|
Post by arietty on Jul 1, 2009 21:37:55 GMT -5
Hopewell, we lost a newborn too (under different circumstances), and I think what they did was very healthy. It is important for all the family members, young siblings included, to acknowledge and grieve the loss. Heart-wrenchingly difficult and painful, yes, but better than stuffing it The teaching they will receive about god's will, etc. makes me sad but they are getting it all the time anyway. I completely agree, I thought it was very healthy. People please don't get snarky at this family and their choices. I would hate to have this turn into the FJ forums. People are different and I daresay we don't know how we would react to losing a baby like this until we face it. It seems to me that they put a lot of thought and care into this funeral and made the time for their family to cherish their baby as a baby. Other families I know who have lost babies late term have done similar things, it has nothing to do with your religion or beliefs, it's just a healthy grieving choice that some families choose.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jul 2, 2009 0:55:52 GMT -5
pandapaws, it's down again as well is her Birthing For The Lord forum. Guess she didn't like the tone of the responses. Very odd, she seems to want to live her life for an audience but gets upset when not everyone applauds. Well, I remember being that way. I thought I was being a "witness for Christ," and that everyone would envy my wonderful life. But what they actually saw was a facade. Negative reactions made me upset because I saw it as hurting my witness and the cause of Christ. I didn't understand that it was much better to just be real. . . But I understand Hopewell's reaction. It does seem a little creepy when you first think about it. On second glance, it isn't really, though.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jul 7, 2009 8:08:10 GMT -5
I first read about Carri and Benaniah on this forum, yesterday, so I'm aware that I don't have much information about family now that we can't access much of anything they have written.
I'd like to play devil's advocate for Mark. Maybe he isn't the devil after all. There are a few things that make me give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his lack of job, lack of medical insurance for his family, and apparent pasivity in the face of medical complications in Carri's pregnancy.
1. Maybe his parents urged him to finish his education or go for further education, offering to support them as a family while he did that. After all, his father was paying their way, right? It's a possibility.
2. Maybe they don't believe in paying into medical insurance (foolish as I think that is!) and would rather pay for whatever comes up, if it does.
3. When things started to go wrong, Mark rushed Carri off to hospital. Doesn't sound like someone who believes doctors are evil, which leads me to think that maybe the whole UC thing was Carri's idea all along, that she read up on it and sold the idea to Mark, who was going along with it, ignorant as many men are when it comes to childbirth and the complications that can arise, in order to please her.
I looked into homebirth during my 1st pregnancy but my husband was not so keen on being responsible for me should the midwife not arrive in time. He would much rather drive me off to hospital where there would be a host of professionals to look after his dear wife and unborn child, and do so in good time. He relied on me to tell him when "good time" was, and he relied on me to tell him how well or not so well the pregnancy was progressing. He didn't read dozens of books and articles on pregnancy and childbirth, and he wasn't that interested in the baby until it was born. I think it's typically male to let the wife do the baby bearing and birthing.
During my 2nd, I read a lot about UC, thinking it would be cool if I could do that, but it remained a fantasy that I didn't try to make true because I wanted to be close to medical care should things go wrong with me or the baby, and wanted to be able to walk out of the labor and birth suite and leave the gory mess behind. One part of me dreamed of having an unplanned UC, though.
I think many people believe that patriarchy is always a male-imposed regime, but when I think about the dozens of books addressed to women selling the QF-Homeschooling-patriocentric lifestyle, I wonder whether it's not the wives embracing the lifestyle and coercing their husbands into it. Sure, they go to all the lengths to play the submissive-obedient-doormat wife, but they are engineering the lifestyle with their passivity. Look at our two hosts, Laura and Vyckie. Laura was married to a self-proclaimed patriarch, the one we think all patriarchs are like, but Vyckie tells a different story. She was the one who introduced patriarchy, QF and all the rest into her home. (I'm not blaming her!)
4. Mark is very happy that his wife survived. He is grieving the death of his son, but his wife's life is important to him. Some patriarchy teachings consider the wife's life less important than the children's, and the life of the children more important than the mother's. From the little I've read that Mark wrote, it sounds like he doesn't view his wife only as a babymaking machine.
I think some people are judging Mark too harshly. He just lost a son, maybe he wasn't even aware that his son was in true danger.
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on Jul 18, 2009 20:55:17 GMT -5
Growing up, it was my mother who entered this world. My father refused to ever fully enter it. In my marriage, I was the one pursuing it...until I got how wrong it was. And, like Rebecca, I usually see the wife pushing this view on a family.
Don't get me wrong, the disbalance of power in qf/P lends to an atmosphere where abuse can be rampant. And, men in the P movement are more than happy to assert authority.
But, I strongly suspect that for couples not raised in this worldview, if the husband where leading the way into it, it would present as abusive and women would run.
|
|
|
Post by castor on Jul 19, 2009 10:20:02 GMT -5
Jo it does happen that the husband leads the way in to this, and women do not run. It's possible if he takes it slowly, step by step. If the husband tells his non-Quiverfull wife about the entire Quiverfull lifestyle in the beginning of their relationship she will probably run. If he "feeds" it to her in little pieces, there's a chance she won't, same as with abuse (or maybe I should say, other forms of abuse). This is how it went with my Muslim friend, her husband, who converted to Islam before she met him, and was already quite strict when she met him, led the way. Right now my friend is really strict herself ("would you have ever thought I'd believe a woman had to obey her husband?"). But it all started when she met her husband.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Jul 20, 2009 1:40:42 GMT -5
The thing is, fundamentalism has its attractions. People crave that deep certainty and security of having their lives all mapped out and knowing what's supposed to happen at life's end. Either spouse can get involved, gradually, and lead the other to that lifestyle. I don't think the message here is, or should be, about those horrible men who lead women into this oppressive lifestyle. I think that this movement is bad for both men and women, ultimately, even if in the short term it seems to provide security. Exposing the flaws may give people just beginning to get involved a little more information to go on (so at least they can make a fully informed decision) as well as provide support for those who are discovering it's not for them.
If people do feel happy with how it's working out for them, that is certainly their choice. I just happen to believe that marriages and families work best when both partners are free to explore whatever they are good at and want to do, regardless of whether that is a "male" or "female" activity.
Nor can I imagine a God that really wants to dictate that much of our lives, but that's just me.
|
|