The Duggars

[silliness7]

I love this family, well sort of. But they kind of bug me at the same time. I mean, okay, they have a TON of kids but I think it's great that they don't rely on the government to help raise them and I think it's great that they don't have any debt etc. But what kind of bothers me is that the kids really.don't.do.anything. I mean, what if one of them wanted to play a team sport or even an indiviual sport...like tennis or something. I find it kind of strange that none of them want to or are they not allowed to? I tape the new shows and I was watching the last one just now. Jim Bob (okay he bugs the crap out of me) got on my nerves again. Michelle was actually spending time with one of the kids (I, personally don't think she spends enough time with her kids) and he wanted her to stop and help him proof read their latest book. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The book can wait, but Jordyn needs to spend some time with her MOTHER! It just seems that the kids are always (okay 95% of the time) working. Those poor older girls are really the mothers. I just wonder like why none of them play sports especially the boys...not that all of them have to play but come one, what boy (or girl) doesn't want to do some kind of extra curricular activity? I get that they like to play with each other but what about the teenaged boys? Hello? I really admire their work ethic in a huge way but I just think they are missing out on other things that are important too. I know it doesn't really matter, but it's just my observation and opinion!

 

Without reading any of the other responses I have to say that I think the Duggars are a neat family. I couldn't do what they do and I don't want to try. Yes, the kids have a different kind of childhood than what is considered "normal" in America. However, I don't think it's a bad childhood. I guess if one of the kids lands in therapy and writes a tell-all maybe that would prove me wrong. :001_smile: I think what they do works for them. I'm actually amazed at how much fun they have as a family and am always inspired to get out there and just have fun with my kids. You know, sky-dive or drive to TN in a tour bus, or whatever. My goodness. They are brave. Babies do slow me down but she just takes it all in stride.

 

They seem busy in their own way, productive, happy, well-cared for and well-loved. I think it would be fun to grow up in their family.

[zaichiki]

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.

 

I feel similarly. At first I was very put off by the fact that they had so many kids -- how did they FUNCTION?! I couldn't imagine it being fair to the kids. But, you're right: they are caring and warm and decent people. My religious, political, and lifestyle choices are different, but so what. I can't dislike someone I don't know -- someone who is caring, warm, and decent.

[Impish]

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 really dislike the broad generalizations. Nobody would dare make such statements based on race, economics, or, seemingly, other religions/beliefs.

 

I don't agree with many things in organized religion in general. But I'm not about to state that its abusive. Anyone can take ANYTHING and twist it to their own purposes. It doesn't meant that the initial issue is wrong, but how that individual is appropriating it.

 

I think if I were to announce that I had disdain for any particular religion OTHER than patriarchy/quiverful, members would hand me my butt in a basket, and rightfully so.

 

So why is it ok to insult this? Should we compile data on the percentages of abuse in ALL religions for comparison? If not, than perhaps singling out one is simply bias and prejudicial.

[zaichiki]

I think what they do works for them. I'm actually amazed at how much fun they have as a family and am always inspired to get out there and just have fun with my kids. You know, sky-dive or drive to TN in a tour bus, or whatever. My goodness. They are brave. Babies do slow me down but she just takes it all in stride.

 

They seem busy in their own way, productive, happy, well-cared for and well-loved.

 

Yeah. :iagree:

[UnsinkableKristen]

I really dislike the broad generalizations. Nobody would dare make such statements based on race, economics, or, seemingly, other religions/beliefs.

 

I don't agree with many things in organized religion in general. But I'm not about to state that its abusive. Anyone can take ANYTHING and twist it to their own purposes. It doesn't meant that the initial issue is wrong, but how that individual is appropriating it.

 

I think if I were to announce that I had disdain for any particular religion OTHER than patriarchy/quiverful, members would hand me my butt in a basket, and rightfully so.

 

So why is it ok to insult this? Should we compile data on the percentages of abuse in ALL religions for comparison? If not, than perhaps singling out one is simply bias and prejudicial.

 

 

:iagree: Entirely agree.

 

And for what it's worth, I'm not in a quiverfull/partriarchy thing, nor do I plan to be.

[Joanne]

I really dislike the broad generalizations. Nobody would dare make such statements based on race, economics, or, seemingly, other religions/beliefs.

 

I don't agree with many things in organized religion in general. But I'm not about to state that its abusive. Anyone can take ANYTHING and twist it to their own purposes. It doesn't meant that the initial issue is wrong, but how that individual is appropriating it.

