The Duggars

[ktgrok]

I agree with this--but the part I can't get past is completely ignoring medical advice with the result of having a preemie in the NICU--as much time as I have spent in the NICU I think it is abhorrent to choose a path that will almost certainly result in very premature birth.

 

I don't know of any info that says she had a reason to believe she would give birth prematurely. She developed pre-eclampsia, which she had not had before to my knowledge. After 18 healthy pregnancies how was she to know that would happen? I had perfect blood pressure with my first, and developed hypertension with my second. There was no way to predict that would happen.

[missmoe]

IMO so many couples live childless or have small families. I think it balances out. Now if each of the Children produce 20+ grandchildren and those grandchildren each produce 20+ great grandchildren.. Then I might worry about the carbon foot print of the family a whole ;)

 

I think their carbon footprint is smaller than most families. They buy almost everything used. No new clothes, shoes, toys, and cars.

 

Though I imagine they do spend a lot on gas for their big buses.

[GardenTenders/Kim]

I've had people call it abuse that we have three kids with autism. That we should have known and stopped at the first. Our oldest wasn't diagnosed until after our youngest was born and we'd taken permanent birth control measures anyway.

 

But it still hurts....

 

And yes, it's pretty clear it's genetic in our case so it would be pretty clear prior to any conception that we'd have another kid with autism. Even if I had known I'd of had all three of my boys. And we aren't quiverfull.

 

:grouphug: :grouphug::grouphug:

 

I have been quiet on qiverfull. I think it means different things to different people. The term has been around a good 30 yrs. I know because I grew up knowing the term and I am 41. I tend to be of the mind set also that the man is the head, but that we both give 100% sometimes one gives 150 and the other 50% that's just how it works. Marriage is a partnership in the sense that you help each other and love each other as you love yourself or more. Not making sense, I know, but I can't seem to find the right words.

 

If God allowed us to have more we would. I was older when I had our daughter, not for lack of wanting. Our wee Bear has been very much wanted and desired for many years.

 

Because of advanced maternal age, we had to go through genetic counseling and the testing for somethings. Regardless of the outcome, we would have never thought of not having our girl. Even though we were counseled that we had that option if tests would have came back differently then they did.

 

I think judging someone for following through on a pregnancy that MAY be (or even 100% for sure is) catastrophic is wrong. Whatever they may or may not be you can't judge them based on this, well you can but I think it's a weak argurment.

 

Most women with many pregnancies that I know are not healthy looking and generally look older than their years. Mrs. D is an exception to the rule in this. Being pregnant removes a lot of things from our bodies and we need time to build that supply of nutrients back up. In in Biblical times women weren't having a child every year, as a general rule. I would venture a guess that the really large family came about from the industrial revolution and a need to produce more and more, i.e., larger semi mono-agriculture farms, etc. I think families this big have always been the exception, not the norm which is part of some people fascination with them.

[delaney]

I think their carbon footprint is smaller than most families. They buy almost everything used. No new clothes, shoes, toys, and cars.

 

Though I imagine they do spend a lot on gas for their big buses.

Yes except they use paper plates a lot and styrofoam cups which really bugs me. I half covet/ half loathe the soda machine/cup dispenser setup they have.

[delaney]

:iagree:with the bolded. I had a close friend who, upon further discussion, pointed out that she had no plans to prepare her daughter for college because "being a wife and mother is a higher calling." I backed up off that friendship really quickly. She is a very sweet woman with great kids but that just bothered me greatly that they were purposefully limiting their daughter's future based on her gender alone. Oh and I had just gone back to school to finish my degree when that was said. It really makes you wonder what people are thinking behind your back. When ds was having reading problems in ps and she said "Well, soon you will be finished with everything else you are doing and will have time to give him what he needs" pretty much sealed the deal on the end of that relationship.

 

My dd does watch and love the Duggars though. We haven't heard them expressly saying on the show that they don't allow their dds to go to college. I think if they did, we would just discuss it. To me, that's not the same as having a fellow mother and role model in her life who believes that.

Actually I saw an interview with Jill, I believe, and she said that she was considering college and that they supported her. I just don't see where they see college as an option to seriously consider b/c they seem to follow blue collar employment paths. Josh has the car sales, John David does towing? and Fire Dept(or is that volunteer). They have done very well financially and passed that savvy on to their kids which for me is AMAZING. Wish mine could learn some of that.:glare:

[Joanne]

Ok, to all the posters who are incredulous that people would be unequivacably, across the board against patriarchy..........

 

How do you feel about sharia law?

The role of women in extreme Islam?

Clitoral removal?

 

I am against the patriarchy of quiverful-minded conservative Christians in the same way I am against the above. I don't understand why so many posters can't make the distinction or understanding. It seems like a no-brainer to at least understand being against a philosophy that, by definition, makes one gender less than and with less power than the other gender.

 

I'm not discriminating against a religion. However, I believe this thread would go down differently if the Duggars were Wiccan, Ba'hai, Siik, or Hindu.

[6packofun]

I'm not sure if you're talking to me? (You didn't quote me so I'm not sure, even though your post is under mine...)

[Marylou]

Ok, to all the posters who are incredulous that people would be unequivacably, across the board against patriarchy..........

 

How do you feel about sharia law?

The role of women in extreme Islam?

Clitoral removal?

 

I am against the patriarchy of quiverful-minded conservative Christians in the same way I am against the above. I don't understand why so many posters can't make the distinction or understanding. It seems like a no-brainer to at least understand being against a philosophy that, by definition, makes one gender less than and with less power than the other gender.

