are patriocentric views of a woman's role putting homeschooling freedoms at risk?

Aw, shucks, TulipGirl!

“I am sorry for being belligerent and tactless.I ask you all to forgive me.”

Forgiven… and I ask the same of you, Jayne, if my manner of speaking was offensive. Shall we agree to disagree, and call it pax?

Jayne,

Your apology is accepted and you are welcome to post here if you do so in the same sweet spirit in which you have written this morning.

I posted a public apology to Jayne, yesterday, and others over on the MEH board (thread on sexism and homeschooling) and I will post that apology here because I owe that to Jayne and anyone else I have offended. I am deeply sorry.

Mea Culpa?

or would that be συγνώμη?

“”The responses by Corrie and others were gloating in their tone to Gene. And suddenly, when Jayne was able to demonstrate that Corrie did not have the expertise she claimed she did, the whole thing was a waste of time. I would bet that if you tallied posts, Corrie and her friends ‘wasted’ more time on that discussion that Jayne did.”

Hi Kanga Mom,

You are correct, I was very wrong. I am asking you and everyone else involved to forgive me. I am very ashamed of myself.

I do want to explain to you that when I made that comment about teaching my children since 1993, it was supposed to be funny. It came in handy because I could identify scientific terms because I knew their roots. I am a complete dunce when it comes to science and learning Greek and Latin roots and teaching them to others has helped me greatly to understand a word even though I have never seen it before. I was trying to be funny instead of responding to Gene by calling him names as he called others. It did not come off the way I meant it. I wasn’t gloating at all. I was really trying to play off the irony of the patriarchal stance that women don’t need to go to college since they already have a PHd level of education just by staying home and reading books on their own.

I was certainly NOT claiming to have expertise. Hardly and that is not at all how I view myself and that is not at all what I was saying in my response to Gene.

I was upset with Gene’s name calling and condescending and rude remarks to Karen and others and I usually try not to respond when I am riled up. I am more than willing to have a discussion with people but I did not understand the type of behavior being exhibited by Gene and Joseph. It was uncalled for. Calling people “cackling hens” and “miserable” and “bitter” and insinuating we are wasting time and taking time away from our household duties just because they disagree doesn’t make for good discussion in my book. When I confront these teachings, I do not attribute motives. I deal with the actual written word of the person who I am confronting. I did not find Gene to be “a nice man” at all and that really rubbed me the wrong way because it seemed unfair. I am truly sorry for allowing my flesh to get the better of me.

You are right, I did waste time. If you notice, I am not posting on this topic anymore. I understood that Karen was asking everyone, especially me to stop talking about the Latin/Greek thing. I have been humbled by this whole exchange and I sincerely want to ask you and Jayne and anyone else I have offended to forgive me.

One more thing, I know the difference between Latin and Greek. I am far from being an expert but when I wrote what I wrote, I was thinking Greek and I was looking at my Greek materials but I wrote Latin. It was a stupid mistake. I have at least a 1,000 flash cards in my home from our Greek and Latin root studies. I have gone through two levels of the Latin Road to English Grammar. My children are much better at Latin than I am. They have far surpassed me in that area. I am more of a facilitator. I have never claimed to be an expert and I am always in learning mode. I shouldn’t try and write those sorts of posts when I have a lot of distractions going on around me.

What I do have is life experience. I do have a son in college that was homeschooled through high school (except for K, 1st, 2nd) and he has done fantastic in his structural/civil engineering course work. I have 9 other children at home and every day I learn something new.

I know Jayne is heads and tails above me in knowledge in this area. It really isn’t the hill I want to die on. I had never even heard of the term until this year. I do think that whatever you want to call it: father-centric, male-centric, patricentric, etc., all describe it much better than hyper-patriarchy or just plain ol’ patriarchy.

I have learned a lot from the discussion concerning making laws that would regulate homeschooling. I have a lot more to learn.”

No, I’m not calling for more regulations. No, I’m not blaming Bill Gothard for the murder of other people. That responsibility lies with Michael Murray alone.

