The Quiverfull movement

lazygal

I've been a little intrigued by this American movement since seeing the Duggar family, who have a TV show called 19 Kids and Counting, on television. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family

Its based on a verse from the bible to the effect that a man's quiver which is full makes him happier and more 'godly'. Here's a wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull
The main features are no birth control, even natural family planning methods, usually homeschooling the children, the man is the head of the household and adherance to biblical ways of living.

In practice, it means women end up sometimes having a LOT of children, and its very, very patriarchal. There's women who've left the movement and have painted a pretty grim picture of the lives they led, dominated by children, living in rural isolation and not having access to healthcare.

Would be interested to hear if others have come across this or what they think of it.

krudler

19 kids? poor woman!

Sounds mental to me, but ours is not to judge as long as the children are looked after properly.

jackofalltrades

Can 19 children really have sufficient individual access to their mother and father.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family

The Duggars raise their children using a buddy system, wherein an older sibling is assigned to a younger sibling and assists in their primary care.

Doesn't sound like a great deal for the older kids.

Nymeria

This movement gives me the creeps. I suppose that everyone is entitled to follow what they believe, but as a woman it makes me queazy to think that it normal for the girls to be brought up to be subservient to the men in their lives.

Of course if people want to have lots of children, and can properly take care of them they should be allowed to do so, however this movement seems to place procreation above all else, even peoples health or wellbeing.

An example of this would be Andrea Yates, the Texas mother who received national attention in the United States for drowning her five children in a bathtub in the 1990s. She was suffering from postpardum depression and psychosis, however because of her religious beliefs was encouraged by her husband to keep having more children despite her mental health issues. So sad.

I am childfree by choice (this movement would hate me, haha ), so of course my perception is completely different. However, even people who want to have lots of children must surely see how damaging this type of movement can be.

cantdecide

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Can 19 children really have sufficient individual access to their mother and father.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family

Doesn't sound like a great deal for the older kids.

My dad was one of 13 and he said you had a brother in a cot and a sister in a wedding dress. He actually does talk about the children "basically coming and going as they pleased" getting into trouble and the rest of it. He would never admit it but I know he wishes he had had more support in his formative years.

Kooli

lazygal wrote: »

I've been a little intrigued by this American movement since seeing the Duggar family, who have a TV show called 19 Kids and Counting, on television. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family

Its based on a verse from the bible to the effect that a man's quiver which is full makes him happier and more 'godly'. Here's a wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull
The main features are no birth control, even natural family planning methods, usually homeschooling the children, the man is the head of the household and adherance to biblical ways of living.

In practice, it means women end up sometimes having a LOT of children, and its very, very patriarchal. There's women who've left the movement and have painted a pretty grim picture of the lives they led, dominated by children, living in rural isolation and not having access to healthcare.

Would be interested to hear if others have come across this or what they think of it.

Sounds like many other strict religious sects across the world I imagine. The more orthodox the religion, the more likely it is to restrict education (particularly for girls) and to control its women.

Tonyandthewhale

Sounds like a great idea...














Apart from all the awfulness...

metaoblivia

I don't agree with it. I think it's impractical and irresponsible to have large amounts of children, both when considering the individual family and the larger society. I'm glad it's a minority movement, because that kind of family planning just isn't sustainable on a large scale. It's another lifestyle choice that moves people backwards instead of forwards. It seems to me like this a movement where women's only roles are having babies and raising them. And whenever you see that attitude toward women, you'll see restricted access to education and the outside world.

Ambersky

Yep I know a family with 20 children here in Ireland. Imagine 20 children.
I think the cult was called roman catholicism.

Acoshla

I know a family with 22 children, some of them had emigrated to America before the youngest were born, didn't meet their siblings until they were 5/6 years old. The mother had a heart attack a few years after she had them all when she was still quite young, late forties. She survived the heart attack but she had it nonetheless!

Millicent

Acoshla wrote: »

I know a family with 22 children, some of them had emigrated to America before the youngest were born, didn't meet their siblings until they were 5/6 years old. The mother had a heart attack a few years after she had them all when she was still quite young, late forties. She survived the heart attack but she had it nonetheless!

Probably brought on by suddenly remembering she had 22 kids...

mackg

Having that many kids would pretty much require the mother to be perpetually pregnant for years on end. Surely that must take a pretty harsh toll on them?

Millicent

mackg wrote: »

Having that many kids would pretty much require the mother to be perpetually pregnant for years on end. Surely that must take a pretty harsh toll on them?

Yep, one pregnancy can be tough enough on a woman's body -- multiple pregnancies are risky to both mother and baby. Premature births, smaller birth weights, increased risk of post-partum bleeding, gallbladder disease and more are all risks from high multiple births. Couple of articles on it here and here.

