Visit: Quivering Daughters

A look at the criticism of:

Quivering Daughters: Hope and Healing for Daughters of Patriarchy

(Read ill-legalism's review of Quivering Daughters here.)

"The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe.”

Quivering Daughters: Hope and Healing for the Daughters of Patriarchy, by Hillary McFarland, is already an influential book! The power of McFarland’s book is evident even in the fact that a group of ultra-conservative, “quiverful” moms created a web site with the sole purpose of addressing their concerns about it. To be clear about their purpose, in their “Start here” link, they begin: “Welcome to the home of Steadfast Daughters in a Quivering World, a biblical response to ‘Quivering Daughters,’ the book and blog written by Hillary McFarland.”  

My purpose here is to address their stated concerns. My hope is to promote true dialogue between those who have been wounded by this lifestyle and those concerned about protecting this lifestyle from unwarranted attacks. The need for clear thinking, fair dialogue, and a deeper understanding is great. Here at ill-legalism, we are concerned not only to addressing the problems within fundamentalist thinking and practices, but also to give credit where due to fundamentalist approaches.

For the sake of clarity, I should mention that the lifestyle of the “quiverful movement,” the ultra-conservative patriarchy that McFarland described in Quivering Daughters, mirrors the lifestyle of the contributors to the Steadfast Daughters site, by their own admission. This mention does not negate their concerns; rather, it is an acknowledgement that they are defending what is very near and dear to them, just as Hillary McFarland shared what was on her heart. For example, a contributor named “Abigail” (apparently not her real name) provides insight into her own childhood and her current thoughts on parenting in her post: “My Parents are Sinners, Too!”  (Please keep in mind that the content of this blog is constantly changing. What I have written reflects what was displayed at the time I wrote my response. I have saved a copy if there is any question.)

Abigail makes no mistake that this is a direct response to Hillary McFarland’s writings. She states, “Like Hillary McFarland, I also am the child of sinners.” She shares what she sees as similarities between Hillary’s childhood experiences and her own. You can read her entire post in the link above. She then states: "Earth is sometimes a disappointing place to live, but the disappointments here have deep purpose. They are given as gifts, to draw our hearts away from the desire for status or approval or material things toward Christ alone.”

With this comment, Abigail refers to Hillary’s concerns as “disappointments in life” and “lessons to be learned.” By doing this, Abigail interprets for her readers how they should view Hillary’s experiences, through Abigail’s own experience with her parents.

Abigail’s readers are to accept her view of her own childhood as valid, but she fails to extend the same courtesy to McFarland and the other contributors to Quivering Daughters. Yet, Abigail’s story was not in McFarland’s book. If it were, she would be the authority on that experience.

It’s genuinely nice to read that Abigail has good memories of her childhood. Yet, the women quoted in Hillary’s book express concern for controlling, manipulating, shaming, minimizing practices that were painful enough that they still carry that pain. It is possible that Abigail does not understand the degree of harm done in some homes, even those where parents claim to follow biblical principles. Or it is possible that she has minimized in her mind the harmful practices of her own parents. There is no way (or no need) to know for sure. But what is obvious here is that she minimizes Hillary’s experience when she has no firsthand knowledge of it. This response is an extension of the very practices which Hillary describes as harmful in her book! To dismiss objections is to diminish what could be valid concerns about putting girls and women at risk for emotional abuse, and sometimes even physical and sexual abuse.

It is not clear why a group of Christian moms would not take to heart the objections expressed in McFarland’s book. Instead, Abigail misreads McFarland’s intent towards her parents:

“Sadly, grace and compassion toward parents seem to be in very short supply at Quivering Daughters. For Hillary McFarland and others, normal childhood disappointments have not yet yielded to compassion toward the parents who, as fellow heirs of grace, imperfectly gave much and loved more.”

Again, Abigail presumptuously redefines what is shared in Quivering Daughters as “normal childhood disappointments.” When we look closely at what is described in the book, one wonders what Abigail’s definition of a relative term such as “normal” is.

She states: “Amazed by grace, our love will cover a multitude of sins. In the event that we do encounter sins that are so grievous and dangerous that they demand a degree of public exposure, even then we scrupulously avoid making a public spectacle of our loved ones.”

