|
Post by liltwinstar on Sept 1, 2010 16:04:14 GMT -5
Also, it seems that there's a difference between a family choosing to live that way - I mean a conscious decision reached equally by the adult members of the family - and the patriarch/father dictating that they should live that way.
Also, again, the burden of this lifestyle falls mainly to women. There aren't that many QF dads who are washing diapers on a regular basis or emptying the "family cloth" pail. And I'm pretty sure Doug Phillips would not be washing out the family menstrual cloth bucket, either! There aren't pretty blog posts about men baking bread (a daily activity for some of these families) or tending the garden or making soap or selling eggs, either.
I think someone already mentioned this, but there are ways to live "off the grid" that are safe and healthy for families, but you have to know what you're doing. Heating the house with wood but having smoke choke the house is not the right way to do it! So the QF leaders fill their followers' heads with ideals of self-sufficiency and an agrarian lifestyle, but few families/men have the skills (or inclination, really) to really live that way.
It seems like a lot of the families I read about who lived this way were "transitioning" into it - which usually mean that wife and kids ran the "homestead" while Dad was still working a regular job. So mom and kids did the building, and the hauling of water, and the cutting of the firewood, and all the from-scratch cooking, wheat grinding and everything else that needs to be done in the house, plus school work when they could, while Dad got to be off in the "normal" world with air conditioners and heaters and such for 8+ hours a day. But he was "holy" because he was living the "self-sufficient" way.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Sept 1, 2010 16:31:20 GMT -5
That article described most of my lifestyle choices. And I'm certainly not quiverfull. Or even conservative. Though I have been called "crunchy" so that might be why.
...
I guess I'm just seeing alot of judgement on this forum toward people who live this type of lifestyle, regardless of motive. It would be nice for others to realize that this is just another personal choice that, at least for me, has nothing to do with anything religious. Montanamom ~ thanks for writing ~ you sound like an adventurous woman with a lot of enthusiasm and I'm guessing if we could get together for coffee, we'd have a ton to talk about! With regard to these lifestyle "choices" however ~ I'd like to say that when they truly are choices rather than religiously-motivated convictions, all's well and good with living debt-free, downscaling, do-it-yourself, etc. Hopewell's article states many times that these ideals are often embraced for non-religious reasons by women who would be considered idealogical opposites of QF women. As a Quiverfull believer, I did not forego medical care during my fourth pregnancy because I *wanted* to and I believed it was the safest, most healthy choice for my personal situation. PLEASE read my story: nolongerquivering.com/2009/04/24/did-i-really-trust-him/I stayed at home and suffered though a horrendous amount of pain, anxiety and misery ~ and I came very close to death for both me and my baby ~ because I believed that going to the doctor would be a SIN and I believed that it would be better to suffer in my body than to risk my eternal soul. Debt-free living, along with most all Quiverfull practices (homeschooling, home birth, stay-at-home/work-at-home moms, etc.) is an admirable discipline so long as we don’t idealize the principle to the point that we are no longer thinking and evaluating what it is we are doing and whether it’s actually working out for us. I was drawn to the Quiverfull movement partly because of its promotion of countercultural ideals which strive to avoid the pitfalls of modernity including the mass-market economy of consumption and excessive debt accumulation. It is the goal of most QF families to become debt-free through simple living, frugality, delayed gratification, self-employment, and similar principles of financial responsibility. Now as a single mom with five kids still at home, my QF experience of living on a shoestring has been a lifesaver. Other than getting cable television for the kids, my spending habits have not really changed ~ in fact, since my income has been cut to about one-quarter of what it was before the divorce, I’ve had to become thriftier than ever. Nevertheless, I have taken on some credit card debt as well as a home equity line of credit. While I continue to be convinced of the value of debt-free living and still have financial freedom as my long-term goal, my way of thinking about finances has shifted from a countercultural stance to mere pragmatism. Let me explain what I mean. One thing that the spectacular failure of my Quiverfull life has taught me is that utopian idealism will ensnare a person just as surely as consumerism and every other "defilement" of Western culture. What I’ve learned is that all of life is a gamble ~ there are no guarantees, no sure-fire formula for the good life. Being debt-free did not protect our family from abuse, disintegration and divorce ~ and neither did the myriad other ideals in which we invested every ounce of our time and energy until we were utterly exhausted, burned-out, crushed, and devoid of all pleasure in life. These days, I haven’t gone quite to the opposite extreme from formula to fatalism ~ but I have come to what I believe is a more realistic approach ~ and that is to ask, What is possible? What is reasonable? And, most importantly ~ what is