New interview with Vyckie from NLQ

[dawn9476]

politicususa.com/en/born-breed-quiverfull-walkaway

[purpleeee]

That whole interview made me supersad. :(

But two things in particular:

1. "Vyckie Garrison: It is my contention that the Quiverfull movement is regular Christianity lived out to its logical conclusions... In my experience, the “average Christian†believes most all of the principles of patriarchy taught in the Quiverfull movement, fortunately for Christian women, few actually put it into practice the way Quiverfull Believers do."

From everything I've seen Christians discuss here, this is wrong. Thankfully, but I'm sad Vyckie believes it. I hate that these cults hurt people so much that seeing any of the good in religion becomes impossible.

2. Her list of ideals with Bible references - only 1 of 10 is actually something Jesus said (and it sounds pretty twisted from what he said).

"• Husband as head of the household and final authority (Eph. 5:23)

• Wives submit to their husbands (Colossians 3:18)

• Obedient children (Eph. 6:1)

• Trust the Lord with family planning (i.e., no birth control ~ Psalm 127)

• Stay-at-home-mothers (Titus 2:3)

• Homeschool the children (Matthew 12:17 ~ “render unto God that which is God’s†~ since children bear the image of God, parents ought not render them unto Caesar, i.e., government schools. See also, Deut. 6:7)

• Modest dress (1 Peter 3:3)

• Debt-free living (Romans 13:8)

• Political domination (Psalm 127 and The Dominion Mandate in Genesis 1:28)"

[Pearl]

Yeah, I think she's twisting the scripture a bit - or at least looking at it from the Quiverfull/patriarchal slant.

We could take all those scriptures and apply it to a different way of thinking. What I find interesting is that Christians in the past didn't live the Quiverfull/patriarchal life (as it is presented now) and we're suppose to think that we have all the answers now?

My personal opinion about scriptures is that they are fairly vague, in the sense that we have to attach an applicative meaning to them. There are many different types of applications that can be made for a lot of those scriptures (IMO).

I'm still a Christian, but I filter all my theology through the idea of love. Does this application of xyz scripture someone is presenting to me put God first and also loves my fellow man like I love myself? and Does this application produce the fruits of the spirit?

Everyone is different, of course.

I think Vicki in this instance is being as dogmatic as the patriarchal/quiverful ladies that are deconstructed in this blog. She doesn't see shades of gray.

What is funny, is that I read her blog when it first came out and remember thinking that she shouldn't have launched into such an extensive web-site/blog until she had been out of the movement for some years. I remember when I rejected Patriarchy it took me years to even know what I really thought. I went through some pretty strange things and beliefs before I have settled into the way that I am now. I'm still healing from my time in that weird, wacky world, but I have stabilized and am not flip flopping all over the place anymore. I don't think she ever allowed herself to heal from what she went through - she went from one extreme to another. It's like she is a crusader. She was a crusader for the quiverfull movement, but when that became too much for her to deal with she switched to the extreme opposite side.

Because of this, she isn't credible to me. (All IMVHO of course)

[Austin]

Everyone is different, of course.

I think Vicki in this instance is being as dogmatic as the patriarchal/quiverful ladies that are deconstructed in this blog. She doesn't see shades of gray.

My impression is the same. People who are dogmatic who change direction are usually just as dogmatic in their new pursuit, because nuance eludes them completely.

[maybeizfundie]

Pearl, I appreciate your post, especially seeing it on FJ. :)

I agree with you and what you are saying describes many of the people who left the cult we were in.

I also agree that she is misusing the scriptures in pretty much the same way cultists do and/or taking something plain and simple and turning it into something awful. In talking about submission, she (and perhaps many cultists) forget that there is a man's side of that too, not just submission but literal and spiritual laying down his life for his wife. In other things, I see absolutely nothing wrong with them in the way I've experienced them or observed others practice them. But like anything, humans have twisted and abused them. Let us not forget that many would consider poplation control a very good thing, and yet it has been used in an incredibly abusive manner at times, violence has been committed in it's name, and it has resulted in an actual gender imbalance in certain parts of the world. Does the abuse make the concept invalid? I disagree with it for other reasons, but I don't think the human tendancy to use anything and everything for selfish personal gain and control of others is a reason to reject anything out of hand.

