|
Post by mirabelle on Dec 23, 2009 14:41:01 GMT -5
I don't think most conservative Christians are concerned about environmental impact--between the end times stuff and God has dominion, I don't think it's a major issue in that world view.
But back to the QF not being the problem assertion, I (as a non QF mother) kind of have to agree with Jeff to a certain extent, in that QF has come to be almost synonymous with patriarchy, but they aren't really the same thing.
Is QF hard on a woman's body? Of course, but surely the horror of Vyckie's story has a lot more to do with submitting to an @ss who she knew was wrong than it does having a lot of children.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Dec 23, 2009 15:23:30 GMT -5
Is QF hard on a woman's body? Of course, but surely the horror of Vyckie's story has a lot more to do with submitting to an @ss who she knew was wrong than it does having a lot of children. I don't know that I agree with this. If Warren had been the most loving, caring, helpful husband ever, had no problem taking care of the kids, and had been sighted, it certainly would have made Vyckie's life easier. But if they had still both been totally committed to letting god plan their family size, it wouldn't have eliminated the physical problems that she had from having so many children in such a short amount of time. It probably wouldn't have changed her decision to go to a midwife- and hers turned out to be abusive. Even if she were dying from repeated childbirths (as she very might well have if she had continued), they still would have had to proclaim their trust in god to control the outcome. So I do think that the doctrine of having as many children as god will give you, with the faith that god will provide for you and them if you'll just trust him and keep going, is a harmful doctrine whether domestic abusive is occurring or not.
|
|
nimue
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by nimue on Dec 23, 2009 17:28:32 GMT -5
Even in a "happy" family it appears that their is a lot of potential for child abuse. Young girls are forced shoulder adult responsibilities when they are still children. Education may not be up to par. Children are put at risk by the dangerous pregnancies too.
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Dec 24, 2009 10:23:26 GMT -5
There are too many people on the planet now. People live in horrid conditions, because people are cheap (labor wise). ...and the environmental impact etc.,
ON a couple of things there, one, its not just QF or those who choose to have large families for whatever reasons, that are problem here, that Same argument I find AMAZING how its 'ignored' when it comes to cultural relativism, lets take political Islam, for instance who Also, demand large numbers of children, a.k.a. nationalism, Then all of a sudden, that argument goes silent because we 'don't want to offend' culture,
typical leftist hypocrisy, that is Just as deplorable as the misogyny in the religious cults, etc. And its amazing that at All those ideologies and theories that its MEN who decide, what is best for the world, environment, be they right, left, religious what have you, and whose to blame for the environmental and world's ills, Why women have babies, of course,
more Womb hate.
Bottom line if Women had Autonomy and political equity Worldwide OUTSIDE of male theory dominion we most likely wouldn't HAVE the environmental problems which, may I say, are Just as much IF NOT MORE SO the fault of lets see,
male doctrines, from the War machine [thank you to the Stalins] and science inventions [lets see, the pollution around our Earth's atmosphere in Space ring any bells], and the lead poisoning and land that Could be used for food but is raped for minerals [cell phones--not to exclude the blood of women in the Congo over those minerals] and forests destroyed to build things and not just extra bedrooms for kids, and the electronics and things for boy toys,
that also demand work camps [car parts and videos and other boy toys made in slave camps, via children in South America],
oh, if you Want to talk environmental damage, don't blame wombs and having Babies on That one,
because the truth is, the major percentage of environmental damage and pillaging of the mother earth's resources was and still is done by the INVENTIONS OF MEN, for men, not necessarily for children. But its convenient to 'blame' birth and children, particularly when its the 'population who gets to live card' and that whole eugenics social engineering men who want to play God crap,
no, while I don't agree with the misogyny and ultra-patriarchy in many religions AND cultures including mass wide 'theocratic authoritarian' societies, in no way, is the having children, the blame for the world's ills,
I find it amazing that those who scream the loudest against childbirth have no qualms in seeing women and children trafficked or used in 'group political cults' being passed around used as cum dumps...who see no problem with forced abortions and sterilizations, its the same ole methods of control,
usually comes down to what benefits Men and what benefits the Nation-State, a.k.a. men as gods,
its the same b.s. Neither allows for women's autonomy, over her body OR over the number of children that she chooses to have. The issue here I believe is the 'doctrines' that influence or coerce women to have more children against her will,
not that having many children is necessarily a bad thing, why, many countries don't allow for many children, some are even so low in birth rate that they are trafficking women from other countries [because god forbid if men don't have sex right?, why its a damn entitlement], and hey, if its a culture that will literally put a gun to your head if you comment on their 'numbers of children' then its hands off,
but oh we can feel free to persecute those Christian or other groups of women who have many children, and then of course, blame them or having children for the environmental damage,
to that I say Bull. Because fact is, it is GREED more than anything, that is to blame for the damage to the environment, landmines, WAR, lead poisoning, WAR and batteries and electronics, Fertilizers, for food AND for other cash crops, lets not forget Cotton, both that uses slaves [child slaves] and depletes land AND water, etc., and I won't even go into the air pollution, water pollution, that is not just the result of OIL which btw, used for heat/cars for those who have children and those who only have two or who do not have children...I know plenty of young couples who swear against children who see NOT a problems with owning two SUVS and running motorcycles through mountain lands tearing up the environment,
so lets don't 'blame having children' and Women, on the environment...and as far as animals go,
I'd rather see people take care of many animals than collect THINGS, that have no life or value...you see we got it all wrong today, we value things over humans,
and its NOT just in the Christian right or the 'extremes' in cults that are to blame for this...there is Just as much blame on the materialist [those who believe not in God but only in science and the wise efforts of man only to see how we destroy our earth and each other], the technicians and of course, those who want to take place of God or who want to Play God, with population and so forth,
right or left, they are Both to blame...far more, than women who have 8 kids.
In fact, in majority of countries where women have many children, its not the Children or the poor who exploit the resources, its the Wealthy white rich, who have two children, who exploit resources and who Demand more from resources, than all the poor children in the lands of Africa...because they Consume more,
so, if we are Going to find blame on the environmental damages, we had better begin to Look at the more modernized 'two children' nations first--China, forced abortions and forced sterilizations [of women, Maoists and similar materialists are notorious for doing this garbage to women but god forbid Don't tough a man's penis], but have the Worst air pollution in the world, aka cars and boy toys,
Don't even get me started on this one....former HARD CORE leftist, who knows all to well the misogyny and the Hypocrisy of that whole ideological cesspool,
its not Children who are the problem nor birth--for the environment, nor many animals,
its the supposedly wise doctrines of 'men' who have played God over the years.
And I will dare call those who spew the 'blame the womb' nonsense on that one...
