Quiverfull Women
An interview with Kathryn Joyce, author of the new book Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement. “Quiverfull” refers to the notion that women should “receive children eagerly as blessings from God, eschewing all forms of birth control, including natural family planning and sterilization.” Essentially, a Quiverfull woman breeds and keeps breeding, knocking out babies until her uterus gives out or menopause kicks in.
This interview was originally posted by Hemant Mehta at the Friendly Atheist blog.
- What kind of education do Quiverfull children receive? Do a significant percentage of them go to college? Do females get the same opportunities for education as males?
Almost all Quiverfull children are homeschooled, and while there’s no single curriculum to point to, a number of leaders within the movement have advocated tailoring boys’ and girls’ education to the future roles they will hold. In the case of daughters, homeschooling leader R.C. Sproul, Jr., a prominent face in Quiverfull circles, argues that their education should prepare them to be mothers and stay-at-home wives.
In a particularly disturbing anecdote, he recounts the story of a 9-year old daughter of an acquaintance who couldn’t yet read, but was a very responsible and maternal older sister to her younger siblings: a situation that confirmed his view of the daughter as an “overachiever” well on her way to being a successful helpmeet and mother herself one day.
As for college, it varies a bit. Many sons are allowed to attend, particularly if they’re taking distance courses. This path is open for some daughters, but Quiverfull leaders strongly argue against allowing daughters to attend college away from home, as the encounter with worldly outsiders could damage or destroy their faith. Instead, they suggest that daughters stay at home after they graduate from homeschool, and practice being a helpmeet to their father as they will one day help and serve their husbands.
- How many Quiverfull children marry and start their own families before the age of 25? Is this a movement that passes on from generation to generation?
It’s hard to give real numbers for the movement, and particularly for where the younger generation is now. As Quiverfull began in earnest in the mid-80s, it’s only in the past few years that there has been a real wave of second generation Quiverfull children marrying and having children. The movement, which has a vibrant internet presence, makes a lot of these developments, celebrating the marriages and new children of young believers. The older generation also stresses the dire importance of passing on their beliefs to the next generation, and to this end are focusing massive attention on outreach to daughters as young as five, inculcating a sense of their destiny in embracing the Quiverfull lifestyle. And they certainly also encourage women and men to marry early. While a number of children will leave the movement when they come of age, the lifestyle is structured to make that difficult, often keeping children sheltered from too much outside influence that could turn them away from the conviction.
- Do female children in these families have much freedom regarding who they marry? Regarding anything, really?
A qualified yes. When children of the movement marry, it’s not through arranged marriages, but it is often through a courtship process that has an unusual amount of paternal involvement. Courtship is promoted through homeschooling and conservative religious circles as a chaste alternative to dating, which with or without sex is disparaged as the casual “trying on” of different partners. Courtship, alternately, is explicitly marriage-minded, and only occurs after a young man proves himself to a woman’s father. Quite literally, the male suitor is actually courting the daughter’s father, long before she is supposed to know that someone is interested in her. This is discussed as a way to protect vulnerable girls’ hearts from becoming emotionally invested before there’s the safety of commitment.
However, as advocates explicitly acknowledge, it’s also the best way of making sure that the daughter marries a man suitably in tune with the father’s ideology. For men concerned with keeping the movement going in the next generation, it’s important to make sure they marry their daughter to a man who will be similarly faithful to patriarchy and Quiverfull convictions.
- Are any of the members of this movement actually adopting, or are they simply reproducing?
Yes, there is a good deal of adoption among Quiverfull families as well as in the broader conservative Christian community. Adoption usually supplements a biological family though, rather than replace the necessity of a woman leaving her fertility in God’s hands, so they may have six biological children and then adopt four more. - You mentioned in your Salon article that the Quiverfull movement “… likely numbers in the tens of thousands but… is growing exponentially.” Are there numbers/studies to back that up?
No. I don’t know of any real research on the Quiverfull movement yet. Hopefully there will be more in the future. My estimate is based on speaking with dozens of movement leaders, looking at the membership numbers for online communities, and considering that the conviction of having as many children as God gives you is considerably broader than the people who claim the Quiverfull name or participate in its forums. - What toll do all these births have on the mother — Emotionally and physically? You mentioned in your article one mother suffered a partial uterine rupture. Has it ever been worse?
