![\"\"](\"https:\/\/media.makeameme.org\/created\/patriarchy-patriarchy-m1s57o.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
By R.L. Stollar<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Originally posted on Homeschoolers Anonymous<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n \u201cPatriarchy\u201d has suddenly become a dirty word in the homeschooling movement. Whereas a short while ago it was a badge of honor, a symbol of pure righteous manliness, now leaders are scrambling to distance themselves from this word. They are swearing left and right that they aren\u2019t \u201cit\u201d and they never were \u201cit\u201d and gosh, why are people saying they are? They have been so gracious about \u201callowing\u201d their daughters the privilege of\u00a0wearing pants \u2014 or the privilege to go to college \u2014 they, the men with the divine authority, have\u00a0allowed<\/em>\u00a0this. How could anyone think poorly of them?<\/p>\n The sudden energy exerted by these leaders to claim they oppose Patriarchy has reached corners that are so\u00a0actually<\/em>\u00a0patriarchical it has become almost humorous to observe. Kevin Swanson recently\u00a0wrote a post on April 18<\/a>\u00a0where he matter-of-factly declares, \u201cI am not a patriarchal-ist. I have never been a patriarchal-ist, and I\u2019ve never called myself a patriarchal-ist.\u201d As evidence he offers the following statement: \u201cIt is no sin for a woman to take college level classes.\u201d<\/p>\n Well, gee, that settles\u00a0that<\/em>. I eagerly await Bill Gothard\u2019s declaration that he\u2019s not a legalism-ist.<\/p>\n As news about the predatory conduct of Doug Phillips \u2014 one of the key figures in the Christian Patriarchy movement \u2014 and Bill Gothard \u2014 one of the most ardent advocates of Legalism \u2014 spreads into the mainstream media, this will\u00a0become a more common occurrence. The problems plaguing the Christian Homeschooling Movement will\u00a0be chalked up to \u201cChristian Patriarchy\u201d and \u201cLegalism.\u201d Leaders will swear they aren\u2019t those things and therefore they\u2019re safe. We will be tempted to become fixated on labels and forget that labels aren\u2019t the problem. The problem,\u00a0as Libby Anne points out<\/a>, are \u201cthe beliefs [they\u2019re]\u00a0promoting.\u201d<\/p>\n Furthermore, while I agree with\u00a0Libby Anne that\u00a0the beliefs should take central stage, I am mystified because\u00a0few people\u00a0seem to understand the words themselves<\/em>. And I wonder whether that\u2019s why the beliefs are getting the short end of the stick. We\u2019ve turned \u201cChristian Patriarchy\u201d into this bizarre caricature \u2014 i.e., \u201cnot letting your daughters go to college\u201d \u2014 that\u2019s completely untrue. Go look at\u00a0Vision Forum\u2019s \u201cTenets of Biblical Patriarchy.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0Not letting your daughters go to college is\u00a0not on the list<\/em>. We\u2019re collapsing so many different categories \u2014 Quiverfull, Christian Patriarchy, general Patriarchy, Stay-At-Home-Daughter Movement, Complementarianism, etc. \u2014 that these words are becoming powerless.<\/p>\n A fundamental rule of communication is this: \u201cThe One\u00a0Who Defines the Terms Controls the Argument.\u201d<\/p>\n This is true.<\/p>\n But there is another fundamental rule of communication:\u00a0\u201cThe One\u00a0Who Employs\u00a0the Definitions\u00a0Sloppily Loses Control of the Argument.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n We\u2019re at a point now where\u00a0someone has claimed that Patrick Henry College is\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0patriarchical<\/a>\u00a0and \u201cproved\u201d it by\u00a0describing the college in blatantly patriarchical terms<\/em>. And the reason for that is simple: we\u2019ve exchanged the phrase \u201cChristian Patriarchy\u201d for \u201cPatriarchy,\u201d when the former is simply a particularly extreme version of the latter.