One of my dreams is to  live on a farm : extensive grounds to ramble through, hosts of animals- goats, ponies, dogs, chickens- and a 40 minute radius away from everyone else. Now, this might some both idyllic and unfriendly. But it really is not.

We live in the thick of suburbia, packed with houses, streets, highways under construction and malls. There are people everywhere and anywhere here : scrunched up in cars on the roads, boxed up in concrete termite mounds aka apartments and offices, pottering about in malls , churches, temples, Starbucks, Uncle (blank) Kopitiams. The effect of this infestaton is stunning. Claustrophobia. Loneliness. And earache. If crowds is an indication of friendliness, then this city should be the friendliest place to be in. Which brings us back to my farm. Or rather, the farm that is coming.

The farm is mainly a retreat from the kind of desperate -living mentioned earlier and from the  values that come with it: efficiency, performance, NLP and kopitiams that are plastic toy versions  of the original hometown kopis, yiu-char-koays and roti bakar .
A retreat is not a barricade against burnt muffins in the oven, misunderstandings, cancer and disobedient children. A retreat is not an escape. A place of retreat is , mostly, a place of refuge – a safe place, where you are more attentive to what God is saying about Himself,the world, about family, about yourself.

I learnt this last week when we were at a pastor’s home, tucked away in the forests of a hill. Here, CH  and his wife, L, welcomed friends . They walked us through their  orchard and ‘gardens’. They swept the floors, cooked, changed the water filter and held discussions with the lot of us. This earthy kind of spirituality captivates my heart. And I have also seen it in places dank with mold and reeking of faulty air-conditioning.

I suppose the heart of the farm is in the farmer just as the heart of earthy spirituality lies in the heart of the seeker. Give the same expanse of land to an industrialist and you will see  rows of smoke-belching factories or , uniformed ranks of terrace houses. Give the same country to corrupt despots and you will have the  perpetual construction  of mega-projects and burgeoning rot in the public sphere.

Both Adrian and I agree that the farm has to be situated in a place with cool weather. And we disagree as to the number of dogs we should have, and whether they (and their pups) will be allowed into the house. But, we both believe, that we can start preparing for this farm by listening, and listening correctly to what He is saying to us about the direction of our lives. And about  the land which we inhabit.

Today, our country turns 53. Politicians and mercenaries are tearing her apart with selfish agendas and destructive policies. Yet we have high hopes for this land.  We dream that she will fully inhabit that space – of mutual understanding, of peace, of justice, of compassion- for which she was birthed 53 years ago. We hope she becomes fertile soil where both young people and old folks of all races and religions will grow and flourish together. We pray she will be free from the clamour of wars and unrests that have ravaged so many other nations. We long to see her returned to the heart of her peoples- a Malaysia that gives room for all.

This is also our dream.

I wish that someone would buy this book for me.  I read McMinn’s  “Growing Strong Daughters” some time back and gained a new perspective on how we can condition our daughters to the ways of the world when we could be nurturing them to be the unique strong individuals that God has created them to be.

McMinn  (professor of sociology at George Fox University in Oregon ) doesn’t dance around the feminist-vs- SAHM tree(haven’t we had enough of that?), but clears the underbrush and helps us see the path . This book is for women who are bent on being, well, women.

Women’s discourse has long been held up against the communication patterns of men, often as inferior or in the case of the r-feminist-superior. In both cases however, women’s discourse is seen as the Other -significant no doubt, as postmodern pc-ness would have it be.   But why be an Other? Why not just BE ?

I overheard several  women sometime back in church, extolling the virtues of  “the objectivity of men’s minds” versus the subjectiveness of women’s thinking  i.e.mushy minds.  This line of thinking shows ignorance of the power of women’s discourse : the sustaining of cultural heritage through storytelling,  the perpetuation fo medicinal knowledge through culinary traditions, the art of community-making in post-industrial age urban spaces.  Women’s discourse with the richness of  personal narratives is so much a part of our lives. Furthermore the division between objectivity and subjectivity is farcical : how can one tell the difference between the two without imposing one’s personal and therefore subjective opinion upon that division?

If objectivity means being empirical, there’s still that niggling problem of the interpretation of “soft” sociological data.

