This book is going to be my new go-to baby shower gift for new parents that I know and love well, wrapped up nicely with a Sophie Giraffe on top. I shThis book is going to be my new go-to baby shower gift for new parents that I know and love well, wrapped up nicely with a Sophie Giraffe on top. I share Haidt's sense of urgency on the issue of smartphones and adolescents; parents need to figure out their take on screens before the kids are old enough to start asking. Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death helped me do that in the early 2000's, long before I was a parent myself. But Postman, writing in the mid-1980's and primarily concerned with television, could not have imagined what was coming.
I savored The Anxious Generation, and I'm so grateful to Haidt for writing it. In it, Haidt carefully unpacks with clear and engaging writing what he refers to as The Great Rewiring of Childhood: "...a profound transformation of human consciousness and relationships [that] occurred, for American teens, between 2010 and 2015. This is the birth of the phone-based childhood. It marks the definitive end of the play-based childhood" (34-35).
Haidt argues that as a society we've made two big mistakes that have contributed to an international mental health crisis among adolescents: "overprotecting children in the real world (where they need to learn from vast amounts of direct experience) and underprotecting them online (where they are particularly vulnerable during puberty)" (15). I believe down to my core that Haidt is right on this. Abigail Shrier's excellent book Bad Therapy argues the first point. But I think Haidt is right not to neglect the second point. They clearly go together.
Anyone who has read a few of my Goodreads reviews may have noticed that I have written about smartphones and children before. Out of conviction, my husband and I decided that we will not buy smartphones for our kids. This includes our teenager, who is not aware of even a single other student in her secondary school who, like her, does not own a smartphone. In our experience, many parents at our kids' schools started buying smartphones for their children in Year 5 (The UK equivalent of 4th grade in the USA). This comports with Haidt's findings, and feels absurd to us. Our sense is that, with the exception of a few fellow religious friends, both Christian and Muslim, we are largely standing alone on this issue. As Haidt points out, "an individual acting alone faces high costs, but if people can coordinate and act together, they can more easily choose actions that are better for all in the long run" (12). This book, which already seems to have won a large readership, encourages me that a good change may be on the horizon.
I have only one criticism of The Anxious Generation but it is more personal in nature, and so does not tip the scales much against this book. Unlike Haidt, an atheist, I believe as a Christian that human beings are more than just "highly sociable mammals" (70) who have evolved to thrive under certain social conditions. I want more for my children than to help them grow into "socially functional adults" (54) who will enjoy "success" in the culture I find myself in. I don't believe that videogame addiction and pornography use are harmful and wrong solely because they tamper with our "evolved desires" (196) and prevent us from having "real world exploration and adventure" (193). Unlike Haidt, I believe that the "God-shaped hole" is real, and not something that "natural selection might have carved" (215). At the end of the day, what can Haidt say to the Hikikomori who assures us that he is happy and fulfilled living his confined, nocturnal, socially withdrawn existence? It's not obvious to me that Haidt would have anything much to say to that Hikikomori. Haidt's argument is especially profound and urgent to me because I believe that we are made in God's image, to live in his world and enjoy communion with him and our fellow human beings. Anything that puts a barrier between the chief end for which we are made and my kids is something that I will take pains to avoid.
That said, The Anxious Generation is a book for everyone, not just parents. I sincerely hope that my kids' school administrators will read it. This is where I think this book could have the biggest impact....more
Troubled is a memoir by Rob Henderson, the writer who coined the term “Luxury Beliefs.”
Henderson grew up in the California foster-care system, engagedTroubled is a memoir by Rob Henderson, the writer who coined the term “Luxury Beliefs.”
Henderson grew up in the California foster-care system, engaged in lots of risky behavior as a teen, and later struggled with alcohol addiction. Seemingly against all odds and following military service (he largely attributes his transformation to this decision), Henderson went on to earn degrees from both Yale and Cambridge. While this is an inspiring story of upward mobility and economic success, Troubled is tinged with sadness as Henderson mentions on more than one occasion that he would gladly give up all his hard-won attainments in exchange for a childhood that was happy and stable.
This memoir reminded me a lot of J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy in that it scrutinizes trendy political beliefs through the lens of one man’s impoverished upbringing. I also found it fascinating to read Troubled right after finishing Abigail Shrier’s Bad Therapy. While the latter talks about the unintended consequences of over-parenting and over-coddling, the former highlights the perils of under-parenting and under-supervision. Interestingly, I think both authors would agree on the kind of home environment that is best for kids—a loving, secure, pleasantly predictable one where parents (ideally, two that are married) are not afraid to be warmly authoritative and to pass down their values with confidence.
Highly recommended. I especially enjoyed reading about Henderson’s experiences at Yale and Cambridge. I think his analysis of "Luxury Beliefs" is spot-on....more
This brilliant, well-researched, and, at times, hilarious, book explores the assumption held by many parents in the West that therapeutic interventionThis brilliant, well-researched, and, at times, hilarious, book explores the assumption held by many parents in the West that therapeutic interventions doled out by well-intentioned experts—from talk therapy, to mental health diagnoses, to psychotropic drugs—“can only help a child or adolescent’s emotional development” (6). Bad Therapy takes aim at this idea, presenting readers with the “iatrogenesis” of these interventions—that is, their potential to cause harm—and challenging mental health experts to “take a hard look at all of their advice and consider the possibility that much of it is dead wrong” (209).
Shrier argues that the vast majority of children are naturally resilient and do not need therapeutic intervention. Nor do they need parents micromanaging every aspect of their lives, or school teachers and counselors, “eager to play amateur therapist,” bombarding them with a constant stream of “social-emotional” instruction (79), or a culture so “enthralled by the notion of childhood trauma—wary of inflicting it, eager to spot it” (111). Shrier contends that, ironically, these are the very things that encourage solipsistic thinking, fragility, and unhelpful rumination in children, all while sending them the message that they are not strong enough to tackle life’s challenges themselves.
