The Duggars

[GardenTenders/Kim]

Then you have day to day stuff. I would consider myself a complete parental failure if I had my own kids "raise" my own kids. Yeah, SOME amount of help, sure - that is normal, because we are a family and family helps. But there are things I could never ask my kids to do - enormous time spent with their younger siblings rather than with their peers or on their interests, or things which are related to day to day baby / toddler care, and so forth. No. Just no. I realize other people may feel differently than me on these issues.

 

:iagree: and the point I was attempting to make.

[gardening momma]

Then you have day to day stuff. I would consider myself a complete parental failure if I had my own kids "raise" my own kids. Yeah, SOME amount of help, sure - that is normal, because we are a family and family helps. But there are things I could never ask my kids to do - enormous time spent with their younger siblings rather than with their peers or on their interests, or things which are related to day to day baby / toddler care, and so forth. No. Just no. I realize other people may feel differently than me on these issues.

My kids don't raise each other, of course, but I do have them spend enormous amounts of time together, rather than with their peers or on separate interests (although they do go to separate rooms or loudly verbalize if they want to be left alone :) ). Part (one of many) of the reason I homeschool is to have them spend time together.

 

ETA: If I wanted them to spend larger amounts of time with their peers or in their own interests, I'd send them to school. :ack2:...sorry...No, I'd have to have much more reason before I'd do that!

Edited July 8, 2011 by gardening momma

[GardenTenders/Kim]

I think the point is being missed..... I don't wish to argue.

 

The older children APPEAR to raise the younger ones in many RL families of this size. From what I have seen of the show, it appears the same is happening here. By raise I don't mean help, I mean RAISE. They are the mommy in all but the literal sense.

 

I also think they can't be that "goody goody" like butter won't melt sort of thing. I am sure there must be something that makes them human. I am Christian too, but I happen to be one of those ones that sin. *gasp*

[Ester Maria]

My kids don't raise each other, of course, but I do have them spend enormous amounts of time together, rather than with their peers or on separate interests (although they do go to separate rooms or loudly verbalize if they want to be left alone :) ). Part (one of many) of the reason I homeschool is to have them spend time together.

 

ETA: If I wanted them to spend larger amounts of time with their peers or in their own interests, I'd send them to school. :ack2:...sorry...No, I'd have to have much more reason before I'd do that!

But you have two, and they're small. When I had two and they were small, they were INSEPARABLE and that was so cute.

The question is, whether the kids have the freedom to "break off" if they wish - and they will grow big one day, find their independent interests, want independent work on those, they will get intense (not only academically, but also intellectually, if you are lucky)... With two or three and typical kids, we are talking about a bit of flexibility, a bit of juggling several things at once sometimes, but imagine that x6-7... are kids really as "free" and as "kids" in such a situation? I doubt.

 

I love my kids to spend time together too, and to bound... but as STRONG family bounds as I wish to build, I also do not wish them to be CHOKING... that a kid cannot ask to do sport because of the logistics of time, for example... that a kid cannot have hours upon hours of uninterrupted, genuinely free time for their own interests and developoment... Things like that. That is what my skepticism is mostly about.

[Joanne]

I do respect the way I understand them to handle money. (And this was before the reality show, and back when they were a documentary).

 

And, I think that's where it ends.

 

I disagree with patriarchy.

I disagree with quiverful and the dynamic it breeds (pun intended)

I disagree with the extreme courting.

I disagree with their theology (Gothard).

I disagree with the parenting/buddy system.

 

I've never been a fan of the Duggars.

 

I'm pretty sure if memory serves that way back when they used to have stuff on their website that associated them with the Pearls, which was subsequently removed, but I can't swear to it or prove it.

 

That aside, I've always thought that they force their older girls to be pretty much full-time housewives and mommies to younger siblings, which is not fair at all- helping out is great and all, but in that family, it goes beyond that.

 

Yes, they had blanket training and I believe links to NGJ and possibly the ugh. I can't think of their names. A couple, somewhat known in the homeschooling community. B something? Reb Bradley! That's it. I was very into researching parenting at the time, and I had seen their original show. I went to their site (which was very informal then) and saw the parenting links.

 

Anyway, they have become the evangelistic tool of the patriarchy/quiverful movement, although the Duggars are careful to strip the show of that. I believe the kids (at least some of them) will eventuall seek help to recover from having been raised in a reality show AND in the cultishness of patriarchy.

[UnsinkableKristen]

Personally, I have a sort of distant admiration for families like that, but paired up with understanding that what DH and I want out of family life, education, family experiences with kids and so forth could never "click" with such a lifestyle and that number of children.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I agree with basically everything you wrote, but this in particular. :001_smile:

[Homeschooling Again]

I have to say I find the show boring. I find most (all?) reality shows boring and formulaic and this one is no different.

[Crimson Wife]

The question is, whether the kids have the freedom to "break off" if they wish - and they will grow big one day, find their independent interests, want independent work on those, they will get intense (not only academically, but also intellectually, if you are lucky)... With two or three and typical kids, we are talking about a bit of flexibility, a bit of juggling several things at once sometimes, but imagine that x6-7... are kids really as "free" and as "kids" in such a situation? I doubt.

