120 comments:
Anonymous said...
I wonder if they are really as happy as they appear on tv. The tv show is really a job for them, and looking happy is part of that job. Can everyone really just be happy all the time? That isn't normal. I don't care how "Christian" and Bible-loving you are.
I am also curious how many QF children follow in the footsteps of their parents. I would think it would have a high defection rate, especially for the girls.
Michele (not Duggar!) LOL!
Monday, April 13, 2009
Mer said...
I've been wondering what your opinions are on the Duggars and their strong media presence and stuff. The way they're presented on the TV, they seem rather pragmatic for religious extremists, especially compared to the stories you guys tell, and the "ideals" of the movement you describe.
I've also wondered whether they're really that much less creepy than their friends that pop through now and again (or, yanno, sire their daughter-in-law) or if they're just edited that way.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Anonymous said...
Vyckie and Laura, I am curious...since such emphasis is placed on gender roles in the QF movement, what would a QF family do with a child that was born intersex? (To learn more about intersex people, go to
www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex )
Monday, April 13, 2009
Jadehawk said...
I'm almost certain that they're not nearly as perfect as they seem on the screen, even though those "imperfections" might well be buried very deeply.
There's actually a very cruel joke going around about how, since about one-in-ten people are born gay, and the more boys you have the more likely it is that your younger ones will be gay, it's statistically extremely likely that at least one of her kids is living in the closet.
But even cruel plays with statistics aside, there's probably some deeply buried problems, and unfortunately such problems have a bad habit of erupting in the worst possible way
*resists urge to link to that poor evangelical christian who died while doing some very weird, kinky self-play*
Monday, April 13, 2009
songtoisis said...
The Duggar family's media presence is what made me aware of the QF lifestyle. As a neo-pagan mom and wife, I'm somewhat fascinated by their story. I find the patriarchical leadership creepy but the large family interesting. I wonder what their inner dynamic is and how the children will grow up under the scrutiny.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Anonymous said...
I have been reading this blog with interest. What mystifies me is the notion that a woman cannot possibly be happy being in a submissive role as a quiverfull wife.
It seems to me that a true feminist would see that not all women are the same, and that each one should be free to pursue whatever lifestyle she desires. I think it is extremely short-sighted to think that only certain "feminist-approved" lifestyles could make a woman happy.
Personaly, the whole liberal feminist thing did nothing for me. I am happier than I have ever been in my life right now, as a Christian and one who strives to be meek and submissive to my husband. I did a complete 180 like Vyckie did, yet in the opposite direction, when I came to know Jesus Christ. I have never once felt disillusioned, discontented, or resentful in my new life.
I also think it is narrow-minded to paint all men in the "patriarchy movement" (whatever that is) as domineering, abusive jerks, or the families as all dysfunctional, unhappy people hiding behind fake smiles. That simply is not true.
If this is really a feminist site written by feminist women, it seems you would see that the QF/P lifestyle really could be "a wonderful, godly lifestyle which makes for happy families. ..." for some women. Just because it was not wonderful for either of you ladies, doesn't mean it isn't wonderful for others. What left you both empty and disillusioned could very well be deeply fulfilling and enjoyable for others.
~Amy
Monday, April 13, 2009
an atheist in the bible belt said...
Amy- My answer would be that as a feminist, I can simultaneously support women's rights to make their own choices about their own lifestyle, and also believe that not every lifestyle is healthy.
I don't think that the patriarchal lifestyle is an intrinsically healthy model for a relationship, but I defend your right to get into the type of relationship that makes you happy.
I think you are misrepresenting what is being said on the blog to some extent. When were all patriarchal men accused of being abusive? It was merely pointed out that the patriarchal model does a poor job of allowing women to protect themselves from abusers. That is a criticism of the model, not of all patriarchal men. Do you disagree that there is a heightened potential for abuse when one partner holds all the decision making power? As far as I can tell, the purpose of the blog is not to tear down anyone else's families, but for Vyckie and Laura to tell their personal stories, and also for them to lead discussions in questioning a certain type of lifestyle. If you are so certain that your lifestyle is good, you shouldn't feel threatened when others examine it.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Jadehawk said...
Amy, if you had read both the blog and the comments more closely, you;d have noticed that no one here says that you cannot arrange your marriage in any way that suits you best, including being a submissive houswife.
This is about the expectation that this is how you HAVE to be to be a good woman, about the fact that the QF/P movement promotes inequality in power so that defending against abuse is difficult and even discouraged, and about how the bible is used to achieve that.
let me ask you a question: if there were no QF/P movement, what would stop you from living the way you do now?
on the other hand, if there were no QF/P movement, would it be as easy to force women into an abusive relationship and deny them the right to complain?
Monday, April 13, 2009
Mer said...
Amy,
You said "Personaly, the whole liberal feminist thing did nothing for me." Could you describe the whole liberal feminist thing that did nothing for you? I'm pretty sure I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm quite curious now.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Kaderin said...
Amy
I know you weren't really adressing me, but I'm tempted to reply anyway.
You're right - a feminist respects the decision of a woman to submit to her husband, if, and only if, it's what she really wants. I can certainly see that in some relationships the woman is really not as good at decision-making, and maybe feels happier when she follows her man than when she leads. The opposite dynamic, with the man as a follower, exists as well, and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as both are happy in such a relationship. But that's not what the patriarchy movement (and I don't really know why you put that in "quotes", since it's title is self-proclaimed) has in mind.
You see, for a feminist to respect such a choice, it has got to be that - a choice. Not something the woman feels obliged to do, which is exactly what is clear in Laura's and Vicky's stories. Take the 2nd part of Laura's story "Dresses and Dashed Dreams". She does not want to wear dresses, but Christian modesty and her husband demand it. She was coerced into it.
