I don’t think anyone has put up a link to this yet. (Correct me if I’m wrong since I’ve had a hard time keeping up with all the comments!) Raising Visionary Daughters: An Interview with the Botkin Sisters was just uploaded last week. If you want to hear the Botkin sisters for yourself, you can go here. I’m not going to say anything about it so as to let people form their own opinion while listening.
June 25, 2007
Online interview with the Botkin sisters (Sallie)
Posted by millenniumwoman under Home, Church, & Work[114] Comments
June 25, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Apparently I am doomed to a life of abortions (at least 3), one night stands, working for strangers, and frustration and loneliness at age 50 because I went to college.
I love the Lord and cherish my relationship with Jesus and my continuing personal transformation. Yet, I attend a secular law school and am working as a law clerk. I am happy and content, and at peace with God.
According to the Botkin sisters, I am deluded or willfully sinful, for such a thing could not be possible in the “Biblical Model” they advocate. According to Kevin Swanson, I must be an ignorant, pagan slut who plans to have at least three abortions.
Well, our family business needs a full time lawyer and I am suited to the task. My husband asked me to go to law school (not that I wasn’t interested myself). Obtaining my law degree will help our business and help me be at home more often in the long run. My university degree and my law degree will help me be a better mother. I learned many things in college I would not have learned at home, in spite of what the Botkin sisters claim.
God’s plan for me is not the same as God’s plan for the Botkin girls. I can accept this, but the Botkin girls and others like them cannot. Just listen to the Podcast – again, I’m doomed for not following the only Biblical model (which conveniently, is only available in their book).
June 26, 2007 at 1:02 am
Sarah- I love how, according to Kevin Swanson, you’re either a worldly, promiscuous slut or you’re Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin. I got the exact impression you did.
June 26, 2007 at 1:38 am
Oh my goodness- – - I turn 50 next month and I guess because I went to college and law school and have worked part-time since then that I have “a frustrated and purposeless life at 50″. Better not tell my husband of 23 years or my three kids (Or my dad, my siblings, my nieces and nephews, my friends, and, dare I say it, my co-workers . . .)
A hodge-podge of impressions:
1) This has been discussed before but it is more than a little presumptuous for girls of such young years to be making these blanket statements; particularly girls who have probably lived an incredibly sheltered life. When they were talking, I had a feeling that they were merely parroting opinions that they had been fed all their young lives.
2) “Why would a woman want to leave her husband or father to be a helper to some manager”? Apparently, they think that women in the workplace are always subordinate to men as “helpers.” Assuming this is their sincere belief, it is more evidence of their limited experience.
3) Overall, I have a problem with people using children or teenagers to push an agenda- I guess the idea is that we are supposed to be bowled over by the precocious wisdom of youth (I dislike this on all levels- for example, when kids are trotted out to testify at Congress, etc.) It is disingenuous to me- in fact my reaction is generally quite negative. (I can imagine situations where a person the ages of the Botkin sisters could actually have an independent opinion formed from genuine experience; I just don’t think that is the case here.)
4) As was the case with the Gunn brothers’ documentary, it is not very persuasive to stating as fact things that the audience has to know are not true (the aforementioned statements that going to college results in three abortions, a frustrated life at 50, etc.)
5) Finally, I hate, hate, hate the false dichotomy that is implicit (and sometimes explicit) here: if you don’t believe this and follow this prescription, you can’t possibly have a happy family life.
June 26, 2007 at 1:52 am
“When you realize that you are designed to be a helper.” (Way to not understand the meaning of ‘helpmeet’! Adam and Eve were a relationship between two equals)
As I listened to them speak – they have lovely voices and seem like girls who really love and are devoted to their family. I found myself resonating with the things they spoke of – spending quality time with their parents, helping in their dad’s business, self-learning.
But then i realized – although I feel i enjoy the same blessings – close relationships with my family (we chose to live close to both my parents and in-laws), helping my dad in his business (i often do this for him and i enjoy hearing about his work), and the value of self-learning. It is SO MUCH MORE than what the Botkins are speaking of.
I am college-educated, I worked outside the home (supporting my husband while he finished school even!), I still work part-time outside the home, I have an egalitarian marriage, and I am thrilled with my life and the quality of my relationships.
I do not understand why they believe that complete learning can take place through self-study and their parents – in my experience, the most complete learning takes place in a combination of self-study and learning in a group with others (of DIFFERENT convictions/opinions than one’s own), so that iron can truly sharpen iron. My parents have been instrumental in my learning, but they never took it upon themselves to believe that they understood the fullness of the knowledge i needed to know for life – plus what i could read in books. My family, my college education, my education through various online forums, my reading and research, all combine together to form a complete learning experience.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The other thing I don’t understand is how their convictions can truly play out in society as a whole. Take just the field of medicine. I assume they would affirm that it is important for quality, qualified, trained lactation consultants, doulas, and midwives to attend women in childbirth and new motherhood – all things that *require* education and working ‘outside the home/outside the authority umbrella of the family.” And even if they support homebirthing, for the small percentage of women who require a hospital birth and csection – do the Botkins believe that thoes Ob’s, surgeons, and nurses all should be men? Or would they support the idea of women nurses (b/c i sure would!) – yet to become qualified to be a nurse, OB, or surgeon it requires much training and education at a college, away from the umbrella of home.
For that matter – what about sons who want to be doctors. What about all their medical classes and degrees? Surely they think it is important to have Christian doctors out there, and surely they don’t think that one can become a doctor through self-study, independent study, and learning from one’s parents. What of those men (and women)?????
If something cannot be applied consistently across the board, then it cannot be a moral imperative – and i just don’t understand how their ideal can work in different family situations in society.
June 26, 2007 at 1:57 am
I just had another thought. One thing I appreciate about my parents is that they let me be intellectually ‘free’ to differ with them. While we line up on some major things, we also differ on some things – and that is OK with both them and me. My dad and I joke about how he is more Calvinist and I am more Arminian. My mom and I talk about how we have different views of things like church membership. They don’t feel that I need to follow their vision and all their ideas, and they respect my convictions and values just like i respect theirs. I know they are proud to have a strong daughter.
June 26, 2007 at 2:01 am
One other thing I wonder about: what happens when children who have been indoctrinated (a strong word, I know, but apt) in this view find out that things are not really as they have been taught? For example, when they come across women who went to college, enjoyed and grew from their college experience, and are godly women? Or they meet women who work outside the home and still have strong, Christian families? Will this start them down a path of questioning everything they have been taught? And will they be able to discern what is true and what is false?
June 26, 2007 at 2:44 am
I would like to know if the Botkin girls approve of young ladies working to take the orders for Vision Forum, which sells their book, is consistent with their beliefs or hypocritical?
I called the Vision Forum toll free number published on the Vision Forum website today. The ordering is outsourced to a call center in Virginia. Twice the call was answered by a woman answered and once the call was answered by a man. This violates the Tenets of Patriarchy in at least two areas.
According to the Tenets of Patriarchy posted on the Vision Forum website,
“Since the woman was created as a helper to her husband, the bearer of children, and a “keeper at home,” the God-ordained and proper sphere of dominion for a wife is the household and that which is connected with the home, although her domestic calling, as a representative of and helper to her husband, may well involve activity in the marketplace and larger community. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Prov. 31:10-31; Tit. 2:4-5)”
“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 (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Josh. 1:14; Jdg. 4; Acts 16:14)”
Clearly the two women who answered the phone, Jasmine and Sierra are working alongside another man as their functional equals in the public sphere of dominion known as commerce. They are also working for the benefit of a household of a man not their father. (Assuming their father does not own the call center.)
They are acting as the public representatives of Vision Forum, working to build his estate and not that of their own father as promoted by the Botkins and Vision Forum. He is using another man’s helpmeet for his benefit, and the benefit of the Botkin girls at the expense of the “success” of another man’s estate.
Outsourcing is obviously a desirable choice for many businesses, for economic reasons. But is it wise for a man such as Doug Phillips or authors such as the Botkin girls to contract women to sell their wares and allow women to be the “public” face of Vision Forum contrary to their own beliefs and teachings.
Quoting from Jennie Chancey’s response to Andrew Sandlin on the Vision Forum website, “We are living under a cursed economy. We are not living under God’s blessing. When the Church abandons “hard” teachings for soft words, the salt loses its savor and is trampled underfoot. When we follow pell-mell in the path of the “working world,” straining after the “American Dream” income, we’re going to fall into the same trap the rest of our culture is in: wives forced to work to make up a “shortfall,” debt, divorce, children handed over to government schools, etcetera. And we’re in it — knee-deep.”
According to Jennie Chancey, It would appear that this call center and perhaps even Vision Forum through its agreement, have both abandoned the “hard teachings” for financial gain, following “pell-mell in the path of the “working world” straining after the “American Dream” income.
Jennie Chancey then goes on to say, “Rejecting our roles or revising them to suit our individual tastes and plans is blasphemy. I didn’t say it; St. Paul did. Is it difficult for every woman to obey the clear command to be a keeper at home? Indeed it is, but, again, it is because we are living under God’s curse (He doesn’t bless an economy built upon fiat money, consumerism, and debt). ”
For now it appears, Doug Phillips and the Botkins believe women are called to be home, unless they are accepting the calls of customers placing an order with Vision Forum.
Will the Botkin girls whose mentor on their book was Jennie Chancey, ask Doug Phillips to refuse orders for their book taken from call-centers that employ women ? To be consistent, it would seem to do otherswise is blasphemy and inviting God’s continued curse upon the land.
June 26, 2007 at 2:53 am
[...] I did start another discussion over on the True Womanhood blog. It is a link to an interview with the Botkin sisters. If you would [...]
June 26, 2007 at 3:06 am
Sarah and JRH – That was the same way I took the whole thing. Either you are a godless, baby-killing, power hungry whore (sorry, but that’s the best word for it) or you do what is in this book. Now in the Botkins’ defense, I think it was more the announcer guy who spoke like that. (I only listened to it once.) But still. Sigh.
Spunky – When I grow up, I want to comment like you do.
June 26, 2007 at 3:14 am
Oh, let’s pray that when they mature and their perspective changes, they will gain a deeper appreciation for the breadth of their Heavenly Father and NOT discard Him along with the twisted systems which they’ve been mistakenly taught are His.
June 26, 2007 at 3:28 am
What really kills me is the idea that we MUST buy the Botkin book or suffer God only knows what horrors because we cannot learn the Only Path to Godly Womanhood without reading it.
That’s vile. That’s foul. The twisted theology disturbs me. But I despise, yes despise, the rank monetization of Christ I see in the home school community. It all centers around fear of losing your children or not being on the Only Godly Path – buy our book, or else, come to our conference, or else, pay this speaker $5,000, or else. Sick. Sick. Sick. This foul stench emitting from the home school community is more than I can handle.
June 26, 2007 at 3:33 am
I finally finished listening to the broadcast. It took me about 4 times to be able to sit through it because Kevin Swanson was driving me crazy. Do any of you remember when Al Gore was running for president and during every single debate, he shot off his list of this crisis and that crisis? That is what I was reminded of as I started listening. I rewound it a couple time and wrote these quotes down:
“(So Much More is) one of the very best books I have ever read; it will be a defining book for the next generation; entire cultures have been wiped off the map (but this book) will rebuild our culture and societies; (women today) think children are in the way, they will be lonely, purposeless, vagabonds in a barren land of starch, dry, existentialism by the time they are 50; So Much More is really so much more than having three abortions, 1.2 children, a cooperate job (either you come under a husband’s authority or cooperate authority.)..there are women on the internet who don’t understand what the home is all about.” those are some of the highlights…
After chewing on this for an evening, here are my thoughts. This is all fear based theology taught by people who are pretty young and, dare I say, wet behind the ears. How old is Kevin Swanson? Mabye 32 or 33? His children are still little. Will his daughters have any other choice than his choice for their lives? His arrogance and his threatening demeanor are a huge turn off to me. He is trying to scare parents into forcing this choice onto their daughters. Afterall, if they don’t become visionary daughters, they will have several abortions, have sex with anyone who comes along, especially if she goes to college, will abandon the faith and dry up in a purposless life. What parent isn’t going to buy the book when the sure alternatives are so horrendous?
The Botkin girls sound like very nice girls, but, again, their way, as they stated, is the Biblical way. They is no room for any other way if you are a Christian girl or a Christian parent.
June 26, 2007 at 3:36 am
Just one more comment about Kevin Swanson. He is one of the most sought-after homeschooling speakers for keynote slots at conventions right now. And not only that, state organizations have put pressure on other groups to host him as well. His podcast is broadcast on several radio stations and is online with a new show DAILY, many of them sounding just like this one did, with the intent to scare the tar out of parents. Just so you all will know that he is not some fly by night guy on the internet!
June 26, 2007 at 3:37 am
Spunky, Spunky, Spunky…. always calling a spade a spade.
