A while back I wrote about the necessity of homeschoolers to “police our own” when it comes to some of the patriocentric teachings that are making their way through homeschooling groups around the country. The main point I made was that if we do not, someone will do it for us and we won’t like what we get. In that post, I mentioned a research paper that has addressed the disparity between home education for girls and boys that is being promoted in some circles and offered to send copy of that study to anyone who requested it, which I did. Last week I received an updated copy of that paper and I am including an alarming section of this paper today. Please note the footnotes at the bottom of the page and who is mentioned as contributing to what this professor believes is an unconstitutional practice in some homeschooling families. Perhaps this will better explain why I have given so much space to this topic on this blog. I honestly believe that these patriocentric teachings have not only wrecked havoc on families and individuals but it is in the process of threatening the freedoms homeschoolers currently enjoy.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON SEXIST EDUCATION
(excerpt from a research paper by Kimberfly Yuracko at the Northwestern University School of Law.)

Given that states have a constitutional obligation to ensure that homeschoolers receive a basic minimum level of education, the next question becomes whether the federal Equal Protection
Clause entitles at least some children to something more than this basic minimum. A review of popular Christian homeschooling curricula, books and websites reveals an ideology of female
subservience and rigid gender role differentiation. Prominent homeschool curricula, for example, emphasize that girls should be subordinant to their fathers and later their husbands.

Vision Forum Ministries, a group founded by a leading homeschool advocate and influential among Christian homeschoolers, posts articles on its website asserting that women belong exclusively in the private domestic sphere. Several articles assert that women should not work outside the home, with one contending that “God does not allow women to vote.” Not surprisingly, this ideology of constraint also has something to say about girls’ education. In So Much More, for example, a book written by two homeschooled sisters and currently popular in the Christian homeschool community, the authors argued that college is dangerous for young women because it diverts them from their God ordained role as helpmeets for their fathers and husbands. Under existing laws, it is impossible to know how often and to what extent such beliefs lead to significantly inferior substantive educations for homeschooled girls.166 Yet this Part contends that the Equal Protection Clause imposes limits on the degree of sexist homeschooling that states may permit, entitling some girls—those in households where boys receive far more extensive instruction—to a level of education above the basic minimum.

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from discriminating against protected group
members in the delivery of goods, services, benefits, and privileges. The clause is importantly
distinct from the substantive Due Process and Privileges or Immunities Clauses discussed in Part
I. While the latter two clauses guarantee fundamental rights to all individuals, the Equal
Protection Clause guarantees equal treatment across protected groups with respect to both
fundamental rights and trivial interests. As a result, the Equal Protection Clause effectively
guarantees individuals a constitutional right to goods and services to which they would not
otherwise have a right.

162 The President of Vision Forum Ministries, Doug Phillips, formerly worked for the Home
School Legal Defense Association and served as Director of the National Center for Home
Education. He also speaks regularly at homeschool conferences around the country.

See Vision Forum Ministries, About the President,
http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/about_the_presiden.
163 See Melissa Keen, Called to the Home—Called to Rule, Vision Forum Ministries, June
16, 2004.

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/called_to_the_home_called_to_r.aspx

(last visited Sept. 13, 2007) (“God did not intend for His women to pursue careers outside the home”);
Vision Forum Ministries Editorial Note, The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy,
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/biblical_patriarchy.aspx (last visited Sept. 13,
2007) (“While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women
were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work
alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion.”).
164 See Brian M. Abshire, Biblical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Federal Representation,
Vision Forum Ministries, July 15, 2005,
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/bibilical_patriarchy_and_the_do.aspx

(last
visited Sept. 13, 2007).
165 See Anna Sofia Botkin & Elizabeth Botkin, SO MUCH MORE: THE REMARKABLE
INFLUENCE OF VISIONARY DAUGHTERS ON THE KINGDOM OF GOD 136-137 (2005) (“For young women, college campuses have become dangerous places of ongoing anxiety, wasted years, mental defilement and moral derangement. . . . Today’s college experience can lead young women away from real knowledge and blessing and into estrangement from both their heavenly Father and earthly fathers.”); see also the Botkins’s website, www.visionarydaughters.com;

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.”

Id. at 56. Kevin Swanson, Executive Director of Christian Home Educators of Colorado, has argued in his daily radio broadcast that women who focus on education and career will end up having multiple abortions and will be lonely and purposeless in their lives. See Kevin Swanson, Raising Visionary Daughters—An Interview with the Botkin Sisters (June 19, 2007), available at www.kevinswanson.com. Ideas about the inappropriateness of higher education for girls have clearly taken hold among some segment of the Christian homeschooling community.