 

I think if I were to announce that I had disdain for any particular religion OTHER than patriarchy/quiverful, members would hand me my butt in a basket, and rightfully so.

 

So why is it ok to insult this? Should we compile data on the percentages of abuse in ALL religions for comparison? If not, than perhaps singling out one is simply bias and prejudicial.

 

Imp, there *are* casulaties of the quiverful and patriarchy movement. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of people who have been severely hurt and damaged by the movement.

 

The movement subjugates women, deliberately and intentionally. The movement has severe cult-like characteristics. The movement is lead by people and authors who embrace very punitive parenting models.

 

I'm not twisting something. Are you not familiar with the existence of damage, hurt, and dyfunction in that subculture?

[zaichiki]

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.

 

Oh, that's a good point. But I have to say that I'm thankful that they are balancing out all those other reality shows. You know, the ones that show completely DYSfunctional families/people. It's nice to see happy families who love and care for one another on TV, isn't it?

[Ginevra]

I agree almost 100% with Ester Maria's two posts.

 

The Duggars fascinate me. And as far as the TV show goes, Lord knows there's enough carp on the tube that it's a relief to just watch a nice family of good-looking people who aren't sassy, self-centered, spendy jerks. I have watched many of their shows and I've read both of their books.

 

A lot of things about their family are admirable. A few things about their family do give me pause, the same things already mentioned by Ester Maria and a few other people.

 

But, to keep it in perspective, if I was depicted on a TV show and described all my parenting philosophies and practices in two books, I'm sure most people would say similarly - that we're admirable, but some things aren't so good.

 

And just as a PSA, they say in the recent book that they do not consider themselves part of "the quiverfull movement," though their beliefs are the same. I think they're just a little bewildered by that terminology because they were quiverful when quiverful wasn't a term.

 

The only thing I thought was extremely "out there" in the most recent book was the extreme limitations on internet access. In the book, Michelle says that the oldest girls have the passcode and that the family shares a few iphones but that they do not have Safari and "none of the boys, or Dad (JimBob) are allowed to have any App that takes them to the open internet" or a website with a search engine present. :blink: I understand evil things can be found, even accidentally, on the web, but....I cannot imagine restricting my husband's ability to utilize the internet independently, nor would I consider that necessary for boys in their upper teens.

 

I could try to get the actual quote off my Kindle if anyone is concerned that I'm mis-speaking.

[Impish]

Imp, there *are* casulaties of the quiverful and patriarchy movement. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of people who have been severely hurt and damaged by the movement.

 

The movement subjugates women, deliberately and intentionally. The movement has severe cult-like characteristics. The movement is lead by people and authors who embrace very punitive parenting models.

 

I'm not twisting something. Are you not familiar with the existence of damage, hurt, and dyfunction in that subculture?

I'm aware that pretty much EVERY religion has people who have been severely hurt and damaged. To single this out for a target to me, just seems wrong.

 

I mean, seriously. Can you really state that there haven't been spiritual abuse, physical abuse in other religons? I can think of several off the top of my head. Should we dredge those up whenever a family of the same religous faith comes up in conversation, and tar them all with the same brush?

 

I'm just tired of the generalizations that would be fodder for butt roasting if it were aimed anywhere else.

 

People twist things to give themselves power. Be it religion, financial control, etc. That's the fault of the individuals who are being abusive. Domestic violence happens, but we don't ban marriage, or state that marriage = domestic violence.

[astrid]

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.

 

Guess I'm really messing up my only child. She's generous to a fault, kind, polite, respectful, has an incredible work ethic and is generally a joy to be around by all accounts.

 

So when should I expect the psychological damage to show up? And the selfishness to kick in? :001_huh:

 

astrid

[Holly IN]

I get attacked because I made a statement based on what I have dealt with but yet when another made a very specific blanket statement they do not get attacked.

 

I guess I just can't state my opinion. I keep saying my opinion but it doesn't mean it is a fact. The other poster has her opinion as well. I am merely stating what I have seen in REAL life. :glare: bailing out of this thread now as I can't have an opinion based what I have seen.

I really do not understand why two are attacking me but another poster made a very blanket statement against quiverfull families and she is not getting rebuked for it.:confused::confused:

 

Bye bye!

