or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Activism and News › Duggars are NOT Quiverfull!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Duggars are NOT Quiverfull!

post #1 of 63
Thread Starter 

I'm reading the new Duggar's book, "A Love that Multiplies", and in it they state that they are NOT Quiverfull.  They cite Wikipedia as the source of that common misconception.  

 

Interesting, I think it is here on MDC in a forum that I first learned that they were.  I know that Wikipedia is not completely reliable, but I believed it because it seemed to fit!  I'm glad they cleared that up!

post #2 of 63

The only part of quiverfull that they aren't is Evangelical Christian, they're Baptist. As for everything else? Well if the shoe fits...

post #3 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post

The only part of quiverfull that they aren't is Evangelical Christian, they're Baptist. As for everything else? Well if the shoe fits...

 

Well, Evangelical Christian is an umbrella term and many Baptists fall under it. They're not different denominations.
 

 

post #4 of 63

They might mean they are not members of a church or organization that is quiverfull, but they do seem to fit the definition I've always heard- that you allow as many children as God sends your way with no interference.

post #5 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmeyrick View Post

They might mean they are not members of a church or organization that is quiverfull, but they do seem to fit the definition I've always heard- that you allow as many children as God sends your way with no interference.



But I thought they did interfere?  Doesn't she (the mother) wean her babes early to bring on her cycle so that she can get pregnant again right away?  If it was God's will continuing nursing wouldn't interfere, correct? 

post #6 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by HollyBearsMom View Post





But I thought they did interfere?  Doesn't she (the mother) wean her babes early to bring on her cycle so that she can get pregnant again right away?  If it was God's will continuing nursing wouldn't interfere, correct? 


I don't know. I don't watch the show, and I've heard some say they do wean early, others say they don't.

 

post #7 of 63


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HollyBearsMom View Post

But I thought they did interfere?  Doesn't she (the mother) wean her babes early to bring on her cycle so that she can get pregnant again right away?  If it was God's will continuing nursing wouldn't interfere, correct? 


I feel like I read years ago that I read that she weans before six months to retain fertility. 

 

post #8 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmeyrick View Post




I don't know. I don't watch the show, and I've heard some say they do wean early, others say they don't.

 

What I've heard her say is that she usually knows she's pregnant because the one currently on the breast can no longer get enough.
 

 

post #9 of 63

Here's the problem:

There is no credo that one must sign to be quiverfull.  A person who rejects birthcontrol on the basis of their Christian faith is "quiverfull".  But they may not be Quiverfull with a capital Q, depending on what that means to them.  There is no Quiverfull organization to which a person applies for membership.

 

Originally, the term simply meant viewing children as blessings, and not using contraception.  In that sense, the Duggar's certainly are "quiverfull".  So am I.  They have 19, I have 3.

 

Like them, in many contexts I refer not to use that term because other people have taken it and made something it is not.  When people point fingers and say "You are Quiverfull, you horrible person", they have taken that term and put under it a whole laundry list of stuff--prairie muffin, hypocrite, ultra patriarchal, abusive, anti-education, etc, etc, etc.  It is no longer a descriptor of a single belief (rejection of birth control) but an umbrella used to describe a whole mess of beliefs that have nothing to do with birth control.  The Quiverful book, and sites like No Longer Quivering have contributed to this change.

 

Michelle wrote in the book, and elsewhere, that her fertility returns early, and she has to quit nursing due to issues the pregnancies cause with breastfeeding (severe pain and supply issues, iirc).  I'm pretty sure that doesn't constitute "weaning early to get pregnant sooner".  Because bc is ubiquitous in this culture, it seems hard for people to imagine that a couple could have 19 children without interfering with nature.  The Duggar's are unique in their high level of fertility now, but wouldn't have been so 200 years ago.  What sets them apart from highly fertile families back then is that all 19 of their children have survived pregnancy and birth and infancy and early childhood.  Yet and still, Susannah Wesley (mother of Charles and John, writers of hymns and evangelical revivalists way back when) raised a similar number of children, and was a child of an equally large family.  So it happened.

post #10 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post

Here's the problem:

There is no credo that one must sign to be quiverfull.  A person who rejects birthcontrol on the basis of their Christian faith is "quiverfull". 



This is not true.  Catholics are expected to not use birth control because it interferes with God's will.

post #11 of 63

I'm not sure how that makes what I wrote "not true".


Catholics are Christian, as far as I know.  And there are "quiverfull" Catholics, who have a slightly different take on the issue than the nfp-only catholics.

 

And that very fact clarifies my point that "quiverfull" does not mean "uber patriarchal reformationist evangelical Vision-Forum-type Christian". It means "no birth control because of my religious beliefs".

post #12 of 63

Evangelical Christians and Baptists are not the same thing. There are many demoninations of the Christian faith. Evangelicals and Baptists are two separate demoninations. And not all Christians practice a specific demonination. Growing up I attended "First Christian Church". That was it. Just Christian.

 

 

post #13 of 63

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post

 

Originally, the term simply meant viewing children as blessings, and not using contraception.  In that sense, the Duggar's certainly are "quiverfull".  So am I.  They have 19, I have 3.

 

 

I thought the original defition was not simply viewing children as blessings, but as gifts from G-d.  As such, you take what G-d decides to give naturally.  That would mean no children for people who are infertile, but weaning to have children (in my opionion) is also going outside of G-d's plan.

