Rejecting the SAHD movement

[Sicily]

Here's a piece by a former SAHD on how she came to reject that lifestyle and patriarchy per se. 

Sounds like this one in particular took it upon herself to begin with and didn't come from a family that enforced it.

http://www.ashleyeaster.com/blog/why-im-no-longer-a-stay-at-home-daughter

The above is a guest entry on a blog by another former SAHD who now considers patriarchy to be abuse and identifies as a Christian feminist.

 

Here are some writings of another ex-SAHD, one who was quite prominent:

https://jasminelholmes.com/regrets-of-staying-home/

https://jasminelholmes.com/the-old-and-new-me/

It's worth pointing out that Jasmine was inveigled into SAHD-hood by the writings of the Botkin sisters. Her parents didn't force her into it, either, though they were supportive of her doing it.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Sicily

[Gimme a Free RV]

Wow.  I couldn't read the Ashley Easter article without inserting Jill-Rod and her daughters into the  proverbial picture.  Clearly, they worship a legalistic ideal of their own making that may look like Christianity but that, in fact, isn't really what Christ taught. 

[Sicily]

32 minutes ago, Gimme a Free RV said:

Wow.  I couldn't read the Ashley Easter article without inserting Jill-Rod and her daughters into the  proverbial picture.  Clearly, they worship a legalistic ideal of their own making that may look like Christianity but that, in fact, isn't really what Christ taught. 

Tbh I feel like pretty much every sect of Christianity is like that. Jesus didn't mention abortion or homosexuality once. And if Leviticus is the justification for all the Christian homophobia, it's telling that they don't follow the rest of it.

[NachosFlandersStyle]

I thought Jasmine's dad was a big proponent of the lifestyle? Am I thinking of someone else?

[Loveday]

37 minutes ago, NachosFlandersStyle said:

I thought Jasmine's dad was a big proponent of the lifestyle? Am I thinking of someone else?

No, I think this is the same one; Jasmine's dad is Voddie Baucham. I don't know a lot about Voddie's beliefs, but I'm thinking he was involved in Doug Phillips' Vision Forum at some point, which was heavily into the SAHM movement. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, I just haven't read much on Baucham and have forgotten much of the Vision Forum stuff. 

[Giraffe]

She’s rejected the SAHD mentality but she’s still a proponent of patriarchy. She’s got CBMW* listed among her “my contributions” section. CBMW advocates for “complementarianism” in marriage which is just a prettier word than “patriarchal.” 

*counsel for biblical manhood & womanhood

Edited September 18, 2019 by Giraffe
Riffle

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

53 minutes ago, Loveday said:

I  don't know a lot about Voddie's beliefs, but I'm thinking he was involved in Doug Phillips' Vision Forum at some point, which was heavily into the SAHM movement.

The main thing I remember about Voddie Baucham's revolting beliefs is the phrase "vipers in diapers". 

https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2015/01/16/the-child-as-viper-how-voddie-bauchams-theology-of-children-promotes-abuse/

[hoipolloi]

1 hour ago, NachosFlandersStyle said:

I thought Jasmine's dad was a big proponent of the lifestyle? Am I thinking of someone else?

That's exactly who her dad, Voddie Baucham, is -- here are some of his greatest hits from a few years ago. He was a fellow traveler with Doug Phillips and that crowd for years, until the Fall of the Tool. Mostly crickets from Voddie on that debacle...

Voddie's been quieter about this shite recently. Not sure if it's because he's getting off that bandwagon or because he's less visible in the US fundie scene these days due to his move to Zambia several years ago. 

 

[NachosFlandersStyle]

30 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

She’s rejected the SAHD mentality but she’s still a proponent of patriarchy. She’s got CBMW* listed among her “my contributions” section. CBMW advocates for “complementarianism” in marriage which is just a prettier word than “patriarchal.” 