 

I love my kids to spend time together too, and to bound... but as STRONG family bounds as I wish to build, I also do not wish them to be CHOKING... that a kid cannot ask to do sport because of the logistics of time, for example... that a kid cannot have hours upon hours of uninterrupted, genuinely free time for their own interests and developoment... Things like that. That is what my skepticism is mostly about.

 

Why should the household be "child-centered" and adapt the schedule to indulge the child(ren)'s desires rather than "parent-centered" and teach the child(ren) that the universe does not, in fact, revolve around them?

 

I see so many only children and kids with just a single sibling develop *HUGE* entitlement attitudes that will ill-serve them as adults. Frankly, I think it's healthier psychologically to grow up in at least a medium-sized family.

[scrappyhappymama]

I don't think the Duggars are anti-sports, per say. I remember one episode where they said they play broom ball or something once a week, or every couple of weeks, at a local ice skating rink. The girls played, too. I just think they focus on other things rather than team sports.

 

As I'm reading this I was thinking through all the reasons for team sports. Things like learning a skill, learning to work together, socializing, etc. The Duggar family is obviously learning the same skills although in a different way than team sports. My life would be much simplier without team sports (we do baseball and soccer and the olders do basketball) and there are times when I wish we hadn't started it. My oldest is very sports-orientated and so as he has played the youngers have followed in his footsteps. I wonder if part of the reason the Duggars don't play is that the olders never started and the youngers just haven't considered it.

 

:iagree: I think we forget how recent a phenomenon organized team sports is, especially for children. Do we really think that our predecessors on the prairie or wherever were heading out to soccer practice 3x a week? They got their "physical education" the old fashioned way- hard work! I really think the Duggars lean more toward this approach to physical health, through hearty activity and all around healthful living. Team sports are reserved more for special occasions and a whole family activity rather than somewhere to go.

 

I honestly don't understand people that have "hate" for the Duggars. It seems so bizarre to me how some people go on and on and on with their judgements and assuming they know all about this family from 30 minute episodes once a week. I know people that "go off" when the Duggars are mentioned and they can't stop talking about the girls and how much they help and they go on ad nauseum about how it all must be staged because nobody's family is "like that."

 

 

I agree, I'm always a little dismayed by HATE toward the Duggar family. There are a lot worse things going on in the world that we are called to be tolerant toward, I'm not sure why this family's lifestyle, as unorthodox as it may be in relation to the typical American household, why it should deserve any hatred.

[Emmy]

When I watch their show, the thing that always bugs me is wondering where are those kids' toys? I mean, they show the whole house and I never see bins of legos or blocks or stuff to play with. Very strange to me.

 

On the whole I enjoy the show when I do watch it (sporadically).

[mom4him]

My kids don't play any kind of sports and I only have 2. If one of them came to me and told me that they wanted to play......I would consider it but they would have to really show me they were serious and the coach would know that they are not available on Sunday mornings. There would be other things also but that would be the big ones.

 

My older two boys played team sports for a short time but I really did not see anything positive about it. The oldest ended up with a coach that was verbally abusive.:tongue_smilie:

[Aelwydd]

Having a small family is a relatively new thing. Several years ago I did some research into one branch of my family tree, and families of 10+ kids was not unusual. There were a couple of families with 15-17 kids. I highly doubt those families thought they were not spending enough quality time with their kids. People's ideas of the required quantity of quality time has changed. That doesn't mean either way is enough or not enough.

 

While I understand your point, your analogy is not exactly valid. Years ago, society was much less complex, and way less competitive than it is today. Now, American workers have to compete much more globally, as well as nationally.

 

That's to say, it takes more investment nowadays, in terms of time, money, and effort, to produce a productive citizen. In 1900, you could pop out several children, give them a basic education and some practical living skills, and send them out into the world with a reasonable expectation that they'd find work.

 

That's not the case anymore. The standards for education, as well as other less tangibles such as personality (Are they well-rounded? Are they professional in their presentation? And so forth.), are light years above and beyond what even was expected of our grandparents' generation.

 

To produce that level of "finished product," as it were, means more resources from the parents. It is that reason that so many families have begun to self-limit in size, because it is so much more difficult to mass produce 10 or 15 "ready-to-compete" polished, adult citizens, who are all educated at a high level, than it the average 2 or 3 kids that most families have.

 

Some couples have the money and energy to do so (time, I'm a bit more skeptical of, simply because 24 hours a day, is 24 hours day, and there is a limit to how much even the most organized person can wring out of those hours).

 

The Duggars seem to be such a family. But to be honest, I don't know that the Duggars are an accurate representation of what such a large family can expect for its adult children. Josh Duggar got his start with his business, as a financial spin-off from his father, and he's still getting propped up financially from the show.

 

Will that be the case of the rest of the sons? (I'm saying "sons" because I think it's likely that the girls will all be married off to men who will support them. That makes the question of their financial competitiveness in the job market much less crucial.) More specifically, I'm wondering if the rest of the sons will find their ability to financially support a family (whether it's big or small) to be hindered by the somewhat one-dimensional nature of their own education? I imagine at least a few will have to go to college in an attempt to increase their earning abilities.