Now for my comments: Can you say “pendulum swing”? I listened to this and the first thing I thought of was “why is he starting with the extreme left opinions of Betty Friedman and other secular thoughts and then alluding them to be the attitude of everyone who isn’t like the Botkin girls and their family?” As if there are only two types of women in the world!
It’s the idea again of “here’s a problem with the world and it is extremely bad. We’ll have go to the opposite end of opinion in order to solve it”.
I agree with Rachel in #4 that there’s the basic beauty of a close family working and loving each other. Sure, the Botkins have something good there, but it’s the underlying theology and presuppositions that don’t take into account the realities and messy parts of life that bothers me. Life isn’t that neat and tidy. Walking with God isn’t that neat and tidy.
You can try and have neat tidy answers for life and it’s issues, but there will be times when it doesn’t make sense. And where there’s an “exception” (quoting from “The Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy” quoted by Spunky’s in #7):
“The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created.”
…I have a real problem with those who want to marginalize the “exceptional circumstance”. If something is mentioned in the Bible and it’s not condemned, then don’t explain it away, change it’s meaning, write it off, etc. Accept it for what it is and let Scripture speak for itself.
As an example, God never condemned Deborah for leading, and neither should anyone else. If God didn’t condemn her for leading then accept the fact that God has specific roles at certain times for women which don’t fit into the patriarchy mold. And…get rid of your cookie cutter!
(Getting off my soapbox….)
Also… was anyone else annoyed by Kevin Swanson’s “hip radio announcer tone”? Rating him among many other radio talk show voices he sounds so contrived, almost everyone else (Limbaugh, Hannity, Hedgecock, etc.) seems more conversational and “real” than Kevin.
And I also thought that the girls sounded like they were reading scripts a couple times.
June 26, 2007 at 3:38 am
Ok, I’m really trying to stick with the issues, but I have to know if anyone else thought this…
I thought the Botkin girls sounded ill at ease and like they were frequently reading their answers. Was it just me or did anyone else think this too?
June 26, 2007 at 3:40 am
I guess when I husband and wife are sitting in the same room typing up their comments, they should see if they are writing the same comments…
June 26, 2007 at 3:55 am
“Long time consequences are BAAAD….”
So, feminists are responsible for the plunging birthrate in South Korea? How very simplistic.
“Why all the birth implosions?”
Right!! Because they cannot tolerate any subordination to male authority? LOL
Uhhh, just who was it that instituted the one-child policy in China? It wasn’t the feminists, Kevin.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
“As in China, cultural attitudes pose problems for family planning programs. A strong preference for sons–who in Korea’s Confucian value system are expected to care for their parents in old age and carry on the family name–means that parents with only daughters usually continue to have children until a son is born. The government has encouraged married couples to have only one child. This has been a prominent theme in public service advertising, which stresses “have a single child and raise it well.”"
It is because of hyper-patriarchy that so many baby girls Asian countries are killed, aborted or left out in the elements to die because sons/males are highly prized in that culture.
To reduce this all down to feminism is silly.
“Let me fashion a straw man for you for just a moment.”
Oh, yeah. That about sums it up.
Here are some real “zingers” from the introduction spoken very melodramatically:
Depend on the corporation. Cast off all male authority. Get in a pinstripe suit, daughters. Sell a little cheap flesh in a one night liason with a co-worker. Get 3 abortions. Get a little sexual thrill but forget about the home.
Is this guy for real? I mean, does he really expect people to take him seriously? Does he really care about women and does he really want them to listen to him? He is ridiculously over the TOP and filled with caricatures that are grounded in hyperbole.
“Children are in the way….” Hmmm? I live in a neighborhood filled with families who are very child oriented and they are not even Christians? He isn’t in touch with the normal, every day person at all.
I can’t help it but the whole interview reminded me of Martin Short’s character “Jiminy Glick”. If have seen “Jiminy Glick” you will know what I mean.
There might be some women that are the high-powered, pin-stripe suit wearing, one night stand, three abortion kind of women but most of them are NOT.
I would have been more apt to listen to the interview and take it seriously if it weren’t so gooberish, misinformed and embellished.
These women exist in their minds. Even most of the working moms are great moms who love their children and who don’t want to throw off all male authority.
June 26, 2007 at 4:03 am
Elizabeth,
In response to your question in #6, this is what I have witnessed. Upon the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment, young people (mostly women) who have been conditioned in this mentality seem to experience a combination of relief, new-found freedom, and resentment at the years and opportunities lost to them. Oh, and also a heart full of praise and thankfulness to God that He set them free from those chains. It’s also an adventure, as God is no longer in His box, and He guides them through the messiness (Molleth’s word =o) of life.
June 26, 2007 at 4:11 am
“It is because of hyper-patriarchy that so many baby girls Asian countries are killed, aborted or left out in the elements to die because sons/males are highly prized in that culture.”
Hallelujah!! Praise God for logic!!! Excellent deduction, Corrie.
June 26, 2007 at 4:17 am
“According to Kevin Swanson, I must be an ignorant, pagan slut who plans to have at least three abortions.”
LOL! I am hearing Dan Aykroyd saying about the same thing to Jane Curtain on SNL.
Elizabeth,
“1) This has been discussed before but it is more than a little presumptuous for girls of such young years to be making these blanket statements; particularly girls who have probably lived an incredibly sheltered life. When they were talking, I had a feeling that they were merely parroting opinions that they had been fed all their young lives. ”
I agree. I also think that you made an excellent point concerning the false dichotomy they set forth.
“He is one of the most sought-after homeschooling speakers for keynote slots at conventions right now. ”
No way????? You ARE kidding, right? I have a very hard time believing people take him seriously when he speaks in such an over-the-top manner.
June 26, 2007 at 4:22 am
The following should have been addressed to Karen:
“He is one of the most sought-after homeschooling speakers for keynote slots at conventions right now. ”
No way????? You ARE kidding, right? I have a very hard time believing people take him seriously when he speaks in such an over-the-top manner.”
June 26, 2007 at 5:07 am
It is true. Kevin is a hugely popular speaker for home school conferences.
Scary.
June 26, 2007 at 5:43 am
Kevin needs to read this article to see the damaging effects of patriarchy. Female infanticide, forced sexual slavery,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281722,00.html
Interesting that South Korea was one of the countries to support the United States sponsored ban on gender selection and female infanticide. Even though South Korea is having its own gender imbalances, progress is being made! South Korea used to have one of the biggest male to female ratios because of its patriarchal induced thought that males were better but the numbers have been declining and getting more in line with what they should be over the past 10 years.
Here is one thought of why South Korea’s trend of selecting the male gender over the female gender is now starting to ebb:
“”Because of the disparity, surviving women have greater market value,” he said. “As a result, it may become more economically viable for families to have girl children, thus reducing rates of female infanticide and sex selection.”"
Women now have greater market value! Wow!
How we can blame the low birth rate in Asian countries on feminists is beyond me, especially after knowing about the one-child policy where male children are highly valued and female children are disposed of like garbage.
In fact, the article also highlights the disturbing trends of some other countries where patriarchy is the standard.
But, it seems like the hyper-patriarchalists will use anything they can to make it look as if the feminists are responsible for all the evils in this world.
You can’t blame abortion on just the feminists. It has been around since the beginning of time. And it is alive and well in many patriarchal countries where there is a war against females because males are considered much more valuable. Why are they more valuable? Because of patriarchal traditions.
I would also like to ask Kevin how there can be selling of cheap flesh with no mention of the men who buy it? It seems strange that all the responsibility is put on the woman but with no mention of the man’s role? It reminds me of those who brought their rocks and were going to stone the adulteress. Jesus asked where the adulterer was. You can’t have one without the other, can you?
Is this selling of cheap flesh a new thing? Is it an invention of the feminists? Or has this been around a lot longer than that? I think the Bible tells us that this has been with us since the fall. And, who were the ones exploiting the women and selling them into sexual slavery? Who was behind the whole concubine wife idea? Who was behind the whole harem philosophy? The feminists? Talk about cheap flesh! Talk about frustrated and unfulfilled! I wonder how all those women felt at the age of 50 still sitting in the harem after being used so many years before when the King was on the look for a new Queen? I wonder if Esther was ever called again to go into the King? Or did she languish away in the harem of women while he went through all the virgins still waiting in his other harem?
I wonder how many first wives felt fulfilled at the age of 50 when their husband took a new 15 year old bride? I wonder how many barren women felt fulfilled when their whole worth was wrapped up in how many children they could produce?
This whole thing gets tired after a while. Next the feminists will get blamed for global warming and the reason why the gas prices are so high. Maybe they will even be blamed for the terrorists who flew the planes into the Twin Towers? Oh, wait. These people already have blamed the feminists for that.
Christ is the only answer. We can keep on blaming the feminists but history and facts do not back up this assertion that feminists are behind all the evils of society. Until we face the fact that patriarchy is not the answer to our problem, either, we will never be able to reach out to the world around us and make a real change.
June 26, 2007 at 5:53 am
“The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Josh. 1:14; Jdg. 4; Acts 16:14)””
Did anyone ever look up the four verses that show us these God-ordained social roles of men and women from the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy?
Gen 2:18 is about God creating Eve as a helpmeet
Okay so far.
Josh 1:14 is concerning God telling Moses all the territory He is going to give him. What that has to do with the social roles of all men, I do not know.
Judges 4 is concerning Deborah. So, what are they saying? Women are supposed to be judges and spiritual rulers? I am confused.
And then the verse in Acts is concerning Lydia who was a seller of purple. Again, what does this prove except that Lydia was a business woman who owned her own home and had her own servants and opened her own house up to the church?
June 26, 2007 at 6:01 am
And, to me this is a no-brainer.
Is it any wonder that the fertility rate is down when there are far fewer women than men in these countries because of their past one-child policies and anti-female attitudes?
It is like that commercial, “Wow! I should have had a V-8!!”
No women, no babies. It is that simple. Fewer women, fewer babies. Not rocket science, that is for sure.
June 26, 2007 at 6:12 am
Corrie,
I have to challenge you’re “okay so far” about Gen 2:18.
They would like to apply this verse about husbands and wives to SINGLE men and women as an example of how UNMARRIED men and women should interact, or are cast into a biological mold. Clearly NOT what God intended with this verse.
I’m clueless with the Joshua reference as well.
As as far as Deborah goes, the citation is really irrelevant to the topic as well. But Jen has testified to hearing Doug Phillips preach that Deborah was in sin for leading, so if we work from their premise, I guess we are supposed to look at this as what NOT to do?
I don’t know if we are to draw the same conclusion with Lydia, or if she is an example of a woman doing woman’s work and living off the church, as they prescibe for widowed women?
June 26, 2007 at 6:48 am
Just looking at the index of countries and their individual birthrates shows us that there is something more to this whole thing than just feminism. That podcast is full of propaganda. It is just like the propoganda spewed over the radio in North Korea and many parts of the Middle East concerning the United States and other countries. People actually believe it because this is what they are taught from a young age. In fact, I heard a broadcast that was translated from Arabic to English. The Arabic show was saying that Israelis kidnap and eat the blue eyed, light skinned children of Arabs. People believe this!
You see, when you look through their grid that is superimposed on everything, they cannot see the big picture. They only see what their system allows them to see. Their enemy is the feminist. And, if you read their writings, they blame everything on feminism, even bad preaching and badly run churches! Even when they are being run by men. They tell us that pastors are afraid of the women in the church so they preach to appease the women.
I don’t really even know how to respond to such a statement. It is nonsensical. Even in patriarchy, when men are running things and in control, women are to blame when the men are not doing what they are supposed to do. I have heard them even blame arminianism on feminists but where did that teaching come from? A man!
The countries highest at the top of the births per 1,000 are ones that are poor (they have more children but more of them die, many don’t make it out of childhood), illiteracy and they practice polygamy.
If feminism is the cause that South Korea has such a low birth rate, then why is the United States ranked at 154 and South Korea at 200? If feminism is the cause of South Korea’s low birthrate, then wouldn’t the United States be even lower since feminism is rampant here and has been so for decades?
Here are all the countries that rank lower than South Korea.
176 200 South Korea 10.00 2006 est.
177 201 Russia 9.95 2006 est.
178 202 Poland 9.85 2006 est.
179 203 Hungary 9.72 2006 est.
180 204 Switzerland 9.71 2006 est.
181 205 Greece 9.68 2006 est.
182 206 Croatia 9.61 2006 est.
183 207 Bulgaria 9.60 2006 [2]
184 208 Japan 9.37 2006 est.
185 209 Singapore 9.34 2006 est.
— 210 Jersey (UK) 9.30 2006 est.
186 211 Latvia 9.24 2006 est.
187 212 Monaco 9.19 2006 est.
188 214 Slovenia 8.98 2006 est.
189 215 Ukraine 8.82 2006 est.