28064212

Anyone else hover over the thread title on the LL page, read the tooltip, and come into the thread thinking a "man's quiver" was going to be a metaphor for something totally different?
...
Anybody?
...
Uh, me neither...

On-topic, religious adherence taken to the extreme resulting in bad lifestyle shocker

SarahBeep!

That is ridiculous and pathetic and dangerous of them!!

Yeah, she's really healthy to be having kids at 44. Do they not know the risks involved of having a child at that age?? Not to her, but to the baby! Making someone else who can't exactly speak for themselves part of YOUR decision really p*sses me off.

Morag

Quiverfull movement, ha sounds like a fancy name for pregnancy fetish.

Ant

28064212 wrote: »

Anyone else hover over the thread title on the LL page, read the tooltip, and come into the thread thinking a "man's quiver" was going to be a metaphor for something totally different?

I didn't notice the tool-tip but when I saw the thread title, I imagined it might be some new trend in the US where teenage girls adopt Katniss Everdeen as a role model (strong female protagonist of The Hunger Games trilogy whose weapon of choice is the bow and arrow). The Hunger Games is set in a post-apocalyptic feudal society with a ruling totalitarian regime. How disappointing to discover that the actual Quiverfull movement represents an even more backwards and regressive patriarchal society.

Doctor DooM

Why is anyone suprised a religious sect focuses on creating more members for itself at any cost at this point?

This is not too far away from the rcc's policies in ireland 50 years ago. No real shock here, sadly.

KamiKazeKitten

Ant wrote: »

I didn't notice the tool-tip but when I saw the thread title, I imagined it might be some new trend in the US where teenage girls adopt Katniss Everdeen as a role model (strong female protagonist of The Hunger Games trilogy whose weapon of choice is the bow and arrow). The Hunger Games is set in a post-apocalyptic feudal society with a ruling totalitarian regime. How disappointing to discover that the actual Quiverfull movement represents an even more backwards and regressive patriarchal society.

That's what I thought too! Glad I wasn't the only one

This Quiverfull movement sounds crazy though, but as long as the children are looked after properly who am I to judge? Although I can't imagine they get all that much time with their mam and dad if they have that many to be looking after. I went to school with one girl who came from a very religious family and they had 13 kids, she was the oldest girl and had to mind the younger ones a lot I think.

Kids should be kids and not stuck bringing up younger ones for the glory of God or whatever.

Catari Jaguar

America... F**K YEAH!

Seriously though, sounds like my nightmare. Just very backwards.

kylith

I've done some reading on this since coming across the No Longer Quivering site, and it's truly horrific reading. One thing that I think will be its downfall is their focus on education; young women are expected to do well and go to college, and this will help their parents find a suitable man for them (think of the importance of women being 'accomplished' in Jane Austin's time). This works out as girls being very sheltered, then sent off to college (which must be overwhelming for them), then expected to give up their new-found freedom and get married. It's the knowledge of how free they were, and the anger at doing well in college only to be expected to give it all up, that plants the seeds of dissent in the women.

If the No Longer Quivering movement could get into colleges then a lot more girls could get out.

Catari Jaguar

So the man gets to be happy and fulfilled and have tons of sex. The woman is pregnant for years of her life, she & the kids just have to raise other kids. Yea, sounds really fair. Good one Bible. My OH pointed out that that is probably why men were allowed multiple brides, spread it out like.

kylith

In fairness, he also gets the hassle of having to provide for numerous offspring.

The Quiverfull movement isn't easy on anyone; the women have to give up their lives to have children, the children have to mind younger siblings, and the man is supposed to keep his house in order and make enough money to look after them all; it's no wonder that everyone involved seems prone to snap.

eviltwin

I wonder how other families not in the limelight make ends meet? The Duggars must get a decent pay packet from TLC who make their reality show. Even the most frugal of living would make it very hard for any family to survive.

I have seen their show a few times ( yes I have way too much time on my hands ) and they seem to do something different everyday, they go on holidays, trips etc. It looks like an idyllic life but again its all bankrolled by the tv company.

I wonder what the reality is like for the Quiverfull family who don't have the spotlight on them.

However if they are happy who are we to judge?

this is what an article says

They don't have a precise budget, Jim Bob said, but it takes about $5,000 a month to operate their household. They live off the rental income from commercial property they own debt-free.
They have no house or car payments and no credit cards. They purchase their clothes at a thrift store that benefits the homeless in northwest Arkansas. They eat out occasionally but take advantage of the dollar menus at fast-food restaurants or the 49-cent children's meals at AQ ("Arkansas Quality") Chicken, a local favorite once frequented by former President Bill Clinton. The three older girls give the boys haircuts.
It's the fruit of a financial freedom seminar Jim Bob attended years ago.
"We haven't had an overabundance," he said, "but God's always met our needs."

lazygal

Isn't it funny how God can meet the needs of a family on TV but fail to see that a family in sub Saharan Africa might need a few bob?