 

And colleges generally do like to see involvement in clubs, organizations, and sports. Heck, even employers like to see this stuff.

[Holly IN]

Why should the household be "child-centered" and adapt the schedule to indulge the child(ren)'s desires rather than "parent-centered" and teach the child(ren) that the universe does not, in fact, revolve around them?

 

I see so many only children and kids with just a single sibling develop *HUGE* entitlement attitudes that will ill-serve them as adults. Frankly, I think it's healthier psychologically to grow up in at least a medium-sized family.

 

Very much in agreement with this!!!! I have friends who have an only child and many with just two kids. Esp. with the only (this is from my perspective of what I have seen so no tomatoes please;)) These onlies that I know very well have a very serious entitlement issues. Their moms come to me wondering what they did wrong as a parent. I said nothing but you do need to nip it in the bud. All of my friends with onlies are shocked that my own children do not have this issue. The more kids in a family decreases the selfishness in my humble opinion. Now I am sure there are onlies that do not have the entitlement problems but I haven't met any in real life. In real life, the more kids the less selfish the kids are. Even the kids in a family of 7

(5 kids plus mom and dad) have much less selfishness issues than my own children has (we have 3).

 

:D Remember this is just from what I have seen in real life. I really hesitate to make a blanket statement on this issue.

[Holly IN]

When I watch their show, the thing that always bugs me is wondering where are those kids' toys? ).

Wow! Have you seen their house? They have a huge game and play room. They do not need toys. LOL!! My kids would trade all of their toys to have the game room and play room the Dugger kids have. :D

[Joanne]

I agree, I'm always a little dismayed by HATE toward the Duggar family. There are a lot worse things going on in the world that we are called to be tolerant toward, I'm not sure why this family's lifestyle, as unorthodox as it may be in relation to the typical American household, why it should deserve any hatred.

 

 

Well, because the "movement", lifestyle and theology has hidden abuse, neglect, made women subservient and caused a great deal of pain for many people in this particular sub culture.

[Emmy]

Wow! Have you seen their house? They have a huge game and play room. They do not need toys. LOL!! My kids would trade all of their toys to have the game room and play room the Dugger kids have. :D

 

I guess I remember that. Vaguely. I am still bothered by lack of legos though! :) And where are their art supplies? :D

[Veritaserum]

Well, because the "movement", lifestyle and theology has hidden abuse, neglect, made women subservient and caused a great deal of pain for many people in this particular sub culture.

 

:iagree: Yeah, pretty much.

 

And to the person who mentioned historical family sizes, I think birth control is a welcome thing to many women (myself included). ;)

[Aelwydd]

Very much in agreement with this!!!! I have friends who have an only child and many with just two kids. Esp. with the only (this is from my perspective of what I have seen so no tomatoes please;)) These onlies that I know very well have a very serious entitlement issues. Their moms come to me wondering what they did wrong as a parent. I said nothing but you do need to nip it in the bud. All of my friends with onlies are shocked that my own children do not have this issue. The more kids in a family decreases the selfishness in my humble opinion. Now I am sure there are onlies that do not have the entitlement problems but I haven't met any in real life. In real life, the more kids the less selfish the kids are. Even the kids in a family of 7

(5 kids plus mom and dad) have much less selfishness issues than my own children has (we have 3).

 

:D Remember this is just from what I have seen in real life. I really hesitate to make a blanket statement on this issue.

 

You already have. By using your anecdotal experience to apply a judgment.

 

My son is an only, and will remain one. He loves to share with other children. He regularly asks me to send his unused toys and clothes to poor children. He has at least 3 other friends who are onlies; and all of them are sweet, accommodating children.

 

I will say this: there is the argument that having a single child might lead to them being selfish and unconcerned about others' feelings. However, conversely, the fact that my child doesn't have to vie for my love or attention, means he has no doubt about the fact he is loved and appreciated for who he is. And in that self-assurance, he is more than able to be generous to other children.

 

I have known children from very large families who were clingy, demanding, and very territorial over their belongings. I can't say why this is the case (each family has its own dynamic and issues, after all), but I can offer that one possibility is that they are so insecure because they have always had to compete with their siblings for...everything.

 

However, I don't choose to view all big families through the lens of such a small sampling. For one thing, it's hardly fair, since as I said, there could be other reasons for why the kids I know acted that way. For another, I've known some very good kids from big families.

 

I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both. But, I think it's really myopic to imply that either group should be identified on the whole by only the disadvantages.

[Aelwydd]

Well, because the "movement", lifestyle and theology has hidden abuse, neglect, made women subservient and caused a great deal of pain for many people in this particular sub culture.

 

 

I don't hate the Duggars, but I agree with this assessment of a good bit of the theological community they are associated with.

[Holly IN]

Well, because the "movement", lifestyle and theology has hidden abuse, neglect, made women subservient and caused a great deal of pain for many people in this particular sub culture.