*counsil for biblical manhood & womanhood

Yeah, I'm glad that Jasmine has grown up into an intelligent and confident person, and I understand why she's frustrated when people think she's brainwashed-- not that I buy for a second that she ever had an unbounded choice in any of this. But she's not making the same kind of systematic critique that Ashley is. Her argument is basically "I guess it wasn't right for me." 

[Howl]

Voddie is a big proponent of corporal punishment child beating and instant obedience.  Everything I've ever heard come out of Voddie's mouth led me to believe he's a complete a**hole, leading me to believe that Jasmine's issues with shame and deep lack of confidence may have a root cause in her father. 

IIRC, Voddie's wife, the one with 7 kids still at home, has some very challenging health issues. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Howl

[smittykins]

In her segment of the Return of the Daughters movie, I sense some barely repressed sadness when Jasmine speaks of her former goals of college and screenwriting, and Voddie told her “No, you’re not going to do that, you’re staying home to assist me.”

[Marian the Librarian]

I reviewed "The Return of the Daughters" here on FJ way back in 2013 (egads, time flies! ?). Here's the segment I wrote on Jasmine and Voddie Baucham:

Quote

 

Jasmine Baucham:

Jasmine Baucham, age 17, always wanted to use her gifts to change the world, and dreamed of being a screenwriter, going to NYU, getting a scholarship, being successful. She is the eldest of the Baucham children. Jasmine and dad Voddie have been studying the roles of dads and daughters, and have reevaluated those ambitions. Voddie says the Bible commands women to be submissive. Eve has the desire for her husband's position; this points out her fallen nature, which is against what God ordained. To foster such ambition in a daughter is to flirt with what brought Eve down, and we must follow the Biblical pattern. Jasmine is now joining the family to fulfill their vision. She has more emotional security, because she is operating from a more Biblical world view. Her gifts and abilities are being developed while serving her father. (Insert more cooking scenes here.) Condoleezza Rice is a hero because she commits and submits herself to George Bush. This is admired, but for Jasmine to do so with her dad calls her into question in the world's eyes.

Anna-Sofia [Botkin]: the creation account in Genesis 2 says woman is created to be helpful to man. The family trains boys and girls to be ready for dominion-driven marriage. 

Jasmine: "I love being a research assistant for my daddy." Voddie says in passing that he's interested in learning more about socialism, so she reads the entire Communist Manifesto. Voddie says the work she's doing is equivalent to a master's degree program. Voddie is doing this so Jasmine is fully prepared to be a Proverbs 31 woman when he passes her over to a man. Jasmine discusses the issue of race: being a Black female living in the US has affected her view of her role in the household. There is the stigma of being a double minority (Black and female), and feeling "I have to prove myself" whenever walking into a room. She is called to serve her father, then her husband. Some family members say she's the smart one, she could have taken up the torch, but Jasmine says it's not her job to fight the race battles. She wants to be seen as a faithful daughter, rather than prove that a double minority can make it.

 

 

[JermajestyDuggar]

I wonder if Jasmine will very slowly get away. I don’t know. I read some of her stuff and I just get this feeling that maybe she is one to very slowly creep out of fundieland. I guess it seems like there are two distinct ways to leave fundieland. 1) to be a young adult and to peace the fuck out quickly. 2) to very slowly and gradually see the problems with fundie beliefs over a period of years. Then finally completely leaving after years of leaving one belief after another until you realize you don’t much believe anything you were taught growing up as a fundie.

[Marmion]

I had thought that the name Voddie Baucham had sounded familiar , and sure enough I had initially heard of him , from my own cousin , fundamentalist though he is , critiquing him in his blog . https://otrmin.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/horrendus-eisegesis-from-evangelicals-in-the-culture-war/ , https://otrmin.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/non-carrier-are-you-serious/  , https://otrmin.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/more-on-pragmatics-and-the-ncfic/ , https://otrmin.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/voddie-baucham-and-psalm-127/  , https://otrmin.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/voddie-baucham-and-the-ncfic-hermeneutics/   , 

Quote

Now there is another clear example of solus pater, and that from an unexpected source: Voddie Baucham. Normally, Voddie is one of the more mild proponents of the Christian Patriarchy movement. However, in this video, he says things that are simply absurd from any Biblical perspective, and, again, are an overthrow of sola scriptura for solus pater:  

 

The first think I want you to notice is Voddie’s use of “Your world revolves around me.” The authority of scripture has just been thrown under the bus with that statement. No, the toddler’s life revolves around God and his word, as does the life of the parent. When you make the world of the toddler revolve around yourself, you are setting yourself up as an idol, and demanding that this child commit idolatry. The parent’s job is to train the child to know God and his word, and not to make his world revolve around himself. It is pure, unadulterated idolatry to suggest anything else.

Next, where in the world is Voddie getting the idea that Ephesians 6:1-4 presents stages in the correction of a child? Here is the text:

Ephesians 6:1-4 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth. 4 And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

Tell me, where in this text is there anything about “stages?” Again, complete and total eisegesis. I have said it many times, like his mentor Albert Mohler, when Voddie deals with issues all Christians agree on, he is very good. However, when he tries to get cute and “countercultural” with his exegesis, there is hardly anyone worse.

As far as spanking goes, Voddie is completely misunderstanding the concept of the rod in the Ancient Near East. The rod was used as a *teaching* tool. Look at the text again:

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.

This is a common theme in the book of Proverbs, namely that discipline [מוסר] drives away folly [אולת]. However, this rod is spoken of as a “rod of *discipline*,” [שבט מוסר] that is, a rod used to teach and disciple a child. If the rod is not being used to teach the wisdom of God, then the rod is not being used properly. In fact, in Egyptian Hieroglyphic, the determinative for a “teacher” is a man holding a rod. The two were intimately linked in the mind of an Ancient Near Easterner, and to connect it with what the father wants rather than the wisdom that begins with the fear of the Lord is a total abuse of this passage.

More than that, the book of Proverbs do not present universal truths. Try reading Proverbs 22:6 in a universal sense. If you do, it will contradict Isaiah 1:2. Anyone here want to suggest that when God raised up sons, he did not do so properly? The intent of the Proverbs must be understood in the light of their own world. For example, this statement must be understood in the light of the Lord being the one who gives wisdom-not the parents. It must be understood in the light of the Lord being the head of creation, establishing it by wisdom. More than that, it must also be understood in the context of the other elements of discipline spoken of by the book of Proverbs. There are many different ways to discipline a child-the rod being one of them. Understanding precisely how to use the rod and other instruments of discipline is an issue that requires, well, wisdom. It requires a practical understanding of the situation at hand, and how it relates to the world of the text.  

To see how that works itself out practically, Voddie uses the example of the shy child. His parent tells him to say “hello,” but he goes and runs behind the leg of the parent. Voddie’s entire argument hinges upon this notion of this being “disobedience,” and a violation of the fifth commandment. The problem is, again, Voddie has not understood the fifth commandment in its context. Even the ten commandments have, as their foundation, the notion of the total Lordship of Christ as found in the first four commandments. In other words, as Christopher Wright said, the Torah provides us with a value system, and each scenario must be evaluated in terms of the value system of scripture, with God as the ultimate standard being first and foremost.

Let us use another example. Let us say that a child is bothering his parent, and the parent tells him to go outside. However, the child just stays there, and doesn’t listen. The father tells him again, and, again, the child doesn’t listen. Then, the father thinks that he must spank this child, so he walks over, goes to take the child over his knee, and while he is doing that, he looks up, and to his horror is a copperhead snake right at the doorway. Had that child listened to his father, and went outside, he would have been dead. Now, the child disobeyed his parent, but for good reason. He did so in order to obey the command to protect human life, which the Bible clearly views as more important than whether or not the parent is obeyed. This, of course, has interesting implications for marriage as well, especially when it comes to some of these teachings, such as militant fecundity, which can be threatening to the life of a woman. The authority of the father must be understood, not only in terms of the actual commands given in scripture, but the value systems given in scripture. When the father sets himself up over the value system found in scripture, even if he is not asking someone to contradict a black and white command, he has sinned.

Let us return to Voddie Baucham’s scenario. There is one fact that struck me the moment I heard all of this, and that is that Voddie Baucham used to be a football player. He is a *huge* man physically, and he is *not* someone you would want to get in a fight with in a back ally. Do you not think that a little child might be the slightest bit afraid and intimidated in such a situation? And if he is afraid, do you not think he is obeying the Biblical command to protect his own well-being by hiding behind his parent’s leg? You see, if the rod were actually used for what it was supposed to be used for, in this situation, the child would need reassurance that everything was okay, and that no one was going to harm him. Such would be the kind of discipline and teaching he would need at that moment. However, recognizing such would mean thinking of what God has said first, and not making the child’s world revolve around you.

We also have to deal with other problems as well such as autism or Asperger’s Syndrome. There are some children who may be highly intelligent, but may have certain neurological disorders, such as autism or Asperger’s Syndrome, which makes it hard for them to interact in social situations. In such a situation, the child is not being “disobedient” or “rebellious;” the child has a disorder, and that disorder makes him unable to comply with the command itself. In such a situation, spanking the child teaches them nothing, since the treatment for autism and Asperger’s is ongoing, and not something that can be cured by spanking a child once. It would be like a parent telling a child with schizophrenia to stop having hallucinations, and then spanking him when he doesn’t stop having those hallucinations. Such is utterly foolish, and does not recognize where the child needs to be taught, and how the child needs to be taught, again, completely ignoring the rod as a tool of discipline, not a tool to get the child to do what you want him to do.

One error leads to another here. Solus pater is adopted, and then, the world of  

the parent becomes ultimate, instead of the world of the text of scripture. That leads to an error in how to use the rod, and, more specifically, how the Lordship of Christ relates to honoring your father and mother, and obeying them. Children are to obey their parents *in the Lord,* not in the parents themselves. We honor our father and mother in the context of having no other gods before Yhwh. Hence, we place obedience to parents in the context of the rest of the values of scripture, and if obeying your parents causes you to commit idolatry, or if obedience to parents is something that is just not possible at the current time, because the child is ill in some way, then, obviously, obedience to parents would contradict the other values of scripture.

In sum, parents must make the world of the child revolve around the world of scripture, not the father. To do so is a gross violation of sola scriptura. It is pure idolatry. It is easy to understand why this is being done. We do have a lack of respect for God’s delegated authority today. It is a sad thing to see, but that does not justify raising the delegated authority to a position of authority over scripture. Fathers are sinners, and fathers can abuse authority. If the scriptures are not there to correct them, then there is no telling the evils that will happen.

https://otrmin.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/solus-pater-rears-its-ugly-head-again/  

[Sicily]

10 hours ago, Loveday said:

No, I think this is the same one; Jasmine's dad is Voddie Baucham. I don't know a lot about Voddie's beliefs, but I'm thinking he was involved in Doug Phillips' Vision Forum at some point, which was heavily into the SAHM movement. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, I just haven't read much on Baucham and have forgotten much of the Vision Forum stuff. 

Oh okay, she says in her articles that she was influenced by the Botkins and her parents didn't push it either way. They just supported her choice.

[Sicily]

Oh wow, I just started reading this:

https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2014/12/01/6-things-you-should-know-about-voddie-baucham/

Voddie Baucham is really a piece of work. Seems like Jasmine was shading the truth somewhat when she claimed everything she took on was purely her own choice.  Especially in light of Marian's film review.

[Lgirlrocks]

I think it was her choice the same way it is the maxwell kids choice to live at home until marriage. Parents probably used guilt and shame to get what they wanted. 

[Sonic the Whoredgehog]

I went to the same college as the woman who wrote the first article! It's a small school and I rarely see grads in the wild. 

Despite my love of snark and hatred of patriarchy, I try to keep a balanced mind about how people choose to live their lives. If that's what truly fulfills them and makes them happy, fine by me. But then I see the damage done to people who either do not naturally fit or cannot be fully molded into "biblical gender roles". The problem with the ideology, beyond the implication that God discriminated based on physical features, is that it is always presented as the only acceptable method and deviation is met with shame, scolding, and shunning. 

This Voddie guy looks like quite the character. Do I spy a rabbit hole? 

[JermajestyDuggar]

41 minutes ago, Sicily said:

Oh wow, I just started reading this:

https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2014/12/01/6-things-you-should-know-about-voddie-baucham/

Voddie Baucham is really a piece of work. Seems like Jasmine was shading the truth somewhat when she claimed everything she took on was purely her own choice.  Especially in light of Marian's film review.

I think what Jasmine is doing is pretty standard for fundies who know their parents taught them wrong. She loves her parents so she’s trying really hard not to be too negative about the way they fucked up her life and held her back. 

Edited September 19, 2019 by JermajestyDuggar

[Sicily]

4 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I think what Jasmine isdoing is pretty standard for fundies who know their parents taught them wrong. She loves her parents so she’s trying really hard not to be too negative about the way they fucked up her life and held her back. 

I feel like she's still in a lot of denial, frankly, even while she rejects some aspects of her background.

ETA - Not that I blame her about the denial part. It's really difficult and painful to face the fact that your parents have harmed you, even if you don't come from a fundie background in which the father's word is seen as pretty much the earthly equivalent of God's word.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Sicily

[JermajestyDuggar]

5 minutes ago, Sicily said:

I feel like she's still in a lot of denial, frankly, even while she rejects some aspects of her background.

ETA - Not that I blame her about the denial part. It's really difficult and painful to face the fact that your parents have harmed you, even if you don't come from a fundie background in which the father's word is seen as pretty much the earthly equivalent of God's word.

I agree. And the fact that so many younger siblings are still at home could make the deial stronger. If she admitted to herself that she was raised in a way that totally fucked with her, she would have to face the fact that they are raising her siblings that way too. 

[Tangy Bee]

I was wondering when we would hear from the very "adult" Jasmine. Her teenage blog was epic. I'm still shocked her husband was good enough for Voddie.  I use to follow her Instagram until she went private. She is now a mom of 2 and teaches school. Not sure if it's public or private. Her dad Voddie, lives in Africa and has been studying martial arts. All the kids play fancy instruments. Heard  his wife has had health issues in the past but she always looks great. I think Jasmine would make a wonderful college professor one day.

[Sicily]

15 hours ago, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

The main thing I remember about Voddie Baucham's revolting beliefs is the phrase "vipers in diapers". 

https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2015/01/16/the-child-as-viper-how-voddie-bauchams-theology-of-children-promotes-abuse/

I went through that post today. If Voddie Baucham raised his own children according to his teachings, then Jasmine is the victim of severe child abuse. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

4 hours ago, Sicily said:

I went through that post today. If Voddie Baucham raised his own children according to his teachings, then Jasmine is the victim of severe child abuse. 

And I hope that’s one of the things she has grown to realize was not ok. I hope she and her husband don’t beat their babies all day long.

[Sicily]

31 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

And I hope that’s one of the things she has grown to realize was not ok. I hope she and her husband don’t beat their babies all day long.

She's in deep denial about it. She says her dad was this wonderful loving guy.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/learning-daughter-im-no-longer-kid/

For me, it's not just the beatings either. What's even more abusive imo is that, in the paradigm of child-rearing he promotes, children are forced to erase their whole selfhood and just submit. It's about breaking spirits, not only hurting bodies. It seems like the spirit-breaking is in many ways even worse than the physical abuse.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Sicily