How Full Is Your Quiver?

Nothing wrong with having a large family, if you so choose and are committed to providing both physically and emotionally for many children. However, using this movement as some way to "keep women in their place" (ie, inferior and subservient to men) is reprehensible and not at all biblical.

I am an Ivy Leaguer, well-traveled, speak several languages, have a Master's Degree, MANY children with my husband, teach successfully and objectively in an elementary school AND am open to what God wills in my life for more AND am submissive to my husband (while expressing respectfully my own opinions!), believing us both to be equals in the sight of God BUT having roles in being a blessing and living out our faith. A woman's primary role IS to be a helper and a mother, but that does not exclude secondary and tertiary roles, like president of the US, Nobel prize-winning author, or the discoverer of a cure for cancer. Having children does not turn one into mush. It enriches one's life, IF you have support around you (and needing support is not a failure.) And it is also OK if a woman decides not to marry, not to have children, and to dedicate herself to being a blessing to others in other ways. The Bible says so. The commenter who says this set of beliefs concerning a quiverful lifestyle and "liberating" women is the reason s/he can't subscribe to Christian doctrine fails to realize that it is also among Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and in other belief systems that a woman and a man respect and honor each other's particular gifts, which is what submission is. RE victimhood: I come from a large family and remember the closeness when we were younger, so it is not that children of large families are "victims". Just children of SOME large families, and small, for that matter. And lastly, the daughter DOES belong to her father and mother until she is married, just as the husband BELONGS to the wife, and vice versa -- and not just for Christians. I was not "Christian" as a young woman, but I am now, having seen what the presence of God can do and how Jesus's death and resurrection excludes no one and is for EVERYONE. This fact -- these facts -- do not disrespect anyone, they do not preclude a girl from growing up and going off to college (STILL under cover of her parents' protection), or becoming a world leader, or becoming a stay-at-home mom, all her choice.

"If a couple sees children as an imposition, as something to be vaccinated against, like an illness, that betrays a deeply erroneous understanding of marriage and children,"

But if that is your view of having children, isn't it better to not have them than to go ahead and have them and resent them and yourself? I personally don't want any children and don't particularly relish the thought of being responsible for a child. Why is that wrong? If I don't feel I would be a good mother, why should I still be expected to be one?

And who does this guy think he is by announcing that his daughter "will stay under my covering until I turn her over in marriage to a God-honoring young man". Since when did women and girls go back to being some man's property, at his disposal? Why don't you let this girl get out on her own and learn to take care of herself. so that if, God forbid, something should happen to make her a single mother she would know how to take care of herself and that quiver full of children he hopes she has? Otherwise, she will be on government assistance and quite frankly if I don't want any children, then I sure as hell don't want to have pay more taxes to take care of anyone else's.

My parents taught me to respect myself and to take care of myself so that I didn't have to rely on anyone. And my father would never have dared to treat me like property and "turn me over" to my husband as though I were. My husband would never treat me that way either and there is something deeply disturbing about a man who feels that way, but even more disturbing are the women who accept that kind of thinking and allow themselves to be treated that way.

BTW - marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with children. A marriage is between two people and it is built on their communication and love and respect for each other. Children are a byproduct of that and if you choose to have them - that's your decision and good for you. But if you choose not to - you should not be considered evil and somehow misguided. It is a very personal decision that everyone needs to make for themselves - not have their father or their husbands make it for them.

I married the oldest of ten children. We only had one child. Only three of his other siblings had children at all. My (ex)-husband cherishes peace, quiet and solitude more than anything else. I suspect the victims (children) on quiverful parents will feel the same way my former husband does.

What I think Texica is attempting to explain is that the father is not treating his children equally. He is not talking about holding his sons at home until he can give them over to a god honoring young women. His language also removes the choice of marriage from those undergoing the marriage (ie the daughter and her future husband) and places that decision on the father. While I do not find his statement offensive I find your reasoning dismissive of families and familial relationships. You claim that children will just leave the nest as if it is an easy and viable option. Most children leave home regardless of upbringing or agreement with parents. To imply that those who leave the house do so as an action of dissent fogs and simplifies the actions of leaving home and a parent child relationship.