\u00a0Patriarchy is any and every system based on male authority and dominance, one manifestation of which is Christian Patriarchy. We\u2019re also at a point where Michael Farris is confusingly\u00a0equating\u00a0\u201cQuiverfull\u201d with \u201cPatriarchy\u201d: not only did he think \u201cnot sending your daughters to college\u201d had something\u00a0to do with \u201cQuiverfull,\u201d he also thought that\u00a0\u201cnot sending your daughters to college\u201d (a caricature of\u00a0Christian Patriarchy<\/em>) was the definition of\u00a0Patriarchy<\/em>\u00a0(which is has nothing to do with whether or not your daughters go to college).<\/p>\n So I\u2019d like to dispel a few myths about what Christian Patriarchy is. I\u2019d like to emphasize that, by saying Christian Patriarchy\u00a0isn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0these things, I\u2019m not saying it\u00a0cannot<\/em>\u00a0be. I am saying it is so much\u00a0bigger<\/em>\u00a0than these things. To limit it to these things enables misdirection.<\/p>\n Myth #1: Christian Patriarchy is Patriarchy.<\/strong><\/p>\n Christian Patriarchy\u00a0is\u00a0<\/em>Patriarchy in one sense: insofar as Christian Patriarchy is\u00a0a system based on male authority and dominance, it\u00a0is a\u00a0subset<\/em>\u00a0of\u00a0Patriarchy. But as I stated previously, Patriarchy \u2014 being\u00a0a system based on male authority and dominance \u2014 is huge.\u00a0Any<\/em>\u00a0system grounded in male authority and dominance is Patriarchy. Thus even Complementarianism \u2014 however mild or extreme \u2014 is still Patriarchy because it still rests upon the foundational idea that males have a unique authority or right to dominance.<\/p>\n When we say that, \u201cOh, ____ isn\u2019t into Patriarchy\u201d \u2014 when we what we\u00a0mean<\/em>\u00a0is, \u201cOh, ____ isn\u2019t into\u00a0Christian Patriarchy\u201d \u2014\u00a0<\/em>we are giving someone an opportunity to downplay the fact that\u00a0they are still into Patriarchy<\/em>. And the problem with the subset of Christian Patriarchy isn\u2019t that its an\u00a0extreme<\/em>\u00a0version of Patriarchy. The problem is\u00a0that it is Patriarchy. Period.<\/em><\/p>\n So for example, Michael Farris\u00a0does<\/em>\u00a0believe in and advocate for Patriarchy. Just observe any of the politicians he endorses or, simpler yet, read\u00a0his 2004 book\u00a0What A Daughter Needs From her Dad<\/a>.\u00a0<\/em>Sure,\u00a0Farris\u00a0doesn\u2019t\u00a0believe in and advocate for the limited caricature of\u00a0Christian Patriarchy\u00a0<\/em>where daughters can\u2019t go to college. But again, as stated earlier, even that\u2019s a\u00a0caricature<\/em>\u00a0of Christian Patriarchy (as we\u2019ll discuss shortly). Michael Farris agrees with Christian Patriarchy far more than he disagrees with it.<\/p>\n Myth\u00a0#2:\u00a0Christian Patriarchy is Quiverfull.<\/strong><\/p>\n Quiverfull and Christian Patriarchy are often confused as the same thing. In fact, Michael Farris himself has confused these categories, when he said that he\u00a0does<\/em>\u00a0\u201cbelieve women should go to college.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0Whether or not you let your daughters go to college has nothing to do with Quiverfull. Quiverfull is, more or less,\u00a0a specifically Christian form of\u00a0natalism<\/a><\/em>\u2014 the idea of employing procreation as a tool of sociopolitical dominion and categorizing birth control as rebellion against\u00a0God. Michael Pearl gave us a perfect embodiment of Quiverfull\u2019s dominionist streak, when\u00a0he recently stated<\/a>,<\/p>\n \u201cIf you can\u2019t out-vote them today, out-breed them for tomorrow.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That<\/em>\u00a0is Quiverfull (albeit a distilled, intense version of it). And see, that sentiment\u00a0could exist in a matriarchicial society. (In fact, Mary Pride \u2014 often considered\u00a0\u201cthe Queen of Quiverfull\u201d \u2014\u00a0personally insinuated<\/a>\u00a0that she believes in Matriarchy more than Patriarchy. Though she has a nonsensical\u00a0definition of Matriarchy, she has harsh words for Christian Patriarchy advocates.)<\/p>\n Yes, there are many advocates of Christian Patriarchy who are Quiverfull. And by all means, speak out against the dehumanizing and toxic idea that your children are your weapons, and a woman\u2019s vagina is a weapons-building factory.