But Murray obviously was very angered by the legalism of Gothardism, as many who exit ATI have testified to (I’ve read a lot of their stories on the Crossings, where you have to sign on with your real name, and on the Gothard list), and the media has already taken note of this and is publishing it, and it IS something to be concerned about.

In addition to this we must be praying for the families who now are facing Christmas with loved ones murdered because their murderer hated Christianity.

Thatmom, I posted about Murray because there are more issues that those who want more regulation are looking at besides how girls and women are treated. It’s the whole excessive authoritarian legalism that is the backdrop for a lot of problems — Murray’s, and many women and girls as well.

But Jesus Christ sets us free from yokes of bondage and heavy burdens. I am grieved to know that Murray felt this way, and in his anger took it out on others.

“see also Stacy McDonald, RAISING MAIDENS OF VIRTUE: A STUDY OF FEMININE LOVELINESS FOR MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS (2005). McDonald explained that a girl’s education “should be focused on assisting her future husband as his valuable helpmate, not on becoming her ‘own person.’” Id. at 55. She counseled girls to “[r]emember that a strong desire to be a doctor or a seemingly God-given talent in math is not an indication of God’s will for you to have a career in medicine or engineering. Sometimes God gives us talents and strengths for the specific purpose of helping our future husbands in their calling.””

What would women do if they couldn’t have access to female doctors? And what is a “seemingly God-given talent”? And where does it say that a woman’s God-given talents are given to her only to serve her own husband and no one else? Is that in the Bible somewhere?

The female doctor issue is especially pertinent because the hyper-patriarchal crowd also teaches that it is immodest and unbiblical to go to a male doctor for any female related issues or in any situation where a male doctor would have to look at a woman’s nakedness.

A woman can’t be a doctor but she can’t go to a male doctor. Hmmm? What to do! What to do? I guess women are not entitled to medical care, then, the way that men are? And don’t tell me that all women can have their health care needs met by a midwife. That is far from the truth.

“So, how can you misrepresent an actual teaching and practice when you are quoting directly from the source?”

Quotes are misinterpreted all the time (I’m speaking generally here), either deliberately or because the receiver of the message doesn’t understand or get what the speaker is saying. And if the receiver is already biased against the speaker, it’s less likely he or she is going to give the speaker the benefit of the doubt when something is not fully understood rather than assigning a negative intent.

One example that stands out in my mind as an obvious misrepresentation in the ongoing conversation on the other blog were the comments implying that Stacy teaches that chocolate is sinful (in and of itself) and that if you eat chocolate you’ll go to hell. Granted, they were mostly sarcastic, but I don’t see much appreciation or tolerance for sarcasm and hyperbole when someone from the “other side” uses it.

Another example that comes to mind is on this blog when some accused Jennie of dismissing daycare workers as brainless, which, as I pointed out in that thread, was not at all what she was saying.

(Of course I’ve also noticed numerous instances of misrepresentation of this conversation by opponents, but that’s not what your question was about.)

Shauna,

Thank you for those examples. I agree that those are examples of where statements have been misrepresented.

Did someone really say that she said that eating chocolate is sinful and that you will go to hell for eating it?

I am one that understood what Jennie meant by the brainless daycare workers comment and I believe I even corrected those who misunderstood that statement. It was easy enough to misunderstand, especially if you weren’t following the video clip closely.

Other than that? What major teachings are being misrepresented? What patriarchal teachings are being misconstrued?

I do think that a lot of confusion comes into play because people don’t know what is being taught because of contradictory statements by the authors in various materials. What do they really believe on the subject of women working outside of the home, women going to college, women voting, white-washed feminists, etc? And no matter how many times you ask the question as nicely as possible there is no answer forthcoming.

I would just like to add this observation.

I do much reading. When I read Carolyn Custis James, for example, and then go to her blog and read and then when I listened to the interview with her on Moody radio, there was a consistency, a common thread of teaching. There were no inconsistencies. The same is true when I read Sallie Clarkson’s writings or many other writers.

However, the same has not been true for Stacy’s writings, thus there is much confusion.