Octo Mom Suleman?

And why is it the word patriarchy is associated with this movement? Are not most of the women in this movement there voluntarily?

And I can see why it would be a problem for someone to say a woman's body belongs to God or to a church. But I also see it as a problem that a woman's body only belongs to the woman.

Do men's bodies only belong to the individual men? I think it would be a strange and different world if all men did only what pleased them NO MATTER the consequences for their spouses, their kids, society, or anyone else. Yet, feminist women expect people to allow women think of their bodies in this manner.

If this movement is extreme in one way, the feminist movement is extreme in ANOTHER. Because under feminism men are optional, have no rights to decide if they want to be fathers after all once a condom breaks, etc.

it is one extreme or the other.

my argument was always for the middle-- believing neither feminism nor this movement to be any good IN THE LONG RUN.

At least it is good to see that I can be considered as for once having a moderate stance like I always imagined myself to have in the first place (despite what others on here think of me)

Just to respond to your question about "patriarchy," the patriocentricity movement means something very specific in this context--a specific theological position in fundamentalist protestantism. There's not space to tease it out very well in this article, but if you do a web search for patriocentricity, you'l find a lot of stuff out there that explains the theology and the movement. Men have quite a stultifying role in this theology as well--it's a way for men to control other men as well as women. I know many families who have left this particular branch of fundamentalism and still remain very conservative in their gender roles and theology. Patriocentricity is very much an extreme in the sense that many of their theologians don't believe women should work outside the home (so if the man is not a "good provider," meaning they need a second income, you can imagine the effect on his position as a man in this ideology), don't think daughters should go to college or hold paying jobs (meaning they are supported by their parents until marriage, when they are supported by husbands), require "courtship" between couples rather than dating, etc.

for exposing how these women are KIDNAPPED and FORCED to have children while kept in cages against their will. It's like a human puppy mill.

Here's a good topic for your next story "How human secularism saddles women with having indiscriminate sex with numerous partners each week. One woman explains how she embraced the extreme secular lifestyle and all of the diseases, mental and physical she got from it. For her there is no 'leaving'."

And I mean that as both a casual curse and as a reaction - I don't believe Jesus would have wanted children brought into the world unless it was under the most sincere and loving of circumstances (make of that what you will, but I DO think of myself as a 'feminist', and I was raised as a Christian).

Also, Ms. Taken had an excellent response to the patriocentrism reflected in the system of Quiverfull (apologies, but 'system' is the best word I can think of to reflect the structure surrounding the beliefs of this movement).

How do the Quiverfull explain this verse

1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:1

8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

1 Corinthians 7:8

The point is God has a UNIQUE plan for each of us and we are happiest when we live this life. Following some dogmatic lifestyle that someone else tells you to do is NOT what God wants.

Just in case there are any people reading this and wondering whether feminism really is incompatible with Christianity, I thought I'd let Jesus speak for himself. This is Luke 10:38-42.

Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me." But the Lord answered her, "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but only one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her."

Yeah, it really sounds there like Jesus thought all women should be locked in boxes and made to serve men!

There is a huge difference between Humanism and the ugly garbage that is American gutter culture. Humanism wants to raise us up while American culture tries to tear us down. This Quiverfull crap is just another example of American stupidity.

May God pity the women who support female-unfriendly and even female-hating lifestyles.

As a dominatrix, I am female-dominant, and do not allow any male to dominate Me. I find it nausea-inducing to even consider a movement such as this, which is grotesquely male-centric.

Thank God for submissive men and dominant women, and for a free and open society that allows women like Myself to be our true, dominant selves. aeeeeeee, let's hope these women free themselves.

Mistress Aubrey

www.dominaaubrey.com

Quiverfull? Clown car, more like.

My, what a surprise.

Jesus didn't want your life, lady. He didn't want anybody's life. He just wanted people to treat each other decently. That whole crap about "giving your life" is a control issue that has nothing to do with anything Jesus ever said.

It reminds me of a joke Dennis Miller once made. (Yes, he actually was funny once upon a time.) Talking about convicted Watergate felon Charles Colson's convenient prison conversion to fundamentalism, he imagined the reaction of Jesus to the news: "Oh shit, here comes that asshole Colson, trying to hand his life over to me. TAXI!!"

P.S. Poco, BS, and the other pissers - Give it a rest, already.