all seriousness, she's discussing a level of flirtation that most single people enjoy while interacting with another single stranger while waiting in line at the grocery store or at a coffee shop.  Of course she didn't give a piece of her heart away; she barely even knew the guy!   Second, the amount of energy given away to this relationship is insane.  Outside of CP/QF/Emo Pure believers, this "relationship" would be a blip that would be forgotten nearly immediately afterward.  Crap, it's NOT a relationship.  There's no evidence that the two of them have done anything outside of group situations. 

The last page or so is that awkward conclusion where all the subjects of the essay are rehashed weakly.  The only new piece of information is that romantic songs can reinvigorate a person's relationship with God if the listener forces the song to describe the relationship between the listener and God.    I'm going to pass on that advice.  I'd rather listen to or sing a solidly written hymn that mangle a love song, thanks.

So....that's it.  The next chapter is begins the closing theme of staying deeply enmeshed emotionally in your family of origin as a way to guard your heart.  It's....it's weird.