thatmom

real encouragement for real homeschooling moms

holzmann on swanson and voddie on daughters

May 27, 2009 at 4:17 pm · Filed under Uncategorized

During the past few months I have been voraciously reading books and articles and watching documentaries about John and Abigail Adams and have been enjoying myself immensely.  This coming week’s podcast about their life as a couple and their marriage has been especially compelling to me as I have considered my own relationship with my husband and how homeschooling has had an impact on it. Considered to be one of the finest statesmen and perhaps the greatest patriot the United States has ever seen, Adams himself stated that he could not have accomplished all that he did apart from the partnership he enjoyed with his wife.

Though Abigail died several years before their son, John Quincy Adams, became president of the United States, John lived to enjoy that moment of parenting success. After the inauguration, someone approached John Adams and commented that certainly he must have been quite proud of his son and remarked that he must have had tremendous influence over his life and education.  John’s only reply was “He had a mother.”

When I read that wonderful encouragement, one that would be appreciated by all mothers who have given their lives to raising and teaching children, I couldn’t help but see a stark contrast between Adams’ simple response and the emphasis on fathers and their children as discussed at the Homeschooling Leadership Summit.

This week, John Holzmann has added part one and part two of his assessment of Kevin Swanson’s comments and, though there are several things I could address, one thing really bothered me: the one on one discipleship of children is described as the father’s role rather than a joint effort between the father and the mother.  Let me explain my concerns:

1.     There is no biblical precedence that discipleship of children is the sole responsibility of fathers.  In fact, we see both commands in Scripture to the contrary as well as praiseworthy examples of mothers spiritually training sons.

Children are admonished “honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 21:12, Matthew 15:4 and Ephesians 6:2) and are commanded to “forsake not the law of thy mother” (Proverbs 1:8 and Proverbs 6:20).  If the children are Christians, they are commanded to put the one anothers of Scripture into practice even with their moms…love one another, bear one another’s burdens, exhort one another, forgive one another, etc.

Eunice and Lois, the grandmother and mother of Timothy, were praised for having raised this outstanding young pastor in the faith since his own father was not a believer.  And we cannot forget that Proverbs 31 is instruction that was given by a mother to her son, King Lemuel, as she admonished him how to find a godly wife.  Are fathers to disciple their children?  Absolutely!  Are mothers to do so as well.  Of course we are.

2.    Secondly, in practical terms and borrowing the word “normative” from Mr. Swanson’s vocabulary, most “normative” homeschooling situations involve a father who works outside the home and a mother who is home full time. 

I know many homeschooling families where moms work part time and some who work full time, either with the moms doing the schooling themselves when they come home or the dads doing the teaching.  A few families enjoy having both mom and dad home, sharing in the teaching responsibilities.  But, by and large, dad goes out the door to work in the morning and mom’s full time job is homemaker and homeschooling mother.

If we are to take Deuteronomy 6 seriously as homeschooling moms, we will seize every opportunity to counsel and instruct our children in the ways of the Lord all throughout the day.  Some of my fondest memories with my children involve time we traveled to and from music lessons or other commitments. These times were full of rich, one on one conversation about all the important matters in life: choosing a spouse, seeking God’s calling on your life, theology, personal relationships, Biblical worldview, etc.   To this day I enjoy a spiritual and intellectual relationship with my grown children and share times of rich fellowship with them.

In looking back over the past 33 years of parenting, I am exceedingly grateful that the Lord has always provided a job for Clay that has allowed us to live on one income.  I am even more blessed that the Lord has blessed Clay with talents, abilities, and gifts that He continues to use in a very specialized field of work, one that he really enjoys.  For me to lament his not being home full time would demonstrate a spirit of ungratefulness to God for all He has done to provide for our family.  And to imply that my children have been shortchanged by having a mom do the bulk of the teaching rather than dad would also be an act of ungratefulness. I am concerned that many who are considering homeschooling are getting the impression that dads MUST be home in order to raise godly sons and this is unfortunate and I hope this message deters no one.

3.     Kevin Swanson has stated that building solid relationships with children is at the core of homeschooling and I heartily agree.

While my desire is to raise children who are autonomous and productive citizens of society, I personally believe that enjoying a close relationship with my children is the icing on the cake, the cherry on the top, of all the academic, character, and spiritual efforts we have sought and achieved.

But I am confused about the nature of the relationships Kevin and others within his homeschooling community are promoting and I want to know just what he thinks those relationships are supposed to look like.  There is continual talk about “turning the hearts of the children toward their fathers” but no mention about building the relationships of children with their mothers or between mothers and fathers.