Why does “gentle-parenting” often produce such monstrous behavior in children? Why is a generation of kids steeped in empathy training turning out “as mean as hell?” Why does the most coddled generation feel so traumatized? Why do schools keep inundating our children with bizarrely morbid mental health surveys? Shrier explores all of these pressing questions and more.
So what, then, do kids need?
In addition to authoritative parents who teach their kids how to keep a stiff upper lip while helping them to laugh at life's foibles, “the weight of psychological research demonstrates what kids need most is for their parents (and technology) to stop interrupting, monitoring, curating—diverting them from the organic miracle of growing up” (216).
This two-star rating is more a reflection of my subjective experience with this book, rather than the quality of the book itself. There is some good aThis two-star rating is more a reflection of my subjective experience with this book, rather than the quality of the book itself. There is some good advice here, but it felt like recycled material from Damour's previous book Under Pressure: Confronting the Epidemic of Stress and Anxiety in Girls. I really appreciate Damour's advice on how to have meaningful conversations with teens. I filed away a few of her simple and practical suggestions, such as, if your teen girl is despairing over a minor setback in life, rather than assuring her that it's not really a big deal, instead ask her how she would encourage her best friend in the same situation, or how she might reflect on this issue ten years from now. Both professionally and personally, Damour seems like an excellent listener, and she inspires me to do better.
While the advice regarding teen girls is useful, I found myself a little underwhelmed by Damour's guidance on navigating the emotional landscapes of teen boys, especially when it comes to helping boys grapple with their emerging masculinity. She chalks up the differences between boys and girls mostly to socialization and evolutionary outcomes which we can/should overcome, and it sometimes seems like she wants to iron out any distinctions in how parents ought to encourage each gender. Likewise, I found her remarks regarding the challenges facing African American teens rather flat and uncurious. A more robust analysis of these pressing issues, one that prioritizes the health and well-being of black teenagers over being fashionably PC, is definitely needed.
If you've already read a Damour book, or if you’re mostly interested in advice for adolescent boys, I would pass on this one....more
This is such a special and heartening book. Perusing the other glowing reviews, I see a common thread: Beyond Mere Motherhood made readers laugh and cThis is such a special and heartening book. Perusing the other glowing reviews, I see a common thread: Beyond Mere Motherhood made readers laugh and cry. Me too! It moved me deeply at times. I found the writing so refreshing—the wit without snarky edges, admonition without arrogance, and encouragement without platitudes. She captures so beautifully and honestly the paradox of every Christian mother’s life: the intense striving alongside the realization that so much is beyond our control. It’s the mystery of the Christian life really, our responsibility to “pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness” while remembering that “unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain” (1 Timothy, 6:11, Psalm 127:1). The author is a truly lovely person, and I really enjoyed the experience of learning from her wisdom. I’ve taken to heart what she shared. This will be a book that I cheerfully recommend to friends....more
I nearly gave this book a pass because the sound quality on Audible is not great, but I'm glad I stuck with it in the end. Kari Kampakis is a CatholicI nearly gave this book a pass because the sound quality on Audible is not great, but I'm glad I stuck with it in the end. Kari Kampakis is a Catholic author of books for teen girls, and I believe this is the first book she wrote for moms. I can't say that it made me consider anything new, but I did tear up while listening a few times, so there's something. Even the author's Alabama accent was totally endearing by the end. It felt like catching up with a mom friend who's a little further along the path than I am. Filled with lots of practical encouragements for moms of daughters. And you definitely don't need to be in a tricky place with your daughter to benefit from it. If you want some fresh ideas for how to show her how much you love her in all kinds of different ways, this book will help....more
She Deserves Better, by Sheila Wray Gregoire, Rebecca Gregoire Lindenbach, and Joanna Sawatsky, presents a strong critique of the American evangelicalShe Deserves Better, by Sheila Wray Gregoire, Rebecca Gregoire Lindenbach, and Joanna Sawatsky, presents a strong critique of the American evangelical purity culture movement of the 1990’s and early 2000’s and calls Christian mothers to resist so-called toxic evangelical teachings and instead nurture their daughters to be “empowered, confident, and bold to walk into God’s calling for [their lives]”(Chapter 4).
To expose what they believe to be the damaging impact that evangelical purity culture had on a generation of women, the authors conducted what they claim is the largest study ever done on “Christian women’s sexual health and marital satisfaction.” This involved surveying tens of thousands of women and men, as well as hosting focus groups and interview sessions. The authors also mined dozens of evangelical books, magazines, and other resources directed toward teen girls for harmful messages about sex.
I am the target audience for She Deserves Better. While I was never given a purity ring by a parent nor prompted to make a purity pledge by a pastor, I grew up actively involved in a large American evangelical youth group in the 1990’s that was most certainly influenced by the purity culture movement. Though it is my perception that I emerged from this experience relatively unscathed and feeling generally confident and well-equipped to navigate romantic relationships, I am open to the argument that, whether we’re talking about clumsy metaphors for sex, specious scare tactics, or insensitivity toward sexual abuse survivors, American evangelical pastors, youth group leaders, and Christian writers, however well-meaning, didn’t always get things right.
Now a parent myself, I want to encourage my own adolescent daughter to embrace a healthy, God-honoring view of sexuality, and so I came to this book with a high level of interest.
Overall, I found She Deserves Better to be engaging and readable. But while I appreciate many of the authors' insights and analyses, I ultimately came away somewhat concerned about the methodology behind the book.
