To be a Princess

Disney Princesses have been taking a lot of flack lately. Between dialogues at Ladies Against Feminism and the Botkin girls often throwing out a random jab to my college professors declaring that Disney Princesses are anti-feminist and the cause of all female identity problems… they’re under a lot of heat. I’ll go out on a limb and admit that I like the princesses and Disney movies and I love going to Walt Disney World. So I’m biased. :-D However, each time I hear someone picking on the Disney princesses, I want to ask them, “Have you ever even seen the movies?” I’ll grant that there’s been a lot of marketing in the last ten years with more merchandise and special trippy sing-along dvd’s then I can count but that’s only a tiny part of the story. In the Botkin’s latest article they insist that their mother, “walked down the Walmart Pink Isle [sic], past all the Disney-heroine Barbies, Disney-movie-inspired vanity playsets, sequined polyester fish-tail skirts with seashells, and itchy yellow off-shoulder Belle dresses, and decided, ‘Not for my daughters.’” Actually, that’s an anachronism. In reality, Disney Princess merchandise was extremely hard to find in the late 1980’s through the mid-1990’s; even costumes were hard to find, expensive, and usually only available from Disney store. Even so, the Disney store was (and still is) only to be found in larger cities and the costumes were only available around Halloween. Plus, the “Disney Princess” franchise/brand really didn’t exist at the time—it was created in 1999. Take it from someone who loved Princess Aurora as little girl but couldn’t find any Sleeping Beauty stuff in the Disney store. Yes, it was that bad. So if Mrs. Botkin was in a pink aisle at Walmart, it probably was a Barbie aisle with no connection to Disney.

All of these discussions aside, who actually takes an animated character and thinks of them as a role model? Even though I loved Princess Aurora as a child, I never thought of her as a role model. When it came down to it, I wanted to be like my mom or another real-life figure when I grew up. Honestly, it’s just not very common to make a cartoon character into a role model. Usually, young people turn to real figures for inspiration―honestly, the Botkins should be arguing against Hannah Montana and Wizards of Waverly Place instead of the animated Disney princesses.

Still, if we do consider the Disney princesses worth as examples for young people, what qualities do they exemplify? In this, the real Disney films are what count and I often feel like no one is actually watching them. (By the way, "Brave" is a Pixar film and thus, Merida is not a Disney princess.) So, let’s take a look at each princess, in order of introduction:

Show White (1939): She ran away from a murderous stepmother and was given shelter for a time by a group of kind, older men. She became their housekeeper in return for food and shelter and worked really hard for them. It’s sad that LAF, a Christian group, has tried to make this seem perverted. True... Snow White does sing about her prince coming but hey, don’t most girls occasionally daydream about their future husband?

Cinderella (1950): She was left with her emotionally and physically abusive stepmother and stepsisters when her father died. Yet, Cinderella never let that get her down. She cooked and cleaned and worked and finally, she met someone and left. Yes, he happened to a prince but they married because they loved one another. You’ve got to be a pretty strong person to put up with all the things Cinderella endured.

Princess Aurora (Sleeping Beauty) (1959): She was sent to live with three good fairies because of a death threat and met her prince in the woods. She and Phillip actually liked one another before they found out they were betrothed. In fact, Prince Phillip defied his father and set off to find her when he thought she was a “nobody.” Check out this conversation Phillip has with his father, King Hubert.

Prince Phillip: I said I met the girl I was going to marry. I don't know who she was, a peasant girl I suppose.

Hubert: A peasant g-g-girl? You're going to marry a ... Why Phillip, you're joking! You can't do this to me! Give up the throne, the kingdom, for some, some nobody?

Phillip nods.

Hubert: By Harry, I won't have it. You're a prince, and you're going to marry a princess!

Phillip: Now father, you're living in the past. This is the fourteenth century. Nowadays ...

Hubert: Nowadays I'm still the king, and I command you to come to your senses.

Phillip: ... and marry the girl I love. Goodbye father!

How can you pick on that? Unless you’re a stay at home daughter and then I suppose the “rebellion” would disturb you immensely. Plus, Aurora is obedient to her guardians and goes to the castle even though she wanted to stay and meet Philip. To make it even more painful, she thinks she is betrothed to someone else—and still she goes. That takes a lot of strength.

Ariel (1989): Is in fact the only princess I don’t like because she isn’t a good example at all. She disobeys her father and trades her voice for a guy who isn’t smart enough to recognize her. Plus, there’s that plot hole of why didn’t she just grab Prince Eric and kiss him? He would have kissed her back ;-) and then voila! She’s human! Still, by the end of the film, she does come to appreciate her father and Eric shows that he is worth something after all.

Belle (1991): Belle is wonderful…she has brains, spunk, books, and sacrificial love. The whole film is about sacrifice; I mean, Belle sacrifices herself for her sweet, ill father and then the Beast lets Belle go back to her father, thinking she’ll never return. And then, she comes back to the Beast because she’s his friend and has grown to love him in his ugliness. She ignores the (supposedly) handsome guy back home and sees underneath the Beast’s grotesque exterior.

Jasmine (1992): Another spunky heroine... she actually tries to run away from her privileged life and a future arranged marriage to a prince. Then she falls in love with a boy from the market and she doesn’t like him when he later tries to be something he’s not. Jasmine is strong, determined, and funny; she won’t settle for less than and waits until the right man comes into her life―even if he isn’t of royal blood.

Pocahontas (1995): I’m not a huge fan of the Disney version of Pocahontas because of it’s historical inaccuracies. Still, in the film, Pocahontas is a strong, capable young woman who stands up for her beliefs and saves the life of the man she loves. In the end, she lets go of her wishes and lets him go back to London for medical treatment.

Mulan (1998): Oh, Mulan. To quote the Emperor, “I've heard a great deal about you, Fa Mulan. You stole your father's armor, ran away from home. Impersonated a soldier. Deceived your commanding officer! Dishonored the Chinese army! Destroyed my palace! And!... You have saved us all.” Mulan saves her father’s life, saves her country, and is brave and intelligent in doing so. She’s one of my favorite heroines.

Tiana (2009): Though times are tough, she’s smart and resourceful and even when she’s changed into a frog, Tiana works hard to reach her dream of opening a restaurant. She loves her family, stays devoted to her father’s memory, and never gives up. Yes, she gets married at the end but she didn’t need a guy to be happy.

Rapunzel (2010): The subject of much discussion in stay at home daughter circles. Rapunzel is talented, sweet, gentle, and tough. She saves Flynn Rider’s life after he rescues her (in effect, saving her life) from the evil witch holding her captive. She goes on to rule over her Kingdom with grace and wisdom.

As I go through this list and think about each princess, one key word comes to mind for all of them: strong. Even though I like some of the princesses better than others, I see that all of them are strong, capable young women.  They have dreams of marriage and family... but what girl doesn’t? Yet, none of them go out looking for their prince and continue making the best of their situations. What's more, they're all pretty spunky and I wouldn't classify them as damsels in distress--they're all capable of taking care of themselves. Yes, they’re all pretty and thin but some people are nice-looking and slender. None of the characters are look anorexic either, just healthy. What’s more, the princesses are beautiful on the inside and exemplify qualities worth emulating such as kindness, faithfulness, sacrifice, honor, hope, courage, and love. My friends and I grew up watching Disney movies and we never got the idea that we had to look just like them or sit around and wait for a prince to rescue us—we’re not damaged. Plus, we know that cartoon characters aren't role models―they just make life sweeter and brighter. So, I’m glad my mom wasn’t overly analytic and let me watch Disney films as a child. And I’m glad my parents took me to Walt Disney World and bought me a few special Sleeping Beauty items. Sure we could cut out all dreams, ideals, and romance from our lives and refuse to let our children experience these things... but to what end? Truthfully, I think many people, both liberals and fundamentalists alike, are over thinking the Disney Princess thing. Maybe the recent upsurges in marketing gets on their nerves but promotions don’t change the reality of the films or the characters. I honestly don’t know where people are coming from―I can only conclude that they’re not watching the films at all.

