Portrait of a Lady

Last night, for some reason, I was thinking about Kelly Bradrick. You may not have heard of her but she was a poster girl for Stay at Home Daughters and then for the large Vision Forum “conference wedding” with lengthy, manly monologues and a first kiss at the altar. Kelly is the daughter of Scott Brown, the founder of the NCFIC and she married Peter Bradrick in August of 2006. Who could forget? Doug Phillips featured the wedding in an e-mail newsletter and raved about getting a bird’s eye view of Peter and Kelly’s first kiss. He still talks about it to this day. I don’t really know who Kelly’s mom is… I think her name is Deborah and the only thing I remember about her is that she has a bad habit of wearing white to her children’s weddings. Oh and she looks really sad in videos… but I digress. As I was thinking about Kelly last night, I was also thinking about the inability of the men in her life to respect and protect her. I like her, I honestly do, but I hate the way her Dad and husband treat her.
First, we have her Dad: “In 2003, I took my daughter with me on a mission trip to Romania. On the plane, there was a drunken man flirting with her in a very aggressive way. Unfortunately for him, there were 535 pounds of manhood in our party ready to protect her. Believe me, we were exercising much Christian patience with this man who persisted throughout the entire flight. He did not realize that he was facing deadly force, if he persisted. He actually touched her once and was making bold advances. He even continued the pursuit after the plane landed. I am convinced that, if we had not been with her to protect her, she would have been in serious danger.”1 Sounds to me like she was already in serious danger! It also sounds like she didn’t receive ANY protection from her father or anyone else traveling with her. I mean come on, change seats or have her sit in a window seat and have your entire party surround her. If you must, enlist the flight attendants to help you! Better yet, get right in the guy’s face and tell him you’re going to kill him if he doesn’t leave her alone. That usually works. It honestly sound like all the guys just sat there and did absolutely nothing except mutter under their breaths about their “Christian patience.” Kelly might have been better off traveling by herself because she could have enlisted the flight attendants to help her as well as the passengers sitting around her. In any case, it was really stupid of Scott Brown to include that story in an article about protecting women when he did such a woeful job of protecting his own daughter.
Even during Kelly’s courtship with Peter Bradrick, both her father and Peter did not protect her very well or treat her with respect. According to Peter Bradrick in “Courtship and Marriage”2 Kelly did something that impressed him during their courtship. Then, Peter relates a story about an afternoon when he was at the Brown’s farm, walking with Kelly and Scott Brown. “Scott Brown’s giving me a tour of his farm yard and I see this girl that has always, in my experience, been dressed perfectly a model of feminine virtue and poise, drop down and roll underneath a hot wire fence while Scott Brown and I jumped over the fence, which we could do in our blue jeans, and get right back up and walk like a lady.” Then Peter goes on about noticing Kelly’s “very rare balance between beautiful femininity and sturdy womanhood” and how rare this combination is in his mind. (Actually, I know dozens of young women who can dress to the nines and still love going hiking and camping. Peter just wasn’t looking very hard.) Now, Peter’s comments are strange on a number of levels. For one, Kelly Bradrick was very slender and delicate looking before she was married (just look at the first picture I posted and her wedding photos) and I would never have classified her as “sturdy.” Plus, that’s a pretty strange choice of words for a future wife―it reeks of marrying only so you can have someone to clean your house and do your laundry for you. Further, why didn’t Peter or Scott help Kelly over the fence? It’s kind of strange and sad that she felt like she had to drop to the ground and roll under a fence rather than hike her skirts up or ask for help. It sounds to me like Kelly’s self-esteem/worth was so low that she didn’t even think of asking for help.

