"English" who join the Amish

[Ken]

The original context was someone complaining that Amish (and Holdeman) people don’t smile much and seem unfriendly in public.

Somehow we have driven all the way to the destination that it’s actually good to have a cranky, grumpy appearance to repel random men who (apparently) are gong to be stalkers or worse.

“Cranky” and “grumpy” are your words and an example of your usual hyperbole. No one here as said it is good to be cranky and grumpy. I’ve done plenty of business in Amish shops and food stands over the years and they are always pleasant and courteous even if they aren’t all smiley and flirtatious. I don’t see the problem.

Context is everything and teaching young girls and women that they shouldn’t be too friendly, flirtatious, or trusting of strangers isn’t necessarily a bad thing. And it is mostly young girl and women who are told and taught to smile. I went through my entire childhood and don’t recall ever once being told to smile except for the camera during family portraits.

[Josh]

Out here on the west coast there is a grocery chain called Safeway that is now owned by a private equity firm. One of the things that the corporate central office tried to implement a few years ago was a requirement that clerks and employees smile at all customers. Supervisors were monitoring and docking women who weren't and the company was using secret mystery shoppers to monitor compliance. It turned out that a lot of young women were complaining that being forced to smile at all the male customers was subjecting them to a huge increase in harassment and unwanted propositions and that sort of thing.

Not smiling at strangers isn't necessarily the worst behavior for young women in this day and age.

The original context was employees expected to smile at customers. We can assume if the employees protested against this. They were, well, not smiling. What do you want to call it if not “grumpy”?

[ken_sylvania]

Out here on the west coast there is a grocery chain called Safeway that is now owned by a private equity firm. One of the things that the corporate central office tried to implement a few years ago was a requirement that clerks and employees smile at all customers. Supervisors were monitoring and docking women who weren't and the company was using secret mystery shoppers to monitor compliance. It turned out that a lot of young women were complaining that being forced to smile at all the male customers was subjecting them to a huge increase in harassment and unwanted propositions and that sort of thing.

Not smiling at strangers isn't necessarily the worst behavior for young women in this day and age.

The original context was employees expected to smile at customers. We can assume if the employees protested against this. They were, well, not smiling. What do you want to call it if not “grumpy”?

Pleasant, neutral expression.

[gcdonner]

The original context was someone complaining that Amish (and Holdeman) people don’t smile much and seem unfriendly in public.

Somehow we have driven all the way to the destination that it’s actually good to have a cranky, grumpy appearance to repel random men who (apparently) are gong to be stalkers or worse.

“Cranky” and “grumpy” are your words and an example of your usual hyperbole. No one here as said it is good to be cranky and grumpy. I’ve done plenty of business in Amish shops and food stands over the years and they are always pleasant and courteous even if they aren’t all smiley and flirtatious. I don’t see the problem.

Context is everything and teaching young girls and women that they shouldn’t be too friendly, flirtatious, or trusting of strangers isn’t necessarily a bad thing. And it is mostly young girl and women who are told and taught to smile. I went through my entire childhood and don’t recall ever once being told to smile except for the camera during family portraits.

My experience is more of the grumpy and unfriendly demeanor of some of the OOMennonites that I bought from when I lived in PA. That's not true of all, but there were some who definitely didn't like "English".

[Verity]

Direct quote from "Dear Princess" chapter 28 "Safeguards from Evil Men"
"The first point I have here is that we should always be modestly dressed so there is nothing about our person that excites the lustful nature of a man."
"We should not smile in a friendly way to strange men or boys, or to men or boys we know are not Christian. Many men would be encouraged by this to make friendly approaches to us."

A group of us discussed this quotes last eve, all agreeing they were incorrect and dangerous. How, exactly is a girl to make sure "there is nothing about her that excites the lustful nature of a man?" Most conservative girls don't have a clue what "lustful nature" means. And the smiling part... lets just say that we made sure our girls understood that was absolutely ridiculous and that the book needs a revision.

More sobering, one woman said that she went to the author of the book with an appeal for help as her older brother was molesting her and had been for quite a few years. The author/minister's wife told her "you must have invited it somehow and need to get your heart right with God." Which aligns with Gothard's teaching and does a lot of damage. No wonder many survivors say that the response of their authorities was often more painful that the abuse itself.

[Soloist]

Direct quote from "Dear Princess" chapter 28 "Safeguards from Evil Men"
"The first point I have here is that we should always be modestly dressed so there is nothing about our person that excites the lustful nature of a man."
"We should not smile in a friendly way to strange men or boys, or to men or boys we know are not Christian. Many men would be encouraged by this to make friendly approaches to us."