Holly

[zaichiki]

The only thing I thought was extremely "out there" in the most recent book was the extreme limitations on internet access. In the book, Michelle says that the oldest girls have the passcode and that the family shares a few iphones but that they do not have Safari and "none of the boys, or Dad (JimBob) are allowed to have any App that takes them to the open internet" or a website with a search engine present. :blink: I understand evil things can be found, even accidentally, on the web, but....I cannot imagine restricting my husband's ability to utilize the internet independently, nor would I consider that necessary for boys in their upper teens.

 

I could try to get the actual quote off my Kindle if anyone is concerned that I'm mis-speaking.

 

I'm not concerned that you're mis-speaking, but I'm interested. I'd like to read the actual quote. (I'm curious.)

[GardenTenders/Kim]

The only thing I thought was extremely "out there" in the most recent book was the extreme limitations on internet access. In the book, Michelle says that the oldest girls have the passcode and that the family shares a few iphones but that they do not have Safari and "none of the boys, or Dad (JimBob) are allowed to have any App that takes them to the open internet" or a website with a search engine present. :blink: I understand evil things can be found, even accidentally, on the web, but....I cannot imagine restricting my husband's ability to utilize the internet independently, nor would I consider that necessary for boys in their upper teens.

 

I could try to get the actual quote off my Kindle if anyone is concerned that I'm mis-speaking.

 

Wow. So the girls can but the men/boys can't? Especially the husband? I believe you I am just shocked.

[Impish]

Guess I'm really messing up my only child. She's generous to a fault, kind, polite, respectful, has an incredible work ethic and is generally a joy to be around by all accounts.

 

So when should I expect the psychological damage to show up? And the selfishness to kick in? :001_huh:

 

astrid

About the time one of the Duggar kids ends up on the news with a sniper rifle. :glare:

[zaichiki]

I get attacked because I made a statement based on what I have dealt with but yet when another made a very specific blanket statement they do not get attacked.

 

I guess I just can't state my opinion. I keep saying my opinion but it doesn't mean it is a fact. The other poster has her opinion as well. I am merely stating what I have seen in REAL life. :glare: bailing out of this thread now as I can't have an opinion based what I have seen.

I really do not understand why two are attacking me but another poster made a very blanket statement against quiverfull families and she is not getting rebuked for it.:confused::confused:

 

Bye bye!

Holly

 

Oh Holly! :grouphug: I think the people who you feel attacked by are feeling that they need to defend *their* lifestyles/parenting. As a third party I don't think any of you are attacking each other, but I see that you all feel attacked.

 

I know people in my family who are onlies and have had trouble b/c of the way they were raised and I know people in my family who come from big families and have had trouble b/c of their childhood experiences. (There are struggles in any family size. There are pros and cons to each -- it's just that the pros are usually *different.*)

[astrid]

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.

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

Entitlement issues. Selfishness issues. Thanks for the insight. :001_huh:

 

astrid (parent of an only by choice, who is neither entitled nor selfish. .)

[zaichiki]

About the time one of the Duggar kids ends up on the news with a sniper rifle. :glare:

:lol:

[astrid]

About the time one of the Duggar kids ends up on the news with a sniper rifle. :glare:

 

 

:confused::confused: Huh?

 

astrid

[Nestof3]

I can see how this could happen. I also look at older generations and their parenting styles. I think in terms of relating to our children and seeing them as people with needs and voices, we've come a long way. I know a lot of older generations in my family had real poverty issues. There wasn't a big happy family syndrome thing going on. It was about survival, little hugging, loving, emotional needs being met. Men, in particular, were very emotionally removed from their children.

 

The families I speak of have all of this going on.

 

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.

[astrid]

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

 

And please don't think badly of small families. Sorry, but it's a really, really hot button for me and most parents of onlies that I know.

 

astrid

[Aelwydd]

I get attacked because I made a statement based on what I have dealt with but yet when another made a very specific blanket statement they do not get attacked.

 

I guess I just can't state my opinion. I keep saying my opinion but it doesn't mean it is a fact. The other poster has her opinion as well. I am merely stating what I have seen in REAL life. :glare: bailing out of this thread now as I can't have an opinion based what I have seen.

I really do not understand why two are attacking me but another poster made a very blanket statement against quiverfull families and she is not getting rebuked for it.:confused::confused:

 

Bye bye!

Holly

 

I objected to your statements, Holly. I didn't "attack" you, I disagreed with you. I made no statements about you, your family, or others that involved personal remarks or insults. Your opinion, on the other hand, about only children? Like my ds? Was absolutely insulting.

