Not So Much (Part 3: References)

References for the critique and review of So Much More.

Board of Regents, the University of Wisconsin System. (1999). Women, Feminism and Sex in Progressive America. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from History 102: http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture14.html

Botkin, A. S. (2005). So Much More. San Antonio, Texas: The Vision Forum.

Head, T. (n.d.). Feminism in the United States. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from About.com: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/History-of-Feminism.htm

Joyce, K. (2009). Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement. Beacon, MA: Beacon Press.

Maoist International Movement. (n.d.). Betty Friedan: The Feminine Mystique, the Second Stage. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/bookstore/books/gender/friedan.html

The Smithsonian Institute. (n.d.). The Seneca Falls Convention. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from The Smithsonian Institute National Portrait Gallery: http://www.npg.si.edu/col/seneca/senfalls1.htm

Wikipedia. (n.d.). History of Feminism. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism

Not So Much (Part 2)

Continuation of a review and critique of the book, So Much More.

It’s probably not a good idea to start a book about “Biblical daughterhood” by stating that the Bible “doesn’t give a huge amount of instruction exclusively to fathers and daughters…” (Botkin, p. 23).  This information begins Chapter Three.  The authors explain that because the Bible doesn’t really address the sort of father-daughter relationships they are attempting to defend as Biblical, “…most of what we have to work from are the passages setting the patterns for men and women in general”  (Botkin, p. 23).  In short, the sisters begin the third chapter of the book by admitting that they are resorting to eisegesis, the very bad theological practice of making up a doctrine, then cherry-picking pieces of Scripture in an attempt to support it.  The reliance on eisegesis is a major flaw in the book; when you find yourself explaining, at the beginning of a book about a Biblical doctrine, that it is in fact not a Biblical doctrine, you’ve pretty much just destroyed the reason for the book to be written in the first place.

In addition to the straw man argument, eisegesis, and lack of real data, a major problem appears in Chapter Six with the claims that feminism is the direct result of Marxism, and that Betty Friedan was a Marxist.  Both of these claims are just plain wrong.

The disinformation about Friedan is cited from one work by a masculinist; it appears in no original neutral source.  There is no record of Friedan having any meaningful ties to any communist group, and in fact the Maoist International Movement has referred to her as a petty member of the bourgeoisie.

The claim that American feminism grew out of Marxism is as ridiculous as it is erroneous.  The authors state that the first Women’s Conference in Seneca Falls was convened by a group of socialist women.  In reality, the Seneca Falls conference was held in a church, organized by Quakers, and presided over by a male (The Smithsonian Institute).  The American feminist movement grew out of the abolitionist and temperance movements (Head) (The Smithsonian Institute) (Wikipedia), and Mary Wollstonecraft wrote the first statement of the modern feminist movement in 1792, many years before the birth of Karl Marx (Head).  The reader is left wondering whether the misinformation given results from deliberate lies or sloppy research.

The authors use the technique of example to make their point; if something isn’t mentioned in the Bible, it’s off limits for Christians.  The problem here should be obvious, but the authors don’t seem to notice that this logical fallacy can fun both ways; there are no Visionary Daughters in the Bible, either.  Nor are there any tuba players or polar bears, but this does not mean that tuba playing is a sin or that polar bears don’t exist.

The Botkins use example to rule out things such as women being missionaries; because there are no explicit examples of women in the Bible being called as missionaries, it is wrong for a woman to be a missionary according to the authors’ logic.  This application of fallacy is an example of the authors’ faulty theology.  In a combined theological and logical blunder, the authors make the claim that their philosophy of gender roles is part and parcel with the sovereignty of God, yet at the same time their very rigid and narrow theology makes God dependent upon men.

 “Erica,” one of the 14 “heroines,” is described as feeling called by God to missionary work, and being turned aside from pursuit of this calling after becoming aware of the argument for patriarchy made in the book.  This is disturbing because it moves sovereignty from God to human men.  By stating that God has set down one plan for all women, the authors effectively have removed control from God and given it to men.  The bizarre position taken in “Erica’s” story is that “the world” wants young women in ministry, but God wants them out of it.  It appears that if God impresses a young woman to go into ministry, then God is wrong!  The authors appear to be unaware that Jesus instructed Christians to “go into all the world and preach the gospel,” (Mark 16:15).  On page 117, they throw the message of Jesus in the parable of the talents under the bus in favor of the Dominion Mandate, which was crafted by men.

Another stunning example not only of eisegesis, but lack of a proper dictionary, is this, found on page 173: 

Proverbs 7:11 describes one of the wiles of the harlot: “She is boisterous and rebellious, her feet do not remain at home.”  This description could match many of the Christian girls we know.  They would be outraged and insulted to be likened to harlots, but they are unwittingly acting like them. The godly woman loves to be in her home.

 This quote is used to support the idea that the only Biblical option for a girl is to live in her parents’ home until she is married.  The cited verse is not applicable, however, because everyone knows that there is much more to being a harlot than just living away from your father’s house; the verse itself talks about being boisterous and rebellious, in addition to location, as markers of the harlot.  Most places it is used in the Bible, harlot has a specifically sexual meaning; the sisters are correct in surmising that a Biblical harlot is a woman with a job; where they err is in ignoring the fact that the job requirements for harlotry are pretty specific.

The authors must be given kudos for tenacity; they push the book’s patriarchal agenda relentlessly.  Living under fatherly authority is a must even for girls whose fathers disagree with the idea and don’t want to do it.  In another amazing twist, girls whose fathers don’t want to be their authority figures are to turn to, among other people, their mothers.

