|
Post by jemand on Jun 23, 2009 9:13:48 GMT -5
Your post is, if horrifying, also timely. This month TLC (and Discovery Health) have been broadcasting an hour-long program titled "Twins by Surprise." I caught it last night when I couldn't sleep (because I stupidly forgot to take an allergy pill), and it profiles four women who give birth to twins without expecting them. The fourth story is about a woman with several children who chooses an unassisted home birth, no sonogram, and monitors her own pre-natal care, including testing her urine and blood pressure. They don't identify her as QF, but she's pregnant again in the update. Her twins a both feet-first breach, and they are both born healthy. The program warns how dangerous this is, but the mother confidently asserts that God meant for her to be able to do this successfully and how miraculous the births are. I was disturbed, even though I, myself, have a fear of doctors and hospitals. The mother claims that her original hospital births were horrifying. I can't help but think that this movement isn't just about religion. The rate of c-sections in the United States is, frankly, ridiculous, as are the limited options some women have for childbirth, from restricted positions to pressure to induce. If only more birthing centers existed and more licensed midwives (my county has none), maybe this sort of tragedy would happen less often. SOOO TRUE! The rush to prosecute, or to "stop this from happening" is in large part what began to create this movement. Instead of giving women choice, the same "informed consent" ANYONE else has in a hospital, there have been cases where the doctor goes to the court, obtains "custody" of the half born child, and starts doing whatever the hell he wants with the mother's body. That is not right! Restrict late term abortion if you want, but don't make going to the hospital equal to risking your autonomy and ability to consent to your own medical care! And as for unassisted homebirth, my mother knows a lot about the history of the home birth "movement" in the US and how it bothered the established health providers, they felt they were losing money and influence and cracked down on midwives such that in some locations it is ILLEGAL to give birth attended! Yes. Have your baby in the hospital, or alone with no one to help you, or you are breaking the law. How wrongheaded! As someone upthread mentioned, Csections are WAY too often used, sometimes are forced, other times the doctor just puts so much pressure the woman feels she can't say no... and in pretty much all cases the woman is not informed about her options, and about the fact that a C-section is actually pretty significant abdominal surgery and that the muscles may take years to heal, perhaps never getting back to their previous state. Not really something that you want to do "as a matter of course" yet that's what IS done, fairly often. No wonder women wish to go elsewhere! Far from prosecuting this couple, laws should be passed affirming informed consent for childbirth in the hospital, cracking down on doctors and hospitals who ignore the rights of women. THEN I wouldn't be surprised if more and more women came back to the hospital. And often the lack of prenatal care is more due to low finances, and the horrible health care system that lets so many people "slip through the cracks"-- it is only much later that it is "rationalized" as something religious. It's easier to explain to someone you have a "religious conviction" than "we're dirt poor." The second is embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 22, 2009 9:23:24 GMT -5
Maybe you think that if a woman's P/QF husband doesn't have control issues the woman will have a choice, that she will be free to be herself, and that therefore this lifestyle doesn't have to be a bad one. I assume this is what you meant when you said "However, for those men who have no control issues but just want to please the Lord that lifestyle may be a positive experience.". Yes, that is what I think, that this lifestyle does not have to be that bad if the husband does not have controll issues. I think they can be quiver full and have a balance partnership where both have equal voice. How is that quiverful though? Quiverful has submission written right into it... you can't have "equal voice." Now I DO think it's possible to have a larger than average number of children in a healthy relationship... but you CANNOT stress "submission" and "leadership" roles and have a healthy relationship.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 17, 2009 8:35:23 GMT -5
I haven't seen the Duggar program, but from what I have seen, homeschooling families with many children spaced closely together really don't seem to get much actual schooling done... eventually the kids learn to read and write, at at least a basic level, and then they're put in charge of their own education and tossed a couple books, AND usually put in charge of teaching the younger ones what little they do know.
