Time for a rant!! [AKA, I forgot to publish this..]

Edit April 2011: apparently I neglected to publish this post when I wrote it back at Christmas time. For your enjoyment, may I present:


Step right up folks! I am reading a nice selection of books this Christmas break and several of them demand attention.
So Much More, by Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin
Quivering Daughters, by Hillary McFarland
Blue Like Jazz, by Donald Miller
Perelandra, by C. S. Lewis [again]
The Science of God, by Gerald Schroeder

[Admittedly the last few are kinda waiting to be read....]

The first two books demand to be read and talked about. So Much More, by the by-this-time infamous Botkin sisters, has been both strongly recommended and strongly denounced. Quivering Daughters, which really isn't an argument to So Much More so much as it is an attempt to heal those hurt by patriocentricity, has also been rejoicingly and critically received.
Supporters of So Much More always preface their recommendation with a variation on 'if you are a feminist, or afraid to have your views challenged, or unwilling to submit entirely to God's plan for your life, don't read this book because you won't like it'. This is a method which I have encountered numerous times and it is beginning to anger me rather a lot. There appears to be NO way to argue with it. It is the single most effective way of stifling criticism that I've seen......feel free to disagree with us, but if you do we will know that you're a rebellious feminist.



I am swiftly working my way through Quivering Daughters. I think I'd recommend it to ANY young women raised to believe that patriocentricity is correct...also any men out there who either are incensed at patriocentricity's influence, or are whole-hearted supporters of it.
Hopefully a more thorough review of QD later; right now I am up in arms over So Much More.

I haven't read the whole thing yet, really couldn't stand to....have been taking dips out of it here and there with my customary lightning-speed reading.

Just a few things that stood out to me....

In the first chapter:

 'Don't read this book at all (I would rephrase: "You won't like this book....") if you have a bad attitude toward your father and if you are trying to keep your distance from him. Many girls enjoy having "space" away from their fathers. That space is dangerous.'

[-So Much More, page 6, emphasis mine]
It goes on with the same sort of warnings I mentioned earlier.

They do say to check what they say against Scripture.

I become irked at the constant assumption that women in earlier times were happier because they were unfeministed [word, hehe]. The first mention of this recurring theme occurs here.... 'The lifestyle and worldview we present ... was lived before, when women were much happier.'  Really? I fail to see how anyone can judge whether a whole set of people in another time is more or less happy than now.

There's an interesting comment about 'extreme measures' which I'd like to contrast with one in Quivering Daughters.

We believe that in a day of extreme apostasy and judgement, extreme measures are exactly what's called for, and that a drastic step in the opposite direction is exactly what we need to take. 

[page 8, emphasis in original]

From QD, talking about moving away from patriocentricity:

'...it feels like you are going towards another extreme. Consider, however, that you are on a line, with patriarchalism on one end and, as an example, secular feminism on the other. Because your starting point is an extreme, to move toward balance initially appears like rushing to another extreme.'

[Quivering Daughters, page 159]

So Much More utilizes a number of testimonies from young women who are introduced in the beginning of the book. Almost all of them started out as feminists; most of them started out sincerely wanting to serve God [but in what they later came to believe was the wrong way: by going to college, becoming a lawyer, or conducting business]. This gives me great hope that someday I, too, may be like these young women and realize that I am trying to serve God in the wrong way.

Fathers
The entire book is geared exclusively towards daughters and their fathers [which has been used as a criticism, because mothers are rarely if ever mentioned]. Every chapter is headed 'Daughters, Fathers and ___'.  There is very, very brief mention made of the plentitude of difficult circumstances that could prevent this relationship....what about a father not having a job that his daughter can help with? [Geoffrey Botkin, in a special appendix, says that fathers should consider getting a new job or risk losing their daughters. I'm sure my dad would be happy to hear that.]

Good grief:

'Our fathers...are even supposed to represent God to us. This means that are dads have the tremendous responsibility of being accurate reflections of God's authority, as well as providers of the security and love that God created us, as women, to need.'  

[page 17, emphasis mine]
There's a lot of concern that a daughter who grows up equating her father with God will have deeply twisted perceptions of God if her earthly father was abusive [EMOTIONALLY and spiritually, not just physically].