 

Regarding the Quiverful statements: I already said in my last post that it is a mistake to confuse the disagreements some have with Quiverful theology and teachings, as an overall dislike or disagreement with large families in general.

 

That would be like conflating the position of, "I think China's policy of one-child families is overbearing and violates human rights," with, "I think families with only one child are unhealthy and sad."

 

As far as I've seen, I haven't seen Joanne or others here, who disapprove of certain Quiverful teachings such as patriarchy, are carrying that disapproval over to all big families.

[Impish]

:confused::confused: Huh?

 

astrid

Saying that your kid developing psychological damage from being an only makes about as much sense as one of the Duggar kids is to snap from being raised in a large patriarchial home and climb a tower with a sniper rifle.

[Ginevra]

Here's the excerpt that speaks about internet access from "A Love That Multiplies" by JimBob and Michelle Duggar.

 

If the kids need to go to the open Internet to research something, they need an accountability partner to sit alongside them as they go on the web, and before they can begin, Mom or one of the older girls must type in the Internet-protection password. They're the only ones who know it.

 

Last year we acquired a few iPhones. They are handy and fun to use; we can check the bank balance or the ten-day weather forecast in an instant. But because they are Internet enabled, they also need to be password protected. The ones used by Dad and the boys don't have Safari or any other application that leads to a search engine. (Emphasis is mine - Quill)

 

To keep an iPhone safe from open Internet access, you have to thoroughly examine every application you are considering, as well as anything it links to and from. Even with the Safari web browser turned off, sometimes an ad on an application will lead to the open internet.

 

Weird, no?

[silliness7]

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 read this blog once upon a time when you linked it in another thread. It was disturbing. And I honestly don't know what to make of this woman.

 

Anyway, you've linked it twice in this thread. You say casualty (plural) but only link one casualty.

[Impish]

I don't find it weird...I'd say they're all abiding by the same rules/standards.

 

Of course, I don't even have a cell phone plan, let alone net access on one, so I don't see it as a big thing to be without to start with.

[astrid]

Doesn't sound like there's a lot of trust there.

 

astrid

[CourtneyMI]

Im sorry but this whole "hate the Dggars" thing really irritates me. The last time I checked, it isn't for you or me or anyone else to judge someone based on their reiligous beliefs as long as no one is being abused or neglected in any way. Some people choose to have 20 kids, others choose to have 1. There isn't a wrong way or a right way to have a family and to tell someone different is disrespectful - in my opinion.

 

So the Duggars choose to have 20 kids and choose to be religious in the way their children are brought up. I don't judge them because they choose to do so. Their children seem to be healthy and well adjusted - especially in comparison to the self centered brats that seem to perpetuate from this society.

 

Conversely, I know many singe children households that produce well mannered, productive children who are a real asset to society. Who cares if the children play sports or not? Many children are not gifted in that aspect and have zero interest. I see that the Duggar kids are out en mass(e?) and exercise on a regular basis.

 

These children seem to know what it means to be a family (not saying that a single child household is any different because that is just not the case) and help out as a family. I believe this is one of the major failings of our society and if just one family can make a small difference in that dynamic, more power to them.

 

Just my two cents. Its free advice. You get what you pay for. :)

[Aelwydd]

Oh Holly! :grouphug: I think the people who you feel attacked by are feeling that they need to defend *their* lifestyles/parenting. As a third party I don't think any of you are attacking each other, but I see that you all feel attacked.

 

I know people in my family who are onlies and have had trouble b/c of the way they were raised and I know people in my family who come from big families and have had trouble b/c of their childhood experiences. (There are struggles in any family size. There are pros and cons to each -- it's just that the pros are usually *different.*)

 

I did feel offended! I'm not arguing that my family size is any better than someone else's; like I said, there are pros and cons to each situation. I just want the respect shown me that I show others about their family size. I don't believe there is anything unreasonable about that!

[Veritaserum]

I read this blog once upon a time when you linked it in another thread. It was disturbing. And I honestly don't know what to make of this woman.

 

Anyway, you've linked it twice in this thread. You say casualty (plural) but only link one casualty.

 

That site hosts stories from many different women, not just one.

[astrid]

My thoughts exactly, Audrey!

Yes, I do feel offended. I do not often feel that way here; I shrug and chalk it up to the beauty of differences.

 

But to say that my family is psychologically damaging? My kid self-centered and entitled? Many are jumping to defend large families, yet it seems okay to make blanket statements about only children.