But on the other hand, I got a pretty great education through 8th grade homeschooling, but my mother had a masters degree, both parents really stressed education, we only had 5, and they were significantly spaced out in age. Otherwise... it's not really effective.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 16, 2009 14:56:27 GMT -5
Or something like that. Once I even read a post in which someone argued that the God ordered situation had been, woman bears children and stays at home and man works outside the home, since "the Fall". Because in Genesis 3 God tells the man that he will have to work, and not the woman. But the verse also mentions "sweat of the brow" and when I respond to these arguments "well, are you opposed to air conditioning in businesses?" they invariably say "OF course not!" Which shows that they really only care about limiting the woman's options and comfort, not the man's.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 7, 2009 22:57:52 GMT -5
Rosa, you make a very good point about the "hanging out with opposite sex friends" issue that comes up in a lot of relationships. However, I think the difference may be how the request is made- it doesn't have to be a control issue. If my boyfriend/husband asked me not to hang out alone with my opposite sex friends, I'd probably agree to it, especially if he told me he was feeling a bit insecure/jealous about the situation. However, if he commanded me not to hang out with them, not only would I do whatever I wanted with my friends (and probably rub it in his face), I'd more than likely dump him as well (personal experience with my mother's bad choices in men has made me, perhaps, a little hyper-vigilant to that kind of controlling B.S.) There's a difference between asking and controlling. It wouldn't matter a bit how the request is made... any sort of feigned (it often is) or real "insecurity" or "jealousy" no matter how "benign" would be enough to send my red flags up to high alert... if it involves me NOT going out with another friend because he thinks I will cheat... I'm pretty sure I'd end the relationship right there. But that's me. If he had a reason to be depressed, or feel bad about himself or something (job lost, family member died, etc. etc.), I'd offer either he could come along or some OTHER time to be together, but I would never accept being asked to change my set of friends for "jealousy" sake. For that matter, I have an extremely low tolerance for jealousy at all, and I do not understand THAT any more than you apparently understand staying in an abusive situation. I think this is probably because I tend more to being polyamorous; though the amount of emotional energy required to actually make that work is way more than I have to put towards relationships at this time (and probably ever), so my bf and I are happily monogamous. However, neither one of us is remotely jealous in the least. I couldn't be with a guy who was otherwise. But, see that's the thing. I think I am psychologically and personally "primed" to not be, and not understand, jealousy, and to completely reject it as an argument to change behavior. Other people aren't. Similarly, other people may be both just naturally and situationally primed to be "perfect" victims, and an abuser will just try and try until he finds one, and after awhile gets pretty good at picking them out.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 29, 2009 11:29:58 GMT -5
In many places don't you technically, legally, have the right to go shirtless when men can? I personally haven't done it, but my sister went shirtless in Toronto 'cuz she's very independent like that (then again, she was 10) and nothing happened to us. That's not to say you wouldn't have social trouble but I thought the law might be ahead of society here.
Though the police aren't always aware of the law and may arrest you anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 23, 2009 15:17:29 GMT -5
I think an important consideration relating to what luneargentee mentioned is how a choice today will restrict choices tomorrow. I don't support as a good and fulfilling choice a woman's decision to immerse herself in a patriarchal religion and relationship because that choice is hard, almost impossible to undo. It can't be a "free choice" because it doesn't allow room for growth, for change of opinion, etc.
On the other hand, I can support some women's choices to participate in a BDSM scene... if it has preordained parameters which are limited and very temporary and there is no compulsion to continue in this lifestyle for the rest of one's life, only as long as it is fulfilling. Most of the BDSM community HAS made major steps toward fostering such an atmosphere, so I can be tolerant of a woman's choice to pursue it as indeed a free choice.
Sex work today is perhaps not trivial to leave, mostly because its illegal nature requires connection to unsavory characters, but it may not be any harder to leave than patriarchal religion and in fact it is not INTRINSIC in the work that it is impossible to leave, it is the current legal environment which traps them. Legal, but regulated sex work may create an ally in the police force for these women where today the police are only an enemy or even jailer.
It's whether a decision can be freely undone which is much more important than how it is made.. room for growth more important than external "diagnosis" of "your problems" which means you aren't "allowed" to make your own choices. That causes issues, to my mind.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 22, 2009 10:40:40 GMT -5
Well, my question was posted on a fairly well known atheist blog, at friendlyatheist.com/2009/05/21/how-can-this-ex-quiverfull-woman-maintain-custody-of-her-kids/The blogger asked his readers for suggestions.... and one lead right back to no longer quivering! It appears that what Vykie and Laura are doing is very new, and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an already established group. Suggestions ranged from getting a good child custody lawyer and trying to keep religion not discussed, to pointing out that she has been the main care taker so far because courts often do not like to change the children's situation too much, to waiting before filing for divorce for several months of separation so things that previously didn't even register would be recognized as abusive-- that actually sounded pretty plausible. I REALLY don't know very much about the legal side of divorce/child custody, etc. Googling can help but I'm certainly far from an expert.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 20, 2009 17:10:39 GMT -5
I've started asking about the atheist web presence if there are any sources to help undo the anti-atheist bias of many child custody cases... as there may be a good many women leaving QF who will be considered "less religious" than their husbands and thus possibly needing legal help. I don't have any suggestions other than that, I'll post whatever I can find. I think there needs to be a national organization to help people leaving fundamentalist situations.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 17, 2009 13:15:23 GMT -5
I'm totally with Atheist on hearing from the (gosh I hope there are some!) guys who have escaped oppressive religious patriarchy. What about the groups helping young men thrown out of polygamous Mormon groups? They've kinda been forced out of oppressive religious patriarchy... I imagine they have amazing stories to tell as well and must be hurting some too from what they saw their mothers and sisters go through. As for the guys on here, the current ones seem really nice, but for some reason I haven't really invited my male friends in real life here, while they are great guys themselves they generally don't spend that much time thinking about abuse issues, they are unlikely to be targets and aren't going to be perpetrators so I guess it's totally off their radar screens, I guess I'm ok with that but I'm not inviting them over.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 1, 2009 16:50:42 GMT -5
I have no words.
Was he a psychic vampire? Deriving joy by denying it from others?
And again... it looks like he was doing EVERYTHING he could to make your life unbearable, he wanted OUT of that marriage but did not want to be the "bad guy." Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people from your old life have not seen through that charade... the marriage was over long before you "abandoned" him or whatever guilt trip they put on....
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 28, 2009 17:44:03 GMT -5
I have never actually figured out what my blood sugar problem is ~ I always thought it was stress ~ and that seems to be confirmed by the fact that I don't have nearly as much problem with my health now that the main source of stress (Warren) is out of my life. Perhaps similar to the way the lifestyle induced a diagnosable mental condition in Angel that was entirely situational you were developing physical manifestation of a situational problem...
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 28, 2009 17:41:30 GMT -5
Angel had what for all intents and purposes was a genuine diagnosable psychosis, but one that was, it turns out, entirely situational This. It's quite amazing actually, and sort of boggles my mind. And, is a very, very strong condemnation of the quiverfull movement.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 28, 2009 14:51:20 GMT -5
wow, that's really awesome. I wrote something about "just being" once, it was about the kind of alone whole-immersion in nature that can be exhilarating. While Annie Dillard's writing reminded me of those experiences, some reason I really didn't like her books, but I'm not exactly sure why.