<\/p>\n But remember these are distinct, especially considering there are many advocates of Christian Patriarchy who are\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0Quiverfull. Take Doug Wilson, for example. Doug Wilson is considered one of the pillars of Christian Patriarchy but\u00a0believes birth control can be useful<\/a>\u00a0to ensure\u00a0you\u2019re actually taking care of your current children<\/em>. That\u2019s outright heresy to the Quiverfull crowd.<\/p>\n Myth #3: Christian Patriarchy is Opposed to Daughters Going to College.<\/strong><\/p>\n The Stay-At-Home-Daughter Movement<\/a>\u00a0rose out of Christian Patriarchy. Indeed, many of this movement\u2019s advocates \u2014 for example, Voddie Baucham, Doug Phillips, and Geoff Botkin, who\u00a0promoted or were featured in<\/a>\u00a0the film,\u00a0\u201cReturn of the Daughters\u201d<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 are giants in the Christian Patriarchy movement. But \u2014 and this is crucial \u2014 not all advocates of Christian Patriarchy believe daughters\u00a0cannot go to college<\/em>. In fact, themajority<\/em>\u00a0of them are okay with it, provided their daughters (1) are still at home while attending college, (2) do not go to a secular college, and (3) study something relevant to \u201cdomestic affairs.\u201d There is\u00a0plenty<\/em>\u00a0to critique about that criteria, but using this \u201ccan\u00a0daughters can go to college\u201d litmus test is a red herring. Case in point: Baucham\u2019s daughter Jasmine \u2014 while still living at home \u2014 not only has a Bachelors degree but iscurrently pursuing\u00a0a Masters degree<\/a>.<\/p>\n And this isn\u2019t a \u201cnew\u201d development in Christian Patriarchy. John Thompson, writing in\u00a0Patriarch<\/em>\u00a0Magazine<\/a>\u00a0(a cornerstone publication of the Christian Patriarchy movement during the 90\u2032s),\u00a0articulated over a decade ago<\/a>\u00a0that it was tolerable to let your daughter get college-educated\u00a0provided that education\u00a0is gender-oriented and via home study.<\/em><\/p>\n So, again \u2014 this college litmus test is a red herring.<\/p>\n Myth #4: Christian Patriarchy is two steps away from wearing a burka.<\/strong><\/p>\n This myth\u00a0was articulated a few days ago<\/a>, and I couldn\u2019t help but laugh. Seriously, let\u2019s look at two\u00a0images of the daughters of popular\u00a0proponents of Christian Patriarchy:<\/p>\n Geoff Botkin\u2019s daughters, Anna-Sofia and Elizabeth:<\/p>\n Voddie Baucham\u2019s daughter, Jasmine:<\/p>\n Burkas?\u00a0Seriously<\/em>?<\/p>\n Look, there are many,\u00a0many<\/em>\u00a0parallels and connections between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism that one can make. Likewise, there are many,\u00a0many<\/em>\u00a0parallels and connections between Christian Patriarchy\u00a0and Islamic Patriarchy\u00a0that one can make. The parallels exist because fundamentalism and patriarchy as systems transcend people groups and cultures. Identifying and speaking out against those parallels and connections is important; it should be done\u00a0frequently, passionately, and loudly.<\/p>\n However, to say that, \u201cChristian Patriarchy is two steps away from wearing a burka\u201d is an asinine argument. Christian Patriarchy is not defined by clothing. Yes, there are many people within the Christian Patriarchy movement who have swallowed Modesty Culture. In fact, the above two images do not disprove this. (\u201cModesty Culture,\u201d like Christian Patriarchy, is not defined by how many \u201csteps\u201d it is away from wearing a burka.) But they do demonstrate that slapping\u00a0Christian Patriarchy<\/em>\u00a0with \u201cburka\u201d confuses the issue.<\/p>\n Myth #5: Christian Patriarchy is Limited to Homeschooling.<\/strong><\/p>\n This is the weirdest myth. Rumor has it that Christian Patriarchy advocates are\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0into homeschooling, whereas Christian Patriarchy opponents\u00a0tolerate other forms of education \u2014 for example, classical education in a private Christian school.<\/p>\n This is pure nonsense. Doug Wilson adamantly\u00a0and vocally\u00a0prefers<\/em>\u00a0private classical Christian education to\u00a0homeschooling. He personally founded a private school and\u00a0did not homeschool his kids<\/a>. In his 1991 book\u00a0Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning<\/em>, Wilson makes clear that he believes\u00a0\u201cclassical private schools to be superior to classical homeschooling.