Jane Needle Workers and Sewers Union,
a Christian, an Environmentalist, Animal Rights and Fair Trade, WOMEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS, Activist and Worker and 100% Christian
|
|
|
Post by mirabelle on Dec 24, 2009 10:26:51 GMT -5
But if they had still both been totally committed to letting god plan their family size, it wouldn't have eliminated the physical problems that she had from having so many children in such a short amount of time. Good point. I am thinking mostly about how much easier Vyckie says her life is and how much less bothersome her physical problems are now that she's gotten rid of Warren and let go of some of the movement expectations she adopted (fundamentalist patriarchal movement rather than the specific QF philosophy), but you're right that it was an issue. It probably wouldn't have changed her decision to go to a midwife- and hers turned out to be abusive. This one I disagree on. The midwife (in this case dangerously incompetent) is part of the movement's don't trust "them" mindset, but it's not QF particularly (and, by the way, happy "Tyranny Eve," everyone! ). The way I view it, the larger movement has a lot of ways to do their version of "buying indulgences" (spending money to get a more direct guarantee of Godliness). The alternative health industry is one of them, but not the only (the Reformation 500 event, tapes, and assorted paraphernalia is one of the most ironic ones ;D )
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Dec 24, 2009 10:35:17 GMT -5
just in case, by 100% Christian that means, believe in the Bible 100 percent, not in fundamentalism, by no means,
and its Because of the Bible that I am so radical for worker's rights, labor and environment and feminism, not the opposite...and diametrically opposed to the teachings and abuses of patriarchy and male superiority and all that garbage,
but will say this, so many of the opposing ideologies, especially those in the Extreme, for example, QF and the extreme Eugenics on the other end,
have more in Common, than differences,
and this is where the womb hate and the oppression of women can Really be seen. ONE swears their 'God entitled right to force women to have many children and to be slaves to men'
the Other swears their 'science' given expertise to force women to be sex slaves [in Columbia this is literally, they rape the girls and then force abortions, all in the name of matieralist equality] or work slaves and controlling birth that way--usually its more along 'race' or 'class' lines here,
so, to ME its the same thing...and its just amazing how Both, will blame women and having children, for the problems in the world, rather than look at the other factors that are Far more to blame.
Especially where ENVIRONMENT is concerned, it isn't the numbers of children that cause the demands for war, its GREED, and its the nations that have fewer children,
who own and control the WAR DOG industry that kills, both children AND the environment.
Lets not forget that fact. IF anything, its Women, who have many children, who would be the Best at planning resource management and Economics worldwide because if Any one knows how to distribute equally and with wisdom, managing Resources,
it would be those women, from the 80% who farm the world's food to the women who repair communities,
most of whom, btw, are MOTHERS, WHO HAVE MANY CHILDREN.
That's the problem, its those mothers who are Demonized in this materialist world, as being the culprits to the damages and ills of the world, especially by Scientists and materialists,
but its those same mothers, who could IF given the access to political Power, who could do more Good for the Entire world, because they have Experience, far more,
than those, who have no children.
[sorry but I have very strong feelings on this matter...its not women, having children, who are to Blame, on the ills of this world, by NO means...and I get Very militant on this issue].
Jane
Jane
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Dec 24, 2009 11:43:59 GMT -5
But back to the QF not being the problem assertion, I (as a non QF mother) kind of have to agree with Jeff to a certain extent, in that QF has come to be almost synonymous with patriarchy, but they aren't really the same thing. Is QF hard on a woman's body? Of course, but surely the horror of Vyckie's story has a lot more to do with submitting to an @ss who she knew was wrong than it does having a lot of children. Mirabelle ~ welcome to NLQ I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, so my apologies in advance if this response doesn't quite relate to your point. The horror of my story has to do with what I'm calling the QF mindset ~ the headspace in which, over the years, QFers' thought processes become more and more distorted ~ black & white, dichotomous thinking which severely limits their ability to effectively interact with reality. The reason I so faithfully stuck with a midwife who was so obviously incompetent, the reason I repeatedly risked my life in childbearing, the reason I "submitted" to Warren despite his undeniable lack of leadership abilities, ... all of this was because *in my head* I had lost touch with actuality and was thinking only of possibilities ~ I was totally focused on the QF ideal of what a truly godly family should be like, could be like, would be by the grace of God as we faithfully followed His will as revealed in His word. You see, the one thing that QF families have in common is this idealistic mindset ~ whether they accept all of the QF particulars in practice or pick and choose. Yes, you can be QF without doing the patriarchy thing or homeschooling ... the wife can work outside the home, the family can eat white bread by Sara Lee ~ and still be QF. There are plenty of QF families which give lip service to the husband as head/wife as help meet role model, but are egalitarian in practice. What I'm trying to say here is that it was our *state of mind* which screwed us all up. So far as Warren being an asshole ~ I am trying to make the point in my writing that he really is not such a bad guy ~ but rather, it was my indulgence of his controlling and micro-managing tendencies which over the years made him unbearable to live with. nolongerquivering.com/2009/08/22/twisted_love/I've had it in my head for a while now to write another article (it's coming, I promise): Husbands love your wives ~ the peanut butter in the submission trap. Because I hear this all the time ~ if only you would've had a decent husband who did his part by loving you as Christ loved the church ... Well ~ I'm sorry, but that just doesn't hold water because Warren was every bit as sincere about his walk with the Lord as I was ~ and he too knocked himself out trying to fulfill his biblically prescribed role as head/protector/provider of the home. Being Quiverfull is not just about having a lot of children. There are many families who have a lot of children who are not QF. This is why when the Duggars say they are not Quiverfull, we say, bullshit ~ and at the same time, no one even suspects Jon & Kate of being Quiverfull. Throughout history, there have been many wonderful large families ~ Christian families ~ who were/are for the most part well-adjusted, and healthy in their family dynamics. These are families in which the men are clearly the patriarchal heads of their homes ~ and yet, there is a difference between these traditional families and the QF families which we're talking about on NLQ.
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Dec 24, 2009 13:37:57 GMT -5
"You see, the one thing that QF families have in common is this idealistic mindset ~ whether they accept all of the QF particulars in practice or pick and choose. Yes, you can be QF without doing the patriarchy thing or homeschooling ... the wife can work outside the home, the family can eat white bread by Sara Lee ~ and still be QF. There are plenty of QF families which give lip service to the husband as head/wife as help meet role model, but are egalitarian in practice.
What I'm trying to say here is that it was our *state of mind* which screwed us all up. "
Vickie,
you bring up a good point, that I think should be addressed more than just the faith issue, because you see I've seen that same type of Mindset in the secular-non faith groups just as much if not more so...and we even see it in group think, and I believe they are related. Question is, how much 'religion' has been also influenced by group think--and I bring this up because we are seeing this in huge manifestations in the so called Mega Churches and in the 'dominion' teachings,
which clearly have a lot in common with the characteristics And ideologies of neo-Nazism, nationalist socialism, communism [the totalitarian ideologies] and so forth. I concur with Hannah Ardent that the more 'isolated' societies become, the more prone they are to becoming coerced and prey to the totalitarian mindset, doesn't matter if its religious or science,
because the motivations are somewhat the same. A willingness to 'please', a willingness to be in a cohesive group, and a willingness to perform, etc.
I've read much of your story and your blog, and I see many teachings that are not just in the QF but also in the mainstream, that I began to question, years ago. I, like many others, walked away from religion, didn't stop believing in Christ but I had some real issues with 'churchianity' I guess you could term it but not just that, but our 'moral' values in This society, in the West, I questioned those as well, probably had a lot to do with my first marriage to one who worked in Middle East and all over Africa, my experience in Mexico for a very brief time [assisting street missions] and my two years being homeless in This country, while working [daycare-rent, had to choose couldn't do both],
and so from there I began to question a lot. Then years in academia [another Cult, I have no issues in saying so], and in far left politics, I saw many similarities, and began to read up on fascism...it wasn't until I got back into the Bible and started reading, that I saw a whole other 'gospel' and I thought,
Where in the world did I ever get the lens I once had? I believe its not just 'religion' but religion mixed with culture norms, and that the Two need to be addressed together,
what I didn't realize, at the time, is that Jesus himself, addressed both, both legalism and culture. So my thinking Has changed, Drastically, and I come to find, I'm not the only one going through this, there is actually a growing underground, what we call a church within the church, that are seeing more, just how polluted we have become, and not just on issues such as patriarchy and hierarchy.
I was reading, past week, your posts on body image, and its interesting because there are several who are confronting the extreme misogyny in both culture and political 'religion' [Islam] on the issues of FGMs, and how its women who pass these horrid abuses down from generation to generation, as well as men. Ironically though not surprising, while its 'safe' to confront the abuses within Christian circles, on issues that are just as horrid if not more so, in other religions, there seems to be a 'hands off' approach, which I believe is one of the worst forms of hypocrisy and misogyny at work.
And you nailed it, its the mindset and what I find in common with the whole group think-legalist-centralist platform type of ideologies is that they leave no room for questioning, or criticism. And though on some ideologies the abuses are just clear cut in writing,
as far as Biblical goes, there is just tons of evidence that shows just how abusive these doctrines are and not only that, just how contrary they are to the Character of God, and That, that I have to wonder, is why we aren't seeing enough of those attributes coming out, meaning, why aren't they being addressed,
such as, this whole belief that women are to present their bodies as living sacrifices, breeding, so forth, and yet, if we look at the Life of Jesus, God in flesh, among humankind, not once, did Jesus ever insist on a woman damaging her body,
Jesus was in the HEALING BUSINESS, not the destruction business. Nor was He in the abuse business....so, clearly, there is some misinterpretation there, in the extremes.
The first story in fact, of Jesus in His ministry, was Him healing Peter's mother in law, then the woman with the issue of blood [which in that day, she by law was breaking the laws of religion because she was out while bleeding, which then was a huge no no...but Jesus didn't condemn her, He healed her], therefore not only revealing His true nature and beliefs and love towards women but in the most intimate of ways as well,
He didn't shirk back from her bleeding but healed her. I see no where in the Bible where God demands women harm themselves, or put themselves in harms way, not deliberate, and the sacrificing our bodies as living sacrifices, is in reference to presenting our selves to service to Christ,
BUT that has to be weighed against another scripture too, in Corinthians I believe where Paul says, 'if we give our bodies up to be burned and have NOT LOVE, it profits us NOTHING',
so obviously, Jesus was not to be our pimp or our breeding despot. But man sure has taken it upon himself/or herself to turn God into some despot who demands the loyal burning up of bodies...women's bodies in particular, as some sort of service. Martyrdom and its clearly,
abuse of scripture, and its NOT just in the QF movement either, its been around since the days of Paul, in fact, Paul warned of this, numerous times, when he warned that there were teachers, wolves in sheep's clothing he called them, who were taking LAW and attempting to make 'merchandise' out of people, who wanted Will Worship, righteousness coming from abusing one's body and sacrifice and the dos and do nots and all that,
when clearly, it says in Gal, that NO one, will be justified by works of the law. Its by Grace and Mercy, Mercy--its really about mercy, and love, Jesus turned water into wine, I questioned that, why and what that meant,
it took going through OT to really see that God is the provider of wine, well what does wine do? Wine [excluding the abuse of] gives us joy, JOY,
I guess my point is Vickie, is that I'm noticing a lot [and I once believed in these things too, because I grew up in one of those conservative Bible Belt communities and even though we weren't part of in a tight knit way, they Still had their impact and influence on my lens/thinking], of how God has been portrayed in ways,
that clearly are not even Close, to who He is or who Jesus is or what the Christian life is really supposed to be about. And I really am seeing this, in the harms and abuses, done to women and children. What I didn't realize, then, is how many of these 'same' types of abuses are done to women and children in non-religious ideologies,
I remember my days working in the hard core left how many times I thought, gee, they'd make terrific Christians, [on the fundie side] because they are identical, just using different 'means' to the same ends.
Therefore, it really doesn't surprise me too much, to see many 'alliances' now within the extreme groups [and some of the mainstream] when it comes to misogyny and patriarchy, and well, basically, social Controls, over women and children. [latest is the alliance between some of the more fundamentalist Christians with the Islamists--and hard liner left wingers--as well as some hard liner right wingers]. Those 'outside' the box, per se, who do question, are finding themselves on the outside of the whole 'mass group think' mentality.
I believe misogyny can take various 'faces', and that because we have internalized it so much--whether we want to admit it or not--that it sometimes not so easy to recognize, but one thing I do think, it has a tendency to be 'self-destructive' in one way or another, and destructive to others.
