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.