Ingrid

A Psychological Paradox

As I was writing my last post, I noticed a very striking paradox within the Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity movement. It is so strange to me that these movements promote “independence training” such as blanket training, early weaning, and detachment of the mother/baby relationship while promoting “dependence training” in almost every other area of a child’s life. Confused? Here’s a quick definition of both kinds of training:
Independence Training is, "Child-rearing practices that foster independence, self-reliance, and personal achievement."
This is most practiced in western societies which contain a focus on individuality.
Dependence Training is, "Child-rearing practices that foster compliance in the performance of assigned tasks and dependence on the domestic group, rather than reliance on oneself."
This is common in Eastern societies and more traditional societies which focus on the group rather than the individual.
Think about that for a minute. For most proponents of the Patriocentricity movement, Quiverfull and Militant Fecundity are considered wonderful pro-family practices. Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity families are seemingly close and promote a focus on the family rather than the individual. Daughters are encouraged (if not required) to remain at home until marriage and to serve their father. Likewise, sons are expected to take over the family business and honor their father. In some cases, it is expected that the children will continue to carry out their father’s 200-year “vision” and not pursue their own goals at all. It is not uncommon for Patriocentric families to have 25-30 year old dependant daughters still living at home. Again, it is family over individual. I think we can agree that the children of this movement are trained to be dependent on their parents for almost everything including courtship and life work. However, as I discussed in my last post, Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity parents are surprisingly detached from their babies. Blanket training, early weaning, separate beds/rooms, etc. are all ways in which these parents train their little ones to be self-sufficient and independent. This form of “baby-training” actually follows American culture and isn’t Biblical but they still do it. I would think that they would want to create loving, secure environments for their children from day one. If you’re going to teach your child to be dependant, prove to them when they are little that they can trust you. When you purposely wean your baby early in order to conceive again and pass them off to a sibling, you’re showing that you care more about your fertility than the child you currently have. It’s not loving, it’s selfish. You’re putting your wants above the needs of your child. And later in life, your children are supposed to trust you with the choice of their mate? Psychologically, you’re sending very mixed signals to your children if you flip-flop from independence to dependence training. At least most secular parents who promote independence training for babies stick with the same focus on independence as their children grow into adulthood. In my mind, this insincere flip-flopping is one of the things that make Militant Fecundity and Quiverfull so toxic and dangerous. And I’m just going to say it: this is very hypocritical. It is clear to me that the primary goal of most of these parents is control. Control no matter the cost. And that’s what makes it abusive.