sustainable over the long haul? So while I am still fairly conservative when it comes to spending ~ it is much more a matter of practicality and not so much because I believe our quality of life will be substantially superior on account of our minimal participation in the consumer culture of our times. Hopewell's critique here is mainly about the trap of idealism ~ and particularly when a family accepts a combination of ideals which inherently negate each other ~ setting the family up for failure. Stay-at-home-mom = good Lots of kids = good Financial independence = good Debt-free = good But add these all together and mix in a lot of religious conviction ~ not choice, but submission & obedience ~ and you have a recipe for failure, guilt, and yes, neglect when you can't step back from it enough to see when your family is suffering needlessly because one or another of these good ideas just really is not practical for your particular circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by montanamom on Sept 1, 2010 16:58:36 GMT -5
Oh don't worry, I'm not offended at all. It's just something I've noticed lately among ex-fundamental circles (of which I affiliate myself). It's like the idea of all these things triggers so much dread in the people who were forced to live that way so they forget that sometimes it really is an informed choice. I am very sorry for everyone here who went through that. And I'm grossed out by reusable pads and toilet paper too. You gotta draw the line somewhere. Also, I don't do cloth diapers because I don't want to. I've always had 2 kids in diapers and not always had my own washing machine and it just seemed like more work than I was willing to put out. And unless I have to, I won't be living without electricity or running water again. I happen to appreciate those amenities. But it's nice to know I could if I had to. Something I don't get (well, I don't get alot of things, but...): what's with the house filled with smoke?? I read that story and wondered what was wrong with them. Yes, wood stoves smoke. But when they do, you clean them out and clear the chimney and then they stop smoking. You don't run around outside in the freezing cold with your poor kids! Stories like that and others I've read make me think that these folks didn't do their research before choosing such a life.
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Sept 1, 2010 17:15:25 GMT -5
Great comments--sorry I've been away. I will answer some tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Sept 1, 2010 20:29:26 GMT -5
I grew up in a home that was originally someone's summer cottage, and when my parents moved in, they had to drill a new well. Our house and our neighbors had an outhouse, and my parents had a huge old coal and wood furnace (big enough for an adult to fit in) where we burned a lot of our trash. They installed oil only because we had to get custom parts for the furnace, and the iron grates that were about three feet in diameter kept braking. We always had provisions on hand to last us about a week at least, and we had a cistern of water that was not potable but could be treated if we needed.
I've always been fascinated with the idea of living off the land and one of my favorite childhood books was "My Side of the Mountain." I was always fascinated with WWII, and I thought for hours about where I would hide Jews in our home. We always had stacks of Popular Mechanics and Mother Earth News stacked in closets, and we struggled financially for many years, particularly when I was small.
I grew up a few miles from Rodale Press, and my family was affectionate to natural health. I was quite happy to study later when medicine didn't offer any viable answers for my husband's atypical arthritis due to a genetic disorder. (He has atypical and poor responses to the drugs of choice. And they aggravate his migraine condition anyway.)
Having done lots of chart reviews and audits for insurance companies, one of the indicators that the NCQA looks at by law for HMOs is vaccinations. I can tell you that even without my naturopathy training, it does something sick in my gut to review a chart to realize that babies get Hepatitis B injections on the day that they're born. Or when you see that a 1 year old got 6 inoculations on a single day. I've seen a Canadian study done in the '90s that showed that more children died from the adverse affects of the HepB injection than contracted the disease. There is some indication that a population of children get shingles following the Varicella injection, believed by some to interfere with the immunity that develops from Chicken Pox. And I have a family friend who buried three children after encephalitis following each child's MMR injection. I think that for some of these things, it is healthier to wait until the children are older and certainly to not give 6 inoculations on the same day to a toddler. Many may think it is barbaric to withhold immunizations, but I think that there is also a good case for waiting until children are older.
There is much of natural health that is basically, well, religious also, requiring a great deal of faith that I don't think is always well-supported by medical proof. That doesn't mean that there is also not some good value, especially by way of nutrition and through the avoidance of polypharmacy by utilizing some natural products and complementary/alternative care. It's one of my fascinations.
In and of itself, homesteading and such is exciting if you are well-equipped to do such things. My father was well able and skilled, but with health issues, my husband was not. I was not either after I got out of my twenties.