Reasons to Praise She Deserves Better
To begin on a positive note, what I appreciate most about She Deserves Better is the authors’ diligence in scouring and providing textual evidence from evangelical resources on sexuality to support their claims. Because evangelicals are currently much reviled by the secular culture and, in general, an easy target, it is not uncommon for critics to get away with making unsubstantiated claims about what actually goes on in evangelical circles. This is especially egregious today, when resources like books, podcasts, recorded sermons, etc. are so easily accessible to researchers. Gregoire, Lindenbach, and Sawatsky provide textual evidence from dozens of evangelical resources on sex and gender, from Joshua Harris's infamous I Kissed Dating Goodbye to Dannah Gresh's And the Bride Wore White—a book the authors really take to task. Even when the reader is not given much context for understanding a given quote, it’s helpful to see evangelicals quoted directly, rather than glossed over with a lazy generalization. Though I was sometimes inclined to interpret these quoted passages more charitably than the authors, some of what they cite—in particular from Focus on the Family’s Brio Magazine—is legitimately concerning (e.g. half-truth scare tactics about contracting STDs and a very bizarre passage in which the author of one article claimed that God made boys to be sexually aggressive toward girls). I also appreciate that Gregoire, Lindenbach, and Sawatsky were willing to concede, on numerous occasions, that they believe these authors were genuinely trying to help girls, even if their attempts at doing so were awkward and a bit weird at times. All this being said, I did find at least one instance where the authors misquoted, and, I think, misunderstood a source they were criticizing. (i.e. Ligon Duncan on "how women can encourage their husbands," posted on Instagram by The Gospel Coalition, December 28, 2021, mentioned in Chapter 10 of She Deserves Better).
Much of the content of She Deserves Better is helpful. In particular, I liked the following:
—Reminders that we shouldn’t exclusively focus on the topic of sex when talking to young girls about their faith (Chapter 2)
—Sound advice for moms on helping girls draw boundaries and how to advocate for them (Chapter 4)
—Sensible insights on how dating enables girls to learn the skill of “feeling relaxed and easy around the opposite sex” (Chapter 5)
—Strategies for helping girls identify potentially abusive behavior (listed at the end of Chapter 6)
—Helpful distinctions the authors draw among terms like purity, virginity, and chastity (Chapter 7)
—Condemnation of terms like “damaged goods,” to refer to girls who have lost their virginity (Chapter 7)
Reasons to Be Concerned with She Deserves Better
The Methodology
In She Deserves Better the authors write, “The three of us believe part of our mission is to offer a new perspective on how we give advice in the church: evidence-based teachings.” They claim that the results of their survey of over 20,000 women “uncovered that much of traditional evangelical advice actually leads to worse marriages and sex lives for women—not better.” While researching for She Deserves Better, they “set out to survey another 7,500 women specifically on their experiences and beliefs as teens.” Their findings: “A lot of what the church has been teaching our girls has some really, really bad fruit” (Chapter 1).
As I mentioned earlier, while I appreciate their close engagement with evangelical books and other resources and generally found some of their conclusions about these resources convincing, I have some questions about the extent to which their survey establishes a causal link between evangelical teachings on sex and poor outcomes for women. I wonder whether their “evidence-based” approach is as reliable as they claim it is.
Firstly, I have questions about how this survey went out to respondents. The authors claim that they drew from a wide swathe of Christian women, from “ultraconservatives to ultraliberals and everything in between” because “otherwise [they] would not be able to compare between groups” (Chapter 1). But, through what means did they share their survey with Christian women? They don’t explain their methodology in the book but it appears that they solicited respondents via Sheila Wray Gregoire's website, BareMarriage.com.
Did they take pains to solicit evangelical Christian women for their survey who were not already following their own blogs, books, and Twitter feeds and therefore potentially already disillusioned with evangelicalism? The authors state in Chapter 1 that “Most women who responded to our survey believed the teachings we examined in high school but no longer believe them today.” If this is true, then wouldn’t we expect to find among many of the respondents a jaded perspective on evangelical teachings, since we usually take a jaundiced view toward things we were taught as kids that we no longer believe? How does the survey guard against respondents that may even be inclined to attribute poor outcomes they have experienced in life to what they were taught—and no longer believe—in evangelical youth groups? The authors even admit to readers in the first chapter that “If you’re reading this book, you probably already are suspicious of many of the things you may have been taught.” Imagine how they would react if The Gospel Coalition invited their own readership to participate in a similar survey and then used the results in order to demonstrate that evangelical, complementarian teachings on sexuality promote positive outcomes for women? I don’t believe they would take the findings of that survey very seriously, even though The Gospel Coalition likely attracts more critics of evangelicalism than Sheila Wray Gregoire’s website attracts complementarian women.
Secondly, how does the survey differentiate between the negative influences of purity culture and the negative influences of popular, secular culture, in which most of us growing up in the 1990’s were thoroughly marinated? How does a woman even begin to untangle whether her lingering adolescent low self-esteem is the result of the purity pledge she took in 1993 or the constant barrage of unhelpful, hypersexualized images of idealized female beauty that she has been exposed to through television and social media since early childhood? Evangelical girls and women certainly don’t have a monopoly on low self-esteem, and yet the authors repeatedly attribute these things to evangelical teachings when they are reported by the women in the surveys. On their website, the authors state that they do not have any intention at this time to explore similar negative outcomes among secular women who have had no engagement with purity culture (See "What's Next with Our Research on Sex, Marriage, and Gender" posted on BareMarriage.com, March 23, 2022). But it strikes me that this is the only way we can determine a true causation—to compare the outcomes of evangelical women to the outcomes of secular women, mainline Christian women, or women from other faith backgrounds who were not exposed to “toxic” evangelical teachings on sex. Didn’t the authors admit themselves that there is a need to “compare between groups?”
Thirdly, sometimes the authors’ own research and survey findings don’t quite square with their thesis about the damage that evangelical teachings supposedly inflict on women. For example, in the first chapter the authors write that their survey found “that church attendance was a protective factor for high schoolers’ self-esteem: women who rarely or never went to church in high school were 70.8% more likely to have below average self-esteem during high school when compared with those who attended church once a week, and 81.2% more likely to have below self-esteem than those who attended church more than once a week” (Chapter 1). In Chapter 2 they also write that “studies have found that personal devotion to faith is a greater predictor of positive outcomes than simply strict adherence to religious beliefs.”
