Different strokes for different folks? But blechh, and I do mean blechh!! Where's the vomit smiley when you need it? >:(
(http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q186/southendmd/misc/barf.gif)
Rebuke and Lash. This is the harshest discipline a husband should administer, and it should always be done privately and with Godly, Biblical love. Usually, exhortation will have already taken place before this method is used, but there may come situations where this is the first step. The rebuke and lashing should be administered with a calm heart. Talk to your wife, let her know you are serious, and tell her why she is to be disciplined physically.
Different strokes for different folks? But blechh, and I do mean blechh!! Where's the vomit smiley when you need it? >:(Don´t be surprised if they get off on it, too.
http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/how_to_discipline.html
Just an example below. The whole site is devoted to this medieval BS:
The Application of Discipline to Your Wife
You must always remember those two sin dynamics common to all women, for the vast majority of your discipline will stem from her struggles concerning them. Of course, each wife has peculiar struggles for you to deal with as well, and you'll need to be aware of them when they rear their heads.
First, do not attempt to discipline your wife without first going to the Lord in prayer. No man alone is wise enough, and we must seek the Lord when faced with discipline issues.
There are two primary methods to discipline in the home towards wives, and one necessary means of grace. Following are the methods of discipline:
Exhortation. When your wife is sinning, exhort her with the Word. Use your Bibles, gents! This needs to be done with gentleness, and often you will need to repeat yourself several times (using similar words) before it sinks in. Remember always, when disciplining that the person before you is the most cherished, adored person in your universe. Treat her as such. If you have children, it may, depending on how her sin touched the children require that they be present. However, keep control of the situation. DO NOT LET THE CHILDREN EXHORT YOUR WIFE DIRECTLY! There are times when children may do so, but once you're involved, it's your show, Husband. If the children have something to say (and you feel that it needs to be heard) have them address you, and not her. You are your wife's leader and authority in the home, not the children. Do not risk upsetting that balance.
Rebuke and Lash. This is the harshest discipline a husband should administer, and it should always be done privately and with Godly, Biblical love. Usually, exhortation will have already taken place before this method is used, but there may come situations where this is the first step. The rebuke and lashing should be administered with a calm heart. Talk to your wife, let her know you are serious, and tell her why she is to be disciplined physically.
Don´t be surprised if they get off on it, too.
So what if they get off on it?? Its not all that different than what goes on with the BDSM crowd.BDSM takes place between two concenting adults, and is about mutual pleasure and trust. This is about men beating on their wives.
Under the Common Law you could you beat your wife as long as the club was no thicker than two fingers.
Or maybe it was one finger. ...
BDSM takes place between two concenting adults, and is about mutual pleasure and trust. The two things have nothing in common.
I think most women in these types of relationships have been more or less raised to believe that this is OK behavior, and that is why they are "OK" with it. I have a hard time believeing that these Christians belong to some type of Christian BDSM group.
I suspect that nowadays many of these Christian cases involve consenting adults, too, and that there is often an unstated element of BDSM involved. Except in rare cases -- forced marriages, or people from the most extremely fundamentalist families -- I would guess most women in these marriages pretty much know what they're getting into. I have read quotes from wives in the past, and they seem to be fairly willing participants. After all, there is no reason to assume that conservative Christians are any less likely than others to have these sorts of sexual interests.
BDSM takes place between two concenting adults, and is about mutual pleasure and trust. This is about men beating on their wives.
BDSM-plays generally also stay in the bedroom.
I've met BDSM couples of mixed, and same gender. The dominant partner is dominant outside the bedroom too. He or she is the "boss" at all times.Not true in my experience. There are also couples that switch roles from time to time.
Not true in my experience. There are also couples that switch roles from time to time.
But this thread is not about BDSM, let´s get back on topic, shall we?
Not true in my experience. There are also couples that switch roles from time to time.
But this thread is not about BDSM, let´s get back on topic, shall we?
It was a thumb. Thus, the "rule of thumb."
Fine. There are women of different faiths who LIKE the idea of their husbands being in charge, making the decisions, etc. And that CAN include beating them. I know that there are some orthodox jews, and muslims who live like that. So this is not particular to Fundamentalist Christians.
They're happy, and they're not hurting anyone around them. Isn't that the lifestyle litmus-test around these parts?
Not from the Christian's POV. This is love, and the woman does indeed consent to live this way. Marriages among Fundamentalists are like this. They don't all beat their wives, but almost ALL of them have a dominant husband/submissive wife component. They believe that's how God intended things to be.
That's hardly a sound upbringing and basis for free-will or healthy choices or a healthy attitude about sexuality and marriage.
They would look at most of the women here and say that y'all are neither "sound" nor "healthy," but rather on a course for certain, ultimate death. Which is also highly subjective, and not theirs to determine for you.
Nowadays, for an American woman to have grown up with no exposure to other, more secular, viewpoints would mean really unusual isolation -- not just homeschooling but no TV, no computer, etc. Even if their parents hold those views, most women would be familiar with the idea that other people hold other views and as adults they can make their own choices.
I once read an interview (in "Bitch" or "Bust" -- can't remember which) with women in domestic discipline marriages. They were quite aware of the other options, but felt like this was right for them. But again, there was something in the interviews that suggested they found it appealing.
Good point.
Also, I have to wonder how many Western women are raised in THAT extreme of an environment these days. Fifty years ago, sure. Nowadays, for an American woman to have grown up with no exposure to other, more secular, viewpoints would mean really unusual isolation -- not just homeschooling but no TV, no computer, etc. Even if their parents hold those views, most women would be familiar with the idea that other people hold other views and as adults they can make their own choices. Many children of religiously conservative parents DO, in fact, go on to make different choices. Even the children of immigrants whose parents hold strict traditionalist views and expect their children to follow them go in different directions once they're old enough to do so.
Among fundamentalist Christians, this sort of cultural isolation would be extremely unusual (outside of, say, the Amish community). Most of the people in those huge evangelistic churches, for example, are reasonably sophisticated about the culture around them. Look at Michele Bachmann, for example.
"Sound" and "healthy" are highly subjective, and not ours to determine for others.
You would think, but then why are there so many women who stay in abusive relationships? They see other options, they have other options, they know there are other options, yet they stay with abusive men. Why is that?
Mental conditioning.
Same with the strict Christian marriage thing.
If these women were raised with the attitude I suggested, then they don't think they have other choices that agree with their belief system. They'll burn in hell you see, if they get it wrong. They've been raised that they should put everyone else's well-being ahead of their own. So they're the first to cave should everyone else's desires go against her own.
I had a friend in college - 10 years ago now - and she wasn't raised in a very Christian household, but she was raised with a dominating father and submissive mother and raised to be completely dependent. Then she turned 18 and her father cut her loose. What do you think happened? She couldn't function very well on her own. She didn't know anything about finances, about getting a higher education, having healthy relationships with boyfriends (her mother having told her she was nothing without a man), so she kept having abusive boyfriends, bouncing checks, having to move back home where her father could tell her how useless and worthless she was.
No, incorrect. There is a standard and society determines it all the time, hence the justice system, Social Services, homes for abused wives and domestic violence counseling and powers of attorney.
But you're assuming that what goes on in these households meets those standards. If a husband punches his wife in the eye and kicks her in the ribs after she hits the floor, then that is clearly within the standards set by the State. If he gives her a smack on the hand, or spanks her bottom, you and I might find it distasteful, but the State isn't likely to find any wrong-doing.
What I'm saying is that I think the number of American families who are such strict conservative Christians that they raise their daughters to be totally convinced that they have to submit to their husbands' physical punishment ... I think that population is infinitesimal, at this point.
Someone liking a light smack on the bottom or hand doesn't equate to someone wanting a spouse to dominate their entire lives.
All women brought up in these radical Christian families have to be taught is that the man is their entire lives. So they will happily marry a man who is automatically dominant...and it all goes downhill from there.
I didn't say that it did. The point I was trying to make is that neither the smack on the ass, nor the dominant husband is un-sound, or unhealthy in and of themselves. Especially from the POV of the Christian.
It doesn't go downhill from there in most of the Fundamentalist families that we've been discussing. You're saying that this Christian dominance/submissiveness leads to actual abuse, and that is not what I've seen. I have seen plenty of it among secular couples.
And let's not forget that there is a HUGE difference between a man who abuses because of some internal, violent pathology; and a man who uses physical discipline on his wife because he's been taught that's what a Christian man is supposed to do. The former comes from a place of anger and dysfunction. The latter comes from a sense of duty and doing the right thing.
Sure, of course there are women like that. There's everything under the sun out there. And yes, I'm sure there are women in Christian domestic discipline marriages who resemble women in non-Christian abusive relationships. That is, they develop a combination of fear of their husbands, learned helplessness and actual inability to support themselves and/or their children and are convinced they have no other options.
But the fact that your example from college is someone who was NOT raised in a very Christian household is telling.
What I'm saying is that I think the number of American families who are such strict conservative Christians that they raise their daughters to be totally convinced that they have to submit to their husbands' physical punishment ... I think that population is infinitesimal, at this point. Does it ever, ever happen? Sure, probably. But the average American conservative Christian is a long way from that. Many of them didn't even grow up in particularly strictly religious families; they were born again as adults.
I think we liberals tend to demonize conservative Christians to the point that many of us would believe just about any kind of 19th-century-style behavior is still prevalent. It's not. I think Michele Bachmann is a good example of what modern conservative Christians are like: their political views are very different from mine on issues like religion in schools, health care, marriage equality, etc. But as far as women go they're reasonably modern. That's why conservative Christians readily support figures like Bachmann or Sarah Palin; they are OK with women being successful and authoritative as long as they share their other political views.
FYI, Bachmann has said she follows the Bible's teachings to be "submissive" to her husband. It's not totally clear what that entails, but it supposedly involves mutual respect, not a domestic discipline type of relationship. Here's an article that explores the topic of Bachmann's marriage, if anyone is interested
I think it's extremely telling. That sort of upbringing leads to that kind of mental state. Regardless of what a woman sees around her, who her friends are, what her education level is, if she's been raised to think so little of herself, she will put up with all sorts of dominating behavior because she thinks she has no choice.
As I said in my post, what is rare I think is families raising daughters to expect physical punishment. I doubt they do. What they are raised with is the idea that the man is the leader, the shepherd, the one to whom she must cling, the one who is closer to god, the one who is in control. With that sort of idea about a marriage spouse, when/if the abuse starts, it's unlikely she's going to think anything is wrong with HIM.
The stats are only stats of those who REPORT the abuse. If a woman doesn't think the husband is doing anything wrong, or that she somehow deserves her treatment, and he reinforces this idea along with her family and social network, she's not going to report it. There could be a lot more of it than we know about.
Ummmm, maybe they give verbal lip-service to approving of them, but it's unlikely with the male dominated society that they subscribe to that they'd actually vote for them. A friend of mine were just talking about this very subject just this weekend and this was our conclusion. :)
It also entails Bachman lying about being submissive to her husband. If she was following the bible teachings as she claims, she'd also have her head covered while speaking in public and be silent in church and her husband should be either with her at all times, or be discouraging her to speak in public.
If such women were truly as bible following as they claim to be, we wouldn't be hearing from them. Bachman is a typical fundamentalist hypocrite like all the others.
The novel The Handmaid's Tale was pretty amusing when it described a similar situation. In that novel, the US has become a theocracy that harkens to Hebrew Bible teachings. A woman politician much like Bachman or professional like Schlafly - before the move to the theocratic form of government - used to go on public speech jags about a Christian woman's proper place, blah blah blah... then when the country actually went to a theocratic government, women were silenced in public. Just like the bible says. The main character of the book notices that this ex-politico/professional woman is not happy about being put in her proper place.
Fundamentalist upbringing for women is a perfect seed for such relationships to form. Not that they all do or will.
That's assuming you think the latter is right as well. Describing his acts nicely as "duty" and the "right thing" doesn't convince me that guy is blameless. Hitting another adult whose only crime in a marriage is...
What could cause a man to strike his wife? As something she deserves? Unless she's coming at him with a knife, gun or her fists, I can't thing of a single thing that would make it 'right'.
Religion, another way to control people......
It also entails Bachman lying about being submissive to her husband. If she was following the bible teachings as she claims, she'd also have her head covered while speaking in public and be silent in church and her husband should be either with her at all times, or be discouraging her to speak in public.
It also entails Bachman lying about being submissive to her husband. If she was following the bible teachings as she claims, she'd also have her head covered while speaking in public and be silent in church and her husband should be either with her at all times, or be discouraging her to speak in public.
You seem to have Christians and Jews mixed up. It doesn't seem as though you understand how modern Christians contextualize the Old Testament. Even still, the Old Testament does contain Ruth, Esther, Merriam, etc.
Post some scriptures, and maybe I can help.
Fair enough. It certainly could turn abusive.