As others have stated, the problem rests with viewing and interpreting these things as an outward show of holiness and proof to your social network that you are a legitimate or acceptable Christian because you employ these measures. There is also an unspoken understanding that the hard toil is redemptive somehow, as though outward behavior can affect the disposition of the inward being, somehow changing the heart and soul.
The opposite side of seeing certain practices as a show of one's degree of holiness and Christian prowess comes through the discrimination shown to those who are not adept or do not practice these outward signs. There is the competition and the jealousy.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, grind your own wheat berries, have a quiver larger than five, embrace young earth creation science, and thou shalt be saved is not in the Bible as necessary for saving faith. It is the perception that these things are an outward sign of faith specifically and discrimination (or punishment) shown to the non-compliant that becomes a problem.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Sept 1, 2010 20:30:20 GMT -5
I had a washer just like that hand one years ago and it worked REALLY well. It also only washed one pair of jeans at a time. Good for camping.. or for the camping 24/7 life that people find themselves in.
As montanamom said a lot of this stuff is just crunchy lifestyle (crunchy being an affectionate term for people embracing simple living). Once you somehow think what you are doing is a spiritual requirement you are on your way to bondage.
And yes it is the WOMEN who do all this labor intensive penny pinching.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Sept 1, 2010 21:36:20 GMT -5
I had a washer just like that hand one years ago and it worked REALLY well. It also only washed one pair of jeans at a time. Good for camping.. or for the camping 24/7 life that people find themselves in. As montanamom said a lot of this stuff is just crunchy lifestyle (crunchy being an affectionate term for people embracing simple living). Once you somehow think what you are doing is a spiritual requirement you are on your way to bondage. And yes it is the WOMEN who do all this labor intensive penny pinching. It is the women who make the lifestyle possible, yet the women have to create the illusion that the men are the masters who manage all the important affairs. There is now a trend in courts, for both secular and Christian people, to award custody of children to fathers instead of mothers. (It became the trend that mothers stayed home with the kids to raise them, not just within the homeschooling community. Hence the popularity of things in secular circles like Martha Stewart.) They are not gainfully employed and have been out of the workforce for some time, so the fathers are deemed the more suitable parent in many cases. (Such is my experience and that of the Protective Mothers Alliance, Intl.) I think the only sense of satisfaction that I've thought of when women lose custody is that fathers who thought so little of their wives and the work they did are suddenly faced with the task of managing the money and feeding everyone. I hope that for some of these men that it is a cruel awakening. Though it may end up just being more cause to blame the wife somehow and place more burden on the older daughters...
|
|
|
Post by ladygrace on Sept 4, 2010 12:06:20 GMT -5
HUrry up there, ambrosia. I need to bathe in bleach too. Reusable pads? Ewww! Sharing cloths for wiping your ass after using the bathroom with the rest of your (large) family? I'm cringing so bad. Ohmygod. What a horrifying idea. When washed in hot water with bleach between uses, these are just as sanitary as disposable pads and toilet paper. It's not like someone wipes, then the next person wipes with the same cloth five minutes later. And regarding cloth pads, it's no less sanitary that throwing your panties into the washer after leaking a bit onto them. Or do you throw them away? Waste is a sign of financial privilege. We haven't yet used these things, but are cloth-diapering our first and likely only child. I'm planning to get cloth pads for when my period returns (still no post-baby period - YAY!!), and am trying to figure out how to approach my fiance about cloth toiler "paper".
