15
“Daddy’s Girl!”
By popular demand, here is my write-up of “Daddy’s Girl,” an essay about “courtship and fathers’ rights” by Sarah Faith Schlissel.
WARNING: Children, pregnant women, and people with heart conditions should not attempt to read “Daddy’s Girl.” Sadly, No! is not responsible for any severe brain injuries that you incur while slamming your head on your keyboard. Read “Daddy’s Girl” AT YOUR OWN RISK.
(UPDATE: Can’t get enough of “Daddy’s Girl?” Mutant Cat has more, and it’s funny.)
I’ve been Daddy’s girl from Day One. My first word was “Dada.” I’ve always wanted to do what Daddy was doing, go where Daddy was going, read what Daddy was reading, say what Daddy was saying.
Yeesh, if you love him so much, why don’t you marry him… oh wait, that would technically constitute incest… never mind…
We have the same sense of humor, preferences, pet peeves, strengths and weak-nesses
And it looks like poor writing ability is their #1 weak-ness.
Little wonder people call me “Daddy’s Little Clone.”
Because he made you in a lab?
No wonder that, for fairness’ sake, in family votes, our two are counted as one.
“Well, that and girls’ votes don’t count in our family.”
But does this exhaust the ways in which I might be reckoned “Daddy’s girl”?
Since this essay is four ungodly pages long, I’m gonna guess, “Sadly, No!”
The answer to this question will bring us the answer to the propriety of courtship as a model for a daughter’s pre-marriage relationship with a prospective suitor. For the crux of the courtship question is not empirical, but principal. I define courtship as the discovery of a life-partner for a daughter under the direct oversight of the father. Any man seeking to beg, borrow or steal a daughter’s hand without her father’s endorsement is seeking to gain, in unlawful ways, “property” not his own.
And we all know what the Bible says about coveting property- it’s a major no-no (and yes, that includes coveting oxen, Mr. Horsley, so don’t get any funny ideas).
This might sound harsh.
No, just insane.
“Ownership” makes some cringe. Okay, okay. So call it “authoritative stewardship.”
You gotta give Sarah credit for inventing euphemistic corporate buzzwords to sugarcoat the institution of slavery.
But for many, this is not much better. “What are you talking about? This courtship stuff may be nice (up to a point), and I agree that dating is unwise, riddled as it is with temptations–but hold it a minute there, sister! Are you saying that you’re just a piece of property? How could you think of yourself in those terms? You need some serious help with your self-esteem there! Get real! Get with it! This is the 90s!”
Well actually, it’s not the ’90s. Even when fundamentalists try to be hip and modern, they’re still ten years behind the times.
Yes, it is grating to our ears.
Well, that’s the sound of your voice in general, Sarah.
However, let’s not dismiss the idea without examining its merits. The Christian worldview, informed by Scripture, functions as our spectacles.
I can’t think of a better illustration of fundamentalist logic than making spectacles out of non-transparent objects.
God has made explicit his will that parents, as the immediate generative source of individuals, are to be revered for that very fact, and the rights of parents are to be honored, by children and society. (It is not to be wondered at that our generation speaks only of women’s rights and children’s rights, whereas the Scripture speaks of God’s rights and parents’ rights.)
I think the women’s movement should adopt the following slogan: “Feminism- Giving God the Finger Since Queen Elizabeth.”
I don’t feel qualified to discuss the role of sons, but it seems clear that there is a peculiar relationship between the father and the daughter. Since a daughter is, by the grace of God, always under authority–there being a transfer at marriage from a father’s to a husband’s–daughters are “Daddy’s” uniquely. While he must raise his sons to be loving husbands and fathers who make houses possible, he raises his daughters to be submissive, godly wives and wise mothers, to make houses homes.
This kinda sounds like a dirty personal ad, doesn’t it? I mean, take a look:
Submissive, godly female, 26, seeks dominant (but loving!) male to bend me over and spank me until I cry “daddy.”
Works pretty well.
Proud independence is no noble goal for a woman, and the spirit which pursues it is no part of a godly girl’s trousseau.
I don’t think God likes it when you use those fruity French words, Sarah.