 

I'm not discriminating against a religion. However, I believe this thread would go down differently if the Duggars were Wiccan, Ba'hai, Siik, or Hindu.

 

Wow.

[pdalley]

:grouphug: :grouphug::grouphug:

 

I have been quiet on qiverfull. I think it means different things to different people. The term has been around a good 30 yrs. I know because I grew up knowing the term and I am 41. I tend to be of the mind set also that the man is the head, but that we both give 100% sometimes one gives 150 and the other 50% that's just how it works. Marriage is a partnership in the sense that you help each other and love each other as you love yourself or more. Not making sense, I know, but I can't seem to find the right words.

 

If God allowed us to have more we would. I was older when I had our daughter, not for lack of wanting. Our wee Bear has been very much wanted and desired for many years.

 

Because of advanced maternal age, we had to go through genetic counseling and the testing for somethings. Regardless of the outcome, we would have never thought of not having our girl. Even though we were counseled that we had that option if tests would have came back differently then they did.

 

I think judging someone for following through on a pregnancy that MAY be (or even 100% for sure is) catastrophic is wrong. Whatever they may or may not be you can't judge them based on this, well you can but I think it's a weak argurment.

 

Most women with many pregnancies that I know are not healthy looking and generally look older than their years. Mrs. D is an exception to the rule in this. Being pregnant removes a lot of things from our bodies and we need time to build that supply of nutrients back up. In in Biblical times women weren't having a child every year, as a general rule. I would venture a guess that the really large family came about from the industrial revolution and a need to produce more and more, i.e., larger semi mono-agriculture farms, etc. I think families this big have always been the exception, not the norm which is part of some people fascination with them.

 

 

Thanks for the hug.

 

My father's mother had nineteen kids that lived past one year. Thirteen of them made it to adulthood. She had many other miscarriages and stillbirths. I never wanted that many kids but she managed them well and there was a lot of love in that family. She did look worn out but she they were tobacco farmers and they raised most of their food. All the pregnancies couldn't have helped.

 

Our marriage is like yours. He might have the final word if we can't agree on something - a purchase, etc but there is a give and take and ebb and flow. He is everything my rabidly feminist mother insisted never existed.

 

That being said, I don't watch the show but some of the remarks have really hit a nerve. The Duggars' life seems to be working well for them. We only have boys but we've never limited their view of what they can do and we wouldn't do that to a girl child either. If I'd been blessed with a daughter then she would have been told if she wanted college and/or a career that would be wonderful but by the same token if she didn't that would be fine too. She wouldn't have to deal with being told she was a failure because she chose a path that I didn't.

 

It's just as harmful to tell a girl she's letting down her sex and is a traitor to the feminist movement as it is to tell her all she's good for is being a wife and mother. And that's the flip side of the coin that never seems to be discussed when topics like this are brought up.

[Marylou]

Ok, to all the posters who are incredulous that people would be unequivacably, across the board against patriarchy..........

 

How do you feel about sharia law?

The role of women in extreme Islam?

Clitoral removal?

 

I am against the patriarchy of quiverful-minded conservative Christians in the same way I am against the above. I don't understand why so many posters can't make the distinction or understanding. It seems like a no-brainer to at least understand being against a philosophy that, by definition, makes one gender less than and with less power than the other gender.

 

I'm not discriminating against a religion. However, I believe this thread would go down differently if the Duggars were Wiccan, Ba'hai, Siik, or Hindu.

 

Maybe you should say what you think Ephesians 5:23 means first.

[Tenaj]

Ok, to all the posters who are incredulous that people would be unequivacably, across the board against patriarchy..........

 

How do you feel about sharia law?

The role of women in extreme Islam?

Clitoral removal?

 

I am against the patriarchy of quiverful-minded conservative Christians in the same way I am against the above. I don't understand why so many posters can't make the distinction or understanding. It seems like a no-brainer to at least understand being against a philosophy that, by definition, makes one gender less than and with less power than the other gender.

 

I'm not discriminating against a religion. However, I believe this thread would go down differently if the Duggars were Wiccan, Ba'hai, Siik, or Hindu.

 

I'm incredulous that you're even trying to make this comparison!

Edited July 8, 2011 by JanOH

[delaney]

Equating these is an amazing stretch of the imagination!

I have to agree. Not sure how the Duggars can even be in the same topic those things:confused:

[Marylou]

Equating these is an amazing stretch of the imagination!

 

 

And extremely insulting :glare:

[Aelwydd]

How would they be disadvantaged?

 

 

 

They would be disadvantaged in the sense that college, even Christian colleges, usually like to see a rigorous academic program, including some foreign languages and advanced maths, philosophy and world history, chemistry and biology, and so forth. In addition, they like to see a student has other interests or abilities, such as participation in sport or club, like Debate or Chess. They also usually require a writing sample, and decent ACT or SAT scores.

 

To my knowledge, the Duggars, while providing a warm and hard-working environment for their kids, have never shown any indication or evidence that they promote any of the above. Take trips, yes. Volunteer, yes. Those are positives, but these generally are more experiential in nature, rather than long-term commitments or leadership positions.

 

Colleges are diverse places. They like to see that a student has had some experience working with and cooperating with many different types of people, over a period of time, towards a common goal. The Duggars are accepting, to a degree, of people outside their viewpoint (saw an episode once where one of the girls talked about their "acceptance" of Amy, even though it was a very "careful" answer).