You say the QF/P lifestyle really could be "a wonderful, godly lifestyle which makes for happy families. ..." for some women. But that's not what the quiverful lifestyle presents itself as. It explicitly says that this is the only acceptable way of marriage - women who don't submit are frowned upon and if the relationship ever hits rock bottom, the woman is told she isn't submissive enough, she must change her ways. And here lies the reason why Vicky has the notion that there are no happy QF marriages - such a set up promotes abuse. Not only that, it protects the abuser over the victim. If the man is given absolute power over the woman, he is bound to abuse it. Power corrupts and all that. As I read more of Vicky's story, I, too, am left with the impression that QF created a tyrant and abuser in Warren - which is nearly as awful abuse Vicky suffered. To be turned into something evil... and with the best intentions, namely, to follow a good, moral (seen from a biblical perspective) lifestyle. *shudder*
The quiverful movement does not allow for women's choice - it guilts, it threatens, it coerces, all in the name of Christianity. "If you don't submit, you're not a good Christian. You don't love God enough. You are sinning. You will burn." It does not allow for different personalities in women - one size fits all. There is no dissent - you have a vagina and therefore you must be this and that. The quiverfull lifestyle is inherently disrespectful to any and all feminist lifestyle. Even if a woman, with no coercion whatsoever, chooses this lifestyle - what about her daughters? They will be indoctrinated into the belief that they have to be submissive. That their place is at home, barefoot in the kitchen. Kinder, Küche, Kirche in the truest sense. And they're sheltered from the world, homeschooled, to protect them from evil (read: feminist) influences. Do you really think all daughters would choose their mother's lifestyle? They cannot make an informed decision. How could a feminist respect a choice when there is none?
Monday, April 13, 2009
Anonymous said...
I'm confused! When I came to read this posting, earlier today, I thought the title of it was "Michelle Duggar is pregnant again", but that's not what the title says now. Then, when I look at the side bar where all the new comments are coming up, it says the same thing for this posting. Was there a change in the title? Does that mean Michelle is not pregnant again?
Sorry, I just thought maybe I had read wrong and wanted to know what the situation really is.
Thanks,
Kelly
Monday, April 13, 2009
Vyckie said...
Kelly ~ you are not crazy ~ I actually did change the title of the post. Guess I hadn't had enough cups of coffee when I read the NY Times article ~ I thought it was an announcement that Michelle was expecting again. So ~ oops! Sorry for the confusion.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Anonymous said...
Amy - I have to echo what Kaderin said. The problem with your post is the "for some women" part.
I am a Christian who homeschools my two children, and I know over 10 quiverfull families. Not ONE of them does not look down on me or try to judge me in some way because I only have 2 children. If questioned directly, some will say that God does not require it for everyone, but what they live out is something totally different.
I am very thankful that my husband didn't feel led to go down the quiverfull path, and that we both are strong enough in our relationship with God not to be taken in by this particular legalism. But I have seen firsthand the damage it has done in other's lives, along with every other variant of legalism out there.
And it might have just a little bit more of a draw for me if ANY of the quiverfull women I know seemed truly happy. They all vacillate between the blank stare, giving each other pep talks to keep themselves going, and being judgmental of all the poor Christians around them who aren't as spiritually mature as they are. No thank you to that!
Jennie
Monday, April 13, 2009
purple said...
You know (this is not just in response to Amy) when I read Quiverfull-ish websites, one of the things that occurs to me is that it's about 1/3rd reasonable advice clouded in 1/3rd things that make no sense to me and 1/3 things that I think are probably not healthy in general. Like all these discussions of who does the decision-making and the division of household work: I suspect it is actually just plain sane to decide one partner is better at balancing the checkbook, giving that job to that partner, and trusting that they'll do what they need to do. And then that really reasonable advice (I buy the groceries, my partner does the yardwork; we don't second-guess each other's projects) gets buried under this assertion that some of these jobs are jobs for Big Masculine Leaders and unless your husband gets to do them (even if he's terrible at balancing the checkbook and is a really good grocery shopper) he will be emasculated and Jesus will weep for your marriage.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Becky said...
"I am also curious how many QF children follow in the footsteps of their parents. I would think it would have a high defection rate, especially for the girls."
--------
I am curious here too. I suppose there no "close to scientific way" to find out, either.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
"It was merely pointed out that the patriarchal model does a poor job of allowing women to protect themselves from abusers. That is a criticism of the model, not of all patriarchal men. Do you disagree that there is a heightened potential for abuse when one partner holds all the decision making power?" --atheist in Bible Belt
There is a potential for abuse in ANY relationship. I personally believe there is greater potential for abuse from men who do not know the Lord and who do not strive to be like Jesus Christ. They have no perfect example to follow as Christians do. I guess it's all in one's perspective.
"If you are so certain that your lifestyle is good, you shouldn't feel threatened when others examine it."
To be clear, I am not quiverfull. My husband doesn't know the Lord (I was saved after I married him). But I am still called to submit to him, even if he is not obedient to God. Again, my perfect example is Jesus Christ, who submitted Himself to the Father even to the point of death. Any submission I am called to do to an unregenerate man is nothing compared to what my Lord went through.
If my husband were to be converted tomorrow and desired to live the QF lifestyle, I'd follow his lead. If he wanted to stay as we are with 4 kids, I'd still follow his lead. Either way, it's my choice to follow his lead. And either way, I'd be happy because my joy comes from the Lord, not my circumstances.
--Amy
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Rebecca said...
I agree with the commenter above, at least one of those younger boys has to be gay. And given this strand of Christianity's hatred of Teh Gay, it seems like that he will stay closeted and live a miserable life. Sad, really.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
madame said...
"I am also curious how many QF children follow in the footsteps of their parents. I would think it would have a high defection rate, especially for the girls."I grew up in a quiverfull family. For years I thought the only way to please God was to follow in my mother's footsteps. It was like carrying a huge burden on my back while trying to run a race. It killed my joy and made me seriously question God and his goodness.