Emotionally and physically, many women — particularly those who have left the movement — say the lifestyle is one of relentless work and exhaustion. Quiverfull mothers perform a staggering amount of labor in terms of pregnancy and childbearing, childcare, homeschooling, cooking and cleaning and being a submissive wife. There does seem to be a high incidence of reproductive problems among some mothers, though of course this could be due to the fact that the mothers are having far more children, and far later into life, than many other women.Nonetheless, many women have spoken of extremely difficult pregnancies — a number of whom are put on strict bed rest — and labors. Additionally, there is often a focus on natural and even unassisted home births among Quiverfull moms. This isn’t a requirement of the Quiverfull conviction, but like many related facets of the movement (such as home churching or other, agrarian-minded efforts towards family self-sufficiency), it’s an idea many women are exposed to through movement literature. In a very extreme case in Australia, a Quiverfull mother died following the teachings of one fringe home-birth advocate. Though that seems to have been an anomalous case, home births, and continuing conceptions despite poor health do make for some serious health risks for some mothers.
- What can we do for women who want to leave this movement? How can we ensure that the daughters and sons of these women and men get assistance out?
That’s a hard question. There are not many vocal exited women, though Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff and Vyckie Garrison are notable exceptions. Exited women face substantial difficulties as single mothers to large families, often including a number of young children, often limited financial resources, and a lack of outside work experience. Additionally, they’re often without references from a community that they left and which will often shun them. Understanding and respect — particularly that they came to their convictions not through ignorance but through devout belief — would likely be a relief to these moms. For both mothers and children, there are serious and very substantial psychological, emotional, spiritual and financial barriers to leaving the movement. Still, Quiverfull is not a cult, but a conviction that many women do choose willingly — however constrained their choices later become. - Are these people (women and children) on some sort of public assistance? If so, what’s being done about it?
Generally speaking no, they’re not. Most Quiverfull believers tend to have very strong beliefs about living debt-free and not accepting government assistance. They believe that churches are the proper custodians of public charity and welfare. However, if they did need public assistance, helping families feed and clothe their children is what public assistance programs are in place to do, so I don’t believe anything would need to be done about the proper functioning of a social safety net. - Are there allies within the religious congregations that perceive this movement as a threat? Or at least a bad idea?
There is abundant and lively opposition to patriarchy and Quiverfull ideologies within more liberal and moderate churches. Much of the momentum of Quiverfull began — like fundamentalism itself — as a backlash against liberalized theology in Protestant denominations. In this case, it was a reaction against the influence of feminism in Christian churches. Though Quiverfull is at the vanguard of a much broader resurgence of complementarianism, or “biblical” gender roles, across conservative denominations, there are many other mainstream and liberal denominations that are passionate advocates for women’s and reproductive rights. - What happens if it turns out that either one of the couple is infertile? If they are willing to accept 17 kids as “God’s plan” are they willing to accept zero, or do they go in for medical intervention? And what is their standing in the community if they can’t have kids?
The philosophy of Quiverfull, of leaving fertility in God’s hands, is ideally supposed to mean that parents accept whatever God gives them: 17 children or none. And I have met a few infertile women who still called themselves Quiverfull — though they spoke of feeling stung by some in the movement who focused predominantly on the number of children one has as a measure of spirituality.Also, in some of the literature of the movement, Quiverfull mothers who had borne large families spoke of their sadness and loss of identity when they began menopause and began to lose their fertility. One even described herself as feeling dried out and withered when her childbearing years ended. This, significantly, is the same language that is used to describe the side-effects of using birth control, or even women who don’t have children. For me, it was a powerful illustration of what a no-win situation this ideology can be, even for women who followed the conviction diligently their entire reproductive lives.
