|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Quiverfull
|
This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
This is apparently a lethal combination...[edit]
As fucked up as a Quiverfull movement might be--and is--is it really fair of us to use one person's obvious mental illness to attack a political/religious phenomenon? Is it any different from using the Columbine shooters to attack video games/heavy metal/kids who make bad fashion choices/atheism, etc? RaoulDuke 20:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- She was told by her doctors: "If you have another child, you will go crazy." Because of her religion, she did not listen.
ListenerXTalkerX 20:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- You really want to believe that having one more child is what made her crazy? Look, there are lots of reasons to attack this kind of thing; making political capital off of personal tragedy and mental illness doesn't have to be part of that. Anecdotal evidence + argument from adverse consequences = we can do better. RaoulDuke 20:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously. She was diagnosed with postpartum psychosis. Her doctors advised her not to have any more children to prevent it relapsing. Were it not for the Quiverfull beliefs, she would not have entered the bout of psychosis in which she carried out the murders. ListenerXTalkerX 20:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you on any of that. And I don't disagree with you that Q-full is a horrible expression of the ways in which religion is used to justify the oppression of women. I just don't like using mentally-ill people as a way to make political points, even when the thing we're trying to fight exacerbated their condition. RaoulDuke 20:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously. She was diagnosed with postpartum psychosis. Her doctors advised her not to have any more children to prevent it relapsing. Were it not for the Quiverfull beliefs, she would not have entered the bout of psychosis in which she carried out the murders.
- You really want to believe that having one more child is what made her crazy? Look, there are lots of reasons to attack this kind of thing; making political capital off of personal tragedy and mental illness doesn't have to be part of that. Anecdotal evidence + argument from adverse consequences = we can do better. RaoulDuke 20:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't explain who or what Quiverfull is or does. Some readers (like me) don't live in the states & have probably never heard this phrase before. Can somebody please write a proper introduction, preferably without the use of "+" or "=". ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
To add my two cents: I think once the article is expanded a little more we can focus more on the Yeats incident. It shouldn't be the focus of the entire article, but it is worth mentioning. Tetronian you're clueless 00:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that it's very relevant at all. From what I can gather her main religious influence was a self-appointed internet preacher rather than any mainstream movement, & there were various mental health & neglect issues culminating in the murders. Putting it all down to "lethal consequences" of quiverfull is twisting the facts to make a cheap shot. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 01:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm...based on this you might be right. Tetronian you're clueless 02:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that it's very relevant at all. From what I can gather her main religious influence was a self-appointed internet preacher rather than any mainstream movement, & there were various mental health & neglect issues culminating in the murders. Putting it all down to "lethal consequences" of quiverfull is twisting the facts to make a cheap shot. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Proponents (particularly male ones) should not go in for inoculations, health care, insurance, pension plans etc - as 'God will provide.'
Why Quiverfull Moms Do Not and Cannot Love Their Bodies this link could be useful.
Incidentally I'm editing less here than I used to because I'm not sure what RationalWiki's future is. As we become bigger more intelligent supporters of Christianity will target us and try to stop us attacking Christianity.
- Some of these may be Christians.
- Some may be atheists who work in Departments of Religious studies etc. Their careers depend on Christianity not declining or declining more slowly.
- Some may be atheists who think religion keeps the lower orders in their place etc.
I fear RationalWiki will be under pressure from people who want to weaken our attack against Christianity. Those attackers in the worst case could weaken RationalWiki till militant atheists stop donating. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
S&M?[edit]
So, as someone who has dabbled briefly in consensual maledom and femdom S&M in the past, I was wondering if I was the only one who noticed that the 'Biblical womanhood' part of this lifestyle, which I've been reading up on lately, bears a rather strong similarity to male-dom S&M only, you know, without that whole 'consent' thing. Also, I'm now curious to see how practitioners of this 'Quiverfull' lifestyle would react if I were to tell them that. I Eat Glue (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- What is maledom and femdom? (being non S&M)? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's where a male is the dominant character or the female is the dominant character respectively. Also, the comparison would be with D/S - as in dominance and submission, not S&M, which is the pain part.</pedantry> This has been observed before, and I've seen some Christian "excuses" for going into such practices, but because the motive is religious observance rather than for sexual kicks, I wouldn't claim that they're anywhere near the same thing. Whether informed consent properly applies to someone being placed in a submissive side of a relationship due to religious practice is debatable. While undoubtedly informed and, sort of, willing, it might not be truly consensual in the same sense of a SSC D/S relationship as religious practice effectively forces people's opinions to bend to the way the religion wants, not necessarily what the individual wants (i.e., brainwashing).
moral 14:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's where a male is the dominant character or the female is the dominant character respectively. Also, the comparison would be with D/S - as in dominance and submission, not S&M, which is the pain part.</pedantry> This has been observed before, and I've seen some Christian "excuses" for going into such practices, but because the motive is religious observance rather than for sexual kicks, I wouldn't claim that they're anywhere near the same thing. Whether informed consent properly applies to someone being placed in a submissive side of a relationship due to religious practice is debatable. While undoubtedly informed and, sort of, willing, it might not be truly consensual in the same sense of a SSC D/S relationship as religious practice effectively forces people's opinions to bend to the way the religion wants, not necessarily what the individual wants (i.e., brainwashing).
I wonder how they'll be able to maintain those families[edit]
Seriously, unless they receive welfare (which would be ironic in quite a number of cases) I can't see how they can maintain a family so big in some of those cases --93.191.139.9 (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Genetic Problems in these kids[edit]
I have heard that when people have kids nonstop that conditions like down syndrome become more likely. Then again, people like fundies ignore science.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The logical outcome of Quiverfull[edit]
Rampant Malthusian-induced starvation and ecological disaster. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)