I'm shaking it off. We don't see any command to breed as many children as possible, or to avoid using contraception, so my husband and I have concluded that it's up to us.
I think that having lived in a "poor" quiverfull family helped me avoid believing all the rosy tales from some books. Sure, there is a lot of happiness, but it's also very hard. My mother has talked about her feelings of helplessness, overwhelming fear, loads and loads of work and depression. I remember much of this too.
On the other hand, I think her testimony is positive in many ways too. She doesn't paint it all the color of rose, she talks about it as it is. She knows that each family have to decide what is best for them, so she doesn't expect us to follow in her footsteps.
And she doesn't raise herself as some expert, telling younger women what to do. She lets her life do the teaching, and she is happy to answer our questions.
She's a great role model to me in many ways, I appreciate her input and seek it often, but no, I don't feel called to have 10 children!
My dad is a bit different.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
"Amy, if you had read both the blog and the comments more closely, you;d have noticed that no one here says that you cannot arrange your marriage in any way that suits you best, including being a submissive houswife."--Jadehawk
I haven't read the comments because of lack of time. My reference is merely the blog.
"This is about the expectation that this is how you HAVE to be to be a good woman"
Although the QF part can be debated, a woman is most definitely called to be meek and submissive and a keeper of the home in the Bible. And parents are instructed to train up their children for the Lord.
"...about the fact that the QF/P movement promotes inequality in power so that defending against abuse is difficult and even discouraged, and about how the bible is used to achieve that."
If a person believes the Bible to be true, it makes sense that they would make their decisions based on the Bible.
"let me ask you a question: if there were no QF/P movement, what would stop you from living the way you do now?"
I have never followed any movement. I just follow God through the Bible which, I am sure, is what QF people are trying to do as well.
It's not really about living any lifestyle, but about living in a way that is pleasing to the Lord. The Bible is the instruction manual that tells us how to do that. If God tells me to jump, I'm going to jump! If he tells me to humbly submit to my husband and be his helpmeet, that's what I am going to strive to do.
"...the other hand, if there were no QF/P movement, would it be as easy to force women into an abusive relationship and deny them the right to complain?"
Who, exactly, is being forced into these relationships? It was pointed out in this blog that it is the woman who are often the ones who seek out this lifestyle, and they do so because they want to please God.
And I've never seen complaining as a right. The Bible tells us to do all things without complaining (and that isn't just addressed to women).
--Amy
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
Amy,
"You said "Personaly, the whole liberal feminist thing did nothing for me." Could you describe the whole liberal feminist thing that did nothing for you? I'm pretty sure I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm quite curious now."
It would take longer than I have to answer this as you want it answered.
But I will say since coming to know the Lord, my happiness doesn't depend on my own selfish wants and desires or following my own path, or even getting my own way, but from pleasing God.
When I became a Christian, I chose to give up any "authority" I possessed in a 50/50 relationship (which, by the way, led to a lot of bickering and butting heads) and gave it to my husband.
There is no more arguing, butting heads, or discontent for either of us in that regard. He gets his way, and I get to please the Lord. I think I got the better end of the deal, personally.
)
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
That last comment responding to Mer was from me, Amy. I forgot to sign my name. Sorry.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
You see, for a feminist to respect such a choice, it has got to be that - a choice. Not something the woman feels obliged to do, which is exactly what is clear in Laura's and Vicky's stories. Take the 2nd part of Laura's story "Dresses and Dashed Dreams". She does not want to wear dresses, but Christian modesty and her husband demand it. She was coerced into it.--Kaderin
I cannot speak for Laura, but I can say that there is most definitely a choice in serving God or serving self.
When we love the Lord and desire to please Him, there is a higher calling beyond satisfying our own wants.
As Christians we are called to die to our own selfish desires so that we can truly live in Christ. In other words, I gave up one thing (pants) to attain another, better thing (the joy of obeying God).
--Amy
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Vyckie said...
Note to Christian egalitarians ~ since it's unlikely that Amy will give up the BABY and the bathwater along with it ~ is there someone here who would be willing to explain to Amy how it is that she can experience the "joy of obeying God" without adopting an attitude of self-negation and de facto slavery to her husband?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
But that's not what the quiverful lifestyle presents itself as. It explicitly says that this is the only acceptable way of marriage - women who don't submit are frowned upon and if the relationship ever hits rock bottom, the woman is told she isn't submissive enough, she must change her ways. And here lies the reason why Vicky has the notion that there are no happy QF marriages - such a set up promotes abuse. --Kaderin
Just because something may promote abuse (I'm not saying it does or doesn't, but for the sake of argument), that doesn't mean there IS abuse.
That's the problem I am seeing. You [general] simply cannot paint all families with the same broad brush. There are plenty of happy, QF families where there is no abuse (and dare I say, plenty of non-QF, non-Christian families where there IS abuse).
"The quiverful movement does not allow for women's choice - it guilts, it threatens, it coerces, all in the name of Christianity."
You assume all women go into this lifestyle kicking and screaming. That simply is not the case.
"Even if a woman, with no coercion whatsoever, chooses this lifestyle - what about her daughters? They will be indoctrinated into the belief that they have to be submissive."
We all indoctrinate our kids to some degree with our beliefs.
From your perspective, submission is a bad thing. From my perspective, it is a wonderful thing. Why would I not desire my children to live for Jesus Christ, when I believe it is the greatest of all possible ways to live?
--Amy
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
an atheist in the Bible belt said...
Amy, I am glad that you have a life that you are happy with.