— 216 Guernsey (UK) 8.81 2006 est.
190 217 Bosnia and Herzegovina 8.77 2006 est.
191 218 Lithuania 8.75 2006 est.
192 219 Austria 8.74 2006 est.
193 220 Italy 8.72 2006 est.
194 221 Andorra 8.71 2006 est.
— 222 Macau (People’s Republic of China) 8.48 2006 est.
195 223 Germany 8.25 2006 est.
— 224 Hong Kong (People’s Republic of China)
June 26, 2007 at 7:02 am
“I have to challenge you’re “okay so far” about Gen 2:18.
They would like to apply this verse about husbands and wives to SINGLE men and women as an example of how UNMARRIED men and women should interact, or are cast into a biological mold. Clearly NOT what God intended with this verse.”
Alisa,
I agree with you and thanks for pointing that out to me.
The whole helpmeet thing is clearly speaking about a man and a a wife and not about anyone else.
When I worked, I was not my boss’ helpmeet. ICK!!! I was no more his helpmeet than my male co-workers were his helpmeet.
Just because there is a man and a woman working together does not mean that the woman is the man’s helpmeet. Also, a female colleague and a male colleague are on equal footing. The female is not the male’s helpmeet just because she is female and he is male.
Unless, that is, you believe that all women were created to serve and submit to all men.
Also, daughters are not their father’s helpmeet or their brother’s helpmeet as the Botkin girls like to teach. Did anyone pick up on their teachings where sisters are in a submissive role to their brothers and that they are to encourage them in their role as men and to respect them and serve them?
Sisters and brothers are equals. They both should respect each other, serve each other and encourage each other. A brother has no more authority over his sister than a sister has over her brother.
We can start in Genesis to see this special one-flesh relationship is between only a husband and a wife.
Thanks again, Alisa, for pointing this out.
June 26, 2007 at 9:56 am
It’s funny to see South Korea presented as an especially feminist country; things like laws against domestic violence, etc., are relatively recent introductions there. I’d have characterized it in the other direction, actually.
June 26, 2007 at 11:28 am
Corrie,
Wow! What great stats to add to the conversation.
As you pointed out, in the Botkin visionary daughter paradigm, men are above women in the hierarchial plain, hence sisters being the helpmeets of brothers. Where do they get this stuff?
June 26, 2007 at 11:29 am
Another thought….
Everything is blamed on the feminists but in reality, the Botkins blame everything on Marx.
Again, any sort of egalitarianism is not tolerated within their paradigm because it smacks of Marxism.
June 26, 2007 at 11:32 am
David said:
“Now for my comments: Can you say “pendulum swing”? I listened to this and the first thing I thought of was “why is he starting with the extreme left opinions of Betty Friedman and other secular thoughts and then alluding them to be the attitude of everyone who isn’t like the Botkin girls and their family?” As if there are only two types of women in the world!”
This is exactly the way a patriocentrist paints everything…our way or you are a pagan. And, can I say, I am no big Betty Freidan fan, but pronouncing her name correctly would have been a good idea.
June 26, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Hello! I have just stumbled on to this blog, though I pop in on ThatMom frequently. Could someone bring me up to speed here, I can’t seem to wade through all the posts to follow the conversation, though I find what I read interesting. What does patriocentrist mean, exactly? Who are the Botkin srs. and what are they teaching?
thanks
KellyH
June 26, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Hi Kelly!
I would like to take ownership of the word “patriocentric” because I coined it and I think it is the perfect word. It simply means believing that everything in the home revolves around the father. It is patriarchy ratchetup up a few notches!
The Botkins sisters wrote the book So Much More, published by Vision Forum and endorsed by Jennie Chancy from Ladies Against Feminism, R. C. Sproul Jr., and Stacy McDonald, author of Raising Maidens of Virtue and wife of James McDonald, pastor of Providence Church in Peoria. (Since you are familiar with that church I thought that could put it into perspective for you.)
The Botkin sisters are now 18 and 20. They started writing their book when they were 15 and 17. The premise of the book is that a godly young woman will remain in her home until her father gives her away in marriage and her chief end is to serve her father and to be a “helpmeet” to him, which is the phrase they use. (They apply the wife verses in Scripture to daughters.) The issue I have had with their book and with the interview is that this isn’t portrayed as one of many options. It is presented in such a way as to say that there are two options for women…either Godly womanhood, which is the Botkin way, or the rest of women who are either already or headed toward whoredom. I don’t think this is an exaggeration, at least as presented by Kevin Swanson in the interview. If you have a change to listen to it, I think you will get the drift. I am just now finishing their book and think that pretty much sums it up.
June 26, 2007 at 2:14 pm
“How we can blame the low birth rate in Asian countries on feminists is beyond me, especially after knowing about the one-child policy where male children are highly valued and female children are disposed of like garbage.”
I think because, like Thatmom says in a later comment, they use the terms feminism and Marxism interchangably and China is a communist country. And I think they do have a point. The one-child policy isn’t because of hyper-patriarchy. It’s just that their point is not as undiluted as they think.
The fact that, forced by a communist government to choose only one child they usually choose a boy is, as you’ve pointed out, directly correlated to the fact that culturally, Chinese parents need sons. So the results are a sort of toxic combination of both a totalitarian communist government and a traditional hyperpatriarchy in the culture itself, although, like most things involving humans, it’s slightly more complicated than that.
When we lived in Japan we saw a few intercultural weddings. Twice when we knew of, when a Japanese woman marry an American man her family came unglued- disowned her, refused to go to the wedding, and really made a stink about it. Missionary friends there told us that it was because in that culture it isn’t true that a ’son’s a son ’til he takes a wife, a daughter’s a daughter all of her life.’ In many Asian cultures it’s the opposite- a daughter is literally thought to transfer all her connections, responsibilities, and allegiance to her husband’s family- so in more strongly traditional families, marrying outside the culture is basically abandoning the family. They disowned their daughters because in some sense they felt the daughters had already disowned them. Knowing that didn’t make me any happier about the ones that disowned their kids (I actually think it’s a sin to disown your kids for anything less than maybe rape, murder, and cannibalism combined). But it did make me appreciate the huge leap that those who accepted their foreign sons in law had taken.
Add to this the fact that sons and not daughters in this culture, have certain longterm responsibilities toward their parents and ancestors, and so, by forcing parents to choose to have only one child, the communist government is forcing them to decide whether or not their family line will, for all practical and traditional purposes, end and be forgotten, and they will die alone and uncared for, without family. It takes a strong person to choose that route,
Combine that traditional need for a son to continue the family line and care for the ancestral responsibilities of each family unit with a totalitarian government imposing a one-child policy and add an attitude toward and availability of abortion that is the radical feminist’s dream, and we have the end result we see in China. I have talked with enough radical feminists (and exchanged letters with Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein about it when I was one of their unhappy constituents) to have seen China’s one-child policy fiercely defended by them- even in the case here a few years ago when a pregnant Chinese woman was denied asylum and forcibly returned to China where she had a forced abortion, to see that the support for abortion is so strong in hyper-feminist circles that they will defend even the forced abortion policy in China.
I think the Botkins overstate the connection between feminism and communism, but there is, in fact, some connection. Kate Weigand is herself (by her own description) a radical feminist, and in her book Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation (Reconfiguring American Political History), she says, “…Communist women were the most radical feminists of the antifeminist 1950s….” And she meant that in a good way. =) She wrote her book because she doesn’t think they get enough credit for their influence on the later women’s movement.
That said, I completely agreed with just about everything else you had to say, Corrie, especially this:
I would also like to ask Kevin how there can be selling of cheap flesh with no mention of the men who buy it? It seems strange that all the responsibility is put on the woman but with no mention of the man’s role?
Particularly since, after all, women cannot usually successfully use physical force against men to force the purchase of that cheap flesh, but the reverse is not true.
It’s an extreme version of it, but it does sort of remind me of my father-in-law, who is a large, strong man (over 6′, solid, outdoor type) who was living with a tiny little woman *his* mother didn’t like (she didn’t like the fact that they weren’t married, and I didn’t disagree with her about that). But she would say, “He never wanted to live with her, but when he left the county she chased him down and just showed up on his doorstep and wouldn’t leave him alone…” As though absolving him of all responsibility for living in sin because that little bitty 5′ tall, 90 pound slip of a woman just masterfully arm wrestled the 6′ plus 200 hundred pound giant down to the ground and forced him to let her into his home, and he was living in bondage to that little woman every day of his alcohol soaked life, forced to fornicate against his will.
It reminds me of those who brought their rocks and were going to stone the adulteress. Jesus asked where the adulterer was. You can’t have one without the other, can you?
Precisely. And I do think it’s ironic that those who insist that men are the natural leaders and natural authority so often assume they have no responsibility for their actions.
It’s like they are puppets on a string, manipulated by women. If this is true (and some of the most allegedly patriarchal families I know actually do operate this way), then it seems to me consistency demands that it ought to be blamed squarely on the men for being so easily manipulated.
June 26, 2007 at 2:19 pm
OK, so I had a whole slew of notes that I was going to use to formulate a really witty, incisive comment, but….it appears that all the really witty things have already been said.
So, just a few observations….
Kevin Swanson was beyond obnoxious in his appeal to fear and his over-stylized radio announcer voice. ick. I almost shut it off before the Botkin interview even started.
How can he claim with a straight face that the birth rate in South Korea is destroying western civilization? I’m still scratching my head over that one.
Since asking “what do I want out of life” is such a selfish thing for girls to do, is it equally selfish for boys?
How did he get from giving a little credence to Betty Friedan (who actually made some pretty good points in The Feminine Mystique) to “wandering around in the dessert of Sartre’s existentialism”? I’m not seeing the connection.
What did the statistic about all the children born without fathers (which isn’t really possible anyways
) have to do with a vision for daughters?
“The best way to get an education has always been by reading books, through self-study, and by learning from your parents,” said one of the Botkins. And you have the right to say that at 18 or 20?
While the Botkins are single, they hope to disciple younger women “like in Titus 2.” Since when does 18 and 20 qualify as older women?
June 26, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Hi Deputy,
“The one-child policy isn’t because of hyper-patriarchy. It’s just that their point is not as undiluted as they think.”
I agree with you that it is not that simple. My statement was actually one of OVER-statement. I wanted to show Kevin and all of his listeners that it is just as easy for me to overstate something and prove something is true.
I guess I never even thought of the Marxist tie with those countries. I just don’t get that part of the equation yet and how they equate Marxism to everything feminist.
That was interesting about the Japanese culture. It just shows that feminism is NOT the cause of many of our problems. The problem in the Asian countries is that of tradition. Who says a daughter can’t take care of her aging parents? Who says that a wife becomes totally her husband and she is lost to her family? Tradition does and patriarchal tradition at that.
I think it is horrible concerning the forced abortion and denied asylum for those stuck in the one-child system. Women are forced to take pregnancy tests. They are fined big time for sneaking in another child. They are forced to abort.
This is what our “patriarchs” should be fighting!!! We should be also fighting forced sexual slavery and female circumcision. If they were really put on this earth to protect females, then this should be on the top of their agenda. Instead, they want to attack the radical feminists or beat up the strawwoman they have created in their own imaginations.
Thanks for your thoughts.
June 26, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Deputy says:
“It’s like they are puppets on a string, manipulated by women. If this is true (and some of the most allegedly patriarchal families I know actually do operate this way), then it seems to me consistency demands that it ought to be blamed squarely on the men for being so easily manipulated.”
Yes! This goes back to the idea the Botkins have about finding a “new patriarch” (my own paraphrase) if your dad isn’t doing what you think a patriarch should do. I place the blame for manipulated men squarely on those manly shoulders!
June 26, 2007 at 2:44 pm
It’s easy to forget that Vision Forum and Co. are addressing an actual problem in our culture: the absence of fathers and the alienation of daughters. For fathers, there’s no real example for men to follow. After all, everything a man can do, a woman can do just as well… and women can even do MORE, because we have the babies and nuture them. All you need from the man is “an ingredient,” as I heard one mom put it. After that, they’re pretty dispensable.
So VF’s relentless chorus of “strong fathers, strong sons, responsibility, accountability, Godliness,” is almost a lone cry in the wilderness. They see a real problem and they want to fix it.
As for daughters, there isn’t much of a model for them, either — not in popular culture, anyway. They have to be as ambitious and aggressive as boys. As far as their relationship with their father (who is that, again?), the only model is the princess who can manipulate her dad to do anything she wants. This model is training for the popular conception of wifehood. The only picture of femininity girls have are the ShopaHolic Man-Chaser. And it’s true that many girls going to college don’t come out with a Godly perspective on marriage, motherhood, and keeping a home.