|
|
|
Post by ladygrace on Sept 4, 2010 12:18:58 GMT -5
That article described most of my lifestyle choices. And I'm certainly not quiverfull. Or even conservative. Though I have been called "crunchy" so that might be why. Personally, I don't have a problem with most of what you wrote here. And I don't think lack of electricity to be "abuse" or "neglect". Really? My husband and I both spent much of our lives living that way. His parents were hippies and mine were poor. We always had enough to eat, were warm, and could get clean. Sure, we had to go get our firewood, trade working on a farm for produce, and sometimes bath in a creek. But what in the world is wrong with that? We both loved our childhoods. And we look back on them with fond memories, even the difficult times. Reading around here, I am detecting a distaste for anyone who chooses to live how you described. Which makes me rather sad. I get that many here had to live this way due to no choice of their own and in much worse circumstances. But there are many people who choose these types of lifestyles because they want to...they see a benefit in it or perhaps can't afford what "normal" people have. I shop at thrift stores. Pretty much all the time because I can't afford to buy new clothes. Why not when I can get practically new Old Navy and Gap clothes for my kids for 50 cents? I homebirth and homeschool and cook from scratch and practice herbal medicine and am against vaccinations. I just got done baking bread from scratch using my Wonder Mill and Bosch. This has NOTHING to do with anything religious. It's just what I believe is best for my family. I'll be the first to argue with anyone who claims these things to be "more pleasing to God" or some such BS. I guess I'm just seeing alot of judgement on this forum toward people who live this type of lifestyle, regardless of motive. It would be nice for others to realize that this is just another personal choice that, at least for me, has nothing to do with anything religious. I'm definitely a crunchy mom and I take pride in it. I'm the homebirthing, attachment-parenting, almost-exclusively-breastfeeding-at-nine-months, non-vaxing, western-medicine-avoiding-except-when-necessary, cloth-diapering, cloth-pad-converting, will-be-homeschooling mom, but unlike QF-moms, you and I got to choose these things. There seems to be more of a slant against the situations when women don't get to choose this life. Not having electricity in and of itself isn't neglectful. But when it means children are living in sub-zero temperatures and there are available alternatives, then it becomes neglect. When children are working sun-up to sun-down as unpaid labor doing work thy couldn't legally do for anyone else for many years working hours they can't legally work for anyone else until they're 18, then a line has been crossed. Some chores are good for kids. So is playtime and learning to socialize with people outside the immediate family. That socializing is vital to being able to function in the world. The lack of it leads to isolation and is abuse. These children have no choice. These women have been given no choice, likely don't know they can get help, but even if they did, have had it beaten into them, sometimes physically, that wanting anything else is sinful and deserving of hellfire after death and beatings while on earth. These women didn't get any say in prenatal care or birth, and if they die in an unassisted homebrth because of an undiagnosed problem, oh well, they're expendable. Their own educations are often so severely lacking that it's frightening they'll be homeschooling another generation.
|
|
|
Post by teach2010 on Sept 4, 2010 12:24:47 GMT -5
I'm curious as to why NLQ is running an ad for the Duggar's Homeschool curriculum on the main page of the site? Just curious...
|
|
|
Post by ladygrace on Sept 4, 2010 12:31:53 GMT -5
There is now a trend in courts, for both secular and Christian people, to award custody of children to fathers instead of mothers. (It became the trend that mothers stayed home with the kids to raise them, not just within the homeschooling community. Hence the popularity of things in secular circles like Martha Stewart.) They are not gainfully employed and have been out of the workforce for some time, so the fathers are deemed the more suitable parent in many cases. (Such is my experience and that of the Protective Mothers Alliance, Intl.) I think the only sense of satisfaction that I've thought of when women lose custody is that fathers who thought so little of their wives and the work they did are suddenly faced with the task of managing the money and feeding everyone. I hope that for some of these men that it is a cruel awakening. Though it may end up just being more cause to blame the wife somehow and place more burden on the older daughters... What planet do you live on that it's trendy to give fathers custody of the kids? I come from a planet called earth, in a county called America, and here fathers have to fight HARD to get more that one overnight every other weekend. As a children's rights advocate who has personally witnessed more court cases than most people will ever know about, I've seen appalling decisions in which a father is declared fit, a mother declared until, and custody going to a female relative of the mother because "children need mothers." I've seen so many cases where fathers are declared fit, mothers are declared unfit, yet the mothers get custody and chance after chance after chance when she keeps screwing up because "children need mothers." I've seen cases that would make you sick, but unless your really want to hear about mothers who let molesting boyfriends have at their children and only be ordered to supervise time between molester and victims rather than custody to fit-fathers, I won't go into details. Two cases within my own close circle of family and friends both had moms who had nothing to do with the children for a few years, no support, no contact, nada. One even tried signing away her parental rights. These two women both abducted the kids when it became convenient, one because her green card was about to expire and INS wasn't so quick to deport women with children who are citizens, and the other had a boyfriend who wanted a son and they hadn't managed to conceive one. In both cases, the women walked out of court with sole custody. Fathers who did the same would have ended up in jail. The Tender Years doctrine may no longer be law, yet many family judges cleave to the belief that children need mothers more than fathers. When a mother is the main financial provider, she "deserves" the children because she's been working to support them, and dad can get off his ass and get a job. When a dad is the financial provider, then the kids are used to being with mom, he allowed her to stay home, so he can keep supporting her and he can keep staying home. It's slanted to the mom in both situations. Welcome to America! Now there are rare cases when dads get primary, but these cases are rare.