Tags: friendly atheist, Kathryn Joyce, patriarchy, Quiverfull
March 29th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I’m surprised that, with her extensive knowledge and experience, Ms. Joyce does not point out that a majority of adherents to the “Quiverfull” mentality are Reformed in the R. C. Sproul brand. Instead, from my perspective, she intimates (in the interview, anyway) that it is conservative Christians, which is a much broader group, who tend to hold this belief. Conservative Christianity does not necessarily lead to this type of thinking. Rather, it is almost exclusively Reformed authors and pastors who are teaching this message. As usual, a subset of conservative Christianity is made to represent the whole.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:12 am
eesh.
how’s that for a response?
pained.
glad you pointed out how we should keep escapees in mind. very important to love these women and children when they escape.
ugh.
grace and peace to us all.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:13 am
p.s. i abhor how this kind of inhumanity defames the Jesus following movement. deplorable.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Some women love being mother to many children. They deserve to be valued and respected for being true to themselves. However, women who choose to have only 3 children or women who choose to remain single or women who have no children at all should be equally valued and respected. There’s not a right and wrong way to be a woman. The part of this that I find infuriating is the deprivation of education for their daughters. Perhaps their daughters will want to live the life that their parents lives, but that should be their choice, not their only option.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Good point about the Reformed connection Joe. I remember Al Mohler also saying stuff like this, especially in regards to how conservative Christians are being “out-bred” by the Muslims and the Mormons, and that it was therefore the patriotic and Christian duty of conservative evangelical women to have as many babies as possible. It’s that political connection that is the most disturbing to me about all this. If a woman just loves being a mother and wants to have lots of kids, great! That’s her right & privilege. (Though given our global population crisis, I’d hope she would consider adoption rather than having all the kids herself.) But if her motivation is simply to create more Christian culture warriors to “take back America for Christ”, that’s just sick and wrong.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I guess I don’t understand why this would not be considered a cult.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
@Mike Clawson: Mohler is right about Muslim and Mormon birth rates being far beyond those of conservative Christians’. Though, this could be said of ALL Christians. Birth rates among Christians (in the west) is very low…so low that it’s scary when you do some projections alongside the Muslim population growth occurring. A really good book to check out on this is Mark Stein’s America Alone.
The main reason that many Reformed encourage Christians to have lots of kids is because of their theology. Those Reformed who would be considered Reconstructionists believe that we Christians will usher in the Kingdom of God on earth and that the only way for that to happen is for Christians to take control of all areas of government. The only way to make that happen is to have and raise lots of children, to be very involved in politics, and to be successful entrepreneurs ($$$). And what do you see happening? Exactly those things. There are many positive things that come out of it, but I believe their eschatology (which is the driving force) is just plain wrong from the get-go.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
@liz: The word ‘cult’ is a word that we don’t often like using, but in some cases it does fits the bill. Of course, the word ‘cult’ is, in essence, relative to who is using it. E.g., if I were a Muslim, I might call the Christian religion a cult for rejecting the Qur’an and the prophet Muhammad.
Basically, the word ‘cult,’ since it’s used in such varying ways, is hard to define; it can be meant very specifically or very broadly. Using the term, therefore, often turns out to be not very communicative unless it’s clearly defined. Personally, I would not call a group a cult unless they denied one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Even then, I wouldn’t use the term in a mixed crowd that wouldn’t understand how I’m using it. I find it more beneficial to study out and discuss the theology behind the practices and agree/disagree with them on that basis.
There are many very godly men and women in the Patriarchal movement–some who would and some who would not hold to the Quiverfull idea. These men and women would hold very strongly to the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Their practice may differ from ours, and we may disagree with it, but that does not, in my opinion make them a cult.
I’m glad you brought it up, liz. Sorry for the lengthiness of my comment!
April 1st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Joe, I suppose Muslims out-breeding Christians is only “scary” if you see religion as some kind of competition. Personally I’m more frightened by the Reconstructionist (aka Dominionist) ideology you mention than I am by the mere prospect of more Muslims.
In fact, one might see an increase of Westernized Muslims (aka Muslims being born here in the US and in Europe) as a good thing overall, inasmuch as they will tend to be more “moderate” and “progressive” influences within Islam, and may eventually be numerous enough to bring some balance to the extremist Muslims who are currently hijacking (pun intended) the global image of Islam.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Mike, I see you point. As you know, I disagree with Reconstructionist theology, but I don’t see them as a greater threat than Islam in the world as we know it. Even with their population growth, there’s no way, in my opinion, that Reconstructionists could succeed in their mission. They would have to convince A LOT of people from without their group to join their ranks.