It has really saddened me within the last few years to hear of one homeschooling family after another experiencing divorce, often with the mom choosing to leave home and sometimes her young children.  The other day someone, having recently learned about a family she cared greatly about who had experienced this, asked me why I think this happens.  My response is that I believe there has not been enough emphasis on what a true, godly home looks like, one where each serves one another, each seeks to put the needs of others before themselves, each seeks to help the other prepare for and answer Christ’s call on their lives.  Since so much emphasis is placed on the unbibilical view that only men, specifically dads, have a calling from the Lord, it takes a Herculean effort to prop up this skewed perspective, much to the detriment of the family, especially the homeschooling mom.

I also believe that there has been so much emphasis on the “non romantic” nature of marriage, ie courtship and betrothal paradigms, that parents often choose to downplay the “sparks” that healthy marriages must have. Women who long to be treated like sweethearts and lovers are thought of only as mothers and housekeepers themselves and long to be “courted” by their husbands. Instead of the marriage being emphasized, it appears that the relationships between fathers and daughters is a top priority and I am not sure why this is. 

My guess is that many daughters are at risk and are finding themselves frustrated by their dad’s vision.  They are not being intellectually or spiritually challenged. Many of them are finding themselves in impossible situations, being in their mid to late twenties with no marketable skills, drivers’ licenses, or college or even high school diplomas.  Many of them know all about running a household but little about properly socializing with young men, enjoying them as brothers in the Lord. While I have no concerns about young women choosing to stay home until marriage, I am concerned about whether or not some of these girls are making these choices themselves or are feeling pressured to fit into a paradigm.

Adding to this strange mix of relationship emphases, look at this clip from Voddie Baucham talking about fathers and daughters:  “A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that. And instead they go find a substitute daughter….you’ve seen it, we’ve all seen it. These old guys going and finding these substitute daughters.”

To say I am stunned by this is an understatement.  (I HAVE seen this often and believe me the guys were NOT looking for substitute daughters!) I am trying to understand what this says about the “core of homeschooling is in relationships.”  I have never heard of this “need” Voddie is talking about.  Where is it supported in Scripture? Maybe someone could explain this to me.

I look forward to more of John’s good insights on the Homeschooling Leadership Conference and will share here as they are available.

32 Comments »

  Light wrote @ May 27, 2009 at 7:00 pm

Karen, did you see the HBO series last year on John and Abigail Adams? It was very good. One thing that really struck me was that despite John and Abigail’s values, intelligence, great contributions to our nation, etc., at least one of their children turned out to be a gambler and a drunk. The patriocentrists claim that following a formula will guarantee good children, but if one of our nation’s greatest founders isn’t guaranteed that outcome, why would anyone be?

  jen oliver wrote @ May 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

Voddie’s statement reminds me of one of my LEAST favorite movie endings. The Philadelphia Story might have been my favorite movie if not for one of the final scenes in which Katherine Hepburn’s character’s father delivers a speech meant to exonerate him from his philandering by placing the blame on his daughter, who apparently drove him to it by not being adoring enough of him to…satisfy his ego? His speech is meant to riddle her with guilt and break her iron will and ‘high expectations’ of people (ahem, that they honor their wedding vows?), and she reacts accordingly. But even at a young age when I first saw this film I was left scratching my head and wondering what sort of philanderer with a guilty conscience came up with THAT self-justification?! It was so far out…

  Moorea wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 2:24 am

What the patriocentrics forget is that God does not have any grandchildren. They are making up and “formula” rather like a cult does to sell itself. For those, like yourself, who see the danger clearly, it seems a no brainer. Unfortunately, there will always be those whose ears want to be tickled and they will keep going from teacher to teacher hearing what they want, while their families are suffocating. We will only see more of these families falling apart with the kinds of nonsensical teachings of these delusional men.

  anika wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 4:12 am

Is a husband who leaves his wife for a young “hottie” justified, because his wife did not train the daughter to be that hottie for him?
Is this justification for incest? I am hopeful that this is NOT what Mr. Voucham means, certainly! However, this IS where that logic goes…
disturbing …
he starts out ok, then throws this in there, than tries to clean it up with a biblical definition of LOVE, as if the bible were a dictionary…
I am weary of this…
thanks for the great post!
My daughter is studying the life of Abigail Adams this year, I really appreciate your insights… !

  Anthea wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 7:00 am

Hello all

I totally agree with the points Karen made about “father father father” being the only emphasis. It leaves women who are married to unbelievers, or raising children alone without hope. One correspondent to a UK home education newsletter also observed that it could make hardworking fathers feel burdened, as there are limits to what can be done after a full day at the coal face.

