|
Post by austin on Dec 8, 2009 13:24:15 GMT -5
Seriously--the woman named her poor little boy LEVITICUS? ?? oy vey! That's exactly what I thought: oy vey! What else can be said?
|
|
|
Post by austin on Dec 8, 2009 13:27:04 GMT -5
Personally, I think you only choose this lifestyle if you have some form of mental illness. I know this is harsh, but please remember I come from a good Quiverfull family, so I am speaking of my own family, too, when I say this about mental illness and Quiverfull. Theothermother, I have to disagree with your statement that I have boldened. I come from a quiverfull family, and I don't believe my parents have any form of mental illness. I understand what you're saying, Madame, but maybe it is a question of semantics. As someone with no personal experience with partriarchy (beyond that inherent in evangelical teachings), do you think that a woman who is fully healthy emotionally would sign on for such a life?
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Dec 8, 2009 14:13:59 GMT -5
Theothermother, I have to disagree with your statement that I have boldened. I come from a quiverfull family, and I don't believe my parents have any form of mental illness. I understand what you're saying, Madame, but maybe it is a question of semantics. As someone with no personal experience with partriarchy (beyond that inherent in evangelical teachings), do you think that a woman who is fully healthy emotionally would sign on for such a life? Emotionally healthy and fully informed women would be unlikely to sign up for such a lifestyle. This whole QF/P thing is a sales job. The fears and insecurities that are supposed to be addressed by the lifestyle are also created by the promoters of the lifestyle. Vyckie's got a great post on this. nolongerquivering.com/2009/09/15/its-about-money/Let's face it. Most kids are raised in religious homes in this country. They're taught that blind faith is just great. They're discouraged from questioning anything that has to do with religion. Most of us are primed from birth to accept religious claims without question. Or at least that questioning religious claims is somehow improper. How does one fully inform oneself if questioning and debate is off the table?
|
|
juju
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by juju on Dec 8, 2009 18:34:46 GMT -5
Okay, I have to read all of this tonight when I get home because I don't want to miss a word and I just realized it's going to take me awhile, but I have to say that Vyckie referring to "Love your wife as Christ loved the church" as "The peanut butter in the QF trap" made me laugh really, really hard. You go, girl. ;D
|
|
juju
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by juju on Dec 8, 2009 22:20:59 GMT -5
Okay, my assessment.
The "considerably less articulate" comment Vyckie made was not uncalled for at all on a couple of levels, one of them being that this woman was writing like she knew everything in the world...except grammar, syntax, and spelling. If you are going to be judgmental, do it in such a way that you do not look functionally illiterate. People will be much more inclined to take you seriously.
I think Michelle came here to pass her judgment on Vyckie in the same way that Chris Jeub did -- "I'm sorry she had a rough time but obviously she wasn't really a Christian or she would not have had a rough time at all." Because, you know, it's axiomatic that if a person is REALLY devoting themselves to following the Lord in the "correct" way, bad things don't happen. The ultimate expression of that attitude being the thread where someone is quoted as saying basically the same thing about Andrea Yates, for God's sake. PLEASE.
I can't say anything else that has not been said more eloquently by other posters but I do think that the fact that when Michelle got a uniformly negative response, she immediately said "I see I am not liked here" and fled, which was pretty telling. It interests me that a lot of these people don't like to deal with anyone who asks hard questions about their ideology and their lifestyle. Maybe because there aren't any really good answers?
