PDA

View Full Version : A Quiverfull of Thoughts


Tysyacha
06-16-2010, 08:01 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull

Thoughts?

I know I'M quivering...*still can't believe this is an actual movement in 2010*

truJedi
06-16-2010, 08:20 PM
ppppftt each to their own i guess.

JediAthos
06-16-2010, 08:57 PM
meh...the Catholic Church has been preaching the evils of birth control for awhile...

True_Avery
06-16-2010, 08:59 PM
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, a former ardent Quiverfull adherent, birth-mother of eleven children, and former editor of Gentle Spirit Magazine, argues that the Quiverfull movement is one "in which women and children are routinely and systematically subordinated and subjugated by the men in their lives - fathers, husbands, older sons,. . .pastors, elders, leaders - as a matter of biblical principle." Seelhoff charges that Quiverful adherents "never talk about the victims of the movement, other than to distance themselves, to explain how it is that the victims are aberrations."

That about sums up the entire movement.

I love how the followers of this movement routinely act. Life is just about having baby after baby, ignoring the fact that it gets progressively more dangerous for each after every consecutive baby. The bimbo on that 19 and counting show almost died and took her baby with her recently and is aiming to have another and, frankly, I will not shed a single tear if she dies in her next idiotic pregnancy.

Her and the rest of her irresponsible ilk are also appallingly bad parents from every example I've seen. The older children are almost always expected to stay home and take care of the mother's new children, if not being almost forced to adopt younger siblings while the mother is CONSTANTLY pregnant and trying to take care of the newest baby. The 19 and counting mother has her 20 year olds taking care of her infants because she is too busy being pregnant.

It isn't about taking care of children, educating them, helping them, preparing them for the world or anything. Its about turning yourself into a dog and having as big a litter as possible, regardless of consequences. These families are often poor, uneducated, uncultured messes being "held" together by the newest baby till the mother eventually dies in childbirth, since the healthy limit for a human mother is about 5, and any past then is risking miscarriage, complications, or death. The leaders of this movement are healthy and rich and live as the poster boards, but not every family of 11 gets a multi-million dollar television deal.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for these "women". Both me and my mother have known adults who had to drop out of college, and even teens who had to drop out of high school, if not completely ignore school in order to take care of their litter of siblings, crushing their future under the foot of their ignorant, dumb as a pile of brick parents.

"Beyond Feminism and Back to Reality" my a**. The reality is these people are 500 years backwards in a time when most of your children didn't survive the winters. In the day of modern medicine and contraceptives, all they are doing is burdening themselves, their children, and society with their backwards ineptitude. The "homeschooling" concept if laughable since the children are spending more time caring for the 5 infants in their house than learning.

"The church’s sin which has caused us to become unsavory salt incapable of uplifting the society around us is selfishness, lack of love, refusing to consider children an unmitigated blessing. In a word, family planning."

There is nothing more selfish than burdening the world with your mommy problems by squeezing out as many children as you can. There is nothing lacking more love than paying more attention to your womb than what has already come out of it. Screw these people and their movement. For a religion that is absolutely against the idea that humans are animals, these women sure don't mind being dogs...

No, scratch that. At least female dogs display independence and self sufficiency. This is just willful slavery. They may as well do their duty to god and strap themselves to machines and be milked for babies like cattle till they die.

JediAthos
06-16-2010, 09:12 PM
wow...ummm...so yeah...I don't guess anyone will be able to match that ummm...passion.

At any rate...I agree with most of your finer points Avery even though this is really not a new thing I don't think. There have always been sects that believe this way as far as I know. I don't really think it's a good thing either and personally more people is one of the last things this planet needs. Yes, a healthy birth/death ratio will sustain our population, but I don't think children should be had just because you can. Unfortunately what you or I might believe is largely irrelevant because nothing short of Federal intervention can stop these women from doing what they believe is "right"

Tysyacha
06-16-2010, 10:11 PM
What really creeps me out, and makes me quiver, is that the people who follow the Quiverfull movement seem to value human life ONLY if it lies in the womb. Once the baby emerges, God can do whatever He pleases with him or her. He can also do whatever He pleases with the mother...

It's a no-win situation. If a Quiverfull child is a boy, he will be expected to grow up and treat women in the way Quiverfull women are usually treated. If the child is a girl, she will be expected to grow up and submit to Quiverfull teachings and treatment because "it's God's will" and/or Word.

Quiverfull boys AND girls will be expected to use the Bible as their only measure of what is right/wrong, ethical/unethical, loving/unloving.

I personally believe that the REAL meaning of the Bible verse that says "take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ" (or something like that) is this. Read it slowly, and absorb it:

When you think a thought, stop IMMEDIATELY and ask yourself if that one thought was one that supports what the Bible teaches. If it is not, repent and ask God for His forgiveness. Over time, you will stop thinking ANY thought that does not support or conform to what the Bible teaches.

You know what Orwell called this? "Crimestop"--stopping "thoughtcrime"...

Q
06-18-2010, 01:08 AM
"Every sperm is sacred..."

Seriously, though, if humanity were truly interested in doing the right thing, it would stop procreating and let itself die out.

JediAthos
06-19-2010, 08:38 AM
I don't about that but I am a firm believer that some people should not be permitted to reproduce.

Working Class Hero
06-19-2010, 03:17 PM
That about sums up the entire movement.

I love how the followers of this movement routinely act. Life is just about having baby after baby, ignoring the fact that it gets progressively more dangerous for each after every consecutive baby. The bimbo on that 19 and counting show almost died and took her baby with her recently and is aiming to have another and, frankly, I will not shed a single tear if she dies in her next idiotic pregnancy.
Yes, every single person that is part of this movement is like this. It is perfectly fine to take one person and expect her to represent the feelings of thousands of other people in this movement. It is absolutely ridiculous to consuder for one moment that maybe some people joined this because they felt that children are a gift, not that they wanted to simply churn out babies like animals.

Q
06-19-2010, 08:17 PM
I don't about that but I am a firm believer that some people should not be permitted to reproduce.
That would be an acceptable compromise. :p

True_Avery
06-20-2010, 12:13 AM
Yes, every single person that is part of this movement is like this. It is perfectly fine to take one person and expect her to represent the feelings of thousands of other people in this movement. It is absolutely ridiculous to consuder for one moment that maybe some people joined this because they felt that children are a gift, not that they wanted to simply churn out babies like animals.
The movement is based on the woman being submissive to the man in the relationship, contraceptives being banned, and that not only that children are a "gift", but that it is the wifes job to have as many as possible. Its "philosophers" are anti-feminist, pro-life, anti-sterilization, and so on. One of the main driving forces of the movement is the idea that you should let "god" decide how many babies you have, and not family planning.

Joined because they felt children are a gift? Give me a break. The movement thinks that the fetus is a gift, not the child. Once the woman is born she is expected to churn out kids like her mother and be a submissive house wife, while being born and raised into a large family and probably being raised by her siblings. It is absolutely irresponsible to let the decisions go to "god" and have as many children as nature allows, even if by accident. You could turn around and say "yeah, well, rampant sex is irresponsible as well and this is about responsibility", to which I reply: It isn't the same thing. Contraceptives, shockingly, have a high success rate. As does sterilization.

This group views both as being under the same umbrella as Abortion, and preaches not only anti-both, but also tells people to undergo anti-sterilization surgery. The difference is while the sterilized/contraceptive people are at least -trying- to have responsible sex, this movement is based entirely around the idea of IRRESPONSIBLE SEX.

What do I mean? I mean that the movement contradicts its own stupid message: "life is precious, and children are a gift". How? Because once you let nature entirely decide when and how many children you have, you suddenly remove the entire idea of "planned" parenthood for luck of the damn draw. What if you can't afford that 9th child? Well, too bad. What if you were not prepared in some way to take care of another life? Too bad. What if you are already up to your neck in children? Too bad.

-That- is irresponsible. You aren't playing some ****ing game; You are putting someones life up entirely to chance. You risk your life, your spouses life, and the lives of your other children and the new child because of your philosophy. Again, its just as irresponsible as faith healing.

-------------

So yes, I will use the 19 and counting woman as a posterboard for the movement because she beautifully covers everything that is wrong with it.

1) She and her husband only function right now because of charity donations, a television show, and sponsor support. By themselves they don't make enough money to cover 20 children. They would never of had enough money to help them after high school. They are irresponsible.

2) She has so many kids she and her husband can no longer take care of all of them, so her older children have now adopted her continually growing litter. She has passed her own responsibility onto her children, proving she is not only incompetent, but lazy and lacking the brains to know how much is enough.

3) She has gotten a few tastes of not what "god" wants, but what nature will allow. Like I said, the human body was never meant for "quiverfull". A mother's nature amount of children can be determined by how many tits they have, and a human female has two tits, which leaves one child naturally, and two being the maximum, which would be twins. This is usually the case when pregnancy medication and human intervention are not in the way.

By moving past the danger zone naturally (which is roughly 5 children per adult), you now move into the zone of serious risk. Every child past the first increases chances for birth defects, miscarriages, and complications at birth. And, low and behold, her last few births have been wrought with complications and her doctors repeatedly tell her that she is putting herself and her babies in serious danger.

This is irresponsible on a few levels. Not only is she actively putting her new baby's life in serious danger, but she is risking her own. I ask you, what happens if she dies? Oh, yeah, she leaves 20 children behind without a mother, all of varying ages. How noble of her.

--------------

"Oh, but she is just a crazy extremist" You say

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact she is living this movement's message. She, and the rest of her ilk, despite their "message", do not believe in planned parenthood.

They believe in god planning.

Why do I have a problem with that? Because its a false message, and a bad one at that. For example, if you get pregnant it is god's work. If you miscarry, it is god's work. If you and/or your child die in child birth, it is god's work. If you child has a complication, it is god's will. Everything natural suddenly gets blamed on god, and he gets praised for his wisdom.

Meanwhile, this group spits on actual planning. They spit on contraceptives, sterilization, abortions, and so on. Fact of the matter is, when you boil the movement down... it is a movement that frowns on actual planned parenthood. There is no preventing before you are financially prepared.

Seriously, the movement is CALLED the "Quiverfull" movement. That, right there, says enough. Just because you have a quiver full of arrows does not mean you shoot off as many as possible. It means you make EVERY SHOT COUNT.

I shake my head at the idea this movement thinks children are a "gift". They think birth is a gift. That the shooting of the arrow is a gift and not the arrow itself.

To put it better:
"just because something is a gift from the Lord does not mean that it is wrong to be a steward of when or whether you will come into possession of it. It is wrong to reason that since A is good and a gift from the Lord, then we must pursue as much of A as possible. God has made this a world in which tradeoffs have to be made and we cannot do everything to the fullest extent. For kingdom purposes, it might be wise not to get married. And for kingdom purposes, it might be wise to regulate the size of one's family and to regulate when the new additions to the family will likely arrive. As Wayne Grudem has said, 'it is okay to place less emphasis on some good activities in order to focus on other good activities.'" -John Piper

This isn't even bringing in the hilarious idea of STDs and their stance on zero contraceptives. Sure, you can play on her cycle to -sometimes- avoid pregnancy, but you aren't going to prevent any STD you may comes across, acquire, etc. Since sex is not the only way to get a disease that can be transmitted sexually, it brings on a new, shiny layer of irresponsibility onto this movement.

Frankly, any group that thinks any and all contraceptives are -only- to fight against pregnancy is a group of fanatics. Contraceptives help prevent the spread of STDs, prevent unplanned pregnancy, and help women when their periods hit particularly hard. They boil down "condom" to "abortion" and never consider what else it can and does prevent. Much like how the Catholic church doesn't support condom use in Africa, even though over 1 in 3 people has AIDS.

Irresponsible, anti-planning drivel that not only spits on the idea of planned parenthood, but lets millions die of STDs every year. That is all this movement is to me.

Totenkopf
06-20-2010, 12:45 AM
But if the adult women members CHOOSE to be "baby-spewing" machines (vs baby-killing machines), is that not their right? As an apparent feminist, aren't you bound to respect that, if not their particular choice?

True_Avery
06-20-2010, 12:57 AM
But if the adult women members CHOOSE to be "baby-spewing" machines (vs baby-killing machines), is that not their right? As an apparent feminist, aren't you bound to respect that, if not their particular choice?
I expanded my post for better explanation of my views.

And no, I am not bound to respect their choice. I don't respect women who get abortions just because, and I don't respect women who get pregnant just because. They are irresponsible; both extremes of pro-life and pro-choice, and this movement is definitely an extremist view on pro-life.

Totenkopf
06-20-2010, 01:09 AM
I didn't say you were bound to respect their choices, just their right to be able to make said choices...at least in a self-described free society. As you full well know by now, I'm completely opposed to most abortion b/c it IS retroactive bc in >95% of cases. I also agree, however, that one shouldn't have more children than they can support. "Large litters" made more sense in a pre-industrial higher baby mortality atmosphere.

True_Avery
06-20-2010, 01:19 AM
As an apparent feminist, aren't you bound to respect that, if not their particular choice?
I didn't say you were bound to respect their choices
:p

As you full well know by now, I'm completely opposed to most abortion b/c it IS retroactive bc in >95% of cases. I also agree, however, that one shouldn't have more children than they can support. "Large litters" made more sense in a pre-industrial higher baby mortality atmosphere.
Agreed. I'm not to the point where I would ban all abortions from happening, nor ban people from having as many children as they like, but that doesn't mean I have to like either side.

Q
06-20-2010, 01:27 AM
I think that should read what you quoted again...
As an apparent feminist, aren't you bound to respect that, if not their particular choice?
I didn't say you were bound to respect their choices
He's right. He didn't. :)

True_Avery
06-20-2010, 01:31 AM
I think that should read what you quoted again...
Which quote? Me or Toten?

You're right. You didn't.
Is that sarcasm or am I misreading the things I quoted?

Totenkopf
06-20-2010, 01:33 AM
You didn't pay close attention to what you were attempting to mock/highlight. The second quote didn't ask if you had to respect their choices, merely their right to make choices you didn't respect. ;)

True_Avery
06-20-2010, 01:39 AM
I'm confused now. Who is talking to who?

Totenkopf
06-20-2010, 01:47 AM
..is that not their right? As an apparent feminist, aren't you bound to respect that ...?

The big mantra of the feminist movement is about empowering women to make choices. As a feminist, you would be out of charachter to deny another woman a choice merely b/c you disagreed with that choice. That was the original question was that was put to you, Avery.

True_Avery
06-20-2010, 03:21 AM
The big mantra of the feminist movement is about empowering women to make choices. As a feminist, you would be out of character to deny another woman a choice merely b/c you disagreed with that choice. That was the original question was that was put to you, Avery.
Well, I said that they were irresponsible. Not once in this thread have I said I wanted to pull a China and limit child rearing so not sure how I'm denying any women anything. They has as much right to be irresponsible parents as I have to call them that.

Also, just for sake of argument, the Quiverfull movement itself is fairly anti-feminist. Its original philosophers were anti-feminist, and the Bible quotes they use to justify their message are anti-feminist. The waves were born from subjugation and stereotyped/expected to be housewives under the man of the house, even if the "man" happened to be her son. The Quiverfull movement is a modern step back to pre-industrial times, in which the woman is second class to the man and, in some circles, the children as well.

Arguably, this movement is the exact opposite of "empowering", and the question of "choice" could also be put up for questioning since, in my opinion, religious beliefs like this comes with an artificial dilemma; "If I don't do this, God will punish me". If not god, then possibly the community they are apart of.

If you've been convinced through your life that if you don't obey god you are going to be punished, then "choice" goes out the window and in comes servitude and subjugation. Yes, in real time and in a free society the "choice" to not be religious still exists but not entirely in the mind of an indoctrinee.

So, is it a choice or is it a pre-determined path? Is there even a difference?

In the context of this movement, these people are pro-lifers. They believe condoms, contraceptives, and so on are against god's will are should be considered abortion/murder. This comes from a mix of heavy empathy, and a fear of god in this particular group. Now, if you, through whatever means you came to the conclusion, believe if you have sex with someone with a condom on that you are committing murder and an infinitely powerful being will eventually punish you... I'm not seeing a rational choice, and, in the mind of this person, choosing the opposite actually fits the definition of clinical insanity.

Thus you have the "false" dilemma, and a tool of subjugation that has been used as long as religion has been around. So, I'd argue that no choice "rationally" exists in this movement, and thus I cannot give nor deny something that does not really exist. For that reason, I disagree with the movement and the people who follow it because there is no choice for me to question.

Which comes down to the question of what exactly feminism is. I cannot really boil it down to much of anything for you since it's definition changes colors every wave and group you ask:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#Movements_and_ideologies

If you pressed me, I'd say feminism is the attempt for the female population to try and sit equally next to the male. There are some that want to rise above, and some who want some things to go above and some to go below (like, for example, equality would mean women are up for the military draft) and so on, but in concept that is the best I can define it personally. The dictionary seems to support my theory for now:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/feminism

So, if I did call myself a feminist, I'd argue that I'm not dropping out of character in questioning this movement because it would contradict my stance. I also put forth that (through your mantra), because of false dilemma, religion is in of itself anti-"feminist" and anti-"choice", thus I cannot drop out of character by questioning either.

I would be dropping out of character by saying, for example, that women should be more concerned with their children and home than work. For example, Sarah Palin is not as much of a feminist as she claims to be. She is anti-choice, anti-lesbian marriage, and fits what is politely called Feminist anti-feminists, or, impolitely, frauds. It has also been argued that "conservative feminist" is actually a contradiction, and I can make points for and against on that point, but throughout the recorded history of the movement it has always been "liberal", and you cannot be "feminist" just by claiming you are. Walk the walk.

So, in summary, I don't think I am going out of character by questioning this movement because there is no choice for me to go out of character to question, and, through the eyes of a "feminist", this movement remains "conservative" and thus contrary.

[All of this, of course, relies on what I consider to be the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal", which probably do not match what you think they mean.]

However, if the woman did indeed consciously make the choice, free willed, to go through with this movement... I'd still think she is irresponsible, but then I'd also question if she can truly be called a Quiverfull and not just someone who happens to like children. In my opinion, there is a difference, mainly because of, again, false dilemma and the fundamental ideals of the movement.

Totenkopf
06-20-2010, 04:56 AM
Well, I said that they were irresponsible. Not once in this thread have I said I wanted to pull a China and limit child rearing..

Nor did I accuse you of saying such. Was trying to see where you stood, given the virulence of your postion. I don't contend you should respect their decision.

As to your postion on what essentially amounts to brainwashing in you pov, how sure are you that they haven't made such a choice, even one you vehemently disagree with? How many kids that believe fervently in things like man-made global warming, etc.. haven't themselves been "brainwashed" early on in school? Do they come by these ideas by free will? Or b/c they've been inculcated from an impressionable age (like fundies of any religion, nazies, commies, etc..) to accept things and not apparently question them and then brainwash their own kids? Given that people who grow up in religious homes have still become atheistic zealots (thus making the choice to break away from their "brainwashing"), it may be premature to assume that people who join/stay in this movement don't also do so by choice. Just as the ones who have left the movement have also chosen to leave.

As re the fetus-baby argument......they view the fetus as a baby from the getgo, not merely some amorphous blob of cells that might one day "become" human.

Many feminists have pushed the fallacious concept that women could "have it all", never bothering to mention that even men never achieved that. Whatever the divisions among feminists in general, the official organization (NOW and the like) is radical & disconnected from modern women, who've discovered that being a feminist doesn't mean you have to support abortion, have to be the bread winner or even be liberal. It was purportedly about giving women the opportunity to be able to make choices that their mothers and grandmothers never had. Seems myopic to contend that a woman who decides to have children and doesn't support abortion or gay marriage is somehow banned from being "feminist"..... it's clear that feminism is as fractured an ideology as any that humans have come up with throughout history. And just as fraught w/litmus tests as any political movement.

Tysyacha
06-20-2010, 06:48 PM
Another one of my main problems with Quiverfull is that they believe, as Betty Friedan says in her book The Feminine Mystique, "anatomy is destiny". Meaning, if you are a boy, then you are destined to be one of the "movers and shakers" of the world. You're meant to reach the stars, lead armies and govern countries, build skyscrapers, preach and teach the word of God, and guide your family as its "head" and "spiritual leader". Most importantly, you are meant to imitate Christ and serve as a Christlike role model for your family and others around you. Your example is what will lead people to Christ, not your wife's or your daughter's. Yours. You're the man.

In contrast, if you're a girl, you're meant to change diapers and wash behinds, do laundry and cook, serve as a gracious hostess to anyone who comes to your door, keep an immaculate house, and most importantly, bear and raise children. Not just ANY children, mind you, who run around the house and scream and dress inappropriately and act disobedient. You are meant to raise obedient children who will do anything adults demand of them. By the same token, you yourself as a woman are meant to obey God and anyone else who is a male in your family. After all, you are the woman.

In the Quiverfull movement, you do NOT choose your role in life. God has already chosen it for you, and that's why He gave you one certain set of genitals as opposed to another. "Anatomy is destiny", and that's God's will...

:swear:

purifier
06-20-2010, 07:41 PM
Another one of my main problems with Quiverfull is that they believe, as Betty Friedan says in her book The Feminine Mystique, "anatomy is destiny". Meaning, if you are a boy, then you are destined to be one of the "movers and shakers" of the world. You're meant to reach the stars, lead armies and govern countries, build skyscrapers, preach and teach the word of God, and guide your family as its "head" and "spiritual leader". Most importantly, you are meant to imitate Christ and serve as a Christlike role model for your family and others around you. Your example is what will lead people to Christ, not your wife's or your daughter's. Yours. You're the man.

In contrast, if you're a girl, you're meant to change diapers and wash behinds, do laundry and cook, serve as a gracious hostess to anyone who comes to your door, keep an immaculate house, and most importantly, bear and raise children. Not just ANY children, mind you, who run around the house and scream and dress inappropriately and act disobedient. You are meant to raise obedient children who will do anything adults demand of them. By the same token, you yourself as a woman are meant to obey God and anyone else who is a male in your family. After all, you are the woman.

In the Quiverfull movement, you do NOT choose your role in life. God has already chosen it for you, and that's why He gave you one certain set of genitals as opposed to another. "Anatomy is destiny", and that's God's will...

:swear:





Most of that is really similar to what the polygamist groups in Utah believe, except they go a few steps further, such as: multiple wives and marriage to underage females.

Tysyacha
06-20-2010, 08:19 PM
Both make me absolutely sick. :barf:

Bimmerman
06-20-2010, 11:36 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull

Thoughts?

I know I'M quivering...*still can't believe this is an actual movement in 2010*

This movement is what happens when your grandmother is your sister.