Now, to those of you who are scorching your keyboard with impassioned retorts about how VF goes overboard in their solution, how there’s more than one way to model fatherhood and daughterhood… You’re RIGHT. I AGREE. I’ve been burned by patriarchy, and my family doesn’t operate that way. I think the Botkin outlook is constricted; I find have I have trouble breathing after reading that type of thinking, as if I’m suffocating.
But in our zeal to blast error, don’t forget that there really is a problem. If we don’t like the Botkin/VF solution (and this “we” doesn’t), then it’s up to us to figure out what a real solution is.
As a side note, it’s not fair to remark on the Botkins’ unease and reading of scripts. Probably they were nervous. If I had to listen to things like Kevin Swanson said, I’d be uneasy, too.
June 26, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Monica quoted the Botkins about the “best way to get an education has always been…” Well, I have two problems with that. One, that is just factually untrue. Universities, and the Church as well, have historically been the bastions of higher learning in Western culture. And two, many MANY people, myself included, simply are not autodidacts and cannot learn well this way. Since when has being “self-taught” been the same as completing formal study in a university setting? One of the best parts about the “college experience” IS the exposure to other points of view. Its not so that we can consider them and become “more enlightened”, but so that we can actually interact with the world that we live in and not receive one perspective (namely, our father’s) about what is out there. What is so wrong with that?
In reading their book, I felt the Botkins put a gross over-emphasis on the influence of cultural Marxism in our society. There are a myriad of reasons why Western society is in trouble and marxism is just one factor. However, they give themselves away in the middle of the book by confessing that their father used to be a hardcore Marxist before coming to Christ. I sort of connected that with their skewed view of society’s problems. Could that be a symptom of the “one perspective” that they are receiving at home?
On a side note, has anyone read RC Sproul Jr.’s book on homeschooling? His ideas on how girls should be educated are embarrassing. The jist of it is this- girls should be taught the same basic subjects as both (the three R’s and the Bible), but after that, their primary education should be in how to keep a home. And primary is not too strong a word. The book is packed away right now, but I could give you quotes… its disturbing.
June 26, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Hi Sara,
No “scorching” from my fingertips!
You have made some very good points. Thank you.
I guess I just don’t see this dearth of fatherhood that you are talking about or that this is something “new” in history.
“the only model is the princess who can manipulate her dad to do anything she wants. This model is training for the popular conception of wifehood. The only picture of femininity girls have are the ShopaHolic Man-Chaser.”
When I look around I see many, many men involved with their children’s lives. They are good men who are faithfully working to support their families. I think it is wrong to paint with such a broad brush by saying that those who do have fathers have a manipulative relationship with them.
Yes, that does happen. But, that is nothing new nor do I think it is the most common or “only” model to follow. Daddy’s little princess has always been able to wrap her father around her little finger if she wants to.
I actually blame patriarchal literature for the continuing misconception that women must manipulate men to get them to do what they should do because they are basically too dull to understand without our help. I think if I were a man and read some of these books, I would be insulted at the insinuations. Books like “Fascinating Womanhood” and “Created to Be His Helpmeet” and others like them promote this male as an idiot/female as the one who has to inspire him by flattering his non-existant big muscles and male prowess. Just stomp your feet, shake your curls like a little girl and your man will think you are about the cutest little thing!
I believe in honesty and I believe men are smart enough to see through their wife’s vain attempts to flatter their egos by talking about their bulging biceps when they don’t have them.
As far as there being no real men to follow? What exactly would that man look like and what would make other men want to follow him? All men are not alike. They do not have to go about their duties as a father and husband in the same manner. But, I do see that if fathers/husbands do things differently in their own families they are labeled “effeminate” for doing things the way they want to do them.
And is VF having success in their “vision” of turning the hearts of men to their children? It seems that we had the same problem back in the days of Micah and Christ, right? I mean, why does that verse even have to be there if fathers were not also abdicating their duties?
It seems that there is NOTHING new under the sun. The solution is still the same. It is Christ. Nothing else will change a man’s or woman’s heart. Sure we can make people into a bunch of outwardly whitened sepulchres but inside they are nothing but dead man’s bones. They should wash the inside of the cup first in order for any change on the outside to take affect.
I think the best way is for people to stick with the gospel. Go into the neighborhoods where single parenthood is rampant. Change it from the inside out. That means we have to get dirty.
Basically, VF is preaching to the choir. These men are already masters of their wives and daughters. They don’t need any more preaching on it. They need to go roll up their shirtsleeves and go into the places where they could put their manhood and vision to good use. Show, by their example, that a man needs to be a servant to his family and he cannot abandon his responsibilities. Show, by their example, that purity in unmarried men is JUST as important as purity in unmarried women. Abolish the double standard once and for all. Call all the promiscuous men by their proper names- “whores” and “sluts” just like promiscuous women are referred to. Start preaching about how they should not exploit young women and how they cannot use young women and then abandon the resulting offspring.
Not that I promote Oprah or Dr. Phil but at least they are not so myopic about these sorts of issues. Oprah just had a two part program on talking about rap music and its consequences on our culture. Confronting THOSE issues are where it is at. I hardly think that no one is trying to address these issues. Just go to Barnes and Nobles and look at all the secular books on the importance of fathers in the homes!
It is obvious to me that this is a bit more complicated than “wives submit, daughters are to serve and obey their fathers and wives/daughters are an extension and representative of their fathers on this earth”. First, the Bible doesn’t teach that. We are GOD’s ambassadors on this earth. We are HIS representatives. Second, start addressing the abdicating males and stop beating the “Betty Friedan” drum. It is silly.
I never read a thing written by her. I don’t even know really who she is and I was born in 1965. She represents such a SMALL portion of women that using her as a caricature of all women shows how simple-minded we really are. NOW does not represent MOST women. If people would do their research they would find this to be true.
June 26, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Someone above said:
“you’re either a worldly, promiscuous slut or you’re Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin.”
This was the exact impression I got. I only listened for about 5 minutes and was so nauseated I had to quit listening. Not worth my time.
June 26, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Several things made me guffaw at this interview: Kevin Swanson’s over the top hysteria, for starters, and the high drama of the whole thing. But what made me laugh the most is that these two girls think they can follow Titus 2 — not as students of older women, but as teachers themselves! When they said they wanted to teach younger women, I literally laughed out loud. Here you have two…well, let’s be charitable…very young women, neither of them yet 21 years of age. And they want to teach the “younger women”? By this I presume they want to teach teenage girls younger than themselves? And they want to teach them to do things that these sisters have not yet done themselves, such as loving husbands, loving children, being homemakers, etc., etc.?!
There is a reason that the Bible, quite wisely, says that it is the older women who are to teach these things. The arrogance of these two young sisters to think they can have this sort of ministry — I don’t know whether to laugh and pat them on the heads and tell them to grow up, or whether to shake my head at their audacity.
June 26, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Sara said:
“It’s easy to forget that Vision Forum and Co. are addressing an actual problem in our culture: the absence of fathers and the alienation of daughters. For fathers, there’s no real example for men to follow. So VF’s relentless chorus of “strong fathers, strong sons, responsibility, accountability, Godliness,” is almost a lone cry in the wilderness. They see a real problem and they want to fix it.”
Sara,
I agree that there is an absence of fathers in our culture, (especially within the black community). In fact, in some instances it is a real crisis.
However, VF is not the only, nor is it the first, parachurch organization established that encourages fathers to take the leadership in their homes.
Focus on the Family, whose radio broadcasts I first listened to 28 years ago, always invited speakers to their program to talk about this issue. I remember Tony Evans and his tremendous ministry to minority fathers. I also remember Gary Smalley and even the controversial George Gilder being Dobson’s guests.
And wasn’t Promise Keepers established to challenge men to be the spiritual leaders in their homes? If I remember correctly, Promise Keepers has held conferences that filled football stadiums so in truth they have actually presented their message to hundreds of thousands of people. In our area, many of the churches took bus loads of men to PK meetings, thousands just from one town. (I don’t necessarily agree with all the things PK taught, but at least they didn’t blame everything bad in the family on the women.)
Part of VF’s problem is that they are painting the picture that only patriocentrists are able to bring real manhood to our culture. How arrogant and condescending. I know many wonderful dads who wouldn’t even know what to do with some of the weird stuff that comes out of VF but they lead their families in worship, take them to church, and pray with their children. They love their wives and are faithful stewards of the tremendous gifts they have been given in their families.
June 27, 2007 at 12:28 am
Just a quick comment to Sarah in #11…not quite sure where you fit personally on the homeschooling scale…however, I was home-schooled and I know other homeschoolers and none of us are Botkin girls. So don’t be too quick to lump us all together.
I’m 27, single, and working! That’s all. 
June 27, 2007 at 12:42 am
Here are the major points the Botkins address in their interview,
—Women were created to be helpers of men.
—Their work will help someone.
—The home is the center of ministry, industry, and commerce.
—Why would a young women want to go and help some boss in an organization when she can help her father and make him successful?
—”I am a helper, WHO am I going to help?”
—It is the detriment of the family to help out some other organization separate from the family.
—The next generation of women will have to decide if they are going to advance feminism or see it decline.
Kevin Swanson obviously agrees and does not ask the girls to suppport any of their assertions with Scripture. That is an unfortunate oversight, especially for a pastor. It would have been helpful to hear exactly how the young ladies put the scriptures together and arrive at their conclusions.
At the end of the podcast, Kevin Swanson exhorts parents to buy this book stating it will change the way we do economics in our society and “It will save a lot of pain for a lot of women.”
But apparently Kevin Swanson is willing to cause at least a little pain for the economic benefit of having women working in his organization, CHEC. When I called the toll free number given at the end of the podcast, a young lady named Rebecca answered the phone. She is a paid employee of CHEC.
When I called Kevin Swanson’s ministry office, Generations, to ask why a young lady was working for CHEC after having just learned from Kevin’s podcast that the future of Western Civilization depends on Christians who are willing to take a courageous stand against feminism or they will help perpetuate the lies of Betty Friedan for another generation.
To his credit, the gentleman who answered the phone agreed that this was a bit of a predicament for CHEC and Kevin Swanson. But he offered that this young lady was working in conjunction with the work of her father who heavily supports homeschooling and CHEC. Despite the fact that Rebecca’s father works in the restaurant business, they didn’t feel that Rebecca was compromising his vision. And in reality there were no opportunities for her in the father’s business. I accepted his explanation and asked if there were other women who were employed for pay in the organization. “Yes,” he replied. He was quick to add that many of the women who work are also volunteers. I asked him if he realized that the Tenets of Patriarchy regard men working together along side women in the sphere of commerce a problem? He said he understood and acknowledging the difficulty in living out personal convictions in a modern economy.
So now we have not only Vision Forum, but Kevin Swanson as Executive Director of CHEC, apparently willing to compromise the restoration of Western Civilization for their organizations’ economic benefit.
Mr. Swanson started out the broadcast talking about the tragedies that have befallen a society that lives only for “ME.” And in his words, the long term consequences are “BAD!” But apparently not bad enough that he is willing to change the way he conducts business at CHEC.
June 27, 2007 at 1:02 am
AussieTigger,
I am a home school graduate myself and the same age as yourself. I have 8 younger siblings. I interned at HSLDA and served in the NCHE CAP lobby group for several years. I am a bona fide home school girl.
I was not speaking of home schoolers in general in comment #11. However, it seems to me there is a growing number of leaders in the home school community who derive extensive economic benefit from promoting certain patriocentric teachings or lending aid and comfort to those who promote hyper-patriarchy.
This group cultivates a spirit of fear in home schoolers – “buy this book, go to this conference, live in this Only Godly Way or you will lose your children!” Conveniently, materials and conferences and speakers to help you “save” your children are available from these leaders.
Perhaps some truly see it as a ministry. But there is a lot of money to be had in this home school movement. It irritates me to see prominent leaders endorse Doug Phillips and others like him when they know of the twisted theology he teaches. Who will disavow Kevin Swanson and Doug Phillips and James McDonald for the insanity they propagate? Clearly, no one who makes money off of them and their followers!
Some of our home school leaders have become no better than money changers in the temple. That is foul indeed, for the prey on the hearts of parents seeking to protect their precious children.
June 27, 2007 at 1:03 am
Last sentence should be “they prey”. Grazie.
June 27, 2007 at 6:00 am
It seems to be that a lot of these teachings we are discussing are disturbingly Moslem in nature.
Why do they make their women wear the hajib? So they don’t tempt men. No mention of the men controlling themselves.
Women don’t work outside the home; they don’t go anywhere without a male; their marriages are arranged; rape is the woman’s fault; they don’t drive; they won’t even educate little girls; they can’t live on their own.
I used to wear a head covering in church. Perhaps I still should, but there are a lot of Moslems in my community, and when I covered my head, I felt like I looked like one! I was afraid of sending the wrong message to visitors to church. A hat would be ok, I guess.