|
|
|
Post by ladygrace on Sept 4, 2010 12:34:47 GMT -5
I'm curious as to why NLQ is running an ad for the Duggar's Homeschool curriculum on the main page of the site? Just curious... Ad Words searches for keyword within a page and put up signs based on that under the presumption that those are ads of interest. Sometimes they're such the opposite that it's funny. Not all site owners have the incredibly high amount of traffic that makes directly soliciting advertisers make sense.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Sept 4, 2010 12:43:18 GMT -5
Now there are rare cases when dads get primary, but these cases are rare. This is true... but in fact I think that in cases of an abusive father/husband, he is more likely to get custody than a decent father. You probably have seen far more cases where good fathers get bad deals, while in circles of ex-qf families with higher likelihood for abuse, there is more chance of the father making off with everything. This would especially be true of the psychologically abusive who are good at charming those who aren't in the family. ALSO, there can definitely be a bias toward awarding custody to the more religious parent, in many cases that is, in fact, the mother and may explain some of why some very good fathers won't get custody, but in ex QF families a woman may have lost her faith before even allowing herself to consider divorce. So again, the situation may be slanted more towards her ex husband.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Sept 4, 2010 12:46:25 GMT -5
I'm curious as to why NLQ is running an ad for the Duggar's Homeschool curriculum on the main page of the site? Just curious... Okay, first: too funny. Second,I'm pretty sure it's one of those ads that follow you when you mention something in a post. Since Vyckie posted about the Duggars the site assumed she'd be interested in the curriculum. It's a way of advertisers personalizing ads for your convenience and targeting you. Personally I hate it, but it's a technique that's here to stay. Vyckie will have to see if she can get the pro-Duggar ads blocked in some way since obviously it's counter to what we're doing here.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Sept 4, 2010 13:00:07 GMT -5
There is now a trend in courts, for both secular and Christian people, to award custody of children to fathers instead of mothers. (It became the trend that mothers stayed home with the kids to raise them, not just within the homeschooling community. Hence the popularity of things in secular circles like Martha Stewart.) They are not gainfully employed and have been out of the workforce for some time, so the fathers are deemed the more suitable parent in many cases. (Such is my experience and that of the Protective Mothers Alliance, Intl.) I think the only sense of satisfaction that I've thought of when women lose custody is that fathers who thought so little of their wives and the work they did are suddenly faced with the task of managing the money and feeding everyone. I hope that for some of these men that it is a cruel awakening. Though it may end up just being more cause to blame the wife somehow and place more burden on the older daughters... What planet do you live on that it's trendy to give fathers custody of the kids? I come from a planet called earth, in a county called America, and here fathers have to fight HARD to get more that one overnight every other weekend. As a children's rights advocate who has personally witnessed more court cases than most people will ever know about, I've seen appalling decisions in which a father is declared fit, a mother declared until, and custody going to a female relative of the mother because "children need mothers." I've seen so many cases where fathers are declared fit, mothers are declared unfit, yet the mothers get custody and chance after chance after chance when she keeps screwing up because "children need mothers." I've seen cases that would make you sick, but unless your really want to hear about mothers who let molesting boyfriends have at their children and only be ordered to supervise time between molester and victims rather than custody to fit-fathers, I won't go into details. Two cases within my own close circle of family and friends both had moms who had nothing to do with the children for a few years, no support, no contact, nada. One even tried signing away her parental rights. These two women both abducted the kids when it became convenient, one because her green card was about to expire and INS wasn't so quick to deport women with children who are citizens, and the other had a boyfriend who wanted a son and they hadn't managed to conceive one. In both cases, the women walked out of court with sole custody. Fathers who did the same would have ended up in jail. The Tender Years doctrine may no longer be law, yet many family judges cleave to the belief that children need mothers more than fathers. When a mother is the main financial provider, she "deserves" the children because she's been working to support them, and dad can get off his ass and get a job. When a dad is the financial provider, then the kids are used to being with mom, he allowed her to