Moving forward, Kelly’s husband, Peter Bradrick hasn’t done a much better job of protecting her. Or as he promised in his marriage vows on August 26, 2006: “To lay down my life for you; to wash you with the water of the word; to love you as my own body and to nourish and cherish you even as the Lord the does the church….” You see, on May 15, 2011, Kelly had a baby girl, Geneva Constance; her fourth child in four and a half years. She already had an emergency c-section in January 2010 with her third baby so one would think that Peter would have been very protective and concerned about his wife. Even while Kelly was expecting this fourth child, Peter tromped off with Doug Phillips on an expedition “Into the Amazon” which isn’t exactly awful but isn’t very loving either. But then, it gets worse. On May 26, 2011, Scott and Deborah Brown left for a tour of Europe with Doug Phillips’ “A Final Farewell” event. According to pictures taken in Rome and Normandy, Peter and Kelly Bradrick went along as well. Only 11 days after Kelly gave birth. Now, most doctors will tell you to wait 2 weeks after giving birth normally and 4 weeks after a c-section to travel. Most women who have one c-section will continue to have them unless they specifically find a doctor who is willing to help with a VBAC or Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. (I know this because a friend had a terrible time finding a doctor willing to help her try a VBAC.) So it is highly possible that Kelly had a C-section and should have waited 4 weeks to travel, especially to Europe. As it was, she didn’t even wait two weeks and was highly at risk for hemorrhaging, infection, and thrombosis. It is also recommended to keep a newborn close to home for the first 6 weeks so that their immune system can develop. The Phillips’ posted a video of being delayed on the way to Europe and stuck in the airport sleeping in chairs and on floors. I certainly hope Kelly Bradrick didn’t have to sleep in an airport less than 2 weeks after giving birth! Phillips’ tour was first in Rome and then in Normandy, France from June 4-6, 2011. Here’s a picture of Peter and Kelly in Rome:
On June 11, 2011, Kelly Bradrick had to be life-flighted to a hospital and given a D&C. The doctors did not expect her to make it but thankfully, she did pull through and recover. It is not certain whether she was still in Europe at the time of her medical emergency. However, according to Joshua Phillip’s blog, the Phillips’ family did not return to the U.S. until around June 16, 2011 so it is highly probable that Kelly was in Europe at the time of her emergency. 3
What did Scott Brown, Doug Phillips, and all the other bloggers have to say about Kelly’s near death experience?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Absolutely nothing. The blogs were silent. Not one request for prayer or praise for healing from the men. The only person to thank God for His protection was Kelly Bradrick herself, on Facebook. Screenshots here:




And what’s more, all the pictures proving that Kelly was along on the trip have been taken down.

Here’s a screenshot of Liberty Phillips’ Picasa album:
Notice the comments asking if the baby is Geneva. That’s right, there was a picture of Geneva Bradrick in Scotland but it was removed. Joshua Phillips had an entire album entitled “RomeAndPompeiiEurope2011” but it mysteriously vanished. The silence (of all the men especially) and then the cover-up really disturbs me. We, as Christians especially, should be transparent and no matter who we are, we should admit to our mistakes. This whole issue could even have been a teachable moment for why not to travel after you’ve given birth―or why you should truly love your wife as your own body. Asking your wife to accompany you on an overseas vacation soon after she’s given birth is not laying down your life for her or loving her as your own body. No matter how “sturdy” Peter believes his wife to be, he should have known better than to allow her to go to Europe. It’s not like Peter and Kelly had never been to Europe; they already went in 2008 and 2010, as shown by this photo of their 2010 trip to Scotland.

Just because the door is open doesn’t mean you have to, or even should, step through it. “But,” You say, “God protected her! God will provide!” Yes, God does provide and He did protect Kelly when no one else was doing so but He also provides us with minds and common sense. What the Bradrick’s did was like walking out into the middle of a busy highway without looking both ways or choosing to go without a seat belt and saying, “God will protect me!” That is a very arrogant and dangerous path. As it says in Deuteronomy 6:16, “"You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” Jesus quotes this same verse when He is being tempted by the devil: “Then the devil took Him to the holy city and had Him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: ‘He will command His angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Matthew 4:5-7.
Now, Kelly Bradrick has given birth to her fifth child, Michael Courage Bradrick, less than a year after her last medical emergency. This time the baby was five weeks early and is currently in the NICU. Frankly, I’m horrified. If Michael was due in June, then that means there was only a four-month gap between Kelly’s pregnancies. I’ve never heard of such a thing…even among my mom’s friends who did not use birth control and had 5+ kids. What is the point of all of this? I know Scott Brown coined the term "Militant Fecundity" but this is ridiculous! Take a look at this video that Peter and Kelly made to wish Doug Phillips Happy Birthday from the NICU:

(Oh, the lengths people will go to impress that wretched man! There’s something completely wrong about making someone a happy birthday video from a place as serious and private as your baby’s hospital room.) Kelly looks emotionally and physically exhausted and her body must be absolutely depleted. I hope she is receiving a lot of help from family and friends because I don’t know how else she could manage difficult pregnancies and five children under the age of five. Just look at the difference in Kelly between her wedding in 2006, a photo taken in 2009, and a recent photo of the Brown family taken in late 2011.