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Dec 8, 2009 23:18:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Dec 10, 2009 16:38:42 GMT -5
I've frequently said you do not see the ones living in sheds and trailers and tents on the TLC programs or on the cover of The Teaching Home. Even Above Rubies doesn't feature their daughter who lives without running water or their other daughter who was living with 10 kids in ONE room on the front cover. They talk about how WONDERFUL and godly they are but we never see pictures of this
Arietty--this is exactly what I wish someone WOULD show! Not only poor Carrie and her tragically dead child, but more of the real "cost" some of these folks "pay" for their beliefs. I'd also like to hear, since many are at that age now, how some of the boys at least are supporting themselves after growing up like this. [And I do assume some are doing just fine--I'm not all negative here!] I keep reading that so many young people are turning their backs on this. I'd love to see "Bazillion kids and starving for God" and let people see the "other" side of this movement. I know at the Free Jinger boards they do discuss a few families, but I'd be interested in more--in a respectful, but truthful video or newstories. I wish someone out there living so desperately WAS able to blog--but of course they can't. It would be fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Dec 13, 2009 11:35:02 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying, Madame, but maybe it is a question of semantics. As someone with no personal experience with partriarchy (beyond that inherent in evangelical teachings), do you think that a woman who is fully healthy emotionally would sign on for such a life? Emotionally healthy and fully informed women would be unlikely to sign up for such a lifestyle. This whole QF/P thing is a sales job. The fears and insecurities that are supposed to be addressed by the lifestyle are also created by the promoters of the lifestyle. Vyckie's got a great post on this. nolongerquivering.com/2009/09/15/its-about-money/Let's face it. Most kids are raised in religious homes in this country. They're taught that blind faith is just great. They're discouraged from questioning anything that has to do with religion. Most of us are primed from birth to accept religious claims without question. Or at least that questioning religious claims is somehow improper. How does one fully inform oneself if questioning and debate is off the table? Austin and Margybargy, I still don't think that signing up to having as many children as nature allows (or God gives) is a sign of a lack in emotional/mental health. Having so many children and no time for herself may lead a woman to mental, emotional and physical exhaustion, but again, it really depends on how much of the other teaching she and her husband embrace. Suppose he makes good money, she doesn't have to run businesses from home, they send their children to a good school, the marriage is good, and their children are given freedom as they grow older. Doesn't sound like the same life Vyckie and Laura have described on here at all, but it would still be technically quiverfull. I doubt anyone can say they are fully informed of how things are going to work out for them when they sign up for something. I guess that's why these people usually have such strong faith that God will carry them through. You're right that most children raised in Christian homes are not encouraged to question the beliefs of their parents. I wasn't encouraged to do so at all, but I'm doing it, and so have some of my siblings. I'd say that we qualify as well informed of what a "poor" quiverfull life can look like so are less likely to be talked into it!
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Dec 13, 2009 11:49:10 GMT -5
Suppose he makes good money, she doesn't have to run businesses from home, they send their children to a good school, the marriage is good, and their children are given freedom as they grow older. Doesn't sound like the same life Vyckie and Laura have described on here at all, but it would still be technically quiverfull. Is it still Quiverfull if it doesn't automatically attempt to replicate itself in the second generation? See, I have no problems with big families. It's probably quite nice at times to know you've got a lot of people who love and support you (I wouldn't know, 'family' for me consists of my mother and boyfriend). The part that burns is the Quiverfull conviction that it is the only way to live and that the children must create mirror image households in exactly the same way their parents have done. So I, a feminist graduate student who hopes for a life of travel and exciting work with few (if any) children of my own, would be a total failure if I came out of a Quiverfull family, but I might be welcomed in a large family without Quiverfull beliefs. Isn't part of Quiverfull the automatic evangelization of the second generation?
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Dec 13, 2009 12:49:37 GMT -5
If Quiverfull truly involves having as many children as god is willing to give you, then part of the commitment must be to not doubt god when you're experiencing mental, emotional and physical exhaustion. If you're going in from the beginning saying "I'm going to keep having children until it becomes difficult for me", then you're really no different in philosophy from the person who says "I'm having one child because that's all I can handle". In fact, I find that being around any babies is exhausting, so I'm having NO children because that's all I can handle.
Allowing god to control your family size, whether you feel up to it or not, because its his will for you to have a large family is a slippery slope. What if you're a little sick while having your first child? Well you obviously lack faith if you're not willing to deal with some hardships in following god. But where does it stop? If god can really do anything and heal anyone, then what reason would there ever be to show your lack of faith in his power? If you want to have a large family and intend to have children until difficulties arise or until you no longer want to, then you're simply someone who wants a large family and not following the Quiverfull doctrine. If you would hold off getting pregnant because your family is going through problems, you're not following the Quiverfull doctrine. You're also doing your own family planning, just the same as the person with one child.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Dec 13, 2009 13:13:33 GMT -5
If Quiverfull truly involves having as many children as god is willing to give you, then part of the commitment must be to not doubt god when you're experiencing mental, emotional and physical exhaustion. If you're going in from the beginning saying "I'm going to keep having children until it becomes difficult for me", then you're really no different in philosophy from the person who says "I'm having one child because that's all I can handle" Atheist, I wasn't talking about the couple stopping having babies when exhaustion hits, just that not every family is going to put themselves under the extreme burden that Vyckie and Laura carried. There are many "flavors" of quiverfull, if indeed quiverfull is the practice of letting God do your family planning. All the other stuff, like having a home-based business, courting, homeschooling, living off the land, etc... are add-ons that not everyone will sign up to. I think these add-ons create a significant ammount of pressure. No doubt, being quiverfull minded, and having a baby every other year is going to be draining, and couples might have to remind themselves of their convictions and why they want to stand by them when the going gets tough. But don't we all have to remind ourselves of why we are doing something when things get tough?