stay home, so he can keep supporting her and he can keep staying home. It's slanted to the mom in both situations. Welcome to America! Now there are rare cases when dads get primary, but these cases are rare. America is not one homogeneous whole. There are huge differences in how things work in different parts of the country so it would be a mistake to assume that what judges determine to be reasonable in Virginia is the same thing judges generally find reasonable in Los Angeles or New York. Community values and presumptions change with the community and judges are a product of their communities as much as they are a servant of the law. And family court is more prone to this community standard than any other court of law. If you live in a conservative and religious region you are going to get a higher likelihood of judges rendering decisions based upon those presumptions of correctness. There are injustices on both sides of the gender aisle where child custody is involved. It used to be mothers got almost universal preference and men were SOL. Now, not as much but certainly there are pockets where this may still be the norm. I think QF/P families tend to live in more conservative and rural areas of the country so their judicial norms probably follow that pattern as well. And if the judge is patriarchal in outlook then fathers will likely prevail to a higher degree than if they are of a more liberal bent. Justice may be blind, but in family court she is very 'values-subjective'. ETA: And a judge may favor a father in a more liberal region for reasons of gender-equity in the name of progress. However a judge bends, the party not favored by it is going to cry foul.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Sept 4, 2010 13:12:32 GMT -5
I'm curious as to why NLQ is running an ad for the Duggar's Homeschool curriculum on the main page of the site? Just curious... Ad Words searches for keyword within a page and put up signs based on that under the presumption that those are ads of interest. Sometimes they're such the opposite that it's funny. Not all site owners have the incredibly high amount of traffic that makes directly soliciting advertisers make sense. LOL ~ this is true! (Although, NLQ does get a fair amount of traffic. Wed. when "The Duggars was a trending topic on Yahoo!, Hopewell's Debt-Free Duggars article showed up on the first page of search results and NLQ was getting 300+ hits per hour. On an average day, 100-200 hits per hour is typical.) Adwords seems to be the worst about running ads that are actually counter to the nature of the site ~ such as the Duggar curriculum, etc. The Project Wonderful ads and BlogAds are better targeted because the advertisers actually visit the site to determine what NLQ is about and what might be of interest to readers. Ironically, someone recently followed the NLQ link to Amazon.com and purchased "Created To Be His Helpmeet" and "Beautiful Girlhood" ~ ugh! NLQ made a few pennies commission ~ I feel a bit conflicted over whether that's a good or bad thing ~ I guess, whatever, huh? BTW ~ Welcome to NLQ, Ladygrace ~ nice to have you here.
|
|
|
Post by ladygrace on Sept 4, 2010 13:34:42 GMT -5
Personally, I find the washables a lot less gross than a garbage can full of disposable diapers or sanitary napkins, that typically sits for a week before trash pickup day. And as for laundry grey water, the vast majority of homes around here, the laundry machine empties into a "laundry sink" because basements weren't built with laundry hookups the way they are in newer houses. Nobody washes these sinks. Lots of people also use them for handwashing, hair dying and washing, pet washing - and yet, we don't have outbreaks of typhus or other diseases you get from human waste or blood - because dirty laundry doesn't usually have that much of either, the water is also full of detergent, and most people don't have the diseases to pass on anyway. Which is not at all to give Miss Emily a pass on her detergent-free soap nut kitchen diaper washing operation. And while the washables wait, they are soaking in disinfectant. This really is much more sanitary than blood-soaked, crusty pads waiting in a dry pal for several days. There's a concern about e.coli someone mentioned from washables. Well, not only do our bodies have a small amount of e.coli,but the washables are usually soaking in bleach or vinegar, and...here's something gross. When a toilet is flushed, water droplets are kicked up and settle on other things like toothbrushes. worldental.org/oral-hygiene/toothbrush-and-toilet-bad-bacteria/mythbustersresults.com/episode12www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1317/does-flushing-the-toilet-cause-dirty-water-to-be-spewed-around-the-bathroomBetween shit on our toothbrushes going into our mouths, or some poo on a rag thrown into a pail with bleach, the latter is actually more sanitary. I actually want to try those soap nuts. But not for things that need sanitation, like diapers. Just for things like dirty shirts and such.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Sept 4, 2010 14:02:54 GMT -5
Vyckie,
Maybe it was that entertaining Helen who ordered the Pearl book and that other one?
