Today I came across a fairly older blog post about the "Quiver Full" movement. It can be found here .
The post begins with a bit of self promotion, but goes on to talk about this woman's experience as a "quiver full" mother. Individuals who are a part of this movement leave family planning up to God and try to have as many children as possible. She describes how women and children are the victims of this situation and the cult-like feeling of the whole movement. She describes the horrifying situations that many of these women are put in and how the media doesn't cover this side of the story:
They don’t publicize the stories of the women I know– women who have lived in, birthed in, delapidated trailers or shacks without power or running water because their husbands wanted to live “debt-free,” women who have survived on $100 per month for food for seven or eight kids and $25 per month for clothes for those kids, for years, because that’s all their patriarch husbands would allow them. They don’t publicize the many women who have suffered rapes, beatings, and been told by their “elders” they should pray about it, be a better wife
A lot of people that I grew up with "always knew" they wanted to have a lot of children. I also grew up in an area of the south where half of the kids I went to school with were very affluent and the other half seemed to be destitutely poor. Since graduating from high school 3 years ago, I've found out that many of the people that I graduated with have already had not just one child, but several.
While I respect their decisions, it saddens me a bit to see these women, who are the product of a fundamentalist Christian upbringing. Many of them live on the edge of poverty relying on their husbands' meager income to support their continually growing families. After reading this woman's post it made me think of these young women who I went to school with and, while their situations are probably not as extreme, are still victims of this fundamental and patriarchal ideology.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The "Quiver Full" Movement: Women and Children as Victims.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8459
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Though I recognize that this could happen to quiver full women, I actually know one and came from one and I've never seen or experience that before. My mother and father loved each other dearly, and my mother would NEVER let my father beat her or anything like that (nor would my father want to.) And yes I would say that many of do have less money to spend but does that count as abuse? I think it would be worse it quiver fulls weren't debt free. Someone in this country isn't in loads of debt and that's considered abuse? And frankly I think that it's a good thing that they don't have lots a money, how much money does on even need anyway? Not to mention there are ways to feed a family of say 10 on a small salary, that's what the wife is trained to do.
nretsneklafm,
I have always been disturbed by quiverfulls (well, any religious fundamentalists). They obviously don't believe women have a right to bodily integrity, which really scares me. If someone believes that family planning should be left "up to God," it is just another way of saying they are anti-contraception and anti-abortion, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS. That sort or reasoning reminds me of when Sam Brownback said that even conceptions that were a product of rape were "children of a loving god."
"Quiverfull began with the publication of Rick and Jan Hess's 1989 book, A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ, which argues that God, as the "Great Physician" and sole "Birth Controller," opens and closes the womb on a case-by-case basis. Women's attempts to control their own bodies -- the Lord's temple -- are a seizure of divine power."
from http://www.alternet.org/story/44254
I hadn't read that womensspace post before and it was really interesting, so thanks for linking to it.
Seal123- "That's what the wife is trained to do."
TRAINED? she's a woman, not a puppy.
This post wasn't equating thrift or poverty with abuse, it was equating taking away a woman's agency with abuse. Your own follow-up comment seems to offer more support than hindrance to that argument. Using language that refers to training a wife makes me wonder who is doing the training. the husband? the pastor/other religious daddy figure? OOPS! there goes her agency.
Also, the same kind of thinking that leads you to say that being debt-free is the way to be (not that i don't agree with you on that) can be carried on to the conclusion that having huge amounts of children is irresponsible. It can be called living beyond one's means either way. One should try to avoid having more children than one can adequately provide for, in my opinion, and I think thats along the lines of the post here. I'm glad that your parents took care of their family, but the poverty discussed in this post is a very real affect of the kind of zealotry that comes with the quiverfull movement. When someone holds some ideal of infinity children above their reality, they can end up causing some really unnecessary suffering to the resultant children.
sorry this is so long. I just don't like it when people deliberately misinterpret content so that it doesn't challenge their preconceptions.
@ Kathryn,
Yes, the woman is TRAINED, so is the man (to be a leader, provider, protector) , do you think that the parents would allow their children into marriage if they weren't ready physically, mentally or spiritually? Not likely.
And technically, in theory it sounds great to not have children that you can't take care of , but BIBLICALLY it's not in the bible, I know it seems nuts but the bible actually says the opposite. Yea, the bible says if your poor have more children. "Well how are you going to take care of them?!?" you say, one word : faith. (and lots of it.) two, usually quiver fulls have more children (even though they can't afford it) because cutting off a godly seed by using contraception isn't an option, and some actually WANT more. (GO figure).
Now there are men who DO ABUSE their power, but that's just the small percentage, if they do they're usually excommunicated from the church and the wife if either supported by the church or given a new husband. Unless, (god forbid) you go to those hyper-patriarchal churches where that man can do no wrong. Which in essence, isn't really a church at all.
Sorry about the rambling.
"do you think that the parents would allow their children into marriage if they weren't ready physically, mentally or spiritually? Not likely."
Still not seeing any agency there. I can't tell, are you playing devil's advocate or do you agree with this setup? Where is the woman (or man's!) free will in this equation?
"And technically, in theory it sounds great to not have children that you can't take care of , but BIBLICALLY it's not in the bible, I know it seems nuts but the bible actually says the opposite."
It seems nuts because it is. Why are you choosing to ignore the obvious problems with this doctrine, just because it's in the bible? It's a book that was written long before reliable forms of contraceptives were ever invented. Hell, it was written before women were considered more than chattel. I get that you were probably raised in the church (so was I), but you should really seek a better answer than "because the bible says so." It's entirely possible to belong to a faith and still criticize it! In the end, faith isn't going to get these children food and education.
"Now there are men who DO ABUSE their power, but that's just the small percentage, if they do they're usually excommunicated from the church and the wife if either supported by the church or given a new husband."
I think you're underestimating how ingrained sexism is in organized religion. SOME men who cross the line will meet consequences, most do not. When those men are told constantly that women are less than them, are to be controlled and "led", the abuse of women follows. Not only that, but because of the "lesser" attitude the abuse those women endure will also be diminished in importance in the eyes of the church.
Also, given a new husband? Explain, please.
Here's a link to a great article on the Quiverfull movement that was in Bitch magazine a couple of issues ago:
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/multiply-and-conquer
@ kam,
The daughter dose have free will when it comes to the man she would like to marry, but the parents must prepare her to handle the situations that will come her way when she is married, and has children. But, it is strongly encourage that the daughter (and son) listen to their parents (5th commandment), mainly because the parents only want what is best for their children and maybe because they've been down that road.
Yes, quiverfuls listen to the bible just because "it says so" and there were useful contraceptives thousands of years ago, some plants worked so well they actually became extinct. And it isn't faith if your criticize it. You have to TRUST EVERY WORD.
"Also, given a new husband? Explain, please."
Maybe I should have said that differently. The church WILL take care of the woman's children while she supports herself and her children and in the meantime the church also wants what is best for the children so with the woman's PERMISSION they will HELP her find a husband so the children may have a father figure around the house and so the wife may stay at home and raise her children in comfort. If not she is more than welcome to support herself and her children alone with help from the church, friends, and family.
Again, sorry about the rambling.