So Much More - The Worrying and the Confusing

Picture taken from
book's Goodreads
page

** Missed the first post? Find it here.**

Welcome to Part 2 of my So Much More review, where I talk about the things that are worrying/confusing. Though this was written with good intentions, there are things in this book that raise quite a few red flags.

As a side note, the authors were 19 and 17 when this book was published, and it does show. (They do admit to their youthful idealism on their personal website, so that's another point in their favor.) When reading, it comes off as idealist, rigid, and full of "tips" for situations that they have never obviously never experienced.

*Any words written in the blue like this are side notes*

    1. Marriage is a given for women, not a gift from God, and is treated with the utmost idealism.

This book's target audience is the Christian single girl. On page 211, the authors write, "We need to be thinking about and preparing for marriage." Multiple times, this period of being single is referenced as being a learning time for the girl to be in preparation for marriage.

They also discuss the questions about singleness being better immediately after the above quote. When you read it, however, there is no real neutrality between these two options; the authors all but say that a woman will always get married.

Also, when talking about marriage, there is an unhealthy idealism. "My husband should be a hero, a man of valor." (p. 231) While I do agree with the statement and the following paragraph, I also acknowledge that men (and women) are flawed, fallible beings who do not always do what they are supposed to do.

There are many of these idyllic statements scattered around the book, and it's setting young readers up for disappointment if they believe it.

2. College is called an evil institution in sweeping generalizations instead of recognizing that it has problems because people run it.

While it starts out warning about the 'traditional college experience,' this ends up devolving into condemning all of college. College and the time in it is called "wasted years, mental defilement, and moral derangement." (p. 132) On page 139, it's said that colleges are laughing at us. They also claim that college is a place where one is "exposing oneself to defiling ideas and experiences." 

But how is that any different than real life? The world is evil and that evil is everywhere. If you really want to effectively witness to a nonbeliever, you're going to be touched by these ideas. You can't escape it.

In this book, we are given stories from different people whom the Botkin sisters know (and might I add, they all are pretty dramatic in emphasizing what the sisters are writing about). One story is about how college 'ruined' her spiritual life relationship with her family, which is located on page 139. (And by ruined I mean she became her own person and didn't talk to them every day.) 

More scathing quotes about colleges:

"The bulk of the classroom experience is learning to bend one’s thinking toward the Marxist worldview with everyone else, so that life in a Marxist society can be comfortable. The campus experience is hedonistic revelry. The networking experience is, largely, yoking yourself with others who are also attempting to justify the investment of four years in a dishonest environment that has so little to do with the real world.” (page 138) 

"The same theologies and ideas that corrupted the older colleges are corrupting the colleges currently labeled 'Christian.'" (page 137) Fair enough, but alienating ourselves from these situations is not the answer, either.

"A college degree is important if one wants to impress a bureaucratic hiring agency, or if one wants to pretend some sort of academic or intellectual superiority over others who may not have a degree. But as proof of academic achievement, the modern college degree is a deception." (page 134, emphasis theirs) With all do respect, I want the people in the medical field to have an idea of what they're doing.

The above quote is a perfect example of the sweeping generalizations the authors make. It's an all or nothing; there's no understanding or explaining exceptions.

"...the education major is the most dangerously deceptive of all." (page 151) Side note: As someone who was told all throughout high school that psychology was the most dangerously deceptive, this psych major thanks you. But I have a question: how do you expect us to change that by running away?

And finally: "(College experience) may be adventurous, but it is so cruelly depleting...four years of boredom." (page 138) ...Then you're probably in the wrong field. Take a year, figure out where God wants to, and then go from there.

    3. Suggested alternatives to college are somewhat...restrictive.

In the book, the authors say that the daughters should "appeal (to their fathers) for a better alternative." (page 148)

First, most fathers believe that college is the better alternative than staying at home, since most fathers are married and have wives. 

Second, the other two ideas by the authors listed below (besides the true learning of "correspondence college") aren't that much better. 1: Staying home to prepare for marriage (which we've already discussed as being a gift from God and not a promise), and 2: "applying oneself to advanced homemaking studies in preparation for real life." (On a topic discussed later, women shouldn't be working, so this is once again marriage.)  

After talking about things that Christians cannot do/learn in the school system, the authors ask one of their friends what is a good thing for young Christian girls to study. The answer is learning how to be a wife. "He needs someone who can share his concerns, talk about them intelligently, and help him come up with solutions. He needs a co-regent who will rule their home wisely and well." (p. 153)

Speaking of irony of co-regent...

    4. They promote/believe in the patriarchy.

(So the above quote about 'co-regent' is basically null and void because there is no 'co' in the patriarchy.)

"Before marriage, a woman is under the authority of her parents. A father has the authority to give his daughter in marriage (1 Corinthians 7:36-38). When a father gives his daughter in marriage, he is transferring his authority to another man. Most fathers either don't understand or are afraid of the magnitude of this responsibility, and it may be your task as a daughter to introduce these new ideas to him, slowly and respectfully. Make it clear how much you value his wishes and opinions." (page 228) I'll let you do with that as you will.