What are you studying? Comparative mythology sounds like a fun class.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 27, 2009 7:12:24 GMT -5
THANK you aimai! We have voted representatives who determine how much and for what our tax money goes. NOT THEFT! And if you are very upset your preferred representative is never elected-- the one who will remove all taxes-- well you could always move to Somalia. No taxes there. No government either... The two kinda go together and MOST people do want a government. Makes life easier.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 24, 2009 22:19:27 GMT -5
It's incredible to me too that we often choose homebirth to avoid just this kind of abuse and lack of a voice from doctors!! That's exactly what I was thinking... I've heard so many stories of unnecessary episiotomies, C-sections, inducing after coercion of the mother... and then after she's all doped up and connected to four or five machines with unnecessary scarring and tearing to heal... She's told to snap out of it 'cuz it's NOTHING. Because the doctor thought you should have it. Regardless of whether you needed or wanted it, and no consideration for the disappointment of the state you've ended up in. But my mom's midwives were pagan, Wicca, revere the earth type folk who were very accepting of any belief from the mother, and who really really seemed to LISTEN, but who also were very responsible medically. (Yeah, my sisters were born when I was between 9 and 14, and I went along for many of her checkups... and so I learned a lot)
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 24, 2009 14:53:02 GMT -5
Another thing.... Judy didn't have the equipment for an ultrasound? I know all my mother's midwives DID have ultrasound equipment, as well as other things... She sounds like she was very uninformed and ill equipped for what she was doing.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 24, 2009 13:09:36 GMT -5
That's horrible! That midwife should lose her license, a midwife should never try to convince the patient not to pursue wanted medical attention... My mother gave birth to my youngest three sisters at home, with fantastic midwives who really listened to and cared for what SHE thought and wanted, instead of their own ideologies. And to be honest, even some doctors have the opinion a pregnant woman doesn't REALLY know what's good for her which is a bit of sexism that I really wish would go away... But when even a midwife does not believe the woman knows what she wants... yeah. Bad situation.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 23, 2009 8:56:11 GMT -5
wow that sounds so rough for your poor girls!
Is there an age where these bone spur will stop growing or will this be an indefinite routine?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 21, 2009 9:36:52 GMT -5
pretty sure Justflyingin wasn't saying it's bad to take needed public monies to support one's self and one's children, just pointing out an inconsistency in biblical interpretation that allows QF to take one passage "literally" and another not so.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 21, 2009 8:06:08 GMT -5
This reminds me of something happening in my cousin (an only child's) family. She and her grandma were in the store and they see a brand of dish soap. "Oh, that's the soap daddy tells mommy to buy"
Of course she does. And he doesn't even DO the dishes!
To be honest I think they can isolate and control their one child far more effectively than the Duggar's do theirs, for example.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 20, 2009 21:49:31 GMT -5
Great to hear your trip went well! Hope the surgeries go well and don't need to be too extensive this time...
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 19, 2009 10:42:25 GMT -5
I can't stand when people complain about tax dollars going to welfare or children's health care. How can you complain about giving kids health care? Personally, I'd be willing to pay more in taxes so EVERYONE could have health coverage. I believe it is a right, not a privilege. AMEN! Apparently it's all fine to destroy lives, military and Iraqi, but those same people are incensed if anyone suggests that living is a basic right without which no one could exercise any other... Health care is vitally important and it's not like you can do without it for awhile while you shop around... so it's rife for price gouging and such.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 18, 2009 21:50:13 GMT -5
So what about the QF mom who has an unemployed husband, is on whatever welfare they qualify for and goes ahead and has an 8th kids? Or 10nth kid as one woman I was on a list with did? There are a LOT of QF families living in poverty, a QF list I was on that was private did a survey once as to who was on benefits of some kind and it was the majority. Are these women worth of contempt? What about a woman having another baby with an abuser? Is she worthy of contempt? there's choices and "choices". Is a QF mom contemptible for having many kids while in poverty? no. is QF contemptible for promoting such untenable baby-making? yes. Is an abused woman contemptible for having babies? no. Is the emotional and physical abuse that makes her remain in that situation contemptible? yes. so, what is it that forced Nadya Suleman to have that many babies? unless she suffers some mental disease like narcissism or something similar, it was indeed her free choice to do this(as far as I can tell). And using your children to feed your need for attention, or even MAKING babies to feed your need for attention, that IS contemptible. And maybe so are our modern paparazzi-like media, for buying right into people's fame-cravings. so... both equally bad actions but the question is where goes the blame? For the QF or abused woman, the blame goes to the "system" and for the Octomom she gets it? It's a rational distinction but I think the doctor needs more blame. From one thing I found he was using her to up his "success" rates over the years, he had a small practice and sometimes she provided a significant portion of his "successful" births he used to market his practice to others. So... maybe again we can decry the completely irresponsible behavior but perhaps point the blame again somewhere other than the person who will live in this mess for the next 18 years...
|
|
|
Design
Apr 17, 2009 16:20:31 GMT -5
Post by jemand on Apr 17, 2009 16:20:31 GMT -5
I like rainforest!
I think it has to do with the patterned background.
|
|