[GeroMeroHero]

Being new, I would normally not start a thread but I found this interesting and I saw no articles or mention of it.

Quiverfull.
It is a Christian movement that seeks to have as many kids as possible. The average family size is about 8.5 I think.
Why? Well, the future belongs to those who are fruitful and multiply. They make it clear they seek to outpopulate the Blue States, and even seem to want to compete with Muslims in western countries. Or at least see the example being set.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...=102005062

One notable family is the Duggers. They have a show I think.
http://www.newsweek.com/inside-duggar-fa...logy-76547

Part of their teachings is an ideological opposition to feminism, by implication this is due to its birth suppressing nature.

"Dreams of demographic dominion aside, what's problematic about Quiverfull for many is the position the movement relegates women to on its way there. Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, a former Quiverfull writer who left the movement, says that the lifestyle is frequently one of unrelenting duty and labor that leaves women little recourse if the demands of their lives prove too much to bear. "The Quiverfull movement holds up as examples men like the Duggars ... all men of means. But for every family like this, there are ten or fifty or one hundred Quiverfull families living in what most would consider to be poverty ... Mothers are in a constant cycle, often, of pregnancy, breastfeeding, and the care of toddlers." Women are expected to feed and care for a large family on what are frequently limited resources, and the strain leads some to suffer clinical levels of exhaustion and self-neglect. The work that mothers can't manage usually falls to their eldest daughters, who learn early that their role in life is domestic, as helpmeets to their parents and later their husbands, and as mothers to many children.

Quiverfull and what could be called the submissive lifestyle are ultimately convictions of faith, and many women choose to follow them regardless of potential hardships. This is, of course, their choice, but fans of TV's novel large families should not overlook their comprehensive ideology that argues that family planning and feminism are cultural scourges to be eradicated, and that women's highest calling is in becoming prolific mothers and submissive wives. A glimpse of this reality is sometimes visible beneath TV's glossy treatment of Quiverfull families, but more often it's difficult to see the hard edges of ideology underlying yet another large family adventure."


This is more of what they say about themselves
http://www.thenation.com/article/arrows-war?page=full

And Slate is not happy of course
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...rfull.html


I thought this would be nice to be brought to the attention of the forum. Roosh recently wrote an article about an absence of religious narrative destroying birth rates, and with the subject of demographic jihad on the forum it seems somewhat related. Users can make of it what they will.

Personally, it's either going to be them or the Mormons who take over America. It could be worse.

[infowarrior1]

Unless the feminism and modern culture get to the children 1st.

[GeroMeroHero]

(01-10-2015 04:02 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Unless the feminism and modern culture get to the children 1st.

It may take religion to inculcate against that, since both are religions unto themselves

[Days of Broken Arrows]

"...but fans of TV's novel large families should not overlook their comprehensive ideology that argues that family planning and feminism are cultural scourges to be eradicated, and that women's highest calling is in becoming prolific mothers and submissive wives."

Really? So what exactly is women's "highest calling" then?

Not invention. Not building. Not science.

Not putting the power grid in place or erecting skyscrapers or delivering the Slurpee fluid or any of the millions of things we all take for granted as we sit in our warm houses and it's 7 degrees outside.

Perhaps that "highest calling" is becoming a "social media director" or "viral marketing strategist" or whatever they're training women to do these days instead of having kids.

Any society that fails to see women having children as their ultimate contribution to humanity is a broken one hellbent on self-destruction. Who will have the children if they don't? Their SmartPhones or iPads?

Can women do men's jobs? Sure, most of the time. But having them in men's roles is like driving headlong down a dead-end street. And having them think they were put on Earth to do men's work is a folly and will benefit only those who invested money in whichever company makes cat food.

PS: Amanda Marcotte wrote that Slate article. It really should have been copy/pasted in the original post's text so we didn't give her Web clicks.

[Troll King]

One of the more difficult parts of swallowing the red pill for me lately has been questioning so many things, especially of certain political persuasions, that I used to take for granted were true.

If you had asked me about the Quiverfull movement just a few years ago I would give you a non-thought out and somewhat canned response due to my liberal upbringing by my feminist parents. Which is somewhat strange in a way because both of my feminist parents, my mother served in a high level on boards for NOW and other similar organizations, are incredibly religious.

In fact my mom is now in Divinity school and wants to become a priest one day in her later years. I came to atheism as a teen and have always questioned religion a bit and due to that I would have seen the Quiverfull movement as extremists of sort.

However, with my mom in divinity school and the things she tells me about it...well, I am not so sure what to believe anymore. The school she is going to is mostly for Episcopalians and Anglicans but also has some overlap with Methodists and some other denominations. It is out of Boston and is heavily heaped in SJWism and feminism.