Ingrid

A Desire to Control

It is difficult for me to read about women in the Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity movement. Aside from the not being allowed to vote, go to college, or get a job; there’s also the fact that some of the women have a baby nearly every year. It might seem strange to be writing this article when I’m not married but believe me; I have a good grasp of anatomy and have done my research. (I’ve also posted links at the bottom to other resources.) One young Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity mother has given birth to four children in four and a half years, at risk to her health due to requiring an emergency c-section for baby #3 and a life flight trip to the hospital for a D&C after baby #4. Quite frankly, this is not normal or natural! Don’t get me wrong, I love children and I want to have as many as God wants to give me…. (The Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity crowd has an annoying way of taking something good and making it an ugly, idolatrous route to "perfection".) However, when the time comes, I want to have children naturally. “Wait, stop!” You say, “Quiverfull is natural! They’re not using birth control!! It is God’s design!” Uh, no, it is not God’s design for a woman to give birth every year or to be pregnant again within 6 months of her last pregnancy. Women’s bodies are simply not designed to have children this quickly. When I see that a woman has four children in four years, I don’t see God’s design for family; I see a desire to control. It is known that many Quiverfull proponents are not exactly proponents of attachment parenting. I highly doubt that many Quiverfull women co-sleep, exercise, eat correctly, or do anything to maintain a healthy body. I also doubt that they continue to nurse for an extended period of time. It saddens me to write this but most of the women in the movement look as if they never lose their baby weight―a fairly telling sign that they aren’t nursing correctly. My guess is that early weaning and blanket training is the norm for most Quiverfull mothers. In fact, an old friend of my mother’s is a proponent of attachment parenting and is in with the Vision Forum crowd; she was very sad to find that many women in the Vision Forum crowd are fairly hands-off with their babies. Purposely weaning your child, making them sleep in a crib, and blanket training them is a way of controlling how many children you have. It is birth control… in reverse. It’s not in line with biblical custom either if you want to think along the lines of their culture. Hebrew children were not weaned until they were at least two; most commentaries on the first book of Samuel agree that Samuel was at least three by the time Hannah brought him to Eli. Again, women’s bodies are not designed to give birth every year; it is unhealthy and risky for both mother and child. God is good and He knows that having a child every year is not good for a woman’s body or for the wellbeing of her other children. He has designed a healthy, simple way of controlling fertility. “How food-foraging peoples regulate population size relates to two things: how much body fat they accumulate and how they care for their children. Ovulation requires a certain minimum of body fat, and in traditional foraging societies, this is not achieved until early adulthood. Once a child is born, its mother nurses it several times each hour, even at night, and this continues for a period of four or five years. The constant stimulation of the mother’s nipple suppresses the level of hormones that promote ovulation, making conception less likely, especially if work keeps the mother physically active, and she does not have a large store of body fat to draw on for energy. Continuing to nurse for several years, women give birth only at widely spaced intervals.” (1) When a woman breastfeeds on demand, her fertility declines. If she carries her baby with her in a sling, sleeps beside her baby and nurses him or her at night, doesn’t use a pacifier, or even continues to nurse a toddler or young child, her fertility will decline sharply. (2) “It has long been observed in cultures where breastfeeding is common that nursing a child has a prophylactic affect against conceiving. In fact, this phenomenon has been so consistent and observable that it has been named: lactational amenorrhea, the absence or suppression of a woman's menses (or menstrual flow) due to breastfeeding…. Studies show that this method provides more than 98% protection against pregnancy during the first six months after birth. Many women find that breastfeeding is effective as a prophylactic against getting pregnant well beyond this six month period. Sound incredible? There is actually a perfectly logical, or, more to the point, physiological explanation for this phenomenon. Here's how it works. As a baby nurses at its mother's breast, the sucking action stimulates nerve endings in the areola, which send messages to the hypothalamus, a part of the brain that controls metabolism. This in turn signals the pituitary gland to release two hormones (oxytocin and prolactin) which work together to produce and release the mother's milk. However, in addition to contributing to milk production, prolactin has another effect: high levels of prolactin in a woman's body helps to suppress ovulation.” (3) We in the U.S. are pretty culture bound (4) when it comes to babies, as this quote from the Anthropology textbook will tell you: “As a case in point, consider the fact that infants in the United States typically sleep apart from their parents. To most North Americans, this may seem normal, but cross-cultural research shows that co-sleeping, of mother and baby in particular, is the rule. Only in the past 200 years, generally in Western industrial societies, has it been considered proper for parents to sleep apart from their infants…. Recent studies have shown that separation of mother and infant in Western societies has important biological and cultural consequences. For one thing, it increases the length of the child’s crying bouts. Some mother’s incorrectly interpret the cause as a deficiency in breast milk and switch to less healthy bottle formulas; and in extreme cases, the crying may provoke physical abuse. But the benefits of co-sleeping go beyond significant reduction in crying: infants also nurse more often and three times as long per feeding; they receive more stimulation (important for brain development); and they are apparently less susceptible to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS or “crib death”). There are benefits to the mother as well: frequent nursing prevents early ovulation after childbirth, and she gets at least as much sleep as mothers who sleep without their infants.” (5) And this is in a secular textbook!! :-D Perhaps one truly unfortunate aspect of young women not going to college is the fact that they are less likely to be exposed to sociology and psychology classes which contain a lot of useful information about marriage and family. I never thought I would learn so much about childrearing as I have in my Psychology and Sociology survey classes. Did you know that people of other cultures consider cribs to be “cages”? One missionary to New Guinea who visited my church explained that the people there wanted to know why she put her baby in a “cage”. Take a moment to study all the other cultures that practice co-sleeping including Korea, China, and Thailand, and allow your eyes to be opened to how the rest of the world functions. And for the “you’ll roll on your child!” crowd, here’s information on sleep cycles from a psychology textbook, “Even when you are deeply asleep, your brain somehow processes the meaning of certain stimuli. You move around on your bed, but you manage not to fall out of it. If you sleep with your babies, you will not roll over and suffocate them (assuming you are not intoxicated). The occasional roar of passing vehicles may leave deep sleep undisturbed, but the cry from a baby’s nursery quickly interrupts it. So does the sound of your name―a stimulus our selective attention responds is ever alert for. EEG recordings confirm that the brain’s auditory cortex responds to sound stimuli even during sleep.” (6) Yes, I am a proponent of the family bed. (Read some articles by Dr. Sears and you will be as well.) I believe that babies and children are entitled to as much love and cuddling as they want and I believe they should be allowed to nurse as long as they want to nurse. I believe that blanket training and letting a child “cry it out” is neglectful and even abusive. Now, I know not all Quiverfull proponents wean early or blanket train but I ask you, can you name one? My Mom’s friend in the Quiverfull/Vision Forum crowd who was a proponent of attachment parenting did not speak up! She was and still is too intimidated to say anything! If there are those who understand natural child spacing or attachment parenting in the Quiverful/Militant Fecundity movement, they need to speak up! Can you imagine how wonderful it would be for mothers and babies across this country if Michelle Dugger was a proponent of attachment parenting? A perfectly good opportunity lost! Militant Fecundity (I hate that term!) really is a good name for this type of child raising/training because it is much more akin to a military campaign than normal living. It is also just as toxic as a war zone to mother, child, and family. Quiverfull and Militant Fecundity are NOT pro-family nor are they Biblical; those who believe that these movements are beneficial are sorely mistaken.