McMinn validates the way women are made and discusses debates on men-women differences .The conclusion? She suggests that we are different in some ways and similar in some ways.  That comes as no surprise. Yet what is new in what McMinn is saying is that we shouldn’t even be thinking in terms of raising our daughters to be career women or homemakers who stay at home.  Each woman and girl has her God-  gift -whether it be sewing gorgeous clothes or pushing the buttons in corporations or blazing the race tracks. As mothers, our delight is in nurturing her to be that person God has meant her to be.

Do  we train our girls to “maximize their potential”  at the cost of family ? McMinn cites the examples of strong women who choose to stay at home to raise her children nad are accused of wasting their talents; of strong women who go to work in order to feed their families and of strong women who have to do a bit of both in order to keep their families afloat.  In short, she goes to the very heart of the SAHM-vs.-working mom debate :  does our motivation stem from  selfishness  or by that desire to use our gifts for others, for family.

She writes about the pressures young girls face due to  media and society that tell them how they should look, dress and behave.  We mothers have to be that rock, to be their strength and by being strong, help them wade through the bombardment of information and propaganda. A woman can’t do that if she’s not even sure of who God has meant her  to be.

This is great news. I’m just so glad that I don’t have to force her to wear either a dress or denim trousers. Clothes maketh not the woman. So what does? She draws on Scriptures to answer that question. So , go read.

Oh, and about that first book?  Buy it.

Lord, help me see the bigger picture when
there are clothes waiting to be folded,
schoolbooks lying unmarked,
meals begging to be cooked,
little ones asking to be played with
and read to.

Help me remember Your call upon my life
when
all I see are books unread
poems unwritten
songs unsung
adventures untaken.

Stir me into awakenness-
so that amidst the clamor of
voices demanding proof of
my individuality- I might
show
You.

To look within and find
You here.

That is enough.

Actually, I’m not too worried about benchmarks. Perhaps because my kids are still too little and busy with rearranging furniture and stretching the limbs of Martell’s Barbie dollies into tunnels, arches and four-legged mutants. Perhaps, in this pre-Monsoon season ( where art thou, Monsun Barat Daya?) , the heat clouds my vision and far-sightedness. Most likely it’s both.

The questions that beg to be asked really, I think, are:
1. How can my homeschool meet the standards/ benchmarks set by the MOE without compromising my convictions e.g. preserving time for play, encouraging intiative in directing own learning ?
2. How can I ignore this benchmark machinery without jeapordizing the future of my children i.e. higher education, making sure that their education is on par with others (irony there) ?

In short, how can I make the benchmark system/ apparatus work for me and my family instead of against us?

I think going into long debates about the validity of benchmarks are rather futile as unfortunately (or not) they are here to stay. However, this doesn’t mean that there should be no voices of dissent. Surely, dissenters can help to constrain the extent to which benchmarks count for a student’s education ?

I did say this would be a short post. Oh well.

Responses from homeschoolers have been more or less the same, except for one or two deviant reactions. The consensus seems to be that culture is all around us and therefore one cannot help but take it in, like air or water.In addition, there are calls also to expose our children to culture, embodied in museum visits, watching cultural performances and exhibitions. One or two talked of their participation in community projects.

Well and good. Yet , there seems to be something missing from the plethora of opinions. The first has to do with the definition of culture itself. What is culture? Is it something that’s all around us? And if it is, where are we ‘located’- in terms of place and identity? If you live in an upper-middle class neighbourhood and interact predominantly with English-speaking, Chinese Christians in a church setting- the question then is to what extent this is representative of local or Malaysian culture.

The next question that begs to be asked is – what is it that constitutes Malaysia culture? What does it mean to be Malaysian?Shouldn’t we be talking about Malaysian cultures instead?

I for one, would like to draw the distinction between cultural appreciation -the museum visits, the cultural performances, the whole works- and active participation in society. In the former, you are the spectator, even when you try your hand at batik painting or Chinese calligraphy. On the other hand, active participation in society places you -the parent, the citizen, the person- in the ring. You choose to assert your responsibility to affect the society that you live in. For some, that might take the form of socio-political activism, voluntary community work or participation in community events. For others, it might take on something on a ‘minor’ scale- asking your lonely neighbour for ‘teh tarik’ or ‘dim sum’, doing storytelling for a playgroup, looking after your Malay or Indian neighbour’s house for the weekend.