I do believe we are to be living sacrifices--meaning, giving of our selves so that others may Live, its a spiritual thing, not some kind of physical 'being abusive or tolerating abuse' from others, NOT that standing on one's faith might not get them killed in countries where one can be killed for not towing the 'bow to the system' kind, they kill Anyone who is in defiance to them,
because that is what totalitarians and despots do. They kill, rob, steal and destroy--which is the nature of Satan, not God. [for those who believe in the spiritual realm],
but lets say, one does not believe in the spiritual realm, we can take this clearly on 'ethics' and humanitarianism, Love gives, it doesn't take and destroy. And while pondering on the whole body image and those issues today, it came to me just how much Jesus healed the human body,
his entire ministry was centered around healing, feeding the poor [nourishing the human body] and even raising the dead...[Lazarus and then Himself after three days],
Hardly the nature of one who is demanding that women endanger themselves, etc., see there is just something there, that well, it just doesn't ring true, of who Jesus is,
or what He wanted from us in return....not s 'debtors' but as those who know what His love and mercy and kindness is and then to give that out to others, not because they 'deserve' it, because under law none of us do, but because, He [God] has shown us a better way....law requires justice, right-wrong, good-evil, but God, showed us, Mercy, a mercy that a Righteous God, paid the price, in yes, His own very body, for us,
because He loved us, personally Vickie, I believe its Jesus who took you out of that mindset and who is showing you how Valuable and Precious you are to Him, getting you away and out of 'dead religion', and I say this,
because He did the same for me...it was in the years of rebelling against and being away from all that garbage, that He was able to do a lot of healing and setting me free, from that sado-machiscist (sic) mindset,
and it is a type of self-destruction. Self-hate, really, and women, we get bombarded with it, from religion, from media, from expectations put onto us that are Clearly unrealistic, from materialism to you name it...even our 'own' ideals and expectations, and the thing is,
when we measure with that measuring stick, against ourselves, we use that same measuring stick against others, and that is Exactly what Jesus said...judge not, measure not,
the secular does this just as much, though they may claim they don't, but we do measure, whether its law or ethics or lifestyles. Always leaving out, mercy,
and maybe, that is the question, what IS mercy, really? What is love? Like Paul said, if we give our bodies to be burned [or to some 'false' pimp Jesus--those distortion of the submit scriptures] or give our things away as some 'hey look at how self-sacrificial' I am, etc., its without profit, it profits no one, because its not about Love,
Love requires love of ourselves, just as much as love for others. Love would never, say, put your self in harms way...just to show how sacrificial one is....to maybe 'save' a life literally, that's one thing,
and maybe its along those lines, that the lines become blurred. Same thing can go for the whole 'we don't use medicine' or 'we don't use pain killers', I say,
why not? God gave us herbs, medicines in nature that kill pain, what does it prove really, if we abuse ourselves, and I believe that is where 'discernment' does come in,
I don't see anything wrong with having a lot of children or choosing not to have children at all, IF that is what one believes is their best of choices and so forth, IF they are motivated by love and not by 'legalism' or 'government' or 'social influences', etc., now just how much we can truly say we make choices without all or one of the above, I don't know, that could be debated for eons,
I do know this, there is so much that I have chosen or done, both secular wise and religious wise that I look back on now and think, it was not the wisest of choices, some even detrimental, but at the Time, I thought they were the best....and sure, they were influenced,
but maybe that is what its all about, life journey, is coming through those things, a little more appreciative, I don't know, still learning that one,
but I believe the 'danger' is when those beliefs become 'systems' be they religious or secular, that Insist on certain behaviors or customs, or else. Then, it becomes something, that isn't love anymore, something sinister and destructive, even motivated by hate [by either self-hate or hatred of one in power], and maybe women feel it more because its often directed towards us.
Again, not sure on all of these things, but thinking on them....I don't know Vickie, but I see Jesus, more likely to say, you know, give your body a rest, take some time away from having children, enjoy the children you have now, enjoy [for those who don't have children] giving to those children who don't have parents or to the elderly or to the homeless, etc.,
and well, scriptural this could be backed up, when Jesus said to Martha, Martha Martha, you are worried about so many things, but Mary chose the more important one, sitting at my feet and learning and taking rest in me, [para phrase but its the meaning],
it was never supposed to be about performance or legalism--the Pharisees were pros at this....they rejected 'mercy',
in their attempts to 'bring about their 'OWN' righteousness, the secular does this just as well....and maybe, its really just, you know, I love you, just the way you are, flaws and all and not only that, I forgive you,
I asked God about that once, why the tree of knowledge, it was a Huge controversy with me, I brought it to God numerous times, why did you, etc.,
one day, that small voice said, 'there Can be no love, without forgiveness',
haven't forgotten that one, if there was no forgiveness, no choice in taking that, just taking it as free gift,
then HE would have created robots, but for some reason, He didn't want 'robots'. He wanted live, breathing flesh, that HE created [even our breath is from Him],
so obviously, He is not a hater of our souls or our bodies or the abusers of either.
So, why then, do we have increasing doctrines who paint God or who portray God, as a soul and body hating God? It just, doesn't make sense,
it really doesn't.
Jane
|
|
nimue
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by nimue on Dec 24, 2009 13:52:14 GMT -5
Overpopulation is a part of the environmental degredation puzzle. People who are aware of this and STILL choose to make the problem worse by having 20 kids are purposely making the problem worse. I don't care if they are Muslims or Christians or athiests. Furthermore, overpopulation is one of the things that make it possible for the corporations to exploit people. Everyone has the right to reproduce. It is part of being human. But it is in no way unreasonable to ask people to think first. One of the most important things that can be done to help women out of poverty is give them the ability to control the timing and spacing of their children. Due to the religious elements in our government, programs are funded around abstinence only policies and sometimes condoms. But in many places women cannot decide when to have sex with her husband or whether he will use a condom. Furthermore, acting as if science is part of the problem is ridiculous. Science just is. If it weren't for scientific advances in farming a lot more people would be starving right now. Unfortunatly, a lot of these advances are not sustainable in the long term. I think women would allocate resources better then men too. But it won't happen and some of us live in reality. Because I think EVERY woman has the right to be a mother, I think people should not abuse this right by having 20 kids. Otherwise, the elites and capitalists will institute abusive policies like China's one child policy.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Dec 24, 2009 14:02:45 GMT -5