Moreover, Reconstructionists do not threaten to kill those who don’t subscribe to their beliefs. I know moderate/liberal Muslims don’t, either, but, the fundamentalist Muslims (those you call extremists) unapologetically do. Moreover…and this is an important thing to understand…Islam is not a religion. It is a complete system of living – a political system, a culture, a religion, a legal system, etc.
I have heard several ex-Muslims who have expressed the same concern of the population growth of Muslims and the effect it will have on the world in the next several decades. Also, for interest sake, here’s a video to get a bit of an inside look at what happens as Muslims grow in population in a single location: http://tr.im/i744. Or, if you’d like, just check out what’s happening in Paris and in Belgium right now. There are Muslim communities that are being governed solely by sharia law (no French or Belgian law enforcement), b/c the relatively small population (5-10%) of Muslims execute a disproportionately strong voice in the country.
As to the “scary” subject, I’ll clarify. The threat aspect has nothing to do with religious competition. I’m not sure where that came from. The threat is a scary prospect in terms of the freedoms you and I (and anyone) may lose in the coming future to practice our beliefs. We need not scared, b/c we can trust God’s Word, and we know from it that ultimately Jesus will reign on earth. So, whether my life or the lives of those I love are taken by anyone, I can rest in my Saviour and in His plan. Brothers and sisters in Christ are being killed everyday in droves by Muslims because of their trust in Christ, so it is quite a concern. And, I think we should be concerned. You may not feel it where you are, but it is being felt by many others in the world.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
Alright, let me address a few concerns with this article and some of the comments that have come forth.
I’m a home-birther and a fighter for women’s rights. Unassisted births within the quiverfull movement, at least from the moderates that I have encountered do often get care from midwives and doctors alike. Where the woman chooses to birth should be left for her and her husband to decide. This is her body, and an extremely eventful moment for their family.
2nd, the quiverfull families that I have seen are family-centered. They do this out of faith, and the women go into it fully knowing what the sacrifice is involved. The children are taught to value life within a community, and by and large the children I’ve seen are very caring of one another and well spoken. The children are taught principles that are both meaningful and relevent.
3rd, the quiverfull families that I’ve seen, are very eco-friendly…making their own diapers and wipes, practicing and economizing with those that use sustainable farming and livestock practices, being resourceful and not wasteful, using a system of saving and spending only based on necessary things. Many times work and play are incorporated to facilitate community and relationship.
I say these things, not as someone within the movement, but as an observer and admirer. There may be aspects involved that the author mentions but they seem to be attacking a straw man.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:48 am
I know this is an older thread, but I was quite interested in the post. I grew up in what is now being called the “Quiverfull” movement, though my mom was unable to have more children after her third daughter. For those looking on the outside, I think there is a certain romantic image about this movement and I know a few women who were actually happy there. The most hurtful thing about my own experience was that my parents, in their eager quest for their ideal family, never actually noticed me. My sexual abuse was covered up and I was forbidden to talk about it. My dreams for college were squashed. My questioning of any of their beliefs was met with sharp criticism. I desperately wanted their love, but it was conditioned on my acceptance of their standards and rules.My life revolved around my parent’s wishes and I was groomed to become a submissive wife and prolific mother.
I have long since left the movement and began to piece together my own selfhood. But I have seen many others devastated as well. I know there are many good people in movement and I knew many very sincere followers. However, I’ve also seen the “dark side” of the movement. I saw men abandon their faith when they could not live up to the patriarchal “ideal,” I saw child abuse go unnoticed and unreported, I saw young girls emotionally devastated under the pressure and attempt suicide, I saw beautiful vivacious children lose their spark as their were forced into their parents’ mold, I saw mothers weary with having another baby that they were emotionally unable to care for, I saw 10 and 11 year olds who couldn’t read because mom had no time to teach them, I saw girls in their twenties agonize over not getting married fast enough, I saw women who tried to assert their own selfhood shunned and rebuked and ostracized.