Then: "As we have said before, a woman's life will always be tied into a man's life, whether she is married or not." (page 14) Question: what happens if the dad dies unexpectedly and she's not married?

"Never in Scripture are women given the responsibility to provide for their families." (page 24) Ok, but what about a wife who's husband is deployed? A wife who's husband is disabled? What is supposed to happen?

Now do you see what I mean by 'situations they have obviously never experienced?'

Following point #4...

    5. Submission always looks the same and doesn't allow for any variance for different life circumstances. 

One of the main topics of this book is submission, more specifically the submission of a daughter to her father. Another topic is the duty a daughter has to her family and to her father. On page 6, they call submission to a father a "duty." This theme of dutiful submission continues throughout the book Not once does it give allowance for different familial situation. 

I do not necessarily disagree with their points, but I do not agree that daughters should be dutiful blindly, and this is the attitude they are sending (intentional or not) to impressionable girls. 

    6. Daughters have to be worthy of their father's protection, even though the authors state that a daughter should have the father's protection regardless of worthiness (page 74).

The next paragraph down they write "Being truly worthy of protection starts with fearing the Lord."

Yes, we are worthy of nothing and our worth comes from Christ. However, a person's father's failure is not dependent on them. 

Another quote is "Do you make it clear to (your father) that you are a woman of virtue worthy of his special protection?" (p. 55)

Again, a person's actions or lack thereof is not dependent upon you. The only reason I added this quote without a citation is because the authors later praise Rahab an amazing woman who trusted God while saying Deborah and Dinah are horrible women. This whole 'worthy of protection' thing is not ok when they're making these comparisons. 

    7. A lot of their discussions on the father/daughter relationships and how they should work are bordering on creepy as daughters are not the wives.

Yes, this is a thing.

"A girl turns her heart to her father by caring about what he loves, learning about what is important to him, desiring his counsel and approval, seeking his counsel and approval, caring more for his opinion than that of her peers, serving him, helping, sharing his vision, letting him know her heart." (page 39) 

I get what they're trying to say, but it's phrased so badly that it reads more like a way for a girl to get a guy to notice her. In fact, they equate the same respect a husband and wife have to the type of respect fathers and children should have (page 38). One of the friends (also called heroines) states being a single daughter is an "excellent opportunity I have to practice with my own father." (page 42) I'm to touch on this later in the final post, but where is the mother in all of this?

Also on page 42, they ask the question, "Is every girl called to be her father's helpmeet?" Though they don't actually answer, as you can see from the above quote, the answer is 'yes.'

There is also an idealism towards fathers that the authors seem to have. "Our fathers are supposed to be dear, trusted confidantes and friends, but God has given them a charge to be much more than this. They are to be our knights in shining armor, our protectors, our guardians, and are even supposed to represent God to us. This means that our dads have the tremendous responsibility of being accurate reflections of God's authority, as well as providers of the security and love that God created us, as women, to need." (page 17) 

Again, I don't necessary disagree with these statements, but it's also extremely naive. Fathers are just as sinful as we are and it is not fair to them to expect that they always be this perfect.

And finally...

    8. General confusing statements.
"Disrespect has been redefined so that we can laugh at our parents under the pretense of being affectionate and appreciative, not even realizing just how confused we are." (page 194) Words and meanings change, and not always for the worst. Also, what looks like disrespect to you may be understood as a basic survival instinct by others.

"This does not mean that the suitor will know exactly what he'll be doing for the rest of his life, but he will have a general understanding about the ways he can best serve God which is compatible with my understanding of how the Kingdom of God is to be built." (page 230) This statement in and of itself it not a bad one; in fact, I (mostly) agree with it. There are two reasons I added this: 1) it is in the middle of an incredibly naive section about what a husband should be and sums up the whole section; and 2) it is ok to not be in the middle of 'general understanding' because sometimes it takes time to understand what God's plan is for you.

In Appendix A, the authors sit down with their dad in have a discussion about men, the church and Feminism. The dad remarks: "If I ever sound critical of the church, I am critical only of the church's enemies, those people within the church and outside of it that force the church off of her foundations and redefines its purpose." (page 292) This is worrying, as we should not follow anyone blindly and he does not separate a finite teaching pastor from the church.

Then we have a story from one of the book's 'heroine' where she talks about how she wasn't feminine enough on pages 88-91. It was painful to read. This is a long post and I'm trying to wind it down, so if you want to know why it bothers me so much, ask in the comments and I'll explain.

For the last one, it's a confusing statement but I do appreciate it. On page 296, in the father/daughters interview, the dad says: "When the critics land on you with boots and spurs, I'll protect you."

I appreciate this because it does show that they are not just writing this book because they want to but because they truly believe it and see it in their father. However, it's not his book. If they want to publish the book, they need to be able to take the attacks towards the book.

We have all of these things that fall flat in the book even though they spend a lot of effort defending their points. The authors have tried to speak in a way that is educational and helpful, but anyone who has life experience knows that this is not a healthy way to live.


Next month on the blog, I'll be reviewing Tialla Rising's Where Shadows Lie.