I once had a conversation with a police detective about an issue of abuse in our local community. While some people wanted to keep it hush-hush because it would damage the reputation of a local church, the detective said the best way to stop abuse is to complain publicly and loudly. Hillary is far from making a public spectacle even as this detective recommended for abusive situations. Yet, the principle is the same; exposure is what motivates cessation. “Covering a multitude of sins” with love is not the same as hiding them or dismissing them.

Abigail states: “I see Hillary McFarland publicly, repeatedly, and deliberately treat her parents the very same way that she says they once wounded her privately, occasionally, and unintentionally. She is returning the offense in kind, but in much greater degree.”

I’m not sure I understand the creation of the Steadfast Daughters web site if the women there wish to avoid treating someone  to “public, repeated, and deliberate” exposure. It is also not clear how Abigail knows that Hillary and contributors were wounded “privately, occasionally, and unintentionally.” Many of the accounts in McFarland’s book were of public, frequent, and sometimes even intentional harm. Even if they were not, that does not do away with the harm done. If you accidently and privately kill someone with your car, that person is still dead. This call for privacy falls in line with the tendency within this movement to isolate. Privacy is the dynamic that keeps harmful environments alive.

Abigail: “One of her most frequent complaints is that she often felt that she did not measure up as a daughter, but this experience has not left her too shy to tell the world that her parents did not measure up and were not good enough for her.”

Another characteristic of this ultra-conservative, patriarchal movement is the tendency to require children to respond like adults while the adults are allowed childish responses. For Hillary to express that the burden placed on her as a child was too heavy for a child to bear is not to say that her parents are not “good enough” for her. It is to expose this tendency of shaming, blaming, and manipulating children within that movement.

Abigail: “Hillary’s material is shocking in the very fact that it doesn’t tell a story of dangerous cruelty. Hillary’s story is of parents who gave much to a daughter who deserved far better.”

Abigail appears to not recognize that harm and cruelty can happen without “dangerous cruelty” –another undefined term. A steady diet of minimizing a child’s thoughts and emotions, of subjecting children to long hours of work and adult responsibilities, of withholding affection unless the child is compliant, of consistently referring to contrary thought as “rebellion,” is also cruelty. The psychological harm within these practices is cruel.

Within her post, Abigail redefines Hillary’s hurt as “a sinful, inordinate desire for approval.” How is a child’s desire for parental approval a sinful response? Where is Abigail’s rebuke for the parents’ sinful, consistent withholding of approval from their child?

Abigail: “While parents ought to faithfully and truthfully encourage their children, it is sinful for a person of any age to so desire a compliment that it becomes impossible to remain content without one.”

“At any age”? This is evidence of a dysfunctional dynamic within this movement when children must act like adults, and where feelings are labeled as sinful. Reading through the Gospels reminds us of Jesus’ response to people who offend children, along with his rebuke to the Pharisees with the heavy burdens they place on others.

Abigail states: “It appears that this episode occured [sic] well over a decade ago, but the cure is the same today as it ever has been: ‘The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe.’”

This is an excellent verse to take to heart. The fear of man includes fear of those who imagine they speak for God. It at least appears that the Steadfast Daughters web site would like to invoke that ungodly fear again, to silence Hillary’s voice about these practices, and to create a sense of fear for the girls and young women in their midst. I hope this is not their motive, but the element of fear is potent in their responses. In her book, Hillary rightfully identifies fear as a dynamic component to the quiverful, patriarchal lifestyle.

It seems to me, since the women at Steadfast Daughters are concerned about godly responses, that a godly response to Hillary’s book would be to listen to the heart of her concern. The questions godly women can ask themselves are: Am I doing harm to my own daughters? Am I promoting shaming and manipulation of others? Do I misplace blame? Do I invoke fear to control others? Do I expect adult behavior from children? Do I offend my children so that I am deserving of Jesus’ judgment on me? Do I promote these harmful practices to people who read my blog, or who interact with me? How might I take to heart what Hillary shared from her heart about the dangers within the modern patriarchy movement? How can I give girls and young women the voice they need to speak up when they are harmed? How might I not assume their motives are impure and rebellious if they express hurt and disagreement?

This, it seems to me, would be a godly response—the very type of thoughtful response the women at Steadfast Daughters want others to have when reading their posts.

By Rachel Ramer