June 27, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I have only managed to listen to part of the interview so far. Firstly I was put off by the introduction- it all seemed a little inflammatory to me. Maybe that is a style preference onmy part. Secondly it seemed a bit like ‘Botkin’ flattery- with the guy constantly mentioning this wonderful book of 4?? pages.
But prehaps most disturbingly for me was the concept that a woman would have nothing left in her life after age fifty. That is so not biblical it makes me very worried. My mum had four of us. We all went to school (bear in mind things are quite different over here in many ways). Three of us (the girls!) went to uni. We were all married in the final year of or year after graduation. Both my parents worked through our childhood although the Lord provided work that meant our mum could always be there for us- none of us went to child care apart from one session a week at play group. We are now 30, 28, 25 and 23 respectively (sadly I’m not the 23 year old!) My parents are 55 and 58. They still both work- and some! They are fully (and I mean fully) involved in the work of the church as they have always been. I know we are talking women here, but my dad can’t wait to retire to get on with his missionary secretary and spanish speaking work.My mum works for the church as a care support lady, runs the tuesday girls club etc etc etc.. Even when they retire both parents will have a full and busy life serving the Lord with children and grandchildren who love them dearly. Ok, so they didn’t sell out and hand us over to others for all childcare etc, but my mum would certainly not be seen as biblical by these people. Yet she is one of the greatest examples I know of faithful service to God in home and church. I too work, one day a week. I went to uni. I had a career in the NHS. I have a 2 year old and am expecting again. I put my children first- I won’t be returning to work this time. Yet I would be seen as having failed I think- and I can assure you that I have only had ‘relations’ with my husband, have never had an abortion and God willing will not be sad, washed out and alone when I hit 50!
June 27, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I didn’t read all the comments here, but have to say that legalism is the word that comes to mind. Legalism is never good and can’t end in something that is good.
Focusing on God and His character—gracious, merciful, forgiving, just, loving, sovereign, etc. is a much better way to spend our time. I’m sad for these girls and pray that God would rescue them from this bent of thinking.
Sarah in comment #11 says: “This foul stench emitting from the home school community is more than I can handle.”
Oh, Sarah, please do not think that this foul stench is coming from homeschoolers. This is coming from individuals who are being deceieved. Any of us could emit this stench. Only by God’s grace and mercy that we are not.
Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!
June 27, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Spunky said: “So now we have not only Vision Forum, but Kevin Swanson as Executive Director of CHEC, apparently willing to compromise the restoration of Western Civilization for their organizations’ economic benefit.”
Ok, I know this wasn’t meant to be funny, but ROTFLOL!!!
I needed this. It’s been a long day, no week, no month…
Thanks, Spunky!
June 27, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Spunky,
I read your posts and it almost makes me feel like I’m watch John Stossel on “20/20″ show up on location somewhere with a camera to point out someone’s fraud.
June 27, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Heather, please see my post #47.
Yes, we are all sinners. No, the entire home school movement is not compromised. It seems to me that many of our leaders presently have their thinking clouded by mammon.
As home schoolers, we are naturally defensive of a movement that suffered much misunderstanding in the 80’s and early 90’s. This is 2007. We need to be willing to call a spade a spade, even if it is our fellow home schoolers. There is too much at stake – perhaps even the implosion of the entire movement we worked so hard for, if we remain silent and allow the insanity to continue. Myself, I gave much of my young adult hood to serving home schoolers. It makes me sick to see what is happening here.
There are a number of people making a lot of money off of home schoolers. They endorse each others books and speak at each others conferences (and they all have materials for sale to the Good Home School Mom). If any one of them said, enough is enough and took a stand – like hello, going to college is not going make you have 3 abortions, they’d go the way of Carlton Pearson.
June 27, 2007 at 10:40 pm
I call on Doug Phillips, Kevin Swanson, and the Botkins to renounce any associations they have with Home School Legal Defense.
Do you know how many young, unmarried women work there? What about the girls attending Patrick Henry College? How can the endorsers and proponents of the Stay At Home Daughter/So Much More philosophy remain consistent if they accept support from and work with HSLDA?
Of course, this is foolish talk. Doug P gets a lot of credibility by touting his HSLDA association. Kevin Swanson’s radio program and website are sponsored by HSLDA via advertising. Too much money is at stake. Western Civilization be condemned!
June 28, 2007 at 12:39 am
Spunky (#46),
This is key point you made:
“Kevin Swanson obviously agrees and does not ask the girls to suppport any of their assertions with Scripture. That is an unfortunate oversight, especially for a pastor. It would have been helpful to hear exactly how the young ladies put the scriptures together and arrive at their conclusions.”
You’re right, I never heard one scripture back up anything they said. That’s a huge point. When we are allowing ourselves to not examine Scripture in light of someone’s opinion and then just accept it because it “sounds” Scriptural, we do ourselves a great disservice. As Spunky said elsewhere, even the Bereans checked to see if Paul (of all people) was telling the truth and looked at the Scriptures themselves.
There would be a lot less “hero worship” if people didn’t just take the points made in books and interview and not examine them with Scripture.
June 28, 2007 at 1:27 am
I guess it is hard to be consistent with this patriarchal stuff. These are the things I have seen for years and whenever I ask a question about how these teachings play out in real life, I get the silent treatment or the ad hominem treatment. Only a feminist, I am told, would ask those kinds of questions.
So, VF employs women. CHEC/Generations employs women. But, they both believe that it is wrong for a young girl/woman to work for anyone else but her father.
The way they get around this is by saying that the girl is really representing her father as some sort of extension. That she is there serving her father while working for some other man. She is working alongside other men not her father, brother or husband. Another thing that is wrong according to patriarchal teachings.
And, I have never heard of a restaurant owner who can’t find a job for a daughter. Restaurants ALWAYS need help. I waitressed for many years when our children were younger. I worked nights. The turn-over rate is so high in most places. I worked in a very nice restaurant so it was lower but an owner can always find a job for their child.
It doesn’t seem so hard to me to employ these teachings. Just don’t hire women PERIOD. Hire only boys and men.
I see that Samaritan Ministries supports both Vision Forum and Generations. Its building is also where James McDonald’s church meets. Does Samaritan Ministries also employ women? Does anyone understand the connection between Samaritan and all of these minstries?
June 28, 2007 at 1:30 am
And, on another note, if a father can’t find a job for his daughter working for him, does that mean he can loan her out to someone else? I truly wonder what the difference is between these fathers and the ones who loan their daughters out to Walmart or Dairy Queen?
June 28, 2007 at 8:42 am
On a slightly different tack, I have a question. Do you find many American pastors speaking in such a way with no biblical reference? I didn’t like it. He may not be in his ‘pulpit’ but he was speaking as a Pastor and all his words should be without reproach.
Sallie…..it has been a long day…week….month….no, 6 months….here too…..HUGS
June 28, 2007 at 12:33 pm
“I see that Samaritan Ministries supports both Vision Forum and Generations. Its building is also where James McDonald’s church meets. Does Samaritan Ministries also employ women? Does anyone understand the connection between Samaritan and all of these minstries?”
Corrie, I did notice that both Doug’s blog and Kevin Swanson’s blog carry Samaritan logos. We know both the president of SMI and the VP so I will ask them to comment.
June 28, 2007 at 4:03 pm
The whole notion of daughters as property to be “loaned” is something I find deeply disturbing.
Great discussion, by the way.
June 28, 2007 at 7:01 pm
What the Botkin sister’s are teaching is the exact thing that makes a woman like me feel horrible. For the longest time I felt like an awful wife because I worked and a few things at home suffered (laundry, basic housekeeping etc.) I thought I was not the “helpmeet” I was supposed to be. After sitting down and talking with my husband, he reassured me that I was not a horrible wife and I was in fact helping him by working. We live in an area where the cost of living is high, so I work because it helps pay the bills.
After praying and re-evaluating my life, I realized that God can work through me no matter where I am. I just got a promotion at my job and I knew God’s hand was in it the whole time. If I wasn’t meant to be a working woman, God wouldn’t have opened the doors he did.
I no longer feel horrible for working. Why should I? I am doing what God wants me to do right now, and I’m perfectly happy that way.
Thank you guys so much for putting this website together. I really enjoy it.
June 28, 2007 at 8:00 pm
“Depend on the corporation. Cast off all male authority. Get in a pinstripe suit, daughters. Sell a little cheap flesh in a one night liason with a co-worker. Get 3 abortions. Get a little sexual thrill but forget about the home.”
Okay, I have been thinking about these words from Kevin Swanson’s introduction.
I am trying to figure out what he means.
Get in a pin-stripe suit and sell a little cheap flesh in a one night liason with a co-worker?
It appears as if he views women who work as sexually promiscuous.
And then it seems as if he slipped in a reference to women who work as being prostitutes- that they “sell cheap flesh in one night liasons with co-workers”.
So, if women who work are prostitutes who sell their flesh cheaply to co-workers (I am assuming male co-workers?) then what does that make the people that employ them?
Pimps?
June 28, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Karen Campbell asked me to comment on this forum, so I hope this will be helpful. However, I won’t have time to offer further comments.
Our desire at Samaritan Ministries is to reach as many like-minded Christians as possible who would like to stop supporting unbiblical health care practices such as abortion with their health care dollars. There is the added opportunity to eliminate other unbiblical health care practices like morning after pills, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, the use of psychotropic drugs, and the view of drunkenness as a disease, rather than a sin. We are surprised at the number of Christians who find it acceptable to mix their health care dollars with insurance companies that hold a cavalier view toward human life.
Vision Forum and Generations Radio Program have offered us effective and affordable opportunities to reach many like-minded believers. We have also advertised with sources as diverse as: World Magazine, HSLDA’s Court Report, Liberty Journal, New Man Magazine, Spirit-Led Woman, Single Parent Family (a Focus publication), Discipleship Journal (Navigators), as well as reaching out to groups as diverse as the “emerging” church. We try to be wise stewards in the use of the Lord’s money in order to reach out to those who share our disgust with abortion and the many other unbiblical lifestyle choices that most insurance companies support.
Our desire is to provide a network where the body of Christ can grow in unity and caring for one another in an atmosphere that we refer to as Authentic Biblical Community. (Ephesians 4:15, 16 & Philippians 2:1, 2).
We have members who would represent the patriarch viewpoint including Doug Phillips, Kevin Swanson, and James McDonald. We also have women members who are pastors of churches. We have members from a broad spectrum of the body of Christ. We have members that are in Christian Rock Bands, and we have members who would deplore Rock & Roll as being from the Devil. We may be one on the few places this side of heaven where two saints in the Lord who otherwise might not be able to sit at the same table and fellowship together, will, however, pray for one another, and share the financial burden of one another.
To answer a couple of your questions: Yes, we do have women that work at Samaritan Ministries.
Yes, we do rent a portion of our building to Providence Church, where James McDonald is the pastor. We have also made our building available to local homeschool groups, and when Providence moves on, we will likely look for a new Bible-based church to take their place.
Our desire is to promote unity in the body of Christ in spite of its vast diversity. In this way we strive to avoid one of the seven things that the Lord specifically hates: (Proverbs 6:16-19)
“one that sows discord among brothers.”
For The Kingdom!
Ted A Pittenger
Founder & President
Samaritan Ministries International
June 28, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Here is another scary scenario that happens to “independent” working women. I got this out of the comment section on the Rebelution blog:
“If you want to be Miss Independence and open all your own doors and work hard all day and then come home to a cold apartment that you share with your cat and proceed to make your own supper and then you realize that you are completely out of food so you have to go and buy some for yourself at the grocery store and then in the parking lot you get mobbed because you are by yourself, then by all means go knock yourself out.”
I wonder where they get their ideas from? What are they reading? Who are they listening to?
A couple of things,
Married women work hard all day.
They make their own supper and many of them make supper for their husband and their large brood of children.
A single person doesn’t come home to a “cold”apartment unless they forgot to turn on the heat or they had the air turned down too low
Not everyone likes cats
Married women still have to shop for their own food
Just because a woman goes shopping by herself does not mean she is going to get mugged.
Married women still go grocery shopping by themselves
There seems to be a lot of hyperbole in some statements concerning women.
June 29, 2007 at 2:06 am
There’s a lot of crazy stuff on the Rebelution website.
As to where the Harris boys get their stuff – recall that their dad’s church, Household of Faith, is recommended by VF’s Family Integrated Church program. They attend VF conferences. Further, hyper-patriarchy is becoming increasingly mainstream in the home school community.
June 29, 2007 at 2:39 am
Corrie, taking an isolated comment from a blog is not indicative of the beliefs of the blog owner. (That is the same tactic used in reverse that allowed Mr. Chancey to claim that Jen Epstein was a kinist.) And if someone went trolling through my comments section at SpunkyHomeschool, egads by now I’d be a liberal, lesbian, public school administrator whose children can’t tie their own shoes. Comments sections are not the best places to determine any blog owners theology, especially the comments section of teenage boys and girls. Just my thoughts for your consideration.
