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