If it were true that evangelical teachings on sex were as harmful as the authors suggest, then wouldn’t we expect to find that attending church regularly would lead to worse outcomes, since more church = more harmful teachings? And, wouldn’t we expect to find worse outcomes among the true believers rather than those simply going through the motions? The authors’ data seems to suggest that girls who had the worst outcomes were those less frequently exposed to evangelical teachings on sex. Might this be because they were from non-Christian or nominally Christian homes where a healthy sexual ethic built on biblical principles was not being discussed regularly? Or perhaps there are other explanations that don’t have to do with evangelical teachings on sex?
They also admit that “the number of abusive men does not seem to be higher in Christian circles” (chapter 6). If evangelical teachings on sex were indeed so toxic, wouldn’t we expect to find more abusive men in Christian circles?
No Context for Understanding Purity Culture
It also troubles me that there is no curiosity on the part of the authors as to why purity culture emerged in the first place. What were evangelical churches reacting against? The authors seem to take it for granted that evangelical teachers, especially men, are just weirdly obsessed with restricting the sexual activities of teen girls. But, could the AIDS crisis of the 1990s and rising rates of teen pregnancy have anything to do with the urgency felt by older evangelicals? And in this vein, it’s very easy to highlight what purity culture did wrong—far more difficult to measure the negative outcomes that purity culture potentially helped girls avoid.
Over-the-Top Passages
I have no doubt that some have been wounded by the church, and the authors are right to weed out extra-biblical teachings and flag up potential dangers. I found it concerning, however, that the authors often employ hyperbolic and uncharitable language to describe potential dangers within the church while seeming rather blasé about known dangers outside of the church. For example, the authors argue that…
—If an elder in the church is concerned about immodest dressing among young women, he’s just blaming “[his] lust problems on preteen girls” (Ch 1).
—Telling your daughter that “God is good even when you don’t feel like He is” or that “Jesus can handle that” are “insidious examples” of “spiritual bypassing” (Ch 3).
—Girls who are at risk of low-self esteem in the church are being told that “God’s design is that you erase yourself and defer to the man in charge” (Ch 9).
This sort of over-the-top rhetoric to describe every potential source of danger within the church is pervasive throughout the book. And yet, when it comes to potentially toxic messages emanating from secular pop-culture, the authors seem relatively unconcerned and very willing to view things in a charitable light. For example, the Netflix film Cuties that recently sparked outrage among both evangelical Christians and many secular feminists for its exploitation of prepubescent actresses is simply described by the authors of She Deserves Better as “a film critiquing the sexualization of young girls.” The authors then proceed to deride Christians who canceled their Netflix accounts as a form of protest against Cuties (I am one such Christian) because apparently they were too dense to recognize “the sexualization of their own children occurring within the walls of their own churches” (Chapter 9). And by that, the authors are referring to resources on modesty for mothers and daughters by evangelical author Dannah Gresh. Gresh’s materials don’t particularly appeal to me, but suggesting that they are on the same level as Cuties is needlessly divisive and intellectually dishonest.
And there’s really no mention of what’s going on with non-Christian girls outside of the church. For a very engaging and well-written examination of this by a secular author, I recommend Louise Perry’s The Case Against the Sexual Revolution—a book that makes purity culture look pretty good.
If you’ve made it this far in my rather long review, you might be wondering as I was before reading this book, what do the authors say about the purity movement’s chief tenet: abstinence until marriage? Though they seem rather sheepish and apologetic about it, they actually agree with Dr. Dobson on this one: it’s best to save sex for marriage “out of reverence for God and out of respect for the image of God in others and yourself” (Chapter 7). So, the dirty secret is, they don’t really disagree with purity culture as much as one might assume, when push comes to shove. They just want evangelicals to change their tone, be more honest and sensitive, cut out some of the 90s era cringe, and leave the majority of the sex talk for mothers and daughters. Despite my reservations about the methodology behind this book, I pretty much agree with this conclusion and would have accepted it without the need for the authors' potentially misleading survey findings.
Many thanks to Baker Books and Netgalley for providing me with a free digital copy of this book, in exchange for my honest review....more
Loving Your Child Is Not Enough, written in the 1980's, encourages parents to be better listeners to their children. For the most part, the advice is Loving Your Child Is Not Enough, written in the 1980's, encourages parents to be better listeners to their children. For the most part, the advice is sound. Don't constantly criticize, don't automatically insert yourself into sibling disagreements, don't jump in to solve problems that kids can solve themselves, don't dismiss or correct kids' feelings before hearing what they are trying to say. I liked all of that.
But there are a few things I take issue with. First, this line: "No child ever has too much self-esteem." ...more
"Several of these men struggled with addiction and depression, or other conditions that could be named, but the more common complaint was something va"Several of these men struggled with addiction and depression, or other conditions that could be named, but the more common complaint was something vaguer—a quiet desperation that, if I were forced to generalize, seemed to stem from a gnawing sense of purposelessness" — from Barrett Swanson's "Men at Work," featured in Harper's Magazine and cited in Chapter 5 of Of Boys and Men.
I appreciated that Richard Reeves, a progressive, left of center writer, has tackled a topic that, for so long, only conservatives seem to be talking about. I liked several aspects of this book, including the author's winsome tone, his attempt to be totally bi-partisan in his argumentation, his takedown of the overused and fuzzy term "toxic masculinity" and his willingness to challenge the popular notion that there are no meaningful differences between men and women. As a mom of three sons (like the author) and a teacher, I share his concern about the malaise and lack of purpose plaguing many young men. I even found some of his prescriptions intriguing (e.g., starting boys a year later in school, providing more vocational opportunities for young men, encouraging young men to pursue HEAL professions, etc.).
In the end, however, I found Reeves's argumentation lacking. For one, though I don't blame men and boys (or their parents) entirely for the issues they face, neither am I convinced that all the problems are structural in nature. I think that all of the author's wishes could be granted and today's boys would still struggle. In my opinion, parents of boys must be prepared to run against the cultural current if they are going to create conditions in which their sons might thrive.