Jane doe, you are still not concise but you managed to anger me greatly. lets take political Islam, for instance who Also, demand large numbers of children, a.k.a. nationalism Explain then why Iran has a lower per capita fertility rate than the US. It's pure stereotyping and racism to be terrified more of islam than christianity (both are pretty scary though, just I cannot abide by people who apparently think I should be more scared of the one all those brown scary middle easterners follow than my neighbors. nope.) But that wasn't what got me boiling scathing MAD!! That was this: because the truth is, the major percentage of environmental damage and pillaging of the mother earth's resources was and still is done by the INVENTIONS OF MEN yes Because there has NEVER been a smart woman. Because no, it's not at ALL possible that WOMEN might invent anything. Oh, no, all WOMEN are is slaves to their biology. Technological advance is driven only by men. Thank you so very much, but NO THANKS. It is the advance of science and technology which has, and will continue, to increase our standards of living. And NO a thousand TIMES no, it has NOT been the sole domain of men. In fact, in majority of countries where women have many children, its not the Children or the poor who exploit the resources, its the Wealthy white rich, who have two children, who exploit resources and who Demand more from resources, than all the poor children in the lands of Africa...because they Consume more Take a WILD stab in the dark here, why do you think they might consume less? Do you think it might *possibly* have something to do with their lack of access to health care? How about their lack of access to education. Hmmm, maybe it has something to do with their lack of access to food? Let me guess.... someone starving with her 8 kids in Africa... why might she be consuming less than someone who has access to more? Maybe because hmmm... She CANT? Heck, she doesn't even have ACCESS to birth control, thanks to powerful governments who don't think she ought to be able to choose THAT either. Nope, having lots of kids just because you have no other option, and then not consuming very many resources because you're fucking starving because hmmm, you don't have fucking ACCESS to them is not even in the same UNIVERSE as an environmental success story. You apparently are against science and technology, including fertilizer (which, yes, I suppose it does pollute, and it does use up fossil fuels) but do you have ANY CLUE what the carrying capacity of humans on our planet is, WITHOUT fertilizers? It's about 2 billion or so. How many people do we have on the planet today? Pretty soon, we'll be crossing 9 billion. Do YOU want to watch 7 billion die? I sure as HELL don't!!! Our ONLY HOPE is to continue to pursue technologies, better, more efficient, less polluting, better distributed, etc. You know, I think I'm going to stop reading your posts. I used to think you must have had a few good points interspersed with unreadable walls of text, but the more I venture into the word salad the madder I get, so I think I'll just spare myself.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Dec 24, 2009 14:40:27 GMT -5
Then years in academia [another Cult, I have no issues in saying so], and in far left politics, I saw many similarities, and began to read up on fascism...it wasn't until I got back into the Bible and started reading, that I saw a whole other 'gospel' and I thought, Where in the world did I ever get the lens I once had? I believe its not just 'religion' but religion mixed with culture norms, and that the Two need to be addressed together, what I didn't realize, at the time, is that Jesus himself, addressed both, both legalism and culture. So my thinking Has changed, Drastically, and I come to find, I'm not the only one going through this, there is actually a growing underground, what we call a church within the church, that are seeing more, just how polluted we have become, and not just on issues such as patriarchy and hierarchy. I was reading, past week, your posts on body image, and its interesting because there are several who are confronting the extreme misogyny in both culture and political 'religion' [Islam] on the issues of FGMs, and how its women who pass these horrid abuses down from generation to generation, as well as men. Ironically though not surprising, while its 'safe' to confront the abuses within Christian circles, on issues that are just as horrid if not more so, in other religions, there seems to be a 'hands off' approach, which I believe is one of the worst forms of hypocrisy and misogyny at work. And you nailed it, its the mindset and what I find in common with the whole group think-legalist-centralist platform type of ideologies is that they leave no room for questioning, or criticism. Years in academia? Unless you mean the second grade, I am seriously sceptical of your claim to experience here. You need to make your posts intelligible if you want to seriously engage us in discussion. That means ending each sentence and paragraph with a unified, coherent thought. That said, how exactly is the academy a cult? I don't fear for my life or soul if I leave it. I don't feel pressured to write a certain type of history because other historians are doing so. The whole premise of scholarly inquiry is to critique and overturn existing ideas to better future understanding of a subject. There are elitists in the system, to be sure, and even some dogma - but its premise is inherently anti-dogmatic. I won't touch the FGM-Islam connection, as I don't know enough about it. Suffice it to say that it was not an Islamic invention.
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Dec 24, 2009 14:41:15 GMT -5
I mention political Islam, you mention Iran...so lets take Iran, as example, then,
yes, Iran has low birth rate, high prostitution rate however, high in the Extremes abuses to women [FACT], and under Sharia Law, FACT, also a country that is notorious for imprisoning labor unions/leaders, workers, FACT, so to take Iran only as an example, you're missing the point,
btw, I was intimate with Islam and know the Sharia and the Hadiths, do YOU? As an advocate on behalf of thousands of women who Live under that Hell, I have no qualms in calling the system of political Islam what it is, authoritarian, Extremely MISOGYNIST, condoning of slavery FACT, despotic and tyrannic. Political Islam is more than just Iran,
btw, the low birth rate in Iran came from the 'reforms' under the Shah, which were yes, under influence of US policy, that Yes, did bring about the other side of police-tyranny and abuses, particularly in converting economy [theirs] into a dependent one and cash crops, etc., which had a lot to do with feeding the 'fundamentalist' support there against the Shah, anyway, long development and that would take eons to discuss here, but when time allows I'd be more than happy to go into this in more detail...I am no friend of political Islam and no apologist because regardless of relativism, tolerating and 'masking' the horrid abuses to be PC is to me, just as horrid as the Bible thumpers who use scripture to abuse women and children.
As for the 'inventions of men', this has Nothing to do with biological determinism, but the FACT that historically, and even today, it is, Men, yes, who control the political and economic systems, IS it not?
Economic systems that control the resources which control the 'elites' and the inventions--its not the Poor who are creating inventions on a mass scale, is it? By far, Women are the ones who suffer from feminization of poverty [not men], its women who suffer from wars, militerization [that is yes, controlled and spurred on by MEN], not women,
yes so there are women in and who have created inventions and technology but by Far, these are fields, both politically and economically that are controlled by men, Male inspired doctrines [including Marxism] that are, yes, Male and Patriarchal centered, bottom line, that is truth,
whether it pisses you off or not, so to Blame women's wombs and childbearing for the ills of the world IS AN OXYMORON, if there ever was one.
After all, its MEN who created patriarchy, not women.
Women may support it, they may even benefit from it, but it was men, who created it and who still maintain it. As for technical advances,
yes, the great technical advances but isn't it funny, with the technical advances we have today we Still have torture [even more so with technical tools, or did the sales of tasor guns to China escape you],
we have more pillaging and wars and BRUTAL HORRENDOUS GENDERCIDES against women and children for minerals for those technical advances--take Congo for instance,
or does that matter? I suppose the rapes and tortures and multilations of millions [mostly women and children mind you] for minerals and electronics [did I forget to mention the poisoning of water from computer dumping--Nigeria ring a bell] and all the other abuses for the 'advancement of technology' escaped you too,
so it pisses you off,
well I'll tell you what Pisses me off, is the millions of girls and women and children in this world that are tossed to the dumpsters literally, dumps of poverty, waste, polluted land, water, air, all for our so called advanced technology, those prisoners, labor workers and people just wanting to Live a decent wage, who are tortured by our so called 'advance technology' and lands and whole communities destroyed because of our 'advanced technology',
technologies that are, Yes, under the control and domain of mostly Men, male systems, male politics [and many women who take part in that, who btw, pretty much go by the patriarchal way of thinking--male values, not women centered] and Corporations, and their Lawyers, who are Yes,
mostly Men, male patriarchal values.