 

But, they do not appear to ever talk to their children, or educate them, about other viewpoints, or life styles. They don't seem to emphasize or cultivate an intellectual environment, which would include reading many genres and classics, debating different ideas, and using logic to defend their position. (I've always wondered at the dichotomy of telling your children that it's wrong to watch TV, but at the same time, have their entire childhoods be broadcast as a show for...TV.)

 

That's why I say that they would be disadvantaged. It's not money that would be the problem; it's that the culture of learning they've been raised in would not seem to have prepared them well at all for the environment of a university.

[GardenTenders/Kim]

Ok, to all the posters who are incredulous that people would be unequivacably, across the board against patriarchy..........

 

How do you feel about sharia law?

The role of women in extreme Islam?

Clitoral removal?

 

I am against the patriarchy of quiverful-minded conservative Christians in the same way I am against the above. I don't understand why so many posters can't make the distinction or understanding. It seems like a no-brainer to at least understand being against a philosophy that, by definition, makes one gender less than and with less power than the other gender.

 

I'm not discriminating against a religion. However, I believe this thread would go down differently if the Duggars were Wiccan, Ba'hai, Siik, or Hindu.

 

Patriarchy is what our society is based on. Any first year anthropology student knows that. :confused:

 

I guess we have different views. I think, having read your many posts, that you equate abuse with people that may look to the husband as the head of his home. My husband is the king of our home, but guess what, I am the queen. I don't think my family, nor my family of origin, are exceptions to what you equate as the norm. I know many families that follow a biblical view that the husband is the head and many that have no view at all. I would say abuse has no such boundaries. It crosses all boundaries and effects families on both sides of the aisle. So I am very confused as to why you say patriarchy is abusive in nature. One lady that I know practices a nature religion and her first husband abused her. Does that make me say all that practice her views abuse their spouses and children? Nope............:confused: you just confuse the dickens out of me. WEAK WEAK WEAK Argument. Sorry.

[Tenaj]

They would be disadvantaged in the sense that college, even Christian colleges, usually like to see a rigorous academic program, including some foreign languages and advanced maths, philosophy and world history, chemistry and biology, and so forth. In addition, they like to see a student has other interests or abilities, such as participation in sport or club, like Debate or Chess. They also usually require a writing sample, and decent ACT or SAT scores.

 

To my knowledge, the Duggars, while providing a warm and hard-working environment for their kids, have never shown any indication or evidence that they promote any of the above. Take trips, yes. Volunteer, yes. Those are positives, but these generally are more experiential in nature, rather than long-term commitments or leadership positions.

 

Colleges are diverse places. They like to see that a student has had some experience working with and cooperating with many different types of people, over a period of time, towards a common goal. The Duggars are accepting, to a degree, of people outside their viewpoint (saw an episode once where one of the girls talked about their "acceptance" of Amy, even though it was a very "careful" answer).

 

But, they do not appear to ever talk to their children, or educate them, about other viewpoints, or life styles. They don't seem to emphasize or cultivate an intellectual environment, which would include reading many genres and classics, debating different ideas, and using logic to defend their position. (I've always wondered at the dichotomy of telling your children that it's wrong to watch TV, but at the same time, have their entire childhoods be broadcast as a show for...TV.)

 

That's why I say that they would be disadvantaged. It's not money that would be the problem; it's that the culture of learning they've been raised in would not seem to have prepared them well at all for the environment of a university.

 

Ummm . . they use SOS. There are probably lots of homeschooled kids in college who have used SOS.

[Joanne]

Maybe you should say what you think Ephesians 5:23 means first.

 

No, thank you. I've had the "submission" discussion ad infinitem. No need.

 

I do not believe in patriarchy. I don't believe it is my God's law, intent, spirit, or design. I'm against it across the board. I don't understand how people can not "get" why people (since I am not the only one) would feel that way.

[Joanne]

Patriarchy is what our society is based on. Any first year anthropology student knows that. :confused:

 

I guess we have different views. I think, having read your many posts, that you equate abuse with people that may look to the husband as the head of his home. My husband is the king of our home, but guess what, I am the queen. I don't think my family, nor my family of origin, are exceptions to what you equate as the norm. I know many families that follow a biblical view that the husband is the head and many that have no view at all. I would say abuse has no such boundaries. It crosses all boundaries and effects families on both sides of the aisle. So I am very confused as to why you say patriarchy is abusive in nature. One lady that I know practices a nature religion and her first husband abused her. Does that make me say all that practice her views abuse their spouses and children? Nope............:confused: you just confuse the dickens out of me. WEAK WEAK WEAK Argument. Sorry.

 

Your logic is flawed and *my* arguement is weak? The "I've seen abuse in families that arent' patriarchal" = don't be against patriarchy is awful. It's like the arguement in favor of spanking because "it's better than yelling". :confused:

 

Anyway, you have my viewpoint wrong. If you can't understand how a person would feel that the power differential is inherently wrong, I don't know that a discussion is fruitful.

[Mama Geek]

Ok, to all the posters who are incredulous that people would be unequivacably, across the board against patriarchy..........

 

How do you feel about sharia law?

The role of women in extreme Islam?

Clitoral removal?

 

I am against the patriarchy of quiverful-minded conservative Christians in the same way I am against the above. I don't understand why so many posters can't make the distinction or understanding. It seems like a no-brainer to at least understand being against a philosophy that, by definition, makes one gender less than and with less power than the other gender.

 

I'm not discriminating against a religion. However, I believe this thread would go down differently if the Duggars were Wiccan, Ba'hai, Siik, or Hindu.