*As she describes it* Quiverful absolutely does sound horrible, dreadful, wretched, and all of that. What frustrates me is that while recognizing that abuse and cultism happens, it isn't my experience with eschewing birth control, living a "traditional" looking life, homeschooling, etc or with most others that I know do the same things. I wasn't aware that I was supposed to be carrying all these heavy burdens, until I started reading QF-objectors telling me so. The one pastor I had issues with, who was definitely dominionist in mindset, I just blew off without much thought. I appreciated the relationship we had with his family and with that church, but I already knew he was a dominating, bloviating type of guy and didn't hang on his every word.

[keeperrox]

*As she describes it* Quiverful absolutely does sound horrible, dreadful, wretched, and all of that. What frustrates me is that while recognizing that abuse and cultism happens, it isn't my experience with eschewing birth control, living a "traditional" looking life, homeschooling, etc or with most others that I know do the same things.

That's because most people in the cult can't see anything wrong with it until they're out.

[maybeizfundie]

If you're implying I'm "in", apart from general labels which can take a variety of different forms, nothing in her description of her life looks anything like mine.

If homeschooling, or wearing a headcovering, or not using chemical birth control or any combination thereof means one is a cultist quiverful-er, then I know some pagans, a-religious hippies, Jews, Catholics, and rastas who must be QF.

[kb2]

I think the Bible can be interpreted to support or disallow anything. It's kind of amorphous. You can take it completely literally, down to stoning people, you can take it in its historical context, trying to figure out why something was moral within the society and laws of thousands of years ago, and you can say it's all a big metaphor, making your own morality completely separate from it.

But people who learn a certain way of thinking about the Bible seem to stick to that interpretation, even after they believe that interpretation is wrong. I had a friend tell me that she didn't want to be a Christian because no true Christian could think being gay was moral, and she thought being gay was moral. She later told me that the New Testament makes all the Old Testament laws obsolete so you don't have to follow them anymore. I pointed out that that solved her dilemma, but she was like, no, thinking gay people are amoral is definitely an integral part of the religion anyway.

[SunnyAndrsn]

Not surprisingly, Vyckie is quite verbose. Can't she ever make a point in less than 10,000 words?

She's lost some street cred as far as I'm concerned. Her family is still messed up, and don't think she can continue to blame this on her escape from their patriarchal lifestyle.

She likes the sound of her own voice too much. I think her intentions were probably good (but she needed to make a buck too), but she didn't have a clue what she was doing when she started NLQ.

[keeperrox]

If homeschooling, or wearing a headcovering, or not using chemical birth control or any combination thereof means one is a cultist quiverful-er, then I know some pagans, a-religious hippies, Jews, Catholics, and rastas who must be QF.

And that's certainly not what I said. Quiverfull inherently has a radical, fundamentalist Christian component because it is a legalistic translation of Psalm 127. Good try though.

[valsa]

I think she's got a point, in that the Bible does say some pretty horrible stuff. You can interpret certain passages to make them more or less horrible but, in the end, many of them simply are what they are.

Which I why I don't think people should be taking their morality lessons from a 2000-some year old story book written by misogynist, Bronze-age goat herders.

[FlorenceHamilton]

I think people would like the bible to be amorpous and open to interpretation. As a lifelong Jew, I was fascinated by the Talmud, which interprets and reinterprets the Hebrew Bible to fit new circumstances, new times and new cultural norms.

In the last few years, I have studued Christianity. It is fascinating how consistent humans are in trying to make the rules fit them instead of humans obeying the rules. Even our own constitution has developed its own Talmud in the courts. Of course the Constitution was written by humans and inspired by humanity, so that is consistent with the original document. It was created to allow for change, but the process was made difficult and painstaking. Wise people, those founding ones.