 

That is why you can't make a blanket statement about quiverfull. I am very quiverfull minded but not a fan of patricarchal movement. I believe the two can be separate!! Both hubby and I believe marriage is 100% on both sides. We are equal in our marriage. Won't get into that here. Just because the duggars are quiverfull doesn't mean they may follow the patriarchial movement. They are very vague about this even on the show and website. I can't confirm this so I will not go there. They never stated on the show that everybody should have 20 or so children. They just want us to think about what scripture says about giving God control. Now with that said we let God control our family size and we have 3. Several friends of mine have only 1 child and they have let God control their family size. So....I also do not get why the hatred either. I do not agree with the Gothard teachings at all. However that doesn't make me hate them. If Michele is being abused or her girls being abused then they will have to answer to God why they allowed this and Jim will have to answer to God on why he abused them. I haven't seen this to be the case. I do agree that in some patricarchal and quiverfull families there are abuse involved. I do agree with that but not all are abused. I do have a very dear friend who was married to a guy and they followed the quiverfull AND patricarchal movement. After her divorce, (she is a single mother to 11 kids) she confided in me that her kids as well as her were severely abused. Kids and mom are in counseling for the abuse they suffered. She did tell me though that just because they were quiverfull doesn't mean it is an automatic abuse. Her ex-husband was crazy. She was shut up in her house and was never allowed to go out at all (During the last 4 years of her marriage nobody saw her). She assured me though not to think badly of large families.

 

Getting off my soapbox. Whew!!:D

[zaichiki]

I love my kids to spend time together too, and to bound... but as STRONG family bounds as I wish to build, I also do not wish them to be CHOKING... that a kid cannot ask to do sport because of the logistics of time, for example... that a kid cannot have hours upon hours of uninterrupted, genuinely free time for their own interests and developoment... Things like that. That is what my skepticism is mostly about.

 

There are many, many kids around the world (and in the US) who cannot ask to do sports b/c of family limits on time and money. Ditto for the hours of uninterrupted free time. Honestly, a friend of mine (whose dd is in public school) is thinking of homeschooling for exactly that reason -- her child doesn't have ANY free time.

 

I think it's SO common for a child to not be able to have lots of free time and not be able to ask to do a sport that THAT is actually the norm. A family that has the money and time/flexibility to give a kid a sport or support for a passion and/or lots of free time is a relatively new thing and most likely completely limited to middle-class and upper class families (and not all of them at that).

Edited July 8, 2011 by zaichiki

[missmoe]

It bugs me to hear the judgements made about the Dugger girls.

 

Off the top of my head In the two seasons I've watched various girls:

 

travel to Central America and Asia

travel with other sisters and friends to music camp

travel to Chicago

babysit outside the home

train to be a firefighter

train to be a midwife

graduate from high school

take road trips together

learn to change the oil in their car and take care of other simple repairs

take CPR classes

attend different type of conferences---making friends from all over the country.

lay tile

 

Sure they help out at home when there, but I don't think they are held back from doing things outside the home because they are needed at home. When the older kids are gone Michele always finds others to help her. I don't see the attitude that the girls can't go do such and such because they are needed at home.

 

I don't agree with many viewpoints of the Duggers, but it bugs the heck out of me to hear that their girls are mistreated. I haven't seen that at all. I would love my girls to be able to have the same kind of experiences the Dugger girls have.

 

As for sports, I freely admit I choose extracurriculur activities based on convience to our family. I have five kids and choose not to have our family run ragged and spread out to all different points around town. That would infringe on our family time.

 

Also what exactly is the point of sports for most people? I think the goals most have for their children in sports are freely met in the Duggar family.

Learning how to get along with others---check

Learning how to follow rules--check

Providing exercise---check

Learning how to put the team's needs above your own--check

[Ester Maria]

Why should the household be "child-centered" and adapt the schedule to indulge the child(ren)'s desires rather than "parent-centered" and teach the child(ren) that the universe does not, in fact, revolve around them?

 

I see so many only children and kids with just a single sibling develop *HUGE* entitlement attitudes that will ill-serve them as adults. Frankly, I think it's healthier psychologically to grow up in at least a medium-sized family.

I view it this way: a sibling dynamic is one of the numerous parameters in a child's life. I think it is very healthy and positive to have that parameter, among other things, for the reasons you list (the world does not revolve around you all the time, learning to take other people's needs into account too, etc.). I do not think the absence of that parameter is the end of the world or that the absence alone will bring about a spoiled, entitled brat, but I agree that having it will reduce the chances.

 

However, there is such a thing as an overload of a particular parameter. Chores are excellent and a wonderful proxy to teach so many things: perservance, self-discipline, contribution to others, etc., but there really is such a thing as too much chores, a time investment in them that is far from optimal. Same goes for academics. Same goes for unstructured free time. You get the picture.

What seems to me, however, is that when you increase one parameter, such as the sibling one, to THOSE extents, it not only goes out of the "optimal range" (though we could debate what that is), it also affects gravely OTHER parameters: it adds chores, takes away from genuinely free uninterrupted time, takes away from one on one parental time, takes away from time and space needed to develop as an individual rather than as a member of a team (I think both are important). You get a destabilized situation.

 

Now, the catch is, an ABSENCE of that parameter is easily "made up for": via friends, volunteering, team sports :), added emphasis on discipline and so forth. There ARE ways to raise an "undamanged" only child. Some damage is maybe more likely, but it can be prevented.