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0He states his case so strongly, in fact, that some say\u00a0\u201che condemns home school as a viable option,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0and one homeschooling parent demanded\u00a0he\u00a0\u201cstop being asked to speak at homeschool events.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0In his own words<\/a>, though, it\u2019s not so much homeschooling itself that he objects as much as it is \u201ca\u00a0radical home-centeredness\u201d that\u00a0\u201c[insists]\u00a0that the home can not only replace the school, but also the church and the civil magistrate.\u201d<\/p>\n An appreciation of private Christian education among Christian Patriarchy advocates is not limited to Wilson.\u00a0R.C. Sproul, Jr. \u2014 who co-wrote Vision Forum\u2019s \u201cTenets of Biblical Patriarchy\u201d with\u00a0Doug Phillips\u00a0\u2014 agrees to some extent with Wilson.\u00a0In October 2011, Sproul Jr. said<\/a>\u00a0that, ultimately, what\u2019s important is\u00a0Christian<\/em>\u00a0education that teaches \u201cday in and day out the Lordship of Christ over all things,\u201d and thus \u201cthe real issue is the secular perspective of the public schools, more than the methodology of homeschooling versus Christian schooling.\u201d<\/p>\n Similarly,\u00a0Patriarch Magazine<\/a><\/em>\u00a0argued over a decade ago<\/a>\u00a0that, while homeschooling is \u201cideal,\u201d \u201cChristian schools are a commendable alternative to the degenerate state schools.\u201d<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n It is pretty amazing that \u201cChristian Patriarchy\u201d as a specific\u00a0concept\u00a0\u2014 and Patriarchy as a general system \u2014 is finally being widely discussed among Christian homeschoolers. Seriously. It is amazing. This\u00a0is the first step towards wider awareness and change: our vocabulary is being adopted\u00a0and we can point to that vocabulary to facilitate conversation.<\/p>\n However, we take a step backwards\u00a0if we start equivocating between terms and diminish those terms\u2019 potency.\u00a0If you are new to this conversation, please take the time to educate yourself about what these words mean. Libby Anne has\u00a0a great breakdown of what \u201cChristian Patriarchy\u201d is<\/a>\u00a0that she wrote in 2012. Read it. Think about it. Also read about\u00a0what\u00a0Patriarchy<\/em>\u00a0is<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0how it differs<\/a>\u00a0from\u00a0the specific subset of Christian\/Biblical Patriarchy<\/a>. Educate yourself about how similar Christian Patriarchy andComplementarianism<\/a>\u00a0are (and arguably even identical<\/a>), and why\u00a0both<\/em>\u00a0are Patriarchy. (And while you\u2019re at it, look up\u00a0Kyriarchy<\/a>, too.)<\/p>\n Then reassess this mass hysteria among homeschool leaders who are begging us to consider them anti-Patriarchy. Because they are not.<\/p>\n Sugar-coated\u00a0Patriarchy\u00a0is still Patriarchy.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cPatriarchy\u201d has suddenly become a dirty word in the homeschooling movement. Whereas a short while ago it was a badge of honor, a symbol of pure righteous manliness, now leaders are scrambling to distance themselves from this word. They are swearing left and right that they aren\u2019t \u201cit\u201d and they never were \u201cit\u201d and gosh, why are people saying they are? They have been so gracious about \u201callowing\u201d their daughters the privilege of wearing pants \u2014 or the privilege to go to college \u2014 they, the men with the divine authority, have allowed this. How could anyone think poorly of them?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":845,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-christian-patriarchy"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"anna-sofia-and-elizabeth-botkin\"](\"https:\/\/homeschoolersanonymous.files.wordpress.com\/2014\/04\/anna-sofia-and-elizabeth-botkin.jpg?w=470&h=366\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"jasmine\"](\"https:\/\/homeschoolersanonymous.files.wordpress.com\/2014\/04\/jasmine.jpg?w=470\")
<\/a><\/p>\n