Ingrid

Addendum

November 5, 2014,

I’ve gotten so many comments on this post that I feel a few explanations are necessary. So, I’m taking a minute here to address a few things that have confused several readers…

1: I’m not advocating NFP here. I’m explaining how patriarchy claims to be “natural” and “God’s design” but really is not at all. I truly believe that God designed women’s bodies to self-regulate and space out pregnancies. However, we live in a fallen world and sometimes things just don’t work how God planned due to genetics, disease, and etc. So, while NFP can be a good option, I don’t think it’s for everyone. 

2: I think some forms of birth control are a perfectly fine option and plan to use some sort of control when I get married. The reason? I don’t want to spend 10-15 years of my life able to become pregnant at any point. There are many personal reasons for this but one of them is simply practical: I have seasonal allergies and I take medications for them. I get migraines sometimes and take ibuprofen. I wouldn’t want to worry about unknowingly becoming pregnant and having medications affect the baby. Because I care about stuff like that and I think it matters.

3: Let me make something clear. In this article, I’m taking about parents within the patriarchy movement… not parents in general. There’s a big difference. I don’t care if you have one child or ten or how closely spaced they might or might not be–unless you’re having all of them because some system made up by random people told you that you should. You should have children because you want to have them and love having them–not because some guy somewhere decreed that you needed to have kids. But please, space your kids out as much as possible, for your own sanity, there’s usually no need to have them all at once. ;)

4. Seriously, I don’t care about your baby weight. Like really. Please stop telling me about your baby weight. Life happens. I believe in being healthy and keeping a healthy weight, even during pregnancy. I do firmly believe that pregnancy is not an excuse to eat whatever and whenever you want. That is a recipe for disaster. It’s actually one of the times when you should be most health conscious. And any doctor you ask will back me up on that. Just please, I beg you, no more comments about your baby weight. That gets awkward for me and for you and it just ends badly. So please no more. :D 

Works Cited

1. Haviland, William, et al. Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth, 2008. Print. Page 9.

2. Now please, don’t start giving me the, “Well my sister/friend/cousin tried the nursing thing to limit her fertility and it didn’t work. She ended up with another baby 11 months later!” I’ve heard that many times before and all I want to say is: “But did she co-sleep? Did she use a pacifier instead of nursing? What about slings?” All of the mothers I know who nursed on demand, co-slept with their babies, didn’t use pacifiers, nursed more than one child, and etc. had child spacing of 2-3 years. It is always possible that one spacing might be closer than another just as another could be longer.

3. Overton, Larry G. Breastfeeding and the Bible.
4. Culture Bound - “Theories about the world and reality based on the assumptions and values of one’s own culture.” As defined in Cultural Anthropology.

