One Review of the Disturbing Return of the Daughters

Here's my second attempt at posting my first comment here on Anna Sophia and Elizabeth Botkin’s new film, ”The Return of the Daughters.” (I sent my first attempt into cyberspace oblivion.) There are so many things about the film that are disturbing to me, and I was amazed to see how “emotionally engaged” my very logical husband became when we viewed it together. We were both disturbed for a wide variety of reasons, probably because the general premise of young women desiring to live godly lives to impact society is such a desirable premise. But like so much of Vision Forum influenced ideology, “you get much more than you bargained for.” I actually thought at one point, that it might be nice to have Dave Letterman’s blink counter set to sound whenever “Biblical” was used as a modifier.

Vision Forum’s description of this film states:

This highly-controversial documentary will take viewers into the homes of several young women who have dared to defy today’s anti-family culture in pursuit of a biblical approach to daughterhood, using their in-between years to pioneer a new culture of strength and dignity, and to rebuild Western Civilization, starting with the culture of the home….. As the home goes, so often goes the church, and society at large. Learn along with Anna Sofia and Elizabeth, the fulfilling, exciting life of impact and accomplishment that young women can and should have. Discover the power of the family unit and a picture of the biblical home as the center of dominion work — a vibrant center of education, ministry, evangelism, culture, entrepreneurialism, and hospitality.

Certainly, this film represents great ideals, and many of them are vital to Christianity, representing core Christian principles. The film presents a vignette of the lives of several young women that either work for their fathers in their own place of business, volunteer or work from home to generate income to help support the vision of the father. What is more subtle is the reason why these young women are portrayed as shining examples of “Biblical womanhood” that is not directly and obviously stated in the film. The film doesn’t argue their point for the sole purpose of singing the glories of staying at home but as a positive support of their narrow, legalistic interpretation that this is the only acceptable “Biblical” standard for all unwed women.

In keeping with the patriocentric doctrines and practices taught by Vision Forum and the FICs, I think that a more appropriate name for the film would be “The Return to the Fathers,” because I found the focus of the film to be the glorified ideal of the father-daughter relationship. Brothers get a plug in the Extras section, but mothers barely appear on camera. After the focus on the first young woman and her family, there were few mothers on screen. I do specifically recall the mother of one of the girls appearing in the film, but only in portrait where she is shown embracing the girl’s father. If examining the content of the film, the focus is not on family or home, so the “Return of the Daughters” calls really for a return of daughters -- to return home to their father’s vision for them.

The Botkin girls stare hypnotically into the camera with come-hither gazes, and everyone else is interviewed in documentary style, looking away from the camera’s eye. There’s been discussion on some blogs about the disturbing nature of some of this technique, especially when some interviewed demonstrate some unnatural lack of eye movement. Some people are trained to control eye movement to conceal information about the truthfulness of their statements, although this might have been due to the use of a teleprompter. This is a great distraction in the film, especially in the Extras sections where Geoff Botkin and Doug Phillips explain the “Biblical Foundations” for the belief system that they advocate in the film. The Visionary Daughters website posted a clip of this section online, but it was coincindently removed after only a day.

My husband was quite incensed over some of the poorly chosen language used in a particular clip within the “Courtship and Marriage” section, also included in the Extras on the DVD. If anyone has an opportunity to watch it, I would like to hear feedback on that section specifically via private correspondence. My husband was actually offended by some of the just poorly worded commentary in that section. In fact, I think that it’s so disturbing, unless interpreted with previous knowledge of the subject of courtship and within the mindset of the Christian community that embraces the courtship model, I will not present the transcript of that section here. I interpreted that section with understanding of the intent of the speaker, but I have grave concerns that those outside of patriarchy’s influence would not be so kind in evaluating it.

Read some of the discussion HERE.