But if you have an OVERLOAD of that parameter, you cannot really reverse the situation, can you? Not only it is likely that there will be side-effects, but you cannot really prevent them in the first place. Even if the damage is more subtle, you cannot prevent it: an hour with a child A is an hour less with... and you have 19 kids in question. Not 2-3, or even 5-6, which maybe can be juggled successfully, though with some minor sacrifices along the road. It seems to me from the outside that kids suffer major sacrifices, even if they do not get it at that time. They are not as "invested into" as other kids. They may lack adequate stimulation for their specific intellectual needs (I know I constantly go back to this point, but bear with me, I am Jewish, the intellectual dynamic in family is extremely important to me :tongue_smilie:) due to lack of time or money caused specifically by having a dozen siblings. They may, especially girls, even if willingly, turn into part-time maids and governesses for their families. I agree with you that completely child-centered family is a bad thing, but I think the other extreme is just as bad: that is not... childhood, in a way.

 

You will hardly find a person who values academics more than me. I also value work. I also value discipline. But, BUT. I also think it is of extreme important that kids have downtime (genuine downtime, not just a break in-between chores, babysitting and their own school work), and LOTS of it, because that is what captures creativity and makes them learn how to fulfill their potential. I also think it is extremely important to TALK to your kids, without looking at the watch for the next one "in queque", however long it takes - and to be able to do so. I also think it is very important to be raised as an individual too, not only as a team member. And so on.

 

And it does seem to me that, while sibling dynamic is great in and of itself, TOO MUCH of it does disrupt what I view as the balance. And I am not "child-centered" to the point of indulging their every whim at all ;), in fact I speak very much AGAINST allowing your kids rule you, but I do not think the other extreme - the one of "on-call" kids, without time to develop as individuals and without adequate intellectual nurture (I go back to this because they homeschool, so time and attention do get more than divided) - is good either. I cannot make an educated estimate of whether or not their kids ARE in that extreme, just thinking out loud, based on experience with even smaller families where the balance seriously lacked.

[Holly IN]

You already have. By using your anecdotal experience to apply a judgment.

I never said ALL are. I stated the ones I know in REAL LIFE.

My son is an only, and will remain one. He loves to share with other children. He regularly asks me to send his unused toys and clothes to poor children. Wonderful!!!! That is great!

 

I have known children from very large families who were clingy, demanding, and very territorial over their belongings. Of course but I do not know any of this in real life and believe me I have many friends with 10 children, 8, 5, 7, 3, 4, 1, 2 I can't say why this is the case (each family has its own dynamic and issues, after all), So agree with this....That is why I do not believe in making blanket statement but only what you know in real life. but I can offer that one possibility is that they are so insecure because they have always had to compete with their siblings for...everything.

 

 

 

I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both. But, I think it's really myopic to imply that either group should be identified on the whole by only the disadvantages. That is what is happening here in this thread. Already is being implied that quiverful = abuse, and yes I do know abuse do happen in some quiverfull families but also in a family with an only.

 

Holly

[Aelwydd]

Why should the household be "child-centered" and adapt the schedule to indulge the child(ren)'s desires rather than "parent-centered" and teach the child(ren) that the universe does not, in fact, revolve around them?

 

I see so many only children and kids with just a single sibling develop *HUGE* entitlement attitudes that will ill-serve them as adults. Frankly, I think it's healthier psychologically to grow up in at least a medium-sized family.

 

I already addressed the fallacy of "only child=entitlement," but I think it's extremely prejudicial of you to claim that a psychologically "healthier" family must be a "medium-sized one." I think that children are individuals, and as individuals, some are better suited to being only children, others to being in small families, and others to larger families.

[Joanne]

That is why you can't make a blanket statement about quiverfull. I am very quiverfull minded but not a fan of patricarchal movement. I believe the two can be separate!! Both hubby and I believe marriage is 100% on both sides. We are equal in our marriage. Won't get into that here. Just because the duggars are quiverfull doesn't mean they may follow the patriarchial movement. They are very vague about this even on the show and website. I can't confirm this so I will not go there. They never stated on the show that everybody should have 20 or so children. They just want us to think about what scripture says about giving God control. Now with that said we let God control our family size and we have 3. Several friends of mine have only 1 child and they have let God control their family size. So....I also do not get why the hatred either. I do not agree with the Gothard teachings at all. However that doesn't make me hate them. If Michele is being abused or her girls being abused then they will have to answer to God why they allowed this and Jim will have to answer to God on why he abused them. I haven't seen this to be the case. I do agree that in some patricarchal and quiverfull families there are abuse involved. I do agree with that but not all are abused. I do have a very dear friend who was married to a guy and they followed the quiverfull AND patricarchal movement. After her divorce, (she is a single mother to 11 kids) she confided in me that her kids as well as her were severely abused. Kids and mom are in counseling for the abuse they suffered. She did tell me though that just because they were quiverfull doesn't mean it is an automatic abuse. Her ex-husband was crazy. She was shut up in her house and was never allowed to go out at all (During the last 4 years of her marriage nobody saw her). She assured me though not to think badly of large families.