;D
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Sept 4, 2010 21:33:54 GMT -5
HUrry up there, ambrosia. I need to bathe in bleach too. Reusable pads? Ewww! Sharing cloths for wiping your ass after using the bathroom with the rest of your (large) family? I'm cringing so bad. Ohmygod. What a horrifying idea. When washed in hot water with bleach between uses, these are just as sanitary as disposable pads and toilet paper. It's not like someone wipes, then the next person wipes with the same cloth five minutes later. And regarding cloth pads, it's no less sanitary that throwing your panties into the washer after leaking a bit onto them. Or do you throw them away? Waste is a sign of financial privilege. We haven't yet used these things, but are cloth-diapering our first and likely only child. I'm planning to get cloth pads for when my period returns (still no post-baby period - YAY!!), and am trying to figure out how to approach my fiance about cloth toiler "paper". Try telling that to the OCD part of my brain. Lol. Logically, I get it. I know steps are taken to disinfect ... but I could never, ever do it. But this is coming from the girl who has to run to wash her hands after taking out the garbage (doesn't matter that I'm only touching the bag, not the stuff inside) and who can't change her nephews diapers (unless nobody else is around, and then I only do it because it would be so mean to make him sit in a dirty diaper) so take it with the appropriate grain of salt. That kind of thing is my biggest compulsion, so I'll stick with disposables.
|
|
|
Post by ladygrace on Sept 4, 2010 22:55:24 GMT -5
This is true... but in fact I think that in cases of an abusive father/husband, he is more likely to get custody than a decent father. You probably have seen far more cases where good fathers get bad deals, while in circles of ex-qf families with higher likelihood for abuse, there is more chance of the father making off with everything. This would especially be true of the psychologically abusive who are good at charming those who aren't in the family. ALSO, there can definitely be a bias toward awarding custody to the more religious parent, in many cases that is, in fact, the mother and may explain some of why some very good fathers won't get custody, but in ex QF families a woman may have lost her faith before even allowing herself to consider divorce. So again, the situation may be slanted more towards her ex husband. Heh, the Manuel Savedraa case always comes to mind. Molester-father got the kids. I do know of a few cases of absolutely horrific fathers getting custody, more bad mothers, but some bad fathers. It seems like a lot of judges want to show their power by giving bad parents the kids. Judge Robin Appel (a woman) is one such judge. I personally knew the parties in a case here a mother's neglect led to the daughter's death, and Appel gave her sole of the son.
|
|
|
Post by ladygrace on Sept 4, 2010 22:56:08 GMT -5
Ad Words searches for keyword within a page and put up signs based on that under the presumption that those are ads of interest. Sometimes they're such the opposite that it's funny. Not all site owners have the incredibly high amount of traffic that makes directly soliciting advertisers make sense. LOL ~ this is true! (Although, NLQ does get a fair amount of traffic. Wed. when "The Duggars was a trending topic on Yahoo!, Hopewell's Debt-Free Duggars article showed up on the first page of search results and NLQ was getting 300+ hits per hour. On an average day, 100-200 hits per hour is typical.) Adwords seems to be the worst about running ads that are actually counter to the nature of the site ~ such as the Duggar curriculum, etc. The Project Wonderful ads and BlogAds are better targeted because the advertisers actually visit the site to determine what NLQ is about and what might be of interest to readers. Ironically, someone recently followed the NLQ link to Amazon.com and purchased "Created To Be His Helpmeet" and "Beautiful Girlhood" ~ ugh! NLQ made a few pennies commission ~ I feel a bit conflicted over whether that's a good or bad thing ~ I guess, whatever, huh? BTW ~ Welcome to NLQ, Ladygrace ~ nice to have you here. Why thank you. I say let the Duggars' curriculum pay for this site. ;D
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Sept 4, 2010 23:46:05 GMT -5
About the trend to award custody of kids to fathers.... I just got the video from the lecture I heard by Janice Levinson converted into something my computer can read, and now it needs formatted. When I manage to get it edited and loaded, you can listen to Janice herself. I know it was the case in our crazy cultic church where the church leadership rallied behind men. The church had a habit of falsely reporting moms to CPS so that it would be more difficult for them to get their kids. I stayed with one of these moms for hours during her CPS audit. I also went with her to the ER when they managed a warrant a mandatory psych eval, claiming falsely that she was dangerous. My experience is certainly not reflective of all people (thank God), but I had no problems accepting what Janice had to say, given what I'd witnessed myself. If you go to the website for Protective Mothers, the organization founded by Lundy Bancroft (author of "Why Does He Do That") and co-directed with Janice, you can link from there to their blog radio program and listen to the archives. It is their claim that there is a trend in courts, or at least a significant population of people where fathers are favored for custody. protectivemothersalliance.org/I've been invited to attend a protective mothers conference, so there are enough people around that warrants a national conference and training program for volunteers who are desperately needed. ?
