JulieAnne FTW - serving Daddy v. God

[MamaJunebug]

Spiritual Sounding Board -

spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/01/23/christian-patriarchy-movement-pressures-stay-at-home-daughters-to-choose-whom-she-will-serve-first-daddy-or-god/

- excellent essay by Julie Anne, should provoke some thoughts about the SAHDhood 'doctrines.'

[Palimpsest]

I just saw that and was going to post it here.

When you think about it the Botkinettes have had many more opportunities to meet potential spouses than Sarah Maxwell, and now Anna and Mary too.

I wish Steve would get it through his thick head that his children need to get out and meet people in order to find someone to marry. Which, supposedly, is his goal for them.

How many people of marriagable age are they going to find at an old folks home or on the dog and pony show? Is he hoping that a suitable Godly grandchild is going to pop in during one of their services at the nursing facility? The dog and pony show is geared to people who are already married and their children. Where are the people of the right ages for the Maxwell-bots.

If you follow the link to the original article by Rebecca Davis (her books make me gag, BTW): heresthejoy.com/2013/12/for-shame-beautiful-botkins/ there is a bit more discussion. A Botkin sheep speaks up to say that the Botkinettes have modified their views somewhat. You could have fooled me.

[nokidsmom]

Interesting read and JA pulls no punches on what she thinks of Sarah Maxwell actually choosing her life.

[Katydid]

Interesting read and JA pulls no punches on what she thinks of Sarah Maxwell actually choosing her life.

I read the article and didn't see a reference to the Maxwells. Did I miss something? I did like her response to the anon in the comments.

[Pam]

I read the article and didn't see a reference to the Maxwells. Did I miss something? I did like her response to the anon in the comments.

The reference to the Maxwells was in JA's post, not in the article by Rebecca Davis that JA referenced within her post.

[docmom]

One of the commenters, ChristianDad, defended his "sheltering" of his family:

As a father of 3 boys and 1 girl (19, 15, 6, 3), I will tell you that my unique concern for my daughter and two youngest boys is that she and they be physically protected in this vile world. (I train my sons and daughter to be physically strong because “The glory of young men is their strength ..†PROV 20:29) But a young woman will not prevail in most fights with a male. Consequently, for now, my eldest son will accompany my 15 year old when she is in public. Not because I distrust my daughter, it is for her safety. The same goes for my wife. If I cannot accompany her in public, my son will whenever possible. It is not because I distrust my wife. The same goes for my 6 and 3 year old.

What sort of hopelessly paranoid world do these people live in?? I have been navigating the world since I was quite young and never, never have I had a physical fight with some random man on the street. This isn't about protection, it's about control!

[chaotic life]

It's also about the sad consequence that in a world where men and boys have NO control over their animal appetites and instincts, the only thing that protects any woman from seduction and downfall (because this world view has no legitimate recognition of RAPE) is the ability of the female to NOT awaken the lust and desire of every male she encounters. Therefore, a husband, brother, son MUST accompany every female in public because what if she GASP tempts a man and then cannot fend him off.....though really she would be at fault if something were to happen, especially the daughters. The wife? Maybe she might be rapable, but since sexual attraction is the driving force for anything they perceive to be potential rape, really it still comes down to HER actions. Thus every female in public must have a male family member bodyguard or she might fall to temptation and incur the attention of a male and the world is just a dangerous place when that occurs.

[salex]

One of the commenters, ChristianDad, defended his "sheltering" of his family:

What sort of hopelessly paranoid world do these people live in?? I have been navigating the world since I was quite young and never, never have I had a physical fight with some random man on the street. This isn't about protection, it's about control!

Welcome to Saudi Arabia.....

[mockingbird]

One of the commenters, ChristianDad, defended his "sheltering" of his family:

What sort of hopelessly paranoid world do these people live in?? I have been navigating the world since I was quite young and never, never have I had a physical fight with some random man on the street. This isn't about protection, it's about control!

If it was about protection and they were legitimately worried, they could enroll their daughter in a self-defense class and maybe have them talk to a police officer about street smarts, or read a book like The Gift of Fear. You know, empower her in some way. Obviously not happening because women can't be independent :roll:

I would think violence/harassment/rape from someone you know is probably more common than a random attack (as is true for kidnapping)? But anyway, it's not that I don't think this is a legitimate concern in some ways... as a woman I do follow some basic safety "rules" when I am out alone, especially at night. But it doesn't need to hinder these women's lives.

[Miggy]

My son did martial arts for a while. They were taught;

# Step 1: don't get in a dangerous situation in the first place

# Step 2: try and negotiate a solution

# Step 3: run away

# Step 4: fight if you have no other choice

I think all forms of Martial Arts teach something similar. So, now to apply this to my 19yo son and 15yo daughter.

# 1. Daughter has far more sense and awareness and is far less likely to get into a dangerous situation.

# 2. Son has very poor communication skills (Aspergers Autism) while daughter is a people-person and would be far more able to negotiate with someone.

# 3. Daughter plays field hockey - she can run! Son inherited my running ability ... the less said the better.

# 4. As mentioned above, Daughter is a field hockey player. She is very fit and very strong. She is tiny and quiet off field but put a hockey stick in her hand and something changes. Son, on the other hand, is a gentle giant. (His idol is Sheldon Cooper and it's terrifying how similar they are.) I hope I've raised both of them well enough that they would never get to Step 4 but if they did, it would be daughter defending son.

As for me, if I needed protection I'd take 17yo son. He's well over 6', build like a tank and dresses goth. He would be useless in a fight but given his appearance, I'd count on no one being willing to take him on to find that out.

[Iokaste]

Why do people always go on about the "beauty" of the Botkins? Is it really that interesting and important?

Would it be okay that they wasted their lives as maids to their family if they were not perceived to be pretty?

They seem to be wellspoken and fairly bright women, but the one thing people seem to always agree on is how tragic it is that their beauty is "wasted". I know they themselves have drawn attention to their appearances through the whole "reclaiming beauty"-idiocy, but I really wish that people who try to make a case against the SAHD-movement would stop talking about the "Beautiful Botkins".

[apple1]

Why do people always go on about the "beauty" of the Botkins? Is it really that interesting and important?

Would it be okay that they wasted their lives as maids to their family if they were not perceived to be pretty?

They seem to be wellspoken and fairly bright women, but the one thing people seem to always agree on is how tragic it is that their beauty is "wasted". I know they themselves have drawn attention to their appearances through the whole "reclaiming beauty"-idiocy, but I really wish that people who try to make a case against the SAHD-movement would stop talking about the "Beautiful Botkins".

Excellent post. Really hits the nail on the head.

IRL I have a close friend who has a beautiful daughter (no quotation marks; she really is beautiful). It seems that everyone this daughter has even a slight acquaintance with tells her constantly how beautiful she is. Everything she posts on FB ends up with "great pic, you are SO BEAUTIFUL". (I kid you not). Bottom line: This person has a whole bunch of mental/emotional/psychological issues, and about 3/4 of them are related to self-image. If only she could see herself as actually having value, unrelated to appearance (which, as we all know, is fleeting).

Struck a nerve. What sounds like valuing women and girls is actually de-valuing, IMO.

[sparkles]

I absolutely HATE when people are reduced to their physical appearance (and either forgiven or blamed for various things because of it) and I don't follow the Botkins much but my guess is that people comment on the Botkinettes' "beauty" because in the fundie culture where appearance counts for so much, not even their supposedly breathtaking looks can land them a mate. Yet another epic fail.

[nokidsmom]

I absolutely HATE when people are reduced to their physical appearance (and either forgiven or blamed for various things because of it) and I don't follow the Botkins much but my guess is that people comment on the Botkinettes' "beauty" because in the fundie culture where appearance counts for so much, not even their supposedly breathtaking looks can land them a mate. Yet another epic fail.

I hate it too but see how much value is placed on looks because the courtship process certainly doesn't allow couples the time or the space to get know each other on a deeper level and maybe see beyond just looks. Another fail where maintaining purity and "godliness" above all else, actually makes for a certain shallowness in relationships even if it's all covered in Biblespeak.

Though I suspect the Botkinettes' real problem is their daddy worship and daddy himself. These girls probably have had suitors interested in them but the daddy issues are too much. I am sure these two have watched a few plainer Jane SAHD's land a hubby because daddy isn't as much of a problem.

[Iokaste]

One more thing, could we please stop referring to AS and E Botkin as "girls"?

A post from October 2006, the only one I could find that gives their age, says they are 21 and 23, so they are at least 28 and 30 years old, that's not "girls", that's "women".

I can sort of understand "girl" in reference to Sarah Maxwell, she really hasn't had a chance to grow up from the look of it, but Anna Sophia and Elizabeth though sheltered, are grown-up women.

[MamaJunebug]

One more thing, could we please stop referring to AS and E Botkin as "girls"?

A post from October 2006, the only one I could find that gives their age, says they are 21 and 23, so they are at least 28 and 30 years old, that's not "girls", that's "women".

I can sort of understand "girl" in reference to Sarah Maxwell, she really hasn't had a chance to grow up from the look of it, but Anna Sophia and Elizabeth though sheltered, are grown-up women.

Thank you for this. I'm dismayed daily at how prevalent the word "girl", to refer to a female of any age, is becoming again. It's like the 1960s have returned.

[Arete]

In terms of the Botknettes, they really are girls, not women, and I personally do not consider them adult women. Not their fault, but their upbringing has left them teenagers. They do not have a single thought that is not their father's, they in all seriousness describe their brothers as "manly", and have obviously no familiarity with NT concepts of who women are and how they are viewed. The book that supposedly informs their entire worldview, and they have not studied it independently. They have never made any of their own decisions.

When I was a girl, people made decisions for me, and told me what to think. When I became a woman, I realized I had to think for myself. I also realized my father was as fallible anyone else, and love did not mean we had to agree. The Botkins still think that to love their father is to agree with his life plans for them. They think like girls, so I have no problem when they are referred to as girls. I realize others object, but to me no amount of calling them women is going to mature them.