Surprise baby - never wanted children, but....
Ugh. This seriously bothers me. The story of Greg and Janet could have happened to anyone. What if it happens to me?? Logically I know that I don't want kids, ever, but what if emotions and hormones plague me? What would I do? This is exactly what is happening to one of my best friends, and I hate watching her go through it. This woman is brilliant beyond anyone I know, a wonderful scientist, successful, happy, balanced, awesome marriage--and now in her late 20s she's been obsessed with baby rabies. She used to be even more anti-procreating that I am now, in fact at her wedding someone asked her when they were planning on having kids, and I overheard her say, "Oh, we're not that stupid!" Fast forward 2.5 years and her biological clock went in to effect full-force, making her obsessed. We talk about it a lot, and I encourage her in whatever decision she makes. At the same time, I don't personally think she would be happy to have kids, or enjoy the major life changes, or that she is very maternal...but who knows. I do believe it is 100% hormones and emotions. She doesn't even like kids! She is aware of the hormonal and emotional influence (which is temporary, in all likelihood, though it can last for years), and she remains logically opposed to having kids--in fact, she keeps saying how there is no logical reason for her to do so. She can list a thousand reasons why she doesn't want to, yet she admits that in the face of her emotions and hormones these reasons don't matter so much anymore.
So what if this happens to me? I don't feel that it would, but the truth is it might. I generally am very much in control of my emotions and make decisions with my mind, but it seems the maternal instinct is outrageously strong when it strikes. From the very core of my being, I don't want it to happen! I love my childfree life and don't want to screw it up!
What is this beast that it can make logical women make decisions on emotions, all the while knowing it isn't what they want, and they do it anyway? I guess it's a lot like falling in love with the wrong person; except when the love hormones fade away and you find that you're fundamentally incompatible, you can end the relationship. You can't give the baby back, and there's no refund.
--BadSec
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Children as insurance in old age
Today I had a brief conversation with an acquaintance about having at least one child so that you will have someone to take care of you when you're old.
*facepalm*
He works in the local shipping office, and as I was waiting for the other fellow to finish wrapping up my boxes, the subject of dogs came up. Of course I had to whip out my iPhone and show pictures of my adorable chocolate lab. I resisted the urge to show more than two pictures because while I love my dog and find him interesting, these guys probably don't. This was fresh on my mind because just yesterday my old boss insisted on showing me pictures of his granddogs, and after the 7th picture I could not utter, "oh, how cute!" any longer.
Anyway, this train of thought made me think of how it must be like for others when people insist on showing them a dozen pictures of their children at every chance. So I laughed and said, "You're lucky I don't have kids or else I'd be boring you with their pictures, too!"
To which the guy said sympathetically, "You'll have them someday."
"Oh, I don't want them."
"What!! (incredulous look) Everyone needs at least one."
"No, they're not for me."
"Who's going to take care of you when you're old?!"
"Myself. With the money I've saved by not blowing it on kids, I will have so much more money to save and invest towards my retirement. I'll be able to pay for my own care when the time comes."
Again, he insisted. "But you don't want to do that!"
"Sure, I do. Besides, having kids as an insurance policy is a bad idea. They may not be around, or able, or willing to take care of me and if for some reason we have a bad relationship they're definitely not going to want to take care of me."
After that the conversation turned elsewhere, thankfully. It was all very lighthearted, though, which I appreciate. Another important point that I didn't mention to this gentleman is that it is grossly unfair to children to bring them into this world and expect them to care for you. I know that's what many people do, especially in the past when children were expected to be workers for the family, but I don't think that it is right. Or secure! Many children have wonderful relationships with their parents, but many don't. It's not exactly a reliable insurance plan.
I wasn't offended by this guy's reaction at all. In fact, I found it amusing...and saddening. It was like he had never before had the thought about voluntary childfreedom. Maybe today planted a seed that choosing not to have children is every much a real, legitimate and desirable option as choosing to have them.
--BadSec
*facepalm*
He works in the local shipping office, and as I was waiting for the other fellow to finish wrapping up my boxes, the subject of dogs came up. Of course I had to whip out my iPhone and show pictures of my adorable chocolate lab. I resisted the urge to show more than two pictures because while I love my dog and find him interesting, these guys probably don't. This was fresh on my mind because just yesterday my old boss insisted on showing me pictures of his granddogs, and after the 7th picture I could not utter, "oh, how cute!" any longer.
Anyway, this train of thought made me think of how it must be like for others when people insist on showing them a dozen pictures of their children at every chance. So I laughed and said, "You're lucky I don't have kids or else I'd be boring you with their pictures, too!"
To which the guy said sympathetically, "You'll have them someday."
"Oh, I don't want them."
"What!! (incredulous look) Everyone needs at least one."
"No, they're not for me."
"Who's going to take care of you when you're old?!"
"Myself. With the money I've saved by not blowing it on kids, I will have so much more money to save and invest towards my retirement. I'll be able to pay for my own care when the time comes."
Again, he insisted. "But you don't want to do that!"
"Sure, I do. Besides, having kids as an insurance policy is a bad idea. They may not be around, or able, or willing to take care of me and if for some reason we have a bad relationship they're definitely not going to want to take care of me."
After that the conversation turned elsewhere, thankfully. It was all very lighthearted, though, which I appreciate. Another important point that I didn't mention to this gentleman is that it is grossly unfair to children to bring them into this world and expect them to care for you. I know that's what many people do, especially in the past when children were expected to be workers for the family, but I don't think that it is right. Or secure! Many children have wonderful relationships with their parents, but many don't. It's not exactly a reliable insurance plan.