She had to write several papers on privilege and equality and racism and multi-culturism just to get accepted. She now has a tranny professor teaching her "Readings of the Bible" or whatever it is class.

I have been reading Dalrocks blog for a few years now and have usually agreed with him, or at least found his writing insightful when I didn't agree, even though he is a devout Christian. One of the reasons I like his blog is because he doesn't hold back on his fellow Christians and their anti-male stances.

Now that I am getting a peak into some of this stuff due to my mom being in divinity school, well...what can I say. The rot goes far deeper than simply having more women in church or a few female priests and deacons. Feminism, Progressivism, and SJWism is taught at the very bottom up, at least in my moms school which again cranks out priests for several denominations.

Anyways. Things like the Quiverfull movement or gay parenting or racism or immigration or whatever....so many of these issues I used to think I had a good idea where to stand and what to think about them but the more I awaken to the red pill and ask some basic questions the more I become somewhat uncertain about what to think and I do start to change my mind on some of these issues.

I guess I am not really certain what to think about them at this point.

[GeroMeroHero]

(01-10-2015 04:22 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

"...but fans of TV's novel large families should not overlook their comprehensive ideology that argues that family planning and feminism are cultural scourges to be eradicated, and that women's highest calling is in becoming prolific mothers and submissive wives."

Really? So what exactly is women's "highest calling" then?

Not invention. Not building. Not science.

Not putting the power grid in place or erecting skyscrapers or delivering the Slurpee fluid or any of the millions of things we all take for granted as we sit in our warm houses and it's 7 degrees outside.

Perhaps that "highest calling" is becoming a "social media director" or "viral marketing strategist" or whatever they're training women to do these days instead of having kids.

Any society that fails to see women having children as their ultimate contribution to humanity is a broken one hellbent on self-destruction. Who will have the children if they don't? Their SmartPhones or iPads?

Can women do men's jobs? Sure, most of the time. But having them in men's roles is like driving headlong down a dead-end street. And having them think they were put on Earth to do men's work is a folly and will benefit only those who invested money in whichever company makes cat food.

PS: Amanda Marcotte wrote that Slate article. It really should have been copy/pasted in the original post's text so we didn't give her Web clicks.

Exactly, I figured people would see that. 8.5 is a fuck ton of kids, sure, but what you say is true.
Will do better with slate in the future

[Troll King]

(01-10-2015 04:22 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

"...but fans of TV's novel large families should not overlook their comprehensive ideology that argues that family planning and feminism are cultural scourges to be eradicated, and that women's highest calling is in becoming prolific mothers and submissive wives."

Really? So what exactly is women's "highest calling" then?

Not invention. Not building. Not science.

Not putting the power grid in place or erecting skyscrapers or delivering the Slurpee fluid or any of the millions of things we all take for granted as we sit in our warm houses and it's 7 degrees outside.

Perhaps that "highest calling" is becoming a "social media director" or "viral marketing strategist" or whatever they're training women to do these days instead of having kids.

Any society that fails to see women having children as their ultimate contribution to humanity is a broken one hellbent on self-destruction. Who will have the children if they don't? Their SmartPhones or iPads?

Can women do men's jobs? Sure, most of the time. But having them in men's roles is like driving headlong down a dead-end street. And having them think they were put on Earth to do men's work is a folly and will benefit only those who invested money in whichever company makes cat food.

PS: Amanda Marcotte wrote that Slate article. It really should have been copy/pasted in the original post's text so we didn't give her Web clicks.

The thing is though, is Traditional Christianity really a better option for most men?

I am not sure it is. I sure as hell don't want to go back to the days of shotgun weddings. Think about the first 2-3 girls you fucked in High School or College? What if one of them got pregnant and you had to marry her instead of just dealing with a pregnancy scare or two.

In my own case she was one of my first loves and she was hot and a cheerleader and did some local modeling. Things were great, at first. We dated for over 3 years and by the time that relationship ended I vowed that I didn't ever want another one again. She was crazy as fuck as it turned out. Bulimia, cutting, bipolar disorder, and not to get all feministy but she was psychologically and emotionally abusive or as I like to say...she was simple the standard relationship fare for modern women.

It has been almost a decade since our relationship ended and if I had gotten her pregnant and married her...fuck...I don't want to think about that. Maybe the kids would be worth the burden if we had a system that privileged fathers over mothers and our vagimony system disappeared...but still...

The way I look at it is that the best times in that relationship, and there were many, never outshined the worst. I can't imagine having to deal with a decade of that on top of kids.

It seems to me that you are right but at the same time most traditional societies, especially traditional Christian patriarchies, are worse for the men than they are for the women.