Secondly, I found it surprising that a book addressing the troubles of men and boys offers no sustained engagement on the topics of videogame and pornography addition. Even if these issues are symptoms rather than root causes, they certainly deserve more attention. I tried to discern Reeves's views on these issues from other sources, and found a videoclip in which he is completely ambivalent about videogames and pornography, saying at one point that these might even be useful pastimes for men. So I guess it's no surprise that they don't figure into his argument here, though I really think they should have.
Thirdly, I went into this book knowing that the author is secular and progressive, and yet I was still surprised that Reeves neglects to discuss the extent to which secularization has anything to do with the fact that many young feel burdened by "a gnawing sense of purposelessness." A curious reader might wonder if men of strong faith are faring any better (I would argue that they are), but Reeves doesn't investigate this. To him, men are nothing more than evolved animals, and to be a healthy "male animal," men just need to do what men have evolved to do, plus get more help from the government in the form of affirmative action. This, to me, is wholly unsatisfying.
In a nutshell, I'm glad that this topic is getting some attention on the left, and I'm happy to see an author trying to appeal to people across the political spectrum. But Reeves's arguments aren't enough for me and I wouldn't hang the well-being of my own boys on them....more
This is what I thought I was getting when I picked up Jefferson Bethke's very disappointing Take Back Your Family. If a skeptic were to ask me what itThis is what I thought I was getting when I picked up Jefferson Bethke's very disappointing Take Back Your Family. If a skeptic were to ask me what it looks like to raise kids Christianly today, I'd probably just show him this book. I loved the gospel balance between authority and grace. This is what I'm striving for day by day with my kids.
The chapter on screens is wonderful and alone worth the price of the book, though I took away suggestions from the other chapters as well.
Only two mild criticisms:
1) In its encouragement and advice, Habits of the Household draws mostly from the author's own personal life. Though he seems like a person very much worth learning from, I think the book would have done well to look outside a bit, maybe to some other sources in order to avoid reading like something of a memoir.
2) The author repeatedly calls habits within the home "liturgies." For example, after an argument has been resolved in his house between his sons, he admonishes them to seek forgiveness and then hug until one or more of them starts smiling or laughing. I have always found with my own sons that the quickest way to their hearts when they are p.o.'ed is through lighthearted silliness, especially of a physical variety, so I love this strategy and if it helps to name it, I'm all for it. But, I don't quite grasp why he calls it "the liturgy of the brotherly hug" (or something along those lines). What is liturgical about it? I am a firm believer in the power of good, wise, biblically-sound habits within the household, but I'm not sure I'm on board with thinking of them as liturgies. If someone would like to explain this language to me, I'm all ears (or eyes, I should say).
Overall, I found this book helpful and encouraging....more
I wasn’t very familiar with Jefferson Bethke before reading this book, but I was drawn in by the cover art of Take Back Your Family. What 21st centuryI wasn’t very familiar with Jefferson Bethke before reading this book, but I was drawn in by the cover art of Take Back Your Family. What 21st century Western family hasn’t felt the creep of the pressures represented there, from the hurried disorder, to the allure of the screen, the growing to-do list, and the obvious lack of rest, recreation, and connection. People trying to counter these cultural currents know that it takes effort, wisdom, and intentionality to set the priorities right within the home and build a strong and vibrant family culture where everyone thrives physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Though I agree with Bethke that families today are struggling and looked forward to receiving some encouragement in this area, I cannot recommend this book. Bethke’s claims intrigued me, yet I was often unconvinced, befuddled, and frustrated by his argumentation.
The book’s central argument is that the nuclear family, what Bethke sometimes calls the “Western family ideal” (e.g. Leave It to Beaver) is the toxic root of everything wrong with families today, a “cancer” to use his words. This sounds like a progressive argument, but in chapter two he claims that “nothing has done more damage to Scripture’s vision of family” than the Western family ideal. He got my attention with this intriguing idea—I would have thought that third-wave feminism, the sexual revolution, rising divorce rates, pressures on women to pursue full-time careers outside of the home, and the ubiquity of screens might have something to do with the challenges of contemporary Western family life.
Bethke criticizes conservatives for wanting to return to the “good old days” of the nuclear family, what he describes as “the locker room of disintegration, individualism, and consumption” (Chapter 2).
“I actually find it somewhat comical that some conservatives want to return to ‘the good old days’ when Mom stayed home and took care of the kids and babies, because those weren’t actually ‘the good old days’” (Chapter 2).
“In the nuclear family ideal the mom’s job has only gotten harder…American and evangelical motherhood is not only the hardest and most impossible work, it is also the most lonely and isolated” (Chapter 8).
“…the sad reality about most teaching and preaching from the evangelical world is that it’s not trying to take us back to the ancient world of the Scriptures, as we talked about earlier, it’s trying to take us back to 1950” (Chapter 8).
To substantiate his claim that the ideal of the nuclear family is the root of all that ails families today, Bethke invokes renowned social scientist Carle Zimmerman and his book Family and Civilization (1947). Bethke’s engagement with Zimmerman wasn’t adding up for me, and, luckily, we own the book, so I had a look for myself. Bethke argues that Zimmerman would agree with him about the problem of the nuclear family, with the following caveat:
Zimmerman “didn’t use the word ‘nuclear’ like we do but instead he used this phrase called “Atomistic Family” to essentially mean the same thing. The phrase “nuclear family” wasn’t as popular until after he died” (Chapter 2).
So, Bethke is arguing that the ideal of the nuclear family is responsible for everything wrong with family life today, that Zimmerman would agree with him on this (though Zimmerman called it the “Atomistic Family”), and that this model of family is what conservatives are supposedly longing to reclaim. Here is how Zimmerman describes the “The Atomistic Family System” in Family and Civilization:
1. Increased and rapid easy ‘causeless’ divorce. … 2. Decreased number of children, population decay, and increased public disrespect for parents and parenthood. 3. Elimination of the real meaning of the marriage ceremony. … 4. Popularity of pessimistic doctrines about the early heroes. 5. Rise of theories that companionate marriage or a permissible looser family form would solve the problem. … 6. The refusal of many other people married under the older family form to maintain their traditions while other people escape these obligations. … 7. The spread of antifamilism of the urbane and pseudointellectual classed to the very outer limits of civilization. … 8. Breaking down of most inhibitions against adultery. … 9. Revolts of youth against parents so that parenthood became more and more difficult for those who did try to raise children. 10. Rapid rise and spread of juvenile delinquency. 11. Common acceptance of all forms of sex perversions. (255)
I’m sure many families that describe themselves as conservative have been impacted negatively by some of the trends on this list. But the idea that conservatives are pining for these things is ridiculous. Rather, this list represents pretty much everything conservatives lament.