 

That angers me.

 

astrid

[Ginevra]

I don't find it weird...I'd say they're all abiding by the same rules/standards.

 

Of course, I don't even have a cell phone plan, let alone net access on one, so I don't see it as a big thing to be without to start with.

 

I'd say they're not all abiding by the same rules/standards. Are females just inherently unlikely to fall "into temptation" by having access to the open Internet? Are males inherently likely?

 

I gave my dh an iPad for Christmas. It would never have entered my mind to turn his Safari off and password-protect HIS access to the internet. Actually, it's a complete absurdity to me.

 

By this standard Jana can go on the internet but her twin brother cannot.

[DawnM]

I am an only child.

 

I vowed not to only have one....although some days I wish I did! ;)

 

I don't feel entitled.

 

Dawn

 

I did feel offended! I'm not arguing that my family size is any better than someone else's; like I said, there are pros and cons to each situation. I just want the respect shown me that I show others about their family size. I don't believe there is anything unreasonable about that!

[Impish]

Perhaps I've been unclear, Astrid, but I was defending you/your child.

[silliness7]

I agree almost 100% with Ester Maria's two posts.

 

The Duggars fascinate me. And as far as the TV show goes, Lord knows there's enough carp on the tube that it's a relief to just watch a nice family of good-looking people who aren't sassy, self-centered, spendy jerks. I have watched many of their shows and I've read both of their books.

 

A lot of things about their family are admirable. A few things about their family do give me pause, the same things already mentioned by Ester Maria and a few other people.

 

But, to keep it in perspective, if I was depicted on a TV show and described all my parenting philosophies and practices in two books, I'm sure most people would say similarly - that we're admirable, but some things aren't so good.

 

And just as a PSA, they say in the recent book that they do not consider themselves part of "the quiverfull movement," though their beliefs are the same. I think they're just a little bewildered by that terminology because they were quiverful when quiverful wasn't a term.

 

The only thing I thought was extremely "out there" in the most recent book was the extreme limitations on internet access. In the book, Michelle says that the oldest girls have the passcode and that the family shares a few iphones but that they do not have Safari and "none of the boys, or Dad (JimBob) are allowed to have any App that takes them to the open internet" or a website with a search engine present. :blink: I understand evil things can be found, even accidentally, on the web, but....I cannot imagine restricting my husband's ability to utilize the internet independently, nor would I consider that necessary for boys in their upper teens.

 

I could try to get the actual quote off my Kindle if anyone is concerned that I'm mis-speaking.

 

My sister and her family feel this same way about the internet. They are not quiverful or patriarchal. They don't homeschool. Their church is quite ummm....progressive. My bil cannot get on the open internet, just predetermined sites. My sis has the password. Maybe they're moving towards a matriarchal view. :D

 

Anyway, I just wanted to point out a family I know IRL who lives this same way and really has nothing in common with the Duggars.

[Impish]

I'd say they're not all abiding by the same rules/standards. Are females just inherently unlikely to fall "into temptation" by having access to the open Internet? Are males inherently likely?

 

I gave my dh an iPad for Christmas. It would never have entered my mind to turn his Safari off and password-protect HIS access to the internet. Actually, it's a complete absurdity to me.

 

By this standard Jana can go on the internet but her twin brother cannot.

Perhaps I missed something.

 

I was thinking that ALL the kids have carefully monitored access, and that NOBODY has access on their Iphones, including the Dad. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

*going back to reread*

[astrid]

I get attacked because I made a statement based on what I have dealt with but yet when another made a very specific blanket statement they do not get attacked.

 

I guess I just can't state my opinion. I keep saying my opinion but it doesn't mean it is a fact. The other poster has her opinion as well. I am merely stating what I have seen in REAL life. :glare: bailing out of this thread now as I can't have an opinion based what I have seen.

I really do not understand why two are attacking me but another poster made a very blanket statement against quiverfull families and she is not getting rebuked for it.:confused::confused:

 

Bye bye!

Holly

 

Rebuked? I don't "rebuke." Not you, not anyone. I didn't attack you. I stated my opinion and my feeling, which is just as valid as yours.

If I went on and on about how awful I think large families are, and how rotten their kids turn out, would you not feel the need to defend your choice and children?

 

astrid

[Impish]

If the kids need to go to the open Internet to research something, they need an accountability partner to sit alongside them as they go on the web, and before they can begin, Mom or one of the older girls must type in the Internet-protection password. They're the only ones who know it.