|
|
|
Post by madame on Dec 13, 2009 13:16:39 GMT -5
Is it still Quiverfull if it doesn't automatically attempt to replicate itself in the second generation? See, I have no problems with big families. It's probably quite nice at times to know you've got a lot of people who love and support you (I wouldn't know, 'family' for me consists of my mother and boyfriend). The part that burns is the Quiverfull conviction that it is the only way to live and that the children must create mirror image households in exactly the same way their parents have done. So I, a feminist graduate student who hopes for a life of travel and exciting work with few (if any) children of my own, would be a total failure if I came out of a Quiverfull family, but I might be welcomed in a large family without Quiverfull beliefs. Isn't part of Quiverfull the automatic evangelization of the second generation? Not all QF families believe that their children ought to follow in their footsteps. My parents (who had ten and don't believe in using contraception) brought us up to believe that QF is "better", but so far, none of us are seeking to emulate their lifestyle. They believe you have to do what you have faith to do, or iow, what you believe God is calling you to do.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Dec 13, 2009 14:08:04 GMT -5
I wasn't talking about the couple stopping having babies when exhaustion hits [snip] No doubt, being quiverfull minded, and having a baby every other year is going to be draining, and couples might have to remind themselves of their convictions and why they want to stand by them when the going gets tough. But don't we all have to remind ourselves of why we are doing something when things get tough? Well, quite honestly that's exactly what I would define as emotionally unhealthy. And let's put aside for now the homeschooling and lifestyle decisions associated with Vyckie's application of the Quiverfull doctrine and just concentrate on her standing by her convictions. Continuing to become pregnant and have children wasn't just "draining" for her- it became so that she was putting her life and the potential life of her child at high risk. She had a uterine rupture and multiple other health problems. And she continued to remind herself of her convictions and why she wanted to stand by them. Determining to keep having babies at any risk is emotionally unhealthy. But for the QF, I ask again, where is the dividing line between reasonable and extreme risk when god can bring his faithful through any trouble? And if the QF family sees the risk and decides to stop having the children, are they not failing to put their whole trust in god?
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Dec 13, 2009 15:02:46 GMT -5
I think the "nobody knows how things will be when you get into them" argument is the mainstream argument for *not* having a ton of kids, or not doing a lot of risky things, isn't it? The "trust in god" argument is the assurance that things won't get so bad you can't handle them, so you don't have to be careful (which, thinking about it...shouldn't God protect girls who go out into the workplace, instead of their fathers? And protect public-schooled kids from falling for the traps of "worldly" ideas?) I think, if "quiverfull" were just not planning conception, people wouldn't have any problems with it, really. But there are other beliefs tied up in it - the Vision Forum definitely has a bigger program than just "nobody use birth control or NFP", and all those books like "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" and arguments for wives staying in the home are all tied up in it. In fact, from the outside, I would say the difference between a "movement" family and a family that just happens to have a ton of kids is the commitment to the "culture war". Our next door neighbors have 7 kids, just because they come from an indiginous culture that believes kids are the reason for living. They don't resemble the QF families in the blogosphere/media at *all* - they don't discipline with spanking, they are Catholic, all the adults work for wages, they eat lots of convenience food, they are not at all evangelical...