|
|
|
Post by ladygrace on Sept 5, 2010 2:30:32 GMT -5
Try telling that to the OCD part of my brain. Lol. Logically, I get it. I know steps are taken to disinfect ... but I could never, ever do it. But this is coming from the girl who has to run to wash her hands after taking out the garbage (doesn't matter that I'm only touching the bag, not the stuff inside) and who can't change her nephews diapers (unless nobody else is around, and then I only do it because it would be so mean to make him sit in a dirty diaper) so take it with the appropriate grain of salt. That kind of thing is my biggest compulsion, so I'll stick with disposables. Ah, yeah. With my medical history, it takes a lot to quick me. As I see it, I can wash my hands. I've got a fiance who has changed as many of our daughter's dirty (cloth) diapers as I have, even though *I* am the stay-at-home parent! He does it without complaint.
|
|
maicde
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by maicde on Sept 5, 2010 3:33:37 GMT -5
I know very little about this infamous "Emily" other than what I read in her blog a while back. Here's what I DO know for sure though: she is still in her 20's, I believe. Youth brings along with it a certain naivete, strength and stamina. Through the years that will fade into older, less strength and stamina. The boys who are now little will grow into hungry teen-agers who will require more than curdled whey or whatever weird food she conjures up in order to save money. They will run away if for no reason other than to get a decent meal. She and DNA will then sit there eating their weird food and wonder what went wrong.
Bottom line is that no one can sustain themselves in the manner that she wrote about on her blog. People can only suffer and deprive themselves so long until they crack.
|
|
maicde
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by maicde on Sept 5, 2010 3:43:18 GMT -5
That article described most of my lifestyle choices. And I'm certainly not quiverfull. Or even conservative. Though I have been called "crunchy" so that might be why. Personally, I don't have a problem with most of what you wrote here. And I don't think lack of electricity to be "abuse" or "neglect". Really? My husband and I both spent much of our lives living that way. His parents were hippies and mine were poor. We always had enough to eat, were warm, and could get clean. Sure, we had to go get our firewood, trade working on a farm for produce, and sometimes bath in a creek. But what in the world is wrong with that? We both loved our childhoods. And we look back on them with fond memories, even the difficult times. Reading around here, I am detecting a distaste for anyone who chooses to live how you described. Which makes me rather sad. I get that many here had to live this way due to no choice of their own and in much worse circumstances. But there are many people who choose these types of lifestyles because they want to...they see a benefit in it or perhaps can't afford what "normal" people have. I shop at thrift stores. Pretty much all the time because I can't afford to buy new clothes. Why not when I can get practically new Old Navy and Gap clothes for my kids for 50 cents? I homebirth and homeschool and cook from scratch and practice herbal medicine and am against vaccinations. I just got done baking bread from scratch using my Wonder Mill and Bosch. This has NOTHING to do with anything religious. It's just what I believe is best for my family. I'll be the first to argue with anyone who claims these things to be "more pleasing to God" or some such BS. I guess I'm just seeing alot of judgement on this forum toward people who live this type of lifestyle, regardless of motive. It would be nice for others to realize that this is just another personal choice that, at least for me, has nothing to do with anything religious. Let me be bold enough to say that I have both (1) "judgment" and (2) distaste for this frugal lifestyle B.S. because I DID have to grow up like this time to time during my childhood. NO, it was not fun, NO, it did NOT make me a better person, and YES I still have anger and resentment for not having enough food, Electric (when the bill wasn't paid), NO water - period - to get washed up and ready for school even when I worked in a restaurant kitchen ALL day long on Sundays and came home smelling like grease and having to go to school the next day, etc. and wondering how I would wash myself up so that I didn't stink like lard. There was nothing genius or spiritual about any of it. It was embarrassing and humiliating. Personal choice? I don't remember making a personal choice to suffer like I did as a young teen-ager trying to make it through junior high and high school and not having even my basic needs provided for (even though I started working when I was 14.) I'm 47 now, and I do NOT forget how hard that was on me, my brother, and my mother. My mother ended up dying at a much earlier age than she had to because she suffered and worked so hard. It's taken me almost 30 years to recover from some of the thoughts and bad memories that run through my head when I think of my childhood. I have no idea where this "hippy", "granola crunchy" stuff is coming in - like it's "cool" to suffer or be deprived or something. The fact of the matter is that we grew up in an extended household that was run by a mad man who took all the money that was earned in the household and squandered it all away. He also used the bible to cloak himself with.
|
|