Some of the book’s content is so ridiculous as to be laughable.  There is a long quote from Jenny Chancey discussing the ways in which dressing like a man is an abomination; even women’s pants are forbidden.  Looking across the room at my salwar kameez, an Indian women’s pantsuit so obviously feminine no man would be caught dead in it, it was obvious that this argument is completely culture-bound.  And, silly.  Equally silly is the sisters’ assertion that college degrees are not evidence of academic achievement, but something that people buy for their children because they have no direction in life and want to impress “bureaucratic hiring agencies,” (page 134), whatever those are.  Dating is bad because the sisters know two grooms who were not picked by fathers and who “turned out to be liars and outlaws.  One of them is going to jail, if he doesn’t die of AIDS first” (page 228). 

The authors’ explanation on page 268 why it’s appropriate for them to appear to be missionaries, through the writing and speaking they do (they only appear to be; they’re not, is the answer) is also amusing, as is the statement that they only write under their father’s direction.  This may be more true than the sisters imply.  Both their father, Geoffrey Botkin, and his business partner, Doug Phillips, have been caught referring to So Much More as Geoffrey Botkin’s book (Joyce, 2009).  If the book is not a good argument for girls skipping college, it’s even less of an argument for taking seriously patriarchal men who need to spread poor theology by pretending to be teenage girls.  

Not So Much (Part 1)

A critique and review of the book, So Much More.

So Much More (The Vision Forum, 2005), by Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin, presents an interesting premise: the only appropriate place for unmarried Christian women is their father’s home.  Written by two sisters, ages 19 and 17 at publication, the basic premise of the book is that all females are to be at all times under the governing and protective authority of a male; daughters are therefore to remain under their father’s authority, and in his home, until married to the man the father chooses.

The theological controversy between complementarian and egalitarian views of gender relationships is fiercely polarized; there are complementarians and egalitarians, and probably the closest thing to Christian unity that is likely to occur is an agreement to disagree. This review will not address that controversy, but will focus instead on the merits of the positions in which the authors extrapolate beyond basic complementarianism, and on other basic issues in the book.  The authors present a standard view of complementarian theology in Chapter Two.  While I don’t agree with complementarian theology, the view of it that is presented is consistent with complementarian exegesis of Genesis and Paul.  In fact, it is the most solid thing in the entire book.

It is when the authors branch out from basic complementarian theology that some of the book’s many problems begin to reveal themselves.  The first chapters begin with an introduction to the authors, an explanation of the format of the book, and the establishment of the premise for the book and the reasoning behind it.  It is here, with the establishment of the premise and reasoning, that the first problems appear. 

The set up for the sisters’ argument in the rest of the book rests on a straw man argument the size of which would embarrass the Colossus of Rhodes.  The sisters maintain that there is a worldwide crisis among women who are not living either under their fathers’ or their husbands’ authority.  At ages 19 and 17, they claim that they have years of experience as the confidants of vast numbers of female college students who have been visitors to their father’s home, all of whom have been completely unfulfilled and bitterly unhappy.  The sisters conclude that all young women feel this way, and attribute this to parental abandonment that begins with day care and ends with college.  They then apply this to all girls.  They further maintain that women who are not living under male authority will end up with two types of men: predators and cowards.  There is no data presented for any of these claims other than the sisters’ own anecdotal experience, and even that is not given any numerical value that would allow the reader to judge the extent of the problem, rather than taking the authors’ word for it.  Vast numbers of dissatisfied young women are hinted at, but without real numbers, we don’t know whether the sisters used 20 or 200 women as the basis of their argument, and when you’re claiming that a problem affects most of the young women on the planet, numbers are mandatory.  A more logically sound argument, supported by real numbers, would have made a better premise and appeared less naïve and unsophisticated.  The issues with logic and critical thinking displayed in the first chapters are hardly an argument for young women skipping college.

The problems with lack of data actually work against the book’s argument.  The sisters live, and advocate other young women living, “at home,” which means exactly what it says.  They are in their father’s home doing household chores, helping with the father’s business concerns, and learning to be homemakers.  They were able to gather data only from people who came to their father’s house or whom they meet as part of inclusion in their father’s activities.  I live in an urban setting.  If I were to decide to conduct an analysis of the numbers of polar bears in the world, but were limited to observing only the polar bears that pass my front window, it’s reasonable to assume that I might end up with a distorted view of the daily lives of polar bears—in fact, I’d have to conclude that they are extinct.  It’s reasonable to assume that perhaps happily independent young female visitors might be to the Botkin household what polar bears are to mine: extremely rare to nonexistent.  Leaving home to collect some data would have improved the book, so at least in this case, not being able to go independently into the outside world and observe and interview directly has handicapped these authors, not benefited them.

In true patriarchal fashion, the sisters’ initial straw man begets 14 more:  the authors present 14 “21^st Century Heroines of the Faith” (Botkin, p. 7) who have supposedly each waged a valiant battle against feminism.  Most of the book is in question-and-answer format, with these “heroines” used as examples.  Throughout the book, these 14 straw heroines are used at critical points to dissuade young women from any ambition other than submission to males.  Their stories are presented as examples of negative things that happen to young women who want to go to college, enter politics, or work outside the home.  The individual story is then expanded to vaguely threaten any girl who with similar dreams.  Apparently, “visionary” daughters are rather near-sighted.

The review continues in Part Two