Bethke then argues that Zimmerman’s category called the "Domestic Family” is the one we should aspire to, though he doesn’t develop the point. In Chapter 2, Bethke writes, “The domestic family describes a household based on the marital bond, husband and wife and their children.” In Zimmerman’s Family and Civilization, the “Domestic Family” is characterized by a commitment to familism and its three basic functions, all of which have their roots in Christian doctrine: “fidelity, childbearing, and unity” (Zimmerman 195).
Does this not sound like precisely what conservative Christians aspire to, even if they don’t always get it exactly right?
To make matters more confusing, Zimmerman was apparently rather pleasantly surprised by the success of the 1950’s suburban nuclear family, noting the ways in which the post-war baby boom represented a reversal of the trends he documented in Family and Civilization. According to Allan Carlson of the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society:
"In the short run, Zimmerman was wrong. Like every other observer writing in the mid-1940s, he failed to see the “marriage boom” and “the baby boom” already stirring in the United States (and with equal drama in a few other places, such as Australia). As early as 1949, two of his students reported that, for the first time in U.S. demographic history, “rural non-farm” (read “suburban”) women had higher fertility than in either urban or rural-farm regions. By 1960, Zimmerman concluded in his book Successful American Families that nothing short of a social miracle had occurred in the suburbs."
But Bethke doesn’t seem to be aware of any of this. Throughout Take Back Your Family, the 1950’s nuclear family remains a scourge.
Bethke’s engagement with Zimmerman leaves much to be desired. The way he muddles the categories of “nuclear” and “atomistic,” while indicting American evangelicals for their supposed longing to return to a model of family from the 1950’s, is enough to make one’s head spin. Bethke’s argument in Take Back Your Family is essentially one against the progressive secular values that took hold during the 1960s, and yet, more often than not, he imagines himself to be warring against the 1950s, and, in the process, throws today’s conservatives and evangelicals under the bus as well, criticizing them without offering any textual or statistical evidence to support his claims. This seems an odd move on his part, since I would imagine that contemporary American evangelicals (a) constitute the majority of his audience, (b) most closely embody (or at least seek to embody) Zimmerman’s “domestic family” model, and (c) are those most on-board, at least in theory, with Bethke’s supposed goal of creating strong, biblical families.
The above constitutes my primary concern with Take Back Your Family, though I had a few other issues as well, outlined below:
The tone is pedantic. He uses the phrase “And guess what?” far too often, which is irritating since what usually follows the “And guess what?” is something the reader already saw coming.
The writing generally feels sloppy and rushed. Bethke makes huge claims that he doesn’t support with evidence. In addition to the problems I already noted regarding his generalizations of evangelical teaching and preaching, he also relies on unsubstantiated statements like this one:
“…there is this American idea that your siblings are actually inconsequential, almost accidental, and they don’t really matter to your well-being or your individual goals and pursuits” (Chapter 6).
I don’t think this is true at all. Bethke neglects to provide any evidence to support this strange claim.
His definitions are unclear. Bethke elevates the family to a very high and lofty place (almost to a slightly weird degree in my opinion, conveniently ignoring Jesus’ words in Luke 14:25-27) and yet he is very vague when it comes to defining what, exactly, a family is. In Chapter 4, he writes:
“When I say family, by the way, I’m not sure I mean what you think I mean. Some hear that word ‘family’ and think of a picture they have no way of attaining. That’s not what I’m talking about. That’s a cheap, Western knock-off. When I say family, I simply mean a relational home, as my friend Jean-Marc puts it, a network of committed, covenantal relationships and a team that commits to one another and is interconnected through a web of long-standing relationships. It’s layered and complex and older and it spans generations.”
I’m not sure what this evasive passage means.
There’s a strange irony that runs throughout the book. Though Bethke often criticizes American consumerism, I couldn’t shake the feeling that he was trying to sell me something. One of the few other Goodreads reviewers who gave this book a less than stellar rating aptly described Take Back Your Family as an “infomercial.” This feels exactly right to me, and so I wasn’t very surprised to learn that Bethke is indeed trying to sell something: digital subscriptions to his “Family Teams” material.
I suppose there’s nothing wrong with this in and of itself; my real concern stems from the fact that the product being sold seems to be gimmicky and problematic. At best, Bethke’s emphasis on making the family “a team” didn’t really add much to the discussions many conservative Christians are already having about building strong family cultures, and at worst the language of “teams” makes it sound as though you are setting up your family to compete with other families for the win.
Lastly, there are very few practical suggestions for readers in Take Back Your Family. Neither is there any sustained discussion of how screens ought to function within the family. This seems a glaring omission, since both progressives and conservatives often lament how screens splinter the household, and the book’s cover art even depicts a screen-addled family. There are some interesting thoughts on Sabbath rest toward the end of the book, but there is little mention of the worship of God in this section. For Bethke, the Sabbath seems primarily about rest and recreation for the family, not worship. Much like his definition of what constitutes a family, his discussion of the Sabbath leaves much open to interpretation and is, therefore, not particularly helpful or biblical.
My impression of Bethke is that he’s a gifted individual, someone in pursuit of a creative, alternative livelihood, a way to support his family financially without resorting to the traditional 9-5. This is all well and good, but what he’s selling seems to me rather expensive, given how half-baked it comes across in this book.