But that's my point. They do think its right, and so do their wives. This isn't about the husband's anger, or the wife's self-worth. This is about both husband and wife following the prescribed "biblical" roles in marriage. Remember, as Katherine pointed out a few posts back, most of these people don't grow up in these traditions, they adopt them after they are born-again as adults. They are trained to understand that husbands and wives have some very specific duties and roles. So from their POV behaving this way fulfills part of those duties, and that this is the right way to manage a marriage.
You have to understand that we're talking about a different set of moral codes than in the secular world.
Well, I'm more of a believer in nature than nurture. But let's say it's all about upbringing. Even so, by your description is valid but not specific to the Christian community. That was my point.
What I'm saying is that I think families that teach that the man is "the leader, the shepherd" etc. -- in other words, families who advocate that the woman should be totally subordinate and submissive to the man -- are in 2011 very few and far between. Again, I'm sure they exist out there, but they are not mainstream, so to speak, conservative Christians. Don't believe me? Let's take a look.
Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Michele Bachmann, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh don't say that.
I've never heard Pat Robertson and his ilk say that.
Are there some backwoods, backwards, old-school Christians who still teach their daughters that sort of thing? No doubt. Heck, I've met backwoods types who's families have been in the United States since the 18th century yet they don't speak English (only French). My point is that people like that are rare outliers, not what you'd expect from some average conservative Christian family.
The stats are definitely under-reported, although in this day and age it's less because the woman doesn't think the husband is doing anything wrong -- women who think like that are extremely are -- as that she feels helpless, scared and/or loves him and is trying to protect him.
Masses of people don't usually "give lip service" to some candidate and then vote otherwise. Except when it comes to black candidates, in which case there's an actual phenomenon called the Wilder Effect (after Gov. Douglas Wilder of Virginia) about people telling pollsters they're likely to vote for a black candidate but then not actually doing it. You could argue that Bachmann, Palin, etc., would be the subjects of their own personal Wilder effect. But I disagree, and unless we have numbers we won't resolve that easily.
I've read it. It was published in 1985, and very topical in respect to the Iranian revolutio -- that is, with only slight exaggeration, what happened to Iranian women. As for North America, it wasn't, and isn't, as good a fit. It's dystopian, for sure, but we were nowhere close to that sort of society 26 years ago and we're much further away from it today.
I think that -- to some extent, at least in some cases -- Christian Domestic Discipline is a form of BDSM that both spouses find acceptable or even appealing and that passes muster in the Christian community because it is practiced under the guise of religious ideology rather than a sexuality they, given their faith, would have to profess to find "deviant."
And I agree with Milo that many couples do not switch back and forth.
I think we liberals tend to demonize conservative Christians to the point that many of us would believe just about any kind of 19th-century-style behavior is still prevalent. It's not. I think Michele Bachmann is a good example of what modern conservative Christians are like: their political views are very different from mine on issues like religion in schools, health care, marriage equality, etc. But as far as women go they're reasonably modern. That's why conservative Christians readily support figures like Bachmann or Sarah Palin; they are OK with women being successful and authoritative as long as they share their other political views.
If Michele and her husband practice Christian domestic discipline -- and obviously I have no idea whether they do or not -- I'm sure it's for their own amusement.
Religion, another way to control people......Yeah, hence all the rules and the "if you don´t do as we say you´ll end up in hell" part.
These are people whose honesty I don't trust. They're either opinion talk show celebrities or editorialists who might say or write anything for ratings and sales or politicians who might do the same to win voters.
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - 1992 Iowa fundraising letter opposing a state equal-rights amendment ("Equal Rights Initiative in Iowa Attacked", Washington Post, 23 August 1992)[/b]
They don't have to be backwoods, crayons, just small town. Another college friend was from a small town in Texas. She didn't meet a single black person until she was a teenager. She has since moved back to that small town, married a small town husband, and lives across the street from her parents, brothers and sisters and their families in the same small town.
I'm really thinking it's where you live and the culture around you, crayons. I see this all the time - from old married women who didn't dare leave their husbands no matter how abusive he was because women don't divorce a husband - so say old school Catholics - to women who are so desperate to have a man, that they'll put up with anything.
Oh, I think they do. And quite often.
I'm sure the women of Iran thought so, too.
As any 'professional' can tell you, men who want to be spanked or who are otherwise fascinated by variations of BDSM tend to be 'alpha males' in their non-sexual lives. It's a safety valve of a sort.
Whoop-de-do. Married women here, please raise your hands if you've ever been tempted to regard Friend Husband as a god.
None of which has anything whatsoever to do with bondage or S&M games. I don't know of any psychologically or physically battered women who could tell you what their safe words were.
Women are human beings just as men are. If men can benefit from freedom and fulfilling their own desires and being leaders - and they do - why wouldn't women similarly benefit? So any philosophy that stifles the ability of women to do these things, that keeps them from fulfilling themselves as human beings is not 'right' in any way.
Whoa. I'm not saying they're honest. I'm saying that what they say reflects the opinions of their constituencies/audiences. They're quite willing to say all kinds of ridiculous things because that's what their audience believes, or what they want their audience to believe, or what the audience wants to believe. That's why the fact that they DON'T go around saying that men are the leader of women is so telling. If that were a widespread attitude out there -- like, say, the idea that there's no such thing as evolution -- than you can bet they'd be saying it all the time. The fact is, they're not.
But see? This very quote just proves my point. Sure, Pat Robertson hates feminists. But note that he explicitly says that feminists are "NOT about equal rights for women" (emphasis added). In other words, equal rights for women is a GOOD thing, but feminism is not because (he says) it's about something else -- i.e., killing one's children, destroying capitalism and becoming lesbians. (Which of course is a much more plausible description of the feminist agenda. ::))
This is just the right-wing version of left-leaning women who say, I'm for equal rights but don't call me a feminist.
What does this have to do with what we're talking about?
Again, yes, sure. But these aren't women necessarily brought up to believe they had to submit to men. In the first case, they were brought up to believe you don't get divorced. In the second case, they are lonely and desperate.
The Wilder Effect doesn't apply to cases like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. People who said they were going to vote for Wilder but secretly didn't do so were not also, at the same time, actively and passionately supporting Wilder. They were people giving face-saving information to a pollster just to be P.C. But the people who turn out in droves to see Palin and Bachmann, who defend them to the hilt in newspaper comment sections and so on ... these people don't go to those lengths just to appear P.C. They think those women are fantastic. And in Bachmann's case, anyway, they DO vote for her. That's why she's in office. She gets voted back in by her extremely conservative constituents, because they have no objections to a woman representative as long as she shares their conservative views.
Right. It took them more or less by surprise also. But they had a very different system of government than we do. America is not run by a dictator now, and I don't see the clergy taking over the government through revolution anytime soon.