|
|
|
Post by madame on Dec 13, 2009 15:44:15 GMT -5
Well, quite honestly that's exactly what I would define as emotionally unhealthy. Determining to keep having babies at any risk is emotionally unhealthy. But for the QF, I ask again, where is the dividing line between reasonable and extreme risk when god can bring his faithful through any trouble? And if the QF family sees the risk and decides to stop having the children, are they not failing to put their whole trust in god? Atheist BB, I agree that continuing when the mother's life is at danger is not healthy. I hope that any QF minded husband whose wife has had a high risk pregnancy would stand up to this responsibility as "head" and love his "body" enough to be willing to take God's wrath for protecting his wife and doing what had to be done (snip) Again, I think I'm right when I say that the emotional health and the extremes the married couple will take their belief to are directly proportional to the degree they believe the rest of the doctrine. If you have embraced the whole package, then you believe God will be angry at you for preventing conception. If you "only" decided to let God choose the size of your "quiver", you may conclude that the difficult pregnancies are a sign that the quiver is full. This whole trust in God thing, ignoring common sense and logic, is something I don't understand either. I agree that God gave us brains, and we should use them. I don't know what qualifies as fully trusting God, as I've never met anyone who does that fully. Maybe my parents, but they still use logic and common sense. I'm answering your questions as someone who started off her married life reading Mary Pride, planning on a quiver full of children, homeschooling, running a home-based business, and living the missionary life abroad (following my husband).
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Dec 13, 2009 15:50:04 GMT -5
Don't Mary Pride et al preach against vasectomy, though? All those vasectomy-reversal testimonials Vyckie talked about. I think this whole discussion is basically "what is Quiverfull?" - do you still have a quiverfull conviction if you say, okay, this is too much I'm going to start preventing conceptions?
|
|
|
Post by madame on Dec 13, 2009 16:29:26 GMT -5
Rosa, The Quiverfull movement is against vasectomies. Sure.
Yes, you're right, this is a discussion over what quiverfull is.
To me, quiverfull was being open to having children, as many as came, and welcoming them as blessings.
I guess a couple stop leaving it to God if they choose to hinder conception in some way or another, but whether they believe they are free to do this or not is my point. If a couple believe they may change their mind due to circumstances, and God won't be angry at them, they will most probably at least take a break from having children if their conviction becomes very hard to live up to. Christians who read the Bible and base their beliefs on what they read will be able to see the difference between "love your neighbor as you love yourself" (a requirement) and "Children are a blessing from God, blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them" ( a statement). There is not one verse in the Bible that forbids the use of contraception or that tells Christians to have loads of children. These are additions to Scripture. Being fruitful and multiplying doesn't imply not stopping until nature makes you stop.
In fact, there were laws in the Old Testament that would have reduced the number of days a couple could have sexual intercourse or even sleep together or touch at all. In the New Testament there are admonitions not to deprive each other, but no law or admonition that forbids the use of common sense and avoiding conception.
I think a person can still believe children are a blessing, and welcome them happily, while still limiting the number of them. After all, there are some warnings for parents that neglect their children.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Dec 13, 2009 17:21:17 GMT -5
I think that's a very reasonable approach - and it's one that pretty much every Christian I know uses - children are a blessing, and so is family planning (spacing, number, etc). But it seems like a woman who's in this subculture - who reads Above Rubies, who subscribes to the Vision Forum blogs, who belongs to a homeschooling group with other QF moms, or is on the forums where that's the norm (and that's her main form of socializing, maybe) - if she feels free to make that choice to limit her fertility, is she going to be able to keep all those connections?
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Dec 13, 2009 20:40:41 GMT -5
I think the "nobody knows how things will be when you get into them" argument is the mainstream argument for *not* having a ton of kids, or not doing a lot of risky things, isn't it? But the thing about having kids is that typically, you only have them one at a time. So to me, a sensible argument would be "I think that I want 10 children. But right now, I am able to have one pregnancy. After the baby is born, I will evaluate whether I still want 10 children and my family's physical and emotional health". But that's not QF. Madame, even in the less extreme form of QF that you're talking about, there's still a tone of "I'm selflessly allowing god to be in control of my life" vs. "the person with no children is controlling her own life instead of letting god bless her".