At the heart of the concerns about culture and history is the question of apathy. I for one don’t take too kindly towards those who get all fired up over a human rights march but who, for most of the week can’t be bothered with the needy person next to him/ her. It just doesn’t add up.

So , how does one learn about one’s country? By participating in community. Be a good neighbour. Look out for others, whether you’re in the park, in church or in the mall. For goodness’ sake, don’t live in a Christian bubble that encases church programs, church people and leaves everything and everyone else out. Listen well. Learn the local languages.Read the official textbooks.Then put that aside and talk to people- grandparents, ah cheks and ah chims. Find out about the rich oral history that our ancestors passed on from one generation to another. Find out about how other peoples here conceived of history. Be respectful. Be kind.

So, in one sense you cannot isolate yourself from culture because you are part of society. However, you can become disengaged from the culture around you simply because you choose to be a spectator instead of a participant who can affect change, no matter how small. I for one, have decided for my family which posture we are taking. We’re walking with the full force of the wind beating against our faces and the rain sailing upon our backs.

But I stayed. And posted similar insignificant messages. And reconnected with old friends. In short, I’m becoming a facebook groupie but only in the sense that I’m beginning to understand more about human communication; and why small talk -often cursed as low-status “women’s talk” – has so much value in the fostering of human relationships.

And of course, I get to see some really wonderful pictures taken by talented old friends!

(Donne)

“What is feminist homeschooling?

Feminist homeschooling is educating your children with the understanding that feminism is as much a lifestyle as it is a movement. It teaches that women and men are of equal value, neither being better or more worthy than the other.

Feminist homeschooling recognizes that history isn’t just about which great men fought which great wars. It is also about family life throughout the centuries. It is about women and their agency and how they have changed and what women today have earned from that change. It knows that history is written by the winners and that we have to dig a little deeper to get the full picture, a picture which shows us that women were always present and always contributing to change.

Feminist homeschooling recognizes that women have always been scientists and inventors and writers. Patriarchal law often prevented women from publishing or patenting or recieving any recognition for their work. We will recognize it here.

Our feminist homeschool will be heavily woman-centric. Not because men are not worth studying! Rather, it acts as a counterbalance to our male-centered culture. This is fair.

The history of economics and home economics are of equal value. Women’s contributions to dietetics aren’t very different from men’s contributions to biochemistry. We value both.

Welcome.”

You can read this at:
www.feministhomeschool.wordpress.com

It shows that there are many streams of feminism.

I don’t feel the need to embrace an “-ism”. But I do think some aspects of the women’s rights movement have brought positive changes e.g. women being freed to vote, girls being liberated to read and write, women being allowed to patent their inventions, women being encouraged to speak up against issues like domestic abuse, female circumcision, honour killings.

I draw my compass from the gospels, from the way Jesus treated women. He gave room for women disciples among his band, validated Mary’s offering in front of the Jewish teachers (perfume on his feet episode), broke barriers by speaking to the Samaritan woman, expressed his love for his mother while dying on the cross by committing her into John’s care, opened up spaces for mothers and children to him, etc. How wonderful our saviour!

I thought the blog was interesting , at least the introduction.I have not read the rest of it, but I think there will be some stuff that I will object to, as well as agree with.

I also came across this report about feminism and homeschooling. Here’s part of the article for rumination:

“One of the few feminist critiques of homeschooling available is titled “Is Homeschooling Sexist?” by Laurae Lyster-Mensh, a self-declared feminist. The author is clearly sympathetic to the basic concept of homeschooling as demonstrated by her being a mother-educator herself. But her article revolves around what she calls “an elephant in the room”: namely, the question that constitutes its title.3

Lyster-Mensh asks other homeschooling moms what messages about gender are being sent to their children. When she assures her daughter that she can achieve anything in life, Lyster-Mensh wonders, “Am I telling her she can strive toward being a homeschooling mother? Am I telling her not to?” And what of sons? “They cannot fail to notice that the ones doing the homeschooling are the mothers. We have to ask ourselves what expectations this will leave them with for themselves and for their future spouses. In the workplace, will they be able to treat female co-workers as seriously as the men?”