 

Joanne,

I have kept quiet on this thread the whole time until now. Dh and I believe the bible teaches that the husband is the head of the house just as Christ is the head of the church. Along with that the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church.

 

When I got married I was rebellious. I didn't want anyone telling me anything. We had power struggles for years. Through time, prayer, friends, reading the bible, my heart has truly changed on the subject.

 

My dh is not a mean abusive man. He very much respects me and loves me and will do just about anything for me. If there is something that we disagree on, yes I will submit to his wishes. He has the best interest for our family in his heart. I pray for him, I advise him, I love him and I support him. It isn not always easy and neither of us is perfect, but it works very well for us. We have one of the healthiest marriages of all of our friends and family. I wouldn't trade it for the world.

 

I was 35 before I conceived, we spent many years trying to have children. Dh and I would welcome all that God would send to us. I would say that there is a fair chance that dd will be the only one, but either way our faith is in God to provide us the family we are supposed to have. This comes from a lady who had given up any hope of ever having children.

 

I figure that this is so foreign to you that no one will ever be able to convince you otherwise. But it can and does work.

[Marylou]

No, thank you. I've had the "submission" discussion ad infinitem. No need.

 

I do not believe in patriarchy. I don't believe it is my God's law, intent, spirit, or design. I'm against it across the board. I don't understand how people can not "get" why people (since I am not the only one) would feel that way.

 

 

I don't get why you don't know your questions are insulting.

[cin]

When you take into account all the dysfunctional families they parade on tv, the Duggar's are very refreshing to watch, imho.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Lord knows there's plenty of dysfunctional families being paraded through our living room for our kids to emulate. :001_rolleyes:

[GardenTenders/Kim]

Thanks for the hug.

 

My father's mother had nineteen kids that lived past one year. Thirteen of them made it to adulthood. She had many other miscarriages and stillbirths. I never wanted that many kids but she managed them well and there was a lot of love in that family. She did look worn out but she they were tobacco farmers and they raised most of their food. All the pregnancies couldn't have helped.

 

Our marriage is like yours. He might have the final word if we can't agree on something - a purchase, etc but there is a give and take and ebb and flow. He is everything my rabidly feminist mother insisted never existed.

 

That being said, I don't watch the show but some of the remarks have really hit a nerve. The Duggars' life seems to be working well for them. We only have boys but we've never limited their view of what they can do and we wouldn't do that to a girl child either. If I'd been blessed with a daughter then she would have been told if she wanted college and/or a career that would be wonderful but by the same token if she didn't that would be fine too. She wouldn't have to deal with being told she was a failure because she chose a path that I didn't.

 

It's just as harmful to tell a girl she's letting down her sex and is a traitor to the feminist movement as it is to tell her all she's good for is being a wife and mother. And that's the flip side of the coin that never seems to be discussed when topics like this are brought up.

 

:iagree: Ah a voice of reason. :001_smile:

 

I would never think of telling my daughter that either. She can do what she wants in life. If she wants to be a pro pitcher for the Seatle mariners, GREAT. if she wants to get married and have babies, GREAT. Or anything in between. :-)

[Marylou]

Joanne,

 

I figure that this is so foreign to you that no one will ever be able to convince you otherwise. But it can and does work.

 

She doesn't care that it works; she thinks it's wrong (abusive).

[Koerarmoca]

Patriarchy is what our society is based on. Any first year anthropology student knows that. :confused:

 

I guess we have different views. I think, having read your many posts, that you equate abuse with people that may look to the husband as the head of his home. My husband is the king of our home, but guess what, I am the queen. I don't think my family, nor my family of origin, are exceptions to what you equate as the norm. I know many families that follow a biblical view that the husband is the head and many that have no view at all. I would say abuse has no such boundaries. It crosses all boundaries and effects families on both sides of the aisle. So I am very confused as to why you say patriarchy is abusive in nature. One lady that I know practices a nature religion and her first husband abused her. Does that make me say all that practice her views abuse their spouses and children? Nope............:confused: you just confuse the dickens out of me. WEAK WEAK WEAK Argument. Sorry.

:iagree:

Ummm . . they use SOS. There are probably lots of homeschooled kids in college who have used SOS.

I live in a large homeschooling community, and a mile from a university that is very heavy in Homeschool support and attendees that have been homeschooled. I know many of the professors wives whom Homeschool as well. One family in particular who's father is a professor they use SOS for everything except for Math. Their oldest 3 had no issues getting into college at all. College is not for everyone. I think training in any given field is = to a college education. As in one of the Duggar children training to be a midwife I think is equal to going to school for a degree and likely she will have a job faster. I also don't think any university would turn a Duggar child down given their "fame" I also feel their is nothing wrong with aspiring to be a sahm homeschooling mother if my husband is able to support the household.

[scrappyhappymama]

I'm not sure why people get upset about the Duggars being judged. They're on TV: that's opening yourself up for judgment. I certainly wouldn't go around judging the parenting choices or lifestyles of people I know or people I see around, but if you are going to make money by going on TV, then the viewers aren't, IMO, overstepping bounds by forming opinions on the family, even really negative ones.

 

I've seen a few episodes of the show, and I wasn't impressed. My main issue is how everybody thinks they are so wonderful for living debt-free, without realizing that that lifestyle simply isn't available to everybody, and that if you had 18 kids (and all the celebrity that goes with that for them), a reality show, and the kind of business the family has, you'd probably be debt-free, too. I don't know, it just seems like a silly thing to applaud them for. I don't care how they choose to live or how many children they choose to have, but I think the idea is that we're supposed to think "Wow, if they can be debt-free with 18 kids, I must be an irresponsible idiot for not living debt-free when I've only got 2/3/4," instead of noticing that a huge reason why they can live debt free is because of how many kids they have and the way they've marketed their family.