 

Last year we acquired a few iPhones. They are handy and fun to use; we can check the bank balance or the ten-day weather forecast in an instant. But because they are Internet enabled, they also need to be password protected. The ones used by Dad and the boys don't have Safari or any other application that leads to a search engine. (Emphasis is mine - Quill)

 

To keep an iPhone safe from open Internet access, you have to thoroughly examine every application you are considering, as well as anything it links to and from. Even with the Safari web browser turned off, sometimes an ad on an application will lead to the open internet.

I reread, and I don't see where there is the statement that the girls are allowed free internet access, but the boys aren't. It says that everyone has an accountability partner, which would make sense why they don't have access on the phones.

[astrid]

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).

 

Yes. This. Exactly.

Thank you!

 

astrid

[astrid]

Perhaps I've been unclear, Astrid, but I was defending you/your child.

 

Ah, I get it now. Gotcha. Thanks, Imp! :001_smile:

 

astrid

[silliness7]

That site hosts stories from many different women, not just one.

 

Sorry. I only saw the one woman's story it was endless and took me til the wee morning hours. Time I won't get back. :glare: I guess I didn't have it in me to poke around anymore.

[Impish]

Ah, I get it now. Gotcha. Thanks, Imp! :001_smile:

 

astrid

*whew*

 

I was starting to worry.

[Melissa in Australia]

Never watched the Duggars at all,

Just wanted to state that we have the interned turned off on our mobile because it is too expensive. It clocks up $$$ in a very short time. I can only imagine if you had a gazillion children and they all had a mobile, you would have a HUGE bill.

[hmschooling]

I love this family, well sort of. But they kind of bug me at the same time. I mean, okay, they have a TON of kids but I think it's great that they don't rely on the government to help raise them and I think it's great that they don't have any debt etc. But what kind of bothers me is that the kids really.don't.do.anything. I mean, what if one of them wanted to play a team sport or even an indiviual sport...like tennis or something. I find it kind of strange that none of them want to or are they not allowed to? I tape the new shows and I was watching the last one just now. Jim Bob (okay he bugs the crap out of me) got on my nerves again. Michelle was actually spending time with one of the kids (I, personally don't think she spends enough time with her kids) and he wanted her to stop and help him proof read their latest book. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The book can wait, but Jordyn needs to spend some time with her MOTHER! It just seems that the kids are always (okay 95% of the time) working. Those poor older girls are really the mothers. I just wonder like why none of them play sports especially the boys...not that all of them have to play but come one, what boy (or girl) doesn't want to do some kind of extra curricular activity? I get that they like to play with each other but what about the teenaged boys? Hello? I really admire their work ethic in a huge way but I just think they are missing out on other things that are important too. I know it doesn't really matter, but it's just my observation and opinion!

 

We lived near them. My DH was a Firefighter and their oldest was a Vol FF at the time as well. Since then, the next son and two of the GIRLS are now Vol FF is what I hear from someone who knows them casually. They do play and play hard! My kids have played with theirs and none of them are bored or missing out on anything. I can assure you! Just like anyone would feel the shows don't show all the "bad" stuff, I promise it doesn't show all the good either. Those kids are a hoot! They work hard, they play hard. And they are soooo happy...and the little boys were a tad stubborn too, just like mine. ;) Now my kids on the other hand...they don't do sports teams and only WISH they had all these siblings!

[Ginevra]

Perhaps I missed something.

 

I was thinking that ALL the kids have carefully monitored access, and that NOBODY has access on their Iphones, including the Dad. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

*going back to reread*

 

All the kids have monitored access and I think nobody has access on their phones, but the older girls and Michelle have the passwords. Therefore, if Jana was tempted to misuse the internet, say when she's away on a trip, she could, it's possible, though I'm sure it's unlikely. But it's not possible for her TWIN brother. Or her own DAD. I find that weird, but I am more of the philosophy that kids need to grow into certain responsibilities. Obviously, they think more like prevent certain temptations from even being possible for as long as you can (the courting thing is another good example of this).

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a Duggar-hater. I love the Duggars and expressly admire some things they do. I am not anti-big family; I wish I had a good handful of kids. But out of things I would chalk up as odd, the zealous internet restrictions qualify.

[TechWife]

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.

 

I have actually seen the exact opposite. I have seen families of all sizes with children who have an entitlement mentality. It is directly related to the morals and resulting priorities of the family in which they are raised.

 

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).

Are you implying that I don't live a "real life" because I have one child? By the way, he isn't an "only." He is just right.

 

I guess it depends on what you consider an issue of selfishness. I have observed many children who have boundary issues when it comes to personal property. We run into issues in our neighborhood regularly & it is the children with siblings who think that everything is community property & take without asking. The children that do not have siblings know what is theirs and what isn't and don't assume that they have a right to what another child has.

 

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

I live in real life, too. You have already made a blanket statement.

[astrid]

Thank you.

 

astrid

[hmschooling]

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

:iagree:

And after having the pleasure of meeting a few of these young ladies, they are happy and enjoy their lives...not b/c they have no idea what they are missing, but b/c they have experienced SO MUCH! They are a team, the whole family, and what better life is there that to live in a home where you are loved and needed and treated as such... and not have to go play on a sports team to find that. I would prefer to have that time to spend with my kids, and I don't have time for my 3 that are old enough to play sports to actually go to practices and play. That would be SIX practices a week, plus 4-6 games every week or so!!!!! NOT A CHANCE! These kids aren't mistreated at all..they girls or the boys. They are loved by their parents and each other deeply. And they are just plain sweet to be around.

[jewellsmommy]

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 have found that in most religions the manifestation of beliefs, traditions, and practices widely vary from family to family. I am a conservative southern baptist. Some would categorize us a certain way. But, the application of faith in my family is way different than in other families.

 

And for the record I watched the episode where Jimbob said that rather or not they had more children was up to Michelle. Just because one believes and follows a particular religion, does not mean that you can know how they practice it in their family. Quiverful and patriarchy most certainly can be benign.

 

Sites like the one you post can be found as a result of other faiths too; Islam, LDS, other 'brands' of conservative Christianity, and Wicca. It would seem you can find these 'casualties' in almost every faith.

 

Not trying to be snarky, I just don't think you can assume much by a person's faith.

[Joanne]

I'm aware that pretty much EVERY religion has people who have been severely hurt and damaged. To single this out for a target to me, just seems wrong.

 

I mean, seriously. Can you really state that there haven't been spiritual abuse, physical abuse in other religons? I can think of several off the top of my head. Should we dredge those up whenever a family of the same religous faith comes up in conversation, and tar them all with the same brush?

 

I'm just tired of the generalizations that would be fodder for butt roasting if it were aimed anywhere else.

 

People twist things to give themselves power. Be it religion, financial control, etc. That's the fault of the individuals who are being abusive. Domestic violence happens, but we don't ban marriage, or state that marriage = domestic violence.

 

Imp, where is your logic? You are usually more grounded.

 

First, we are talking about the Duggars, who are either affiliated with or assumed to be part of the quiverful movement and (perhaps) patriarchy. I'm not talking about other religions because that is not the topic.

 

My responses in the thread aren't generalized criticisms of "religion" or "Christianity" or even a denomination of Christianity. I'm not making it up, or stretching a thing.

 

There are Christians. There are conservative Christians. Within the conservative Christian community is one sub-culture that is known as quiverful/patriarchial. Identifiers of that group are:

 

ATI materials/Bill Gothard

Certain style/conservative dress

Courtship, in a very conservative manner

An exagerated "Dad is the leader of the house" approach

Homeschooling

Homechurch

Letting God determine family size.

Punitive parenting

 

Within that community, there *are* dynamics that are unhealthy. One is a competitive spirit of having more kids, to the point of weaning to accelerate fertility. (There are unhealthy dynamics in the AP community, too, but, again, that is not what the thread is about).

 

Now, I have posted in this thread referencing the group of people from this statistically small group: a group of people who identify themselves as damaged by quiverful and patriarchy. I am not offering theory, "ideas", or generalizations. I am simply reporting that these people exist. They have web sites, support groups, mental health specialists and books.

 

Knowing what I do about the dynamic of quiverful and patriarchy, I can't support it and I don't like the Duggars.

[Nakia]

You would never know that I don't give a flip about the Duggars since I just read 15 pages of posts about them. :lol:

 

Can I just say that it is absurd to claim that an only child is going to grow up to be a spoiled brat who thinks the world owes them everything? I find it insulting that anyone would make such a blanket statement. My husband is an only, and he is one of the most kind and giving souls on the planet. His father raised him to work hard for everything, and he was never spoiled. He is a wonderful person. My feathers are a bit ruffled.