5. Haviland, William, et al. Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth, 2008. Print. Page 9.

6. Myers, David G. Exploring Psychology. New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2005. Print. Page 210.

Resources

1. Family friend with 10 children (who is not Quiverfull influenced!) Proponent of the family bed and natural child spacing via extended breastfeeding. http://www.themotherscompanion dot org/index.php

2. I <3 Dr. Sears! http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/sleep-problems/co-sleeping-yes-no-sometimes

3. Has a great article right now about not letting your baby cry it out and co-sleeping. http://parentingfreedom.com/

Guys

Young men are widely misunderstood—especially by young women...and especially, in the courtship movement. Most of the time, girls are completely clueless about guys and their feelings and, really, mystifyingly so. Take several friends of mine, for example, they seem totally and completely clueless about young men…yet most of them have brothers and/or are close to their fathers. It is as if they cannot believe that other men do indeed have similar feelings to that of their associates. There's a lot of talk about treating young men as brothers in Christ…but I don't think very many young ladies even understand or think about how to do that. These same friends are crazy about Vision Forum and Courtship and everything that goes with it―they can recite all the steps in their courtship plans (though they deny having one…have you ever noticed how courtship people deny having a plan yet still have one??) but really cares nothing about understanding guys. It’s so unfair. I have a father, brothers, guy cousins, and a few close guy friends—I’ve talked to them and I’ve studied them… and have come to the conclusion that my friends and all the girls like them are very mistaken about guys. Below is a list of mistaken beliefs and behaviors that I noted that many of them hold on to and my comments (if I have them) on the items noted.

—Girls with a strong courtship mindset often:


1. Seem afraid of guys; as if they think every young man they meet is going to want to marry them or at least try to ask them out.

I’ve known a lot of guys…as friends. Some are nice and some are kind of Charlie Sloanish (read the Anne of Green Gables books to see what I’m referring to) but not one of them has ever done anything that was truly startling. :-) It might have been annoying or even aggravating but nothing to be scared of or worried about. I just keep other people around when I’m talking to a guy...it’s not a big deal at all.

2. Don’t give guys a chance or the benefit of the doubt.

3. Have over-blown expectations about guys between the ages of 14-18 especially.

Do you really think he’s going to brave all and hasten to your rescue when he’s 16? Is he really going to be perfectly polished or romantic? This is your chance to be encouraging towards guys; they need your support. Just don’t expect perfection from them. You wouldn’t want them expecting you to be perfect all the time, would you?

At a homeschool convention that happened recently, there were a lot of young men who were trying to be “cool.” You know the type, acting like surfer dudes on the wrong beach. Maybe the reason they were acting like that, trying to be tough, was because they are terribly insecure. Adolescence is a tough enough time for young men even without heaping expectations upon them that they cannot measure up to. There is no way a normal guy can be everything Vision Forum wants them to be…I know there are guys who appear to be everything and more. But inside, they must feel hollow.

I've also noticed that at many conventions there are far more young women than young men attending and as I pondered this, I wondered....

Could all this “vision casting” be having a negative effect upon young men?

That’s a whole other post and I’m not sure that I have enough information to write it.

4. Don’t understand real love; it’s either sappy romance or having to make a formal decision...both things can be part of love but neither is all of it.

5. Don’t apply their knowledge gained from father/brothers/cousins to guys they are not related to.

6. Seem shy, cold, or rude towards young men in their effort to keep their distance.

7. Obsess over marriage but don’t understand what marriage is.

A lot of girls are in love with love or they want to have children. They don’t truly want to get married. I know they say they do…but they really don’t. My friends say (quite often) that they want to marry young and have lots of kids…but what they really talk about are the kids. The guy rarely comes into the discussion―they say nothing him and what they hope he’ll be like. When I think of marriage, words like; “being able to read his mind”, companionship, humor, and love come to mind—thoughts of children follow afterwards. I really like children but they’re not my motivation for wanting to get married.

If all you think about in marriage is children or mushy romance...then you’re not ready to marry.

Marriage is, to alter a Jack Sparrow quote, “It's not just a man and a woman and a house and some kids, that's what a marriage needs but what a marriage is... what a good marriage really is... is a miracle.”

8. Think that love can be turned off and on like a light switch.

Well-meaning family and friends have sadly been guilty of telling me that I should just pray “that God will take your feelings for so and so away .” And my response is, “What if He doesn’t want to take them away?” That always floors them :-)

9. Treat God like a vending machine… saying things like, “Well God gave me a desire for marriage so I’m sure I’ll get married really soon.”