I wasn't offended by this guy's reaction at all. In fact, I found it amusing...and saddening. It was like he had never before had the thought about voluntary childfreedom. Maybe today planted a seed that choosing not to have children is every much a real, legitimate and desirable option as choosing to have them.
--BadSec
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Oh, at last! At last!
I'm so excited, and I just can't hide it!
I've heard here and there of religious nutjobs throughout history who have claimed to know the end of the world, but most have been dead and proven wrong before I was even born. Save for the minor hysteria of the year 2000, I've not been alive during any predictions (that I know of)--and back then I was too young to be interested.
...until now!!!!!!!!!
On a recent trip out of town, I was thrilled to see one of the billboards hosted by Family Radio.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is officially Almost the End of the World. Jesus is coming back to Earth on May 21, 2011, and the righteous shall be sucked up into heaven. The rest of us heathens will wallow in misery for another 4 months until Jesus straps dynamite to the world and blows it up on October 21, 2011, just a few days before my 27th birthday. Well, dammit. If I had known that this past birthday would have been my last, I would have done something more memorable. Like streaking. Drunk. In a church.
No use crying over lost opportunity; it's time to get serious about our eternal souls. You can learn about your impending doom--or rapture--by visiting We Can Know. For a thorough explanation of how the Bible predicts these events beyond a shadow of a doubt, visit Judgment Day! May 21, 2011. Don't get left behind!
You just don't know how much I am looking forward to this. This is the first time in my life that I have been freed from the silliness of religion so that I can fully be most amused by some End of the World lunacy. To aid in the excitement, Ask an Atheist has created a spoof site, We Can't Know, with a handy dandy "Countdown to Backpedaling" clock.
It is with much ecstatic glee that I will follow this group, and I'll be throwing a "I Survived the Apocalypse" party on May 22.
Ok, ok, let me be serious for a moment. My heart really does go out to the poor Christians who believe this gibberish and are fearing for their lives, especially the young people. Yes, the day will come and go and everything will be fine, but what about the damage done to these people psychologically? What if some of them commit suicide over this? Hopefully they will either (a) believe suicide is a sin and not do it no matter what, or (b) be confident that they are "saved" and will look forward to May 21 because it means they're going to heaven. Consequently the fact that the day will come and go without any catastrophe/miracle may be mightily disappointing.
Anyhow, I am so excited to see what backpedaling they have to say for themselves on May 22, and I hope that the exposure causes many religious to come to their senses and reject religion outright.
--BadSec
I've heard here and there of religious nutjobs throughout history who have claimed to know the end of the world, but most have been dead and proven wrong before I was even born. Save for the minor hysteria of the year 2000, I've not been alive during any predictions (that I know of)--and back then I was too young to be interested.
...until now!!!!!!!!!
On a recent trip out of town, I was thrilled to see one of the billboards hosted by Family Radio.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is officially Almost the End of the World. Jesus is coming back to Earth on May 21, 2011, and the righteous shall be sucked up into heaven. The rest of us heathens will wallow in misery for another 4 months until Jesus straps dynamite to the world and blows it up on October 21, 2011, just a few days before my 27th birthday. Well, dammit. If I had known that this past birthday would have been my last, I would have done something more memorable. Like streaking. Drunk. In a church.
No use crying over lost opportunity; it's time to get serious about our eternal souls. You can learn about your impending doom--or rapture--by visiting We Can Know. For a thorough explanation of how the Bible predicts these events beyond a shadow of a doubt, visit Judgment Day! May 21, 2011. Don't get left behind!
You just don't know how much I am looking forward to this. This is the first time in my life that I have been freed from the silliness of religion so that I can fully be most amused by some End of the World lunacy. To aid in the excitement, Ask an Atheist has created a spoof site, We Can't Know, with a handy dandy "Countdown to Backpedaling" clock.
It is with much ecstatic glee that I will follow this group, and I'll be throwing a "I Survived the Apocalypse" party on May 22.
Ok, ok, let me be serious for a moment. My heart really does go out to the poor Christians who believe this gibberish and are fearing for their lives, especially the young people. Yes, the day will come and go and everything will be fine, but what about the damage done to these people psychologically? What if some of them commit suicide over this? Hopefully they will either (a) believe suicide is a sin and not do it no matter what, or (b) be confident that they are "saved" and will look forward to May 21 because it means they're going to heaven. Consequently the fact that the day will come and go without any catastrophe/miracle may be mightily disappointing.
Anyhow, I am so excited to see what backpedaling they have to say for themselves on May 22, and I hope that the exposure causes many religious to come to their senses and reject religion outright.
--BadSec
Atheist's Wager...?
I'm so tired of hearing about the damn Pascal's Wager. I lived the first 24 years of my life as if I had taken his wager! I think it's a waste of time--but it's also dangerous. If you completely open yourself to believing in fairy tales, you run the risk of brainwashing. But the smart people will survive in the end.
Well, I have my own twist on Pascal's Wager. I propose that the atheists make their own challenge: we ask the theists to be a non-believer for a year. Be skeptical. Really examine all the nonsense you believe and ask yourself why.
I doubt many will try it because to do so, to even attempt to think outside the religious box, would be a sin. But if they ask it of us, why can we not ask it of them?
Just an idea...
--BadSec
Well, I have my own twist on Pascal's Wager. I propose that the atheists make their own challenge: we ask the theists to be a non-believer for a year. Be skeptical. Really examine all the nonsense you believe and ask yourself why.
I doubt many will try it because to do so, to even attempt to think outside the religious box, would be a sin. But if they ask it of us, why can we not ask it of them?
Just an idea...