(I am sorry, but for some reason, some of these links are not showing up as hyper-links. If you want to receive a copy of this document, contact me at shesthatmom@gmail.com)

From the section of your book entitled “The Evangelical Feminist: The White-washed Kind: On the other hand, there is a more clandestine form of feminism which has crept into many modern churches. Observers have dubbed its adherents ‘evangelical feminists.’ These feminists claim to hold Scripture in high regard, yet they do not accept the biblically defined role distinctions between men and women, and they reject male authority to varying degrees. While some ‘evangelical feminists’ admit to their belief in the limited authority of the Scriptures regarding their role, others simply try to twist the Bible’s meaning to fit their lifestyle. This more subtle version of feminism is particularly dangerous due to its beguiling cloak of Christianity, because, at its core, it is no different that its ‘secular’ counterpart. While its face may be more polished and its manifestation less extreme, in essence, it is nothing more than white-washed feminism……Consequently, the biblical directives given to women to be wives, mothers, and keepers of the home are minimized or set aside as quaint or unnecessary options.” ( pages 121-122 in Passionate Housewives)

Then, it says on page 145: “The Church today is jumping on a train whose engine has already gone over the cliff! Instead of getting out and turning around, we’ve decided the train car will be just fine if we paint it a prettier color or call it by a different name. But feminism is still feminism; and the results of feminism will be just the same for the Church as they have been for the world—possibly worse, because we should know better. Quite simply, there is no such thing as ‘Christian feminism.’ We either embrace the biblical model and call it ‘very good’ (just as God did after He created it), or we reject it and plummet over the cliff with the rest of the passengers on the runaway rail car. Do we really need to lose a generation or two before we decide to stop this folly?”

Given these two quotes, and in light of the quotes from the first set of questions, regarding the biblical roles of women, you seem to be saying that anyone who does not hold to “biblical roles of women” as defined by you, is automatically not only in the “white-washed feminist” camp, but also in the plain old feminist camp. Is this what you mean? Further, the results of “feminism” for Christians could be worse. How so? The results of secular feminism today include abortion and infanticide. What could be worse?

Also, you have stated on your July 19, 2007 blog entry that : “There is a sly movement afoot and it’s very dangerous and enticing. It could be called Christian feminism, except that I don’t think it’s possible for feminism to be labeled Christian. Perhaps we should call it whitewashed feminism, because though it’s seemingly softened for the Christian pallet, it’s still feminism. It’s enticing because it feeds on a woman’s desire to be in control – and it’s sly because it claims to be based on Christianity. The current buzz words are “hyper-patriarchy” and “patricentricity.” There are groups and individuals who claim Christ and hate patriarchy because it means “father-rule.” When you see teachings that complain about how Christian women are being “held back” (either in the church or the family) by men, be very, very careful.”

I was the one who first coined the phrase “patriocentricity” as a more appropriate name for what others have called “hyper-patriarchy” and so many of us felt that you were referring to me and others on the TW blog who used it. However, you stated “The word “patricentricity” (which is what I used) is used all over the internet (do a google search). Patri (meaning father) and centricity (meaning pertaining to or situated at the center.)” (TW blog, Contributors page, July 21, 2007, entry #19.)

Several of us did just that and, after spending quite a lot of time looking on the Internet, came up with only one site that used the word, spelled the way I spelled it, and it had nothing to do with the patriarchy movement within the modern church and homeschooling circles today. There were also several places that used the word “patricentricity” as you spelled it, but not one used it in the context which you were addressing.

As a result of this, those who were reading the TW blog and your blog, as well some who were reading the private warning you sent to your Patriach’s Wives’ mailing list, were certain you were talking about us, labeling those with differing views regarding women’s roles as “white-washed feminists,” in spite of your claims otherwise. I exchanged e-mail with you twice at that time, asking for links to those blogs and you did not produce those links. A few weeks ago, I mentioned it to you again, wanting to read these blogs and links for myself, and my concern was ignored.

Again, I would like to publicly ask you to give us the links to those blogs. This is especially important in light of the fact that an entire chapter in Passionate Housewives is given to the topic of “white-washed” feminists and in light of the above quotes and the predictions that the fruits of being a white-washed feminist could be even worse than for those of secular feminists.

His cross has spoken mercy over me……He captured my heart with His love.

H. Clay Trumbull, great-grandfather of Elizabeth Elliot, in his book called Hints on Child Training, has devoted a chapter to adding value to a child’s Christmas. He talks about the joy of anticipation and the hanging of stockings, of finding treasures on Christmas morning, of the parent giving of himself to make the morning special. He wisely said “He who would make children happy must do for them and do with them, rather than merely give to them. He must give himself with his gifts, and thus imitate and illustrate, in a degree, the love of Him who gave Himself to us, who is touched with the sense of our enjoyments as well as our needs, and who, with all that He gives us, holds out an epectation of some better thing in store for us: of that which passeth knowledge and understanding but which shall fully satisfy our hopes and longings when at last we have it in possession.”