What makes you think that such a marriage keeps these women from fulfilling themselves as human beings?? And better yet, how do you define fulfillment??
As soon as I see men rushing to the altar to get married and planning their weddings from when they were children, then I'll believe that when anyone first thinks of fulfillment, they think marriage.
Lots of children--Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc.--fantasize about their weddings. They play House, etc. And many men are focused on finding a wife--as opposed to just getting laid.
Marriage is a part of life's fulfillment for many people. Even gays.
What IS your point about marriage and fulfillment?
:laugh: Sorry, Milo. We must have grown up in completely different areas/times/attitudes. The boys I knew wanted to play doctor, not house.
We did.
Again. What are you trying to say about the relationship between marriage and fulfillment? You seem to be setting them at odds.
Not at all. I just don't think marriage should be the end-all, be-all of anyone's existence or ideas of fulfillment. Truly Milo, I know of no guy who - when growing up or in school - dreamed about being married. They dreamed about the girls they'd fuck, the places they'd go, the careers and power and toys they'd have. Oh, yeah, and maybe some day settling down.
I didn't say they weren't different in their non-sexual lives. I said people in their sexual lives don't necessarily switch back and forth from spanker to spankee.
Let me be clear. Obviously I believe there are abused women out there. And that some of those abused women are Christians. And that sometimes their Christianity is connected to their abuse, such as when they don't believe in divorce. And in A FEW cases, they were probably raised to believe that the husband is the boss of the household and the wife has to submit, and that somehow leads to their accepting abuse that they might otherwise not put up with. . . . I think liberals tend to expect conservatives to automatically hold extremely outdated views of male and female roles. That's why they pounced on Sarah Palin for pursuing a demanding career when she had a baby at home.
:laugh: Sorry, Milo. We must have grown up in completely different areas/times/attitudes. The boys I knew wanted to play doctor, not house.
Let me be clear. I'm quite aware that there isn't a one-size-fits-all model for conventional religious family life; for that you might want to address an atheist who's fond of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and cute references comparing a belief in God with a belief in Santa Claus.
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - 1992 Iowa fundraising letter opposing a state equal-rights amendment ("Equal Rights Initiative in Iowa Attacked", Washington Post, 23 August 1992)
At Pride events I used to see vendors selling buttons that said something close to, "Sorry I haven't been in church. I've been practicing witchcraft and becoming a lesbian."
8)
I'm sorry crayons but I think you're just splitting hairs here. Colter has already said that women shouldn't vote because they elect democratic presidents. Rush coined a term to easily dismiss any woman who actually speaks about women's rights or who is determined about women's rights "feminazi". They are already dismissive of women. They don't have to be specific about who is head of the family. It is automatically implied from their rhetoric.
I guess if you R E A L L Y stretch you can get that interpretation from what he said. IMO, what he's saying is blatant, women who call themselves feminists are about murdering children and satanism. There is NO 'legitimate' feminism, IOW. Again, tarring and feathering a term that women use to further their cause. Making 'feminisim' an ugly word no one wants to associate with and therefore further splintering groups who work for women's rights.
What it relates to is that such people are extremely isolated. They live in a very homogeneous society and they don't have any other influences other than what they grew up with. And while they don't have to, they can be easily influenced by that society into thinking that their way is right and everyone else is the problem. I'm glad you grew up that way crayons. My friends did not. And I meet more people like them, than I do people like you.
So why doesn't anyone dissuade them? Yes, you can get divorced. No, you don't need a man. Because the people around them believe what they do, too.
But that doesn't explain Palin though, does it?
Does it have to be, though? You do recall how the Mormon Church involved itself in Prop 8 in California, right? You do recall Dubya courting the religious right and promptly started doing away with funding to Planned Parenthood, outlawing types of abortion, signing into law the religious initiatives, right? I'm in Texas, I don't have to tell you what the state school board did to the textbooks and history. I just read a story the other day of yet another school having to be ordered to take down the 10 commandments. There doesn't have to be a dictator in power.
That statement was in response to more than one post here.
Of course not every religious household teaches the whole party line about female submission. Is that what you wanted to hear?
But there are more than a few who do, all-caps or otherwise.
It's an idea that isn't consistent with Western culture any longer; that's why it has to be prettied up with imaginative translations like 'submission' equaling 'respect.' And yes, they do pay lip service to equality for women but there's a whole lot less there than meets the ear. Plenty of people who oppose equal rights for both women and gays insist up and down that they 'love the fair sex' and/or 'have nothing against The Homosexuals.' IMO it's more than a little naive to take that at face value.
If the problem is making feminism an ugly word that no one wants to associate with, then you could as easily blame plenty of young women who wouldn't listen to Rush in a million years -- women with good educations and career plans and the assumption of equality, who associate the F-word with their mothers, with unshaven legs, with sexless man-hating, or whatever. It's stupid, I know, but there you have it. In my mind -- and, seemingly, yours -- "feminist" and "person who supports equal rights for women" are more or less synonymous. But to a lot of people on both sides of the aisle, they're not.
It’s hardly a typical scene from the suburbs. The Bortel home outside San Antonio, Tex., counts 12 members—parents David and Suzanne and their 10 children, ranging from 13 months to 15 (the 20-year-old married and moved away)—all crammed into a four-bedroom house that trembles constantly with activity. Everything revolves around the home: Dad works there, the kids are schooled there, the youngest three were born there.
Anyone heard of the Full Quiver (http://www.quiverfull.com) movement? They believe in having a "full quiver" of children: an archery metaphor, meaning as many children as the woman's body can produce. Their website's Articles section includes a paragraph from a Newsweek story:
From this account, Mrs. Bortel would have had an average of one pregnancy every two years for a period of two decades.
Other links on their site: "The Army of God" (video clips from FOX via Rachel Scott, "subscriber and author of the book 'Birthing God's Mighty Warriors' ", "Birth Dearth" (the planet is underpopulated), "Counter-Contraception", "When Your Quiver Overflows (from The Patriarch's Path by Mrs. Stacy McDonald)" and "Ten Great Reasons To Have Another Child", by Steve Mosher.
Its mirror image is the "No Longer Quivering" group, comprised of women who have left the movement, some after years of serial pregnancies had ruined their health. Their website has a number of more memoirs, some about the Quiverfull movement and others about this kind of "traditional" family life in general, at http://nolongerquivering.com/nlqstories/
The site recommends three books:
Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment' (http://t.co/dUxVWO8) by Janet Heimlich
Quivering Daughters (http://amzn.to/9Wm2c3) by Hillary McFarland
Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement (http://amzn.to/bAB5He) by Kathryn Joyce.