--BadSec
Thursday, December 9, 2010
SAHMs
Woohoo, I sense a highly offensive post!
I got an email yesterday forwarding me to this link, Sarah Palin Says Issue Of Wife/Mom Being Keeper Of The Home Is A “Petty Little Superficial Meaningless Thing”. Regardless what you think of Palin, I knew from the title that this was a lot of bogus bullshit. For one, that's not Palin's style--to be blatantly offensive to an innocent housewife; for another, if you actually read what she said, that's not what she said. But of course the religious hardly ever take time to study things, do they? Oh, and in the YouTube interview, Palin's hair is bitchin' awesome.
The excerpt quoted at the American View starts at 6:50 on the YouTube video, and Palin says, "There are still the Neanderthals out there who pick on the petty little superficial meaningless things, like looks, like whether you can or can’t work outside of the home if you have small children. All those type of things…I would so hope that at some point, those Neanderthals will evolve into something a bit more with it, a bit more modern and a bit more understanding that, yes, women can accomplish much."
Ok, what is the issue here?? Palin is not saying that staying at home and caring for your children is a superficial, meaningless thing. What she's saying is that people who get hung up on the discussion of whether or not women can work and still have a family--that is what's so damn petty. And I totally, completely agree with her. Feminism is about CHOICE. If a woman chooses to stay at home to cook, clean and change diapers, fine. That's her choice. But if I woman chooses to have a family and have a career, fine. That's her choice. Palin's point is that obsessing over whether or not women should be allowed to do both is rather Neanderthalish, and she's completely right. I posted this very thought on the page under an alias... I'm sure it will be removed or I'll be cast into hell.
Anyhow, now that I've bitched out my little rant, I'm going to take this into a slightly different direction: my opinion on Stay At Home Moms and its relationship to feminism. And why, I personally, do abhor the activity of women staying at home to keep house and make babies.
First let me clarify a bit. Every situation is very unique and individual, so I am not condemning everyone across the board--I am not condemning anyone at all. Everyone has their own very personal reasons for what they do, and I'm not out to judge women who choose this lifestyle. But I do have the right to assert my opinion, and my opinion is that SAHMism is generally anti-women.
I said above that feminism is about choice. I stand by that. It's also about equality and respect and other things of that nature. If you are a woman who voluntarily chooses to not have a career, and to make housekeeping and childraising your sole pursuits, more power to you. To me, that lifestyle is totally repulsive. It feels like giving up. It feels like throwing all the progress back into the face of the the courageous women before you, who have shed blood and tears to ensure that you could make something of yourself.
So if feminism is about choice, and if a woman chooses to be a SAHM, it's all good, right? Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that she freely chose that life (and being brainwashed into believing that if you're a woman, God's highest purpose for you is to be a wife/mom is not free choice). But ultimately, no. When a woman gives up her power and is dependent on someone else to provide for her, she has lost her choice, even if she made the choice initially. 99.9% of the time, that provider will be her husband. She doesn't make the money so her opinion on how it should be spent or saved means a lot less. Sure, there are men who let the little woman manage the finances, but if he loses his job, what kind of power does she have then? She's run out of other people's money to spend. Unfortunately most of the time, the moneymaker is going to assume authoritative control of the household; this behavior is directly encouraged by many biblical denominations.
If the provider loses his job, or if the provider decides to run off with that cute little 18 year-old, the wife is left powerless and penniless. Even if she gets a divorce with alimony, it's not going to be enough. She's going to have to work, but by now she's got all these mouths to feed, no resume, and no experience. My biggest problem with housewifery is that it makes the woman completely dependent on someone else, and I think that's a ridiculous risk. Even if the man treats her well, what if he suddenly dies or is too ill to work? These are very real possibilities and if a woman gives up her independence, she can find herself in one hell of a pickle one day. Not that said pickle can't be overcome, but why do this to yourself?
I think the loss of empowerment, even voluntary, is dangerous and stupid. Yes, stupid. In this context empowerment means a career, and that's no small thing. Why would you risk your financial future, your livelihood and sanity, your children's future just so that you can have time to drive them to soccer or be the privileged one to clean the toilet? I realize that there are undeniable advantages to being at home with your kids. Supposedly you can keep your house clean (though I've yet to meet a clean household maintained by a SAHM, and I've seen a lot). You're there for your kids, emotionally and physically, and enjoy greater ability to be involved in their education and recreational activities.
Being a mother isn't about cooking, and cleaning and chauffeuring your kids to their activities. Let's get real, honey: anyone can do those things, and if you think you are making a difference in your kids' lives just by "being there", you're deluding yourself. Being a mother means to be there spiritually and emotionally for your children; to guide them and inspire them in their life and life choices; to love them unconditionally and cheer them on; to build them up and create happy, productive little people. The cold, hard reality is that you can do those things and still have a career--and keep your independence. You might not have the house as clean, or as many homemade meals made, or be able to be there for every event in their life...but that's ok. Your kids aren't going to grow up deranged or hating you because you worked and they had to eat pizza more than what was ideal. Your husband will get over the pile of laundry. His lazy ass isn't helpless, you know.
I get supremely annoyed at two things: 1) the idea that women must be SAHMs just because they were born with a vagina, and 2) when SAHMs think they are so special and are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.
The last one really gets me. Not to say that there isn't a ton of work involved in being a SAHM, because they're surely is. But putting a price tag on housekeeping and childbearing is a bit pompous. If that makes you feel good about yourself, yay for you. Definitely, someone should be paying you for all the grueling work you do. But they don't. Know why? Because you're an idiot who does this shit for free.