A Few Definitions

A Terminology Primer

ANT	“Automatic Negative Thought” (cognitive therapy per Dr. Amen)
autonomy	The state of self governing or self management, independent of others
Botkin Syndrome (a term that was abandoned in Feb 2019 at the request of the daughters of Geoffrey Botkin)	The dysfunctional dynamics and long-term effects of the teachings of the Botkin Sisters and Vision Forum (Covert/emotional incest, non-sexual but gender related incest intermingled with the the teachings of patriarchy/patriocentricity)
boundaries	The border or limit in a relationship where one person stops and another person begins. (That which defines a person's autonomy.) A lack of defined, established or defended boundaries causes dysfunctional relationships that result in emotional, psychological and relationship problems.
Chosen Child	Dr. Patricia Love's term for a child of covert (emotional/non-sexual) incest
cognitive behavioral therapy	Therapy to teach emotional control through correct thinking
Cognitive	Thinking function of the brain
dysfunctional family roles	enabler (caretaker), hero (good child), lost child, mascot (comedian), mastermind (manipulative child), scapegoat (problem child)
EMDR	Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (therapy)
enmeshment	In terms of Botkin Syndrome, describes the relationship between an adult and child wherein the adult uses the child to satisfy his/her adult needs
Incest covert overt	As related to Botkin Syndrome, incest is the using of one family member (generally an adult) in an inappropriate way to meet needs at the expense of the other party. (Does not always refer to sexual violation.) Covert: Use of a child by a parent (or sibling) to meet adult needs (non-sexual emotional, psychological or religious) Overt: sexual violation
Intimacy	Close acquaintance, association or familiarity (apart from sexual intimacy; need not imply sexual intimacy)
Love Addiction	Pia Mellody's term for an unhealthy pattern in relationships wherein the addicted person resists emotional intimacy through fantasy but craves love, attention and care from an objectified partner.
Love Avoidance	Pia Mellody's term for an unhealthy pattern in relationships wherein the avoidant person resists emotional intimacy through caretaking or rescuing their objectified partner.
objectify (objectification)	To view or treat a person as an object by failing to recognize or appreciate the full value and essence of someone's personhood or humanity
personality disorder	A clinical term for a consistent/sustained pattern of behavior stemming from a person's personality traits
self-injury	A compulsive behavior such as cutting, picking skin, pulling hair, interfering with wound healing. Reduces anxiety by stimulating the production of endorphins and is often a symptom of unresolved, chronic trauma and Borderline Personality Disorder.
sexualize (sexualizing)	To attribute sexual characteristics and qualities to things that are not sexual in nature. To see all things in terms of sex or gender
shame-existence bind	Guilt and discomfort experienced by both children and adult children of enmeshment over having needs that must be met. Guilt induced by chronic feelings of worthlessness learned in dysfunctional, shame-based relationships.
surrogate	One thing or person that takes the place of another. In terms of Botkin Syndrome, refers to family members replacing the role and function other more appropriate family members for the purpose of meeting basic human needs (can include basic physical, emotional, psychological, religious or sexual needs)
therapy	Psychotherapy (treatment of psycho-social conditions through various modalities such as family, cognitive-behavioral, EMDR or other therapy to improve mental health and function

Talk About the Botkins

Joy, a frequent blogger and second generation homeschooler, reported on her experience at the Home Educators Association of Virginia Conference that was held recently in Richmond. She attended the session presented by Elizabeth and Anna Sophia Botkin, the Vision Forum affiliated “Visionary Daughters.” Read some of this content, originally posted on the True Womanhood blog, detailing some of the cries of “heresy” in response to the Vision Forum message. You can link there to read more about her experiences and read some of the content presented by the Botkin Sisters.

About the response to Vision Forum:

The Vision Forum booth was large, but moved very very little product. (Unfortunately, the catalogs flew like hotcakes!). The Western Conservatory booth was painfully, painfully, abandoned and empty for large time periods during the whole convention. (It was stuck in an obscure back corner) Poor Geoffery Botkin was stuck at the booth for long periods of time alone with no one to talk to, except for an occasional Anna Sofia and Elizabeth adoring fan inquiring as to where they were…I think they may have sold 50 movies/dvd’s the whole convention. And from what I could tell, they were bought by people who already ascribed to the NCFIC credo (judging by the long skirts and hair coverings, etc.)- although I am in no way making a blanket stereotype here. I merely stating what I observed.