Both my grandparents had long marriages and were very Christian and traditional. I never met either of my grand dads because they both worked their asses off, taking multiple jobs at times, to make their families better and they also both got drafted into wars that left them waking up screaming in the middle of the night a few times a month, and they both paid into a system that they never collected back from.

One died in his sleep a week before his Social Security and military Pension checks arrived in the mail and had to be returned so as not to double-dip. The other died two months before. Their hard work did benefit my grandmothers and my dad and my mom and aunt, but do you really want to live in that sort of system?

It sure as hell isn't conducive to us players. If you are high status you might get a mistress or two over your lifetime. But today if you are high status you can have your pick. Even though it does suck for beta males, they still have much more freedom and opportunities in many ways than they would have previously.

Hell, the fact that "abandonment" was a crime during those days tells me that the men of the time would probably be better today with porn and video games than a nagging and sexless wife. My 0.02

[CactusCat589]

8.5 is a fuck ton of kids. I sympathize with this part of the article.

Quote:

Women are expected to feed and care for a large family on what are frequently limited resources, and the strain leads some to suffer clinical levels of exhaustion and self-neglect.

The men in Quiverfell - I imagine - have a traditional view of marriage where the wife's responsibility is to handle most of the rearing of the children. That's my view of it as well. This feminist rebellion against the patriarchy has mostly been mothers losing their shit over having to raise 2 kids. But 5 kids and past that? At some point, they are justified.

But 8 kids is a lot. Even in medieval kids, that was just the baseline number of kids conceived so that they would still be left with a few kids after child deaths picked half of them off. For them to all be alive and the mom having to care for them, especially since the kids are overlapping in toddler age, is tougher than a lot of 8-to-5 jobs that even the average man works. If the family isn't wealthy, I absolutely can see women being stressed to the point their life expectancy and health takes a real hit.

Additionally, this is America, where the extended family is typically scattered all over the place. I have two aunts and two uncles - one couple lives down in Texas, the other in New York. My family lives in Oregon. Just ask people at holiday get-togethers, everyone has to book flights and travel to see each other. In the Middle East and Asia, the extended family tends to be concentrated to at least the same city. Less fertile aunts are almost like second mothers, sometimes it's the grandparents who serve as live-in nannies. They pool not just the money, but the energy together to afford the kids. It's a totally different nesting instinct.

For this to work and be viable in the long-run, the families in this movement need to adopt other changes.

[TheWastelander]

Anyone can do a miserable shit job pushing papers in a cubicle..but only a woman can give birth to a child.

Why women don't revel in this fact and celebrate it is beyond me. Instead they prefer getting dicked for ten years, working at some job that sucks, and then becoming childless cat ladies or settling with some beta they'll hate.

Feminism has royally fucked up Western society. It is the enemy of women and a destructive force of evil.

I support the quiverfull movement as long as the parents can provide for their kids and don't rely on government assistance. Good for them. Big families are a blessing and having a big blood-related support network of people who will have your back is great.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(01-10-2015 04:36 AM)Troll King Wrote:  

One of the more difficult parts of swallowing the red pill for me lately has been questioning so many things, especially of certain political persuasions, that I used to take for granted were true.
...
In fact my mom is now in Divinity school and wants to become a priest one day in her later years. I came to atheism as a teen and have always questioned religion a bit and due to that I would have seen the Quiverfull movement as extremists of sort.

However, with my mom in divinity school and the things she tells me about it...well, I am not so sure what to believe anymore. The school she is going to is mostly for Episcopalians and Anglicans but also has some overlap with Methodists and some other denominations. It is out of Boston and is heavily heaped in SJWism and feminism.
...
Anyways. Things like the Quiverfull movement or gay parenting or racism or immigration or whatever....so many of these issues I used to think I had a good idea where to stand and what to think about them but the more I awaken to the red pill and ask some basic questions the more I become somewhat uncertain about what to think and I do start to change my mind on some of these issues.

I guess I am not really certain what to think about them at this point.

"In fact my mom is now in Divinity school and wants to become a priest one day in her later years. I came to atheism as a teen and have always questioned religion a bit and due to that I would have seen the Quiverfull movement as extremists of sort."

They are extremists. And it's not a movement I would sign up for. But they're a needed antidote to all the SJW posturing, plus they're at least honest (although perhaps unwittingly) about women's biological roles.

Their existence also exposes feminist hypocrisy. They'll criticize this "movement" (and Mormons) but not Muslim women, black women, or illegal border crossers who have lots and lots of kids.

Somehow, in SJW-land, it became a "sin" to be religious and want to have lots of kids, unless you're a minority. There is some sort of self-hatred or "penance" going on here, but I'm not religious so I'll leave this to others to explain.