Men's and women's roles
Oh now we get to the good stuff, the stuff that will keep you up at night.

'Every woman's life is built around men and men's role and leadership in some way.' 

[page 11] [They go on to say that, for instance, feminist Betty Friedan spent her life furthering a man's agenda: Karl Marx.]

'As we stated before, every woman is, by nature, a man's helper. You are a helper, no matter your age or marital status.' 

[page 42]
That's funny, isn't it? I thought a woman was her HUSBAND's helper.


Courtship
Their take on purity/etc was predictable, and less strident than I envisioned [included all of a page and a half telling girls to not beat themselves up if they have previous sins in their past].

Courtship, on the other hand, proved a truly unpleasant subject.

I've read several opinions on courtship and this one has the heaviest emphasis on extensive input from all involved parents and other adults.....no mention made of when this heavy-handed approach might give way to the two people actually doing it THEMSELVES....one would presume that two 30-year-olds interested in marriage would still have to be under the leadership of their parents. That looks like this:

First stage: friendship [sure].
Then, if the young man thinks the young woman may be his intended bride, he discusses it with his parents [paraphrasing here, from page 241].

He then approaches the girl's father without informing the girl about it. 

Lovely, isn't it?

The father then finds out all about the young man. If the young man obtains the approval of the father to begin courting, the daughter is consulted as to her wishes [finally!].
Then they go off courting, with marriage being the expected outcome. Theoretically any party can bow out at any time, but......

We still find our emotions entangled and disheveled under the most protective, sensible scenarios, and some people who court let themselves become just as emotionally devastated as people who date, if the courtship is called off. 

[page 242, emphasis mine]

Splendid....glad to hear that if I court someone and then become attached to them and then they DUMP me [as an example]....that if I am upset, it is MY FAULT.....my fault for letting myself become emotionally devastated. This is carrying it a bit far, but I'd like to take it to the conclusion of.....if a wife loses her husband of thirty years in a car accident, she LETS herself become emotionally devastated?

No, they don't explain that comment away. It is right there, boldly discounting any person's pain. I know how to take things in context.

In the interview with Geoffrey Botkin, he talks about the 'bride price', which we are to assume he intends to require for his daughters. He states that without the bride price, daughters were financial liabilities to families. [The bride price, apparently, involves the son-in-law giving money or estates to the father-in-law, who then passes the money along to his daughter, the bride.] Since the girl's family would then never get the money, I fail to see how that makes daughters any less of a financial liability. Mr. Botkin then states that he would hate to see this made into a formula 'with dollars and cents attached to it'.


College
This is perhaps their most revolutionary concept. I think they fall short of saying that going to college is a sin.....they just attack every possible motive for attending college.

'A mature young Christian friend of ours...feels like she has won, because she exited with a degree and what she thinks is an intact soul. What she doesn't know is that the college is laughing at her, because it knows it is the real winner.' 

[page 144]

There is much mention made of parents sending their daughter off to college...packing her away to a university...sending her out into the storm....etc. There is no mention at all made of what to do with a daughter who WANTS to go to college.

[Edit, April 2011: the manuscript ends here :P I think I remember getting extremely frustrated and depressed over the whole thing right about when I started to tackle the college question, and abandoned it. ]

Letter to the Botkin sisters

[Edit Oct. 2:] Well, it appears this post may be staying up a bit longer after all. No response yet, and indeed I almost hope they don't write back, because I've had a bit too much experience already with their very convincing rhetoric. 





 Here is an email I wrote tonight, to the Botkin sisters. I do not expect a reply: I hope merely that they will be given doubt about the pain they inflict. 
Feel free to copy, link, and so on. 

To the Botkin Sisters;

I wrote to you several years ago, about your film Return of the Daughters. I received no response: now I write again, in hopes of giving you pause to consider the effects of your ministry. It is not my intent to hurt or discourage you. However, I write at least in part out of concern for others who may be struggling with similar issues. I do not want you to continue hurting young women.

For the years between age 12 and 16, I read several books subscribing to ideals similar to yours. When I was 16, I watched RotD as above mentioned. It is fair to say it changed my life. I was in turmoil for several weeks, and came very near abandoning what I then considered must be a 'selfish personal interest' (film-making: I was about to embark on a 6-month historical film project with a crew of friends).   