MetalDog

I don't foray into this forum at all, but I happened on this thread.

But, why am I not the least surprised that the patriarch is called Jim Bob?

Ilyana

I don't want to knock someone else's religious beliefs, but this kind of lifestyle is beyond impractical, and very damaging.

How can a woman be expected to put her body through that kind of trauma possibly up to twenty times? I know people will do a lot for their religious ethos, but their bodies are not their own.

In a 'normal' marriage, a couple can agree when to have sex, when to use birth control, when to start a family and when to complete it. Does this Quiverfull movement advocate the husband dictating when they have sex, and is the wife always expected to oblige him?

Also, this notion of children being God's soldiers (so to speak) rankles with me. I think there is a real risk of the children being valued by number as opposed to individuals with their own attributes.

The Cool

I think it's an awful way of thinking and in some ways, neglect. If you have 19 kids how do you keep up with supervising homework, how your kids are doing in school, their health (especially, I think, mental), their social skills etc if you have 19 of them to keep an eye on? You'd miss so many clues and symptoms of problems in their lives. I wonder how much one-on-one time the kids get with a parent. There's a big difference between having lots of children, and parenting!!!

iguana

I haven't seen it mentioned on this thread but one of the most disturbing thing that I've read about the Duggars is the methods of child discipline that they endorse and that which they have used. They have endorsed the book 'To Train Up a Child' on their website. For those who don't know this is a parenting book which describes how to train your child by using physical beatings to adjust their behaviour. I'm not talking about an occasional slap, the type of which is still debated as being good or bad parenting, but repeated beating of young children with objects in order to 'break' them. For example, the book has recommendations of hitting a baby at the crawling stage on the legs with a hazel switch to train her to stay away from the stairs.

There are also quite a lot of allegations that the Duggars themselves use 'blanket training' on their babies. This is where a baby who has started crawling is placed on a blanket and expected to stay there. The parent them places a toy or treat off the edge of the blanket and if the baby moves off the blanket or even reaches their hand off the edge of the blanket they are hit with a wooden spoon/switch/ruler. This process is repeated until the baby learns to stay on the blanket no matter how they are tempted off of it.

Whatever about having so many children that you find it hard to give them all the attention they need, or instituting a 'buddy system' that means the older children are required to take on a parenting role, using severe physical discipline on your infants and toddlers as a method to mould them to obedience is, imo, out and out child abuse.

lazygal

I hate the 'you don't know because you don't have children, so you can't comment' arguments but I'm pretty sure the guy (Bill Gothard) who wrote the book is not a parent.

Ilyana

iguana wrote: »

I haven't seen it mentioned on this thread but one of the most disturbing thing that I've read about the Duggars is the methods of child discipline that they endorse and that which they have used. They have endorsed the book 'To Train Up a Child' on their website. For those who don't know this is a parenting book which describes how to train your child by using physical beatings to adjust their behaviour. I'm not talking about an occasional slap, the type of which is still debated as being good or bad parenting, but repeated beating of young children with objects in order to 'break' them. For example, the book has recommendations of hitting a baby at the crawling stage on the legs with a hazel switch to train her to stay away from the stairs.

There are also quite a lot of allegations that the Duggars themselves use 'blanket training' on their babies. This is where a baby who has started crawling is placed on a blanket and expected to stay there. The parent them places a toy or treat off the edge of the blanket and if the baby moves off the blanket or even reaches their hand off the edge of the blanket they are hit with a wooden spoon/switch/ruler. This process is repeated until the baby learns to stay on the blanket no matter how they are tempted off of it.

Whatever about having so many children that you find it hard to give them all the attention they need, or instituting a 'buddy system' that means the older children are required to take on a parenting role, using severe physical discipline on your infants and toddlers as a method to mould them to obedience is, imo, out and out child abuse.

That's horrible Even the title of the book speaks volumes about it; you don't train children, they are raised and nurtured. They really are just a number, not a family member.

Aside from the damaging effect of the violent discipline itself, it'll just teach the kids that you can hit someone if they do something wrong. And with too many children for the parents to possibly monitor at once, who knows how the older children are treating the younger ones?

It's all so wrong

Electric Sheep

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Why is anyone suprised a religious sect focuses on creating more members for itself at any cost at this point?

This is not too far away from the rcc's policies in ireland 50 years ago. No real shock here, sadly.

Yep. I lived in rural Ireland in the 70s and knew girls in families with 10, 12 and even more kids. Life for the older girls in the family was childcare and waiting on their brothers who never washed a dish or even made a pot of tea.