I am also interested in the comments on Voddie Baucham. I heard the full sermon from which this video is extracted. Anika has decided to see the worst in what he said. Mr Baucham’s point is that in a mistaken fear of being accused of incest, men withdraw from their daughters as they get older. No more hugs and affection (philos and storge) from daddy leaves them vulnerable. The girl may look for a sexual relationship, when she really wanted affection.

Mr Baucham is an articulate speaker, so I was surprised that the next point about fathers was poorly expressed. But if you think it through, it makes some sense. We already know that young girls get sex and affection confused, why shouldn’t older men and women do the same? Family ties and bonds of loyalty and affection are denigrated or disallowed by the culture, so confused and spiritually weak people run to the only love that is still “acceptable” in our world — eros. And silly people, male and female, might also be tempted to chase after fleeting youthful beauty. Mr Baucham was in no way excusing this immature behaviour, just showing how everything in our families goes skewiff when we let the culture outside our home shut the door on good relationships with our children.

Karen described the warm and intimate friendship she enjoys with her adult children. Well, many people try to talk me out of that and tell me that I might as well enjoy our kids while they are young, because “They won’t want to know you when they are older/ They will be horrible when they are older – just horrible/ It all goes wrong later” I suppose they just ain’t got the gift of encouragement!

Anthea

  John Holzmann wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 7:16 am

Wowzie, Karen! THANK YOU for your analysis and beautiful manner of expressing yourself.

THANK YOU for those Scriptures about the absolutely legitimate roles that moms fulfill and the appropriate honors that are due you-all.

THANK YOU for noting the ILLEGITIMACY of suggesting that only fathers can disciple sons and/or that fathers must “stay home” or limit their work options (or whatever Swanson’s ultimate suggestion was supposed to be).

THANK YOU–though with sadness and anger concerning the content–for the points you have made about divorce. I am appalled!

[I]t takes a Herculean effort [on the part of the mom] to prop up this skewed perspective, much to the detriment of the family, especially the homeschooling mom.

I also believe that there has been so much emphasis on the “non romantic” nature of marriage . . . that parents often choose to downplay the “sparks” that healthy marriages must have. Women who long to be treated like sweethearts and lovers are thought of only as mothers and housekeepers themselves and long to be “courted” by their husbands. Instead of the marriage being emphasized, it appears that the relationships between fathers and daughters is a top priority and I am not sure why this is.

Heartbreaking! Unbelievable!

And, lastly, THANK YOU–with alarm beyond words!–for that quote from Voddie Baucham (2:08 to 2:34 in the video you provided).

A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that. And instead they go find a substitute daughter. . . . You’ve seen it, we’ve all seen it. These old guys going and finding these substitute daughters.

What!?!!! You’ve got to be kidding!

I agree: “[T]he guys were NOT looking for substitute daughters!” –Or, if they thought they were, then their view of what a daughter is supposed to be all about is completely messed up.

I, like you, am more than stunned that Baucham could say such a thing.

Amazing.

  John Holzmann wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 7:35 am

To Anthea:

You wrote,

Karen described the warm and intimate friendship she enjoys with her adult children. Well, many people try to talk me out of that and tell me that I might as well enjoy our kids while they are young, because “They won’t want to know you when they are older/ They will be horrible when they are older – just horrible/ It all goes wrong later”

Yowza!

I guess we may yet face such an end. But, at least at this stage in our family’s life (our kids are now between 22 and 30 years old), I would say we all enjoy each other’s company rather deeply.

I think we still have a lot of things to work out–just how much physical affection can we express to our married kids and their husbands and wives? (We tend to be less restrained in our physical expressions toward the grandkids.)

And, of course, as kids get married, their obligations and loyalties shift . . . and we have to permit . . . no . . . encourage them to make those changes. And negotiating these relational shifts is not always easy. It takes work. But I have to confess: having mature, adult children who still want to maintain relationship: What a privilege and joy!

  thatmom wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 7:52 am

Anthea, I think we are all trying not to assign evil motives to Voddie’s comment BUT express concern at what it implies along with the downright weirdness of the statement. I have read it and reread it and listened to it in context and it still makes a statement that I find out there in the far ozone layer. What need is he talking about? I have run this by any number of people only to be met with the same response I had. It remains stunning. AND, we must remember this wasn’t an off the cuff comment. This clip is from a video series that Vision Forum produced and sells. Combined with the many other facets of the father/daughter teachings coming out of this camp, it raises even more questions. AND then you consider Doug Phillips’ statement that one goal of homeschoolers ought to be the destruction of CPS or DCFS and then what? You already have lack of accountability through a local church where there is a balanced perspective on these things. I can only imagine the environment of an FIC church where everyone embraces the notion that old men NEED relationships with younger women. And then, let’s just break away from society and maybe even move to New Zealand with the Botkins. Somebody better be asking questions and sending up flares.