It really depends on what is meant…

Of course a woman should be dressed to not entice lust. I suspect though the author isn’t talking the same language as what I think is dressing to entice lust.
Smiling in a friendly way, what is actually meant? Some girls flirt out of ignorance. Some men ignore quite obvious refusals… I wouldn’t want them to flirt out of ignorance but I would think being polite isn’t flirting and while some might take it that way… a woman shouldn’t have to be rude to rebuff unwanted attention.

[Josh]

I used to know a (homeschooled) chick who wore an engagement ring. I asked her when the wedding was and she told me she wasn’t engaged. I asked her why she wore it, and she said so guys will think she is taken.

We were at a homeschooler singles gathering, so I asked her how she planned to meet a guy and get married if she was implying she was taken. She said she wants a guy to get to know her well enough first that he’ll know she isn’t actually engaged. I told her I wouldn’t try to get to know girls who are engaged, as that seems unseemly. I’d be more interested in getting to know the guy and/or the two of them as a couple. Her response was “Well I’m getting to know you right now so it works.”

The context was her ring was her grandmother’s and it fell off when we were canoeing. St Michael must have been watching us as I found it in the mud where we carried the canoes across.

[Ernie]

Yes, that is a rather absurd idea. Where do you get all these absurd ideas you dream up. This particular absurd idea isn't promoted anywhere in any R&S literature or by even the most extreme old school Nationwide Fellowship folks that I've ever heard of.

You claim to believe that lying is a sin, but when you make these extreme statements implying that a person or organization holds an extreme position that they do not in fact hold, that sure looks like lying to me.

It does seem that Josh views most things in life as two opposite extremes, as he doesn't typically mention any positions a person could take in-between the two extremes, and often tries to tag everybody with one of those two extremes, and he puts words in our mouth that we didn't say. (There are many other folks like this, not just Josh. Others on MN do the same thing at time, depending on the topic.... whether it is a political party heroe, cheap grace, or the worldview Plain Anabaptists have regarding clothing.)

I think it is better to view things on a spectrum. Yes, there are two extremes on many ideas, but most people can nuance where they are at on a spectrum of an idea, rather than simply pitting one extreme against another and staying stuck in such debates..

Possibilities:
1. Josh does not see any in-between positions and only sees the extremes. In this case he is not lying, but I would suggest that he is deceived.
2. Josh does see the in-between positions but resorts to hyperbole to make his point. (This can make normal conversation difficult.)
3. Josh does see the in-between positions, but doesn't want to mention them, for fear that he cannot make his case that the opposite of someone's position is an extreme. This could fall into the category of lying or deceit.
4. ????

[Josh]

ken_s,

Is the quotation from Verity sufficient? That is what I was referring to. I summarised it based on memory (I last read the book in 2017.)

[Josh]

Yes, that is a rather absurd idea. Where do you get all these absurd ideas you dream up. This particular absurd idea isn't promoted anywhere in any R&S literature or by even the most extreme old school Nationwide Fellowship folks that I've ever heard of.

You claim to believe that lying is a sin, but when you make these extreme statements implying that a person or organization holds an extreme position that they do not in fact hold, that sure looks like lying to me.

Possibilities:
1. Josh does not see any in-between positions and only sees the extremes. In this case he is not lying, but I would suggest that he is deceived.
2. Josh does see the in-between positions but resorts to hyperbole to make his point. (This can make normal conversation difficult.)
3. Josh does see the in-between positions, but doesn't want to mention them, for fear that he can make his case that the opposite of someone's position is an extreme. This could fall into the category of lying or deceit.
4. ????

Let’s go with #4:

Direct quote from "Dear Princess" chapter 28 "Safeguards from Evil Men"
"The first point I have here is that we should always be modestly dressed so there is nothing about our person that excites the lustful nature of a man."
"We should not smile in a friendly way to strange men or boys, or to men or boys we know are not Christian. Many men would be encouraged by this to make friendly approaches to us."

Was I lying or being deceitful? That is what the book says. I am open to the idea NFC as a whole doesn’t endorse this teaching and this is merely Rod & Staff extremism.

Josh wrote: ↑
The idea that women who are service workers should be grumpy and unpleasant for their “safety” seems rather absurd.
Yes, that is a rather absurd idea. Where do you get all these absurd ideas you dream up. This particular absurd idea isn't promoted anywhere in any R&S literature or by even the most extreme old school Nationwide Fellowship folks that I've ever heard of.

Perhaps my view is not the majority one, but explicitly teaching people not to smile at strangers would seem to fall in the category of teaching people to be grumpy / unpleasant / not smile / whatever. Then again, I grew up in a culture where I was taught to smile and be friendly in my interactions with basically anyone. So maybe my cultural background is a bit different here.