As for your mom, well, I think a lot of the Episcopal SJW crowd means well; it's just that they seem to have bought into a lot of social justice ideas of the college crowd without looking at the larger biological or sociological context of them.

It's real easy to talk about what jobs women should have when it's not you or the men in your life doing the actual hard labor that a lot of men really do. This is what the left used to be about in the '60s. Anyway, this reminds me of an old Creedence Clearwater Revival song:

"Who'll take the coal from the mine?
Who'll take the salt from the earth?
Who'll take a leaf and grow it to a tree?
Don't look now, it ain't you or me."

[Dr. Howard]

(01-10-2015 05:14 AM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  

8.5 is a fuck ton of kids. I sympathize with this part of the article.

Quote:

Women are expected to feed and care for a large family on what are frequently limited resources, and the strain leads some to suffer clinical levels of exhaustion and self-neglect.

The men in Quiverfell - I imagine - have a traditional view of marriage where the wife's responsibility is to handle most of the rearing of the children. That's my view of it as well. This feminist rebellion against the patriarchy has mostly been mothers losing their shit over having to raise 2 kids. But 5 kids and past that? At some point, they are justified.

But 8 kids is a lot. Even in medieval kids, that was just the baseline number of kids conceived so that they would still be left with a few kids after child deaths picked half of them off. For them to all be alive and the mom having to care for them, especially since the kids are overlapping in toddler age, is tougher than a lot of 8-to-5 jobs that even the average man works. If the family isn't wealthy, I absolutely can see women being stressed to the point their life expectancy and health takes a real hit.

Additionally, this is America, where the extended family is typically scattered all over the place. I have two aunts and two uncles - one couple lives down in Texas, the other in New York. My family lives in Oregon. Just ask people at holiday get-togethers, everyone has to book flights and travel to see each other. In the Middle East and Asia, the extended family tends to be concentrated to at least the same city. Less fertile aunts are almost like second mothers, sometimes it's the grandparents who serve as live-in nannies. They pool not just the money, but the energy together to afford the kids. It's a totally different nesting instinct.

For this to work and be viable in the long-run, the families in this movement need to adopt other changes.

I agree with this, the part about having a million kids really only makes a lot of sense if you have a business like a farm or employment space for most of them. Here are some examples I'm familiar with:

- A guy had 9 kids and owned a seasonal business that hired 100+ people per year, guess where all of the kids worked?

- Two Appalachian families had 14 and 16 kids respectively. The majority of the kids worked on subsistence farms where they were too poor to buy machinery and more than 2 oxen to pull plows and maybe 1 pickup truck. This was in the 1960s...so not 'ancient times' either.

Just cranking them out to disperse them all over the world is like shooting a shotgun at an aircraft carrier. It needs to be more concentrated locally, so one can take over the local area and then expand like a disease with each generation.

[Dr. Howard]

And how could I forget...the dark version of a local quiverfull movement. The Black Donnellys of early Ontario http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Donnellys These immigrant squatters grew and enlisted their family to take over a small township and run a criminal enterprise. The entire family was eventually killed by a town uprising.

Its also the foundation for the best television show ever cancelled if you grew up with brothers.

[Cobra]

To the men: sure have 10 kids and set expectations of your wife that she take care of them. However, you also better be expected to provide resources for them.

To the feminists and white knights: Women don't "need" to work just because you want to jump on the social justice bandwagon. Women's needs are based on what they want themselves.

And who wants women that don't want what the red pill man wants? Not me..

[infowarrior1]

(01-10-2015 04:05 AM)GeroMeroHero Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 04:02 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Unless the feminism and modern culture get to the children 1st.

It may take religion to inculcate against that, since both are religions unto themselves

Religion is not necessarily a bulwark against that. Many examples of churchianity is a testament to that.

[GeroMeroHero]

(01-10-2015 08:19 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 04:05 AM)GeroMeroHero Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 04:02 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Unless the feminism and modern culture get to the children 1st.

It may take religion to inculcate against that, since both are religions unto themselves

Religion is not necessarily a bulwark against that. Many examples of churchianity is a testament to that.

Heh. True dat.

Secular Muslims in the West (I am using secular loosely, as they still say they keep the faith but they really don't) tend to be really far left, especially the women

[WestIndianArchie]

"He never had to raise his voice to keep me and the children in our place. And when he did raise his voice, well that was “speaking the truth in love.” When he constantly criticized and complained about all the ways in which the children and I failed to live up to God’s perfect standards, he was “hating the sin, but loving the sinner.” He didn’t have to brandish a weapon in order to control our every action, indeed even our thoughts and feelings. All he had to do was fulfill his God-appointed role of Patriarch; to love us as Christ loves the church."

Christian Game is strong

WIA