"Protecting the Gift" needs a new title (s/o Hanna Anderson)

[Katy]

I loved the book Protecting the Gift when I finally got around to reading it. I loved it so much I now recommend it to every new parent I know.

 

But when I first heard it recommended on this board I dismissed it as some sort of fundamentalist Christian book about protecting a girl's purity/virginity solely because of the title.   I know it's a play on his more popular book The Gift of Fear, but really, it needs a new title.

 

Am I the only person who thinks this way?

[marbel]

Nope, that's what I thought too.    I had no idea it was related to The Gift of Fear, parts of which I have read (but I didn't know the author's name). 

[PrincessMommy]

I thought it was a Christian book about purity too. 

[Word Nerd]

Never judge a book by its title.

[Katy]

Never judge a book by it's cover.  But the title should indicate something relevant, one would hope.

[Word Nerd]

I know the actual saying, thanks. I think my comment is also true; avoid making snap judgments based only on a book's title or you're likely to make a false assumption. I doubt that most people would assume "the gift" is purity. It could be anything, which is why the book has a subtitle. 

[8circles]

Never judge a book by it's cover.  But the title should indicate something relevant, one would hope.

 

I think the title makes perfect sense.  I honestly don't understand the confusion beyond the initial first thought.  I know that many posters here have much more influence from/experience with fundamentalist xtianity but really, it doesn't take much to determine that purity isn't what this book is about.  I've only seen it mentioned in the context of keeping our children safe from predators - what that has to do with purity is beyond me.  & it only takes a simple google to discover that it's the same author of The Gift of Fear & the full title of the book, Protecting the Gift: Keeping Children and Teenagers Safe (and Parents Sane).  The title seems quite relevant to me.

[SorrelZG]

I am what some ppl might call a fundamental Christian (I'm not up the current definitions) and it never crossed my mind that the book was about purity. I did misunderstand it, though. I had assumed the gift being protected was the children.

[Spryte]

I've only seen the book referenced on this board, and those references don't usually include the subtitle.  I, too, thought it referenced fundamentalist Christian issues about virginity, and even when I gathered that the content was not "purity," I thought it was likely written from a fundamentalist Christian perspective.  Given that this board is the one of the only places I come into contact with fundamentalist Christians, and that this is the only place I've heard the book referenced - I don't think it was a huge leap.  I have heard other references to "purity" as a "gift," too.  Albeto linked a children's book in another thread, and there was a discussion about a purity ring company who uses a gift wrapped package as a visual.  

 

Once I read enough threads on the book, in context, I did look the book up, found the subtitle, and do think it's interesting and clearly not written from the perspective I'd guessed.

 

 

[Joanne]

IMO, we are a very self select group. The percentage of people who are actually and functionally "conservative Christians" to where "purity" and "gift" are juxtaposed is a small percentage. Most people seeing the book at B&N or Books-A-Million would not make the associations we do here due to the way the conservative Christianity defines and permeates homeschoolers.

[Kathryn]

I assumed that's what it was when I first heard about it. I was not a homeschooler. I was not conservative. I was not even Christian. That whole "purity" thing has been in national media for quite some time. Being aware of it has nothing to do with homeschooling or being Conservative Christian.

[DaffodilDreams]

I agree.  I haven't read it because I also thought it was a Christian book on purity.  Now I'm intrigued.  I'll have to seek it out.  

[Word Nerd]

That's just it—you assumed. That isn't the publisher's fault.

[PeacefulChaos]

Honestly, I'm a conservative Christian and it never occurred to me that Protecting the Gift was what you described.  :blink:  

Maybe I just don't run in circles with people that refer to purity/virginity as a 'gift'.  I've heard children themselves referred to as gifts, but that's about it.  

If I were going to think anything based on the title (and not knowing what the book was about) I would think it was about protecting your children.  

[hillfarm]

Sounder is not about noise or music, 50 Shades of Gray is not about art or painting, and Of Mice and Men isn't about zoology or how to keep rodents.

 

Whenever any of us makes an assumption, we are likely to be incorrect. If a person who is a fundamentalist Christian assumes that Protecting the Gift is about purity, then they might be better served to broaden their horizons and not assume that everything in life is focused on their religious beliefs. If a person who is not a Christian assumes that Protecting the Gift is about purity, perhaps they might want to indulge in a bit of self reflection as to why they assume certain things are Christian (especially fundamentalist) and perhaps ask themselves if any of their other assumptions about Christianity might also be in error.

 

I am a fundamentalist Christian and I am often upset, hurt, confused about assumptions that are revealed on this board. No, I'm not really all that conservative. I like hard rock music. I wear pants, cut my hair, and muck out barns; I participate in all manner of unladylike activities. Like most people here, I am one big ball of contradictions, many of which surprise even me. And I hate being automatically labeled based on incorrect assumptions.

 

It would be lovely if a thread like this would cause everyone here to reexamine a few of our assumptions and reconsider whether they are truly accurate. As I get older, I have come to see that several of my dearly held beliefs might not be based on the solid foundation I once assumed. I have decided to "assume" that is evidence of maturity, not age-related insanity!

[Kathryn]

Sounder is not about noise or music, 50 Shades of Gray is not about art or painting, and Of Mice and Men isn't about zoology or how to keep rodents.

 

Whenever any of us makes an assumption, we are likely to be incorrect. If a person who is a fundamentalist Christian assumes that Protecting the Gift is about purity, then they might be better served to broaden their horizons and not assume that everything in life is focused on their religious beliefs. If a person who is not a Christian assumes that Protecting the Gift is about purity, perhaps they might want to indulge in a bit of self reflection as to why they assume certain things are Christian (especially fundamentalist) and perhaps ask themselves if any of their other assumptions about Christianity might also be in error.

 

I am a fundamentalist Christian and I am often upset, hurt, confused about assumptions that are revealed on this board. No, I'm not really all that conservative. I like hard rock music. I wear pants, cut my hair, and muck out barns; I participate in all manner of unladylike activities. Like most people here, I am one big ball of contradictions, many of which surprise even me. And I hate being automatically labeled based on incorrect assumptions.

 

It would be lovely if a thread like this would cause everyone here to reexamine a few of our assumptions and reconsider whether they are truly accurate. As I get older, I have come to see that several of my dearly held beliefs might not be based on the solid foundation I once assumed. I have decided to "assume" that is evidence of maturity, not age-related insanity!

Those are all novels. The book in question is non-fiction. At any rate, I don't feel the need to examine any beliefs based on the fact that the title of this book sounded like something I've heard a lot about in the media.