The bottom line is this: just because you have a vagina your fate should not be automatically dictated at birth to be a maid, wife and baby factory. You should be able to choose and design your own fate.
But please embrace your modern feminine power and don't be someone's slave by choice. I'm not a feminist from the 1960s who is trying to tell you that you can have it all and it will all be great! Whatever path you choose won't be easy, and there will be work involved. You can make it happen, if you set your mind to it, but you're going to have to delegate your efforts, and spend time on what's most important. If you are successful, and you view the sky as your limit, you can have money and independence, a family--and a clean house, too, because you can afford to pay a housekeeper.
I got an email yesterday forwarding me to this link, Sarah Palin Says Issue Of Wife/Mom Being Keeper Of The Home Is A “Petty Little Superficial Meaningless Thing”. Regardless what you think of Palin, I knew from the title that this was a lot of bogus bullshit. For one, that's not Palin's style--to be blatantly offensive to an innocent housewife; for another, if you actually read what she said, that's not what she said. But of course the religious hardly ever take time to study things, do they? Oh, and in the YouTube interview, Palin's hair is bitchin' awesome.
The excerpt quoted at the American View starts at 6:50 on the YouTube video, and Palin says, "There are still the Neanderthals out there who pick on the petty little superficial meaningless things, like looks, like whether you can or can’t work outside of the home if you have small children. All those type of things…I would so hope that at some point, those Neanderthals will evolve into something a bit more with it, a bit more modern and a bit more understanding that, yes, women can accomplish much."
Ok, what is the issue here?? Palin is not saying that staying at home and caring for your children is a superficial, meaningless thing. What she's saying is that people who get hung up on the discussion of whether or not women can work and still have a family--that is what's so damn petty. And I totally, completely agree with her. Feminism is about CHOICE. If a woman chooses to stay at home to cook, clean and change diapers, fine. That's her choice. But if I woman chooses to have a family and have a career, fine. That's her choice. Palin's point is that obsessing over whether or not women should be allowed to do both is rather Neanderthalish, and she's completely right. I posted this very thought on the page under an alias... I'm sure it will be removed or I'll be cast into hell.
Anyhow, now that I've bitched out my little rant, I'm going to take this into a slightly different direction: my opinion on Stay At Home Moms and its relationship to feminism. And why, I personally, do abhor the activity of women staying at home to keep house and make babies.
First let me clarify a bit. Every situation is very unique and individual, so I am not condemning everyone across the board--I am not condemning anyone at all. Everyone has their own very personal reasons for what they do, and I'm not out to judge women who choose this lifestyle. But I do have the right to assert my opinion, and my opinion is that SAHMism is generally anti-women.
I said above that feminism is about choice. I stand by that. It's also about equality and respect and other things of that nature. If you are a woman who voluntarily chooses to not have a career, and to make housekeeping and childraising your sole pursuits, more power to you. To me, that lifestyle is totally repulsive. It feels like giving up. It feels like throwing all the progress back into the face of the the courageous women before you, who have shed blood and tears to ensure that you could make something of yourself.
So if feminism is about choice, and if a woman chooses to be a SAHM, it's all good, right? Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that she freely chose that life (and being brainwashed into believing that if you're a woman, God's highest purpose for you is to be a wife/mom is not free choice). But ultimately, no. When a woman gives up her power and is dependent on someone else to provide for her, she has lost her choice, even if she made the choice initially. 99.9% of the time, that provider will be her husband. She doesn't make the money so her opinion on how it should be spent or saved means a lot less. Sure, there are men who let the little woman manage the finances, but if he loses his job, what kind of power does she have then? She's run out of other people's money to spend. Unfortunately most of the time, the moneymaker is going to assume authoritative control of the household; this behavior is directly encouraged by many biblical denominations.
If the provider loses his job, or if the provider decides to run off with that cute little 18 year-old, the wife is left powerless and penniless. Even if she gets a divorce with alimony, it's not going to be enough. She's going to have to work, but by now she's got all these mouths to feed, no resume, and no experience. My biggest problem with housewifery is that it makes the woman completely dependent on someone else, and I think that's a ridiculous risk. Even if the man treats her well, what if he suddenly dies or is too ill to work? These are very real possibilities and if a woman gives up her independence, she can find herself in one hell of a pickle one day. Not that said pickle can't be overcome, but why do this to yourself?
I think the loss of empowerment, even voluntary, is dangerous and stupid. Yes, stupid. In this context empowerment means a career, and that's no small thing. Why would you risk your financial future, your livelihood and sanity, your children's future just so that you can have time to drive them to soccer or be the privileged one to clean the toilet? I realize that there are undeniable advantages to being at home with your kids. Supposedly you can keep your house clean (though I've yet to meet a clean household maintained by a SAHM, and I've seen a lot). You're there for your kids, emotionally and physically, and enjoy greater ability to be involved in their education and recreational activities.
Being a mother isn't about cooking, and cleaning and chauffeuring your kids to their activities. Let's get real, honey: anyone can do those things, and if you think you are making a difference in your kids' lives just by "being there", you're deluding yourself. Being a mother means to be there spiritually and emotionally for your children; to guide them and inspire them in their life and life choices; to love them unconditionally and cheer them on; to build them up and create happy, productive little people. The cold, hard reality is that you can do those things and still have a career--and keep your independence. You might not have the house as clean, or as many homemade meals made, or be able to be there for every event in their life...but that's ok. Your kids aren't going to grow up deranged or hating you because you worked and they had to eat pizza more than what was ideal. Your husband will get over the pile of laundry. His lazy ass isn't helpless, you know.
I get supremely annoyed at two things: 1) the idea that women must be SAHMs just because they were born with a vagina, and 2) when SAHMs think they are so special and are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.