 

Getting off my soapbox. Whew!!:D

 

Their original shows showed ATI material, their site had identifying links, and there were hints. It's been stripped of it, but they *are* both quiverful and patriararchal.

[zaichiki]

Why should the household be "child-centered" and adapt the schedule to indulge the child(ren)'s desires rather than "parent-centered" and teach the child(ren) that the universe does not, in fact, revolve around them?

 

 

:iagree: I find myself *wanting* to make my household/life revolve around my children, but I realize that is not healthy. Not for me and my husband. Not for them. I struggle with it.

[Aelwydd]

The more kids in a family decreases the selfishness in my humble opinion. Now I am sure there are onlies that do not have the entitlement problems but I haven't met any in real life.

 

 

Look, I don't want to engage in a battle of words with you, because I'm not interested in trying to prove "small is better than big" or whatever.

 

But, trying to backpeddle and say, "I didn't say ALL..." and then going on to say that your personal experience just happens to support the selfsame conclusion is just...c'mon.

 

It's like if I said, "In my experience, children of big families have been poorly educated, insecure, and ignorant...but that's just MY experience. Not saying ALL families..." You and others here, would correctly infer that my meaning is that I believe MOST, or the MAJORITY of children in big families act like this.

 

If found your comments offensive because you claim that you don't assume all onlies are self-absorbed, but then you go right on offering up your experience as evidence for why you think bigger families are superior.

 

Also, the analogy to the quiverful movement isn't valid. I protest the quiverful movement because of the marital and parenting abuses that are promoted by its leaders, not the size of its families. There are plenty of large families that are not quiverful, and are delightful and wonderful people.

 

To compare your criticism of only children to my dislike of the quiverful teachings, would be like me saying that those who oppose the Chinese one-child law are grounds for me to bash big families in general.

 

In other words, don't confuse objections to theology (or policy) as criticism directed towards any and all others who happen to share a common characteristic (in this case, it would be big families).

[gardening momma]

But you have two, and they're small. When I had two and they were small, they were INSEPARABLE and that was so cute.

Oh, believe me, they are not inseparable. We do have to work on family bonds here.

[Audrey]

I already addressed the fallacy of "only child=entitlement," but I think it's extremely prejudicial of you to claim that a psychologically "healthier" family must be a "medium-sized one." I think that children are individuals, and as individuals, some are better suited to being only children, others to being in small families, and others to larger families.

:iagree:

 

I know for a fact that more kids in this family would produce AT LEAST a psychologically unhealthy mother.

 

Kudos to moms who truly WANT big families and can manage them with their physical, financial and mental health intact. Not everyone wants or needs that, though.

 

My disdain for the Duggars is not a comment on their family size per se, but primarily on several of their key lifestyle and religious choices.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Audrey

[zaichiki]

:iagree:

 

My disdain for the Duggars is not comment on their family size per se, but primarily on several of their key lifestyle and religious choices.

 

Why have DISDAIN for someone b/c they make different lifestyle and religious choices? There are LOTS of people here who have different lifestyles and religious beliefs. Do we all have disdain for one another??? Why not just agree to disagree? Live and let live?

[gardening momma]

While I understand your point, your analogy is not exactly valid. Years ago, society was much less complex, and way less competitive than it is today. Now, American workers have to compete much more globally, as well as nationally.

 

That's to say, it takes more investment nowadays, in terms of time, money, and effort, to produce a productive citizen. In 1900, you could pop out several children, give them a basic education and some practical living skills, and send them out into the world with a reasonable expectation that they'd find work.

 

That's not the case anymore. The standards for education, as well as other less tangibles such as personality (Are they well-rounded? Are they professional in their presentation? And so forth.), are light years above and beyond what even was expected of our grandparents' generation.

 

To produce that level of "finished product," as it were, means more resources from the parents. It is that reason that so many families have begun to self-limit in size, because it is so much more difficult to mass produce 10 or 15 "ready-to-compete" polished, adult citizens, who are all educated at a high level, than it the average 2 or 3 kids that most families have.

 

.....

This is assuming all ids go to college and get professional jobs of some sort. There are tons of blue collar jobs in this country, and they don't need resources from the parents to get them. And you don't necessarily need resources from your parents to go to college. I didn't.

[Nestof3]

Not arguing with you, just responding, so to speak. The young ladies (and men) that I know in large families where the children all share very much in the family responsibilities including caring for the young are the most well-adjusted young people I have ever met. They have a confidence I don't see in young people raised more typically. They have a kindness I rarely see anywhere else. They have a willingness to give and help that I haven't seen among other young people. They also have less awareness of age segregation. I've never seen these kids form cliques or shun anyone in any way.

 

I truly think they will make some of the finest parents one day.

 

I think the point is being missed..... I don't wish to argue.

 

The older children APPEAR to raise the younger ones in many RL families of this size. From what I have seen of the show, it appears the same is happening here. By raise I don't mean help, I mean RAISE. They are the mommy in all but the literal sense.

 

I also think they can't be that "goody goody" like butter won't melt sort of thing. I am sure there must be something that makes them human. I am Christian too, but I happen to be one of those ones that sin. *gasp*

[Joanne]

Why have DISDAIN for someone b/c they make different lifestyle and religious choices? There are LOTS of people here who have different lifestyles and religious beliefs. Do we all have disdain for one another??? Why not just agree to disagree? Live and let live?

