Gah. Gah!! Just having lots of babies is one thing.. but the bit about the future he sees for his sons vs. daughters is just so.. so.. not on.

I feel so sorry for his children. Especially when he basically says he feels his job is to get his daughters ready for marriage, an early marriage. And they are going to state college over his dead body. (Because god forbid they be exposed to anything other than his teachings).

A lot of those kids will reject his teachings. I have known a lot of people that grew up in fundamental religious homes that end up rejecting the teachings of their families of origin. If Canada can turn everybody liberal, so can the USA.

I wish he'd just be honest and say, "Should I choose to fuck my wife again and she gets pregnant, I will be thrilled."
I'm sure God does a *lot* but he's not solely responsible for your every move and decision, buddy.

Can someone explain to me why pre and post natal care is part of God's plan and birth control isn't? The woman they interview basically admits that this many pregancies would be much more dangerous if it weren't for modern medicine. If she didn't have access to good medical care she wouldn't have been able to have this many kids cause childbirth might well have killed her by the fifth or sixth kid. Why is artificially inflating your fertility (by making the pregnancies easier on your body) any more natural than birth control!!

These Quiverfull people are idiots. That crazy mother says that "it's the way things should be." My ass! The world is horribly overpopulated as it is, and these loons are just making it worse. Not only are they contrubuting to overpopulation, but they're also contributing to the idea that all women are good for are to be brood mares, AND they're filling the world with that many more religious nutjobs people to oppose reproductive rights. Shame on these people.

She says "God designed us to have children," but somehow I don't think he was thinking mass production on the scale these folks are thinking of.
Just because humans are capable of having a lot of babies doesn't mean they should. Our infant mortality rates are surely lower now than they were in Biblical times, when you might have 8 kids but only have 1 actually survive to adulthood.
The same principle applies when we tell people to spay and neuter their pets, but we don't see anyone saying that's against God's will--because we know if we didn't, we'd be up to our hips in them.

Sigh. People are so stupid. And the stupid ones are breeding.

I'm usually pretty tolerant of religious beliefs, but... If someone read a book and then said to you, "I read this book yesterday, and I completely and utterly believe every word of it, and have decided to allow it to dictate how I live my life, and reshape my entire perception of reality" you'd considered them insane (like that guy who shot John Lennon because of Catcher in the Rye.)
But if you say that book is the Bible, suddenly it's all perfectly sensible? That's always annoyed me.
For the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with having beliefs, but I think this kind of verbatim reading of "holy" books almost always leads to badness.

"She says "God designed us to have children," but somehow I don't think he was thinking mass production on the scale these folks are thinking of.
Just because humans are capable of having a lot of babies doesn't mean they should. Our infant mortality rates are surely lower now than they were in Biblical times, when you might have 8 kids but only have 1 actually survive to adulthood."

Too true. It's also the case in plenty of modern-day hunter-gatherer societies that women have one child every five years because they breastfeed for longer (not that that's a foolproof method, but you see what I'm saying.) The argument about what is or is not "natural" is bunkum.

I am scared to watch it. honestly i am. i am pretty sure i will end up very mad, and just really despise those people even more. don't you feel helpless when you watch stuff like this?

You know, I grew up in the conservative Christian home schooling movement (K-12) and many of my friends were (at least informally) involved in the QuiverFull movement. And it's true, a lot of us drift far, far from that type of thinking as we grow up. I'm still very much a Christian, but I'm also in college (oh the horrors) majoring in Gender and Women's Studies...funny how life turns out sometimes. ;)

What we need is to figure out a way to punish-- I mean, administer appropriate consequences for parents who have more than X number of kids, without punishing the poor kids.

I say this as the oldest of eight and knowing that every child suffers for parental attention with each additional sibling. No, growing up in a large family was not a "wonderful" experience-- just really, really noisy.

Is it just me or did the mother seem defensive and terrified? She looked like a trapped rabbit.

"What we need is to figure out a way to punish-- I mean, administer appropriate consequences for parents who have more than X number of kids, without punishing the poor kids."

Should we then administer people who have less than X number of kids?

"No, growing up in a large family was not a "wonderful" experience-- just really, really noisy."

Growing up in a small family was not wonderful to me at all. It would have been great if I had a brother or two. Even now, I come home to empty walls. I really don't enjoy the empty space. Plus, I get home late. Basically, watch TV for a couple of hours and then go to bed.

This is a wealthy family. I wonder how Daddy would feel about the poor -- who would then turn to social services and welfare to help raise their dozen children -- following his example. Or would he see it only as a privilege of the wealthy white man who God obviously favors?

It scares me that these people, who don't mind a genocide in the name of their god, are threatened by a little family planning. How small minded must they be that their all powerful, all loving (supposedly) (except the gays! and women who wear pants!) God can't deal with a condom?

I mean, come on. Show the deity a little credit.

Conservative Christianity is a tool used by the folks in power so that they can stay in power. One of the rules of power as that you need followers. If you can keep a large number of your followers opressed and creating MORE followers, all the better. It's helpful to chose an all ready opressed subset of society (here, women) and preach that the opression of that subset is the "natural order." That way, you can gain the attention and possibly approval of the non-critical thinking masses. Demand obediance and declare that anyone who doesn't follow some basic tenet (something that gives you someone to demonize) is "evil," which means your followers MUST not support them.

If they weren't using Christianity, the cult-like nature of all of this would be SO clear. But then, it seems like history teaches that as good as religion can be for liberation, it works better for opression...

As a liberal Christian, I am pretty sure that Jesus didn't preach enslavement of anyone by anything - that would include enslavement of me by my uterus. Just...yuck.

put stuff on your walls, get some furniture for that space, and make some damn friends. i grew up in a small family knights 13 and it hasnt effected my life now, outside of not having a load of brothers and sisters. using it as an excuse for current behavior really is just that, an excuse and an easy way out. i am not sure what you are getting at by saying you get home late and watch TV, that seems entirely unrelated.

i agree, i know many people that grew up in large families susan, and many times it was at the expense of the other children. there is just no need unless you are trying to staff a farm. each additional child not only takes away attention, but resources from the other children as well. times of changed, and with that so should the size of families. not to mention, after a certain point, that much childbirth is just abuse to a woman.