The last one really gets me. Not to say that there isn't a ton of work involved in being a SAHM, because they're surely is. But putting a price tag on housekeeping and childbearing is a bit pompous. If that makes you feel good about yourself, yay for you. Definitely, someone should be paying you for all the grueling work you do. But they don't. Know why? Because you're an idiot who does this shit for free.
The bottom line is this: just because you have a vagina your fate should not be automatically dictated at birth to be a maid, wife and baby factory. You should be able to choose and design your own fate.
But please embrace your modern feminine power and don't be someone's slave by choice. I'm not a feminist from the 1960s who is trying to tell you that you can have it all and it will all be great! Whatever path you choose won't be easy, and there will be work involved. You can make it happen, if you set your mind to it, but you're going to have to delegate your efforts, and spend time on what's most important. If you are successful, and you view the sky as your limit, you can have money and independence, a family--and a clean house, too, because you can afford to pay a housekeeper.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
A Religious Vagina: the Godly Clown Car
Lately I have found an interest in the Quiverfull movement. If you've not been living under a rock you've heard of the Duggar family and their litter of 19 spawn (which undoubtedly has doubled by the time I publish this post). My curiosity led me to research their religious beliefs, and discovered they are part of the "Full Quiver" movement.
Quiverfull as an unofficial movement is relatively new, but as a Christian ideal for some Christians it is, and always has been, their way of life. The movement gained strength in the mid-80s and has been growing ever since, though there are no actual counts of followers that I have found; as a guestimation, I will venture to say there are around several dozens of thousands. It's not a major movement, but it is significant enough to have its religious and social implications considered.
Something most interesting to me personally is that a major advocate of QF, Mrs. Mary Pride, is an acquaintance of my family's. As a kid I knew she was a holy roller home-schooling mom with a lot of kids and that she had written a lot of books, but it wasn't until this week that I've understood her impact and its significance. You can Google Pride if you're curious.
The heart of the QF movement is a maniacal attachment to Psalms 127:3-5 that says, "Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court." Amazing how these few verses have inspired a whole movement. QFers don't see themselves as starting a new movement as much as going back to basics, returning to the Word of God. When early authors like Mary Pride and Rick and Jan Hess started to write about what we now call the QF movement, they were actually trying to explain why rejection of birth control and letting God decide how many children were born was biblical, and what everyone should have been doing all along.
If you've noticed, QF is a movement and not a religion. You can be any Bible-believing Christian and be a QF. In fact, traditional Catholics who reject birth control--especially the hardcore Catholics who also reject NFP and the Rhythm Method--are QF, or nearly QF, though they don't call themselves that. But QFers differ from Catholics and most other Protestants because of the extremes they go to, and because QF (like a lot of religion) is accompanied with good ol' fashioned patriarchy. What makes QF unique is the combination of extreme Christianity, total rejection of any birth control, a spiritually militant mission, strict patriarchy, all happening in the 21st century.
Another essential element of QF is that it is spiritually militant, that is, it isn't just a complete openness to pregnancy and children: it is creating children to be soldier's in God's army. I have so many problems with this I don't know where to begin! If you read QF websites you'll quickly see that they believe spiritual warfare is impending, so they are stocking up the ranks. QF believe God "opens and closes the womb" and that God should be allowed to be wholly responsible for family size. Don't worry about health or money, they say. God will provide. Predictably, spiritual entitlement ensues. Unspoken birthing contests take place between women. Since children are a gift from God, it follows that no children are a curse. If you're trying to be fruitful and multiply but you just can't get knocked up, then you must have done something to piss God off. If you are infertile you are obviously not holy and submissive enough, and will be looked down upon by fellow QFers.
You can imagine what I think about this movement. No? Well, let me spell it out for you.
Where is the foundation for this movement? Ohhh, yeah. In the Bible. The one that was written thousands of years ago, that's full of inconsistencies, that was written by humans, that has been translated and edited and picked to taste. That one. That's is, folks! I'm writing my own bible, and I'm calling it The Book of Purple Unicorn. *cue angelic chorus* And I will make up stores and tell people how they must worship his divine majesty the Purple Unicorn, and how the Purple Unicorn has all sorts of rules to follow, and how Purple Unicorn will run you through for disobedience. Then the Purple Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster can have great battles in the sky for Best God rights until they finally call a truce, fall in love, and make babies that shit rainbow sparkles and tomato sauce. It's perfectly credible!
Patriarchy is abuse. QF women are commanded to be submissive and subservient to their fathers and husbands, and not speak unless spoken to. They receive only a high school homeschool education, aren't allowed to work outside the home, and taught that their highest calling is motherhood. Think about this for a minute. Think about what it would be like to be under that kind of control. If you were to drop my bitchy feminist self into this situation, do you know what would happen? I would have a hearty laugh at their ridiculous bullshit and hitchhike my way back into normal society. I would fight my way out, even if it killed me. No way, no how would I submit. Not this chick! But these women, especially the daughters, are brainwashed into thinking this is their duty before God. It is God's will that they not have their freedom, their personal sovereignty or any other life path than being barefoot and pregnant; and isn't God great to provide us stupid women with wise fathers and husbands to explain God's loving will to us?
And that's only one aspect of it. Consider the naturally selfish nature of humans. Now imagine if you raised a little boy and told him all his life that he could grow up to be whatever he wanted, get the education he wanted, follow his dreams and passions, and that he would have a "helpmeet" wife who would obey him, honor him, cook and clean for him, bear his children and provide sex on demand. Imagine if you taught that little boy that he is lord of his own house, that he is the sole decision maker, and that his wife is to do as he says, constantly and cheerfully and without hesitation, because he personally is endowed by almighty God to do so. Imagine if you taught this boy that you can and should control your wife with love, because for her to disagree with you is a sin, and that that love could include physical discipline. And when this boy is grown, what do you think you'd have? A narcissistic, controlling abuser. An asshole full of himself and his own righteous glory. A pathetic bully who believes he is special just because he has a penis. When you demolish that bubble of respect each human being deserves, and allow for total control under the pretense of God, you create in the mind of the controller that every little thing he does not like is a sin. How does he know this? Because God told him. Because he's the one with the testicles. Because the Bible said so.
What of the women? Women are the only ones who could think themselves out of this cult, but they're generally too brainwashed to do so. Men are allowed to think, but are too busy enjoying being worshipped to bother to change.
Women are never allowed to follow their dreams, or even have them. What's the point? A woman's highest calling, most important job--and only allowed job--is wifedom and motherhood. Like my mother once said, what's the point of girls going to college when all they are eve going to be is wives and mothers?
Children lose their individuality. Children are wanted, yes, but not for their sake; only because they are a new soul, a warm body unto God. A soldier. Girls never get a glimpse of freedom and are prepped to be babymakers from the day they're born. Boys are taught to be full of themselves and that they have dominion over the "lesser" sex. All the children are forced to be caretakers of the others because Mommy simply can't do it all. Some of this is good for them, but I argue that generally it deprives them from the innocence of childhood and the ability to dream and play and doodle--which, I believe, is what our adult dreams and professions are based on. What if a child needs his or her mother? She's too busy taking care of everyone to give children the one-on-one attention and emotional support that they may occasionally require.
I'm not claiming that every product of QF is bad, that every child loses their childhood, or that every man is abusive. But it's undeniable that these things are very present (and actively fostered) in religious extremism of all kinds. Two principles need to always be followed, 1) don't believe anything without evidence just because someone teaches it to you, and 2) respect others; your rights end where theirs begin. Unfortunately, religion throws both of these out the window with glee.
Check out Quiverfull.com and No Longer Quivering.
Quiverfull as an unofficial movement is relatively new, but as a Christian ideal for some Christians it is, and always has been, their way of life. The movement gained strength in the mid-80s and has been growing ever since, though there are no actual counts of followers that I have found; as a guestimation, I will venture to say there are around several dozens of thousands. It's not a major movement, but it is significant enough to have its religious and social implications considered.
Something most interesting to me personally is that a major advocate of QF, Mrs. Mary Pride, is an acquaintance of my family's. As a kid I knew she was a holy roller home-schooling mom with a lot of kids and that she had written a lot of books, but it wasn't until this week that I've understood her impact and its significance. You can Google Pride if you're curious.
The heart of the QF movement is a maniacal attachment to Psalms 127:3-5 that says, "Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court." Amazing how these few verses have inspired a whole movement. QFers don't see themselves as starting a new movement as much as going back to basics, returning to the Word of God. When early authors like Mary Pride and Rick and Jan Hess started to write about what we now call the QF movement, they were actually trying to explain why rejection of birth control and letting God decide how many children were born was biblical, and what everyone should have been doing all along.
If you've noticed, QF is a movement and not a religion. You can be any Bible-believing Christian and be a QF. In fact, traditional Catholics who reject birth control--especially the hardcore Catholics who also reject NFP and the Rhythm Method--are QF, or nearly QF, though they don't call themselves that. But QFers differ from Catholics and most other Protestants because of the extremes they go to, and because QF (like a lot of religion) is accompanied with good ol' fashioned patriarchy. What makes QF unique is the combination of extreme Christianity, total rejection of any birth control, a spiritually militant mission, strict patriarchy, all happening in the 21st century.
Another essential element of QF is that it is spiritually militant, that is, it isn't just a complete openness to pregnancy and children: it is creating children to be soldier's in God's army. I have so many problems with this I don't know where to begin! If you read QF websites you'll quickly see that they believe spiritual warfare is impending, so they are stocking up the ranks. QF believe God "opens and closes the womb" and that God should be allowed to be wholly responsible for family size. Don't worry about health or money, they say. God will provide. Predictably, spiritual entitlement ensues. Unspoken birthing contests take place between women. Since children are a gift from God, it follows that no children are a curse. If you're trying to be fruitful and multiply but you just can't get knocked up, then you must have done something to piss God off. If you are infertile you are obviously not holy and submissive enough, and will be looked down upon by fellow QFers.
You can imagine what I think about this movement. No? Well, let me spell it out for you.
Where is the foundation for this movement? Ohhh, yeah. In the Bible. The one that was written thousands of years ago, that's full of inconsistencies, that was written by humans, that has been translated and edited and picked to taste. That one. That's is, folks! I'm writing my own bible, and I'm calling it The Book of Purple Unicorn. *cue angelic chorus* And I will make up stores and tell people how they must worship his divine majesty the Purple Unicorn, and how the Purple Unicorn has all sorts of rules to follow, and how Purple Unicorn will run you through for disobedience. Then the Purple Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster can have great battles in the sky for Best God rights until they finally call a truce, fall in love, and make babies that shit rainbow sparkles and tomato sauce. It's perfectly credible!