While there are many sincere people in this movement, there is also a desperate need for people like “Emergent Women” to offer alternatives to women whose lives have been devastated by the movement. Just knowing that God might actually love you for who you are and that your selfhood is important was revolutionary for many of us.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Sarah – thank you so much for sharing. You mention the dangers that a “sincere” faith can promote. Healing can never happen unless we are willing to admit that there are people being hurt. Thank you.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I guess what strikes me about this philosophy is that it is not “empowering” to the woman to choose to have children (or not) or to choose to have an education (or not) or to choose to be married (or not) or to choose to have a career (or not) or to choose to wear skirts/long hair (or not) because there IS no real choice offered. It seems to me that most of the females born into this culture do NOT have a choice, and they seem happy because they don’t believe they SHOULD have any other choice. They are raised to be expected to follow the same path as their parents.
I appreciate that they love God and believe that they are following him. But when I watch a program about the Duggar family with their 18 children, it’s pretty clear that they don’t expect any of their girls to become a biochemist or a senator.
And as the mom of 2 girls, that just kinda makes me sad.
Deb
April 14th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Deb, I think absolutely the main problem is the lack of choice. I have tons of respect for stay at home moms and large families. It is simply, in this movement, that a girl is taught from day one that she has no other choice and that this is what God wants her to do. The spiritual abuse implicit in that can be profound. Thanks for the comments!!!
June 14th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Hi! I just had to chime in here and second what Sarah wrote. I am also a daughter of the Quiverful movement, I have seen and experienced these things as well.
I also wanted to add that it is not “safely”limited to a particular denominational or theological viewpoint. It has a much broader appeal and thus the need for it to remain a discussion. Thanks so much for posting about this!
November 1st, 2009 at 8:59 pm
It is very clear that “Jim Bob Bubba J Hayseed” has serious issues,with females receiving higher than a fifth grade level education.The “Quiverfool” movement also does not want females to vote.Wasn’t the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution ratified in 1920,giving women the right to vote? What this so called “Cult” does is turn back the clock 120 to 130 years ago,the days of Laura Ingalls Wilder,for which the TV series “Little House On The Prarie” was based upon.At least she got to live to see the day the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920.
Repression in the name of of God is never a good thing.We’ll probably see in a few years,the people who have escaped from this stifeling and toxic environment,on TV talk shows who’ve written tell all books about the abuse these people have had to endure.
A true Christian does not judge,nor represses his child’s identity,or individuality.A true Christian encourages their son,and daughter’s “God Given” aptitudes and talents,through higher education.
Society should see this movement as a “Cult”,pure and simple and treat it as such.Give those who are abused a change to leave,and become educated and productive members of society.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 pm
I find this extremely disturbing. Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but the women in the bible days didn’t have hords and hords of children. How behind on the times are these people, women being submissive to their husbands, yuck. How can anyone truly believe in this day and age that men and women are not equals? How can someone honestly say that it is normal, or even expected of the human body to mentally and physically handle 10, 11 children? Ever see a mother with just 4 or 5? It’s a hectic life with little to no appreciation. Saying women are to be submissive and clean and breed is like saying black people are to be submissive and clean and work. It’s wrong and it’s not hard to make a huge list of the reasons why.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
I understand how the quiverfull religion/movement may work for some people..The thing I never hear about is what if your 11-12 children wind up with a life threatening genetic disease like cystic fibrosis? You never hear about this but it had to have happened out there somewhere. Do these people believe you continue to have children knowing you are causing suffering? I have Cystic Fibrosis and know of some families that had one or two children with the disease and lost both their children. I have the disease and think reproducing when you already have 2 or 3 children with this disease is cruel and irresponsible. Not everyone is evil that gets ill. Sometimes it is just gods will and you deal with it but would these people keep having children knowing the hours and thousands of dollars involved? I don’t think so. But they probably think they are exempt from such things.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I grew up a quiverfull daughter. I wanted to comment re: cult.
I’m not sure of the traditional sense, but the growing or modern accepted meaning of the word cult has more to do with behavior than doctrine. It is technically possible to have “correct” doctrine and still be considered a cult. Totalitarian control, black and white thinking, mind control/thought reform, manipulation, exclusivity or isolationism, us versus them mentality, deceptive or uninformed recruitment (even through birth), intolerance of questioning or criticism of leader, and other tactics recognized by cult experts worldwide all apply to most within the Quiverfull movement.
To be fair, I wouldn’t say that every Quiverfull family meets the criteria, but sadly, far too many do.
May 11th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
This website looks great and I’ve been chugging through content! You share some great opinions and insight here. Always looking for motivating blogs to keep mine going!