 

As for her knowing she is pregnant because of the child weaning--- I read on wikipedia they are, on average, 18 months apart.  I've also read that she weans before 6 months.  You would expect the kids to be under 15 months apart if she was weaning after becoming pregnant but still weaning by 6 months.  I don't know, just what I've read.

post #14 of 63

Ok, I'm not sure why we're spliting hairs here, but: 1. You got me. I should have expanded and expounded. In my brain "blessings" includes similar phrases like "Gifts from God". And yes, deliberately ttc would be just the other side of the coin as tta pregnancy. Thusly, why I only have 3 children even though I would like gazillions more.

 

2. I'll take Michelle's word over Wikipedia or internet gossip, any day. Here is an interview with her, very specifically about breastfeeding: http://www.babygooroo.com/index.php/2009/03/30/after-18-children-breastfeeding-for-michelle-duggar-continues-to-be-a-learning-experience/ whi E It explains her position on breastfeeding and the question of timing. Even if she did wean at an early 5 or 6 months on purpose, she gets her cycle back at 6 weeks.

 

I don't know who started the "weaning early to get pregnant more often" thing, but I think it was likely a bit of malicious gossip, rather than a well-intentioned mistake. If there is an actual quote that can be traced back to Michelle herself, proving she's a liar, I'd be happy to see it and might change my mind.

post #15 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post





This is not true.  Catholics are expected to not use birth control because it interferes with God's will.


I don't see how what you wrote is in conflict with cappuccinosmoms post. 

 

post #16 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post

I'm not sure how that makes what I wrote "not true".


Catholics are Christian, as far as I know.  And there are "quiverfull" Catholics, who have a slightly different take on the issue than the nfp-only catholics.

 

And that very fact clarifies my point that "quiverfull" does not mean "uber patriarchal reformationist evangelical Vision-Forum-type Christian". It means "no birth control because of my religious beliefs".


 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post




I don't see how what you wrote is in conflict with cappuccinosmoms post. 

 



I guess because I see Quiverfull as being a movement, with its adherents specifically trying to have as many babies as possible, whereas the whole of Catholicism is supposed to eschew birth control except in the form of natural family planning.

post #17 of 63

Well, that seems to be what Cappucinosmom was saying. For some being quiverfull means not using birth control, while for others it means having as many children as you possibly can.

post #18 of 63

I'd like to add, though, that many people who consider themselves quiverfull also hold other beliefs, which is why sites like No Longer Quivering are necessary.

post #19 of 63

I guess because I see Quiverfull as being a movement, with its adherents specifically trying to have as many babies as possible, whereas the whole of Catholicism is supposed to eschew birth control except in the form of natural family planning. 

 

 

This is what I'm trying to point out.  Quiverfull is not a monolithic movement.  I know Catholics who are very intentional about having gazillions of babies.  And others who are very conciencious about NFP use in order to avoid pregnancy.  Neither would be QF.  But my sister and her husband, who are Catholic, would be.  Because they neither try nor avoid, but are of the "take them as they come, God gives them, we welcome them" mindset.  I also know people who avoid birthcontrol for faith reasons, and are thus "quiverfull" by that definition, but who look nothing like the nasty negative stereotype that seems to come along with viewing Quiverfull as a movement of people who believe all the same things about everything.  Which is why I avoid using the term for myself, unless I know the person I'm talking with understands this. I do not know a single couple who is trying to have "as many babies as possible" on purpose.  I know a lot, like me, who because of this view would consider a large family a very good thing.  But also like me, the root of the belief is that God is the Creator and it's within his realm of authority to give or not give children.  Again, that's why I only have three.  If I was trying to have "as many as possible", there are all sorts of avenues I might pursue, which I choose not to, from simple charting to serious fertility treatments.  One might accurately say that FLDS are trying to have as many kids as possible, and that they have a vested eternal interest in having 50 kids (neccessitating multiple wives) but the doctrinal basis for that is not even close to the QF belief.  

 

Anytime anyone takes any belief and makes it a system, there is the potential for abuse.  And that is why NLQ exists.  But the experiences of those individuals do not represent (by a long shot, IMO) the majority of people whose faith leads them to reject birth control.  Many of the abusers featured in their articles are not strictly QF, the Charity group and the Pearls, for instance.  I know both allow for NFP and non-abortifacient methods.


Edited by cappuccinosmom - 6/16/11 at 12:48pm
post #20 of 63

Disclaimer:  I am a huge Duggar fan and think it's awesome how loving and close they all are and I have no issues with the number of children they have because they actually are able to take care of them, both financially and spiritually.

 

However, every time this topic comes up I can't help but wonder if Michelle truly practices "natural" nursing.  By that I mean, does she nurse ASAP after birth, does she co-sleep, does she pacify at the breast, does she BW, does she bathe with her babies, does she cuddle naked with them?  I had major struggles with ds1 and got AF back at 5 mos but had fewer issues with ds2 and didn't get it til 11mos.  It took 3-4mos for me to "discover" AP with ds1 but was super-crunchy with ds2 from the get-go.  If Michelle has BF issues to begin with, and then compounds them by doing any type of scheduled feedings (or hands her baby off to a "buddy" throughout the day), it's no wonder she bleeds again so soon.

 

And IMNSHO, scheduling (or in any other way interfering with) BF could be viewed as interfering with God's plan just as much as BC.  So then I might go so far as to say that they wouldn't really be allowing as many babies as God wanted to give them; instead, they were artificially creating an environment where more babies would come than if truly natural BF practices were used.

 

It just really sounds to me like she has so many problems nursing that her period comes back sooner than it might otherwise.  I bet if she had smoother sailing at the breast and was able to go to toddlerhood, she would only have a baby every 3 years.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism and News
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Activism and News › Duggars are NOT Quiverfull!