You said: Although the QF part can be debated, a woman is most definitely called to be meek and submissive and a keeper of the home in the Bible. And parents are instructed to train up their children for the Lord.I sense that we are not going to be able to accept one another's basic principles. You "know" that the Bible is the Word of God and that Biblical living is THE Right Way, and I "know" that it is not. However, I hope that you will respect that not everyone who is a good person adheres to a Biblical definition of a "good woman". I am not called by any god to be meek and submissive and a keeper of the home. My 50/50 relationship is very peaceful and happy. There's no bickering, no discontent. I feel that you make a bit of a false dichotomy between "selfish wants and desires" and "pleasing God".
I can tell that there's going to be no convincing you that your relationship choice isn't the "better thing" for ALL women. And I don't want to convince you of what's right or wrong for your own life, but just as you want us to accept that you are happiest in a submissive role, I hope you can reciprocate and accept that others of us are completely happy and content in an egalitarian relationship, or in one without strictly defined gender roles.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
Okay, so I'm not going to get into this discussion... I am going to bring this back to the Duggar family.
Have you ever met them? (I know the network of QFers is pretty small, and people seem to know a lot of other people.)
So, here's what I think of the TV series... I think it's watered down and that it romanticizes the family. It depicts the lives of a family that lives in a huge, luxurious home (a far cry from the majority of QF families that must struggle to provide basic necessities to so many children.). It tends to show the family only when they are supremely happy. It never shows the struggles in a critical light or bothers to ask critical questions. It frames the family as quaint and harmless--and gives the audience no understanding of the politics of the movement.
I don't know anything about the Duggar family themselves, but I have big problem with the TV show. I think it's a part of the reason why I keep seeing feminist women with no history in this movement saying, "But I am drawn to the lifestyle." The show provides no sense of the harmful aspects of the lifestyle.
Finally, as a feminist... Damnit, Amy, I am gonna respond to you after all. I support women who voluntarily enter into a submissive role in BDSM relationships. (For the most part. I am speaking of consensual, healthy BDSM relationships, not the abusive sort.) This is because I know that BDSM culture places vast importance on consent--and that most people involved in BDSM relationships do a lot more negotiating about what is okay and what isn't than most "vanilla" couples. So, as a feminist, yes, I do support women who choose submission.
The Quiverfull lifestyle, however, portrays itself as one that is best (read: "most Godly") for *all women.* The suggestion that this is only about women's choices is dishonest.
Kristin
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Pat Griffin said...
That's the problem I am seeing. You [general] simply cannot paint all families with the same broad brush. There are plenty of happy, QF families where there is no abuse (and dare I say, plenty of non-QF, non-Christian families where there IS abuse).
- Amy Amy, I think you have this backwards. Many responding to you have said that it is fine if the woman chooses to live like that. It's the QF people who are painting with the same broad brush: they claim that their way is the only way to happiness. But the evidence of real life clearly shows that there are happy and unhappy QF families, good and bad husband-led families, functional and disfunctional wife-led families, and happy and unhappy co-led families. Personally, I'm someone who functions best in a co-led family, and married someone who is the same. What works for you would not work for us. What did not work for you does work for us.
I think that for the most part, certainly for my part, what the anti-QF people are against is not the QF lifestyle itself as long as it is chosen by both spouses; rather, what we are against is the claim that this is the only way, or necessarily the best way, for everyone. That is what the QF people claim, and that is clearly false.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
People who say the Bible mandates a woman's submission to her husband, along with forbidding women to hold positions of leadership in church, simply don't know much about bible scholarship.
Some of the verses that are most used to support these things are actually considered by scholars to be later additions to the original text.
I recommend the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Professor Bart D. Erhman for an introduction into textual scholarship. The book also mentions this very subject.
In fact, in the very early church that existed immediately after the death of Jesus, women had enormous power. As time went on, some male leaders wanted to limit their power. Hence, you had verses about women's submission and not speaking in church added into the text.
BTW, just before those verses, there are instructions on how women ARE to speak in church (with a covering over their head), which contradicts the next verses about not speaking in church at all.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Wendy said...
Purple said: I suspect it is actually just plain sane to decide one partner is better at balancing the checkbook, giving that job to that partner, and trusting that they'll do what they need to do. And then that really reasonable advice (I buy the groceries, my partner does the yardwork; we don't second-guess each other's projects)...
You know, that is a really good description of my marriage 10 years ago, when we had young children and college and new jobs, etc.
But while we found it efficient and necessary, we also found it ultimately unhealthy for us. We both need to be more well rounded to continue to grow up. Now that things are a little calmer at my house, he does lots of dishes, and I handle more financial stuff and yard work!
I've been telling my guy about the experiences of the QV movement, and he thanks me heartily for not assigning him the burden of being in charge all the time.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Alyzza said...
Amy:
Amid counting all the stars in heaven and all the starving children and war-dead on Earth, God has set aside a little time each day to make sure you’ve put on the proper garment – in this case, a dress – as proof you’ve “died to self” through setting aside a different garment you liked better.
Do I understand you correctly?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Wendy said...
Speaking of gay children in QV families, has anyone seen this documentary: "Deborah 13: Servant of God"
Here is one url (I'm never sure if I set up the link right), but it's also on Youtube:
www.documentary-log.com/free-documentaries-online/search/servant/Although about Deborah, the really interesting story is the oldest son in this family, who seems likely to be gay. It is fascinating to watch the family dynamic.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
Hey there everyone, I am not a scholar or really for that matter know the Bible that well, but, I just wanna throw this question out there: It says in scripture that you leave to cleave. It also says that the two shall become one: so if the fact,and husband and wife are one, does it not mean they are a partnered union? Are they not equal? Do they not have equality in decision making? I would really like someone to take the wording of submission back to the original, greek and hebrew to find out the exact contectual meaning of it...
MELISSAwith4kids.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
"In other words, I gave up one thing (pants) to attain another, better thing (the joy of obeying God)."
So in other words, you've decided feminism is not for you; what is for you is arbitrary submission to random entities such as god and man, so that you can fulfill a self-perceived duty.
As a liberal feminist I certainly think you have a right to, but please understand I'm not going to skip over to join you now.
Tabby
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Coleslaw said...
Hey there everyone, I am not a scholar or really for that matter know the Bible that well, but, I just wanna throw this question out there: It says in scripture that you leave to cleave. It also says that the two shall become one: so if the fact,and husband and wife are one, does it not mean they are a partnered union? Are they not equal? Do they not have equality in decision making? I would really like someone to take the wording of submission back to the original, greek and hebrew to find out the exact contectual meaning of it...
MELISSAwith4kids.Actually, the Bible says that a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. It says this three times, once in Genesis 2:24, once in Mark 10:7, and once in Ephesians 5:31.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
Oh by the way: All this legalistic nonsense seems to overshadow, what Jesus set out to do:To set the captives free, to reveal truth, in a long list of objectives. I read with shock and amazement at the DAUGHTERS (highlighted in green on someone post) a girl is to untie and loosen her dads tie? Shave his face? What immediatly came to my mind was Celie in the Colour Purple shaving her fathers face!! Besides as a wife shaving a husbands face seems kind of intimate, not something a daughter should do. No where in the Bible does it ever say anything about creating intimacy with the daughter as this article stated about the mandate of this movement. Are we not to direct our children towards God? our Heavenly Father? I am sure that is what they are "trying" to initiate but I think they have taken the whole thing out of context, driven the idea into some sort of money making endeavour duping and sucking people in as they line their pockets with cash. Not to mention that the poor daughters will only be relegated to a submissive servant. I personally think it limits the potential and maybe true destiny these girls were called to be. Another thing I have issue is with is the statement that these girls will be relegated to the home and not missions. Was not the call to ALL believers to go to the ends of the earth? Not just the men?
One another note: People in this whole movement seem to remind me of particular folks in the Bible called Pharasees, and as I remember Jesus wasnt too fond of their legalistic ways......I thought he came to free people of such legalism? To be very honest when you read the belief systems of these people they sound almost identical to the women/men of Warren Jeffs compound and their sister compound Bountiful here in Canada. I just read the book STOLEN INNOCENCE by Elissa Wall, and the admonishment "TO BE SWEET" sounds identical to the submissive attitude that the women in the Quiverfull movement must possess.
This stuff is all so crazy..and WHY if it is God's true way..is it only in North America?
Sorry for rambling but I had to get this off my chest even if it is not in order.
MELISSAwith4kids
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
Note to Christian egalitarians ~ since it's unlikely that Amy will give up the BABY and the bathwater along with it ~ is there someone here who would be willing to explain to Amy how it is that she can experience the "joy of obeying God" without adopting an attitude of self-negation and de facto slavery to her husband? --Vyckie
Why would I need to change if I am happy?
--Amy
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Lou Ann (AKA Grandma) said...
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Vyckie said...
Note to Christian egalitarians ~ since it's unlikely that Amy will give up the BABY and the bathwater along with it ~ is there someone here who would be willing to explain to Amy how it is that she can experience the "joy of obeying God" without adopting an attitude of self-negation and de facto slavery to her husband?
Let's see: The joy of the Lord...obedience is better than sacrifice...He is our strength...were not ALL scriptures written to BOTH men and women? Were not MEN also required to submit themselves to the Lord? If they are TRULY Christ followers, (men) the women would be happy to follow in their footsteps, because they (women) would be loved by their husbands just like Jesus loves them. Unconditionally. That is, whether sick or healthy. Size 10 skinny or size 22 and fat bellied. Flawlessly beautiful or struggling under a load of make-up to look as good as the sexy models a husband may be looking at on TV or the internet. Loved whether or not she rubs his feet or back, loved if she is the one needing the back rub or even just a hug that doesn't require her to immediately want sex with him. And that quick. With the thought of producing yet another sweet little person that she will have to nurse for three years, bathe for five, dress for the same amount of time, sit up with while it pukes, while husband sleeps soundly because "I gotta work tomorrow..." like she doesn't???
If I sound slightly bitter here, it's because I've BTDT. Loved my children, but they were grown and on their own when I became a really serious Christian (it was Vyckie who led me to Him). I really began to live and experience the JOY of obedience to Him then, and I didn't have a flock of "skirt hangers" OR a husband at the time. Didn't want one, either. Oh, you have no idea how I didn't want one!
Then I met Wayne. Fought the idea of dating, marriage, the whole nine yards. I mean I FOUGHT the idea! A dear old Lutheran minister counseled with me, and quoted some Shakespeare to me..."Methinks the lady doth protest too much..."
Got me to thinking, and I realized this guy (Wayne) was a really close FRIEND! And Jesus was my friend! I could have both, praise God, and remembering that FRIENDS don't expect one to lead and the other to follow walking, head-down, ten paces behind, finally figured out I could LOVE this man! That Jesus would BLESS us in our marriage even though we were and ARE equal partners in life.
And the two of us are obedient to HIM only...
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
eleora-meria said...
Wendy said: "I've been telling my guy about the experiences of the QV movement, and he thanks me heartily for not assigning him the burden of being in charge all the time."Lol, that just made me chuckle a little. I have also been telling my guy about the Quiverfull movement and Patriarchy lifestyles. He responds very similarly to your guy.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
The Quiverfull lifestyle, however, portrays itself as one that is best (read: "most Godly") for *all women.* The suggestion that this is only about women's choices is dishonest.--Kristen
I don't think I am being dishonest. QF people are choosing to live within the confines of the Word of God.
When I surrender my will (voluntarily) to God's will, it is going to place limitations on me and force changes in my lifestyle. But it's a choice.
--Amy
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
Amy:
Amid counting all the stars in heaven and all the starving children and war-dead on Earth, God has set aside a little time each day to make sure you’ve put on the proper garment – in this case, a dress – as proof you’ve “died to self” through setting aside a different garment you liked better.
Do I understand you correctly?--Alyzza
Are you asking if God requires our obedience down to even the smallest details? The answer is yes. The Bible tells me I need to have even my thoughts in subjection to God.
--Amy
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
Oh by the way: All this legalistic nonsense seems to overshadow, what Jesus set out to do:To set the captives free, to reveal truth, in a long list of objectives. --Melissawith4kids
Hi Melissawith4kids, I am Amy with 4 kids.
)
Jesus Christ didn't set us free from the bondage of sin to live any way we want. He set us free from sin so we could be slaves of righteousness.
And striving to live in accordance with the Bible is not legalism. We don't do works to be saved. We do works because we have already been saved by God's grace. There is a difference.
--Amy
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
Okay, if this blog is about No Longer Quivering... I'm a bit confused--why do some many of the threads keep turning into debates about biblical headship? I'm thinking this does not seem to be what the authors set out to do.
Kristin
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
"And striving to live in accordance with the Bible is not legalism."
Amy--Could you please speak for yourself? It was certainly legalism for me.
Kristin
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Laura said...
Dear Amy,
I would have to agree with Kristin. Following the bible, the way that my spiritual head interpreted it for me and the family was very much legalism. I am not trying to paint all QF/P folks with the wide brush you speak of. I am only trying to tell my story as I lived it, as I saw it, as I felt it. If you are happy in your submissive lifestyle, then that is wonderful. I am so glad for you that you made a good choice and found a good man to live your life with. I sincerely thought I had done that too. But things became very convoluted and hard and I realized that I had not made a good choice and I couldn't stay there. I think that often the QF/P idea takes on the same attitude that I remember in Fundamental Christianity. That is to say that it's not okay with the Fundamentalist for a person to tell them, "I am glad that works for you. But it isn't right for me." The fundamentalist cannot accept that. At least I couldn't. (Don't want my brush to get too big here!) I totally believed that MY form of Christianity was right and therefore it was right for everyone. Those folks who rejected it (my entire family and most of my friends) were deceived. I looked down my self righteous nose at them. And I did the same when I became a part of the QF/P lifestyle. Someone said earlier in this thread that they had only 2 kids and felt judged by the QF ladies in their fellowship. I think most QF women would be unwilling to admit that they feel superior to their sisters with fewer children. But I think alot of them do. I certainly did. This same commenter said she noticed that these women often needed to give eachother pep talks to keep up the hard work and they seemed exhausted and overwhelmed. You are totally right there again my dear reader! Of course we were exhausted! How could we not be. I personally was trying to homeschool multiple children at my kitchen table with a toddler pulling the pots out of the cupboards and making a racket, much to his delight. I also was most likely nursing a small baby or pregnant again. I was trying to make lunch, teach a wee one to read and quiz another child on their times tables while correcting the math papers I had created that morning with a pen and paper. This after a night of interrupted sleep with my fretting baby/toddler/preschooler/child. I had to clean the school stuff all up so we could have lunch at the table we used for school. Before that we had breakfast there and couldn't begin to school until that was all cleared away. I know I am rambling on and on but yes..those women are overwhelmed and exhausted. And I was judgemental to boot! Now I am exhausted just writing about it!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
Amy said:
"I don't think I am being dishonest. QF people are choosing to live within the confines of the Word of God."
What QF people are actually doing is choosing to live within the confines of the Word of God as they choose to interpret it. And yes, I mean, as they choose. There are at least a million and one interpretations of Scripture out there. The problem with legalists is that they don't allow for anyone to have an interpretation that is different than theirs. They may say verbally that they do, but their judgment and condescension reveal otherwise.
Jennie
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
I've often thought the younger Duggar boys are more likely to be gay. It has been known that younger brothers are more likely to be gay and many thought it was because as the "babies" of the family they were more indulged. Now it is theorized that they are actually exposed to more estrogen in utero. The mother's body sees the male fetus as not belonging to her body. Over time the female body becomes more efficient at neutralizing this masculine invader. Or that is the current theory. I've always thought this must explain why I know so many gay men from Mormon backgrounds! Here is a link to the research study.
www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.fullCecilia
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
I would have to agree with Kristin. Following the bible, the way that my spiritual head interpreted it for me and the family was very much legalism.--Laura
Perhaps we don't agree on what constitutes legalism. I attend a church with strict standards (women don't wear pants, no makeup, no jewelry, no cutting the hair, etc), but we all believe we are saved by grace and grace alone.
Our standards would become legalistic only if we started preaching that one could not be saved apart from women wearing only dresses and skirts, forsaking wearing makeup, etc. and not solely by faith in Jesus Christ.
If you are happy in your submissive lifestyle, then that is wonderful. I am so glad for you that you made a good choice and found a good man to live your life with. --Laura
I never said anything about my choice of a husband or whether he is a good man or not. The simple truth is that it doesn't matter one way or the other, because I am called to live with him, to submit to him, and to love him as Christ loves me.
I would never have lasting joy and happiness if I relied on my circumstances to make me happy, because they are always changing. I have found that true joy comes from the Lord, not my circumstances. There is a constancy in that joy that can not be shaken in the deepest valley or in the most difficult circumstances, and I am so grateful for it.
--Amy
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
adventuresinmercy said...
In my opinion, Amy *has* to be happy, just as I *had* to be happy. We are/were obeying God. We have to be joyful about that, you know.
This is why no one on the outside had a clue about just how bad my life was like. Because I didn't have a clue either. I had to be joyful, I had to be cheerful, I had to be submissive, because I thought that was what God wanted for me, and "though He slay me, I will trust Him."
Only...come to find out, a lot of my assumptions about what God wanted were based on very very poor interpretations of the Bible, assumptions I'd brought in from my own cultural background, etc.
It's interesting, Amy, that you compare the woman's role to the suffering Christ. Ephesians 5 compares the *husbands* role to the suffering Christ. Funny how the "submissive wife" camp has turned that around and now it's the WIFE'S job to take on the role of Christ and "submit unto the death."
But that's actually not in the Bible at all. The one who's called to act like Christ is the husband, and he's called to emulate Christ's LOVE----which was a love that raised His bride up to a ruling position with Him ("seated in heavenly places in Christ," etc).
And as far as it being safe to submit to a Christian man because he's a Christian, I'm afraid that is not true. Just as many Christian men are abusive as secular men. Statistics don't lie.
I thought that because my husband was a pastor---and a well-loved one at that, it meant that he couldn't be abusive... I thought I was safe with him. I thought he'd never lie to me. Wrong. Totally wrong. He was abusive as soon as the marriage vows were said and it didn't end until I seperated from him 11 years later. All of it, interestingly enough, in God's name. My marriage reads like a cult experience, and the cult leader was my husband.
He loves God, still. He's just a really screwed up person. Screwed up people can love God, too. And God can love them. Just don't submit to them, unless you want your life sucked down the tubes.
Amy, it sounds to me that you are in the throws of the "romantic stage" of this movement. That's when it's the Answer, when it's What God Wants, when it's the Solution to all the craziness of the world, when it will Guarantee Godly Children, and all that stuff.
I get it. I was once there.
Interestingly, it's exactly what happened to the church in Galatia. They had a lot of hope in Christ PLUS a few little touches of Law. Not just Christ, but Christ Plus [fill in the blank].
It sounds good and it LOOKS good. It looks REALLY good. Paul didn't really have much good to say about it, though. He said that those who believed in Christ-Plus had fallen from grace. He said that the work of the Cross would be of "no effect" to them. Apparently, he thought it was a pretty bad deal.
He was dead right. It's a very VERY spiritually destructive way to live, but it's so tricky, because, for one thing it looks so incredibly GOOD and RIGHTEOUS and HOLY, and secondly, at least during the initial stages of it (which can take years), it FEELS so good, so right, so very very spiritual.
It always gets you in the end, though. That's the important thing to know. It always gets you in the end.
Concerned,
Molly
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Erika Martin - Stampin' Mama said...
Here's are some great studies for Amy to read that explains what it can look like to have a healthy and biblical egalitarian marriage:
tinyurl.com/d994uktinyurl.com/d2n4grtinyurl.com/c784f7tinyurl.com/ddugmnTuesday, April 14, 2009
madame said...
Laura,
Thanks for your honesty. In many ways, you sound just like my mother when I call her and tell her about how overwhelming it is to have 3 children that I'm mostly on my own with!
I'm grateful for mothers who say it as it is and aren't judgmental.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
Amy:
"I never said anything about my choice of a husband or whether he is a good man or not. The simple truth is that it doesn't matter one way or the other, because I am called to live with him, to submit to him, and to love him..."
What? Then why is that a choice? How is that a choice? What about that is good?
And what value does love have if it is an obligation? Love itself is not an obligation; love is greater than obligations. Love created because one -must- love or -should- love is not love at all. Love can't be forced.
--Tabby, also spectacularly concerned.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Laura said...
I attend a church with strict standards (women don't wear pants, no makeup, no jewelry, no cutting the hair, etc), but we all believe we are saved by grace and grace alone. --Amy
Dear Amy, if you and your fellow churchgoers believe in salvation by grace and grace alone, then why the "strict standards"??
I am with Molly on this one. I used to be exactly where you are. I think I understand the mindset and it wasn't very long ago that I would have taken up my Sword of the Lord and fought right beside you. But things happen. People wake up and see what has been going on around them and they may not like it. It took me 25 years. Vyckie not so long. (she's smarter than me!)
"I never said anything about my choice of a husband or whether he is a good man or not. The simple truth is that it doesn't matter one way or the other, because I am called to live with him, to submit to him, and to love him as Christ loves me."---Amy
I walked that road as well and put up with alot of things, excused alot of behavior and looked to God to fill my heart. All that did was let my husband off the hook. He was forever trying to convince me that I had to let God fill my needs, that he (Dale) couldn't possibly do it. I was made to feel guilty for having any human needs at all. I was made to feel like a failure as a Christian when I wanted my husband to sleep with me and just having God in the bedroom wasn't enough. Right now things are good with you. You are most likely young, strong and healthy not to mention fiercely loyal to your faith and your God. These are good things. I was just like you. Remain faithful, serve your God if that is what makes you truly happy.. but...if you ever wonder if there is life "out there" in the world...don't let guilt, bitterness and anger keep you in an unhealthy place. Just a word from a woman who bore 11 children for the Glory of God, submitted to her husband for the Glory of God, wore a head covering, dresses, no make up, no secular music, no tv, no movies, no alot of other things and felt like God either didn't care about her or didn't exist as she had thought He had.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
madame said...
Amy,
There are a few statements you made that I find concerning.
1. He gets his way, I get to please God. That is sad....
2. I never said anything about my choice of a husband or whether he is a good man or not. The simple truth is that it doesn't matter one way or the other, because I am called to live with him, to submit to him, and to love him as Christ loves me.What if you follow him down one bad decision you disagreed with, another, another, another... how long will it take until you become bitter and need a break from him? How guilty will you feel then?
I believe we are called to be helpmeets to our husbands, that is, a valuable, solid, strong helper, who provides her insight, and wants the best for the marriage. I don't believe submission equals obedience.
I would never have lasting joy and happiness if I relied on my circumstances to make me happy, because they are always changing. I have found that true joy comes from the Lord, not my circumstances. There is a constancy in that joy that can not be shaken in the deepest valley or in the most difficult circumstances, and I am so grateful for it.Amy, this is true. But I can tell you that when a woman is being crushed by her husband, she knows he is selfishly seeking his way, and he is betraying her trust, she would do well to stand up to him and say STOP. I've met women who said things very similar to what you are saying, and who seemed all but joyful, have let it slip how life is HARD, or have even had to leave their husbands for periods of time. What came out then was anything but joyful.
Sure, I believe that if you tap into that joy, and it's true joy as opposed to plastered-on-smile-joy, then you've definitely found something I don't know about.
Christianity of rules is a killjoy for me.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
an atheist in the Bible belt said...
I never said anything about my choice of a husband or whether he is a good man or not. The simple truth is that it doesn't matter one way or the other, because I am called to live with him, to submit to him, and to love him as Christ loves me.If you take your belief to its logical conclusion, then a woman abused to death, either physical or emotional, by a bad husband is a Christian martyr. If they believed as you do, Vyckie and Laura should have stayed with their husbands and continued to submit to a lifestyle that was killing them.
You're free to believe that this was the right thing to do and that Vyckie and Laura did the wrong thing, but don't act like you're the one who's being attacked when they say that these beliefs went to the roots of their abuse.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Jadehawk said...
Amy,
I haven't read the comments because of lack of time. My reference is merely the blog.
the blog is about two specific QF/P families, and the problems the QF/P system caused them. so even so, you're still wrong about this blog painting ALL QF/P families with the same brush.
Although the QF part can be debated, a woman is most definitely called to be meek and submissive and a keeper of the home in the Bible. And parents are instructed to train up their children for the Lord.Except, no. YOU feel you were called to do that because of your religion and your interpretation of the bible. Not all christian women interpret the bible your way, and not all women are christian. and it's not for you to tell them how you think they should live (and yes, it's YOU saying that, not God.)
If a person believes the Bible to be true, it makes sense that they would make their decisions based on the Bible.operative word is "if". besides, there's as many interpretations of the bible as there's Christians. so once again, it's all about personal choice. and the right to change your mind when it's not working out, as well.
I have never followed any movement. I just follow God through the Bible which, I am sure, is what QF people are trying to do as well.thank you for making my point for me. you can choose to live the way you want without QF/P ever existing, but women who are in it find it extremely difficult to make any choices at all, because they're told that there really is only one right choice.
It's not really about living any lifestyle, but about living in a way that is pleasing to the Lord. The Bible is the instruction manual that tells us how to do that. If God tells me to jump, I'm going to jump! If he tells me to humbly submit to my husband and be his helpmeet, that's what I am going to strive to do.actually, it is very much about lifestyles. the bible is a book. you choose a lifestyle that uses your particular interpretation of it as an "Instruction Manual" on how to live your life. My choice is to have a religion-free, truly egalitarian and completely non-legalistic (we're not even married) relationship, and I couldn't be happier in any other kind.
Who, exactly, is being forced into these relationships? It was pointed out in this blog that it is the woman who are often the ones who seek out this lifestyle, and they do so because they want to please God.and they are being denied the right to think otherwise! A woman who decides to be part of QF/P cannot later admit that she made a mistake, because she gave up the right to have an opinion, and there would be absolutely no support from the community to help her fix that mistake.
also, if you had bothered reading the link in Kaderin's post, you'd know that the daughters of this movement are actually not given a choice. they're trained like dogs to do exactly as their master tells them, or else they'll be punished.
And I've never seen complaining as a right. The Bible tells us to do all things without complaining (and that isn't just addressed to women).And this is EXACTLY the suppression I'm talking about. People have every right to complain when they're being mistreated, and to change their lives for the better. Complaints are what created democracy, freed the slaves, liberate women and children from abuse, and poor people from utter misery and opression.
you and your religion on the other hand, want people to be stuck in their misery, just because it's working out for YOU.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
madame said...
Amy, you said:
Perhaps we don't agree on what constitutes legalism. I attend a church with strict standards (women don't wear pants, no makeup, no jewelry, no cutting the hair, etc), but we all believe we are saved by grace and grace alone.
Our standards would become legalistic only if we started preaching that one could not be saved apart from women wearing only dresses and skirts, forsaking wearing makeup, etc. and not solely by faith in Jesus Christ.Out of sheer curiosity, how would your church react if a woman had her hair cut and wore jeans?
Are there any such regulations for the men?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Anonymous said...
"In my opinion, Amy *has* to be happy, just as I *had* to be happy. We are/were obeying God. We have to be joyful about that, you know."--Molly
I am truly happy. It's not fake or forced. Why is that so difficult for some people to believe?
"It's interesting, Amy, that you compare the woman's role to the suffering Christ. Ephesians 5 compares the *husbands* role to the suffering Christ. Funny how the "submissive wife" camp has turned that around and now it's the WIFE'S job to take on the role of Christ and "submit unto the death."--Molly
I don't recall saying anything about suffering for Christ. But to address that, we are all called to share in His sufferings. It's a privilege, actually.
"But that's actually not in the Bible at all. The one who's called to act like Christ is the husband"--Molly
No, we are all called to act like Christ.
"And as far as it being safe to submit to a Christian man because he's a Christian, I'm afraid that is not true. Just as many Christian men are abusive as secular men. Statistics don't lie."--Molly
Actually, we are instructed to submit to our husbands even if they aren't Christians and following God.
"He loves God, still. He's just a really screwed up person. Screwed up people can love God, too. And God can love them. Just don't submit to them, unless you want your life sucked down the tubes."--Molly
He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. John 12:25
"It always gets you in the end, though. That's the important thing to know. It always gets you in the end."--Molly
What, exactly, is going to get us in the end? Because your situation did not end well, I don't understand how that applies to everyone.
--Amy
Tuesday, April 14, 2009