Religious texts were not created to be changeable. I suspect that they were not intended to be adaptable either. Humans made it so. If you believe these texts to be the word of God, then they are what they are. The Fundamentalist branches of religious movements are taking the words to their logical conclusion. I actually agree with Vyckie.

If you believe that religious texts were written by humans, then the Patriarchy and the changeability, adaptability and reinterpretation make perfect sense. The biologic work of women is creation, nuturing and teaching of children. This is so very close to the work of God. If men wrote the religious texts, then they needed to make the FIRST creator/nuturer/teacher to be MALE. In this way, all of the rulemaking can be seen to come from the male.

Going back to my own background, it became obvious to me that any religious text that requires THAT MUCH reinterpretation probably needs to go by the way of the Pantheon. Great reading. Huge historical insight. Useful allegory. Important literature. Good resource to ponder.

Yet, for all of that, it is still difficult for me to be entirely comfortable with my atheism. It is getting easier with time. What one is taught as a small child goes deep.

[TVR]

I remember Vyckie from years and years ago on an e-loop I was on at the time. I think it was Above Rubies, but it could have been another large family one. She was very zealous. More so than many of the other "quiverfullers" on there She sold her Christmas packs (can't for the life of me remember what it was called, but it was a pack with instructions on how to send things to another family every day for xxx days before Christmas to share the Christmas story with them or something) with zeal. She sold QF the same way. I believe that she has changed "sides" but her zeal for selling her current belief is as strong as it was years ago with QF.

Herein, I think lies the difference between the QF'ers/Fundies that get snarked on on FJ and thousands of other QF families. Some families are dogmatic in each and every thing they do. If it weren't QF, it would have been something else. Other families feel that God has convicted them PERSONALLY to be QF/Head cover/wear skirts only/whatever, but their conviction is personal and they don't feel that this is a salvation issue or a conviction that should be imposed on others.

[MamaJunebug]

Not a real Vyckie follower but was made a little suspicious about her in general when I read the memoirs of the young ex-pate woman on NLQ. Sorry I don't recall the woman's name but she was the topic of a recent thread here.

Anyhow, as I was reading the young woman's story I got the distinct impression that it was a con. Why? Because the first 4 installments could've been written by anybody who had read some articles on patriarchy abuses.

So I went to her website ( the young ex--pate's) to read more, and found words to this effect:

"Want to read more? Well believe me, there IS more, but I'm not gonna post it here before I post it over on Vyckie's site at NLQ. See ya later!"

I do not know. Something seemed really off about that.

JMHO.

[camdendayton]

What was the name of that thread? I'd like to read it but I searched for "avrecentv" both here and on yuku and couldn't find anything.

[deelaem]

I've been very, very suspicious of Vyckie ever since the kerfuffle over her daughter posting here at FJ. Her responses to that were like she was a rival of her daughter's, rather than her mother. I agree with the assessment that she is unable to see things in shades of grey - only black and white. Which is why I'm pretty sure she has borderline personality. She's just not a person with a stable sense of self.

[Austin]

I've been very, very suspicious of Vyckie ever since the kerfuffle over her daughter posting here at FJ. Her responses to that were like she was a rival of her daughter's, rather than her mother. I agree with the assessment that she is unable to see things in shades of grey - only black and white. Which is why I'm pretty sure she has borderline personality. She's just not a person with a stable sense of self.

I agree with this. I feel a bit bad for being suspicious of her and I do applaud her for leaving patriarchy and for all that she does to encourage other women to leave. But there's just something off about her. Maybe I would be "off" (well, more than I already am :D ), as well, if I had had to live like she did for years, but there's something I just can't put my finger on.

I saw her on the Joy Behar show with Kathryn Joyce and the awful QF woman Rachel somebody (Rachel Scott, I think - she wrote a book, something about how many arrows she could bring into the world to fight God's holy battle). Anyway, something was just not quite right with regards to Vyckie, IMO, and that was before I was even aware of the mother/daughter thing.

But whatever good she accomplishes for women and children in this horrible lifestyle, I'm glad for. I hope all of her children find peace and happiness.

[MamaJunebug]

What was the name of that thread? I'd like to read it but I searched for "avrecentv" both here and on yuku and couldn't find anything.

Yeah, that was my typerette's syndrome, there. ;). I can't remember any specific search terms -- oh, just go to NLQ, look for the 4-parter about the young woma who's recently out of QF/P & search her name here.

I'd oblige ya but I'm not that good at all that on the ole iPhone.

[Guest Anonymous]

I don't quite know what I think of Vyckie anymore. I always found Vyckie's own postings over at NLQ to be a little too long-winded to be bothered reading from start to finish, but I kind of sympathised with her until the whole Vyckie/Angel hoohaa kicked off here on FJ and on their personal blogs. Although Vyckie complained of being villainised by Angel in that debacle, there was quite enough of what Vyckie herself said that left a really sour taste in my mouth - the part that particularly sticks in my mind is where she wrote a blog article trying to discredit Angel's integrity, almost entirely on the basis that Angel had told a lie about her age when she was round 5 years old.....

I used to post over on the NLQ forum and read the main website regularly, but I tailed off when Vyckie started to lose credibility for me. I do respect what she has done in setting up the site, I'm just not sure she has the right skillset to accomplish the very wide-ranging goals that the site has. Although it is harsh to say so, I just don't think Vyckie is a particularly good writer. I can imagine that her family newspaper might well have sold well in the Fundie world because, well, standards and expectations aren't that high among SOTDRT grads, but out in the real world things are very different and she doesn't nearly make the grade.

I also tend to agree with Pearl, that Vyckie needs much more time for personal healing before she can best help others, and I think it was a big mistake for Vyckie to try to rely on the NLQ site as a source of income. Going out and getting a secular job might have been a better way both to pay the bills and help with her own personal healing.

I really enjoy the writings of the broad spectrum of QF Survivors at NLQ. I particularly enjoyed the writings of "Razing Ruth" and also "Journey" whom I think I followed over from a personal blog I used to read. I would love to hear more of how Journey's story has worked out, but I guess that the reason she has become silent on that front is that she is doing the right thing for herself and focusing on working through her issues and building a new future for herself and her kids, out of the bloggy world limelight. I think Vyckie would do well to follow Journey's example, in that respect.

[maybeizfundie]

And that's certainly not what I said. Quiverfull inherently has a radical, fundamentalist Christian component because it is a legalistic translation of Psalm 127. Good try though.

************************

Not to take this thread off track, but that psalm mentions only *one* of her long list of grievances, and a person can be "quiverful" in their interpretation of that psalm without being legalistic, making it an issue of salvation, or requiring everyone else to agree with them, and without rejecting education for women, accepting/hiding abuse, and the lot of it.

[keeperrox]

Not to take this thread off track, but that psalm mentions only *one* of her long list of grievances, and a person can be "quiverful" in their interpretation of that psalm without being legalistic, making it an issue of salvation, or requiring everyone else to agree with them, and without rejecting education for women, accepting/hiding abuse, and the lot of it.

Quiverfull is a movement. You don't get to change it's definition just to suit your liking.

[kb2]

I think people would like the bible to be amorpous and open to interpretation. As a lifelong Jew, I was fascinated by the Talmud, which interprets and reinterprets the Hebrew Bible to fit new circumstances, new times and new cultural norms.

In the last few years, I have studued Christianity. It is fascinating how consistent humans are in trying to make the rules fit them instead of humans obeying the rules. Even our own constitution has developed its own Talmud in the courts. Of course the Constitution was written by humans and inspired by humanity, so that is consistent with the original document. It was created to allow for change, but the process was made difficult and painstaking. Wise people, those founding ones.

Religious texts were not created to be changeable. I suspect that they were not intended to be adaptable either. Humans made it so. If you believe these texts to be the word of God, then they are what they are. The Fundamentalist branches of religious movements are taking the words to their logical conclusion. I actually agree with Vyckie.