 

Well, here's why I am upset about the Duggars being judged harshly as they have been in this thread.

 

-Being on TV does not mean they represent EVERY person or family with similar religious views/family size/ethnic background/schooling choice. That's like saying that Jersey Shore represents the lifestyle of ALL Italian-Americans. How about the radical LDS group in Texas and "Sister Wives". Should we be judging all LDS families based on them?

 

-EVERY religious view or moral standard or worldview has the potential to be carried to extremes. Posting websites of recovering quiverfull families should not taint ALL families who choose this path for themselves. That's prejudicial to the extreme and frankly offensive. I can find websites online of folks who are "recovering" from every other religious model as well.

 

I don't mean to make like of women and children who are truly in abusive circumstances. But to make rash generalizations about all folks who share similar beliefs, and impune the guilt of individual abusers on the entire class is preposterous.

 

And regarding the statement in red, the Duggar family was debt free before they were ever featured on TV. In fact the very first special about their family highlighted the frugal lifestyle choices they made to be debt free. And they only had 14 kids back then, but I am :confused: about how MORE children make is easier to be debt free??

 

:001_huh:Seriously? First of all, you probably DO know someone that subscribes to a patriarchial model for their home. You just don't realize it. Unless you know a family very, very well, I couldn't imagine assuming you know the ins and outs of their faith.

 

I honestly find this train of thought to be as prejudicial as any other form of discrimination. It wouldn't be acceptable to announce that you wouldn't allow your child around someone on the basis that they were Jewish, or because they were of a different race, or different economic level. So how is this ok? Isn't it teaching blind judgement? That EVERYONE that does this must be unhealthy, abusive, etc?

 

Making blanket, sweeping judgements about other families just makes me feel sick to my stomach. So much for tolerance, religious freedom, respecting others.

 

:iagree: completely. There are many good folks on this board with large families and who subscribe to quiverfull ideas. Many more ascribe to a male head of household family structure, based on their understanding of biblical principles. Generalizations about every family who values these ideas is not the same as stating one's own beliefs on the subject and preferences for their own families.

 

If I were to make the same kinds of statements about permissive parenting, immoral lifestyles, non-traditional families, minority religions, etc, etc, I would be ripped to shreds (and justifiably so).

Edited July 8, 2011 by scrappyhappymama

[LibraryLover]

They would be disadvantaged in the sense that college, even Christian colleges, usually like to see a rigorous academic program, including some foreign languages and advanced maths, philosophy and world history, chemistry and biology, and so forth. In addition, they like to see a student has other interests or abilities, such as participation in sport or club, like Debate or Chess. They also usually require a writing sample, and decent ACT or SAT scores.

 

.

 

The oldest flirting like a big dog with Meredith Viera on Good Morning, America doesn't count?

[Aelwydd]

Patriarchy is what our society is based on. Any first year anthropology student knows that. :confused:

 

 

So? That doesn't make it right. There are societies that are based upon the most horrendous of ideals. Which is why Joanne asked, what do you think of Sharia Law? You never answered.

 

Sharia Law is based, among other things, upon the assumed intellectual, spiritual, and physical inequalities between the sexes.

 

That's the same basis underlying patriarchy, and why I also oppose it. I understand that there is a spectrum of families that fall anywhere from "happy and well-adjusted" to "abusive." I don't pretend that there aren't women out there who actively seek relationships where the men are in a superior position of authority.

 

However, that does not mean that I think that such happy marriages are without flaw. And the flaw, IMO, is that one adult is assumed to be better qualified, spiritually, to be leader of another adult, because of the set of genitals he was born with.

 

That's so illogical, the only way it can be defended, is by appealing to a non-objective, faith-based authority (the church, the Bible, etc.), and by compartmentalizing the mind, so as to avoid letting the emotional/subjective rationale encounter the more rational parts of the brain that see no difference in this kind of "inequality," than any other that has been used in the history of mankind to subjugate others.

 

It's why I'm raising my ds to respect girls, to see them as equals in every way, and why I tell him that if any girl asks him to "be in charge," not to let himself be used that way. She has a brain, she has her own judgment, she can assume the risks involved in exercising it, rather than foisting it off on him.

[Aelwydd]

The oldest flirting like a big dog with Meredith Viera on Good Morning, America doesn't count?

 

That's kinda creepy actually. Not something I'd put on a college ap!

[Audrey]

I could never do the quiverful thing but yeah, I gotta agree with the above.

 

 

Serious question... do you think you could do it if you could adopt instead of giving birth to them yourself? Would you want to?

[albeto]

Patriarchy is what our society is based on. Any first year anthropology student knows that. :confused:

 

So too is slavery and subjugation of entire classes of people based on gender, race and creed. A past social expectation is no reason to continue, especially when it conflicts with current shared ideas of morality and ethics. The patriarchal movement is at the root subjugation. You may benefit from it, you may agree with and support it, but subjugation generally conflicts with modern moral codes that support liberty and freedom regardless of gender, race, creed or sexual orientation.

 

So I am very confused as to why you say patriarchy is abusive in nature. One lady that I know practices a nature religion and her first husband abused her. Does that make me say all that practice her views abuse their spouses and children? Nope............:confused: you just confuse the dickens out of me. WEAK WEAK WEAK Argument. Sorry.

 

Any person can be abusive and take any ideology to his or her own advantage against the liberty of another person. This isn't limited to religion (or politics or sexual orientation) and you are right to say these things aren't *caused* by religion (or politics or sexual orientation). However, the patriarchal movement is, by definition, submission to an authority under penalty of God's displeasure. What I mean by that is the idea of wanting to be subjected to your husband's authority is likely inspired by your love of God. This love of God is, if I'm not mistaken, a feeling of intense gratitude for being spared the eternal torment of hell (whatever you know hell to be). To refuse to be in submission to your husband would be to refuse to acknowledge God's supreme authority over you life. If not a refusal to acknowledge, certainly a refusal to express expected gratitude. In essence, it would be like flippin' off God to his face and if you did that, flipped off God, it would cause you anxiety I would imagine. After all, here's the guy that not only promised to spare you from hell, he's the one who can throw you in (and you think you deserve it, so deep is the conditioning).

 

And therein lies the second half of the abuse. The abuse is emotional, mental, it's not necessarily tangible or physical. If there would be any anxiety over the idea of refusing to be subservient to your husband or to God, then you are controlled by fear. No one needs to punch you in the face or throw a ceramic bowl at your head to control your actions lest you get punished (for eternity!).

 

I don't think for a moment you feel this way at all. You're very lucky if that's the case. If the thought of loosing heaven produces no anxiety in you at all, then you're not doing it right. Does that make sense why some people have a disdain for this ideology?

[LibraryLover]

That's kinda creepy actually. Not something I'd put on a college ap!

 

It was acutally Meredith who was drooling; she was very nearly giddy. I thought it was weird. He was pretty cool about it. (What's his name?) I think you're giving some colleges way too much credit in your first post. LOL Way too much credit. You couldn't possibly be saying that every kid in a decent college, hs'd or public schooled, has such a resume. :lol: But you sure sounded like you were saying that.

[GardenTenders/Kim]

So? That doesn't make it right. There are societies that are based upon the most horrendous of ideals.

 

My point was, since density seems rampant sometimes, is that while I disagree with some aspects of the Duggars I can't claim patriarchy as an issue like she has.

 

I also strongly suspect she grew up in our society with it as a background. Maybe her father was very aggressive and she is basing all men that are the heads of their home on that, or maybe a husband? I don't know her. Doubt I ever will because of limitations she has placed.

 

She hates the idea, with a obsessive nature. That alone makes me suspect.

[Aelwydd]

Ummm . . they use SOS. There are probably lots of homeschooled kids in college who have used SOS.

 

I know they do. But, to be honest, I never see them running involved science experiments or dissections (like was the case in my high school sciences). I never have seen them debate the positive and negative evidence for young earth vs. old earth. I have never seen them practice or converse in anything but English. I have never seen them working out complicated math formulas. I have never seen them working on a research or thesis paper.

 

I have seen them helping their younger siblings around the table. I have seen them use the computer to read their lessons.

 

But debate? Discussion around the table about heavy topics? Discussion of classics, like I don't know, Eli Wiesel's Night?

 

Do you see what I'm saying? All of the above is what I had to do in my high school classes (and a lot more). It's what I had to do in my first semester of college (there wasn't a learning curve--I was expected to know how to do these things already).

 

And the first university I went to was private and Christian.

 

If the Duggars never go to college, that's just fine. I have no doubts that their education is adequate and equivalent to a basic high school education. But, I wouldn't put it as equivalent to a college-prep high school curriculum, which is why, they'd likely come in to college needing several remedial courses.

[Murmer]

I don't know of any info that says she had a reason to believe she would give birth prematurely. She developed pre-eclampsia, which she had not had before to my knowledge. After 18 healthy pregnancies how was she to know that would happen? I had perfect blood pressure with my first, and developed hypertension with my second. There was no way to predict that would happen.

 

I believe that she had pre-eclampsia with her oldest set of twins...but then had how many more 100% normal pregancies without it. I realize the thread has moved away from this but I remember watching one of the Josie episodes and it did say she had pre-eclampsia/or high blood pressure but pre pre-eclampsia in 1 other pregancy.

[GardenTenders/Kim]

Serious question... do you think you could do it if you could adopt instead of giving birth to them yourself? Would you want to?

 

HECK NO! Not me! Do I look like Angelina Jolie? :lol: Dont answer that. :D

 

I love kids, but I have my limits. And you?

[Renee in NC]

It was acutally Meredith who was drooling; she was very nearly giddy. I thought it was weird. He was pretty cool about it. (What's his name?) I think you're giving some colleges way too much credit in your first post. LOL Way too much credit. You couldn't possibly be saying that every kid in a decent college, hs'd or public schooled, has such a resume. :lol: But you sure sounded like you were saying that.

 

I was thinking the same thing! I would say very few kids, even those whose parents do "insist" on college have those stats. I, for one, was a high school drop out who got into every school I applied to - really good SAT scores will do that for you.;) I never saw either of my parents read, much less have *any* deep discussions with them.:tongue_smilie: (FTR, I did have a very highly educated extended family, but not at home.)

[Joanne]

My point was, since density seems rampant sometimes, is that while I disagree with some aspects of the Duggars I can't claim patriarchy as an issue like she has.

 

I also strongly suspect she grew up in our society with it as a background. Maybe her father was very aggressive and she is basing all men that are the heads of their home on that, or maybe a husband? I don't know her. Doubt I ever will because of limitations she has placed.

 

She hates the idea, with a obsessive nature. That alone makes me suspect.

 

Who are you talking about, exactly? Because if I am "she", I am in the room.

[LibraryLover]

I know they do. But, to be honest, I never see them running involved science experiments or dissections (like was the case in my high school sciences). I never have seen them debate the positive and negative evidence for young earth vs. old earth. I have never seen them practice or converse in anything but English. I have never seen them working out complicated math formulas. I have never seen them working on a research or thesis paper.

 

I have seen them helping their younger siblings around the table. I have seen them use the computer to read their lessons.

 

But debate? Discussion around the table about heavy topics? Discussion of classics, like I don't know, Eli Wiesel's Night?

 

Do you see what I'm saying? All of the above is what I had to do in my high school classes (and a lot more). It's what I had to do in my first semester of college (there wasn't a learning curve--I was expected to know these things already).

 

And the first university I went to was private and Christian.

 

If the Duggars never go to college, that's just fine. I have no doubts that their education is adequate and equivalent to a basic high school education. But, I wouldn't put it as equivalent to a college-prep high school curriculum, which is why, they'd likely come in to college needing several remedial courses.

 

 

Oh dear Goddess, strike down my internet connection with a lightening bolt. Get me off the boards. Make me finish my resume. Make it stop raining so I can go weed the garden. Send my kid home from camp so I can tell her to go do math. Something.... <waiting>

 

Dang! I have no will power whatsoever. It's made -for- TV. I am just so sure every single thing the kids do that looks boring, like sitting at a computer typing lessons and essays, is riveting TV. I am so sure of that.

 

Crud. I have only ever seen one or two whole episodes and a few snippets here and there (and the Meredith Viera interview, of course ;)) and even I know they play violin and chess.

Edited July 8, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Aelwydd]

My point was, since density seems rampant sometimes, is that while I disagree with some aspects of the Duggars I can't claim patriarchy as an issue like she has.

 

I also strongly suspect she grew up in our society with it as a background. Maybe her father was very aggressive and she is basing all men that are the heads of their home on that, or maybe a husband? I don't know her. Doubt I ever will because of limitations she has placed.

 

She hates the idea, with a obsessive nature. That alone makes me suspect.

 

Please don't patronize me. Your point was made clear, in the latter half of your last post, where you proceeded to justify how patriarchy is an innocuous part of your marriage. You still never answered Joanne's question about why Sharia and other sexist societies, are offensive.

 

Regarding Joanne's past: that's her business, and I'm not going to trade theories about it with you.

 

I'll share something about my past though: I was raised in a more "enlightened" version of patriarchy, in a fundamentalist Christian denomination. I was raised expected to go to college and to have my own career. My own mother worked. I wore pants and make-up.

 

And still, the ever pervasive message that I was under my husband's authority, and not equal to him in every respect, was damaging. It was this message, alone, that nearly drove me out of Christianity altogether. So, I don't pretend that teaching inequality between the sexes is ever anything less than damaging and even potentially dangerous.

[Ester Maria]

They don't seem to emphasize or cultivate an intellectual environment, which would include reading many genres and classics, debating different ideas, and using logic to defend their position.

This is what bugs me, too. I saw a part of an episode which specifically dealt with school and from what I understood - from what Michelle said herself - she has kids doing workbooks up to third grade or so, and then has then switch to computer schooling. There was simply no mention of any kind of purposeful cultivation of intellectual atmosphere at home or learning together. One of the girls was teaching one of the younger boys, too. Another girl was in charge of checking everybody's grades on the computers. I may be wrong based on a "glimpse" rather than knowing a situation, of course, but it did seem fairly minimalistic to me. The problem I have with educational minimalism is that it closes doors to kids - it is usually not a "problem" having learned a bit too much, having broadened your horizons a bit too much and not used all of it, but it does seem like a tangible disadvantage having received a high school education which is somewhere on the lower end of, to use that unpopular word, "rigor". I also did not hear Michelle, or anyone, describing how they individualize the education for each child, whether they discuss things in-depth with them, etc. It all seemed a sort of "by the way"ish to me, rather than like learning which would be one of priorities at home.

 

I am a bit biased, though, because I am a sort of person that, academically, has a "better safe than sorry" approach - I tend to err on the heavier side rather than on the lighter side (of course, in accordance with each child's realistic capacities), because I generally think that kids who got the heavier option and opt not to go to college will do fine anyway, but those who did not even get academic tools for college might not do so well. I realize their educational priorities and goals are probably a total opposite of mine.

[Scarlett]

Who are you talking about, exactly? Because if I am "she", I am in the room.

 

Joanna, do you think your adamant view of this subject is colored by your own experience? Also does patriarchal differ from hardship model?

[Aelwydd]

Oh dear Goddess, strike down my internet connection with a lightening bolt. Get me off the boards. Make me finish my resume. Make it stop raining so I can go weed the garden. Send my kid home from camp so I can tell her to go do math. Something.... <waiting>

.

 

Library, since the Duggars themselves, have always taken pains to show how well-rounded they are in every way, including education, I don't think it's an accident that most of the activities I mentioned above, have been absent from the screen.

[LibraryLover]

Library, since the Duggars themselves, have always taken pains to show how well-rounded they are in every way, including education, I don't think it's an accident that most of the activities I mentioned above, have been absent from the screen.

 

 

I'm just jealous you've seen every episode. We don't even have cable.