In Chapter 4, Bethke makes a revealing aside. When sharing about how his vision for family teams got started, he asks the reader, “Anyone else out there move fast? I mean, like, really fast? When something moves them or clicks in their brain? Yeah, [my wife] knows that’s me.” This reader now knows it as well. He’s a young guy, with very young kids. I wish him well, but I think he moved a little too fast in putting this book together. Back to the drawing board is probably a good next strategy.
Note: I listened to the audiobook version of Take Back Your Family, and did my very best to render accurately the passages I cite. Apologies if there are any errors in spellings and punctuation, and sorry to not be able to provide specific page numbers....more
This is an encouraging and challenging book on the struggles that pastors face in balancing the demands of ministry with the care of the family. I thoThis is an encouraging and challenging book on the struggles that pastors face in balancing the demands of ministry with the care of the family. I thought it struck a nice chord between sympathy and exhortation. The authors never slip into discontented commiseration; neither do they look at ministry life with rose-colored glasses. The burdens of ministry life on the family are real, but so are the blessings and privileges.
In Teach Them to Work, Mary Beeke warmly exhorts parents to cultivate in their children a God-honoring work ethic, thus giving them "the inestimable pIn Teach Them to Work, Mary Beeke warmly exhorts parents to cultivate in their children a God-honoring work ethic, thus giving them "the inestimable privilege of serving others" (171). She begins with a theology of work, namely that we are made not just to work but to find meaning in our work and satisfaction in a job well done. She then devotes several chapters to helping parents with the practicalities of motivating kids to work in all kinds of different ways, from helping with household chores, to finding a vocation, to serving those less fortunate.
Sixteen years of teaching teenagers plus raising my own kids has helped me to appreciate all the barriers that kids in the West face in developing a healthy work ethic. The ubiquity of smart phones and gaming, the constant pressure kids feel to succeed academically at the expense of gaining real life experiences, the fact that the very air they breathe is suffused with attitudes of entitlement and materialism—none of this is much help in learning how put the old nose to the grindstone. I share Beeke's conviction that "integrity and diligence will carry a young person far in the world world...even further than intelligence" (89). At the end of the day, I care more about my kids' work ethic and attitude than their academic success, so I was primed for this book and eager to learn from Beeke.
There is so much to like here. First, I loved Beeke's authorial voice. A seasoned teacher and parent, Beeke writes with the authority of someone worth learning from, but not without gentleness and true humility. She seems like a nice person, in the best sense of the word.
Beeke also helped clarify for me whether to give kids money for their chores. In case anyone is curious, she advocates for a mixed approach: Some chores kids must do simply because they are contributing members of the household, while other special, and perhaps more advanced, jobs can be done for money. I was already leaning in this direction, so it was helpful to read how someone else works it out.
There are also loads of practical strategies throughout this book. One, for us, is worth its weight in gold and so deliciously simple: (view spoiler)[ The 10 Minute Tidy. We've started doing this in the crazy zone between dinner and bedtime. We set the timer for 10 minutes and play really loud music (kids' choice), and during that 10 minutes, every single member of the household must tidy at a heart-accelerating rate, starting first with their own possessions and then moving onto things like sweeping, clearning the table, spraying down surfaces, etc. The kids' faces are literarily red by the end and we're all huffing and puffing. The result is far less work for me at the end of the day (hence having some time to write this review!) We have a long-standing parenting strategy for incentivizing "fruit of the spirit" behavior that I can share in the comments if any one is interested. We use that strategy to keep kids on-task for the 10 minutes. Easy strategies like this are priceless, and I'm very grateful to Beeke for this one. (hide spoiler)]
My only criticism of the book has to do with organization. It's a bit too long and, at times, repetitive. The book is divided up into two sections, "Parental Principles" and "Practical Principles" but, in practice, these sections read very much in the same way: exhortations peppered with practical strategies. I struggled to see how the divisions were meaningful in any way.
Also, it may be helpful for some to know that Beeke subscribes to the King James Only view, so get ready for lots of thee's and thou's in the Scripture passages that she cites. I do not subscribe to this view and could have done with a different translation, but I found it an easy thing to get past.
Overall, a very helpful and encouraging book, and one that has had an immediate impact on our family....more
In this book, clinical psychologist Enrico Gnaulati argues that, far too often, well-meaning parents, teachers, and psychiatrists misinterpret normal In this book, clinical psychologist Enrico Gnaulati argues that, far too often, well-meaning parents, teachers, and psychiatrists misinterpret normal quirky kid behavior as symptomatic of mental health conditions such as ADHD, Autism, and Bipolar Disorder. Instead of the labels and medication favored by many psychiatrists, Gnaulati stresses the need for "a more humanistic, experiential, individualized approach...to reach, comprehend, and help kids" (8).
I became interested in this topic far before I had my own kids. While teaching English at a suburban public high school in an affluent US town, I grew increasingly alarmed by the number of students (especially boys) in my classes being diagnosed with ADHD. Many of these boys were totally capable of sustaining interest in (and waxing eloquently about) a variety of topics but struggled to get through homework assignments and tests. Most were avid gamers with helicopter parents bent on getting their kids into Ivy League universities. One kid, whom I would describe as lazy yet lovable, even asked me one time in all sincerity how he could get a diagnosis so that he, too, could have fifteen extra minutes on my tests and quizzes. His parents were of a more laid back variety. I've known kids whose diagnoses seemed very legitimate (I am not questioning that there are kids with mental health conditions in need of treatment; neither does this author) but, many of my students with labels and accommodations struck me as, for lack of a better term, completely normal kids struggling with completely normal issues.
Now I have my own kids and the pleasure of observing all manner of quirky behavior! I think Gnaulati's argument is extremely important and I plan to enter the adolescent phase with my eyes wide open to these issues.