I wish I could say I’m disappointed in Kelly for not standing up for herself and her children, but I don’t know how much of a voice she is allowed. I don’t know what her life is like with so many little children and if she has any strength of character after being raised by Scott Brown and then married to Peter Bradrick. Even before her marriage, it seems her self-esteem was very low. I’m really disappointed in the men in Kelly’s life, especially Peter Bradrick. I don’t expect Kelly to try to protect herself since she’s been taught to expect absolute care and protection from men but I do expect Peter Bradrick, Scott Brown, and even Doug Phillips to step up and put her above themselves and their desires and concerns. That is, of course hypothetical and unlikely to happen because their track records for truly valuing and respecting women are low. There’s a lot of talk going on but not very much action. When it comes down to it, these men don’t seem able to live up to their lofty goals. I hate to be negative but I don’t see a lot of sunshine in Kelly’s future. Something tells me that things will only get worse for Kelly before they get better… if they get better at all.

Ingrid

1.http://www.visionforumministriesDOTorg/issues/family/living_in_sodom_a_case_study_p_1.aspx

2. Return of the Daughters, DVD extra, "Courtship and Marriage."

3. “…flying directly to the Denver homeschool conference without even setting foot outside the airport in between jaunts.” http://www.ballantynethebraveDOTcom/blog/home/

Spring 2013 Addendum - There has been a little confusion about this article and I would like to explain a few things. First, I love large families, some of my closest friends come from families of six to ten children, and I think choosing to have many children is a wonderful thing. However, I believe that this is a decision made by both parents and should be driven by their love of children; NOT from a desire to follow any programs or legalistic rules about the family.Also, care should be taken to ensure the health and emotional well being of the mother.  See this post: A Desire to Control Second, I wrote about Kelly Bradrick because Peter Bradrick and Scott Brown not only act abusively toward her but also promoted the very ideas that nearly killed her. The men and women who teach and promote "militant fecundity" are to be held accountable for this unbiblical teaching. Moreover, if the dangers of this movement are "covered-up" and remain unknown to others, then other women could be injured or killed. That's why this article had to be written.  

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/

Life in Perfect

New Walgreens commercial:

Tinkling intro. music plays...softens...soft voice speaks:

"Somewhere there is a place called Perfect.

Where parents offer their children anything, from meeting Titanic survivors to buying almost the entire set of G.A. Henty books for only $1,400.00.

And it is only $700.00 when on sale.

Where there is family integrated church.

With a potprovidence meal afterwards.

Where the children are seen and not heard.

And so are the women.

Where, after the sermon, father enjoys debating and discussing issues with other men.

And the women are taught by Jennie Chancey.

Where vile American Girl dolls are banned.

And girls play with the Beautiful Girlhood dolls.

Where the men vote for the household.

And women do not vote at all.

Where the girls are content to let the boys have all the fun; while they sit using their pewter thimbles, sewing scissors, and needle cases.

And then have a tea party.

Where the girls serve their fathers.

And can always recite the words of the Botkin sisters.

Where the young men and women are taught all about courtship and held to the highest standards of Emotional Purity.

And the young women plan their weddings in detail and dream all sorts of swooning romantic dreams, just like Elsie Dinsmore.

Where the pretty girls marry Vision Forum interns.

And the not-so pretty ones stay home with Mother and Father.

Where Doug Phillips officiates.

And gets a bird's eye view of your first kiss.

Where college for anyone is frowned upon.

And women don't need schooling at all.

Where people talk and write like a walking 1865 dictionary.

And use words that Shakespeare didn't.

Where having a baby is referred to as Militant Fecundity.

And you name your child Modeste Perseverance Truth.

Where families must have at least six children.

And only a few exceptions are made.

But since you aren't anywhere near perfect; there's Vision Forum. Open every day, sometimes 24 hours. Where you can buy whatever you need to try to make your life perfect and like ours--because we know it isn't.

That's life...this is Vision Forum.