  Carole wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 8:06 am

Thank you for continuing to deconstruct the paradigm that is all too prevalent within fundamental Christianity. At this point any time I hear a speaker who wants to pull “principles” out of scripture and then tell us how to apply those …. I shut down. I’m not interested in principles. I’m interested in Jesus! It is hard to feel that the people propagating this rhetoric are truly concerned about preaching the gospel to themselves, are excited about Jesus, and certainly hard to believe that they care about spreading the gospel (not principles!) to their neighbors.

  thatmom wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 8:09 am

John, you have described so well the confusion of the “dance” that must take place as children grow up and begin their own families.

This summer will be the 10th anniversary for our son who was the 1st to marry. I remember the anguish I went through right after the wedding ceremony. I had done really well until that moment when he came back into the hallway as we all prepared to greet the guests. He hugged me and we both sobbed, not just cried. We both understood what this meant. Would we either have had it any other way? No. But we both knew that things were now forever changed, that he was now the head of his own household and that our roles would be forever altered.

Our youngest son who was 8 also sobbed and cried. Even he understood that his family would be forever different. But we all grieved just briefly and then it was over. We knew that the joys to come, the grand babies and even more daughters-in-law and a son-in-law were on the horizon. And with each wedding, each new member of the extended family, we have grown to love each of them. Our relationships may be a little awkward at first as we get to know each other. But in time our feelings for the spouses are organic and natural and genuine. We love each other because we have purposed to do so but eventually we can’t imagine how we could have lived without them! And of course grandchildren have our hearts from the moment we set eyes on them! And as they get to know us and we feel their genuine love and affection for us as grandparents, there is tremendous joy that replaces any grief we ever harbored in giving our own children away!

  thatmom wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 8:10 am

“It is hard to feel that the people propagating this rhetoric are truly concerned about preaching the gospel to themselves, are excited about Jesus, and certainly hard to believe that they care about spreading the gospel (not principles!) to their neighbors.”

Carole, how did you know this was our discussion over coffee this am? :)

We had better be about building the Kingdom of God through the propagation of the Gospel of Jesus. That is the bottom line.

  thatmom wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 8:12 am

Jen,

Your reference to The Philadelphia Story is a good one. I had forgotten about that!

  Hillary wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 8:13 am

I am thinking briefly of the shame that this video actually applies to fathers who may not be wanting daughters to sit on their laps for *other* personal reasons.

I am actually sick about this whole thing. :-(

  anika wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 9:20 am

“Anika has decided to see the worst in what he said. Mr Baucham’s point is that in a mistaken fear of being accused of incest, men withdraw from their daughters as they get older. No more hugs and affection (philos and storge) from daddy leaves them vulnerable. The girl may look for a sexual relationship, when she really wanted affection. ”

This is a Quote from Anthea I believe in regards to what I wrote….
It causes me to pause. for perhaps I was not wordy enough.. forgive me, as I am often accused of being too lengthy with my words i was attempting to be more concise.

I did state, altogether NOT so gracefully, nor so carefully, that I believe Voddie to have started out on very valid points. As YOU mentioned in the above quote. That fathers often DO pull away JUST when their daughters are most needy of their affection. I would agree that this is indeed a very valid problem today, and that there is a place in addressing it, a place for encouraging Fathers to Not withdraw from their child in this way.

However, It is THEN, after this, that I feel he jumps of the deep end of the ocean and begins to draw conclusions out of thin air… completely inappropriate, utterly unbiblical, and frankly unhealthy, let alone unbiblical… like the statement

“A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that. And instead they go find a substitute daughter. . . . You’ve seen it, we’ve all seen it. These old guys going and finding these substitute daughters”

it is from this place, way out in no mans land, off on his own, NOT backed by the word of God that Voddie decides to define LOVE… according to him, he will give to us the ‘biblical definition of love’…?

I think that all this can lead, or lend itself to very unhealthy relationships with in the home.
I find his statements disturbing, not well thought out, and with serious implication. If he has not thought about the implications of his statements… than OUGHT HE BE such the prominent leader at all???

I am sorry sisters for NOT having been more careful with my words, Please forgive my carelessness… I was frankly very shocked by this video… very disturbed by MUCH of the research I have been doing…. These are men that WE in my family have esteemed….This is NOT all easy to digest for me, I am going to stumble through this, and am so thankful to you for your patience, as God works this in me.
Again, Ladies I thank you for the grace and love to cover my sins…

  thatmom wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 10:06 am

It seems to me that many of the particulars of the relationships within the patriocentric culture are often prescribed and not natural. And then, those things that ARE natural are deemed unnatural.

Here are a couple examples.

Voddie talks about fathers being uncomfortable in expressing their affection in physical ways with daughters who are becoming young women physically. I believe that the truly God-given response IS to be uncomfortable and to be aware of where the lines ought to be drawn. We all know where they are crossed. I think we all know that there is also a danger zone, the place that brings us close to the edge of temptation.

Think about this in terms of Christian brothers and sisters outside of our families hugging one another. I would imagine that most of us would recognize when and how that would be appropriate. We know when the line is crossed when it comes to demonstrating affection. Is there not also a line between fathers and daughters?

I also think about the courtship/betrothal/dating relationships. I think each young man and young woman needs to establish boundaries for affection during courtship and engagement. At that point of a relationship, when people are old enough to be married, they ought to already have established convictions and take steps to not place themselves into temptation. Parents can even be the ones to help hold them accountable, as do other mature believers in their lives.

But I think that it is unnatural for there to be such gawking over the “first kiss” at the altar or even the perpetual public references to young women as “maidens” as though their virginity and their sexual relationship is the primary aspect of it all. To me, THAT is unnatural and encourages a voyeuristic tendency in those who ought to have no involvement whatsoever in the relationship.

Here is one more thing that bothers me. We are a family who rejoices in new babies and see all children as a blessing from the Lord. But we think that aspect of relationships ought to be left to the couple, not the parents, not the grandparents, not fellow church members, etc. To us, it defiles the marriage bed for there to be a constant discussion about having babies and details about birth control, competing with family size, etc.

  thatmom wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 10:08 am

Anika, you are so gracious and your spirit is so sweet. I am so glad you are part of this discussion.

  Holly P wrote @ May 28, 2009 at 6:36 pm

That mom said: “But I think that it is unnatural for there to be such gawking over the “first kiss” at the altar or even the perpetual public references to young women as “maidens” as though their virginity and their sexual relationship is the primary aspect of it all. To me, THAT is unnatural and encourages a voyeuristic tendency in those who ought to have no involvement whatsoever in the relationship.

Here is one more thing that bothers me. We are a family who rejoices in new babies and see all children as a blessing from the Lord. But we think that aspect of relationships ought to be left to the couple, not the parents, not the grandparents, not fellow church members, etc. To us, it defiles the marriage bed for there to be a constant discussion about having babies and details about birth control, competing with family size, etc.”

You hit the nail on the head. I find the obsession with these topics to be so fundamentally inappropriate that it rivals pornography in the sexualization and objectification of women and their bodies. What is private should be kept private. It is CERTAINLY not the business of other men and women to discuss these things with other peoples’ children, nor should it be the primary focus of raising adolescents. Yuck!

  Zan wrote @ May 29, 2009 at 10:37 am

What happens if the father has only sons and no daughters? Is he still drawn to cheat on his mature wife because he longs for attention from young women? God doesn’t give every man daughters. I have to admit, I have been surprised by some of the teachings coming from the patriarchy camp, but this Baucham statement takes the cake.

  Cindy K wrote @ May 29, 2009 at 1:02 pm

Zan,

I wondered myself about this (a man with only sons and no daughters) and wrote on True Womanhood the other day that I wonder if Voddie would offer his own daughter up to other older men in order to satisfy their needs for attention from younger women? Somehow, I imagine that a part of Voddie would want punch such a person in the jaw at the mere suggestion. (I know that my father would.)

I also have found in all of my family relationships, when I have confidence and trust in my relationships, feeling safe in those relationships, I do not “yearn” for physical contact. I enjoy natural hugs and pecks on the cheek with those with whom I have emotionally intimate relationships of trust, and I have craned my neck to put my shoulder on the shoulder on some of my forebears (with us shoulder to shoulder without their arm around me) during times of grief. And the comfort associated with a hug from Dad is NOTHING that gives me any desire to sit on his lap. The yearning I felt for my husband before we married was NOTHING that my father could have sublimated, nor should he have.

When my relationship with my own father changed in adolescence, that which I derived from crawling up on Daddy’s lap was replaced with richer and more mature ways of communicating affection. We did different things together that deepened our appreciation for one another, be it through help with my math homework, helping him do field work for his job, or like the time he came to my home and built a beautiful shed for my husband and me. My language of affection shifted to cooking his favorite things while he was out building that shed! This is certainly a transition of tension as the old ways of the relationship change, but I always found that they were replaced by something much better.

Blaise Pascal said that we all have a God-shaped void inside of us, and if we do not allow God to fill it, we will seek to fill that empty void with that which does not satisfy. Often, the yearnings that young women feel come from the brokenness of the soul or even rejection from their parents, never being able to satisfy their expectations. I can honestly say that hugs from “Daddy” are not going to fill that kind of emptiness any more than anything else will.

Paul said that when we are children, we speak and act like children, but when we grow up into maturity, we put away childish things. I believe quite strongly that a part of what a young woman must learn is the putting away of childish behavior which is replaced by that which is deeper and more precious. It is a transition, and it is not without its great tensions at time to go from little girl to young woman, but it has little to do with physical affection of this type, in my opinion.

  Erika Martin wrote @ May 29, 2009 at 1:11 pm

Wow…..this guy sounds like a perv if he’s heading in the direction I think he is.

If a father is leaving a wife for a younger woman, it makes you wonder what kind of attention he was looking for in his daughter in the first place.

If the father is doing sexual things with a “substitute daughter,” then perhaps it’s a good thing his daughter DIDN’T give him the attention he thought he needed if that’s what he was looking for. ugh. that’s so gross.

To blame a father’s perverseness to leave his wife for a younger woman on a daughter that put up a healthy barrier is way out of line and again makes the man not responsible for his sin.

And then there’s the guys that treat their wives like children in the first place…..

  Zan wrote @ May 29, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Cindy K,

Very eloquently stated. You put into words what I was thinking.

I only have boys (3), so I was just wondering what my husband would do if he needs a younger woman’s attention when I am old (I’m only 28)? It really seems SO silly to even think this way.

I am from a family of 3 daughters and no sons. We were not a touchy-feely type of family at all (hey, we’re from New England), but I never felt not loved. I never felt compelled to run off with some loser, either.

My dad showed all his daughters love in age appropriate ways.

  Nicole wrote @ May 29, 2009 at 3:36 pm

Here is how my dad makes me feel loved (I am 18, a year older than Voddie’s daughter):
1.-He has taken me to every doctor’s appointment.
2.-Since I have chronic medical problems, that’s a lot of appointments.
3.-He refused to believe the doctors when they said I was crazy
4.-He still gave me a kiss on the head, even when I was so sick I hadn’t showered in weeks.
5.-He became my advocate in the healthcare system.
6.-He made me meals, because I couldn’t.
7.-He told me he wish he could fix it and make me all better.
8.-I told him that I needed professional counseling. And he got it for me.
9.-He keeps track of my medication.
10.-When I was too weak to wash my hair, he washed it in the sink. He has back problems.
11.-He’ll tell me when he needs to give his girl a hug. I can tell him when I need a hug from my dad.

  Peaches wrote @ May 29, 2009 at 4:48 pm

I listened to the Baucham clip. Ew. The thought of sitting on my father’s lap in my upper teens makes my skin crawl. Makes me realize how far out of mainstream some of these patrios are. I in no way felt deprived of affection by not sitting on my dad’s lap. He gave us hugs on a regular basis and occasionally a little peck on the cheek. I’d say that’s appropriate affection and I felt secure/loved.

Didn’t Voddie seem to imply that if you stop sitting on your father’s lap that you’ll immediately start looking for a “lustful boy”? Given that I did not run off and start sitting on some lustful boy’s lap at that age, I’d say my dad did A-OK with us.

  anika wrote @ May 29, 2009 at 6:27 pm

My husband did not like his definition of love, because it could infact also define lust.

there is a lot here that is simply NOT logical, and not biblical… I simply isn’t thought all the way out … Some of the stories, like the comment about the men getting emotional over golf… I have heard similar “joking” comments from several popular mainstream pastors in sermons with in the last 4-6 years… Some of these thoughts just are not even original, and are seemingly just being pulled together.
ok, i will not ramble… I just spoke with my husband tonight, he thought perhaps I was…. too emotional… or not being fair perhaps…. so he watched the clip with me… well several times, and stopped and rewind, and wait, did he say That, play back hold on….
it was a bit of a disection actually….
not favorable …
blessings to all!
excellent point about the “what about the fathers who have no daughters” my husband asked the very same thing!

  Lin wrote @ May 29, 2009 at 8:38 pm

“A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that. And instead they go find a substitute daughter….you’ve seen it, we’ve all seen it. These old guys going and finding these substitute daughters.”

This says more about Voddie than anything. So beware.

He is actually saying that older men need attention from a young woman. The whole concept is perverse and says a lot about how man centered patriarchy really is.

  thatmom wrote @ May 30, 2009 at 6:06 am

Nicole, thanks for sharing about your dad.