Patriarchy is abuse. QF women are commanded to be submissive and subservient to their fathers and husbands, and not speak unless spoken to. They receive only a high school homeschool education, aren't allowed to work outside the home, and taught that their highest calling is motherhood. Think about this for a minute. Think about what it would be like to be under that kind of control. If you were to drop my bitchy feminist self into this situation, do you know what would happen? I would have a hearty laugh at their ridiculous bullshit and hitchhike my way back into normal society. I would fight my way out, even if it killed me. No way, no how would I submit. Not this chick! But these women, especially the daughters, are brainwashed into thinking this is their duty before God. It is God's will that they not have their freedom, their personal sovereignty or any other life path than being barefoot and pregnant; and isn't God great to provide us stupid women with wise fathers and husbands to explain God's loving will to us?
And that's only one aspect of it. Consider the naturally selfish nature of humans. Now imagine if you raised a little boy and told him all his life that he could grow up to be whatever he wanted, get the education he wanted, follow his dreams and passions, and that he would have a "helpmeet" wife who would obey him, honor him, cook and clean for him, bear his children and provide sex on demand. Imagine if you taught that little boy that he is lord of his own house, that he is the sole decision maker, and that his wife is to do as he says, constantly and cheerfully and without hesitation, because he personally is endowed by almighty God to do so. Imagine if you taught this boy that you can and should control your wife with love, because for her to disagree with you is a sin, and that that love could include physical discipline. And when this boy is grown, what do you think you'd have? A narcissistic, controlling abuser. An asshole full of himself and his own righteous glory. A pathetic bully who believes he is special just because he has a penis. When you demolish that bubble of respect each human being deserves, and allow for total control under the pretense of God, you create in the mind of the controller that every little thing he does not like is a sin. How does he know this? Because God told him. Because he's the one with the testicles. Because the Bible said so.
What of the women? Women are the only ones who could think themselves out of this cult, but they're generally too brainwashed to do so. Men are allowed to think, but are too busy enjoying being worshipped to bother to change.
Women are never allowed to follow their dreams, or even have them. What's the point? A woman's highest calling, most important job--and only allowed job--is wifedom and motherhood. Like my mother once said, what's the point of girls going to college when all they are eve going to be is wives and mothers?
Children lose their individuality. Children are wanted, yes, but not for their sake; only because they are a new soul, a warm body unto God. A soldier. Girls never get a glimpse of freedom and are prepped to be babymakers from the day they're born. Boys are taught to be full of themselves and that they have dominion over the "lesser" sex. All the children are forced to be caretakers of the others because Mommy simply can't do it all. Some of this is good for them, but I argue that generally it deprives them from the innocence of childhood and the ability to dream and play and doodle--which, I believe, is what our adult dreams and professions are based on. What if a child needs his or her mother? She's too busy taking care of everyone to give children the one-on-one attention and emotional support that they may occasionally require.
I'm not claiming that every product of QF is bad, that every child loses their childhood, or that every man is abusive. But it's undeniable that these things are very present (and actively fostered) in religious extremism of all kinds. Two principles need to always be followed, 1) don't believe anything without evidence just because someone teaches it to you, and 2) respect others; your rights end where theirs begin. Unfortunately, religion throws both of these out the window with glee.
Check out Quiverfull.com and No Longer Quivering.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Happiness Without God
It's the ultimate form of arrogance from the religious, that only those who believe in God (and their particular version of God) are happy. There are plenty of more modern religious people who are open to more than one pathway and people finding happiness suited to their personality, but there are millions more who wholeheartedly believe their way is the only way.
My mother falls into the latter category. Familial relations between her and my siblings are... strained, to put it mildly. Lately my mother and I have gotten to the point where we can exchange emails on neutral things such as funny YouTube videos, wacky news stories and the like--but we haven't seen each other or spoken on the phone in a year. This is progress. Which is why I was surprised yesterday when she invited me (by text) to lunch since she is in town visiting the good children (my religious siblings, not atheist me).
She knows that I don't believe in any religion and that I question God, but I haven't said the word "atheist" to her. The predictable thing about my relationship with my fanatically religious family is that I have never, ever, not once, done anything wrong to any of them personally, but they've ostracized me exactly as if I had. That fact is exactly what irritates me so. My offense is in questioning God and religion (and finding no substance there), not in actually causing them any harm, yet they react as if I had. As my mother once put it, and I quote, "our religion is our universe. You've chosen to leave it so we cannot have the relationship with you that you want." The 'relationship I want' was an agreement of mutual respect to agree to disagree but still be a family. That is literally all I asked for, but that is too much for them. Unfortunately, this is a very typical scenario, and truthfully my situation is better than many.
But I will not back down. She demanded that, if I wanted my family to have a relationship with me and my boyfriend, that I would have to sign and submit documentation to the local bishop proclaiming my official exodus of the Catholic Church. She also quoted Catholic Cannons to me (threw the book at me, so to speak) telling me why I should make my non-religion official. Of course I refused. It would be exactly like me submitting documents to the government of France letting them know I'm not French. Totally pointless. I need do nothing more than stop believing and stop participating for it to be official.
So probably against my better judgment, I agreed to lunch. I used to be so intimidated by her opinions and I was so convinced of her righteousness. Now as a freethinking adult, I can see her for the human being she is. A close-minded, arrogant, religious fanatic who feels she has the right to judge others because "God" disagrees with actions x and y, so she is allowed to look down on people because they do actions x and y--never noticing that it is a group of very imperfect humans who "educate" everyone as to what God likes and dislikes. But of course those humans claim that through a miraculous divine intervention known as ex cathedra, no official teaching of the Catholic Church will ever be wrong because God speaks through them at that time. Even if they are adulterous murderers who eat children and puppies, whatever they say ex cathedra is GOD'S WORD (yes, this is what I was taught and what the Catholic faithful believe).