Of course, those who exalt independence, denying headship to a husband, will certainly deny it to a father.
Uuuuh, are you sure that giving your father head is part of God’s plan?
Thus, they find the idea of courtship offensive.
Well if it involves giving your dad a blowjob, no shit!
But those who acknowledge that God’s way is right (Luke 7:29, 35) find the idea of “authoritative stewardship” quite pleasant!
No comment.
The very first question of the Heidelberg Catechism is this: What is your only comfort in life and in death? The answer is matchless: That I am not my own, but belong, body and soul, in life and in death, to my faithful savior Jesus Christ. Sinners find this answer repulsive. “Not my own? That’s no comfort! That means I can’t do what I want!”
Well now, isn’t that the whole issue? We don’t want to feel like we’re owned, because we want to do what we want to do. It’s as simple as that.
Yeah, it’s not like God gave us free will or anything.
We know that whoever owns us has authority to determine our comings and goings…
Didn’t Lincoln put a stop to stuff like this a while back?
…and each of us wants to be his own boss. It is thus no wonder that sinners cringe at the concepts involved in courtship.
By “sinners” she means “people who aren’t Sarah.”
But saints are those who are obliged to come to terms with authority structures which come from the hand of God. And because earthly authorities are themselves under God’s authority, we acknowledge that no daughter is obliged to obey commands from any source bidding her to sin.
Oh, then I guess your father can’t order you to give him head. Oh well.
Yet some would seek to use this concession by arguing, “What if God tells the girl to do something that her father doesn’t approve of? What if, for example, the LORD reveals to her, through various signs and feelings, that she is to marry a particular man? Wouldn’t God’s will for the girl supersede her earthly, mortal, imperfect father’s will?”
Simply put: No. As strange as it may sound, in the peculiar relationship of the father and daughter, God, as it were, takes a back seat.
Has anyone asked God if He’s happy with this arrangement?
The father’s ownership, of course, is an in order to thing. God has given the daughter to the father so he can raise her in the fear and admonition of the Lord, protect her from harm and want, protect her from other men, and sometimes, protect her from herself, even from foolish decisions she might make on her own.
Like following Sarah’s advice, for instance.
Numbers 30 provides help in understanding God’s view of the father/daughter relationship. “If a woman makes a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by an obligation, in her father’s house, in her youth, and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand, and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand. But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand, and the Lord will forgive her because her father had forbidden her.”
In that scenario, a daughter has solemnly promised something to the Most High God, who has no superior. The father then hears of this vow, and on the day he hears of it, forbids her, saying, “No, Miriam, you may not do temple service on the 15th of Adar; we have to visit our relatives in Be’er Sheva that weekend.”
“Oh, but daddy, the temple service on the 15th of Adar is THE social event OF THE YEAR, and EVERYONE’S gonna be there! Besides, we go to Be’er Sheva EVERY weekend…”
The order of God, as indicated in his word, is that God himself defers to the will of the father when it comes to his daughter. God says, “You heard your father. The answer is no.” Thus, the will of the father regarding his daughter IS the will of God.
OK, folks, I’ve reached my breaking point again. I just can’t read anymore of this. Let’s sum up what we’ve learned:
1.) Despite the best efforts of that loser Abe Lincoln, slavery is still alive in America.
2.) Never marry a girl that doesn’t give head to her father, ’cause that means you ain’t gettin’ any either.
3.) Be’er Sheva is just not a happening place.
Well, that’s all for now. Tune in next time, when I analyze the fourth and final essay, “Training Suitors.”
Hysterical Woman said,
May 15, 2005 at 20:45
I think the craziest part is that any father as veto power over God. I think even other fundies would find that insane.
Steve said,
May 15, 2005 at 21:12
I’m surprised you managed to get through that much… I know I couldn’t.
Thank you for providing such a valuable service.
mutant cat said,
May 15, 2005 at 21:35
That was quick. I’m afraid I’m not up to your own standard of wit, but I already did a coverage of this article too. Personally I think anyone who can even make sense of that nonsensical drivel deserves some sort of award.
moonbiter said,
May 15, 2005 at 22:04
“Is man ever a creature to be trusted with wholly irresponsible power?”
scott said,
May 15, 2005 at 22:40
Well, that’s all for now. Tune in next time, when I analyze the fourth and final essay, “Training Suitors.”
Uhhh, that “training” doesn’t involve mules, does it? Please say no.
Bill S said,
May 15, 2005 at 23:19
Oh. My. Sweet. Lordy-Gordy. That was the creepiest thing I’ve read in some time. And by, “in some time”, I mean since yesterday.
meri said,
May 16, 2005 at 0:26
I can’t think of a better illustration of fundamentalist logic than making spectacles out of non-transparent objects.
Actually the christan worldveiw is an intangible object. And due to the many schims that have occured, it is a highly factured and splinted object. Useing it for spectacles is therefore very dangerous, because you could get a sect in your eye.
Bill S said,
May 16, 2005 at 0:41
That’s why it’s important to know about safe sects, meri.
mutant cat said,
May 16, 2005 at 0:50
What if God tells the girl to do something that her father doesn’t approve of?
I didn’t realise God was in the habit of directly revealing his intentions to people in such a way, and if he does, why is he going against the wishes of the father he has himself given dominion over this particular subject? Is he just fucking with people or what?
man without pants said,
May 16, 2005 at 1:08
I am so turned on by this article. More so than Jeff Gannon.
Brad R. said,
May 16, 2005 at 2:13
Actually the christan worldveiw is an intangible object.
I was referring to the Scriptures, actually… I knew that wasn’t clear when I was writing it too…
shelly said,
May 16, 2005 at 3:13
Holy freakin’ crap. This one’s a real nutter.
Proud independence is no noble goal for a woman,
She must like being a doormat, then. Because that’s a load. And I mean a sixteen-ton-type load. Is she married?
Anne said,
May 16, 2005 at 3:39
OT, but here’s more on Horsley the Mule-Fucker: http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/14/the_mule_consented.php
meri said,
May 16, 2005 at 3:50
I was referring to the Scriptures, actually…
It’s clear enough. It’s just that reading it that way didn’t allow me to make a stupid and badly spelled joke.
mythago said,
May 16, 2005 at 4:23
Did she steal this from somewhere else? There’s a line in there about “this is the 90s!”
Bill S said,
May 16, 2005 at 4:53
No, mythago, she’s just confused about what decade it is. Being insane will do that to some people.
Anon said,
May 16, 2005 at 5:45
The original article was probably written by a guy. But I had my daughter read it, and she pointed out that in biblical times, girls were usually married off at about age 12. That is a very different thing than dating at 18.
mutant cat said,
May 16, 2005 at 11:26
I doubt she’s married, then she wouldn’t be Daddy’s girl, she’d belong to another man. Oh and thanks for the link.
et said,
May 16, 2005 at 13:35
Doesn’t every daddy want to be a pimp?
Seamus said,
May 16, 2005 at 15:41
I think that it’s telling that the original “essay” came from The Chalcedon Foundation. What’s next? Reinstituting slavery? That’s sanctioned in the bible.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/rel_inst_chalcedon_jan21_05.htm
http://www.barf.org/archive/chalcedon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
brad said,
May 16, 2005 at 16:11
Yum.
Vivek said,
May 16, 2005 at 17:36
Of course, those who exalt independence, denying headship to a husband, will certainly deny it to a father.
So, Sarah, how about that Michael Schiavo?
GuinessGuy said,
May 16, 2005 at 17:39
Somewhere, God is leafing through the Bible trying to figure out if He accidentally gave the father supersceding powers-
“Alright… Numbers 30 If a woman makes a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by an obligation, in her father’s house, dododododo- Fuck!”
Resonance said,
May 16, 2005 at 17:47
Daddy’s Girl
I’m not an authority on parenting. And, sadly, don’t even possess a great deal of expertise on “courting.” But this whole mindset seems rather bizarre quaint to me:I define courtship as the discovery of a life-partner for a daughter under…
heydave said,
May 16, 2005 at 18:37
But think of the crux, for Chri’sakes! The CRUX!
mutant cat said,
May 16, 2005 at 18:53
Whoops, I was wrong, she is married. World O’ Crap has found the dirt on both Sarah and her father.
Vestal Vespa said,
May 16, 2005 at 20:04
Criminy.
I don’t get the hardcore Christians who see women as these helium baloons- without proper tethering, they just bob around and get chopped up by ceiling fans and stuff.
Bill S said,
May 16, 2005 at 23:55
Actually, Vestal Vespa, to me it’s more like they think: “If you’re born with a vagina, you don’t get to use your brain.”
Seamus said,
May 17, 2005 at 0:54
Why do “Christian” men get to think with their little heads? Is that where their brains reside?
piotr said,
May 18, 2005 at 21:45
I got really enthusiastic about the advise in the “Daddy’s Girl”, but indeed, as a father I am in deep doo-doo if the girl is not given out by the time she is 14 (12 seems to be the right age to exercise the requisite authority, although even that stretches the envelope). Nowadays that is really hard.
Ultimately, the day comes when the hitherto chaste girl, unsullied by any unsupervised dates (well, hardly any), leaves home to study in a college. Perhaps I can give daughter a power-of-attorney to approve her meetings with godly men (and women?). This way she could attend only meetings that had my agreement. E.g. how to decide about cramming for an exam together with some heathens, if there are no godly young people around that know the subject equally well without knowing the particulars of the situation that are really not available 500 miles away?
Honey said,
May 19, 2005 at 5:30
Wow. Somebody needs to be beaten about the head with the reality stick..
Belief System said,
May 19, 2005 at 7:09
Well, they do love their allegience/subservience to authority figures and their simplified, well-ordered universes (such as one where the sun revolves around a flat earth).
I always find it amusing when these mental midgets try to show off their schoolbookin’ by getting all Grecian and using high-falutin’ language to show they can defeat the godless intellectual elites at their own game…
Sinners, beware! Your puny secular humanism is no match for my homeschooling, MBA, and Bible quotes! And now, stand in awe, as I harness the power of the internets to do gawd’s will by convincing everyone of my holy righteousness!
google pr main said,
March 10, 2006 at 22:49
hello! http://www.areaseo.com/contacts/ google pr. high your rank, Search Engine Optimization, Professional SEO. From google pr .
Dennise said,
August 6, 2007 at 5:34
It looks like you don’t allow comments from God-fearing Christians who appreciate and strive to obey God’s Word, or do you have the guts to print this? Like the non-believers of old, you flock to crucify this attempt to serve God, because real consideration of what it says would convict you of mistakes you (as we all) have made and things you need to change in your own life. Well, as His Word warns, cast not your pearls before swine; enough said. (In case you would want to rise above swine status, read the holy Bible, be humbled, and seek to change. One of the 1st changes is to stay away from sites like this!)
Miriam said,
January 31, 2008 at 14:11
If the Schlissels insist on basing their religious practices on the Old Testament and Jewish beliefs, they should at least get it right. Sarah’s argument that parents must be respected is correct, but it applies to both sons and daughters. She just brushes off the sons with a claim that she isn’t qualified to discuss the role of sons. Why? Has she never met a son? Do you have to be a son to get an idea of what it’s like? Give me a break. Sons and daughters are commanded to respect their fathers AND mothers, and the Bible even says to “fear” the mother. This father-daughter stuff is nonsense.
The Bible is also rife with examples of women who acted independently of the will of their husbands, and for the good of all involved. For example, Sarah orders Abraham to banish Hagar, and God tells Abraham that he’d better listen to her.
Devorah was a prophetess and a judge who led a revolt against a Caananite king! Yael saved the Jewish people by shoving a tent pole through the brain of an enemy general. There is a Jewish midrash that one of Korach’s followers in the bible (Korach rebelled against Moses) had a wife who knew her husband shouldn’t follow Korach or he’d be dead. She got her husband drunk, and when Korach and his cronies came to get him, she pulled off her head covering (i.e. acted very immodestly) to scare them away, which worked and thus she saved her husband. And all of these women are respected for their actions.
I know this is long, but Sarah’s little essay infuriated me, to say the least.