Particularly on Saturday, people were going out of their way to avoid the Vision Forum booth (it was pretty obvious, being right near the front), giving it a wide berth. The guy (in tie and jacket, of course) was trying to hand out catalogs, and I would say two couples out of every five (couples or family groups) flat out refused to take the catalog. One man went so far as to fuss at the man for having the heretical “stuff” there. [his words] Again too, if you stood near the Vision Forum or American Vision booths (which are much linked in consumer’s minds, even though one professes not to have anything to do with the other) the conversations you would hear were interesting…I think “kooky” or “legalistic” were most often used as descriptors. Most of the women using those kind of terms were often discussing Vision Forum’s position on women in the home. Often, when I would hear things in favor of VF, the speakers almost always turned out to be clearly VF leaning (again with the long skirts and head coverings).

To put it another way, there weren’t many “outsiders” that were easily fooled.

And in reference to the Botkin Daughters' Presentation:

But before I actually get into what they said…I thought I’d fill you in on some of the reactions. In a room filled to standing room only (the workshop was actually closed due to space/fire code constraints) I would say that 10-15 people walked out in anger. Most of them were mothers practically dragging their daughters out. I would say another 20-50 stayed through the speech, but were very upset and angered by what they had heard. (My husband, by twist of fate, got stuck outside, and shared what he heard and saw during the speech and immediately afterward- I was stuck inside.) James said he heard “heresy” from 9 out of the 10 people who walked out (before the speech was over). Of that first wave of people who left quickly as soon as the doors were opened…there was a lot of anger/confusion.

More on the cultural irrelevance and patriocentric paranoia:

There were a few women (and a man) near me that immediately struck up a conversation with me as soon as it was ended. One of the questions was basically like my own to you gals back in the day: “I know something is wrong here, but I can’t quite figure out why”. I discussed in *brief* detail our concerns regarding the Botkins and NCFIC and Doug Phillips; pointed them to this blog and Karen’s and Molly’s and Cindy’s (at least, all the blog url’s I could remember off the top of my head).

My husband stated after hearing them that he finally (although he had always understood) realized why I couldn’t let the whole thing rest, why it was keeping me awake at night (the topics discussed here at TW). He was the one who was adamant I get these speech notes posted this morning…He’s so incredibly angry. As a father of a daughter, he said he realized that he needed to ‘contend for the faith’ because he doesn’t want Lorelei getting into this mess when she is older.

Interestingly enough,
most of the first wave of people that left the speech after it was over were angry about the egotism (their description of a ‘normal day’ really bugged people) and hubris. They may not have been angry about the theological differences so much as they were angry, as johanna-from-england so aptly said, that young girls were telling them what to do.

Healing the Chosen Child ~~ Love on Recovery

from “The Emotional Incest Syndrome” by Patricia Love with Jo Robinson.. Exploring the dynamics of covert (emotional or non-sexual but gender-related) incest.

Up until this point in this series of posts concerning Patricia Love's book “The Emotional Incest Syndrome” concerning non-physical incest, I presented information from Chapters 1 – 5. There are an additional ten chapters that represent a very personal journey that those who want to find healing must take on their own. I cannot reproduce the entire book in this forum. I would, however, like to offer some glimmers of hope for those who read here. Toward that end of healing, let me write a summary of the journey that Dr. Love guides the reader through in order to find wholeness.

Dr. Love on Healing Self

Finding personal healing from the wounds of covert/emotional incest involves a major undertaking of revisiting one's own personal and family history. In earlier posts, I touched on some of this, but the remainder of the book delves into the specifics of the process. She does an expert job of explaining the process of healing and it's two components. The first involves an autobiography of personal history and the second component involves changing behaviors.

The first and essential step towards healing begins with the dispelling of the myths of one's childhood. (I recall Julie Andrews singing “Do, Re, Mi” from the “Sound of Music” with the “very fine place to start” – at the beginning.) She reviews those factors that we naturally employ and used as ways in which to cope and survive our childhoods which have worn out their usefulness for us. The first means of coping is that of denial. Telling ourselves that our childhoods were perfection or that our problems were never problems at all hinder our natural ability to heal. 

She also discusses the resistance that we experience through our natural inclinations to deny a true and realistic view of our own pasts in favor of the childhood perspective of fantasy. We tend to see the past through the rose-colored glasses that our memories and our child-like perspective gives us, yet this perspective inhibits realistic assessment necessary to change our current perspectives with the chief end of seeing things for what they really are. The other form of resistance is external, as our families and loved ones tend to resist a change in the status quo. 

Our loved ones built relationships around the ways that we always been, so there will be a natural resistance as you begin to stretch your borders as you grow in healthy new ways. This is often seen as “rocking the boat” which is generally something that is resisted in relationships characterized by the covert/emotional nature of the relationships with the “Chosen Child.” We can and often do find our loved ones working against this new area of growth in our lives which is already a challenge in and of itself.

Guilt also presents a major hurdle to overcome, as part of the process of covert incest and Botkin Syndrome requires that the child and the adult child absorb and bear the responsibilities for the adult's needs and for related hardships. In a related work, Pia Mellody defines this type of guilt as the “shame-existence bind.” Often, we were expected to deny our own needs, pretend that we did not have needs or forfeit the satisfaction of our own God-given needs for nurture in order to care for or avoid any “undue burdening” of our parents. For myself, I've found this to be my greatest hurdle in healing. Love states that a proper attributing of responsibilities of the parent-child relationship to the parent (as opposed to an unhealthy sharing of the responsibilities between both parent and child through denial and guilt) must be acknowledged and is key to healing. Addressing the faulty belief systems within the family also presents a critical element of healing. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is the primary means of addressing this, and personally, I like Daniel Amen's concept of countering Automatic Negative Thoughts (killing the “ANT”s) as an example. Another Christian author on the subject that has been very helpful to me in the past is Chris Thurman who wrote “The Lies We Believe” and “The Truths We Must Believe.”

Love guides the reader through the process of writing one's autobiography as a first practical step means to healing one's own perception and wounds of the past. She also presents questions to present to family in the form of interviews that help to elucidate truths about other family members' perceptions of the past. The third step in the autobiography involves drawing a family “genogram” chart of one's ancestors, giving consideration to their own histories. (Did one's predecessors have coping or relationship problems, showing that one's parents may never have had opportunity to learn better relationship skills?) Finally, Love guides the reader through a summary of what was learned in the previous steps of the autobiography.

-->

Dr. Love on Healing Relationships

The book also presents detailed information about how to approach the various relationships that the Chosen Child or the parent of the the Chosen Child must undertake on the road to healing and wholeness. She addresses confronting and reconciliation with parents, siblings, spouses and one's own children in subsequent chapters of the book. 

Establishing healthy boundaries, both boundaries that protect self as well as decreasing the boundaries that Chosen Children erect in order to protect themselves from harm that serve to inhibit appropriate intimacy later in life, are an essential part of this process. (In addition to the helpful information that Love presents in the book, I also recommend “Boundaries” by Townsend and Cloud.) 

“The Emotional Incest Syndrome” offers exercises to help correct some of these emotional boundaries that inhibit intimacy in marital relationships of the Chosen Child. There are also several chapters that address general good communication skills as well as those specific to healing each type of relationship effected by covert/emotional incest. There are also good ideas about developing a healthy and supportive network of loved ones as well as promoting healthy, happy, well-adjusted families.

Before I conclude these blog posts, I will also highlight the last chapter which offers two case studies and examples of hope for those who have begun to realize that they are Chosen Children.

Excerpt from
Dr. Patricia Love's
The Emotional Incest Syndrome:
What to Do When a Parent's Love Rule's Your Life
Bantam Books, 1990

The Adustments that the Rest of the Family Makes: Keeping the Dysfunctional Family in Balance

-->

From “The Emotional Incest Syndrome” by Patricia Love with Jo Robinson.

How Emotional Incest Affects Family Members:

From pages 56 – 72:

In this continuing drama, the actions of one family member elicit reactions from everyone else, and every plot development has implications for the entire group.

In enmeshed families such as the ones I've been describing, the interplay between individuals is greatly exaggerated... “the drama where everyone loses.”

• Blood Ties
• Invasive Parent
• Left Out Child
• Left Out Spouse
• Shadow Parent
• Spouse of the Chosen Child
• Inlaws

-->

Blood Ties

[Describes a research project demonstrating measurable levels and Free Fatty Acids in the blood regarding how children absorb family tension. Salvador Minuchin's study demonstrated that the enmeshed child's physiology became altered as evidenced by the FFA response, coinciding with child's sustained and persistent anxiety level as well. Children without enmeshment did not demonstrate any physiologic response.]

The Invasive Parent

Viewed from the outside, the Invasive Parent – the one enmeshed with the child – appears to be in an enviable position. As we've seen, the parent gets many of his needs met by the Chosen Child who – unlike a spouse – rarely makes demands, criticizes, or challenges the parent to “relate.” The child merely accepts what is given. If Daddy is a little self-centered or irritable or

hits the bottle once too often – so be it. That's the way Daddy is. The child has no basis for comparison.

-->

An Invasive Parent who is married also gets to enjoy the convenience of having a spouse. Even though there is some unresolved tension in the marriage – otherwise the parent would not turn to the child – there is a semblance of a relationship. For example, the couple may have sexual relations, share household and parenting responsibilities, and have occasional moments of intimacy. When there is more substance to the marriage, the Invasive Parent appears to be sitting in the catbird seat. He or she basks in the adoration and companionship of a child and reaps many of the rewards of being married as well...

At first, it may look like this man has the best of both worlds. But it must be remembered that he, like all parents who are overly bonded with a child, initially turned to his daughter because of a lack of more suitable companionship. After his divorce from his first wife, he turned to his daughter to help ease his pain and loneliness. And even though living with his daughter seemed to satisfy his needs, it was not fully rewarding to him, or he would not have remarried. Like all

parents who are enmeshed with a child, he had an unsatisfied desire, whether conscious or unconscious, for a more encompassing union with another adult. But when he acted on this desire and married for the second time, he had to contend with his wife's jealously. He was being forced to choose between the two people he loved most in the world. He was sitting in the hot seat, not the catbird seat!...

Besides juggling competing claims from the spouse and the child, the Invasive Parent ultimately faces a greater trial – the loss of the child, for in all but the most ingrained parent-child relationships, there comes a time when the child moves away from the parent. It can happen abruptly or it can happen over time, but either way, the loss is often heartbreaking.

-->

The Left Out Child

It's a fact of life that parents don't respond to their children equally. They may love each other and each one of the, but they invariably find themselves drawn to one child more than the other. In some families, this natural attraction is nto moderated by compassion or fairness but is acted out as favoritism...Added to these blatant signs of favoritism were tens of thousands of subtle, daily interractions that said to the Left-Out Child: “You are not a priority in my life. You are not as important to me as your brother or sister.”

...It is difficult to maintain your self-esteem when you grow up in a family in which you don't feel prized or valued, where the laurels always go to someone else. When a sibling gets all the attention, you ache for your share of love. You want your special gifts to be celebrated and your weaknesses to be met with compassion... The Left Out Child's goal in life is straightforward: toseek a place in the sun... Some excluded children try to cater to the whims of the parent. They become highly attuned to the parent's needs and mirror the parent's interests. Many years later, they are often the ones who volunetter to take care of the aging mother or father, trying to return to the well in search of life-giving love.

In large families where one of the children is clearly favored, it is often possible to see a number of these coping mechanisms being played out. One Left-Out Child may be a people pleaser, another an overachiever, another a criminal, a fourth a member of a religious cult. Outside observers wonder how the same two parents could produce such diverse offspring. What they don't see is that the children are trying to solve the same family problem – parental favoritism – and that they are following one of the unwritten laws of family dynamics: choose a coping mechanism not preemted by other siblings.

-->

The Left Out Spouse

Of all the members in the enmeshed family, the Left-Out Spouse, the one relegated to the far outpost of the love triangle, is the most commonly misunderstood. Displaced by a son or daughter, the spouse may feel violently jealous. He or she may have a hard time justifying this anger, however, because there is rarely any one incident between the Invasive Parent and the Chosen Child that is blatantly wrong: the relationship in inappropriate only when viewed as a whole and only when viewed against the backdrop of healthy family dynamics. When the Left-Out Spouse reacts to an isolated incident, the whole thing seems blown out of proportion.

The Shadow Parent

I use the term Shadow Parent to refer not to a discrete role in the family but to a personality type: passive, detached, and noninterfering. Either the Invasive Parent or the Left-Out Spouse can be a Shadow Parent. When the Invasive Parent has a passive personality (as in the example of Cinderella's father), the Chosen Child will have little protection from the scorn of the Left-Out Spouse... If the Left-Out Spouse has a passive personality, there will not be much resistance to the parent-child alliance; a potentially corrective force in the family will be missing.

-->

The Spouse of the Chosen Child

When the Chosen Child grows up and marries, another person stumbles into the quagmire – the spouse of the Chosen Child. I have a lot of sympathy for a person who marries one of us Chosen Children, because we can be “larger than life.” Our joys and problems appear boundless and overrun the concerns of our spouses, and our crazy mixture of high and low self-esteem can drive them to distraction...

If the Chosen Child was allied with a Critical/Abusive Parent, different marital problems can arise. The feelings of inadequacy and low-self esteem that characterize the Scapegoat Child can be difficult for a partner to deal with. The partner may feel the constant need to shore up the Chosen Child's ego and counteract the early years of abuse and neglect. This is a futile task, however, unless the Chosen Child is willing to examine those old parent-child issues. It takes a concerted effort to erase early messages from a parent.

Another spouse who earns my sympathy is the one who marries a Chosen Child who has reacted against an Invasive Parent by developing an impenetrable barrier to intimacy. Although the barrier was erected to keep out the overbearing parent, it also shuts out the marriage partner.

-->

In-Laws

If a Chosen Child grows up without fully breaking away from the Invasive Parent, the spouse of the Chosen Child has an additional obstacle to overcome: in-law problems. It is not uncommon for the Invasive Parent to dictate how the newlyweds should run their household, to require frequent phone calls or visits, to encourage financial ties between the families, to insist that the couple live nearby – ideally, in the same house – and to dictate the terms of all family gatherings. These demands are a clear violation of the autonomy of the younger couple. If, in later years, the Invasive Parent moves in with the family of the Chosen Child – which often happens – in-law problems occur daily, if not hourly.

The spouse of the Chosen Child appears to have only two ways to handle the invasive in-law: (1) give in to the demands and become an additional source of support, or (2) treat the Invasive Parent as an intruder, a foreign body to be rejected. If the spouse chooses the first option and joins the ranks, the couple will be absorbed into the family and have little personal freedom. Whenever they step out of line, there will be a price to pay. If the spouse chooses the second option and resists the Invasive Parent – watch out: the temperature will rise. Adding an outsider to the boiling pot turns the family into a pressure cooker.

Sometimes the Chosen Child secretly encourages the battles between the spouse and the Invasive Parent, because on some level, the emancipation feels long overdue. But even so, the parent will rarely blame the Chosen Child for the fracas – it's the son-in-law or the daughter-in-law who's considered the outlaw...

Excerpt from
Dr. Patricia Love's
The Emotional Incest Syndrome:
What to Do When a Parent's Love Rule's Your Life
Bantam Books, 1990

A Child Should Never Be Any Type of Partner for an Adult

-->

From “The Emotional Incest Syndrome” by Patricia Love with Jo Robinson.. Exploring the dynamics of covert (emotional or non-sexual but gender-related) incest.

-->

From page 17:

This is the sad truth about emotional incest. The only relationship that can come close to satisfying an adult is a loving, intimate relationship with another adult. A child lacks the wisdom, the experience and the skills to be an adequate partner.

And it goes without saying that a child must never be a parent's sexual partner. While a child may appear to be an adequate companion for an adult, there is always something missing, and tragically, the child bears the brunt of the parent's frustration.

Excerpt from
Dr. Patricia Love's The Emotional Incest Syndrome: What to Do When a Parent's Love Rule's Your Life

Bantam Books, 1990

Holes In the Argument About Daughters Working Only in the Home

A comment on True Womanhood:


I was chatting with someone this morning about how daughters can work for fathers under the "Botkin Plan." I wonder how this really works and if they have a list of 242 rules that one must follow when a daughter works for dad at his business, that is if it is not actually within the home? (I supposed it's more holy to do it all under one roof, but there are exceptions like Vision Forum, churches, etc.) Let me work out and expose some of these bugs...

The home is a blessed safe-zone for women so there is a "sin cootie free zone" in and around the "sphere of the home." (Note: I understand the "sin cootie free" reference came from the Gothard discussion list, as he was very superstitious about picking up bad spirits and such. You are a sin cootie magnet according to Gothard, attracting evil consequences and spiritual diseases when you are out from under the "umbrella of protection" provided by submission to proper authority. And the "sphere of the home" is language borrowed from Calvin that I am told is not used in context by several people who discussed these matters at length with RJ Rushdoony.) Women who stay within the safe zone have God's protection from harm, corruption, attack, etc. This providential zone of holiness and protection always resides over the Christian home apparently.

It appears that men carry a degree of the sin cootie free zone with them when they leave the home, though the home base sin cootie free zone of protection does not diminish when he leaves. A daughter who does not possess the Spirit of God to as great a degree as any male (sounds like the John MacArthur reference you can find on strivetoenter.com/wim). Boys carry this too, as we see this described for us in the Botkin teachings particularly. The father/husband is the best option for protection, but any male child can be used, such as a brother. So if a woman has to run to the grocery store, theoretically, the woman will be safer if she takes a male child with her. The male carries a sin cootie free zone with him where so ever he goeth.

Now, about daughters. They can work with their fathers outside the home, as they are protected by his very powerful sin cootie free zone of providential protection. (This is supported by all the arguments made about not sending a daughter to college: she faces some physical risk because she is not under the roof with her family or her patriarchal father.) She can do whatever woman appropriate work there needs to be done in her father's workplace. But I wonder how far the sin cootie free zone extends outward from the father? Is there a square footage limitation? If the daughter goes down the street to pick up lunch for the father, does his sin cootie free field of providential protection expand? Does it stretch 500 yards (100 times the number of grace)? Does it extend 5 miles? Does the father, by virtue of sending the daughter out on a special mission, donate or transmit some of his protective duty to his daughter by virtue of the fact that she is doing her father's bidding? Is it okay for her to run an errand down the block or across town or make a 50 mile drive?


I guess it all depends on how you work out the metaphysics of it all. The ontological aspects of all this are just laughable. The first young woman (from the nice Italian family in Louisiana) featured in the "Return of the Daughter's" video travels and does all sorts of errands (the most healthy and realistic family in the film). So the providential protection zone must travel with her.

If that's the case, when a daughter does what her father wants her to do while she works in the employ of another outside the home, why then would this aura of protection and providence not go with her? She does so with her father's blessing in in order to fulfil his desire for her through working at a job that she likes, so long as it does not interfere with the rest of her life and responsibilities. There are no Scriptures that speak of this, as Numbers 30 is about vows and not about a "cone of protection." But I'm sure that they will claim this somehow. They can't explain it from Scripture because it is not from the Bible. It came from the minds of those who believe that women are lesser creatures who can neither bear the Word or the Spirit with the same degree of power, authority and effectiveness as a man. It all boils down to ontology here, whether they admit it or not.