Lyster-Mensh raises some valid questions about gender and homeschooling families. For example, what impact does the “man as sole breadwinner” have on the decision-making process in the family? She freely admits that such issues may not pose a problem for many homeschooling families. But she raises an intriguing possibility. She speculates that, because homeschoolers feel under attack from “liberals” and pro-public-school organizations such as the National Education Association, they tend to band together and present “a united front to the world.” Divisive issues, such as the role of women in the home and society, are not discussed as openly as they might otherwise be. Of course, it is impossible to test this theory until the political opposition to homeschooling ceases to be a threat.

One main complaint of mother-educators is that feminists (outsiders) often display a dismissive or insulting attitude toward their lifestyle. In short, feminists look down on them as less liberated than working women. They see stay-at-home moms as part of the patriarchal structure (the nuclear family with traditional values) that is the wellspring of gender oppression.

The Feminine Mystique described the suburban household with its traditional domestic arrangements as a “concentration camp.” Friedan claimed decades later that the wholesale rejection of domesticity that her book inspired in young women was a misinterpretation of its meaning. Nevertheless, it was a reading that caught on: liberated women are the ones who pursue careers and who are financially independent and guided by their own needs. According to this interpretation, not all choices a woman can make are politically or culturally equal. Women who choose to become housewives, to be financially dependent on a man, and to give priority to the needs of their families are unliberated.

In her article “Motherhood Gets a Face-Lift,” the homeschooling Isabel Lyman asks herself a question that must have occurred to many mother-educators, especially those who willingly gave up careers and financial independence. She wonders whether a woman who “commits herself so wholeheartedly to her children and their education” represents a “giant step backward” for women? Or is she a pioneer who defies categorization?

In response to her question, Lyman presents the answers of some other homeschooling moms.

For example, Pam Kelly of California: She was a computer/systems analyst for 18 years before becoming a mother-educator—a job she considers her most challenging and fulfilling one. She calls herself “the epitome” of what feminists say they are for: a woman having and exercising choice. But when she hears the word “feminist,” Pam thinks “dictator, hostile, anti-male and anti-female.”

Cindi Grelen of Oklahoma has a teaching degree, which she uses to homeschool her two daughters. She defines “a feminist” as “an angry person who is self-absorbed and on a desperate search for peace”—the peace that she has found in the politically incorrect process of “losing herself in her children.” Nevertheless, she adds, “I miss out . . . on being recognized as someone who is contributing something worthwhile to society.”

Christine Field of Illinois was a criminal prosecutor who once considered herself to be a “blatant feminist.” No more. Today, she is the author of a book titled Coming Home to Raise Your Children.

The personal stories go on and on. And common themes run through many of them: the parent-educators are intelligent, educated women; they have made a conscious and considered choice to leave the work force; and they view feminism as a rebuke.
The New Women’s Movement

Homeschooling constitutes a revolution in education. But it is also one of the most significant trends to affect women and families in decades, especially since it is led by mother-educators. Homeschooling is part of a social shift by which women are moving back toward traditional family values, not because they have to but because they want to do so.

Analysis of homeschooling has focused on the children—and properly so—but the relationship of mother-educators to feminism deserves investigation in its own right. Homeschooling is a trend that mainstream feminism is resisting because the teaching at-home mom threatens many of the values it espouses, including financial independence.

The tension between homeschooling and feminism arises not from feminism per se, but from the politically correct version that has dominated the movement for over a decade. PC feminism regards the traditional family as a training ground for patriarchy—that is, for the white male culture that oppresses women.

Fortunately, other schools of feminism view staying at home as simply one more choice that a self-respecting, intelligent woman can make or reject, depending on her goals in life. Individualist feminism is one example. For this school of feminism, freedom means having every peaceful choice possible and taking personal responsibility for all your actions. In this framework, one woman’s decision to stay at home is not politically better or worse than another woman’s choice to become a CEO. Both are personal matters. Both express the core of true feminism: choice. ”

You can read the rest of it here:
www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=3970

I’ve got some more templates to upload but they’ll have to wait a while till all this yucky stuffiness clears!