My daughter comments and participates with the Rebelution as a moderator for their forums. And I can assure you, we are NOT hyper-patriarchal. She is also good friends with the Harris’s daughter and has found her to be a delightfully honest and sincere Christian young lady with similar interests to that of my own daughter.
Let’s not move too far into speculation here, that we lose our own credibility.
Just my thoughts for your consideration.
June 29, 2007 at 3:06 am
Spunky,
I agree that you cannot take comments from a blog and use them to define the blog owner’s theology. I was not aware the statement posted was a comment when I made my remarks. Thank you for mentioning that.
However, it is not merely the comments on the Rebelution that bother me. There are some good things on their blog. There are also bizarre happenstances like their modesty survey. Call me what you will, the whole thing smacked of blaming women for the lust of young men. Several of the questions were poorly worded in that direction. The marketing of the modesty survey was bothersome as well. I am not the only person who thinks this way about their modesty survey. I did express my concerns about this on their blog myself when the survey first appeared on the scene. I know home school girls with eating disorders and body image problems stemming from attitudes about the female body that are at the root of the modesty survey.
As for the Harris family not being hyper-patriarchs, I do not know one way or the other, and I don’t know them personally as your daughter does. But I do know my relatives, who attend their church, and they are hyper-patriarchs. I do know that the Harris boys cover Vision Forum events on their blog, and that Doug Phillips recommends their blog. I know that Jennie Chancey has endorsed the Rebelution. I do know that Vision Forum recommends the church their father started. Please do not tell me they do not have hyper-patriarchal influence in their theology and thinking.
June 29, 2007 at 3:08 am
I should add, I think it’s safe to say that many of their commentators and participants are influenced by home school pop culture, which is increasingly influenced by hyper-patriarch theology.
June 29, 2007 at 4:04 am
I have referenced Vision Forum, endorsed the ministry of Doug Phillips, met the man personally, attended several of his events, and purchased his materials, and awarded him the title of Best Homeschool Dad blog determined by votes in 2005. My previous church was also listed on the Vision Forum site until the pastor had a moral failing.
Does this mean that I am a hyper-patriarch? Not by any stretch of my denim jumper which hangs idle in my closet are we hyper-patriarchs. If that can be said of us, I am willing to give them Harris’s the benefit of the doubt. While I cannot claim that I have not been influenced by Doug Phillip’s ministry, that in no way should indicate that we are hyper-patriarchs in theology and thinking.
June 29, 2007 at 4:52 am
Hello Ladies,
I just wanted to add my two cents here. The quote in question is definitely not from Alex and Brett, and is not typical, or the normal type of comment on their site. And no, they do not endorse that type of attitude.
Secondly, Spunky has connection to the Harris family through her daughter, but I have a connection through marriage. I am married to Joel Harris, the older brother of the twins. You could say I know the Harris family quite well. *wink* Can you take me as an authoritative source?
So am I married into a “bizarre, hyper-patriarchical” family?
Ladies, you can put away your tar and feathers, I can assure you that the Harris family and their church is not hyper-patriarchical. The HOFCC churches are not endorsed by VF, but are simply on their list of age-integrated churches (they believe and practice many things that VF would majorly disagree with).
I don’t know which family, Sarah, you are referring to who is hyper-patriarchical, but that would not be the norm in HOFCC Churches. Our churches do believe in the complementary view on men and women. But that, as you all well know, is not the same as being hyper-patriarchal.
As far as the twins (and my husband) goes, I defy any women to give an example of more sacrificial, humble, loving, kind, considerate, respectful, men who honor women and their brains more. As the wife of one of the Harris brothers, I am just sad that not all have husbands that honor, respect, and care for them as much as mine does. And the twins will be just the same when they get married. They currently respect and care for their mother and sister in an unusually honorable way. I have never met a family where the sons give their mother’s (as well as their father’s) words so much weight in their decisions. In the twins’ many interactions with me, I have always felt honored and highly esteemed.
As far as the modesty survey goes, Sarah, I don’t think you understand Alex and Brett’s heart with that. I have also never known any men, such as the Harris brothers, who take so much responsibility for their own eyes and their own sin. You also failed to mention (a fact I am sure that you are aware of if you interacted on their website) that it was the ladies who asked these questions, not the twins. If you thought these questions were bizarre, you should have seen the hundreds they cut.
Regardless of whether you agree to the approach of the survey, the twins are not bizarre, demeaning, guys blaming womankind for the sin of men. But rather the opposite. In fact, I really like them. : )
June 29, 2007 at 5:03 am
Hi Kimi,
It was nice to hear from you.
You are right that the comment was not from either of your bils. It was, I believe, from a girl.
I also wanted to say that I was impressed with the young men’s answers to the modesty survey. It seems that they understand more about the scriptures and what they say and their own responsibility than the older “patriarchs” who have written such essays as “Sin of Bathsheba” and the like.
We need some good examples for our children and it sure sounds, from your description, that you and your family and church are striving to follow the scriptures without adding to them or subtracting from them.
June 29, 2007 at 5:12 am
Spunky,
I was not using that comment to condemn that blog or its owners. I just thought the comment, which I clearly stated was from the comments section as opposed to the article section, seemed to resemble the Botkin girls’ book and the Swanson podcast in its extreme conclusions.
“Let’s not move too far into speculation here, that we lose our own credibility.”
You are right but I was not speculating about the blog but I thought the comment was a good example of what we were talking about.
“(That is the same tactic used in reverse that allowed Mr. Chancey to claim that Jen Epstein was a kinist.) ”
I assure you that this is NOT what I was doing. I in no way thought that that comment was any reflection of the owners of that blog. I did think it was a reflection of the individual commenter and the influence in her life.
I am sorry for not being clearer about that and I apologize for offending you or anyone else for not making this clearer.
I actually read the responses from the modesty survey a couple of months ago and I thought that I would like to send all the patriarchal types over to that blog so they can take some lessons from these young men.
June 29, 2007 at 5:16 am
“I agree that you cannot take comments from a blog and use them to define the blog owner’s theology. I was not aware the statement posted was a comment when I made my remarks. Thank you for mentioning that.”
Sarah,
I am sorry for not making myself clearer.
“Here is another scary scenario that happens to “independent” working women. I got this out of the comment section on the Rebelution blog:”
This is what I did say and I should have gone further and explained that it in no way represented the whole blog but just this one person’s thoughts on “independent” working women.
I hope I did not cause you any trouble.
June 29, 2007 at 5:37 am
Corrie,
I am so relieved to hear your clarification. Thanks for making it.
*smile*
Kimi
June 29, 2007 at 5:39 am
I also wanted to say, Corrie, that I was not assuming that you were saying that quote reflected Alex and Brett’s viewpoint. I just wanted to make sure that others understood that as well as address some of Sarah’s concerns.
June 29, 2007 at 6:44 am
Kimi,
I appreciate you taking the time to comment on my thoughts and concerns, especially given that I have been concerned about my own relatives (particularly their daughters). Perhaps your church is even a moderating influence, and that would be a blessing.
My relatives who attend HoF are hyper-patriarchs by almost any definition, so it is nice to hear from you that your family is not. My relatives may disavow the label, but they certainly live in a hyper-patriarch fashion.
The fact that Alex and Brett cut more off the wall questions does not make some of the questions they did keep any less bizarre. As I said, I stated my concerns on their blog at one time and do not feel the need to dive into that in any depth here. I just never really received a response (Note to Corrie – yes, some of the answers were good, but some of the questions were still bizarrely skewed). If girls came up with some of those questions, that’s even more disturbing – and no excuse for Alex and Brett to not come up with more appropriate and less biased questions.
Further, I thought I should clarify. First, I did not refer to your family as bizarre. I referred to the modesty survey, in its incarnation, as bizarre, and I maintain that it is (you can read it at the rebelution to form your own opinion).
Second, I specifically said that I did not know one way or the other if the Harris family is hyper-patriarchal. I simply listed reasons why one might legitimately be concerned that they are. So, your comments are very useful to me personally in that regard.
Spunky,
You do raise a good point, that endorsing someone does not mean you agree with everything they represent. And frankly, all of these people do seem to endorse each others books and conferences with regularity, so that is another argument that agrees with your point.
That said, you probably endorsed Doug Phillips before you began to have concerns about the extent of some of his more extreme practices. You probably did not realize that such an endorsement would connect you to extreme patriarchy.
The Harris brothers (or anyone else) should not be surprised if people think they are supporters of hyper-patriarchy when they accept the enthusiastic endorsements of Doug Phillips, Jennie Chancey, and are even interviewed on Kevin Swanson’s radio program themselves. We are not talking about random endorsement, either – we are talking about reciprocation. The Harris brothers have blogged Vision Forum events and have an advertisement on Ladies Against Feminism. The Harris brothers even interviewed Doug Phillips on the rebelution.
Kimi, if your brothers in law do not wish to be mistaken for being part of the hyper-patriarch movement (or at least being sympathetic), they might want to reconsider the ads and blogging with Vision Forum and Ladies Against Feminism. And your church might reconsider being listed on VF age integrated church list. Any reasonable person could look at all those things together and conclude at the very least, the Harris brothers are hyper-patriarch sympathizers.
I will say that I have met them personally, a couple years ago, and thought they seemed nice enough young men. I am relieved by Kimi’s assertion that they continue to be nice young men.
June 29, 2007 at 11:32 am
Tedd Pittenger and SMI
Dear Ted,
Thank you so much for dropping by and clarifying the relationships of Samaritan Ministries International with those in question. I especially liked this statement:
“We may be one on the few places this side of heaven where two saints in the Lord who otherwise might not be able to sit at the same table and fellowship together, will, however, pray for one another, and share the financial burden of one another.”
I would hope that on this blog, we, too, could come to the same table by sitting down, reasoning, and sharing ideas and philosophies, sometimes even passionately, with those who differ on the issue of what it means to be a true woman in the 21st century. I think we are accomplishing that very thing, as many have commented to us that they have appreciated the sweet spirit and gracious words that have been used here.
I have long held a deep concern over the direction I have seen the homeschooling community going when it comes to the topic of women and their roles and gifts within the body of Christ. By labeling and arousing fear through hyperbole and agenda-spouting, genuine understanding will never occur, thus the concern over the promotion of the Botkin book and the inflammatory comments made recently by Kevin Swanson.
Those of us who see God’s hand moving amongst the many people who choose a path for their families other than patriocentricity are often labeled as “feminists,” “unsubmissive troublemakers,” or “patriarch hunters.” Instead of trusting that God has a plan for each of His own image bearers and that that plan might be different for each family and each person, especially each woman, there are blanket expectations placed on women in the homeschooling community that are not even Biblical and that cause much unnecessary frustration and pain, even to the point where I personally know women who have thrown in the towel, believing they can never measure up to the paradigm that has been established within some groups. It is heartbreaking.
It is to that end, we have sought to understand and publically discuss the validity of some of those tenets of patriocentricity and hold them up to the light of Scripture. We are called to be Bereans and, as others have pointed out on this blog, the dear Bereans were commended for scrutinizing the apostle Paul for doing likewise. May we all be as ever diligent and not embrace every teaching that comes down the homeschooling pike without searching the Word for its truth in the matter. And may the Lord continue to give us the boldness to stand for that truth, even when it comes at personal cost.
Thank you again for your prompt and gracious response.
Sincerely,
Karen Campbell
June 29, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Corrie you said, ” I was not speculating about the blog but I thought the comment was a good example of what we were talking about….”
You’re right and I apologize. I was thinking about your comment and the one following it and mixed all my thoughts together which led to a poorly worded comment. My apologies and thanks for the clarification.
June 29, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Sarah, you said,”The Harris brothers (or anyone else) should not be surprised if people think they are supporters of hyper-patriarchy when they accept the enthusiastic endorsements of Doug Phillips, Jennie Chancey, and are even interviewed on Kevin Swanson’s radio program themselves. We are not talking about random endorsement, either – we are talking about reciprocation. The Harris brothers have blogged Vision Forum events and have an advertisement on Ladies Against Feminism. The Harris brothers even interviewed Doug Phillips on the rebelution.
You bring up an excellent point. It is exactly because of my past endorsement and dealings with Vision Forum that I began to watch this situation closely. I emailed seeking clarification, however dialogue was not possible. Which I can understand. I’m sure they get a lot of email and handling ongoing dialogue is difficult. So I decided to voice my own concerns publically with the hope that Vision Forum and Doug Phillips will provide an explanation to those that have supported them.
Endorsements are wonderful when they work in one’s favor, but they can also come back to haunt you if the alliance is too close and people begin to assume that their beliefs are those of your own.
And I agree with you that those who have make a strong public alliance with others, ought to consider how it appears and decide if the continued endorsements represent the beliefs of their own organization or ministry and if not, offer a disclaimer to avoid unncessary confusion.
June 29, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Karen,
Your comment about “the home school pike” is excellent and desperately needs to be heard.
Home school fads have devastated people and families. Home school fads harmed me personally. The current “SAHD” fad has the potential to be as harmful as any yet.
There is no fool-proof way to ensure the Godliness and salvation of your children or anyone in your life. No book, curriculum, lecture, or conference can save a person or a family. Only Jesus can. Those who assert otherwise, even obliquely via their marketing, are missing the truth.
Keeping your family or children locked up at home is not the answer. It will not save them in the long run.
I don’t know what the answer is. We can earnestly seek God and ask for wisdom. We can do our best, even as sinners, to love the children in our lives and give them the tools to discern right and good. Regardless of what curriculum you buy or church you attend, there is always the possibility that your child will choose something else. I have seen it in good Christian families, and there was really nothing the parents could do to stop it.
Many love the verse regarding the full quiver, but don’t complete the analogy by letting their arrows go. You can’t hold on to your quiver forever. Arrows are meant to fly, and all you can do, by the grace of God, is give your arrows a good start.
June 29, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Sarah (and Spunky),
Thanks for the reply. I am sure you can understand that it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to answer how the twins view VF, especially since I haven’t talked to them about that issue much at all!! But I will pass on your concerns to them, so they can take them into consideration. They are extremely busy right now, so I don’t know if they will have time to look into it. But perhaps at a future date, they can thoroughly look into it.
My main concern in jumping in here, was to make sure that, regardless of what others think of VF, to make sure that no one took the “connection”, if it can be called that, to the twins and get carried away into thinking that they were something they were not. It is way to easy to do that and it seems to happen especially easy on the internet.
I have been amazed how someone’s character could be so torn apart by taking some, out of the context quote, connection, etc and pulling it to pieces (often without thoroughly investigating the matter). I am sure that someone could do the same to all of us, if they cared too. I just wanted to make sure that it didn’t happen here (I am not saying that you were trying to do that. I just wanted to make sure it didn’t happen). I understand, Sarah, how you could misunderstand the twins by certain things you have pointed out, but if you look at their blog as a whole, I think you will get a better idea of who they are.
Anyway, Sarah, I do think that the twins have a post regarding what they believe about women and men on their blog, if you really care about knowing what they do believe ,you can read it.
I don’t know the link for it, however. But if you go to their resource section, they have a few links that they like on this topic which might give insight into how they think.
Sarah said:
“Further, I thought I should clarify. First, I did not refer to your family as bizarre. I referred to the modesty survey, in its incarnation, as bizarre, and I maintain that it is (you can read it at the rebelution to form your own opinion).”
We do not need to go into the modesty survey on this forum since it’s off topic. However, just a few points for clarification. I have read through the modesty survey, in fact, I helped them edit it. : ) . I do not know which questions you thought were so “bizarre”, but it is possible that we, because of our backgrounds, are viewing those questions in an entirely different light than you are. I am sure that I must have read your concerns on their blog when you wrote in, and I don’t think that I ever saw ones that were a huge red flag to me. This might be because I was not thoroughly understanding where you were coming from (on the other side, you probably didn’t thoroughly understand where this survey was coming from). However, you must understand that saying that something that the twins were heading up was “bizarre” is going to be a reflection on them.
Kimi
June 30, 2007 at 12:00 am
Kimi,
You probably don’t know where I am coming from, but it should not be too hard for you to understand: I have the same background as you and the twins – conservative, charismatic, Christian home school background. I even live in the NW, although I did not grow up here. I am older by a few years, however, and have devoted extensive time to studying and examining my cultural and religious presuppositions. I am not saying that you have not thought about things, I’ve just had a little more time to do it. You simply cannot write me off as someone who does not understand where you are coming from. I don’t think the Modesty survey or the other things on Rebelution that make me raise my eyebrows emanate from malicious motives, if that is what you are concerned about. What I see is young people trying, but with the usual pitfall – lack of experience and maturity that only comes with time. I don’t want to hijack this thread into a Modesty survey/Rebelution discussion, however.
If the twins do not wish a connection with Doug Phillips and Vision Forum, then they should at the very least consider a disclaimer. To bring this around to topic
, they might want to note something about their Kevin Swanson interview, too. I believe the reasons this might be wise are articulated in one of my previous posts.
The patriarchy movement is infecting home school culture and it is part of our thinking sometimes, even if it is not intentional. As such, I would encourage your brothers in law to consider evaluating their own theological and moral position on patriarchy and the home school movement sooner rather than later, particularly since the twins set themselves as teachers and role models for young people.
June 30, 2007 at 4:25 am
Sarah,
Hmmmm…..I said what I said about the modesty survey in an attempt to be gracious and concede that you may have insight into some of the questions that I, or the twins, had not seen, as well as point out that you may not have fully understood the twins position (which was obvious to me by previous comments you made). However, that tactic seemed to have failed or been misunderstood. I am sorry if I have offended you for I wasn’t trying to “write you off”.
While I am tempted to address some of the points you have brought, or re-brought up. I don’t think it would be beneficial to anyone. Okay, scratch that, I will address just one thing. I would like to point out that the twins run their blog through the guidance of both of their parents. While the twins do take full responsibility for their site, I do think it’s worth noting that their parents (both in their 50’s, with much study, time, and experience under their belt) support the twins views (and morals and theology). It’s not really fair to pull “I am older than you” argument on them. Also, I do think that age brings knowledge and more wisdom normally and I am sure they will grow in wisdom as they age. But I think that wisdom ultimately comes from God and His word. One can be quite old and unwise and foolish, or quite young and wise through Him. He is the giver of wisdom, not time. (1Kings 5:12,Psa. 105:22 Psa. 119:99). But I definitely agree that the aged are more wise normally and that there is a biblical basis for that.
One of the things I have appreciated about many of the ladies on this blog is that they are willing to listen and give thought to the words of those younger than them. They may not agree and will say so, but they don’t “look down on their youth”.
As far as the other issues you raised, once again, I think that it would be inappropriate for me to speak for the twins on them(though I am tempted). I will pass your concerns on, however. You can always email them as well (seeing how concerned you are about their beliefs, perhaps you already have?). I know that the twins are humble young men, and if they see truth in your words they will admit it. If they don’t, they will carry on as they see fit in the Lord.
June 30, 2007 at 5:56 pm
We have definitely hijacked this thread, so I apologize.
In an attempt to bring it back, I am going to state why myself and others are concerned about what the Botkin sisters believe (or the Harris brother, or Kevin Swanson, or Doug Phillips).
The Botkin sisters and the Harris brothers set themselves as teachers of an impressionable demographic, young home school adults.
Patriocentricity is – to me – Unbiblical and damages lives. If you are writing books and/or putting on conferences that promulgate the ideals of patriocentricity, you are harming people (including, say, my brothers and sisters in this age demographic).
The Botkin sisters are unapologetically patriocentric in their thinking. Although, I doubt they actually agree with Kevin Swanson that college is going make you have 3 abortions. They did seem a bit shell shocked by Mr. Swanson’s opening remarks. All of us were shell shocked, I think.
Kimi tells us the Harris brothers are not patriocentric in their thinking. I welcome this news, because, again, they set themselves as teachers of a very impressionable demographic. I am taking her word for it.
I will admit a bias against young people being teachers of the word and advising others on how to live life. I generally don’t think young adults have had enough time to develop their own thinking on various issues, and instead parrot what their parents have taught them. They may not parrot things that are wrong, but I don’t think it’s fair to young people like the Botkin sisters to be set up as props for a movement they have not had enough life experience or time to appropriately evaluate. And yes, if you wonder, I always read that verse in Timothy a bit different – as in, don’t do anything to make people look down on you because of your youth. This is as opposed to – don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young.
I did express my concerns about the modesty survey in a comment on the Harris twins blog. Other people did too. So, I don’t think this is the right place to rehash it. There is an excellent post here in defining modesty, if you are interested in modesty in general.
June 30, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I have to say, I have always found Joshua Harris’s books to stick to the HEART of the matter, and not elevating any method above pleasing Jesus, and never saying “Do it this way!”. The message has always left the right of personal application.
So, after a brief look at the Rebelution site, it appears that his brothers are following in the same way, and I love how they actually mention the Gospel!!!! I dare you to find that in patriocentric circles!
That said, it is concerning to me that they, for lack of a better word, “endorse” Doug Phillips and Vision Forum and Doug Wilson (who, unfortunately, I believe now belongs on the list as well). I have heard that they attend many Vision Forum events, and they list Doug Wilson’s books on their booklist.
I choose to take it that they do interact with these men as brothers in Christ, and I hope that even in their youth they can have a positive influence on these older men that have forgotten how to keep the main thing the main thing. And while I believe this to be their heart concerning this matter, I have to admit that the association still bothers me some.
July 2, 2007 at 5:36 am
I’ve never commented here before, but have been following many of these discussions with great interest. Thanks for interesting topics and gracious dialogue, ladies!
Sorry if this continues an off-topic rabbit trail, but I wanted to say something re: the Harris twins and the modesty survey. A feminist blog which I used to follow (I am most decidedly not a feminist, but I responded to and really appreciated the blog author’s gracious attempts to dialogue with opposing viewpoints) –www.happyfeminist.typepad.com– posted an article opposing the survey and accusing the twins of being of a hyper-patriachal pursuasion.
In the comments of that post, I defended the twins personally and will do so here as well. I TRULY think their heart was in the right place with their survey. I don’t know them personally, but I’ve been familiar with the Harris family (from a distance) for over a decade. I was a subscriber to Josh Harris’ New Attitude magazine as a home-schooled teenager, have read his books, and am familiar with his parents’ work. From what I’ve seen of the twins’ blog, they have the same heart as their parents and older brother…ie NOT legalistic or hyper-patriarchal, but a true desire to follow the Lord and encourage others.
However, I had to agree with Happy Feminist that the Modesty Survey hit me the wrong way. I think it was this: why are YOUNG GIRLS going to young men for highly specific advice on how to dress? I’m sorry, but that’s WAY too big of a burden to place on hormonal young men…nitpick every detail of your sisters-in-Christ wardrobe for appropriateness, dwelling on questions such as what type of necklines pose the greatest threat to pure thoughts, etc. It’s just innapropriate for these girls to turn to teenage boys instead of their mothers or even fathers (with extreme caution, however…he’s still a male!), or other wiser older Christian women. Also, a girl could go crazy analyzing every aspect of her wardrobe to make sure that it meets with every implied standard laid down by this survey.
What I DO think would be helpful, is more dialogue between young men and women about the HEART and SPIRIT of modesty (I appreciate your modesty discussion above!) Once that’s down, the actions and wardrobe tend to follow suit.
BTW, the twins commented on Happy Feminist’s afore-mentioned thread, demonstrating a very humble spirit. They may make some mistakes, but I think they’re headed in the right direction.
July 2, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Erin, I just visited the Happy Feminist site, and while I was there, I noticed an article about LAF’s “Rebelution” survey. I read the article and the comments, and since we’ve been talking about modesty here, one comment jumped out at me. The commentor said, “….women do have more responsibility in this area simply because men are more visually oriented than women.”
Now, I have heard this repeated over and over again, ad nauseum. But has anyone ever really proven it scientifically?
Young teen-age boys (and grown men who have been taught to blame women for their lack of self control) become aroused with very little provocation, and our culture is such that men who do NOT react in this way are seen as less than manly. Boys are taught about sex early on, and they are taught that if they are normal, they SHOULD become aroused at the sight of an attractive female. Those who are taught that such arousal is a sin are told that even though it’s sinful, it’s a normal reaction, nonetheless — one that is not their fault, but the fault of those women, for walking around in female bodies and tempting men.
Until very recently, girls have NOT been taught that they are less than feminine if they don’t ogle every boy they see (though unfortunately, this is starting to change.)
That doesn’t mean that teenage girls do not become aroused by visual cues just as often and just as easily as teenage boys, but it does mean that they have not traditionally been taught to connect “that feeling” to the idea of sexual intercourse — thinking back to when I was a young adolescent, I had an idea that that funny feeling was somehow connected to boys, but I did not connect it to the idea of intercourse until I was much, much older. And girls have certainly not been taught to base their self image on how often they get “that feeling”, as have boys. Hence, we grew up ignoring or de-sexualizing the same visual cues that the men (and the boys of the Rebelution) are TAUGHT to focus on, lest they be thought to be unmanly.
July 2, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Hey Erin,
Thanks for the kind (and honest) thoughts you shared. I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to answer your post here in regards to the modesty survey since it is off topic. But I would be interested in emailing you! Would you mind emailing me your email address at kimi.harris@gmail.com? I couldn’t find your email on your contact page (it wasn’t working for me).
Kimi
July 3, 2007 at 7:09 am
He actually said that the majority of babies are born without fathers. LOL
Even a couple of Vestal virgins like the Botkins couldn’t possibly believe his take on Biology.