Um, oppressed - and to think I write for a living. God decided I should be a bad spellar todae (better than breeding-stock tho')

knight13, I agree with Katie, those are your problems now and unless your parents kept you in the house for all of your life you are the reason you have no social skills, it's not because you didn't have eight brothers and sisters growing up.

It's already been touched on but I really did love the squirming of the father as the interviewer asked him about his plan for his "daughters". Even though he doesn't even want his sons to go to college,--he'll give in to their college demands if he HAS to--it's painfully obvious that his girls will be married off by the time they turn 18, if not before. You can almost see him rubbing his foot in the dirt as he figits back and forth. We've talked about this before with the quiverfull/evangelicals not sending their kids out into the world least they get a taste of freedom and not come back. Hell, even the Amish let their children have Ram Springa where they go out into the world as adults and then make the decision as to what kind of life they will lead. Even though it's still kinda slanted in their parent's favor, they still offer them a chance to fully accept the lifestyle they want knowing there are other choices out there. That doesn't seem so with these groups, they want to keep their kids closed off from any and all other life choices, forcing them to stay within their system. Join a gym or take a class or something.

I also found it amusing that the father also had to preface his answers with things like "I know this isn't the popular opinion..." or "I know this is going to upset a lot of people..." Why does he care? If his conviction is so devout why does he feel the need to almost apologize for his beliefs?

And though I didn't want to comment because I figured I was reading what I wanted into her reactions, the mother really didn't seem to be happy about it at all. Maybe she just wasn't happy with the interview itself and was nervous. (and before someone brings up "well why would she do it then?" go back and watch it one more time.)

Sorry about that last line, "join a gym or something" it was meant to adress knight13 but it ended up after the wrong paragraph.

"As a liberal Christian, I am pretty sure that Jesus didn't preach enslavement of anyone by anything - that would include enslavement of me by my uterus. Just...yuck."

Of course, enslavement is more of an oxymoron. Depending on what your references are then enslavement could be the point in which you die. You have no choice but to die. In that sense you are a slave to a determined outcome. Regardless, of your will towards it.

Owning something is then trumped by this. Since, we are going to die, we can't own anything. In the end we can't even own our own bodies never mind someone else's.

Feeling enslaved by being pregnant is a matter of perspective. From my view; you are a bigger slave if you didn't have children because in the end there is no choice for you. If you had children then there is the continued choice through your children.

Katie, friends are a little different than brothers. I know that my brother would be more willing to sacrifice for me than any friend. Blood is thicker than water so to speak. I don't agree with you when you say the resources are taken away from the kids. That is short term thinking. If I had one brother then my assets would be at least double of what they are now. Not, taking away from my brother but by building together. From my point of view, I would generate about 4 times more in assets with the help of my brother than I would on my own.

I agree with Ayla.

The mother has been brutalized. Her responses were keying on the language her husband used, down to word choice.

IMO, that is not a woman with sufficient energy to give a lot of love. And that lack of love, which leads to an absence of the kind of guiltless emotional connectedness the best kind of parental love instills, is why kids like these drift away from the family over time.

Only two emotions. Love and fear. I don't see much evidence of love in that family.

"knight13, I agree with Katie, those are your problems now and unless your parents kept you in the house for all of your life you are the reason you have no social skills, it's not because you didn't have eight brothers and sisters growing up."

OK. How do you measure socials skills and what makes my chances better in life by having 2 friends rather than two borthers or sisters?

"I know that my brother would be more willing to sacrifice for me than any friend....If I had one brother then my assets would be at least double of what they are now. Not, taking away from my brother but by building together."

So speaks an only child. Pull up a chair and I'll tell you about me and my sister one of these days. Believe you me, we would barely cross the street for each other, and building up assets together? Only if we ever bothered to figure out how to have a conversation for longer than three minutes and to agree on any kind of priorities in life.

Obviously my sister and I are an extreme example, but your fantasy of self-sacrificing loyal love that trumps all else is equally extreme, and in my experience, judging not only from myself but also my many friends with siblings, rather less realistic.

knights... do you think that just bc you have a brother (and ahem...what about if you had a sister?) you combined assets and go into business with him and generally attach yourself to his hip every step of the way? generally, siblings go in their own directions and i dont know many people that would want to combine assets with their siblings just so they have more. really, i dont know where you are getting this. that is just totally false thinking. let me assure you that i know MANY people that cannot stand their siblings, and have friends who would lay down their lives for them much quicker then their sibling would.

honestly, and not to be too blunt, i dont think you have the slightest idea of what having a sibling entails in reality.

in any case, i just think the entire family in that video seemed not so happy.

not to mention knights, your skewed idea of raising children. you do not continue to make choices through your children. each child is an entirely separate entity, and to think that somehow you continue to make choices through them is am extremely false way of looking at childrearing. yikes.

Yes, I still help my sister a lot. If she has difficulty with anything or needs money, she knows where to run to and get it. Right, to her brother.

I completely, disagree with you. You talk about love but have an easier time detaching yourself from your loved ones. I have to see my sister or parents almost everyday. They always come first before anything else.

katie, when you die you don't make choices since your hardware is not functioning. But, your kids can make choices. That's what is meant by continuing to make choices.

That is not an extremely false way of looking into things. That is logic.

wait, so, you think your life would be better if you had a brother? you clearly already have a sister? and who said i have an easy time detaching myself from my loved ones, my sister is my best friend in the entire world, but i dont look at her as either A) the reason for me to have a fullfilling social life or B) someone i can build assets with. if i didnt have her.

you know, what you are saying isnt even making any sense, so i am going to go ahead and assume that you are either a troll or you are drunk or something. one point simply does not follow the other, and its not based in reality at all.

i dont think you need a brother, but i think you may need a therapist or something.

Actually - people should be able to have large or small families - this should never be regulated -that's something that facsists do. It's nice to have siblings, but not required to have good life.

The thing I would like to understand about the Quiverfull folks - they want a HUGE family - okay -why don't they ADOPT a bunch of kids? I mean, aren't these the same folks that claim that adoption is a 100% cure for abortion? Shouldn't they be helping out w/ that?

Well, knights, judging from this: "Even now, I come home to empty walls. I really don't enjoy the empty space. Plus, I get home late. Basically, watch TV for a couple of hours and then go to bed," you're the one who started the complaint-fest about how having a small family scarred you for life and you stare at empty walls and all. Now it sounds like you see your sister and parents every day? So what's the problem?

"i dont think you need a brother, but i think you may need a therapist or something. "

No need to get emotional about it. I could say the same thing about you from the set of standards that I live by. It is a matter of "logic" or "opinion" from both sides dictating to the other.

"Now it sounds like you see your sister and parents every day? So what's the problem?"

I want kids. I know it won't be with some of the women here since kids are somewhat of an enslavement to them. *waits for emotional reactions*. :)

Uh-huh. You want kids. And that has to do with your small family how?

what does that have to do with having a brother? you really are just making no sense. were you going to combine your assets with a brother and have kids with him? jeeeez

You ladies are stuck on your view. Having a brother would have made it easier for me to get the ball rolling financially.

I would have liked to have a larger family.

Having more kids has to do with a small family because the more kids you have the bigger your family becomes. I don't know why is this hard for you ladies to understand.

"you really are just making no sense. were you going to combine your assets with a brother and have kids with him?"

Heh, katie. That really would be hot, live quiverfull action!

Speaking as an only child married to an only child, this irrational belief that siblings would have made our childhoods easier is a crock.

Just so we're not painting all only children with the same brush.

"I want kids. I know it won't be with some of the women here since kids are somewhat of an enslavement to them. *waits for emotional reactions*. :)"

Dude - kids ARE an enslavement. They are little balls of need and greed who are utterly dependent upon you , at every stage of their childhood, for what is most important to them at that time. Be it food and physical warmth at first, challenge and re-inforcement as they grow, and finally emotional connectness and support.

There is precisely zero rational justification for having kids. If you are having kids for reason X, then you're saying something that's really about you, not them.

Um, knights, many of us here HAVE kids. I love my child beyond all reason, and would love to have another and maybe adopt one after that. But I don't want to be enslaved by my ability to reproduce (i.e. forced to have a multitude of children because some power-monger's "God" won't let me use birth control). Isn't that what we came her to discuss?

"Having a brother would have made it easier for me to get the ball rolling financially."

Well, as I've said, this sounds like pure fantasy to me. What if your brother was a ne'er-do-well? Or got laid off? Or was just selfish? Or was hit by a bus and was on disability for the rest of his life? Or followed his dream of being an artist? Or, for that matter, a social worker?

The number of siblings you have has nothing to do with the number of children you can have if you want to. I don't know why that is so hard for you sexists to understand.

"you really are just making no sense. were you going to combine your assets with a brother and have kids with him?"

You are again going to emotional route and not following logic. You are bent on what was your point again?

I don't mean no offense to gays but yuck.

"There is precisely zero rational justification for having kids. "

I don't agree with you, Paul. You're positing that the parent-child relationship is a one-way street, and while it begins that way, very, very soon, children learn to provide emotional support and connectedness back--at levels commensurate with their age and abilities, of course.

I will start respecting the name Quiverfull when they start loading their children onto bows and firing them at medieval castle keeps.

And who let the Vulcan in here?

"The number of siblings you have has nothing to do with the number of children you can have if you want to. I don't know why that is so hard for you sexists to understand."

Nope, the previous post to that was making an arguement about resources which in turn I replied with having a brother to ME would have been more beneficial in terms of RECOURCES.

The number of kids you have is directly proportianl to the growth of your family. There is no mystery about it. No need to add other coments to it.

no, i want to know why you not having a brother and being lonely bc of it has anything to do with you having children? you simply are not making any sense whatsoever.

"...very, very soon, children learn to provide emotional support and connectedness back--at levels commensurate with their age and abilities, of course."

I agree EG. But this isn't a rational reason to have them.

Erich Fromm once said -- and I find these words to live by -- that being loved is so easy as to be trivial. But loving someone else is that hardest thing we do.

I can't help that my kids love me any more than they can dilute my love for them. But the energy that love takes out of me is - I find - utterly overwhelming. It is an enslavement. No rational person would willingly enter into it.

But we're not a rational species.

Well, yes, supposing that you have a self-sacrificing, utterly loyal brother who makes a significant amount of money and wants to share it with you, as opposed to, say, spending it on his own kids. Which, as I've said, is supposing an awful lot.

Given that it doesn't seem like your sister, from what you say, is doing this, I'm unclear as to why you imagine a brother would. My friends with brothers don't have this experience.

katie, go back and see what the brother reply was. You were comenting about losing resources if you had more siblings.

Then you go and add other comments to make it if I am not making sense. Go back to what I replied to you.

"There is precisely zero rational justification for having kids. If you are having kids for reason X, then you're saying something that's really about you, not them."

Justification for having kids is continuity(X).

If I'm having kids for reason X, then in the end it becomes about them.

Ah, Paul, there's where we disagree. I subscribe to the theories outlined by the Wellesley Stone Center theorists, which posit that emotional connection and support are as vital to our existence as food and shelter, and thus satisfying our emotional needs for relationships is an eminently rational thing to do.

When it comes right down to it, I disagree with Fromm. In my opinion, both loving and being loved are important and difficult and utterly valuable beyond words--and being loved is not always easy, at least not for everybody.

I suppose that one thing I'm very uncomfortable about is the sharp division in our rhetoric between "emotional" and "rational"--it's a division that almost always privileges "rational," even when we don't necessarily want it to (and I don't think you do), and one that gets mapped onto gender (obviously), and one that overlooks the very, very real benefits that emotion provides.

"From my view; you are a bigger slave if you didn't have children because in the end there is no choice for you. If you had children then there is the continued choice through your children."

knights, you've completely COMPLETELY lost me here. You can't possibly think that having children gives you MORE choices in life. A GOOD parent, a RESPONSIBLE parent, understands that having kids is not fun and games. It's not a built-in person who has to love you (in fact, a lot of people -- most, even -- go through at least part of their lives hating their parents in some form). It is a BIG HUGE GIANT FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY and one you should NOT take lightly. People who choose to have kids and who actually do a halfway decent job of raising them are amazing people. They should get a medal. It's not easy, and it is NOT freedom and it does NOT give you more choices. IF you have kids, you don't get to live for YOU anymore. Your life for YOU is over. You live for your kids now, period.

If that's the choice you make, good for you. But I cannot fathom how you reached the conclusion that having kids gives you MORE choices... and, frankly, if you honestly believe this, I hope you don't have kids until you understand what this entails. I don't have kids. I have a fucking DOG and it's a major responsibility, and one I take seriously because I am a responsible pet owner. If having a DOG cramps my lifestyle a bit (or, sometimes, a lot), how much more will having kids limit my choices???

As for family relations, I have two younger siblings, a brother and a sister. I would say we get along very well, on the whole. We have our arguments, but we spend every Christmas together, because we ENJOY it. I get along phenomenally well with my mom, and I get along all right with my dad. Back home is one of my favorite places to be.

But the fact of the matter is that I live a charmed life. I acknowledge this fact. Even in my close extended family, the relationships are not good at all. Two of my mom's sisters are barely on speaking terms. My cousin gets along with her dad but despises her mother (fortunately they are divorced) and some of her aunts/uncles (and only gets along with about half of us cousins). My mom tolerates her mother, but only because she feels an obligation to do so. My sister hates our dad and only speaks to him if she can't avoid it.

Big families don't equal sanguinity. My father, an only child, gets along better with his parents than my mom gets along with her family of seven. It works out for some people, but simply having MORE people in the family is no recipe for success. Indeed, the more individuals you inject into ANY situation, the likelier you are to have discord. And again, I say this as someone who gets along with virtually everyone in her family, in spite of the fact that they don't all get along with each other.

Gabrielle, you commented a while back and said you grew up in the conservative home-schooling movement. Small world -- so did I! We were so into the movement that we got involved with a group even more "out there" than your run-of-the-mill fundies... girls should wear skirts and have long hair, rock music will damage your heart (no joke), secular universities and public schools are the devil's playground, etc. My sister and I are now avowed feminists (Dad even called me a commie once) and Mom is slowly seeing the light. My brother's vaguely right-leaning moderate but mostly thinks everyone's an idiot. Dad's the only one who's still really conservative but at least he no longer thinks I'm a whore for wearing short skirts, even to church. Like you, I've managed to keep hold of the valuable aspects of my faith, while rejecting the bastardization of my faith. I'm proud of being a Christian and I don't think it should be the badge of shame it's become thanks to the wingnuts.

I think it is quite true that both loving and being loved is vital for everyone. children (who often turn into sociopaths or serverly stunted in growth, among other things) who have been very unfortunately raised without loving contact are a testament to that fact.

ok knights, i just dont understand why you think that people turn out better if they have lots of siblings, or just a brother, as you are saying. its just not making much sense.

"I don't mean no offense to gays but yuck."

Um, how on earth is that NOT offensive? I'm not gay and I'M offended. I mean, um... hey knights, no offense, but the thought of you having sex is yucky. Yucky yuck yuck.

(see? It's offensive)

Also, I forgot to mention this in my long-winded post above (almost done guys, I swear). Why are you fixated on the gender of your sibling? My brother's a good guy but I can tell you FOR A FACT that I'll be helping him out financial LONG before he helps me out. This is for reasons both financial and personal. I'm a big sister, which makes me feel in some ways like a second mom. I want my brother and sister to succeed and if I can, I want to help them do it. This in spite of me being a girl and all.

But by all means, keep on insulting the sisters on this board. It's entertaining if nothing else.

Possibly EG. I'm a mathematician by trade, which means I do impose a very strict division between the emotional and the rational. But as much as I might want or desire a result to be true, rational demands trump my emotional response. Yet - as I am clumsily trying to articulate - I'm the first to admit that reason has human limits. Emotion motivates rationality, I suspect.

On Fromm: perhaps some definitions help. His notion of love is absolute. It's unconditional, subjective, and we have no control (or possibility of control) over those who tender their love for us. Thus it is easy to be loved in the sense that it requires no effort on our part. Sometimes, of course, being loved is unwelcome, and Fromm would not say it's 'easy' in the sense you use the word. Your subjective experience of 'being loved' might be 'difficult', but it's not your moral or emotional responsibility.

Loving, on the other hand, because it commits us utterly, even ovewhelms us, makes enormous demands on us. Fromm draws that contrast between 'love' in the abstract, and 'being loved' and 'loving' the subjective experiences.

I dunno. Hope this helps clarify matters some. I'm not sure that the Wellesley ideas are that much different. But they apply an (oddly) rational and objective frame to the question.

Troll McNutso wrote:

Having a brother would have made it easier for me to get the ball rolling financially.

You can have one of mine. After you've bailed him out of jail a few times and he's mooched off you for a couple of years, we'll check back in.

[BTW, my other siblings are all great people, but none of them have benefited me financially in the least. You're delusional.]

More from Nutso:

Having more kids has to do with a small family because the more kids you have the bigger your family becomes.

Thanks for the lesson in logical thinking here. Coming from a large family, at least in my experience, and in these times, almost guarantees you don't want a lot of kids. It was a looooong time before my parents had more grandkids than they had kids. You yourself are an example contrary to your theory: you come from a small family yet want a large one. See how it works?

what if they were african american, and/or the woman was a single mom? would their be any sort of celebration for this family then? I recently saw a tlc show were a quiverful family had a house built for them. How are they more deserving than anyone else.

Sorry to break up the fun, kids, but I've called Knight's mommy to come pick him up. Say bye now.

tabitha, this is made even sadder by the fact that the Quiverful women, taught as they are that their own sexual desires are of the devil, would have to beat themselves afterwards for thinking the dirty thoughts they were almost certainly thinking about that construction working Adonis, Ty Pennington.

Bye Bye knight.

Next time you discuss ANYTHING with a woman in future please do her the favour of never telling her that she is too busy being emotional and not logical.

It isn't big or clever and is a sure sign you just aren't really listening to her.....

tabitha-i totally agree. its like when those people who use fertility drugs have 6 children all at once get lifetime supplies of whatever they need, and college scholarships set up for them. so obnoxious.

and you are right LF, these women and their decree from god to have as many children as possible has nothing to do with their sexuality, which is almost certainly condemned. you know he just makes her lie there while he has his way.

Go away and actually do work and by the time you come back trolls have been drop kicked off the boards. I hate to miss the drop kicking.

If someone has already brought this up, then sorry. But just once I'd LOVE for an interviewer to actually ask these people face to face how they can use fertility drugs and condone birth control and whether or not they understand that our medical advances are what's helping them and that these women and a good portion of their children would have died had this been even 50 years ago.

Sorry to break up the fun, kids, but I've called Knight's mommy to come pick him up. Say bye now.

Awww, and I was just about to offer him two or three of my brothers if he'd go away. See how useful they really are.

Now we are back on topic, does anyone here know how these folks justify not adopting their giant boatload of kids? I mean,how can you claim adoption "cures" abortion and then go "quiverfull" (a word metaphor that makes me feel all icky inside) and not adopt any kids?

I really worry about the children in these quiverfull families. I can tell you so many special stories about both of my children; I know their personalities, their likes and dislikes. I know who they are as people. I love noticing the differences and similarities between my children. I can't imagine that happens in a quiverfull family.

When you have one child per year for 16 years, how are you able to remember anything special about each one? How can you really get to know them as individuals?

If you've ever seen the TLC/Discovery Channel special on the Duggar family, you would see that these children are more like factory workers than family members. The mother only stays with the youngest child while he or she is nursing. The rest of the younger children are paired off in a "buddy-system" with the older ones. The older child is responsible for helping to feed, dress, and attend to the needs of their "buddy". All the children are given "stations" which is really just code for "extensive chores the damn parents should be doing". How would you like to be 11 or 12 and be responsible for doing the laundry for 18 people? That's what one of the daughters does. All of the children took part in building the family home, but the two oldest boys have done the most work over the past four years - everything from steel installing support beams to putting shingles on the roof of mommy and daddy's dream home. And with all the money they saved by having their kids build the house, they were able to hire an interior decorator. Nice, huh?

What's worse is that even though the children never get any quality individual time or care from their parents, they also never seem to get any time alone with anyone outside their family. The children are not allowed to date and are not allowed to be alone with a member of the opposite sex - to protect their purity, of course.

It's just so sad, and I don't think the outcome will be quite what the parents' expect. The children seem happy enough in front of the cameras, and they may very well be right now. In a few years, however, these children are going to go out into the world and they are going to realize that they were denied the opportunity to just be children. I would be willing to bet money that most of them will eventually resent their parents and possibly their siblings. I doubt they will retain their parents' religious beliefs. And I wouldn't be surprised to find that many of the boys have mentally and physically abusive relationships with women and the girls end up with abusive men.

Man, I wish I could have been here earlier, I would have loved to have a piece of knight. Ah well.

Tink, the only thing I can think of that could be anywhere near these people's excuse for not adopting is because their adopted kids wouldn't be of their genes, well more specifically, HIS genes. Who cares who the mother is, it just matters that it's HIS genes. Clearly God is telling them that they have to have as many sons as Abraham... and they all have to be his, not the unfortunate orphans who deserve a taste of the good rich life.

Hell, they could adopt me if they wanted to, I'd love to have everything I ever wanted at daddy's expense.

I have an older sister and a younger brother. My husband is the oldest of 5, and he tells me horror stories of his childhood.
He and I have one son, who is going to turn 2 in Feb. He talks about having more, but I've already informed him that we're not having any more. We can't afford it and, well, I've managed to survive my life restrictions so far, I don't think I could have another child and deal with the late nights and screaming and fussiness and gas. I love Tyr with every fiber of my being. He has made me want to be a better person, and I have grown up a lot, even being forced to do it, because of him. I owe him for that. It makes me feel good (even though sometimes it's aggravating) when he cries if I leave the room, or wants to shower me with his slobbery toddler kisses when I'm in the middle of a phone call.

But I know everything about him. I know he doesn't like mustard and that he loves tuna. I might be able to keep up with another one or two kids, but after that? Heck no. I don't see the logic behind having more than 3 kids. There are times I can understand not wanting to have any at all. But I enjoyed my pregnancy, and I felt really good about the direction my life took. It's a wonderful feeling, but I can understand not everyone wanting to experience it.
However, these people are clearly mad and need a therapist. They need a non religious doctor who is going to tell them truth they need to hear: you are destroying your body. I don't think they understand the effects pregnancy has on the body to begin with... and they are just magnifying the damage with each pregnancy. I admit to not watching the video, but I get a gist of what is going on. It just makes me mad when people hide behind their deity as a reason to do things that are clearly so insane.

Ah, I feel better now. Sorry it was so long.

My last post should have been "condem" birth control. I apologize for any confusion.

Ugh. I just watched the video. The wife looks very depressed, the husband looks creepy. "I consider myself the loving HEAD of this family." (emphasis his)

They want a HUGE family - okay -why don't they ADOPT a bunch of kids? I mean, aren't these the same folks that claim that adoption is a 100% cure for abortion?

As you saw from the video, it's all about manhood which involves spreading seed and perpetuity.

I just loved three things about this video...

1) The wife didn't seem to know why exactly she believed in this stuff, and did come off as a scared rabbit during her individual interview

2) the dad's comments about the futures of his children (well, sons, really...)

3) the dad's comments about abstinence - "NOT have SEX? Well FUCK THAT, I don't care what my wife's body goes through!"

Also, I agree that knight13 was not making any fucking sense whatsoever and needs to go back to remedial English and learn how to write an essay. :D ...Or at least short answer.

I just loved three things about this video...

1) The wife didn't seem to know why exactly she believed in this stuff, and did come off as a scared rabbit during her individual interview

2) the dad's comments about the futures of his children (well, sons, really...)

3) the dad's comments about abstinence - "NOT have SEX? Well FUCK THAT, I don't care what my wife's body goes through!"

Also, I agree that knight13 was not making any fucking sense whatsoever and needs to go back to remedial English and learn how to write an essay. :D ...Or at least short answer.

I guess I will never be able to get my head around people saying that one thing is an answer to something the see as a problem, then not doing it. If I was SO sure that something was the root of great evil, and I was SO sure that I knew what action would counteract the evil, well then, as a Christian, I would be OBLIGATED to take that action. I suppose that logic only works for the conservatives when they are attacking health-care providers, not when they are considering how to add members to their families...

*sigh* I hate that my faith is more associated with the actions of these folks, than, say Jimmy Carter.

I kinda liked knight. He was like one of the wacky loser side-kick guys in a Stephanie Plum mystery - those guys who have no clue that their problems are their own fault. But then, I don't guess that's what he was going for!

Anyway - quiverfull.....quiverfulll...it's still making me feel like I've been slimed. If I had felt I was ready to have kids at 20, I might have ended up with several. But then, maybe not - it is awfully nice to be able to spend one-on-one time with my toddler. I hate the idea that I would have to guess which child was screaming (in a language that sounds like Martian) in his sleep....

McNutso above needs a major reality check. Ya know how my grandmother's 4 brothers "helped" their own mother and 5 sisters after greatgrandfater died? They sold the family farm, bought lucrative commercial properties for themselves, had their own mother go live with and be taken care of by her female children, and never gave them ONE DIME. Take that one to the bank. And ever since, oh about her 6th child, great grandma's lungs were so bad that my grandmother was NEVER able to sit on her lap or rest her head on her own mother's chest. She was raised by her sisters, all struggling school teachers in Depression era north Florida. Yup - they were just on easy street because of those brothers, I tell you.

Ah, but you see, bmc, the brothers stuck together, pooling their resources to help one another. So screw all those women.

The brothers did not have a choice - they inherited the land together so they had to get on the same page to sell the land and turn out their mother. When they came to my grandmother's funeral (those that did not drink themselves to an early death and most of the estate up with it), I felt they should have crawled down in the hole with the coffin, but that's just how things were then - few people batted an eyelash. An orphan at 13, my grandmother was teaching school by 17, and after she was widowed young, she never remarried and had only 2 children. Nor did any of the sisters have more than 1 child. Reality is just the best form of birth control (unless you are Andrea and Paul Yeats' kids, then the lesson comes too late).

I was being sarcastic.

Hello Earth creatures. I am Mordoc From the Future (everyone back home just calls me Mordac, because there, I'm from the present). I have come back in time to give a followup to everyone about the Carpenter family.

The Mom, Devon, in her elder years, resented Ken for having to live her life through him and her inability to stand up for herself. She suffered deep depression in her 50's and 60's and couldn't get out of bed through her final years. Ken hired a Mexican caregiver for her, because he was unable to do it himself and upon Devon's death in 2039, he was unable to care for himself, not having the skills to cook and having spent all his money on her health. None of the children would support him and rarely visit. He died in 2043 after 2 years in a public housing nursing home.

Of the children, David and Megan both stopped speaking to their parents when they revealed to them that they were homosexual. Ken organized a photo-burning rally at his local church to mark the occasion. They are both hapily living with their partners in the New York City area.

Cole and Logan, after battling drug addictions for much of their early adult lives, now are happily married and Logan was recently promoted to Assistant Manager at his local Payless Shoe Store; the first 42 year old to earn that distinction in the greater Helena area.

Cole committed suicide in 2019 after battling Bipolar disorder in which his church recommended he pray more.

Sue and Betsy both attended college, against their parent's wishes. They paid for it largely themselves, being inelligable for scholarships because they never attended a public or private school. Betsy works at a Planned Parenthood location as a counselor and Sue writes for the local paper.

Ken and Devon never met any of their grandchildren.

Oh and we still have yet to have a female president. Sorry, almost forgot.

Thats why I ahte religion. As long as the Bible, Quaran, ect exist so will female oppression.

Perhaps there ought to be a movement that rescues these girls from this kind of belief system. Where a young American women is deprived of attending college is castrating, and inhibiting her future self-reliance. Just like in polygamy.

also, thats why you dont make a man the 'head' of anything-he'll just screw it up-like this country.

nads, while I understand the frustration of seeing young women grow up in repressive homes, there is still hope for them. Some of us manage to make it out okay -- and even retain our faith while incorporating it into a more realistic life. The problem isn't religion; the problem is that too many people are power-hungry and will use any means possible to subordinate others.

Mordac, I'm so disappointed we have had no female president. Whatever happened to my campaign in 2016?

Have we at least gotten a minority into office?

TLF, let's start with baby steps: have we even managed to get a non-WASP in office?

EG, does JFK count? Wasn't he Catholic? (You did say baby steps.)

That was the weirdest troll I've ever seen. I still can't wrap my head around his argument, and I have two brothers. My boyfriend also has two brothers. Since we have four brothers between us, and one brother means four times the income, we should be making 16 times as much as we do now! I am appalled that we are not! (Except that I'm an evil, money-sucking sister.)

I had a friend in college who had 11 siblings, and the youngest was about six months old, so her parents were very likely not done yet. I got a very good idea of what kind of family they that whenever I heard him call home, and a sibling answered. He always said, "Hello, may I speak to Mrs.____?" so he wouldn't have to talk to his sibling. I always thought it was the most fucked up thing ever.

And nads, please don't needlessly pick on the religious. My mother is very religious, and always tells me not to have more children than I have hands. "Two is enough. You want a career so you don't have to be dependent on some man who could mistreat you if you're not self-sufficient."

If we didn't have religion, the crazies would find some other way to oppress everyone. Capitalism, anyone?

Yes, definitely, JFK. And I don't want to seem greedy, but...let's have another by Morac's time!

That was really creepy. Anyone else get a little sickened by what seemed like a physical freudian slip of the mom when discussing who the head of the house was? It sure seemed like a possible indicator of physical abuse. Scary scary scary.

Having said that, FWIW, I have 2 children and yes they've changed my wife's and my life. For the better. I struggle to remember this at 3am in the morning sometimes...

Edo, do you think I was abused as a child-I wasn't. I'm just not stupid. While the Quarans and Bibles always remain so to will the zealots, threatening any foundation we have built. Really, no one knows what happens when you die, so why bother dictating it to others.

Also you say you have a wife, either your a lesbian with children, or a man. Maybe you were offended by that comment because your a man, if so-I don't give a shit.
Full feminism in the future will only happen once religion is overturned.

Full feminism in the future will only happen once religion is overturned.

How does one "overturn" religion?

And, FWIW, the *reason* I became a feminist stemmed from my realizations of its similarities with Christianity. If not for feminism's harmony with Christianity (and there is some substantial harmony if you bother using your brain a little -- sadly, too few Christians do this), my interest in such a politically unpopular ideology may never have piqued, and I might not be the women's rights advocate I am today.

and prairielily, dont pick on my beliefs as an agnostic.

Anybody have any ideas on how you would interfer in their lives? This is un-American, and would be a good pretecent to set as far as religion and women are concerned. One would have to strike a balance between freedom of religion and ensuring these girls do not grow up deprived. Organizations, ect.

Being a Christian actually made you a feminist?
I grew up in a Catholic home (Italian), and I was disgusted with the way women were depicted. Rape, incest, the father, son and holy ghost (why not mother)? Eve and the serpent, virginity, the pain that comes from giving birth, prostitues, pregnancy at 14 by the 'holy ghost,' (which would be rape by God), all the misogynistic beliefs about women and proper behavior, and their place in society, whether to education, ect-no way. Its no different with the quaran, buddha, or hinduism. However at least in hinduism there is a powerful warrior goddess named Tara and other named Durga. She is the energy from which all the gods/esses get their energy. The mythological belief is that she had to kick ass in order to get it and went up against a negative male energy.Way better than Mary, which would be like comparing a depleted geek to Rambo.

Susan wrote:

What we need is to figure out a way to punish-- I mean, administer appropriate consequences for parents who have more than X number of kids, without punishing the poor kids.

I say this as the oldest of eight and knowing that every child suffers for parental attention with each additional sibling. No, growing up in a large family was not a "wonderful" experience-- just really, really noisy.

We need to do what China does.

We need to do what China does.

Um, yes... because arguing against one extreme necessarily involves embracing the opposite extreme. Clearly.

Or we could all join the Church of Euthanasia. It'd be fun, really. Overpopulation problem solved and we as a species will die out. But that's a bit extreme.

Practices like this quiverfull stuff makes me feel bad for the females. They are brainwashed into accepting that they are cum dumpsters and baby makers, and that is all they will ever be. the fact the men don't care about the damage they are forcing their wives to do on their bodies makes my stomach churn. It's inconsiderate and selfish that these women are expected to have a child a year.

Really, all you need is 2 or 3. Hopefully one will be a boy to carry on the surname (since most women take their husbands name... and for women like me who don't get criticised frequently for it).

Arent christian/religious feminists anti-choice? You completely over-looked my question and got into a huff about religion. Thats why religion and women don't mix-you only saw the 'assault' to your religion than the real issue at hand.

mande... I can't quite tell if you're joking about hoping one's a boy?

I do not intend to take my husband's name if I ever get married, and I resent the social expectation that I should (I'm not accusing you of saying this, to be clear). If a woman genuinely and legitimately chooses, for herself, that she wants to do that, that's fine. But the option of keeping her surname -- and passing it on to her children -- ought to be just as respected as the man's option to do so.

What kind of laws should be instituted? When these young girls grow up they will have been indoctrinated into a system of belief about their lives. It is a form of brainwashing and oppression.They will have been deprived of opportunities any sensible family would not have denied them. Isn't this against the law?

Thats what I said initially, when men are the 'heads' of the households, they are self-absorbed and uninterested in the toll it takes on the woman. It is easy for him to preach about pursuing gods destiny, because he doesnt have to carry the child, and deal with the pain and exhaustion of having children-just the post-phrase. If men do less in the household than a woman, then it must be even less that he would do in a household in this type of setting. I.e. men heads of anything=screw up of everything.

nads, it might be helpful if you address your comments to the person you're responding to. As it is, it's difficult if not impossible to tell which comments you are addressing.

Law Fairy,
as to the suggestions about what to do about this problem, hypothetical laws that would inhibit this kind of suppression I'm addressing it to everyone. However, if your religious, it might bias up your suggestions.

knights13_ghost, it sounds like you have some codependence issues... Why would you place such grave importance on seeing your folks EVERY DAY? You make it sound like you're still attached to them via umbilical cord. Dude, grow up and get your own life.

Also, knights13_ghost, you obviously believe that people live on through their kids. Which is bullshit at it's finest. It is foolish, naive, selfish and stupid to have children just so you can "live forever" through them.

The Law Fairy wrote:
I have a fucking DOG and it's a major responsibility, and one I take seriously because I am a responsible pet owner. If having a DOG cramps my lifestyle a bit (or, sometimes, a lot), how much more will having kids limit my choices???

Hear, hear! I have several pets. They need to be fed, kept clean, played with (some of them), kept warm, and because they're exotics, they cost alot of money to keep (special lights, special food, etc.). But what about when I want to go on vacation? I can't! I can't find a pet sitter (for these kinds of animals, anyway). Before I plan anything for ME, I have to make sure my animals' needs are met first. I can't speak for everyone, as I have no (nor do I want) kids. But it seems to me that raising kids would be infinitely harder, with even less time for me and/or my boyfriend, and zero time for the fun things I'd like to do.

In the end, I'll stick with my animals. At least they'll never yell, scream, talk back, or ask for every little thing. All they demand from me is some affection, food, water, warmth and shelter.

(sorry this is long)
The adoption issue: because they already have 4+ (or 6+) kids, or the adopted children would have to share a room with other siblings, some adoption agencies won't consider the Quiverfull families. And adoption is expensive, running into the thousands of dollars (international or through the state).
Thats what I read on one of their websites, when people ask about it.

And why shouldn't adoption agencies let large families adopt more children?
Probably because of what earlier comments said about large families- there was less individual attention for each child as more children came along, and less financial resources. Do all large families operate on the system where the older children take care of the younger ones? No. But the purpose of adoption is to give a child a family and loving, involved parents.

It is cheaper for women to have children naturally than to adopt. That and the biblical verse 'blessed is the man who's quiver is full of them'. The man's children. It doesn't mention the wife being blessed, the person who actually is giving birth and raising the kids. Her work, his blessing. Doesn't seem right to me.

The quiverfull families remind me of the decline in family size in Canada and the United States and why it occured. It started to decline in the 1800s. Even in rural areas, people started to have smaller families. Even before birth control was legal, people (probably women, with the help of their midwife).
Why? Maybe because giving birth is dangerous? It isn't easy for everyone. Like everyone else says, children are a big responsibility. With more advances in medicine, more children survive. And in most societies, parents provide for their children.

In previous times, your parents would teach you a trade, or set up an apprenticeship. When fewer children survived, passing the farm onto the child that survived wasn't an issue. The eldest would get the farm, the youngest would learn a trade. The daughter that survived would get married.

I'm wondering what these kids are going to do for a job? Their parents had opportunities to go to college, but they won't be allowed. They won't be able to pay for it anyway. They'll be like a lot of people, paying off student loans for the rest of their lives, or they just won't get an education. Won't that be great for the economy? More people who won't invent new things, more people who won't contribute to the knowledge base.

But its 2007. We've moved on from an agrarian society. We've moved on from needing to have large families to ensure that someone survived. The world won't suddenly be devoid of christians if people have small families. Given the state of the environment and all the people in the world who are starving, maybe we shouldn't be quite so fruitful.

When I read about these families, I'm reminded of my grandfather. Actually, on both sides of my family, my grandfathers were born to a large family 10+ siblings in a small, poor, fishing village. Education stopped at grade 3. Along came WWII, and at the end, they had survied, learned a trade, and married. Moved to a larger town for a job. Both grandfathers had two children.

My mother's father decided that his two daughters deserved a chance at a better life than he'd been born into. Eight siblings, plus two that were adopted after their family died in a fire. A new set of clothing each year, if he was lucky. He knew from an early age that he wasn't going to inherit the little farm, or the fishing boat. His childhood, where almost all the kids survived and they were all hungry, was not something he wanted for his children.

He talked to my mom about this when he was older, and he believed in zero population growth. What we do, what leave on this earth should be sustainable, in his mind.

So grandma and grandpa had two kids. just two, during the baby boom. Grandma worked (in a conservative town in the 1950s), and grandpa was teased about 'letting his wife work'. When the eldest daughter went to college, my grandfathers work buddies laughed at him for wasting his money. His daughters were only going to get married, so why bother?
And when mom went to college, she learned exactly how much it cost- half a year's income for grandpa. Good thing grandma worked, isn't it?

Years later, after mom has gotten married and had three kids (and her older sister too), mom goes back to the conservative town for a day trip. The daughters of the people she went to school with are divorced with kids, just like her. Or they're just working the same job they got when they left high school. And instead of having a good job with a pension and benifits, they're working as a cashier at the grocery store.

They weren't any less able in high school, their parents just didn't think about their futures. They didn't plan, and they didn't do their best to ensure their children had something more than they did. And their daughters ended up with even less financial security than their parents. They ended up with less. How is that being fuitful?, how can that be justified as a good outcome?

(I'm sure that someone out there thinks that divorce and two income households are the tools of the devil. In mom's case, she divorced an adulterous pig that ran up debt, cleaned out the kids' college funds, and nearly had a forclosed stamp on the mortgage).

I guess the point is, the children we have deserve our best. They are the future. They aren't a demographic group designed to keep the pension plan running or fill up a church. They don't deserve something short sighted. Not something unsustainable. Not ten siblings that will ensure that they won't have a chance to get an education.

Our best.

nadskckr,

Edo, do you think I was abused as a child-I wasn't. I'm just not stupid.

Huh? Where did I state, or even imply, that I thought you were abused as a child?