What I have now come to term patriocentricity (your views, and those of many others) then had very little effect on me til this summer (before I turned 18). I struggled with knowing I could never achieve the standard of perfection espoused in your works. Patriocentricity and related movements are in part responsible for the fact that I came very near abandoning Christianity, for which I am inexpressibly regretful. 

This summer I reexamined the issue at length, and finally came to the decision that I had no call to follow your views. I planned to go to college (majoring in computer science).  

Also, I forgave you and all related 'homeschooling authorities'. I had already dwelt enough on what I perceive the wrongs done by your views, and forgave you and felt no bitterness, at least in part because those views no longer affected me. 

How can I express the freedom I felt. Not just that which came from forgiveness, but also the freedom from legalism, the freedom to view God as loving, first and foremost. I would do anything to be back there again. 

This lasted for about a week. My journey back from freedom has been painful. Now, a month later, I am struggling with self-hatred, self-injury, and depression. You will say that these are the results of realization of sin in my own life: I have no argument to give.

My plans to go to college have also come into serious doubt. I struggle with doubt, because I know almost for a certainty that I will regret whichever choice I make, whether to go to college or not. 

My family and a few friends (all devoted Christians) are convinced that I have fallen afoul of a cult and am laboring under spiritual oppression. In my more lucid moments, sadly far between now, I agree with them. They think that there is no sin in gaining an education by means of attending college, nor in working outside the home. My parents, in particular, are angered because they do not see in your work much, if any, suggestion of how a young woman is to provide income for her family if she is not able to work for her father. Some Christians do live below the poverty line. 

The biggest blow struck against patriocentricity (and you may laugh in private at the name its victims have given this movement), came when it was suggested to me that I look for FRUIT. I did so: in the lives of many of those espousing patriocentricity, I see no love, no compassion for those not 'in God's plan', and none of the forbearance with other believers which we are so clearly called to in the New Testament. 

On the other hand, those people who have rejected patriocentricity, but still embrace Christianity, are some of the most polite, welcoming, and in fact loving people I have come across. They love God deeply. They know that they are helpless without His grace. They are, in fact, desperate for God.  

Reading over this, I almost cannot see why I would reject the freedom and joy that God gave me, in order to follow the laws: Col. 2: 20:

²⁰Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: ²¹"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? ²²These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. ²³Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Those 'basic principles' are not the principles of the unbelievers, but of those following 'The Law'. The Law which we are told is not removed, but is also no longer in judgement over us. 

No, indeed I cannot see why I would leave God's freedom. If writing this has brought me any closer to no longer being in bondage to this horror, I thank you.  (And lest you think I am being melodramatic by my use of the word horror, let me explain. Both my father and my best friend think that if I embrace patriocentricity, by which I mean the entire paradigm of your views, I will after a time grow to hate it and leave Christianity as well. I am afraid to my soul's depth of leaving Jesus. So, then, horror.)

My impression has been that you characterize all opposition to your views as 'angry or tearful'.  You may feel free to call me both. 'In rebellion' is another term with which I am familiar. (In other words, please don't think that I am unaware of your opinion of me.) 

You may not, however, state that I am merely a rebellious teenager who is displeased with her parents and enjoys feeling 'oppressed'. My parents are in no way to blame for this. 

In conclusion:

-You may congratulate yourselves (or thank God) for being part of a worldview which has so shaped my life that I am unable to pull myself away from it, and which I also find almost impossible to separate from the Bible.

-You may also take credit for being the single most disturbing influence in my life for the past several years. Or, you may say that I am blaming my sin on you. Fair enough: but consider that no other view, when convicting me of sin, has brought me to this terror. 

-If this has taught me one thing, it is that I never want my children to experience this. I will not teach your views to my children until they are old enough to distinguish the commandments of men from the commandments (two of them, love God and love your neighbor) of God. 

-Please take pause and consider how many other women you have discounted, as objecting to your views because of their sin. 

I do not doubt that some of your mission is, in fact, serving to honor God. If I have hindered anything which God would have you accomplish, I humbly apologize.  Likewise if I have misrepresented your views, I regret the mistake. However I sincerely believe I have correctly interpreted and taken to its logical conclusion, the teachings in your work.