Honey, you’ve got a lot to learn. God gives you desires and dreams to test you and is watching to see how you handle them. They are wonderful things but have to be handled properly to be of any use. Saying things like, “But what if God doesn’t want you to marry soon?” is always amusing. Especially, because the young lady normally cannot think of any reply to this but repeating the avowal in #9.

It’s also like saying, “God has given me the desire to have a handsome guy for my husband...so I’m sure my guy will be gorgeous!” Sheesh. And I always wonder, “What about the homely man with a beautiful heart?” (Elizabeth Elliot relates a conversation similar to this in Passion and Purity...I think.)

10. Are unwilling to even think about having to be bold with a guy at any time.

There are times when you’re going to need to make a move and go after your guy…they’re rare but they exist. Think Ruth. :-)

11. Think that there are very few nice guys out there.

The world is full of nice guys…stop being so pessimistic!

12. Thinks that guys are “heart-stealers”.

I've heard a speaker about courtship say, (I'll paraphrase) "If a young man comes to you after he's already stolen your daughter's heart then he can't court her." Many people seem to agree with this but my mind always yells: "STOLEN!!! What the heck?? The poor guy!! Who would want to marry your daughter… you, you reprobate!!" Ahem, anyway.... :-D

First off, there's that word. Steal. That means to take something without the owner's permission. God should be the owner of a person's heart and when a Christian young lady gives her heart to someone, it should be because it's God's will. There's no stealing involved. No one can force you to love someone anymore than anyone can force you to stop loving someone.

"It is mine to give to whom I choose…like my heart," – Arwen Evenstar, in the movie of The Fellowship of the Ring.

Understand this: your heart is a gift and you give it to whoever you choose. It cannot be stolen without your permission. So stop acting as if the exchanging of hearts is a robbery!

Then, there’s the obvious question: Do you honestly think that a normal young man actually tries to steal a girl's heart?

Do you think that a guy wakes up in the morning and thinks “I’ll make so and so fall in love with me today!”

Get real!

13. Think that all guys are Casanova heartbreakers that lead girls on.

A girl I knew once told me, "Any guy who leads a girl on and can't make a commitment is a jerk." I didn't agree with her then and I still don't now.

Because, I mean really, does a guy actually, purposely lead a girl on?

Think about it…if he knew what he was doing…would he actually do it?

I doubt it. In reality, I think most nice young men…the kind that are worth noticing…are just as nervous about girls as we are about guys. Maybe even more so…because after all, the guy is the one who has to lay his whole heart out on the line. Whenever he asks a girl out or talks to her Dad or asks her to marry him…he's giving her the chance to completely and totally wound him.

14. Use the excuse “he led me on!”

You can’t be lead anywhere unless you move your feet. Basically, unless he's asking you out, NEVER assume he likes you!


—And girls of any mindset seem to think:

15. That guys have no emotions.

I don’t know what idiot started that idea but womankind has been believing that’s it’s true for generations. For one thing, I can tell you that guys are sensitive and emotionally vulnerable―but they don’t talk about it all the time…if ever. Guys feel...deeply. I know they do. Have you ever seen a teenage boy after his team lost a ballgame and he thought it was his fault? Or when they’ve gotten really injured (but are trying to pretend they’re not really injured)? It’s worse for them...because they tend to stuff it and therefore, can suffer much more and for a longer time than girls. Stop seeing young men as shyster Casanova heart-stealers who are out to get you and start seeing them as human beings. They’re people too after all and have the same essential needs that girls have. Moreover, you may want to marry one someday and likely will end up being a mother... I think making an effort to understand guys is worth your time. So, give the guys a chance...before it's too late.

Ingrid


P.S. I don’t recommend books very often but if you need help understanding guys...this is a fairly good (clean) book: http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-About-Guys-Shouldnt-Secret/dp/0784715440/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196786739&sr=8-1

There are a few things I've discovered to be untrue or exaggerated in it but it's a good book to get you started being more empathetic towards young men. As with any self-help book though, it’s best to read it once and then refrain from referring to it unless you really need to. :-)