 

Again, because of the damage and abuse caused by those particular choices. I'm not speaking for Audrey (she's good at speaking for herself) but quiverful and patriarchy are not benign there are casualities, often extreme.

[MrsMe]

So they go sighteeing all the time, they run for office, they do firefighting, they bungee jump, skydive, go on oodles of scenic trips and activities, they have their own business, they play family games in their front yard, spend a lot of time volunteering, and people are still not happy with this family.

 

The world should be so horribly raised.

[zaichiki]

Again, because of the damage and abuse caused by those particular choices. I'm not speaking for Audrey (she's good at speaking for herself) but quiverful and patriarchy are not benign there are casualities, often extreme.

 

I don't follow the Duggars very closely -- don't have cable. I have poked about their website and seen some clips. Because I don't have much knowledge about their lifestyle and religious choices I'm going to ask you --

 

Which specific lifestyle and religious choices that the Duggars have made are the ones that cause damage and abuse???

 

Do you mean quiverful? Doesn't that just mean being open to as many children as you believe God has in mind for you? And if so, HOW is that abuse?

 

Do you mean patriarchy? Doesn't that mean having the husband lead the family? Like hundreds of millions of families around the world have done and still do today???

 

There must be something I am missing.

[Audrey]

Why have DISDAIN for someone b/c they make different lifestyle and religious choices? There are LOTS of people here who have different lifestyles and religious beliefs. Do we all have disdain for one another??? Why not just agree to disagree? Live and let live?

 

 

I think that's a bunch of bs. Agree to disagree? Live and let live? Who says I am not doing those things? I do disagree with them, and I'm free to say so. I don't watch their show and I don't bother them, so why should you care so much if I say I dislike them?

 

I reserve the right to dislike them -- disdain them, even. I fully understand that there are people of all different types here. There is no imperative that we all have to like each other, though. Quite obviously, we don't. I dislike some people here, too. I'm certainly not going to be so fake as to pretend I love everyone here. That would be egregiously phony. I know some feel it de rigueur to appear to be perfect and perky and everybody's best buddy online, but I don't do that. I am who I am and that is what you get -- foibles and all.

 

The OP asked if anyone else had negative feelings about the Duggars. I do.

 

ETA: Joanne's link sums up several of my objections well.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Audrey

[zaichiki]

So they go sighteeing all the time, they run for office, they do firefighting, they bungee jump, skydive, go on oodles of scenic trips and activities, they have their own business, they play family games in their front yard, spend a lot of time volunteering, and people are still not happy with this family.

 

The world should be so horribly raised.

 

:lol:

[YLVD]

I've never been a fan of the Duggars.

 

I'm pretty sure if memory serves that way back when they used to have stuff on their website that associated them with the Pearls, which was subsequently removed, but I can't swear to it or prove it.

 

That aside, I've always thought that they force their older girls to be pretty much full-time housewives and mommies to younger siblings, which is not fair at all- helping out is great and all, but in that family, it goes beyond that.

 

:iagree:

 

I've always felt that it was unfair to the older children.

 

My mom is one of 12 kids and I have some opinions about it that may be unpopular here so I will refrain. Either way, no fan of the Duggars here.

[Aelwydd]

This is assuming all ids go to college and get professional jobs of some sort. There are tons of blue collar jobs in this country, and they don't need resources from the parents to get them. And you don't necessarily need resources from your parents to go to college. I didn't.

 

 

No, it's assuming nothing of the same. If you reread my post, I never mentioned college as the default. In fact, I pointed out that it's employers that are increasingly demanding a certain level of professional education, and like when you have been involved in various clubs and organizations.

 

The blue collar jobs of today still require more knowledge, more education, and a definitely be much more tech savvy than was required of entry-level workers generations ago. Since that increase doesn't just get passed to our children, in utero, that means more intensive curricula and all around education.

 

Just take a car mechanic for example. Ask any mechanic if the basic mechanical knowledge that served someone in 1950, would serve today in that field? Most would laugh, and talk about how specialized car repair is nowaways, and how it requires an understanding of computers and electronics, and far more specialized tools. Just learning how to read diagnostic equipment is another development. It used to be that as an 18 year old grad, you could find work as an apprentice to learn all this.

 

Now, if you don't already have a working knowledge, most want at least some vocational training through a tech school. But my point is, whether a high school graduate goes to college or not, the level of knowledge he or she is expected to have to function in the work place is far greater than what used to be the case.

[YLVD]

Not arguing with you, just responding, so to speak. The young ladies (and men) that I know in large families where the children all share very much in the family responsibilities including caring for the young are the most well-adjusted young people I have ever met. They have a confidence I don't see in young people raised more typically. They have a kindness I rarely see anywhere else. They have a willingness to give and help that I haven't seen among other young people. They also have less awareness of age segregation. I've never seen these kids form cliques or shun anyone in any way.

 

I truly think they will make some of the finest parents one day.