[Pink Fairy]

I know they do. But, to be honest, I never see them running involved science experiments or dissections (like was the case in my high school sciences). I never have seen them debate the positive and negative evidence for young earth vs. old earth. I have never seen them practice or converse in anything but English. I have never seen them working out complicated math formulas. I have never seen them working on a research or thesis paper.

 

 

What you have or haven't seen isn't relevant. This is a thirty minute reality tv show. It doesn't give a complete picture of any area of their lives, homeschooling included. That's why the assumptions in this thread are so ridiculous (and amusing, I might add :D).

[Audrey]

HECK NO! Not me! Do I look like Angelina Jolie? :lol: Dont answer that. :D

 

I love kids, but I have my limits. And you?

 

I love kids, too, but I love them best knowing their mommies will take them home later. When my ds was born, I just felt like our family was complete. My dh felt the same way, so for us, it's one kid -- and lots of 'borrowing.' :D

[Koerarmoca]

To address the Homeschooling they do. I assume it's not TV worthy. When they are doing so many other things that would be far more interesting to watch on TV. They seem pretty hands on with things which is a great way to learn. They talk about educational aspects to certain trips they make etc. My understanding is for taping that they arrange to tape for events (ie Josh's engagement/wedding, trips to NYC, etc.) I doubt Michelle or Jim Bob calls up TLC and says "Hey, we are doing a math lesson today want to come over and film it" I think we see very little of their "daily" life and much more of the events/fun stuff.

[Pink Fairy]

Library, since the Duggars themselves, have always taken pains to show how well-rounded they are in every way, including education, I don't think it's an accident that most of the activities I mentioned above, have been absent from the screen.

 

You don't think so? Are you also an expert on reality tv show editing?

[TXMary2]

Library, since the Duggars themselves, have always taken pains to show how well-rounded they are in every way, including education, I don't think it's an accident that most of the activities I mentioned above, have been absent from the screen.

 

 

Like I said about 20 pages ago, I don't get the hate and judgemental attitudes toward this family. I find it annoying (yet amusing) that so many people seem to think they know all about everything the Duggars do, say and believe based on a 30 minute program once a week, that only airs half the year - if that. Really, it is ridiculous.

[Joanne]

My point was, since density seems rampant sometimes, is that while I disagree with some aspects of the Duggars I can't claim patriarchy as an issue like she has.

 

I also strongly suspect she grew up in our society with it as a background. Maybe her father was very aggressive and she is basing all men that are the heads of their home on that, or maybe a husband? I don't know her. Doubt I ever will because of limitations she has placed.

 

She hates the idea, with a obsessive nature. That alone makes me suspect.

 

This is terribly rude. Incredibly rude.

 

I dislike patriarchy in the Christian community based on clinical, not personal experience. My Dad is a mainline Prebyterian (USA) who wouldn't know Gothard or the Vision Forum if he read about them in Websters.

 

My xh was not quiverful and did not embrace "patriarchy" as used in the Christian sense being used. He is a misgynist, though.

 

I DO hate the idea that any gender is less than based on their gender. It's not obsessive. It happens to be in a thread about topics related directly to it. If you'd like me to post recipes, please be a troll. Otherwise, I will continue to post on topics of interest to me.

 

In any case, your post was terribly rude.

 

Originally Posted by Mama Geek

Joanne,

 

I figure that this is so foreign to you that no one will ever be able to convince you otherwise. But it can and does work.

 

It's not foreign to me. I've been working with people in the Christian community for over 10 years. I've seen Christians with all types of beliefs on the role of husbands, wives, children, in laws, etc. I've had numerous discussions on the role of each gender. Many, many informal discussions. Several scholarly ones. I am graduating with my Masters from a *seminary*; I have written on this topic.

 

It's not "foreign" to me. I've met a dozen couples who feel just like you've written. I simply disagree with it.

[Renee in NC]

This is what bugs me, too. I saw a part of an episode which specifically dealt with school and from what I understood - from what Michelle said herself - she has kids doing workbooks up to third grade or so, and then has then switch to computer schooling. There was simply no mention of any kind of purposeful cultivation of intellectual atmosphere at home or learning together. One of the girls was teaching one of the younger boys, too. Another girl was in charge of checking everybody's grades on the computers. I may be wrong based on a "glimpse" rather than knowing a situation, of course, but it did seem fairly minimalistic to me. The problem I have with educational minimalism is that it closes doors to kids - it is usually not a "problem" having learned a bit too much, having broadened your horizons a bit too much and not used all of it, but it does seem like a tangible disadvantage having received a high school education which is somewhere on the lower end of, to use that unpopular word, "rigor". I also did not hear Michelle, or anyone, describing how they individualize the education for each child, whether they discuss things in-depth with them, etc. It all seemed a sort of "by the way"ish to me, rather than like learning which would be one of priorities at home.

 

I am a bit biased, though, because I am a sort of person that, academically, has a "better safe than sorry" approach - I tend to err on the heavier side rather than on the lighter side (of course, in accordance with each child's realistic capacities), because I generally think that kids who got the heavier option and opt not to go to college will do fine anyway, but those who did not even get academic tools for college might not do so well. I realize their educational priorities and goals are probably a total opposite of mine.

 

I won't say that I agree with their educational choices - Switched on Schoolhouse would be a *lot* easier for me than individualizing their educations. However, that doesn't mean that they can't go to college and do well - I would say that SOS is better than many public high schools in this country.

 

I did, BTW, avoid any remedial classes in college despite dropping out of a second rate high school after the 10th grade. College is not rocket science.;)