Probably feminist lesbian witches, the lot of 'em !
That's why no longer participate in, or donate to, campaigns to keep abortion safe and legal. I don't even click "like" for these organizations on Facebook.
Not that I don't support keeping abortion safe and legal, but younger women have sent a very clear message to older women that they want nothing to do with feminism. I've heard that feminism is a dinosaur anyway because "all the battles have been won" more than once, and I'm quite willing to bow to the superior wisdom and experience of 20somethings. If they turn out to be wrong about all the battles being won it will be a rude shock and might wake them up -- or it might not, as long as they still get to shave their legs -- but they won't want any input from older women anyway. So to hell with it.
Remember now, I'm just expressing my views like everybody else here.
There is a "reality tv" show that follows one such family. They are the Duggars, and the show is called 19 Kids & Counting". I also believe all the kids' names start with "j"
Quivering Daughters (http://amzn.to/9Wm2c3) by Hillary McFarland
Here's one BetterMost woman, not in her 20s, explaining why she believes in equal rights for women but doesn't consider herself a feminist: http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,32656.msg488241.html#msg488241 (http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,32656.msg488241.html#msg488241)
Sounds like the title of a porn flick. ... 8)
I am truly alarmed to hear about this full quiver movement because I think my daughter and niece are both caught up in it. There are quite a few young women who think feminism is a bunch of hooey and the best route is to get a good husband, be a housewife, and never have to work at a job. What about when you realize you're trapped in servitude when you have a half dozen kids and you're not even 30?
Marcia! Are you saying Santa Claus doesn't exist?
I am truly alarmed to hear about this full quiver movement because I think my daughter and niece are both caught up in it. There are quite a few young women who think feminism is a bunch of hooey and the best route is to get a good husband, be a housewife, and never have to work at a job. What about when you realize you're trapped in servitude when you have a half dozen kids and you're not even 30?
Depends on who's your daddy.
Depends on who's your daddy.:laugh:
Yes, I've known Louise (on the internet) for some time. And she can bloody well look after herself.
Parenthood is now the equivalent of servitude? I guess if we're all gonna be "free" the species will have to die out.
did somebody mention me?
:o
Thanks, serious, and let me also add some more info from my daughter's experience. Her husband doesn't allow disposable diapers so she does laundry every day, including many cloth diapers. Child care is the bailiwik of the wife, so she goes everywhere carrying a child and a heavy diaper bag, even when she and her husband are going to a ball game (and during the game, the child sits on the wife's lap, with the diaper bag at her feet). Maintaining the home is the bailiwik of the wife, so on weekends my daughter cooks and cleans while her husband plays video games on his computer. The husband doesn't allow conveniences, so my daughter doesn't even have a microwave oven!! And now he's talking about selling her car, because she, being a housewife, "doesn't need a car."
And she only has one child so far!! When asked how many children they expect to have, the husband answers (without allowing his wife to have a say) "As many as God will give us." :-\
Thanks, serious, and let me also add some more info from my daughter's experience. Her husband doesn't allow disposable diapers so she does laundry every day, including many cloth diapers. Child care is the bailiwik of the wife, so she goes everywhere carrying a child and a heavy diaper bag, even when she and her husband are going to a ball game (and during the game, the child sits on the wife's lap, with the diaper bag at her feet). Maintaining the home is the bailiwik of the wife, so on weekends my daughter cooks and cleans while her husband plays video games on his computer. The husband doesn't allow conveniences, so my daughter doesn't even have a microwave oven!! And now he's talking about selling her car, because she, being a housewife, "doesn't need a car."
And she only has one child so far!! When asked how many children they expect to have, the husband answers (without allowing his wife to have a say) "As many as God will give us." :-\
Thanks, serious, and let me also add some more info from my daughter's experience. Her husband doesn't allow disposable diapers so she does laundry every day, including many cloth diapers. Child care is the bailiwik of the wife, so she goes everywhere carrying a child and a heavy diaper bag, even when she and her husband are going to a ball game (and during the game, the child sits on the wife's lap, with the diaper bag at her feet). Maintaining the home is the bailiwik of the wife, so on weekends my daughter cooks and cleans while her husband plays video games on his computer. The husband doesn't allow conveniences, so my daughter doesn't even have a microwave oven!! And now he's talking about selling her car, because she, being a housewife, "doesn't need a car.":-\
And she only has one child so far!! When asked how many children they expect to have, the husband answers (without allowing his wife to have a say) "As many as God will give us." :-\
Her husband doesn't allow disposable diapers so she does laundry every day, including many cloth diapers.
But aren't reusable diapers better for the environment? ???
But aren't reusable diapers better for the environment? ???
Parenthood is now the equivalent of servitude? I guess if we're all gonna be "free" the species will have to die out.
6 billion people on the planet and climbing...I daresay we can drop the birthrate to zero world-wide for several generations before we have start to worry about such things.
Except those of us who would like to have a workforce around for the next few decades to help subsidize our Social Security checks and massive health-care bills.
:-\
Jeeeze...I hope things will improve. "As many as God will give us" my ass.
I think it's admirable if parents decide to use reusable diapers to save space in landfills.
Less people for more jobs means we can demand higher salaries. Higher salaries, larger taxes. It works out. ;D
That's what I was thinking, reusable/cloth diapers not creating as much trash as disposables. Water is a renewable resource (except maybe in Texas right now :( ), and it's possible to use environmentally friendly soap. There is, of course, the question of power used to heat the water and run an automatic machine.
I sure hope Lee's daughter doesn't have to use a warshboard! :o
But this is really OT, so let be, let be.
Not necessarily. I'm talking about when all the baby boomers are retired (the first of them are just retiring now). Setting aside medical care, retired people buy fewer goods and services. Thus, consumer demand shrinks along with the workforce. Jobs shrink along with consumer demand. So there are fewer people for fewer jobs, paying less in taxes, yet more people requiring the government support their taxes provide, in the form of Social Security and Medicare.
I happened to be gathering statistics on this very subject just last week for a project at work. :)
What makes you think many of the baby boomers will get to retire? Many lost their retirement in the crash and will have to keep working another decade - if they can keep their jobs.
Fresh water isn't a renewable resource.
Yes, it is. It isn't necessarily where people want it--and perhaps you missed my parenthetical comment about Texas, which was not meant as a joke--but the total amount of water on the planet is not diminishing. It's easier to clean up water than it is to go on indefinitely taking up land to bury poopie disposable diapers.
I agree with you about the fountains in Las Vegas. I also remember when people moved to the Southwest to escape the flora and climate of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and instead they've just replicated that flora in the Southwest (lawns, plants not native to the area), and it takes water to do that. That was just plain stupid.
But ill-advised and stupid misuse of water resources by ill-advised and stupid people does not mean that water is not a renewable resource. As long as rain continues on the planet, water will be a renewable resource.
Fresh water isn't a renewable resource.
Letting God do his will is basically letting nature take its course. If it meant his death or his health was at risk, I daresay he'd interrupt God's will with medical treatment and surgery, but not when it comes to family planning and birth control.
LOL!!!
Del, men have been putting themselves at personal risk in a multitude of ways for humanity's entire history in order to ensure the survival of the species, tribe, country, and family. So I don't think men would shirk the responsibility of bearing children if that were the case. Honorable men would step up to the plate and do what was needed.
LOL, indeed.
Milo, up until about the past century, women of childbearing age had a much higher mortality rate than men. Can you guess why? Yep, that's right, they were putting themselves at personal risk in order to ensure the survival of the species, tribe, country and family.
Still, men's life expectancies -- especially in older age groups -- weren't always dramatically higher, despite their lower mortality rate in childbearing years. Why not? Says Wikipedia: "Traditional arguments tend to favor socio-environmental factors: historically, men have generally consumed more tobacco, alcohol and drugs than females in most societies, and are more likely to die from many associated diseases such as lung cancer, tuberculosis and cirrhosis of the liver."
LOL!!!We were talking about a specific case here, Milo. ´
Del, men have been putting themselves at personal risk in a multitude of ways for humanity's entire history in order to ensure the survival of the species, tribe, country, and family. So I don't think men would shirk the responsibility of bearing children if that were the case. Honorable men would step up to the plate and do what was needed.
You sound angry about something or other, or so I gather from your use of "bloody well" as an adverb. But once again, I don't really know what you're getting at. Are you saying that Louise need not call herself a feminist because she can bloody well look after herself (requiring no help from feminism), or that by linking to her post I am implying she can not bloody well look after herself well enough to provide her own link? If it's the latter, is it your opinion that providing a link to other people's germane writing on a topic implies some sort of assumed helplessness on the part of the person who is linked? That would be a notion I haven't encountered before on the internet, where links to other writing are actually quite common. Me, I generally like it when someone provides a link to something I have written, and don't take it to mean the linker considers me incapable of bloody well looking after myself.
Less people for more jobs means we can demand higher salaries. Higher salaries, larger taxes. It works out. ;D
Letting God do his will is basically letting nature take its course. If it meant his death or his health was at risk, I daresay he'd interrupt God's will with medical treatment and surgery, but not when it comes to family planning and birth control.
Besides, men can´t bear children so it must be up to the woman to decide how many kids she wants to have. Alma had a point O0
I gather you’d like a clarification, so here it is:
I mean that women who have benefitted from over 150 years of feminism, a legacy left to them by women who faced jail, ostracism and assaults just to be able to vote let alone anything else pertaining to women’s rights, but who coyly tell you that ‘I believe in equal rights but I’m not a feminist, you betcha’ deserve no concern from feminists on any occasion they have to deal with sexism.
If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant, or needs to terminate an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy, and she doesn’t have to resort to Preggers Roulette (a/k/a ‘natural family planning’) or a coat hangar, she’s benefitting from feminism, however put off she might be that some feminists don’t shave their legs. Same goes for a woman who uses a credit card, who buys a house or car in her own name, who becomes a doctor or attorney or is able to divorce an abusive husband. That’s a legacy that many women, and some far-sighted men, worked and sacrificed for and those people deserve better than to be blown off by those who have benefitted.
It’s a little like your car breaking down on a dark, isolated road in a cold rain and a truck driver picks you up. He calls a tow truck to take your car to the nearest truck stop and gives you a ride there with the heater in the truck cab going full blast, and even offers to buy you a meal while your car is being repaired. But on arrival, you tell him that you appreciate his help and you’ll definitely accept the offer of a meal, but can he please sit at a separate table and not let on that you’re with him? After all, his shoes are muddy and he isn’t exactly young and cute so of course you don’t want to be seen with him; you have your image to think of – surely he understands, right?
Well, I'm afraid that "these things" are going to happen every year of her life if it goes the way her husband plans. :-\
As I stated in my original post in the Feminism thread, my issues with feminism are not human rights issues, they are philosophical issues based upon a view of society that I believe is distorted. I am not arguing that sexism does not exist, however, I do not accept the view of philosophical feminists who state that there is a conscious war against women by men to keep them subjugated, and that all men oppress all women. I just don't, and I have seen and known enough men to support my view.
I still remember one comforting thing he said. In all species, the females know instinctively how to deal with overpopulation. They will cease going into estrus, spontaneously abort or in some cases kill and even eat the young. This concept was also discussed in the story Watership Down. When the rabbit warren became overpopulated, fetuses were reabsorbed into the females' bodies before they developed and were born.
This preventive measure was observed in all different kinds of species, Hawken said. But in homo sapiens?? Do females still hold the key to avoiding disastrous overpopulation??
Sometimes I have wondered whether it's not just a coincidence that certain cultural changes whose byproducts include a lowered birthrate -- women entering the work force in record numbers, the development of more effective birth control, the gay rights movement, women marrying at older ages and putting off having children until they're older -- came at about the same time that people began worrying about overpopulation. Nature works in mysterious ways!
As for feminism, the Merriam-Webster definition is simple, to the point and, in my view, accurate.
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
Interesting. Social equality is part of the definition, but legal equality is not.
Katherine, if that were organized feminism's definition of feminism, maybe I would be one. But I have read feminist theorists recently and it goes much, much MUCH deeper than that.
Sure, but eventually they'll either retire or be too sick to work or be dead. The sad facts of mortality. They may work longer than their parents did, but nobody works forever. And your post to which I was originally responding mentioned "several generations" -- i.e., approximately 60 years.
Meanwhile, many of the baby boomers I know are being laid off, thus forced into retirement in their late 50s or early 60s.
Yes, it is. It isn't necessarily where people want it--and perhaps you missed my parenthetical comment about Texas, which was not meant as a joke--but the total amount of water on the planet is not diminishing. It's easier to clean up water than it is to go on indefinitely taking up land to bury poopie disposable diapers.
I agree with you about the fountains in Las Vegas. I also remember when people moved to the Southwest to escape the flora and climate of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and instead they've just replicated that flora in the Southwest (lawns, plants not native to the area), and it takes water to do that. That was just plain stupid.
But ill-advised and stupid misuse of water resources by ill-advised and stupid people does not mean that water is not a renewable resource. As long as rain continues on the planet, water will be a renewable resource.
LOL!!!
Del, men have been putting themselves at personal risk in a multitude of ways for humanity's entire history in order to ensure the survival of the species, tribe, country, and family. So I don't think men would shirk the responsibility of bearing children if that were the case. Honorable men would step up to the plate and do what was needed.
But they still pay taxes even on pensions and dividends. Those who are below the poverty line don't.
Yeah, but their income is a lot smaller than it was when they were working. And if their retirement accounts are Roth IRAs, they don't have to pay taxes on them at all.
But there will be less population that will be supported by their taxes.
For example, feminist Andrea Dworkin, to quote Wikipedia, "argues that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women, and sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission."
Desalinating water is also extremely power expensive.
I think that's what 'political' means in this context, Milo.Depends on what theories you read, L.
Katherine, if that were organized feminism's definition of feminism, maybe I would be one. But I have read feminist theorists recently and it goes much, much MUCH deeper than that.
All they do is run it close enough to the reactor core to make it boil.
They have to do more than that. Salt water boils. That doesn't make it less salty. You know that every time you toss a pinch of salt into water before cooking pasta.
Sure. It needs to be distilled. That's how God does it...basically. Reactors are already making enough heat to do this.
Um, I think there would have to be a lot more of them built.
Geez...we sure got off-topic.
Absolutely. I think we need more nuclear power in this country period.
"When Jeffrey Kluger was in his 20s, out of his family nest and settling into a career as a journalist in New York City, his longtime girlfriend suggested that perhaps his extreme emotional expenditure on his three brothers—with whom he spent his free time hanging out or chatting on the phone—would be best devoted elsewhere. When Kluger mentioned her comment to his brother Bruce, he received a simple, damning reply: 'Yoko.'"
"Why the hard sell on siblinghood? Kluger is unabashed about the fact that his book's mission is to argue for what he calls the 'sibling ideal.' In his view, 'as long as mom and dad are able to breed and support more young, they may as well keep having them.' It's an unlikely stance for a science reporter who should know well the psychological, environmental, and financial costs of large families. And it places The Sibling Effect in an emerging canon of books, invariably written by men, arguing that women should have more children. These books tend to fall into one of three categories: 1. It's better for your kids, e.g. Kluger. 2. It's better for you, e.g. Bryan Caplan's Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. 3. It's better for society, e.g. Philip Longman's The Empty Cradle.
We need closer oceans. ;D
And I bet all these authors, even any not mentioned here, are all white guys? 8)
Scratch these white authors advocating that whites should have lots more children deeply enough and you'll find a racist afraid of the white population being "overwhelmed" by the nonwhite population. They used to be more open about that before racism became socially unacceptable in mainstream circles.
Hunh? ???
Scratch these white authors advocating that whites should have lots more children deeply enough and you'll find a racist afraid of the white population being "overwhelmed" by the nonwhite population. They used to be more open about that before racism became socially unacceptable in mainstream circles.
Meaning, a woman whose relationship with one group member threatens the cohesiveness of an otherwise all-male group.
Wow, that seems like a huge stretch.
I'm not an advocate for big families by any means, but I think it's certainly possible to be one without racism being a factor. And vice versa.
Quote from Milo: That's not racism, that's tribalism. There is a big difference.
I don't think it's a big stretch at all. While, unfortunately, I can't cite anything, I'm sure I've read about writers in the past--and maybe not so far in the past--writing openly that the white race needed to breed more to keep from being overwhelmed by the black, brown, and yellow "races." There is historical precedent for what I'm "hearing" as I read about these books.
But please note that I didn't say it was racist to have a large family of children. I said--or I was trying to say--that I believe there is racism buried below the skin of white authors who write books advocating that white people need to have lots more children than they're presently having. And if I were a betting man, I would bet next month's condo fee that the books discussed above are not aimed at Asians or African-Americans.
Of course, having no children, I'm no help at all. ... ;D ::)
Heh. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck. ...
I don't think it's a big stretch at all. While, unfortunately, I can't cite anything, I'm sure I've read about writers in the past--and maybe not so far in the past--writing openly that the white race needed to breed more to keep from being overwhelmed by the black, brown, and yellow "races." There is historical precedent for what I'm "hearing" as I read about these books.
But please note that I didn't say it was racist to have a large family of children. I said--or I was trying to say--that I believe there is racism buried below the skin of white authors who write books advocating that white people need to have lots more children than they're presently having. And if I were a betting man, I would bet next month's condo fee that the books discussed above are not aimed at Asians or African-Americans.
Whatever. ... ::)
If it walks like a duck. ...
Whatever. ... ::)
If it walks like a duck. ...
Sadly, the Association Fallacy is operating here.
Different strokes for different folks? But blechh, and I do mean blechh!! Where's the vomit smiley when you need it? >:(
http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/how_to_discipline.html
Just an example below. The whole site is devoted to this medieval BS:
The Application of Discipline to Your Wife
You must always remember those two sin dynamics common to all women, for the vast majority of your discipline will stem from her struggles concerning them. Of course, each wife has peculiar struggles for you to deal with as well, and you'll need to be aware of them when they rear their heads.
First, do not attempt to discipline your wife without first going to the Lord in prayer. No man alone is wise enough, and we must seek the Lord when faced with discipline issues.
There are two primary methods to discipline in the home towards wives, and one necessary means of grace. Following are the methods of discipline:
Exhortation. When your wife is sinning, exhort her with the Word. Use your Bibles, gents! This needs to be done with gentleness, and often you will need to repeat yourself several times (using similar words) before it sinks in. Remember always, when disciplining that the person before you is the most cherished, adored person in your universe. Treat her as such. If you have children, it may, depending on how her sin touched the children require that they be present. However, keep control of the situation. DO NOT LET THE CHILDREN EXHORT YOUR WIFE DIRECTLY! There are times when children may do so, but once you're involved, it's your show, Husband. If the children have something to say (and you feel that it needs to be heard) have them address you, and not her. You are your wife's leader and authority in the home, not the children. Do not risk upsetting that balance.
Rebuke and Lash. This is the harshest discipline a husband should administer, and it should always be done privately and with Godly, Biblical love. Usually, exhortation will have already taken place before this method is used, but there may come situations where this is the first step. The rebuke and lashing should be administered with a calm heart. Talk to your wife, let her know you are serious, and tell her why she is to be disciplined physically.
Also, it isn't always BDSM oriented either for the other people who obviously posted with no knowledge of the subject either.
Yes. It's the same flawed logic that produced this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841 (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841)
Nazis were environmentalists and vegetarians. Many liberals are environmentalists and vegetarians. Thus, liberals are Nazis.
I don't understand. If it's not erotic, what's the point of corporal punishment? That's not even recommended for children these days, and I'm not sure why it would be considered an appropriate way to resolve conflicts between married partners.
That's not even recommended for children these days,
Hmm. What's that saying about the person who brings the Nazis into an argument? ;D
There was nothing "flawed" about my suspicions about writers who urge white people to have more children three years ago, and there is nothing flawed about it now.
While, unfortunately, I can't cite anything, I'm sure I've read about writers in the past--and maybe not so far in the past--writing openly that the white race needed to breed more to keep from being overwhelmed by the black, brown, and yellow "races." There is historical precedent for what I'm "hearing" as I read about these books.
But writers in the 21st century can hardly be tarred with the same brush you would use on writers whom you vaguely remember from the (very) distant past (and yes, that would be very distant -- like, probably about 100 years ago if you're talking about mainstream writers openly encouraging the "white race" to breed more; that's been uncool since long before the Civil Rights movement).
No, it would be no further back than the Nineties of the last century, if that far,
and I also doubt the very contemporary "Full Quiver" people are urging people who are not white to have lots more chldren.
I've been thinking, too, that tribalism does not apply here. The Amish and the Mormons are "tribal." An argument that encourages people of one race to breed more children, while ignoring, discreetly or otherwise, people of other races, is inherently racist in my book. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
If White Americans Don’t Start Having Babies Now, the US Will Vanish by 2100
... “We’re jumping the gun on a long, slow decline of our white population, which is going to characterize this century,” William Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, was quoted as saying.
... The figures show clearly once again that unless white Americans get serious about increasing their birthrate—and having more children immediately—then it is certain that the America of 1776 will no longer exist by 2100.[/b]
I've been thinking, too, that tribalism does not apply here. The Amish and the Mormons are "tribal." An argument that encourages people of one race to breed more children, while ignoring, discreetly or otherwise, people of other races, is inherently racist in my book. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
OK, possible partial mea culpa -- I just googled "white people more babies" and found this right away:
http://newobserveronline.com/if-white-americans-dont-start-having-babies-now-the-us-will-vanish-by-2100/ (http://newobserveronline.com/if-white-americans-dont-start-having-babies-now-the-us-will-vanish-by-2100/)
It's the "the US Will Vanish," of course, that makes it racist. As if the US would not exist as an entity if it weren't majority white. That's not a book, but it looks like a pretty established, well-financed, professionally produced site. And of course there are plenty of other far more sleazy-looking sites where people express similar sentiments.
There are also a few stories from liberal sites accusing conservative commentators on Fox News or wherever of saying racist things about birthrates.
So I guess it's not entirely far-fetched that some conservative book might mention this issue in a racist way. Though I'm still skeptical about the existence of a whole book entirely on that topic. You'd think it would have raised more of a fuss. If stray stupid comments by Paula Dean or a football-team owner could rule the news cycle for a week or more ...
Meanwhile, there are other neutral sites and stories reporting projected demographic shifts in the population due to declining birthrates among white people. And a few conservatives in mainstream publications (e.g., Ross Douthat in the NYT) expressing alarm about declining birthrates overall and urging people in general to produce more babies -- for the sake of the economy, not the racial balance. I don't count either of those as racist.
So let me make sure I understand. You're saying you have heard of writers in the 1990s or later writing actual books published by legitimate publishers -- as opposed to some tract they printed off in their basement and passed around at their neo-Nazi gatherings -- that openly urged white people to have more babies to combat the rising population of non-white babies.
Well, I guess I'd have to see titles. Or names of authors. Or reviews. Or something. Otherwise, frankly, I'm skeptical.
I don't claim to be an expert on the Full Quiver philosophy, but as far as I know it doesn't have anything to do with the overall population's racial balance. And -- they're conservative Christians, right? -- many conservative Christians are non-racist.
Stick with whatever you like. :) Personally, I like to base my beliefs on actual evidence. Vaguely imagining that that a person is "ignoring, discreetly or otherwise, people of other races" just because they don't explicitly mention race at all does not count as evidence in my book.
I don't usually explicitly mention race when I'm writing about something that has nothing to do with race, but that doesn't mean I'm directing my words only at white people.
Encouraging people of one's own race is not a de facto discouragement of people of other races.
No, that wasn't what I was saying. That's far too specific. All I'll allocate to is vague memories of reading or hearing something, some controversy, within the last two decades about some conservative writing something about the need for white people to have more babies.
Scratch these white authors advocating that whites should have lots more children deeply enough and you'll find a racist afraid of the white population being "overwhelmed" by the nonwhite population. They used to be more open about that before racism became socially unacceptable in mainstream circles.
However, back in 2011 your argument was that any white person who writes a book urging people to have more children is dog-whistling white people to have more children to counteract the rising non-white population. That's what I was disagreeing with, especially because I had read (and reviewed!) one of the books we were discussing and can vouch that it wasn't racially targeted. At all.
"Dog-whistling"? Hmm. Well, I can hear it! :laugh:
I see no reason to alter my opinon from three years ago, so I guess we've probably stopping point on this one?
I still am curious, though, why if you accuse people like Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids author Bryan Caplan (economics professor at George Mason University, blogger for EconLog, writer for the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal etc., author of an earlier book called "the best political book of the year" by the New York Times) -- if you accuse him of being an undercover white supremacist, then why you don't do the same for NYT columnist Ross Douthat, who is also white and has also argued in favor of the general public increasing their procreation rates, primarily (he claimed!) for economic reasons.
I'll respond to that when you respond to my question as to why something specifically urging white peope to have more kids isn't racist.
Not as long as you're not encouraging them to breed more babies so they don't get overwhelmed by people of other races.
Hunh? Something specifically urging white people to have more kids obviously is racist.
My point is that if race isn't mentioned anywhere i the text, even if the author is white, his/her motivations aren't necessarily racist.
And I bet all these authors, even any not mentioned here, are all white guys? 8)
I realize this was three years ago. But it started with me posting an article in which male authors advocated that people should have more babies. You said
and because the answer happens to be yes, you posited that they were instructing white people specifically to have more babies.
In any case, it sounds like we agree at this point. If a writer specifically urges white people to have more babies, it's probably racist (unless maybe s/he makes very clear that s/he's addressing white people specifically only because they're the demographic that has fallen behind in birth rate). If s/he doesn't specify race at all, then the message itself, at least, is not racist.
So after much confusion, it looks like we can conclude the debate, don't you think?