I am looking forward to today. I have now become a humble, open-minded person who knows that she doesn't have all the answers, but is able to reason and use her brain enough to not attribute the universe to a figment of humans' imagination. As hard as it has been, I would not take any of it back. I would never, ever trade the truth for a relationship with people that is based on lies and fairy tales. My family believes I am a godless heathen (well, that's kinda true) who is perverted by hedonistic pleasures and has chosen my selfish self over obedience to God. Quite the contrary, it is my honest, sensible nature that prevents me from believing in something that doesn't make sense. I can't take seriously the idea that this invisible, inaudible, nonphysical being has total control over me and my soul. Where is the proof of such a being? In your "feelings"? In your fear of being wrong and going to hell? My sister actually explained her belief to me, that the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old so she figures it knows what it's talking about. That's what your faith is based on? Because enough idiots have been around long enough to perpetuate foolish ideas, so they must be right? That's not enough for me.
I am looking forward to showing my mother that I am a beautiful, happy, healthy person. I am honest and open, and do not live my life in fear. All my life growing up I was taught by her that you cannot be truly happy without God. After she became a Catholic 17 years ago, she more narrowly defined this idea to be you cannot be truly happy without being a good Catholic. And if you made the mistake of thinking you were happy without being Catholic, you were incomplete as a person, and lying to yourself. But if you become an ex-Catholic (*gasp*), why then you knew what you were doing was wrong and you did it anyway, which makes you evil and vile, narcissistic and selfish, and going straight to hell. I fall into this category. ;)
The truth is, I am happier than I have ever been! I am free and liberated and can just be a human without wasting my life in the purposeless shackles of religion. I am deeply, truly, and honestly happy and I'm not lying to myself.
--BadSec
My mother falls into the latter category. Familial relations between her and my siblings are... strained, to put it mildly. Lately my mother and I have gotten to the point where we can exchange emails on neutral things such as funny YouTube videos, wacky news stories and the like--but we haven't seen each other or spoken on the phone in a year. This is progress. Which is why I was surprised yesterday when she invited me (by text) to lunch since she is in town visiting the good children (my religious siblings, not atheist me).
She knows that I don't believe in any religion and that I question God, but I haven't said the word "atheist" to her. The predictable thing about my relationship with my fanatically religious family is that I have never, ever, not once, done anything wrong to any of them personally, but they've ostracized me exactly as if I had. That fact is exactly what irritates me so. My offense is in questioning God and religion (and finding no substance there), not in actually causing them any harm, yet they react as if I had. As my mother once put it, and I quote, "our religion is our universe. You've chosen to leave it so we cannot have the relationship with you that you want." The 'relationship I want' was an agreement of mutual respect to agree to disagree but still be a family. That is literally all I asked for, but that is too much for them. Unfortunately, this is a very typical scenario, and truthfully my situation is better than many.
But I will not back down. She demanded that, if I wanted my family to have a relationship with me and my boyfriend, that I would have to sign and submit documentation to the local bishop proclaiming my official exodus of the Catholic Church. She also quoted Catholic Cannons to me (threw the book at me, so to speak) telling me why I should make my non-religion official. Of course I refused. It would be exactly like me submitting documents to the government of France letting them know I'm not French. Totally pointless. I need do nothing more than stop believing and stop participating for it to be official.
So probably against my better judgment, I agreed to lunch. I used to be so intimidated by her opinions and I was so convinced of her righteousness. Now as a freethinking adult, I can see her for the human being she is. A close-minded, arrogant, religious fanatic who feels she has the right to judge others because "God" disagrees with actions x and y, so she is allowed to look down on people because they do actions x and y--never noticing that it is a group of very imperfect humans who "educate" everyone as to what God likes and dislikes. But of course those humans claim that through a miraculous divine intervention known as ex cathedra, no official teaching of the Catholic Church will ever be wrong because God speaks through them at that time. Even if they are adulterous murderers who eat children and puppies, whatever they say ex cathedra is GOD'S WORD (yes, this is what I was taught and what the Catholic faithful believe).
I am looking forward to today. I have now become a humble, open-minded person who knows that she doesn't have all the answers, but is able to reason and use her brain enough to not attribute the universe to a figment of humans' imagination. As hard as it has been, I would not take any of it back. I would never, ever trade the truth for a relationship with people that is based on lies and fairy tales. My family believes I am a godless heathen (well, that's kinda true) who is perverted by hedonistic pleasures and has chosen my selfish self over obedience to God. Quite the contrary, it is my honest, sensible nature that prevents me from believing in something that doesn't make sense. I can't take seriously the idea that this invisible, inaudible, nonphysical being has total control over me and my soul. Where is the proof of such a being? In your "feelings"? In your fear of being wrong and going to hell? My sister actually explained her belief to me, that the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old so she figures it knows what it's talking about. That's what your faith is based on? Because enough idiots have been around long enough to perpetuate foolish ideas, so they must be right? That's not enough for me.
I am looking forward to showing my mother that I am a beautiful, happy, healthy person. I am honest and open, and do not live my life in fear. All my life growing up I was taught by her that you cannot be truly happy without God. After she became a Catholic 17 years ago, she more narrowly defined this idea to be you cannot be truly happy without being a good Catholic. And if you made the mistake of thinking you were happy without being Catholic, you were incomplete as a person, and lying to yourself. But if you become an ex-Catholic (*gasp*), why then you knew what you were doing was wrong and you did it anyway, which makes you evil and vile, narcissistic and selfish, and going straight to hell. I fall into this category. ;)
The truth is, I am happier than I have ever been! I am free and liberated and can just be a human without wasting my life in the purposeless shackles of religion. I am deeply, truly, and honestly happy and I'm not lying to myself.
--BadSec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)