The problem is, there is interpretation that has to happen, especially if you decide that every word is literal. John the Baptist was baptized in a river by total submersion according to Southern Baptists (and others), and therefore Southern Baptists baptize this way because it is the "right" way outlined in Scripture. Others disagree, and feel that pouring water or sprinkling water is sufficient for a baptism ceremony, and that the wording of John the Baptists's baptism supports this. People will defend both of these views by saying, "But my view is supported by the Bible, which was written by God, you can't argue with that." From the story in Acts 10, can all Christians really eat any of the previously considered unclean animals, or was that suggestion just for Peter so he wouldn't be judgey against his new guest? You can believe that you're reading it "right," but so do the people that would take the opposite stance. You can't just say, well I'm going to take the Bible literally, and that will lead to my agreeing with everyone else who takes it literally. People don't develop a penchant for evangelical Christianity by picking up a Bible and going off into the woods with no human contact, reading it for the first time, and coming back with a plan for how to live the rest of their lives. They develop their religion among other people, with fellowship and regular church services and a long tradition of social guidance. You may think you are reading the "real" meaning of the Bible, but so does every. Other. Person. Reading it. And. None of them. Agree with how every single phrase should be followed. And I'm not talking about the social acceptability of stoning people, but things as simple as how to baptize. You could pick any number of baptismal ceremonies and remain within cultural norms (or even decide baptizing isn't necessary at all), and yet, every denomination has an opinion on how it should be done.

(Ahem, sorry this is OT. I also don't know why I feel the need to hold forth on this subject, but I already wrote this monstrosity and don't want to delete it now.)

[FlorenceHamilton]

Actually, I think we are observing the same thing, although from a slightly different point of view. If I get your meaning, interpretation occurs when a certain concensus of people define a passage a particular way. Anthoer group may interpret the word in a completely different way. Both groups think that they are right. Both think they have a grasp of the word of God.

Ultimately though, words are human constructs. Either you believe in God or you have your doubts. The Bible may be inspired by God or not. But religious texts are written by humans, and as such open to interpretation.

However, if you believe that the words of the texts are actually written by God. Then there is no room for interpretation. The text should be taken quite literally. (You know, because the almighty crafted every word.)

After 50 years of batting this around in my head, I have concluded that all of the known religious text were written by folks with a big head and a little head. The big head is completely at the mercy of the little head. So women serve two related purposes. One is to please men. The other is to make more humans.

Oh my. I have just reduced religion to penis worship. :shock:

[Deleted12]

I worked for a while for a guy who was always in salesman mode. He was trying to sell his company, his products, and himself all the time, even to his own employees and his own family. For example, if there was a job that one of us had to go do he would tell us how great it was going to be and try to get us psyched to go out there and do it. After a while of knowing him, he sorta seemed like a huckster or a grifter, even though he was running a legit company.

That's kinda how Vyckie seems to me. She's a salesperson, whether she's selling patriarchy or the NLQ scene.

I kinda feel like even when she's posting about something terrible she's still trying to sell something.

Whatever happened to Laura? Why did she vanish?

[kb2]

Actually, I think we are observing the same thing, although from a slightly different point of view. If I get your meaning, interpretation occurs when a certain concensus of people define a passage a particular way. Anthoer group may interpret the word in a completely different way. Both groups think that they are right. Both think they have a grasp of the word of God.

Ultimately though, words are human constructs. Either you believe in God or you have your doubts. The Bible may be inspired by God or not. But religious texts are written by humans, and as such open to interpretation.

However, if you believe that the words of the texts are actually written by God. Then there is no room for interpretation. The text should be taken quite literally. (You know, because the almighty crafted every word.)

After 50 years of batting this around in my head, I have concluded that all of the known religious text were written by folks with a big head and a little head. The big head is completely at the mercy of the little head. So women serve two related purposes. One is to please men. The other is to make more humans.

Oh my. I have just reduced religion to penis worship. :shock:

You're right. I'm sorry I talked past you.

And LOL about the penis worship. :lol: