Jump to content
IGNORED

JulieAnne FTW - serving Daddy v. God


MamaJunebug

Recommended Posts

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.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



  • Trending Content

  • Recent Status Updates

    • mango_fandango

      mango_fandango

      It’s not supposed to be mosquito season right now but I still appear to have been bitten twice on the side of my foot. Bastards. I know I shouldn’t scratch but it’s so tempting… 😑
      · 0 replies
    • Therapy Outside the Box

      Therapy Outside the Box

      Hello,
       
      I'm brand new to this forum. It was suggested to me by former and outspoken Remnant Fellowship member (Natasha Pavlovich) that I join this forum and put out here what I do. She also warned me that no one on here trusts, or trusts easily, and that I'd likely be assumed to be a Remnant plant or spy until vetted and verified as not that. Fair enough. 
      In short, and in truth, I'm a psychotherapist with 25 yrs experience in Franklin TN (less than three miles from RF incidentally) with a special interest in working with people formerly associated with cults, cult-like or any and all high control intitutions. I'm especially interested in working with those desiring not only deconstruct, recover and learn to thrive post-indoctrination, but those desiring to recapture or cultivate an authentic sense of theology without walls, or spirituality with borders. 
      To date, I've worked with former Amish, Mennonite, LDS/FLDS, FOG, and a those representing a whole slew of evangelical, fire and brimstone fear/shame/guilt-inducing institutions.
      I am especially interested in working with former Remnant Fellowship and Scientology members. I view RF as basically Scientology without the budget. 
      I'll leave it there. Much more can be gleaned about me through my website: therapyoutsidethebox.com or IG: @ therapyoutsidethebox
       
      Peace,
       
      Chris Hancock, LCSW
      Franklin, TN

      · 3 replies
    • Kiki03910

      Kiki03910

      I have a friend with untreated autism and ADHD. I've tried so fucking hard to help. He refuses. It's a mess. I'm really really tired.
      · 0 replies
    • Kiki03910

      Kiki03910

      Making Jill Duggar's brownie recipe because why not stay up late.
      · 2 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      Party on aisle 15....

      Also no interest if fully paid in so many months.
      · 0 replies
    • WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?

      WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?

      Happy Supper Bowel Sunday!!  No, wait. That isn't right...
      Anyway, enjoy the game (or the half time show, or the ads)!
      And a very happy Sunday to everyone who doesn't care about the NFL! 
      · 0 replies
    • Kiki03910

      Kiki03910

      I'm a huge baseball fan. This year, MLB TV showed Liga Dominicana games in December and January and it was a fucking revelation. The players had so much fire and joy. The announcers with their charming DR accents were a blast, though I could hardly keep up with the Spanish. DItto the Serie del Caribe. As a White Sox fan, the MLB season is going to suffer by comparison. Te amo los Tigres del Licey!
      · 2 replies
    • bea

      bea

      I've just realized how long I've been on FJ.  Holy cow.
      · 0 replies
    • bea

      bea

      Had ankle surgery on the 22nd and am non-weight-bearing until the 7th, and it would great if I could REMEMBER that I'm not weight-bearing until I try to step on my splinted ankle.
      · 2 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      lol 

      · 0 replies
  • Recent Blog Entries

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.