|
|
|
Post by madame on Dec 14, 2009 1:13:09 GMT -5
But it seems like a woman who's in this subculture - who reads Above Rubies, who subscribes to the Vision Forum blogs, who belongs to a homeschooling group with other QF moms, or is on the forums where that's the norm (and that's her main form of socializing, maybe) - if she feels free to make that choice to limit her fertility, is she going to be able to keep all those connections? I don't think a couple need to be part of the "subculture" to choose not to control their fertility. I don't think that a woman who's subscribed to all those magazines and sites will ever think she has a choice in the matter. Choice is not what those people sell! See, I think that a couple who believe God has called them to do something, and are doing it based on their own conviction, without all sorts of "extra doctrines", are a lot more free and open to changes along the journey. Those magazines and sites are very much like peer pressure or competition that will keep a couple from thinking for themselves and even seeking the God they claim to serve for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Dec 14, 2009 1:18:08 GMT -5
But the thing about having kids is that typically, you only have them one at a time. So to me, a sensible argument would be "I think that I want 10 children. But right now, I am able to have one pregnancy. After the baby is born, I will evaluate whether I still want 10 children and my family's physical and emotional health". But that's not QF. Madame, even in the less extreme form of QF that you're talking about, there's still a tone of "I'm selflessly allowing god to be in control of my life" vs. "the person with no children is controlling her own life instead of letting god bless her". That's what we've done so far. We started out very QF minded (as in giving our fertility to God), but after three children, and evaluating our current situation, I don't know whether I want to continue or not. And I'm ok with it, now. I wasn't ok with my decision a couple of years ago. I get your point about the tone of self-righteousness hidden in that statement. I hate it, and it's one reason that puts me off reading all that literature again.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Dec 14, 2009 13:46:26 GMT -5
Emotionally healthy and fully informed women would be unlikely to sign up for such a lifestyle. This whole QF/P thing is a sales job. The fears and insecurities that are supposed to be addressed by the lifestyle are also created by the promoters of the lifestyle. Vyckie's got a great post on this. nolongerquivering.com/2009/09/15/its-about-money/Let's face it. Most kids are raised in religious homes in this country. They're taught that blind faith is just great. They're discouraged from questioning anything that has to do with religion. Most of us are primed from birth to accept religious claims without question. Or at least that questioning religious claims is somehow improper. How does one fully inform oneself if questioning and debate is off the table? Austin and Margybargy, I still don't think that signing up to having as many children as nature allows (or God gives) is a sign of a lack in emotional/mental health. Having so many children and no time for herself may lead a woman to mental, emotional and physical exhaustion, but again, it really depends on how much of the other teaching she and her husband embrace. Suppose he makes good money, she doesn't have to run businesses from home, they send their children to a good school, the marriage is good, and their children are given freedom as they grow older. Doesn't sound like the same life Vyckie and Laura have described on here at all, but it would still be technically quiverfull. I doubt anyone can say they are fully informed of how things are going to work out for them when they sign up for something. I guess that's why these people usually have such strong faith that God will carry them through. You're right that most children raised in Christian homes are not encouraged to question the beliefs of their parents. I wasn't encouraged to do so at all, but I'm doing it, and so have some of my siblings. I'd say that we qualify as well informed of what a "poor" quiverfull life can look like so are less likely to be talked into it! Wow! I only missed a few days and look at all the discussion. There's not much I have to add. But I do want to say a bit about the phrase, "emotionally healthy". I was not using the term appropriately. What I'm really most concerned about with QF families boils down more to the quality of decision-making, the ability to predict consequences, and the ability to extricate oneself from a bad situation. Quality of decision-making: In my reading (and that's the only experience I have with QF), QF couples are defined by their commitment not to use birth control. I've not seen any "buts" except for vague statements about grace vs. legalism after something has gone wrong. So QF couples, if they want to preserve the integrity of their belief system, must avoid birth control. There is no other decision to be made no matter how awful things get, unless a couple is willing to question the very foundation of their belief system. Few people are willing to do that, especially after having invested a lot in the lifestyle. Bottom line - if you're going to make good decisions, you need to consider all the options. Controlling fertility is not an option among QF couples. That's my understanding. Ability to predict consequences: That's been discussed a lot here. Some hardcore believers think that god will provide, god will not give them any more than they can handle. They don't have to think things through because they believe there will be a supernatural bail-out and if there's not that's the way it was meant to be anyway. It's a fatalistic outlook, and I've got to say I do not approve of it. I think personal responsibility is a big deal. Every individual has an obligation to deal with the consequences of their actions, and to see to it that any negative impact to the innocent is minimized to the extent possible. Ability to extricate oneself from a bad situation: This might have more to do with one's circumstances than with one's reasoning ability. Once you find yourself saddled with 10 kids, no work experience and an idiot husband, what do you do? QF is basically set up so that its very difficult for a woman to extricate herself from the situation. I don't know if I'm cynical enough yet to say that's the point of the whole thing. I prefer to believe that it's a by-product of an ill-conceived and short-sighted theological system. BTW, I'm glad you and your siblings are questioning your parent's belief system. There's a saying that progress happens one funeral at a time. I don't know who should get the credit for that, but it's true. I hope you all find a belief system that works for you. Eek...this was meant to be a short post.
