prolific_mango
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2024
They probably pity her and see her as a victim like them.
Community Quiverfull Movement Lolcows - Starring the Duggars
- Thread starter Ariel
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2020
Trauma bonding isn't completely invalid.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2020
I think this is pretty common in patriarchal families across many cultures. Moms "get" to be the long-suffering victims, Dads are "burdened" by leadership and "have to be the bad guy."
Women are the heart and men are the logic, so it's okay to love your mom more than your dad. As long as you obey the dad, that's all that matters.
In "The Dialectic of Sex" by Shulamuth Firestone, she describes her feminist take on Freud's Oedipus Complex. Don't get me wrong, some of this book is batshit, especially some of her takes on race and her belief that men are literally incapable of love. But this Oedipus Complex thing makes a lot of sense to me.
In a Victorian-era secular Western family, the typical ideal was a father who works and rarely sees the kids, and a mother who stays at home with the kids. (And if you're rich, has nannies. If you're poor, mom often works with the kids, like taking in laundry, or baby farming, or having her daughters help with maid work etc. The point is, Dad isn't with the kids.)
Domestic violence was common and expected. Encouraged, even. This completely acceptable violence was primarily husband against wife, husband against children, and sometimes mothers against children. Victorian fathers didn't really do things with their kids the way dads a few decades later would. Children were property, and their rearing was the responsibility of the mother. Obviously there were outliers, but Victorian dads didn't like, play catch with their sons, or take much interest in them until they were old enough to start learning about work (which tbf for working class boys was very young.)
Say you're a typical Victorian child.
When you're born, you don't know anything about the world except your mother. You were literally a physical part of her. You get nourishment from her body. Your mother is your whole world.
Sometimes, a man comes around and beats up your mother. If you're lucky, maybe this strange man holds you now and then, but mostly, besides the theorized instinctive father-smell, you have no idea who this guy is.
You get old enough to understand this strange man is your father. You fear him, but you also want his love and approval, and you're told you have to respect him. But he beats your mother, who is still your whole world. He beats your siblings, who you also love. He might even beat you, even though you're only a toddler, because this is Victorian times.
Now you're old enough to understand that your mother is a separate person from you. Let's say you're four or five. You have learned gender roles a long time ago, and if you're a boy, you have learned that boys protect girls. But in your house, you, a boy, are powerless to protect your mother and sisters from your father. If you're lucky you have older brothers that can do that. Or maybe you'll be the older brother that carries the guilt for the rest of his life.
But you still love your father and want his approval.
Soon, maybe five or six or seven, it really sinks in that since you are a boy, you will one day become a man. If you're working class, soon you'll be apprenticed or working a man's job.
One day you will marry a woman. You will become a father. The only option ever modeled for you is to become the monster who beats up the most important person in your life. The monster you barley have a relationship with except to be disciplined by.
According to Firestone, this was a brain-breaking revelation. What Freud called an Oedipus Complex-- a desire to kill the father and fuck the mother-- Firestone says is more about *protecting* the mother. A boy has dreams about killing his father because he doesn't want to become the type of man his father is. He wants to protect his mother, but his father is the only man he is not allowed to stand up against.
There's typical routes that boys take after this:
- drink the flavor aid and turn into their dad and become a woman beater
- try really hard not to be a woman beater, maybe stand up to the dad. Maybe end up as a decent husband, but probably valorize the Sainted Mother Victim, end up treating your wife and kids weird in a different way. (Oedipus Complex, high functioning, not involving sexual desire for mom)
- for younger sons, become a Mama's Boy because you had the luxury of not sharing her attention with younger siblings, be a total failure to launch. (Oedipal Complex, low functioning)
- avoid marriage altogether and be a bachelor playboy. Sounds valid to modern people, but would cause your family a lot of distress back then. Also, feel constantly lonely and unloveable and never understand why.
- any of the above except you're also gay so shit's even more complicated
- become some other total waste of life, like a serial killer or something. (Oedipal Complex, desire to kill and desire for sex all jumbled up)
Things have changed since Victorian times, and even when Firestone was writing (the 70s, I think?) You can see the reverberations from this through the generations, and you can see society, even religious families, moving away from this, to today's ideal father being not just someone who does not use violence, but who expresses love and enjoyment of his children. (I think the world wars and the subsequent peace movements had a lot to do with this personally, so it's one thing to thank boomers for.)
But for very, very hardline patriarchal Christian groups, they're still living the same ideal. Except with waaaaay more children-- Victorian families would have tried to space out children for resource management, at least.
In a Victorian-era secular Western family, the typical ideal was a father who works and rarely sees the kids, and a mother who stays at home with the kids. (And if you're rich, has nannies. If you're poor, mom often works with the kids, like taking in laundry, or baby farming, or having her daughters help with maid work etc. The point is, Dad isn't with the kids.)
Domestic violence was common and expected. Encouraged, even. This completely acceptable violence was primarily husband against wife, husband against children, and sometimes mothers against children. Victorian fathers didn't really do things with their kids the way dads a few decades later would. Children were property, and their rearing was the responsibility of the mother. Obviously there were outliers, but Victorian dads didn't like, play catch with their sons, or take much interest in them until they were old enough to start learning about work (which tbf for working class boys was very young.)
Say you're a typical Victorian child.
When you're born, you don't know anything about the world except your mother. You were literally a physical part of her. You get nourishment from her body. Your mother is your whole world.
Sometimes, a man comes around and beats up your mother. If you're lucky, maybe this strange man holds you now and then, but mostly, besides the theorized instinctive father-smell, you have no idea who this guy is.
You get old enough to understand this strange man is your father. You fear him, but you also want his love and approval, and you're told you have to respect him. But he beats your mother, who is still your whole world. He beats your siblings, who you also love. He might even beat you, even though you're only a toddler, because this is Victorian times.
Now you're old enough to understand that your mother is a separate person from you. Let's say you're four or five. You have learned gender roles a long time ago, and if you're a boy, you have learned that boys protect girls. But in your house, you, a boy, are powerless to protect your mother and sisters from your father. If you're lucky you have older brothers that can do that. Or maybe you'll be the older brother that carries the guilt for the rest of his life.
But you still love your father and want his approval.
Soon, maybe five or six or seven, it really sinks in that since you are a boy, you will one day become a man. If you're working class, soon you'll be apprenticed or working a man's job.
One day you will marry a woman. You will become a father. The only option ever modeled for you is to become the monster who beats up the most important person in your life. The monster you barley have a relationship with except to be disciplined by.
According to Firestone, this was a brain-breaking revelation. What Freud called an Oedipus Complex-- a desire to kill the father and fuck the mother-- Firestone says is more about *protecting* the mother. A boy has dreams about killing his father because he doesn't want to become the type of man his father is. He wants to protect his mother, but his father is the only man he is not allowed to stand up against.
There's typical routes that boys take after this:
- drink the flavor aid and turn into their dad and become a woman beater
- try really hard not to be a woman beater, maybe stand up to the dad. Maybe end up as a decent husband, but probably valorize the Sainted Mother Victim, end up treating your wife and kids weird in a different way. (Oedipus Complex, high functioning, not involving sexual desire for mom)
- for younger sons, become a Mama's Boy because you had the luxury of not sharing her attention with younger siblings, be a total failure to launch. (Oedipal Complex, low functioning)
- avoid marriage altogether and be a bachelor playboy. Sounds valid to modern people, but would cause your family a lot of distress back then. Also, feel constantly lonely and unloveable and never understand why.
- any of the above except you're also gay so shit's even more complicated
- become some other total waste of life, like a serial killer or something. (Oedipal Complex, desire to kill and desire for sex all jumbled up)
Things have changed since Victorian times, and even when Firestone was writing (the 70s, I think?) You can see the reverberations from this through the generations, and you can see society, even religious families, moving away from this, to today's ideal father being not just someone who does not use violence, but who expresses love and enjoyment of his children. (I think the world wars and the subsequent peace movements had a lot to do with this personally, so it's one thing to thank boomers for.)
But for very, very hardline patriarchal Christian groups, they're still living the same ideal. Except with waaaaay more children-- Victorian families would have tried to space out children for resource management, at least.
Anyways, that's a long novel on why I think it's normal for adults in patriarchal groups to love their moms more than their dads. And why narc moms sometimes seek out this kind of arrangement, IMO.
Last edited:
one man party
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
women in those subcultures want to remain the "sexual protagonist," which is a term created by one of the authors of a foundational text of the movement
this extremely special work contains actual eroticization of FGM, I wish we had real women's scholarship so that all the batshit stuff could be studied together, this kind of thing and Created to Be His Helpmeet together with Firestone and Solanis, because it's just two sides of the same coin of batshittery.
anyway Michelle is kind of retarded but if you read what she's written and watch her interviews it's very clear what she was in it for. high school never ends. she's always the most popular girl in school, she always gets picked, she is the eternal prom queen.
a normal version of this dynamic is at play in a normal marriage but it's an adult version, not a teenage one, and there is normal clear delineation between the generations so the possibility of children being a real rival for a parent's romantic attention is completely impossible.
The Duggars are the most visible face of the IBLP but there's plenty of material available describing the fucked up household dynamics Gothard's teaching promoted and this is the emotional payout the women get.
this extremely special work contains actual eroticization of FGM, I wish we had real women's scholarship so that all the batshit stuff could be studied together, this kind of thing and Created to Be His Helpmeet together with Firestone and Solanis, because it's just two sides of the same coin of batshittery.
anyway Michelle is kind of retarded but if you read what she's written and watch her interviews it's very clear what she was in it for. high school never ends. she's always the most popular girl in school, she always gets picked, she is the eternal prom queen.
a normal version of this dynamic is at play in a normal marriage but it's an adult version, not a teenage one, and there is normal clear delineation between the generations so the possibility of children being a real rival for a parent's romantic attention is completely impossible.
The Duggars are the most visible face of the IBLP but there's plenty of material available describing the fucked up household dynamics Gothard's teaching promoted and this is the emotional payout the women get.
ZsaZsaBinks
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2022
On this website there are people who want people to be like these parents so that the birth rate gets above 2.1. Thoughts?
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
I feel like there’s a lot of daylight between “maybe have more than two kids” and “have nineteen and raise them in a cult.” Also the birthrate is nowhere near 2.1, unless you’re posting from the third world or Israel.
ZsaZsaBinks
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2022
But a lot of people are really bothered by the birth rate being less than 2.1. I understand, but they do nothing for children who already exist. It’s always “have kids so (white) people don’t go extinct”.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
Yes, population collapse bothers people for a lot of reasons, not least because the social security/welfare state is a pyramid scheme that presupposes at least moderate organic population growth. What do you want done for children who already exist that isnt being done?
ZsaZsaBinks
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2022
Education, healthcare.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
Where do you live that children aren’t entitled to a free k12 education and can’t get Medicaid or socialized health if they need it?
ZsaZsaBinks
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2022
I live in the states. But I’m tired of people on this site saying “You should stay and be a broodmare while your husband works, all the while not doing anything for the kids who already exist.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
having more than 2 kids = “being a broodmare”
Free education and heavily subsidized healthcare plus millions of other social programs = “not doing anything”
ZsaZsaBinks
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2022
I get it. But it bothers me when these people shit out kids. Why don’t they ever adopt? They think kids deserve a mother and a father, then they should adopt.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
Fundy Christians do adopt. Kathryn Joyce wrote an entire book on it that might interest you if you're into this kind of weirdness. In terms of people on this site, probably better that KiwiFarmers don't adopt . . .
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2015
I don't think it is a good thing. People who have more kids than they can take care of will suffer, and their children will suffer, and they will suffer further from all the various archaic patriarchal rules that come with the quiverfull movement.
I think the issue is that the idea that americans have to "outbreed" foreigners is predicated on the idea that the only way for a portion of a population to outcompete another portion is through numbers alone. What they forget is that quality can beat quantity in many situations. Raise a couple of good kids smarter than the kids of someone who you see as your competition, and hypothetically your ideals/genes/heritage/whatever-you-care-about have a better chance of passing down again later on than someone who just shotgunned out a bunch of inbred idiots. Unfortunately, the way society works in the modern world is in such a way that it favors the .001% of the most successful people and then it also favors the bottom 10% of people. Society only supports its rulers and its dregs. So I think some people go "I'm worried about what I care about being passed down, and there's no way to have children successful enough to be part of the .001% of successful people, so I'll just jump to the other extreme and have like 10 kids and hope I can outcompete other cultures that way."
The issue is 1: that won't work because if you care about the success of your children AT ALL you'd find it too cruel to have so many kids that they are all suffering and you can't take care of them all, meaning people who literally do not care about their children are going to be more willing to go to the lengths necessary to employ this strategy
And 2: employing this strategy will only make it harder even further down the line to be able to make it into the .001%, and will likely narrow that percent of the population, too.
Essentially, if a person is worried about the proliferation of their religion/culture/race/whatever ideology, doing what horribly overpopulated places like China and India do only work in the long run. Do not have a kajillion kids because the you're just making success more scarce for each kid you have. Instead, go do something about the systems in place that prevent your kids from seeing success.
The issue is 1: that won't work because if you care about the success of your children AT ALL you'd find it too cruel to have so many kids that they are all suffering and you can't take care of them all, meaning people who literally do not care about their children are going to be more willing to go to the lengths necessary to employ this strategy
And 2: employing this strategy will only make it harder even further down the line to be able to make it into the .001%, and will likely narrow that percent of the population, too.
Essentially, if a person is worried about the proliferation of their religion/culture/race/whatever ideology, doing what horribly overpopulated places like China and India do only work in the long run. Do not have a kajillion kids because the you're just making success more scarce for each kid you have. Instead, go do something about the systems in place that prevent your kids from seeing success.
Tl;dr making babies to throw into the meat grinder of life helps no one, not your kids, not you, and not your spouse.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2021
Not unreasonable at all imo. And you don't have to be in a cult to want children, or want to raise your children in such a cold way. Saying otherwise is downright braindead because if we don't have the replacement rate, our society dies out quite literally.
Now the better question is: SHOULD the average person have children at the replacement rate. The average normie is retarded, the other half, like us, are even more retarded. I sure as shit wouldn't trust most people I know to have kids and they inevitably end up that way.
On top of that, there is a fuck ton of friction between genders more than ever before. Say what you will about the 50's, sure the dad could be terrible, but by and large, there were clear, simplified rules understood and made it easier to rear children because there was essentially a rule book. Was it good? Fuck no.
Would I also use it? Also fuck no.
However, it was incredibly rare for people to deviate, so everyone understood one anothers harsh reality growing up. Devil you know, all that.
Given this much freedom to now raise kids, people who continue along this old path are further ostricized because it isn't normal anymore, and sometimes very bizarre ways of abuse crop up, like that odd man who taught his kid only klingon so the kid couldn't talk to literally anybody, the "unlearning" movement, etc etc.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2017
Then maybe those people should stop voting for politicians who give tax breaks to the ultra wealthy and aren’t making it easier for the middle class to be able to buy homes and put food on the table. Welfare is only available for the bottom-tier of people. If you have a job, you’re fucked — and heaven forbid jobs pay anything close to a living wage that would make raising a family on one or 1.5 incomes feasible for the first few years of a kids’ life.
In Japan, normies can live on a single fairly low salary (avg salary for a college-educated man in Tokyo in his 40s is like $38k USD), have a wife who doesn’t work, can afford to build themselves new homes, have safe and decent public elementary schools (middle and high schools are awful), super subsidized daycare/preschools, and pregnancy costs are almost fully covered by the government thanks to public healthcare and lump sum payments when you have kids. Taxes are also fairly low and get lower when the wife doesn’t work (it’s always the wife) and have kids.
Gee, what a concept.
(The birthrate is low because the men here are mostly porn-obsessed autists who are spoiled by their moms — and women don’t want to marry incel manchildren and become their replacement mommies. Sort of like Korea.)
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
No one is taking advice on boosting the birthrate from Japan. Or Korea. Whatever they're doing, it doesn't work.
Countries with a bigger welfare state do not appear to do better with birthrate. The best way to boost your birthrate is to get into some sort of holy war with your neighbours.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
While some of this discussion is interesting, can we continue it in a Deep Thoughts thread and go back to discussing Quiverfull families here?