So if that pisses you off, then do some looking at the images that are plastered just about anywhere on the web of women and children bloodied and butchered and trafficked [all for business MEN I might add] all over this world,
then come tell me how pissed you are.
Because the FACT is, its the ones who hold the resources and have the power and the technical advancements that are doing more, policy and corporate wise, to destroy yes, the environment, propping up despots and tyranny, and yes, militarization that supports the police and the tyrannies that yes, not only oppress women but that protect entire Political systems including political Islam, that oppress entire nation states.
All for a buck--under trade, a system, btw, that was from Adam Smith to Marx to Keynes, mostly dominated by men....and still is,
so there are a few painted birds [read some Mary Daly],
its patriarchy, not women having children, and all the technical advancements in the world, under patriarchy, do more to destroy, than to help.
BTW, Iran has a high HIV rate, explain That one.
Jane
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Dec 24, 2009 14:48:33 GMT -5
"It's pure stereotyping and racism"....
again, typical Cultural relativist argument, hear it all the time, confront political Islam and you're a racist,
what a load of "Crock".
Its a System, Islam means, SUBMISSION btw, in case you aren't aware of that...you think Christianity is bad, just wait until you are living under Sharia Law,
you'll think Christianity is Disney World in comparison, I know what Islam is,
problem is, too many Westerners don't, and why they one day Will be, under Islam. Want to talk population demographics, do some research on the demands [and the appeasing from governments to Sharia Law in Europe] that Will and Do come about when there is a high population of Islamists in Every single country,
btw, I oppose political Islam, not as a Westerner or even as a Christian, but as a women's human rights advocate, AND as a labor rights advocate,
who works in alliance with the Communist Workers Party in Iran,
so if you want to start throwing up b.s. and the cultural relativist weak ass liberal arguments,
you might want to Rethink that one. Sadly, I don't have the time right now to go into every point, in detail...but if you think political Islam is not dangerous,
you're highly mistaken, in fact its far more dangerous than the right wing fundie lot, on that I would stake my life on,
know too many rotting in prisons, who aren't religious and who are Marxists, in Iran and in other Sharia Law nations. This is where, Westerners need to pull their heads out of their asses and wake the hell up,
before its too late...and btw, don't think that Sharia Law isn't a danger here, it sure the hell is, its already been passed via Sharia Banking [better wake up and smell the coffee on that one], the trade agreements with Oman [thank you Bush] and gee, where do I begin
and by whom? Those technical advancements, a.k.a. corporate fascists, who see no problem with selling out the masses to worldwide slavery, all for a buck,
or did you think the development for the Rich in Dubai [with the trafficking and slavery there] is just for a few Arabs?
Get a clue, seriously
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Dec 24, 2009 14:55:54 GMT -5
Post after post of very long, stream-of-consciousness style rants are not likely to be read thoroughly or at all. I'm just sayin'.
I tried for awhile but I give up. I don't have that kind of time.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Dec 24, 2009 15:01:44 GMT -5
Its a System, Islam means, SUBMISSION btw, in case you aren't aware of that...you think Christianity is bad, just wait until you are living under Sharia Law, you'll think Christianity is Disney World in comparison, Typical right-wing Christian fearmongering. Christianity and Islam are based on the same old testament. The whole premise of the gospel is sacrifice and submission. Laying down one's life. How is that different? Or better? Oh wait, because that's what you grew up with here in the nice comfy West. I know what Islam is, problem is, too many Westerners don't, and why they one day Will be, under Islam. Want to talk population demographics, do some research on the demands [and the appeasing from governments to Sharia Law in Europe] that Will and Do come about when there is a high population of Islamists in Every single country, btw, I oppose political Islam, not as a Westerner or even as a Christian, but as a women's human rights advocate, AND as a labor rights advocate, who works in alliance with the Communist Workers Party in Iran, so if you want to start throwing up b.s. and the cultural relativist weak ass liberal arguments, you might want to Rethink that one. And where exactly do you get your information about what the evil Muslim immigrants are trying to do, if not from racist Western news media? Sadly, I don't have the time right now to go into every point, in detail...but if you think political Islam is not dangerous, you're highly mistaken, in fact its far more dangerous than the right wing fundie lot, on that I would stake my life on, know too many rotting in prisons, who aren't religious and who are Marxists, in Iran and in other Sharia Law nations. This is where, Westerners need to pull their heads out of their asses and wake the hell up, before its too late... Western Christians are wide awake and raging against Islam, just as they have been since the thirteenth century. How exactly is it more dangerous than the right-wing fundie Christians? Oh wait, maybe because you're on their side, so you won't get hurt if they succeed in imposing a Western theocracy and overturning women's rights (which, mind you, were won by liberal feminists). And FFS, never use that 'before it's too late' trope on this forum again, please. I left fearmongering back in my cult and I'm not anxious to see it replicated here. Those technical advancements, a.k.a. corporate fascists, who see no problem with selling out the masses to worldwide slavery, all for a buck, or did you think the development for the Rich in Dubai [with the trafficking and slavery there] is just for a few Arabs? Get a clue, seriously What corporate fascists? Which Arabs? What kind of slavery? For how much money? If you're going to spout this kind of propaganda, we need some evidence. Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Dec 24, 2009 15:06:21 GMT -5
"Overpopulation is a part of the environmental degredation puzzle. People who are aware of this and STILL choose to make the problem worse by having 20 kids are purposely making the problem worse. I don't care if they are Muslims or Christians or athiests. "
Yes, I concur with you, it IS part of the problem but its not the Main problem, and I believe its far too often the 'focus' and when the focus needs to be on CONSUMPTION,
its not poor people or people with many kids that are doing the majority of Consumption in this world--and that was my point, its those nations with the high GDP and the low birth rates, that do the majority of CONSUMPTION, and THAT isn't looked at,
instead its the 'blame the woman with the 8 kids',
and that thinking IS in a lot of the environmental 'eugenics' ideologies. IS it not?
We are quick to slam the high birth rate but we are hesitant to really confront Consumption....we say, oh the high birth rate is what fuels capitalism,
actually, capitalism is fueled also by lower birth rates because of the need for labor, it works both ways. That depends on the nation and where things are produced....the so called 'labor pool' can be either pushed to have more kids or reduced to have more kids, depending on the needs of labor [those who are in control],
I see the problems more as the consumption, rather than birth rates, not to Exclude birth rates, I totally hear you on the push and social controls especially against birth control in nations where labor, esp child labor is exploited, granted on that one,
but with that arguement, and a valid one at that, there IS a hypocrisy in the West especially, when it comes to consumption and there are far more two kid families who consume a hell of a lot more, than the mother in South America or the mother in Africa with 8 kids,
they simply don't have the Income to buy and consume...do you see my point there?
Its not the large families, excluding a few, who are shopping at malls and purchasing cars every year, its young professionals and many without large families, that are more materialistic, who are the main consumers, who don't give a rats ass Where their goods come from, as long as they have them,
and yes I do blame technology for a lot of it...because the value of human life is becoming in our world something to 'dispose' of,
take cell phones, we pillage for minerals in nations in Africa that do support and pay for thug militaries who rape and pillage thousands of women and children, but hey, its all for those minerals for our so called cell phones,
but do we care? Generally speaking, as far as policies goes, NO, we do not, because its for a better world we say,
we do more policy wise to support corporations and technology at the expense of human beings, worldwide, and ironically this is where on a few points the fundies have some valid points, why they detest what we term as modernization,
sure, WE benefit from it, but really how do other countries benefit from it? Not so well, I'm afraid,
and its mainly women who have been voicing against the exploitation in many countries by so called 'modernists' who see nothing wrong with disposing humans for Progress,
and this is where, yes, a lot of it Is geo--political racism, its not a coincidence that the nations with the high birth rates and the most exploitation of resources are nations predominantly African and/or Latino,
where as the consumer nations [lower birth rates] are white. And I find it interesting, that the ones who push population control the most, are yes, whites, and the whole Zero Population Control fascists [and I do term them fascists] that I have met, are WHITE MEN,
explain That one?
I don't concur with the patriarchal conservative right wing on the majority of issues, but there is just as much harms in the liberal left wing, and its on those that I will confront,
and they usually do blame the ills on women having large numbers of children, and I think its just a clever scapegoat,
when the real culprit is in our consumption patterns and what we consume and things that we have become far too dependent on, that ARE yes, costing Real human lives. Be it in labor exploitation or in outright slaughter for land and resources,
its people in power--under male systems [that have been historically yes, controlled and dominated by men] and women and children BY FAR GLOBALLY pay the price....
as as far as the comment on my second grade education, yes, academia is in its own right a type of cult--call it radical 'controlled' leftism,
its radical, but cleverly controlled, because its education under administration for a Reason--social controls,
read some Michael Parenti, 'Democracy for a Few',
be a good start there.
Jane
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Dec 24, 2009 15:29:03 GMT -5
Regarding Islam
after the Holidays if you like, I'd be more than happy to go into detail on this one, but for now, I'll give you some things to look at,
oppression of the workers/labor unions in majority of Islamic countries [which btw, is where and how I got involved in confronting Islam, not from the far right or even the Christian right--I"m a Leftist, far from Republican or Right wing...am very aware of where they stand, and no, I don't concur with them on many points and no, I don't work with them either--but you've made YOUR PREJUDICE AND STEREOTYPING clear, not surprising though, sort of used to it...very few leftists in the West who oppose political Islam, but talk to leftist women in those countries and you'll hear a whole other view....not the Western relativist one, that's for sure],
the slavery and the support of slavery in Hadiths as well as the conflicts, lets say, take Indonesia, between the Dutch Socialists and the Islamists there, do some reading there, you might be a bit surprised, at what happens to idiots who think they can control Islam,
do some reading on Why Lenin AND Stalin, reverted the decisions they made, esp after the Oriental Congress....
you do some reading there, and then, if you like, I can submit to you a whole list of LEFTIST including ex-Muslims, who oppose Political Islam and Why they do,
including women, who live under Islamic laws, who are fighting for some of the rights we take for granted here.
As for the fundamentalists, yes, there are patriarchal similarities, the Difference is however, and this quoted by a Muslim woman friend of mine,
is that we live under a political system that does not Force theocracy--where as under Islam, you don't have that--Turkey is an exception, but even in Turkey, the tolerance to abuses, under Islamic law, particularly to women, was and still is, horrid.
Yes there are similarities, but until US becomes a Christian theocracy--which it has not, there are Huge disparities and differences between Christianity, excluding some of the more extreme forms [and they are NOT the majority] and that of the Hadiths and Sharia Law under Islam
that is what many don't get.
As for fear mongering....I know Muslim women who live in FEAR here in our own damn backyard, who in a supposedly free nation, have not the same rights and who would literally be killed if they even DARED to stand on some of those rights,
Christian women, thought they may [as well as secular] women risk real physical harm, even death, still have some options,
where as the majority of Muslim women DO NOT,
not only that, we have a weak pathetic political system that is pandering to the extremists, all in the name of cultural relativism, that said by Communist women who are far from Right wing Christian btw, many of whom I work with, some from Iran,
so before you go spouting the typical 'stereotype' of those who dare to oppose Islamic fundmentalism AND the political system of Sharia, do your homework,
its typical, left wing slams, that ironically, if not confronted, will lead us All into slavery.
How do I know this, because I almost married into it, it was by the honesty of three women Muslim, btw, who risked their own damn asses and safety, who warned me and who educated me, about the Truths, about Islam,
who still live in America, btw, under the watchful eye of their brothers and other men, these women dare NOT, even question the rule of men, much less, try to leave. You don't know what Hell is,
but I've seen it....and even the QF, as horrid as they are, are Tame in comparison,
you can believe it, or not. But in the UK, they are fighting Sharia Law there...they don't believe its a threat,
ignorance is bliss, and on this, I hate to say it, but some of what the right is saying, they are absolutely right on target about....you can call it racism,
I call it common sense. IF Stalin, couldn't keep them in check, how in the hell do you think a lot of liberals are going to? There are, some leftists who do not 'flirt' with Islam,
in the West however, there tends to be some real ignorance of just how entrenched Islam is with the whole political system...yes, we have fundie Christians here that would and do work to the same/similar ends, but the two are apples and oranges,
not that there isn't danger in the dominion movements--funny though, how they are making alliances With Islam, not opposed to,
and got news for you, IF Islam, ever becomes [and it will, they have been working and one of the ways they will try to incorporate Sharia Law here is similar to Native American Indian law--they've been working on in since 2001, FACT], in power here,
it will be the GLBT, the Pagans, the Feminists, who will get the ax first,
believe me on that one. There is no room, for unbelievers in Islam, not even....oh, sure, you can pay taxes to the hilt, but you Will obey, their laws, once they are in place, kid yourself not....and if you think for one minute, that they care about your ideals or your technology,
lol, think again.
Underestimate the religion of Islam, to your own demise....
don't believe me, ask the Marxists, in Iran. There is reformists in Islam btw, they are few and far between, and they do NOT get enough support....and you want to know the worst obstacles to their efforts are?
Cultural relativists and those who are prejudice against all religions, who want to lump them all together, for whatever reasons, for those who work in human rights, of any kind, the most frustrating thing is, especially in working to aid human right workers IN those countries, is westerners who think, its all about the same thing...
its not....they are two totally different religions and systems, and the tolerance level, in them, is very different, YOU are free here to critique Christianity, without fatwas or Sanctioned by State death threats that Will be carried out,
you won't be so lucky in nations where if you even Leave Islam, that's apostasy punishable BY DEATH,
just That fact alone, should say ring a bell, you would think....
Jane
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Dec 24, 2009 15:53:58 GMT -5
maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/not all who oppose political Islam are right wing Christians, one whom I have supported and worked with [groups here in US], small minority but we Do exist, Maryamn is not only anti-Christian fundamentalist she is Communist, and diabolically opposed to Political Islam...she is one of several, so, there you go, to that whole stereotyping BUNK of those who strongly oppose the goals of Islamists, with the racist--Christian right wing garbage, there is also Rajavi and a few others, but like you said, Western media, you don't HEAR bout them, or those of us, who are LEFTISTS, who are opposed to Islam[the systems] or who are even, people of Faith, oh yes, we Do exist, we aren't all right wing neo-con bigots, does that surprise you? Some of us are even liberal, I am on numerous things, as for technology, I am not opposed to technology, but I AM opposed to the elitism and the eugenics and the whole 'to hell with humans for progress' mentality, and there is Just as much misogyny, in the technical field and even in the ethics, that whole 'borg' world, and on that, I tend to concur with Bakunin...anarchist. Russian anarchist, I might add...he was dead on right, in his warnings about the scientific elites who want to play 'god' with our lives and world, and I concur with him on many points. I tend to agree and think along the lines of anarcha-feminists on many points, especially when it comes to maternal feminism, in their disagreement with the materialist [dialectics] and have more of a woman-centered point of view, that is severely lacking in our world. And that was my point, in regards to technology and the blaming of women/having children, for the ills of the world, I think that thinking is just as dangerous, as the fundamentalist thinking, both which, are centered around male values--patriarchal, meaning, they demonize women in one form or another, particularly child bearing. Confront the misogyny and patriarchy....but to blame women having children, on the ills of environmental damage, I think, wreaks more of eugenics. Those same arguments, were used and still are, to create and enforce policies of forced sterilizations, of women in Puerto Rico and Native American Indian women, against indegeneous [sic, spelling wrong] peoples. Two evils, don't make a right... Jane
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Dec 24, 2009 16:13:14 GMT -5
sorry about that, some of that is due to I just don't know how to really respond here, and want to be a bit more detailed, because I do write against patriarchy [and the distortion of scripture] but I do not concur with the other extremes, and still feeling my way around here, Jane Janedoe ~ the NLQ forum is not here to serve as your personal ranting board without regard for the repectful and thoughtful interactions of others who are actually here to share and to learn with/from one another ~ rather than talking past other members or merely using their comments as a launching pad to spew long missives full of our own private ramblings. I suggest that you slow down and be considerate enough to actually participate in an attentive and responsive give-and-take manner which fosters a mutually-beneficial, supportive community ~ or else go start your own blog and forum where you are free to randomly babble to your heart's content. This is your warning, Jane. If you continue to co-opt this forum and refuse to respect the community here, you will be banned from posting.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Dec 25, 2009 5:33:40 GMT -5
As to overpopulation I had two more kids AFTER I stopped being QF and a fundie. I had them because I wanted to. I couldn't care less about overpopulation. So sue me.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Dec 25, 2009 7:40:32 GMT -5
As to overpopulation I had two more kids AFTER I stopped being QF and a fundie. I had them because I wanted to. I couldn't care less about overpopulation. So sue me. Pretty much, it seems to me, when women have choices and chances and can self-determine their course of life, reproduction averages over the whole population very close to replacement rates, sometimes slightly above, sometimes slightly below. But it doesn't matter, really, because for every woman who wants a few more, there are other women who don't want any kids, and seriously, we *do* need SOME kids, and so the people who are childless by choice ought to be perfectly happy that other people choose differently. It's where birth control is NOT accessible, where ideologies FORCE women to not use it even if it may be accessible, that you have huge population explosions at a rate that is so quickly changing the population numbers that it is hard to adjust to. That can go the other way too, as when China decided to force it's one child rule BEFORE making birth control widely accessible and sex education widely accessible, or attacking social sexism, etc, they also created a population size that is changing so quickly as to probably cause significant social upheaval. So I'll sue the ideologues that try to make it the only choice, but I'll certainly not sue you! The problem comes when it's thought that EVERYBODY should do JUST as I do, instead of trusting people to make decisions that will be good for them, in their individual situations, and enabling them to have as many options to choose from as possible. QF is dangerous with respect to overpopulation because they DO press for EVERYONE to have many children, without options to stop if your personal situation for whatever reason makes it a bad idea to have more children. People who have large families for personal preference, without thinking it's necessary for god's blessing, when averaged over a society which includes many people who'd rather not have kids, are not relevant to overpopulation at all.
|
|
|
Post by corardens on Dec 26, 2009 6:43:54 GMT -5
Hi, I'm new to the forum (been lurking a while!), and on this topic, I think everyone involved would probably be able to agree on the premise put forth in the book More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want by Robert Engelman, wherein he points out that throughout history and different cultures, women have sought to multiply, space or limit their pregnancies as much as herbs and other notions would allow. And while every person adds another carbon footprint and therefore may be cause for alarm, Engelman promotes "a Zen approach to population control". He argues that the best way to "control" population is to give up control, by giving every woman the means and the opportunity to decide for themselves when to bear a child, if ever, thereby being able give more TO their children, and since women who REALLY and TRULY want to have lots of kids (not just cuz their natalist culture, manipulative husband or friendly neighborhood preacherman told 'em to) are few and far between, our planet should be able to even out between the nullipara and multipara soon enough.
It's not patriarchy, it's not eugenics, it's autonomy and agency, those glorious words that do not get spoken near enough. And also, yeah, probably impossibly idealistic.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Dec 26, 2009 18:33:23 GMT -5
Post after post of very long, stream-of-consciousness style rants are not likely to be read thoroughly or at all. I'm just sayin'. I tried for awhile but I give up. I don't have that kind of time. Yup. I'm with you.
|
|
|
Post by Gracious on Dec 26, 2009 19:10:07 GMT -5
Post after post of very long, stream-of-consciousness style rants are not likely to be read thoroughly or at all. I'm just sayin'. I tried for awhile but I give up. I don't have that kind of time. Yup. I'm with you. Thirded. You have no idea how sore my finger gets scrolling past these rants on my iPhone.
|
|
linnea
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
Post by linnea on Dec 27, 2009 0:55:35 GMT -5
It's not patriarchy, it's not eugenics, it's autonomy and agency, those glorious words that do not get spoken near enough.
Word. Welcome, corardens.
|
|