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Dec 16, 2009 14:48:58 GMT -5
"It's a fatalistic outlook, and I've got to say I do not approve of it. I think personal responsibility is a big deal. Every individual has an obligation to deal with the consequences of their actions, and to see to it that any negative impact to the innocent is minimized to the extent possible."
"Ability to extricate oneself from a bad situation: This might have more to do with one's circumstances than with one's reasoning ability. Once you find yourself saddled with 10 kids, no work experience and an idiot husband, what do you do? QF is basically set up so that its very difficult for a woman to extricate herself from the situation...."
Correct--good analysis, and as a Christian, may I add a few things,
one, God does not 'relieve' us of our responsibility including in planning children--"1 Timothy 5:8, KJV, But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
and Jesus mentioned the distortion of scriptures, by men, who neglected their duties to their parents, both Mother and Father, and He was very clear in His disapproval...where he addresses them on their insistence on tithing mint yet telling folks that what monies should have been giving to assist elderly parents were to be used for the temple, etc., not only that--the Clear WARNINGS against Child Abuse--including Neglect, when Jesus says, it would be better for those who 'offend' these little ones to have a millstone around their Necks and thrown into the Sea...
two, Serious Warnings, and there are numerous other scriptures that would counteract the Irresponsibility of just having child after child--risking harm, etc [our bodies are the Temple of God and we are not to abuse them OR allow them to be abused or desecrated, willingly, etc], and so forth.
This is why it helps to read the Whole Bible, and not just a few scriptures pulled out to form 'doctrines' and 'traditions' of Selfish men or for Political agendas, what have you...
and you are right--a lot of it IS about 'control'. I am not hesitant to say so, because the more children women have, if anything Does happen, the less 'freedom' or 'mobility' she has to escape.
and don't think that the 'power machinery' of these subcultures [and many on the macro level] aren't aware of this--because it IS a lot of what is behind the doctrines-agenda. And its here, where the controversy, I think, where women are concerned, is over that Autonomy, do women 'really have free choice' in those subcultures as to how many children they have and How they have them, or is it more from coercion,
even if they feel they are making free choice--are they? But then we can get into dangerous ground too, as advocates for women's autonomy in getting paternalistic [which can be Just as patriarchal and misogynist as those who use scriptures to coerce or even force women to breed on demand, etc], and 'deciding' what is free choice and what is not, we see that all the time in discussions over 'conditioning via patriarchal influences' and so forth, in both secular and in faith circles.
And they do bring up some good questions--that I don't believe, are always clear cut--and sometimes, even getting into stereotypes on All sides of this issue.
And its because of these other issues, that it can make it difficult to not just inquire as to what to do about these situations and how to assist/support women, for the betterment of all women included, but how to reach and support those women who do leave these subcultures,
and its not just QF, and this I believe is an issue we will be seeing more of, with the debates over cultural relativism as well. [Where it gets really messy, is when they become political agendas that want to force ALL women to live like this--and that I believe is a huge part of the backlash, and hostility, and for those women who are either by choice, mothers of large families or for those women who were members of subcultures who then decide to leave and break away from those cultures--they get the brunt of it, from various sides of these issues.
And the reason I am commenting on here today , but I think, for me anyway, why this issue is so controversial, on some other points--is that, we see entire nations, where women are forced to endure, forced pregnancies and the Children, born in those nations--
are trafficked, sold into slavery, used in war, etc.,
so, its not just in 'this subculture' but its a huge problem, that Does effect, millions of women AND children, worldwide. So its not an issue that is just isolated, is what I mean,
but then, misogyny and patriarchy never IS isolated. And so, then I the question then is, how do our choices, play into the forces that do effect our neighbors on the other side of the world? Meaning, what we support--or not support,
and it Is here, that I think--you bring up some really good points that shouldn't just be swept under the rug because of the results--that Do often, come about,
there tends to be this 'romanticized' belief, that is used, even believed in, that yes, God will just take care of everything that is, I think, not only irresponsible, but down right dangerous. We are, yes, not to lean unto our own understanding, [from a Biblical standpoint] but I don't believe, we are to shun Wisdom [Proverbs] or Common Sense either--and in fact, no where in the Bible does it tell us to do so. To equate that type of irresponsibility onto God, is heresy.
And nature shows us this, in all life, that God has created, He takes care of, and has even orchestrated an ecological Balance--its 'humankind' that has messed with that balance--esp via greed, but anyway, my point is, we aren't God, so to just have this flippant attitude that, oh well, God will just take care of such and such is not truly scriptural,
and women, are to be good stewards as well as men. That is commanded--and maybe it does have a lot to do with stewardship, including over resources, etc. Now I'm not saying, in any way, I support the other extremes or the 'condemnation' of those who choose to have larger families, I am opposed to those coercions as well--
personally I believe in 'choice', by Women--but I believe in 'wise' choices, though yes, sometimes things do happen. [I have four children and two weren't planned, but I also had my tubes tied because for me personally, at my age, etc., it would not have been Wise for me to continue to have children--because I do have those children to think about--as well as my service to God--which the commission was not to bare as many children--it was to Spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It wasn't about Mutterland...not any where I've seen in the Bible--but then, maybe I've read a different Bible--[King James]. So I really don't understand this 'ideal' that God demands women to have child after child,
and on that note, the Quiverfull scripture, we forget, [and I"m married to an Orthodox JEW btw, who KNOWS those laws, backwards and forwards] that in the Old Testament, those were Tribal Patriarchal times--there is a Huge difference, between Tribal Patriarchy [the patriarchs] compared to the 'patriarchy' that is being taught today, which is a male-andro-centric Nuclear family patriarchy--where its not even scripture based, its from the Culture of our nation-philosophy, capitalist and individualistic. So to merge those, and then say--this is thus saith the Lord, is just way off base,
and its for This reason, why attempting to 'create' a sub-society based on the ways of Tribal Patriarchy--in a male-centric andro society, simply don't Work, and the burdens on women, and the children, are just unrealistic. In the days where Large families WERE A NECESSITY, in agriculture societies, there was a Sisterhood as well as 'tribes' who did different duties, some were brick layers, some were weavers, some were warriors, etc., but Every tribe, had a calling--a duty, and the children born, worked within those tribes and so forth--due to wars, over resources, many children were considered a 'blessing' because we have to realize, the Hebrew people, were population wise, a minority, among many hostile nations.
So it seems to me, that there is this mixing of 'epoch' traditions, trying to force certain ways of living which clearly cannot work, which would explain the burdens that are just oppressive on single solitary women--and children, [btw, men back then, Worked--using ox and plow....it wasn't men on their asses with women-child slaves, so that right there should be like a knock knock, anyone there--in other words, there are some teachings that are just Clearly, non-scriptural and abusive, make no mistake about it, and I do believe they are misogynist and political--even Nationalist--and that they have more to do with those than with serving Christ--at least, from the 'doctrine' level, not from the hearts of individuals, I'm quite positive that many, believe they are serving and doing God's will in this lifestyle--I just don't agree with them].
|
|
|
Post by Gracious on Dec 20, 2009 6:36:45 GMT -5
Oh!!! Grrr!! I am so disappointed! I just went to watch the born to breed video on youtube (I know, I know, it was posted like two weeks ago. I'm slow, ok ) and its been taken down due to copyright infringement. GRRRRR. It seems totally lame, as it looks like the other "Secret Lives of Women" shows are up there, so why not this one. There goes my plans for the night Does anyone else know of a place on the web where these videos are available?
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Dec 22, 2009 22:19:52 GMT -5
Just keep looking, someone will probably repost it!
|
|