Back to Normal is, to me, a five star book—persuasive argumentation delivered by a winsome, unpretentious writer who doesn't take himself too seriously and has a great sense of humor. In addition to being helpful, this is a fun one to read. I would genuinely like to invite the author over for dinner. If you look at his picture, his authorial personality totally matches his face—a cool guy!...more
I didn't agree with everything in this book, but I enjoyed the author's warm and good-natured tone. The most helpful and interesting take-away point fI didn't agree with everything in this book, but I enjoyed the author's warm and good-natured tone. The most helpful and interesting take-away point for me is the concept of Adrenarche—a hormonal surge that occurs in eight to nine year old boys that can cause sudden emotional upheaval in an otherwise rational, laid-back, happy little dude. As mental health diagnoses in young boys seem to be on the rise, and as I watch my own sons get older and evolve into small men, it is striking me as increasingly vital that I am aware of the hormonal stages that boys go through as part of their healthy development. This was my primary reason for reading this book—to be cautious and aware amid what I worry is Western culture's tendency to medicalize normal childhood feelings, behavior, and stages. (This is not to say that all diagnoses are wrong—I am just humbly wondering if our sincere concern for a boy's well-being, paired with our surprise and dismay at the sudden changes he's experiencing, compels us to travel down the psychiatrist’s road too quickly sometimes.)
On a different note, it's funny to me that many reviewers found this book "too conservative and traditional." Though he peppers his book with a million and one qualifications to appease the activists of our day—almost to the point of becoming tedious and seeming wishy-washy—the author is willing to die on two hills. Hill 1: In general, there are meaningful differences between boys and girls that ought to influence how we bring up sons. Hill 2: The father plays a crucial and irreplaceable role in the development of his boy's character and identity, hugely affecting the boy's outcomes in life. Though these beliefs seem patently obvious to me, holding to them apparently makes you a raging conservative these days....more
This book was helpful in establishing a daily routine of breakfast family devotionals. While ironing out this new habit, we found it useful to have thThis book was helpful in establishing a daily routine of breakfast family devotionals. While ironing out this new habit, we found it useful to have the Scripture passage already at hand, rather than having to choose one amid the chaos of spilt juice and buttery hands grabbing for the last muffin. Some of the entries were a little on the cheesy side, but the kids found them accessible and therefore paid attention (for the most part)....more
These days, it’s getting a little too easy to call someone a bigot without any supporting evidence and get away with it—even be lauded for it. The 1-sThese days, it’s getting a little too easy to call someone a bigot without any supporting evidence and get away with it—even be lauded for it. The 1-star reviews of Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters by Abigail Shrier are a great example of this troubling cultural trend. As of today—3 August, 2020—there are 226 ratings of this book and 40 are 1-star ratings. Of those 40 1-star ratings, only 13 include a review and all of these reviews can be fairly described as relatively short. The longest one weighs in at roughly a paragraph; the majority stop at just a few sentences. Here is a snapshot of how they are describing Shrier’s book:
incredibly transphobic
indistinguishable from racist eugenics (This is some claim...)
harmful and dangerous to LGBT people
absolute bullsh*t
absolute trash
bigoted hackwork
TERF garbage
obviously written by a CIS woman! (I love this one. Who cares about what CIS women think?)
extremely dangerous
scaremongering rubbish
F*ck right off
And my favorite for the way in which it perfectly captures, in all of its glory, the increasing anti-intellectualism of our day:
Nope.
As of today, not one of these reviews interacts meaningfully with Irreversible Damage, not one quotes a line from the book, not one offers any support for conclusions so hastily drawn, and several attribute to Shrier claims that she doesn’t even make in the book (e.g. the reviewer who says, “Body dysmorphia doesn't always lead to being trans, any person with a braincell knows that.” Yeah, Shrier never claims that body dysmorphia "always leads to being trans."
The only thing one can learn about Irreversible Damage from reading these 1-star reviews is that it touches on a major nerve. Why the intense reaction? After reading the book for myself, I suspect that at least some of the anger stems from the painful and unwelcome realization that, if Shrier is right, a great many people have been complicit in practices that are proving very harmful to adolescent girls.
According to Shrier’s research, in the past ten years, the West has seen a dramatic spike in natal girls with no childhood history of gender dysphoria suddenly identifying as trans. Because the issue of gender dysphoria has become so politicized in recent years, doctors, school counselors, and gender therapists, once curious investigators and gatekeepers, are now quick to affirm these girls’ newfound gender identities and usher them toward evermore drastic treatments like puberty blockers, courses of testosterone, and even in some cases double mastectomies, euphemistically referred to in the trans community as “top surgery.”
Can this surge in trans-identifying adolescent girls be explained solely by our society’s increasing acceptance of trans people? That’s certainly one explanation, but what if something else is going on? And if girls are coming out as trans because it’s safer now to do so, why does their mental health often deteriorate during and after transition? Given the vulnerability and impressionability of teen girls and the potentially permanent and life-altering effects of even the most benign of these treatments, I think we owe it to girls to examine the surge from all possible angles.
And that’s exactly what Shrier does in this very helpful and compassionately written book. She examines patterns in internet and social media use among girls who have come out as trans. She considers a culture of therapy that characterizes “normal feelings as illness.” She looks at the relationship between increasingly violent pornography and boys’ rough treatment of girls during sex. (I simply could not believe the shockingly sad statistic cited by Shrier that 13% of sexually active girls between the ages of 14 and 17 report that they have been choked by a boy during a sexual encounter—no wonder girls are wary of sexual intimacy with boys if this is the case.) She looks at how our culture, in an attempt to protect the feelings of trans people, increasingly describes women using dehumanizing terminology such as “breeders,” “bleeders,” “people who menstruate,” and “individuals with a cervix.” She interviews doctors, therapists, and school administrators who “fast-track” trans girls’ demands without investigating whether there is any underlying history of psychological distress, and she wonders to what extent politics has trumped science when it comes to gender dysphoria. There’s a lot more.
I can’t recommend this book enough, especially to parents of girls. And rest assured, this book can only be described as “transphobic” if that word has come to mean nothing more than respectfully challenging the decisions of some trans-identifying people in the service of protecting adolescent girls from doing irreparable harm to their bodies that they may later come to regret. Please take the negative reviews with a grain of salt, and read Irreversible Damage if you have an interest in the well-being of adolescent girls....more
Loading...