 

This may be true, but it was not for my mom and her 11 brothers and sisters. Most have a lot of resentment and many no longer have relationships with their mother and family due to that. It's been sad to see. My own mom has talked with me a lot about having older siblings have to give up a lot to care for her, and having to do the same with her younger siblings. None of it was positive. My mom does have close relationships with her two siblings near her age. But, the older siblings and younger siblings are not close at all, even after all these years. The older ones moved away quickly after becoming adults.

 

That's one reason why my mom didn't want more than two kids. In fact, none of the children had more than three kids.

[justamouse]

I think it's like being raised into the Borg.

 

I have a large family. My older children have chores, they have responsibilities, but they do NOT raise their siblings. They help, they change diapers, they burp. They do NOT teach (except by example) they do not parent. My oldest Dd is not the second mommy to the 5 yo.

Edited July 8, 2011 by justamouse

[Audrey]

I think it's like being raised into the Borg.

 

 

A propos. That statement produces the most chilling image, too.

[catz]

:iagree:

 

I know for a fact that more kids in this family would produce AT LEAST a psychologically unhealthy mother.

 

Kudos to moms who truly WANT big families and can manage them with their physical, financial and mental health intact. Not everyone wants or needs that, though.

 

My disdain for the Duggars is not a comment on their family size per se, but primarily on several of their key lifestyle and religious choices.

 

I totally agree. One of my biggest problems with the Dugars that I have not seen really mentioned is the fact that they choose to be on a reality show. I personally don't think it's healthy for kids to be raised "on air" and I loathe any reality show that includes children.

 

I think every family should know it's own limits. Dysfunction can come in families of all sizes!

[Pamela H in Texas]

Originally Posted by Aelwydd View Post

I think that children are individuals, and as individuals, some are better suited to being only children, others to being in small families, and others to larger families.

 

This is most certainly true. It is also true that certain parents are better suited to being parents of only children, a small number of children or a larger group of children. It is wise for parents to know where they are in that before adding more children. We want to be sure to provide in all ways fairly consistently (obviously, life happens regardless of family size). You can't just base it off of the perfect day or week!

[Pamela H in Texas]

double...

Edited July 8, 2011 by 2J5M9K

[Aelwydd]

So they go sighteeing all the time, they run for office, they do firefighting, they bungee jump, skydive, go on oodles of scenic trips and activities, they have their own business, they play family games in their front yard, spend a lot of time volunteering, and people are still not happy with this family.

 

The world should be so horribly raised.

 

And it's a good thing that the Duggars do get to do all these things (funded by the show). I imagine that a good number of families, large and small, live vicariously though them, because it's most definitely not representative I think, for such a family to be able to afford all those trips.

 

Were it not for the show and the money that comes with the speaking opportunities (which, again branched out from the show), the Duggars would probably be struggling to make it financially, like they were before they became famous.

 

That said, I really don't dislike the Duggars. I did at first, because of their affiliation with the quiverful movement. But, I've come to appreciate that their family is very caring and warm. I have points of disagreement with them, and we're worlds away politically and theologically. They're decent people though, and I don't bear them any ill will.

[YLVD]

 

And, I think that's where it ends.

 

I disagree with patriarchy.

I disagree with quiverful and the dynamic it breeds (pun intended)

I disagree with the extreme courting.

I disagree with their theology (Gothard).

I disagree with the parenting/buddy system.

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

I agree very much with all of this. Just the patriarchy alone disturbs me. The rest of it makes me upset and sad.

[GardenTenders/Kim]

Very much in agreement with this!!!! I have friends who have an only child and many with just two kids. Esp. with the only (this is from my perspective of what I have seen so no tomatoes please;)) These onlies that I know very well have a very serious entitlement issues. Their moms come to me wondering what they did wrong as a parent. I said nothing but you do need to nip it in the bud. All of my friends with onlies are shocked that my own children do not have this issue. The more kids in a family decreases the selfishness in my humble opinion. Now I am sure there are onlies that do not have the entitlement problems but I haven't met any in real life. In real life, the more kids the less selfish the kids are. Even the kids in a family of 7

(5 kids plus mom and dad) have much less selfishness issues than my own children has (we have 3).

 

:D Remember this is just from what I have seen in real life. I really hesitate to make a blanket statement on this issue.

 

EXCUSE ME? Ok, someone lumps all large families together and its WRONG, yet it's ok to lump all single or two child families together?

 

geee, my father was an only child, and he did not behave in this fashion at all. He was the most kind and giving man. He fought for those that were weaker than him, both in the military and as a nurse.

 

My husband is an only also. He doesn't show those characteristics either and is kind beyond reason, more so than people I know with several siblings.

 

Can't speak for our child, whom God means to be an only it appears, four year olds are too young to pass judgment, but we are not raising her in this mentality. I think even "normal" sized families today can have that entitlement mentality about them, ITS SOCIETY. I know you qualify your statement, but really..... :001_huh: UGH.....

[Aelwydd]

It is also true that certain parents are better suited to being parents of only children, a small number of children or a larger group of children. It is wise for parents to know where they are in that before adding more children. We want to be sure to provide in all ways fairly consistently (obviously, life happens regardless of family size). You can't just base it off of the perfect day or week!

 

 

:iagree: