Have a look at the new, politically correct Steadfast Daughters Welcome page.
Quite a bit of editing and toning down of rhetoric since the initial version we all saw a week or so ago, wouldn't you say?
I've been clear from the start that I've nothing BUT doubts about the commitment to truth of the whole endeavor, but now we've ventured from a dishonest approach to edited, smoke-screened dishonesty. It's akin to a political speech written by a prominent official, but then edited and revamped by everyone from staff members, to the State Department, to Uncle Hambone and the boys down at the Nickle Stop, ending up barely a skeleton of the original draft (the only draft that had ANY genuine elements), using a whole lot of words that have little of substantive value. Politically correct.
We know what you meant, Stace. *wink* The original isn't buried so far in the recesses of our memory banks that we've forgotten the real intent of Steadfast Daughters and accepted this kinder, gentler model as genuine.
I'd also liken it to a theatrical movie release shown on network television - the swear words all falling at the hands of the network censors, replaced by either a bleep or words like "shoot" and "darn". Only a naive child doesn't know what was really being said. They trust others to tell them. I mean, the TV wouldn't lie! Sadly, I think this is the audience (naive, emotional children) that Stacy and her cohorts are going for. It's what P/QF authoritarianism raises women to be.
I know that "modern psychology" is one of the Great Satans of fundamentalism, but any qualified person in the field of psychology can tell you that true reconciliation doesn't occur without someone changing. True repentance. A note to QDs everywhere - Stacy expects YOU to change, cause she's gonna defend her culture and cult to the bitter end. You can be sure of that. Too much invested into it. Too much to be gained from the naive. Too much to lose when loyal followers are established.
However, labeling common conflicts and parenting weaknesses, which are present in most families “abuse” is a shame and an insult to the real victims of any sort of domestic oppression. Therefore, by relying on Scripture and wise counsel, our Steadfast contributors will attempt to sort through the various topics with compassion and discernment.
I think she's setting the bar a little too high for the contributors to Steadfast Daughters. For starters, look at the poor judgment already shown by presenting this "Abigail" character - a persona woefully lacking in compassion and completely devoid of discernment. This new "Welcome" message doesn't make Abigail's contribution any less rife with the characteristics found in Lifton's thought reform model.
As pointed out by a friend elsewhere a few days ago, all of the contributors to SD are 1st generation patrios who have no real idea what it is to be a QD. They may point to their own daughters and say, "But our daughters are happy!" Well, they'd better be. I know the hell that awaits them if they decide they aren't happy. The fact is, in this movement as in all cultic movements, projecting your OWN dedication and commitment to the faux-spiritual lifestyle onto your children is far more the rule than the exception in my experience and that of those I've communicated with. Let these girls get out from under the influence of their parental indoctrination, experience life outside of the fundamentalist bubble, live in a world where they're truly free to dissent without retribution, and then, in a few years, they'd be qualified to speak on the issues of quivering daughters.
Also, having that group of contributors discuss issues of legalism is like having Hillary Clinton, Walter Mondale, Maxine Waters, and the corpse of Teddy Kennedy investigate and determine the evils of left-wing, liberal politics. It's like doing the backstroke upstream - lots of motion and flailing and water stirred up, but all the while losing ground against the current. It's ridiculous.
However, according to the writings of some QD proponents, in addition to real family terror; true legalism; and cultic or false doctrine; some solid, biblical teachings may also be considered emotionally and spiritually “abusive.”
Solid, biblical teachings? You mean like courtship? You mean like the authority of a father over a grown man or woman? You mean the worship of the family unit? You mean the womb being part of the gospel picture? You mean the shepherding concepts that so much of P/QF are founded on?
Or do you really mean presuppositions and cultural preferences for reconstructionist/dominionist models which are being confused with "solid, biblical teachings"?
On this blog, we will discuss the weaknesses of the “Quivering Daughters” concept; evaluate what is and what is not “abuse;” and sort through any legitimate problems that may be occurring in Christian homeschooling families, including legalism.
This would be wonderful...that is, if any of the contributors to the cause were in any way, shape, or form qualified to make those evaluations. They aren't. They have something to protect and defend, a massive conflict of interest, no real training in psychology or counseling that I'm aware of, and no desire to listen to people who are qualified. It's the blind desiring to lead the blind.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Some of us can see through the smoke.