Female + College = 3 abortions ?
His math is bad too.
It is really dis hearting to hear a couple of young kids tell us all how to live (according to their delusional twisting of scripture). They should home learning how to sew & bake bread or something like any well breed “stay home daughter”.
July 3, 2007 at 3:20 pm
“Female + College = 3 abortions ?”
It’s not just the math. I attended college, and I would sooner die than have an abortion; many other college-educated women feel the same way. The person who wrote this is using hyperbole to advance an agenda, and he is using it the point where it becomes an out and out LIE.
We all know who the father of lies is.
July 3, 2007 at 5:49 pm
” The commentor said, “….women do have more responsibility in this area simply because men are more visually oriented than women.”
Now, I have heard this repeated over and over again, ad nauseum. But has anyone ever really proven it scientifically?”
Cynthia,
Great post.
Yes, I guess if you repeat something often enough it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?
I think what you said about women being trained to ignore or not tie in what they see concerning an attractive man to the feelings they get is very true.
If we really want to go to scripture the very first place where it talks about someone being tempted through what they see is Eve. She saw that the fruit was good looking.
Also, the Song of Songs shows a young woman totally GA-GA over the BODY of her lover. She describes his body in graphic, erotic detail. It sexually excited her to see and think about his body.
Men are fooling themselves if they think that women do not struggle with lust. Obviously nice women don’t lust and they certainly don’t get turned on by what they see.
I once talked about the Diet Coke commercial and how there were a bunch of women lusting after a shirtless construction worker outside of their office window. I was told that this commerical was a feminist ploy to get women to think they are like men and think they are attracted to attractive, half-clad men with a nice body. I was told that women do not do those things and that the feminists would like us to believe that we do so we can act like men.
I looked at it more as real life. This is what women talk about when they are in groups and are open and honest with each other. They just aren’t so obvious about it because it is socially unacceptable and if a woman admits that she thinks a man is hot, there is a stigma attached to her.
July 10, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Anyone notice Kevin Swanson’s latest program is on polygamy (anti)? A bit refreshing, in a way, because I would not be surprised to see some of these hyper-patriarchs get into polygamy. It will be almost necessary as SAHM’s who cannot find husbands get older.
Hopefully the SAHM thing is a fad – but even as a fad, it will harm many people.
July 10, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I will add, it really amuses me, many of the Biblical patriarchs were polygamists. How does Kevin reconcile this with with his anti-polygamy stance?
July 11, 2007 at 6:21 am
Sarah,
Did you mean SAHD’s (daughters), not SAHM’s (mom’s)? Just wanted to clarify…
And while I’ve stumbled upon websites for patriarchal “Christian” polygamists, I highly doubt that that movement will recruit many new subscribers, whereas hyper-patriarchy is pulling in huge percentages of “mainstream” Christian homeschoolers. It sounds just normal and biblical enough, especially when you’ve been in that crowd for a while already…
And yes, you are too right: even as a fad (which I pray is all it is allowed to become) the stay-at-home-daughter teaching IS EXREMELY damaging. There will be too many girls to testify to that in years to come.
July 11, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Yes, I meant SAHDs. Although I think some of the SAHMs are in bad situations, too.
Staying at home is not a bad thing. It’s just how some people do it.
July 11, 2007 at 6:08 pm
“Staying at home is not a bad thing. It’s just how some people do it.”
Exactly.
July 19, 2007 at 10:26 pm
I must say I have been pretty surprised by this comment section. I am new to this whole “vision forum/ anti-vision forum” sub-culture, but I just can’t believe that so many believers just sit around on blogs bashing and speaking so harshly about other believers and ministries, its really a shame.
If we really want to talk about whats biblical lets talk about speaking unkindly about others. Yes, its easy (and cowardly) to sit behind your keyboard all day and tear people down, but it isnt right. I dont know much about all these people in question, but it looks to me that they are just trying to live a godly life. Do we really have the right to bash that?
Maybe we all could make better use of our time, instead of sitting around judging others on a public forum.
Besides, how do all you women/mothers have so much time to write so many comments? Would love to know your secret, I just dont have that kind of time.
August 7, 2007 at 2:24 am
Blimey, limey, you sure all got excited about this. I’ma back Allie on this one. I think you’re reading them wrong. They sound sincere, and smart, and their ideas really could be helpful to a lot of women, even if the principle is not universally applicable.
August 7, 2007 at 4:07 am
Allie and Skyfort
You can be sincere and be sincerely wrong at the same time.
August 7, 2007 at 5:30 am
When someone says they prefer to do sew their own clothing, it’s simply a matter of personal choice and preference.
When somebody says that sewing your own clothes is God’s Way (and that buying pre-made clothes is sin), and writes books telling other Christians such, it’s no longer a matter of personal preference.
Some of us have been deeply harmed by the philosophy the Botkin sisters are helping to spread. (You admonish us to speak kindly, while speaking very unkindly, calling commenters cowardly for sharing their dissenting opinions, etc). What is, to you, a side issue (and I’m glad for that!) is something that many of us have lived through—and have the scars to prove it.
If it were a matter of one group’s personal preference over the other, then it would be our business to “mind our own business.” However, this isn’t a matter of personal preference. Patriarchal teachers say their way *is* God’s Way (and that those who disagree literally are in sin and rebellion, or decieved by Satan).
If a person has carried a heavy burdensome load, and then had Jesus set her free, would it be godly or ungodly for her to ignore brothers and sisters struggling under that same road? Would it be godly or ungodly for her to try to caution against those who have and do put heavy loads on the backs of others?
I am SO glad your experience has not been in this camp. Praise God! I ask that you please be gracious towards those of us who’ve “been there and bought the T-shirt.” We aren’t just flapping our lips. There are legitimate issues worth bringing attention to, and the back-breaking burdens being put on the backs of Believers are VERY real.
August 7, 2007 at 11:35 am
Allie and Skyfort,
Welcome to this blog. I hope you come back often and read much. We welcome any discussion and dialogue you might want to bring our direction!
One thing I would encourage you to do is to listen to and read the teachings of those we have discussed here. We in no way want to encourage censorship of them. On the contrary, we really believe that examining what is taught and holding it up to the light of God’s Word is the only way to sort through the teachings for women that are coming from a variety of directions. However, if you find those teachings to weigh you down and overwhelm your spirit, stop reading and analyze what you have been told and have read.
On this blog, both among the TW contributors and the many wonderful commenters, we have a variety of views of what it means to be a true woman in the 21st century. Please take a minute to read our purpose statement and know that we all truly want to serve the Lord Jesus Christ first and foremost and, while that means examining teachings in the light of Scripture, it also sometimes means showing where someone’s teachings have gone beyond what the Bible teaches. And please, please understand that we are all in the process of learning. Many of us are not where we were 2 months or 10 years ago.
We also seek to do all of these things with gentleness and integrity. If we have seemed harsh in any way, please know that it isn’t that we do not consider these teachers to not be our brothers and sisters in Christ. But, as Jesus did with the Pharisees, we seek to be direct and forthright when we see burdens placed on the backs of others, burdens that are cruel and discouraging and that blur the picture of God’s glorious grace to us.
August 7, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Hello Allie and Skyfort,
So glad you dropped in! I can certainly understand your first impression. I would feel the same way if I wasn’t unfortunately all too familiar with the basis for it.
As Molleth already mentioned, many of us are not idle commentors, but were submerged in the teachings and lifestyle we are referring to; we’re well aquainted with the inconsistencies that we speak of. It’s precisely because we DO love God and His Word that these inconsistencies between it and the applications we’ve lived have weighed on our hearts, not only for the unlearning we have had to do for ourselves, and for those that haven’t yet started on their road to the freedom Christ bought and intended for them.
And while I understand that it may seem cowardly since this is the only forum you have witnessed our discussion of this, let me assure you that there HAS been MUCH discussion with those who do hold these views (in which, sadly, we were not treated so kindly as we try to remain here).
And one last note… I know the first thought is to think that our “bashing” is to impersonal non-aquaintances, and while this may be the case with a few of us, many of us who were in it still have friends and family carrying burdens from these teachings. It is from our LOVE for them that we speak out against what we are witnessing hinder their true freedom in Christ.
And since we DO wish to do this is a Christ-like fashion (remember, He was TERRIBLY outspoken about what He witnessed going against the Father’s heart), please inform us if we venture into words that are not called for or completely uncalled for. Love in Him…
October 3, 2007 at 7:40 am
Hi Ladies,
I have come across this only yesterday.
Although long past the discussion, please indulge me a little.
Reading through this it seems as though you ladies are completely against patriarchy? Is my assessment correct?
If not, would you please be so kind as to describe what you believe a biblical view of patriachy is? (Please include scripture ref.)
I have also found the term ‘hyper-patriarchy’ mentioned frequently, but with no definition of the term. Can you kindly also define the term for newcomers like myself?
Marita
October 5, 2007 at 11:22 am
Marita,
I have answered your question on the “visionary daughters” thread, number 698. Please feel free to ask any more questions you might have or to e-mail me privately.
January 9, 2008 at 7:03 am
[...] The Botkin Girls Website “So Much More…Than God Requires?” Feminism, An Enemy! Online Interview with the Botkin Sisters (at TrueWomanhoodBlog–don’t miss the comments) Monstrous Women (again, at [...]
January 26, 2008 at 4:06 am
I would love to see how much money goes into their pocket from all of this. Hmmm… you think they could just share their “wisdom” with us for free! Guess it doesn’t work like that in christianity.
April 15, 2008 at 12:49 am
I can’t read these comments (they show up very small) unless I copy and paste them into another source…which I did with the first twenty or so..so I haven’t read what comes after them yet…but I noticed that a lot of people are seeming to think these sisters are very sheltered, homeschooled, girls who are simply reiterating all they know to say and have been all but forced to think. Maybe some of those descriptions are similar or exactly what they are, but I don’t know much about them yet; I’m just now looking into their ideas. However, from what I hear so far, I don’t think they’re too far off. I was never homeschooled, and I know many women who work outside the home (even wives and even mothers), and my own mother has a very busy full-time job outside of our home. So maybe I have a different perspective. But I still cling to God’s Word for my authority and have so far gathered that young women are to be taught to stay home. The Bible says that. Titus 2:3-5.
April 15, 2008 at 3:00 am
Hi Olivia,
I have a lovely little cousin who bears that name, so it sticks out in my mind. Are the Olivia that posted over the Summer on Jen’s Gems? I just happened to remember the sweet name that gives me cause to think of my dear cousin and her little ones (including little Olivia). Hello and welcome either way!
June 17, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I just listened to Swanson’s Botkin interview. The girls responses seemed scripted and flat. Swanson’s hyperactivity was annoying and in bad taste. Sounded like bad talk-radio…trashy and in-your-face.
Swanson appears gullable and misled by this Botkin vision for daughters. And he’s a minister I see too…very bad combination.
I went to college. I worked as a single woman. I had my own apartment. I never had an abortion. I never had a one night stand. I did work for strangers and some became life-long friends.
I’ve been married nearly 25 years. I homeschooled my children. My work experience and college education have been invaluable to my ability as a mother, wife, and home teacher. My children are all Christian.
If I had daughters they would be getting a university degree. I’ve encouraged my sons to marry women with the education to provide for themselves and MY GRANDCHILDREN God forbid, should they have to one day. I asked a physician friend once, how many days a week she would have to work in order to support herself and her five children. The answer was two days. Seems a whole lot wiser then working the check-out at Walgreens for 7 and still not making ends meet. And which makes more sense? Two doctors on the mission field or one?
I am over 50, with an interesting and full life. The only thing frustrating in my life is the myopic nonsense put out by Vision Forum and Botkin girls and frantic opinionated Kevin Swanson.
September 12, 2008 at 1:00 am
Woah. I just heard the part where the girls said “they have set their sights so much higher than a college education.” *Pounds my head against my college dorm room’s desk* What arrogance!
September 12, 2008 at 1:08 am
Wait? Women are helpers? Um, that’s not in my Bible?
October 2, 2008 at 12:14 pm
..]Using more than one drug at a time was far more common among the US kids (19.2 per cent prevalence); in fact it was more than double that of Dutch and three times that of German kids. The authors concluded that:..]
March 30, 2009 at 4:45 pm
They are taking over. My mother would be horrified to see where homeschooling has gone within 20 years.
My dad told me I could be ANYTHING I put my mind too. My mom told me I would be a wonderful wife and mother. I believe both of these are possible within a healthy Christian marriage.
Why doesn’t Kevin Swanson stop quacking and go home to be with his family that he is so involved with.
By the way, this is why I will never vote for the Constitution Party. It has been infiltrated by crazies.
Also, did you know that the Botkins were for many years involved with this organization?
http://gcxweb.org/
http://www.gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/index.php
It’s time to stop the madness. We need to reclaim the homeschool movement.