I have been thinking about my own daughter and the various ways my husband has shown his love and affection for her. When she was little she wrestled dad right along with her brothers. And then she got to an age where she found all that sort of rough housing unpleasant and instead she loved to give her dad piano concerts. Knowing that this is her delight, he invested time and money and attention into her through music and it was always their special thing. Having only one daughter, he always did things with her that were unique and actually less physical in many ways just because the guys were so rowdy. They would go to piano concerts or spend time listening to music. One summer he built bookshelves all around her room/studio where she taught students and together they went to the lumber yard and picked out fancy moldings. While she was in college and preparing for a major recital, she had a terrible accident where she put her arm through a plate glass window in the cafeteria. It required nearly 200 stitches and the doctor wasn’t sure she would ever play the piano again. The day after it happened my husband came home with several CD’s to mail to her since this is how he often encouraged her over the years as she studied. In looking back over the years, I can say that encouraging her in her gifts and talents and calling from the Lord and never seeking his calling above her own was a key ingredient to both their healthy relationship and what she sought in a husband. Her husband has so many of these same qualities, which I continue to discover as the years go by.

All of that to say, I think Lin is correct in saying that this tells us much about Voddie AND his agenda that he teaches. It may tell us much about these other patriocentrists as well. It truly is father-centered (patriocentric) and self-seeking. Perhaps if these daughters were encouraged in their own callings and gifts, they would leave home and the father’s unbiblical and sinful needs would not be met. Therefore, they have constructed a paradigm that suits THEIR needs and THEIR desires.

The further we look inside these teachings and the more we listen, there are puzzle pieces that produce the big picture and it is alarming. We are then called “white-washed feminists” or “plain old feminists” or “Marxist-feminists” to label us something that will deter others from looking at our findings.

I don’t think it is working.

  shadowspring wrote @ May 30, 2009 at 12:48 pm

Abigail Adams and John Adams were head over heels in love. That is what makes their letters such compelling reading all these years later. Am I right to read into this post that the patrios are holding up the Adams’ marriage as a model of patriarchy to follow?

If my history is correct, didn’t Abigail Adams advocate that women should also be equal under the law? I am sure that in one of her letters she pleaded with her husband to be sure women’s rights were also acknowledged as being as fundamentally granted by God as were men’s rights? I don’t have an anthology of their letters (I should get one!) but on page 175 of George Washington’s World by Genevieve Foster one of her letters to her husband John is quoted as saying:

“In any new Code of Law, remember the Ladies…do not put such unlimited power in the hands of Husbands…(or) we will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice.”

Pretty uppity for an assumed advocate of patriarchy!

  Anthea wrote @ May 30, 2009 at 6:12 pm

I have just read the various comments after mine. Thanks Anika, for the clarification. It turns out that we both thought the same thing: Mr Baucham seems to have made off-the-cuff comments. I am surprised that he has not sinced reviewed and revised them. There were no bible references in that section of the talk, which was not wise.

The comments on this topic from more experienced parents was very helpful, explaining how things can and must change as our children grow. Mr Baucham has not yet had these experiences, so it’s more support for Karen’s belief that he is not the best qualified man for the role of family expert. I do not imply that a young father or mother cannot exposite a bible passage, but off-the-cuff comments need a bit of experience behind them. I don’t know why Voddie Baucham does not stick to his strong points – apologetics and such like.

In contrast, I have been cheered and enlightened by what I have read here from the posters.

BTW, I can match your home educated President tale: our own Queen Elizabeth and her sister Princess Margaret were home educated. It is one reason why UK law has always made room for home education. The elites supported home education well into the 20th century. It’s only now that the oiks are trying it, that the social worker types want to stop us home educating.

Anthea

  Corrie wrote @ June 1, 2009 at 10:29 am

Lin,

“He is actually saying that older men need attention from a young woman. The whole concept is perverse and says a lot about how man centered patriarchy really is.”

It is perverse.

He actually said that God gave men daughters in order to meet their need for the attention of younger women and to keep them from leaving their wives to hook-up with younger women or what he called “substitute daughters”.

Gads.

I would say that these daughters are “substitute mistresses” by this very description. What man leaves his wife for a younger woman because he is looking for a father/daughter relationship? LOL He left his wife because he is wanting to have a sexual fling with a younger woman!

I am beginning to see why these guys spend so much time on daughters and their relationships with their fathers. We are now told that these daughters are meeting their sensual need for the attention of younger women.

I would think the patrio movement would focus more on father/sons in order to be consistent. In fact, where are all the sons of these patrios? Are they living the patrio life? Have they left it? Maybe it is just easier to control daughters and scare them and guilt them into remaining under the “protection of their authority”….whatever that means.

Where are they going to get any suitable husbands for these daughters when the suitable husbands seem so scarce in the patrio world? Maybe they can look to already married men like they did in the days of the Patriarchs?

That way these patriarchs with aging wives who are no longer producing fruit from their wombs can get the attention they really need in the form of younger women.

It seems logical, to me, and much more suitable than using one’s own daughter to fulfill their “needs” for the attention from younger women.

I really wish one of these patriarchs would address the FACT that there is no such “need” for men and that this “need” is not any more of a “need” than it is for older women to have the attention of younger men.

Why is it that the rest of the patriarchs just ignore such outrageous statements?

These poor daughters who are being held captive in their own homes, being raised to believe that their chief purpose in life is to glorify Daddy and serve him forever until/if a husband comes along.

The Botkin girls instructed their readers to ask Daddy what colors of clothing gives them pleasure and then to wear those colors.

Yes, the whole thing is starting to make sense, now.

Daddy-shaving, Daddy-grooming, Daddy-dressing…..all of these activities are training these daughters to grow into sexually mature women who do the same things for their Daddy in order to meet his need for the attention of younger women. Why would a daughter need to groom and dress Daddy? Who is that really for? Her? No, I don’t think so. It is for the Daddy who enjoys the attention of younger women. Train the girls at a young age and they won’t know any better when they are older.

The Geisha in Japan started out as non-sexual mistresses. They were trained in the art of catering to men without actually having sex with them and this was all for the benefit of the man’s ego or what we would call “gratifying the flesh”.

  Corrie wrote @ June 2, 2009 at 4:50 pm

What about a son’s need for affection from his mother? Why don’t we EVER see this addressed? Why aren’t women being told to sit on their son’s laps so they don’t run off with some young thing and go searching for love in all the wrong places? Why don’t we hear about how women need the attention of younger men and that is why God gave them sons to fulfill this “need”?

Why don’t we ever hear about the importance of a mom’s relationship with her son? About the importance of a mother dating her son in order to teach him about being married? About the importance of sons being physically affectionate with their mothers?

Because, when we turn the tables it shows the whole Daddy/daughter patrio-emphasis thing for what it is- ick. It is a self-serving teaching for the father. (ie., Vision Forum father/daughter teas where daughters are taught how to serve their fathers by dressing them, grooming them, shaving them, etc) The fact is that boys need this (physical attention from the opposite sex in order to keep them pure and in order to keep their mothers pure) just as much as daughters, do they not? Well, not according to patriocentric teachings.

There is no reason a physically mature young woman needs to sit on the lap of her father in order to receive proper physical affection. That is a boundary line that is being crossed, imho. Just think about it….sitting on someone’s lap puts you in very close intimate proximity. It is a GIANT leap to assert that girls should be sitting in their father’s laps instead of believing the “lie” that the world has told them. Most worldly fathers still kiss and hug their adult daughters in perfectly fatherly appropriate ways without having to do the lap thing. Why is sitting in the lap used as an example? Why not simply state that fathers should still hug their daughters? I think the world knows better on this one!

It is fine for a 5 year old girl to sit on her father’s lap but little girls grow up and the relationship changes, for GOOD reason.

What Voddie said has serious implications and it needs to be addressed by his peers. Men do NOT need the attention of younger women nor were daughters given by God to meet this need for….ahem….the “attention” they allegedly need.

  thatmom wrote @ June 3, 2009 at 2:34 pm

“What Voddie said has serious implications and it needs to be addressed by his peers. ”

Corrie, I have been thinking about this today and can’t agree more. I have wondered the same thing about the over-the-top statements made by Doug Phillips at the Leadership Summit that I have yet to see by anyone within that “leadership” group who was present. There is quite the list of those men and yet I haven’t seen anything refuting his statements. What is going on? Do they all agree with this? If not, they sure are giving the impression that they do.

  Lisa wrote @ July 7, 2009 at 1:27 pm

“Eunice and Lois, the grandmother and mother of Timothy, ” These two are my Biblical role models. I adopted my kids alone. If they didn’t have me, neither my son or daughter would have ANY spiritual training in life. While I join the chorus in acknowledging a two parent family is by far the best [I grew up in one!] my kids would still be stuck in an orphanage or on the streets if I hadn’t prayed, followed God’s leading [as I believe it to be ] and adopted them. The Patriarchy folks are so out of touch with reality! How many single Moms actually got to make the choice I did to be a single parent? Not many! We’re doing the best we can!


Your comment

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>