The Duggars

[Joanne]

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.

 

On the bold, I agree. But that's not what this thread is. I am just offering the fact that some people don't like the Duggars because they represent and/or a part of a group that has specific casualities, and a group of people who have been hurt by it.

 

I disagree that patriarchy can ever be benign. I'll only go as far as to say that it can exist on a continuum of dyshealth.

 

I don't understand why it's not ok to be anti-Duggar based on specifics of their choices. :confused: They put themselves on TV. :001_huh: I don't wish them ill; and I haven't said anything directly unkind or inflammatory about them.

 

I will now, though. ;) I found the first kiss @ the wedding to be icky.

[Nakia]

On the bold, I agree. But that's not what this thread is. I am just offering the fact that some people don't like the Duggars because they represent and/or a part of a group that has specific casualities, and a group of people who have been hurt by it.

 

I disagree that patriarchy can ever be benign. I'll only go as far as to say that it can exist on a continuum of dyshealth.

 

I don't understand why it's not ok to be anti-Duggar based on specifics of their choices. :confused: They put themselves on TV. :001_huh: I don't wish them ill; and I haven't said anything directly unkind or inflammatory about them.

 

I will now, though. ;) I found the first kiss @ the wedding to be icky.

 

I don't know if "icky" is the word I would use, but DANG! I thought he was going to eat her alive. There, I said it.

[RanchGirl]

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

 

I'm sorry, I don't know what ATI is but I do have an understanding of the quiverful and patriarchal movements. I don't watch the Duggars show often but IO have seen a few episodes in the last year or so. I saw one where JimBob was asked if they would have more children, he said something along the lines of "that's up to Michelle, I always leave it up to her. If she says we're done, we're done." And then they asked Michelle, and she did not rule out more. Neither said it was up to JimBob or that they would keep trying no matter what. JimBob always seems so respectful of Michelle, it's hard to picture him as patriarchal. Also I thought I read that in their new book they do state that they are not in the quiverful movement?

 

Since I'm assuming others have learned more about this than I have, would you say that was that not representative of their views? I really don't think I can enjoy the show anymore if they are truly quiverful and patriarchal or promoting the Pearl child abuse methods in any way, shape or form. Ick.

[jenncslp]

I can't believe I read through all those pages. :lurk5: I am always amazed at the emotions that the Duggars seem to bring up. I, personally, love watching them. In an era of TV that is filled with trash, I find them refreshing. I think that they probably model what many families were like "back in the day". They work hard, they love each other and the Lord. From what I've read and heard, they probably spend much more time with their children than the average person. They limit electronics, don't watch TV, except for educational videos, they just live and work together everyday. They even joked one time about spending less time making a TV show than the average family spends watching one.

 

I think they know what they believe and aren't afraid to stand up for it.

 

Oh, and in their first book, they did talk about toys and clutter. They have a lot of it, but Michelle said early on she worked on finding ways (bins/hidden) that they could hide it.

 

Jenn

[jewellsmommy]

On the bold, I agree. But that's not what this thread is. I am just offering the fact that some people don't like the Duggars because they represent and/or a part of a group that has specific casualities, and a group of people who have been hurt by it.

 

I disagree that patriarchy can ever be benign. I'll only go as far as to say that it can exist on a continuum of dyshealth.

 

I don't understand why it's not ok to be anti-Duggar based on specifics of their choices. :confused: They put themselves on TV. :001_huh: I don't wish them ill; and I haven't said anything directly unkind or inflammatory about them.

 

I will now, though. ;) I found the first kiss @ the wedding to be icky.

 

Please don't misunderstand...I don't care or mind if anyone is anti-Duggar or not. You're right, they are a public figures. Please feel free to speak your mind. :001_smile:

 

I can see being against the published fundamentals of a religious belief. There are many that I don't care for. But, I also know that some follow the parameters of their religion more loosely than others. I just thought some caution may be in order before pronouncing with such certainty that all the followers of this belief are dangerous and/or in danger. The post just came across so universally certain and left little room for the way individuals adapt, grow and bend their understandings, beliefs and faith to their individual lives. It just sort of struck me as saying that it is not possible t follow patriarchy/quiverfull in a healthy way. It just seems awful presumptuous to declare that.

 

I also don't like it when all homeschoolers are presumed to be conservative fanatics, when all muslims are presumed violent monsters, all LDS are presumed in a cult, all patriarchy is damaging to women, all wiccans are presumed to practice scary rituals.

 

I am sure that you are right and these beliefs, at their core, are damaging and wrong. But, can we not leave some room for those that can follow this and still be just a happy family. :001_smile:

[Momling]

I wouldn't go out of my way to watch the Duggars, but if it's on when I happen to turn on the TV, I enjoy watching it -- in the same way that I kind of like watching Hoarders or Toddlers and Tiaras or Lockup (which I think are all on the same channel). It's a life so different from mine...

 

My only concern about them... is what will happen when one of their children rebels or wants to wear pants or not have any children or questions their faith or wants to go off to a secular college or date somebody that JimBob doesn't like.. what if they're gay? I'm curious how the Duggars would approach this. I'd like to see that episode!

[Impish]

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.

I don't care if anyone likes the Duggars or not. I object to the gross generalization of patriarchial and quiverful families as being unhealthy/abusive. I'm not being illogical. Gross generalizations are illogical. It would be no different if someone claimed that ALL Mormons practiced polygamy. You're expressing a bias based on a small few stories, and applying it across the board. To me, that is illogical and ungrounded.

I disagree that patriarchy can ever be benign. I'll only go as far as to say that it can exist on a continuum of dyshealth.

 

.

So every single family that follows a patriarchial ideology is unhealthy. Nice.

[Sandsam]

I'm a huge Duggar fan. It's one of 2 shows I watch (the other is Deadliest Catch; go figure). I admire how the family functions, how well-behaved and helpful the children are, and how Michelle and JimBob clearly love each other. I too find the show refreshing. JimBob is a bit too howdy-doody for me, but I'd love to have Michelle as a friend. It's easy to bash them. They, however, don't ever bash anyone.

[I.Dup.]

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

 

The world should be so horribly raised.

 

:iagree:The disdain for the Duggars is ridiculous. I would have LOVED to have grown up in their family. I was an only child, btw.

 

I find it funny that the same people who make sweeping, broad generalizations about the Duggars (they are oppressed, don't get to do anything, the older children raise the younger ones, they must be miserable, they will be scarred for life, etc) get all up in arms if anyone mentions a thing about smaller families being negative. :glare:

 

AFA internet regulations, you can't do a search on google without hard core porn showing up. I find it a part of basic parental duty to strictly monitor internet access for our children and teens, and if our husbands want internet access lessened, all the better since men get sucked into porn all. the. time. Porn ruins lives, it ruins families. They've said they love the internet and it is one of the greatest technological advances of our time, but there are many dangers to it as well and I think they are just being wise. No woman should have to marry a man who has been caught up in porn, they're protecting their sons and their future daughters in law.

[OnTheBrink]

I think they're a neat family. Would I want their lifestyle? Nope. But its their lives and their choice on how they raise their family.

 

I don't know how deeply Gothardite they are. They don't use Gothard's homeschool materials. I think there was one episode in one of the early seasons about them going to an ATI conference, but I've not seen anything about that since then. They use SOS for the kids in 3rd (4th?) grade and up; the littles use workbooks. From what I could see, it looks like they use the workbooks you can get at Barnes and Noble or Sam's Club. I can't remember the name of them; they have blue covers. I've never seen anything about them that relates to the Pearls.

 

Anyway, I find them interesting. They take care of themselves and they seem happy and healthy. I think it would be fun to spend the day at their house!

[Aelwydd]

:iagree:The disdain for the Duggars is ridiculous. I would have LOVED to have grown up in their family. I was an only child, btw.

 

I find it funny that the same people who make sweeping, broad generalizations about the Duggars (they are oppressed, don't get to do anything, the older children raise the younger ones, they must be miserable, they will be scarred for life, etc) get all up in arms if anyone mentions a thing about smaller families being negative. :glare:[/Quote]

 

 

 

 

Excuse me, but I have stated at least twice on this thread, that I don't dislike them, or bear them ill will. I also stated that they seem to be decent folks, and that many of us live vicariously through them on their many trips, since even those of us with smaller families can't afford all those vacations. I also pointed out that there are pros and cons to both small and big families.

 

The only concern I have offered up related to the original intent of the thread, and that was whether their particular de-emphasis on any sports or clubs would possibly impede their attractiveness to future potential employers or universities. And that has nothing to do with their family size, and everything to do with their choice of how they raise their kids. At not point did I ever state, imply, or otherwise suggest that their children were less well-adjusted, less happy, or really less anything than other kids.

 

For my troubles, I have read comments about only children being labeled as selfish and less psychologically healthy than other children. And now, your unfair accusations.

 

 

You want to adjust your baseless generalizations, please?

[GardenTenders/Kim]

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

 

Me too. Wither by choice or chance many only have one child. How many LARGE families are in the Bible, are those listed an exception to the rule? I think Abraham and Sarah had but one..... but I guess Issac was "damaged" because he was an only child? Or at least that was the implication.

 

I never said that the Duggars were wrong, I just said what I have seen IRL has been a lack of parental oversight or raising of younger children, i.e., too much reliance on olders to raise youngers. Not just help mom change diapers or do laundry but to honestly take over raising the children.

 

I also doubt that the girls would be going on trips if they weren't on TV, but who knows. They are not reality. Reality is not like that for most families, big or small, unless their is another source for income besides daddy.

[mommaduck]

Me too. Wither by choice or chance many only have one child. How many LARGE families are in the Bible, are those listed an exception to the rule? I think Abraham and Sarah had but one..... but I guess Issac was "damaged" because he was an only child? Or at least that was the implication.

 

I never said that the Duggars were wrong, I just said what I have seen IRL has been a lack of parental oversight or raising of younger children, i.e., too much reliance on olders to raise youngers. Not just help mom change diapers or do laundry but to honestly take over raising the children.

 

I also doubt that the girls would be going on trips if they weren't on TV, but who knows. They are not reality. Reality is not like that for most families, big or small, unless their is another source for income besides daddy.

 

He wasn't an only child ;)

[Aelwydd]

He wasn't an only child ;)

 

Not strictly speaking, but due to Sarah's antipathy towards Ishmael, I doubt that there was a lot of brotherly love fostered between them. More likely, Isaac was raised as an only, especially given the several years between the two.

 

Also, as Samuel the Prophet was brought to the Temple when he was weaned, he was raised as an only child. John the Baptist was an only child, and according to the majority of Christian tradition, Jesus, Himself, was an only child.

[ozarkmom]

This thread cracked me up.:lol:

 

Yeah, I know the Duggars and they are real in every way and a great family. Does the TV show represent their whole idea of family life? Nope. TV is designed for entertainment. :tongue_smilie:

 

I remember getting to see Michelle's organization in her home when it was a 2000+ sq. ft. home at the time they only had 12 children.

It was a constant work in progress back then and Jim still helps her out a lot. Btw, He's made his money in real estate and other investments--he's a real entrepreneur. Currently they do a lot of speaking engagements, as well as write books.

 

Both Jim Bob and Michelle are on the same page in all areas of family life--parenting skills, financial decisions, goals for the family, etc, and they are consistent in these areas, too--that's the key to a strong family--being consistent together. They started their married life by having the same goals.

 

Michelle doesn't leave the child raising to the older kids. Any woman (or man) with a child or several children on their hands always appreciates another pair(s) of hands to help with any type of workload.

 

"Many hands make light work"--John Heywood, English Playwright and Poet, 1497-1580

 

:D

Edited July 8, 2011 by OzarkieArkie

[EthiopianFood]

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

 

:lol: :leaving:

[GardenTenders/Kim]

He wasn't an only child ;)

 

LOL Sarah's only child. :D

[hmschooling]

This thread cracked me up.:lol:

 

Yeah, I know the Duggars and they are real in every way and a great family. Does the TV show represent their whole idea of family life? Nope. TV is designed for entertainment. :tongue_smilie:

 

I remember getting to see Michelle's organization in her home when it was a 2000+ sq. ft. home at the time they only had 12 children.

It was a constant work in progress back then and Jim still helps her out a lot. Btw, He's made his money in real estate and other investments--he's a real entrepreneur. Currently they do a lot of speaking engagements, as well as write books.

 

Both Jim Bob and Michelle are on the same page in all areas of family life--parenting skills, financial decisions, goals for the family, etc, and they are consistent in these areas, too--that's the key to a strong family--being consistent together. They started their married life by having the same goals.

 

Michelle doesn't leave the child raising to the older kids. Any woman (or man) with a child or several children on their hands always appreciates another pair(s) of hands to help with any type of workload.

 

"Many hands make light work"--John Heywood, English Playwright and Poet, 1497-1580

 

:D

 

:iagree:

Having lived very near them, having my FIL visiting in their home, almost becoming their next door neighbor, emailing back and forth with Michelle about OB's that would do VBAC and her "reviews" of the hospitals/docs handling them (it was banned but I got it anyway:D) since we lived in the same area, chatting with them in person on more than one occasion, seeing their kids together, etc.... TV is TV...it's not the whole picture.

FWIW, I have only 4 kids and I am soooo mean. I make my kids....HELP WITH SIBLINGS and DO CHORES! Lots of them! :lol: They don't work, they don't play.

[GardenTenders/Kim]

Has anyone said helping with chores and siblings is wrong? :confused: I think children should have chores. I helped with my siblings. Helping is not wrong and only to be expected in a family.

 

I give up....:lol:

[YLVD]

:iagree:

 

My DD is not technically an only as she has three half brothers but she wasn't raised with any of them. Her dad is remarried and has two young boys. She sees them occasionally but she isn't super close with her dad.

 

As I've raised her in my home with no other kids, she's pretty much an only.

 

She's 15 years old and every year I have to pester her for her to tell me the presents that she wants for birthday or Christmas. She has never cared much, even at age 6 and 7. She asks me for virtually nothing.

 

She also "adopts" kids each year for Christmas and pays for them herself out of the bit of money she earns for extra chores, etc during the year.

 

Oh and she also volunteers at a senior center and loves it. She has wanted to do it for years and finally is old enough to do so.

 

We all think that our kids are amazing, but I'm pretty fair in my praise of her. I will say that my DD is hands down the most generous, giving and caring child I have ever met. I don't claim responsibility for this. I've raised her with love, lots of love. But, she has just always been this way. From her being in kindergarten and befriending all of the children that others were "afraid" of (severely disabled, etc), to her listening, holding hands and adoring the senior citizens she works with.

 

Okay, I'm done. :D I am so happy to have an only child..well, mostly an only child! She's told me a good 20 times how happy she is that I never had any more kids, lol

Edited July 8, 2011 by YLVD

[YLVD]

Has anyone said helping with chores and siblings is wrong? :confused: I think children should have chores. I helped with my siblings. Helping is not wrong and only to be expected in a family.

 

I give up....:lol:

 

Exactly

 

Chores are great and necessary IMO

 

Raising younger children, not great and not necessary

[LidiyaDawn]

 

I disagree that patriarchy can ever be benign. I'll only go as far as to say that it can exist on a continuum of dyshealth.

 

 

 

So even if a family is happy & thriving (as the Duggars appear to be), comfortable & content with their choices - you'd label them as unhealthy because they choose to hold a patriarchal view? I don't understand that.

 

I *can* understand viewing SPECIFIC situations as unhealthy - a SPECIFIC family where there wasn't happiness, comfort, contentment, growth, etc etc…a SPECIFIC family where the patriarchal view was used to abuse or some such thing… but just 'all' families who carry that view? They all get tossed into the "dyshealth" bucket?

 

(is that actually a word?)

[Renee in NC]

Now I have this great desire to watch the show. Is it online anywhere?

 

ETA: I watched one of the documentaries about them way back when (before it was a regular TV show.) All I have to say is that Michelle looks GREAT now! And, I want a giant play set in my house!

Edited July 8, 2011 by Renee in FL

[Heather in Neverland]

So even if a family is happy & thriving (as the Duggars appear to be), comfortable & content with their choices - you'd label them as unhealthy because they choose to hold a patriarchal view? I don't understand that.

 

I *can* understand viewing SPECIFIC situations as unhealthy - a SPECIFIC family where there wasn't happiness, comfort, contentment, growth, etc etc…a SPECIFIC family where the patriarchal view was used to abuse or some such thing… but just 'all' families who carry that view? They all get tossed into the "dyshealth" bucket?

 

(is that actually a word?)

 

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

[Ginevra]

Please don't misunderstand...I don't care or mind if anyone is anti-Duggar or not. You're right, they are a public figures. Please feel free to speak your mind. :001_smile:

 

I can see being against the published fundamentals of a religious belief. There are many that I don't care for. But, I also know that some follow the parameters of their religion more loosely than others. I just thought some caution may be in order before pronouncing with such certainty that all the followers of this belief are dangerous and/or in danger. The post just came across so universally certain and left little room for the way individuals adapt, grow and bend their understandings, beliefs and faith to their individual lives. It just sort of struck me as saying that it is not possible t follow patriarchy/quiverfull in a healthy way. It just seems awful presumptuous to declare that.

 

I also don't like it when all homeschoolers are presumed to be conservative fanatics, when all muslims are presumed violent monsters, all LDS are presumed in a cult, all patriarchy is damaging to women, all wiccans are presumed to practice scary rituals.

 

I am sure that you are right and these beliefs, at their core, are damaging and wrong. But, can we not leave some room for those that can follow this and still be just a happy family. :001_smile:

 

:iagree: Joanne, you seem overly visceral on this subject.

 

I know a lot of families who do a lot of things that are not what I do and not what I believe, but that doesn't make them fundamentally unhealthy and emotionally damaged.

 

Everything I've seen with Duggars (which is a lot) shows JimBob as incredibly loving and a great example of a man who loves his wife "as Christ loves the church." The family does believe in male headship, but I have never seen anything to indicate that he lords it over her or is abusive in the execution. I do not embrace the concept of patriarchy, but I would never presume that ALL patriarchal families are somewhere on the spectrum of dysfunction.

 

 

My only concern about them... is what will happen when one of their children rebels or wants to wear pants or not have any children or questions their faith or wants to go off to a secular college or date somebody that JimBob doesn't like.. what if they're gay? I'm curious how the Duggars would approach this. I'd like to see that episode!

 

I have wondered this, too.

 

I think they're a neat family. Would I want their lifestyle? Nope. But its their lives and their choice on how they raise their family.

 

I don't know how deeply Gothardite they are. They don't use Gothard's homeschool materials. I think there was one episode in one of the early seasons about them going to an ATI conference, but I've not seen anything about that since then. They use SOS for the kids in 3rd (4th?) grade and up; the littles use workbooks. From what I could see, it looks like they use the workbooks you can get at Barnes and Noble or Sam's Club. I can't remember the name of them; they have blue covers. I've never seen anything about them that relates to the Pearls.

 

Anyway, I find them interesting. They take care of themselves and they seem happy and healthy. I think it would be fun to spend the day at their house!

 

Yes, they do. They use "Wisdom booklets" and have promoted them again and again in their books and on the show. ATI is in their Resources section of their recent book. Josh and Anna met at an ATI conference. They *are* supporters of ATI.

 

I have not seen them promote the Pearls ever by name or association. Michelle does mention blanket training; I don't know if that is a Pearl thing or not. I actually thought it was an Ezzo thing. Personally, I think blanket training is brilliant and would do it if I had another child. I have never, ever heard her promote, say, switching the babies with plastic tubing to get them to stay on the blanket.

 

Has anyone said helping with chores and siblings is wrong? :confused: I think children should have chores. I helped with my siblings. Helping is not wrong and only to be expected in a family.

 

I give up....:lol:

 

Yeah, I'm with you. My children help with siblings (though I only have 3 to raise). If I had 6 or 7 kids, they would help with siblings more than they do at this time, but helping is not the same as having an older sibling be such the go-to "nanny" that the kids are being "helped" by a sibling when they are throwing up or when they get lost in an airport. Two episodes of the show that depicted those scenarios bothered me. If my toddler was sick and vomiting, I would absolutely expect to be their first resource. It would disturb me if they naturally gravitated to a sibling instead. Same with Jackson, who got lost in the airport. When he was back with the family, he was sitting on Jana's (or maybe Jill's) lap, sobbing, while you could see Michelle vaguely in the background. That bothered me. It makes me think of families where the paid nanny is more emotionally connected to the children than the mothers are. The children seek help and comfort from the "buddy" who is raising them, which does seem wrong to me.

 

So even if a family is happy & thriving (as the Duggars appear to be), comfortable & content with their choices - you'd label them as unhealthy because they choose to hold a patriarchal view? I don't understand that.

 

I *can* understand viewing SPECIFIC situations as unhealthy - a SPECIFIC family where there wasn't happiness, comfort, contentment, growth, etc etc…a SPECIFIC family where the patriarchal view was used to abuse or some such thing… but just 'all' families who carry that view? They all get tossed into the "dyshealth" bucket?

 

(is that actually a word?)

 

:iagree: I cannot see lumping ALL people of a certain group together.

[Janie Grace]

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

 

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

 

We have some Gothard-subscribing friends and my sense is that toys are sort of frowned upon except for the very little children. Older children are given "real" gifts of pocket knives, Bibles, items for hope chests for girls, etc. The children play games and read, but rarely "play" (Legos or other things). This family runs a farm so the kids are working or schooling most of the day.

 

It bothers me. I think there is much to be gained from having time that is spent playing, even for "big kids"!

[DawnM]

The episode where one of the older girls stayed home to watch the younget siblings while JB and the older kids went to clean a house they had purchased shows toys. They have big toy bins in the room with the slide, foosball, ping pong table, etc....

 

I think they have them, they just try not to have too much clutter while the cameras are rolling would be my guess.

 

And really, there is a slide and a climbing wall IN THE HOUSE as well as a ping pong table and some other items.....I really don't think they are hurting for play.

 

They sled, swing, run around and have ride on toys.

 

Dawn

 

We have some Gothard-subscribing friends and my sense is that toys are sort of frowned upon except for the very little children. Older children are given "real" gifts of pocket knives, Bibles, items for hope chests for girls, etc. The children play games and read, but rarely "play" (Legos or other things). This family runs a farm so the kids are working or schooling most of the day.

 

It bothers me. I think there is much to be gained from having time that is spent playing, even for "big kids"!

[LuvToRead]

I have only seen the show once, so I don't know much about the Duggars.

Is it possible Jim Bob doesn't want internet on his phone? Or did Michelle say he can't have it? To me, the quote just said Jim Bob doesn't have internet on his phone. It doesn't go into detail on why he doesn't.

 

My DH does not want internet on his phone, and he rarely uses it at home. Also, I am the password keeper, not because I won't allow DH the passwords, but because it's just easier that I do it. Every time my DH logs onto our internet banking, which is once a year, I have to remind him of the password.

 

So I guess the fact that Jim Bob doesn't have internet on his phone doesn't seem weird to me. But if he isn't allowed it, well then, I might feel differently.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

I'm not getting this thread.

Here is a family that appears to be healthy, loving, and thriving yet some of you think they are going about raising their children wrong.

:glare:

[Ginevra]

I have only seen the show once, so I don't know much about the Duggars.

Is it possible Jim Bob doesn't want internet on his phone? Or did Michelle say he can't have it? To me, the quote just said Jim Bob doesn't have internet on his phone. It doesn't go into detail on why he doesn't.

 

My DH does not want internet on his phone, and he rarely uses it at home. Also, I am the password keeper, not because I won't allow DH the passwords, but because it's just easier that I do it. Every time my DH logs onto our internet banking, which is once a year, I have to remind him of the password.

 

So I guess the fact that Jim Bob doesn't have internet on his phone doesn't seem weird to me. But if he isn't allowed it, well then, I might feel differently.

 

It is entirely possible that he does not want it on his phone. My sense of it (which could be wrong) was that they agreed together that Internet access is a "temptation" and so they would ALL have as little access as possible. I would highly, highly doubt that JB said, "Can I have it, please?" and Michelle said, "NO! That's final." ;) But the gist of the entire passage in the book was that the Internet is full of "temptations," so as an entire family, they block it as much as possible while still having it to begin with. To me, that is an extreme position, but obviously, they are not strangers to the extreme. :D It just seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It seems a little like, say, not buying a prescription medicine at CVS because they also sell "Maxim" magazine.

 

Personally, I prefer my children learn to use the web appropriately as they come into their teens because I don't expect to be able to keep passwords on their computers until the day they marry, which I rather hope is not at age 19. I also think I would be *more* worried if dh seemed to think it was inherently too "tempting" to have free access to the web. Now, if he just didn't care (and this is nearly the case, as my dh is a tool-and-backhoe kind of guy) and so he never got around to learning the password, that would be different, but if I, or we together, just agreed that it was too "tempting" to have internet access...well, it's weird to me. :tongue_smilie:

[DawnM]

I *think* the double standard is because they feel men are too weak in the area of sex and may not be able to control themselves.

 

I know when they went to NYC they said that anytime they saw a woman with a low neckline they yelled a code word (I think it was Coca-Cola) so that all the boys would look at the ground.

 

Then when the older girls were training for firefighting or to be a Parametic or whatever they realized there were no skirts for them, so they bought pants and sewed them into skirts. One of the comments on that episode was that men are so easily "turned on" (my words, not theirs) that wearing pants just adds to the turn on (again, my words) so they choose to wear skirts to keep men's minds pure.

 

Now, personally, I don't agree with any of the above....but that was the premise.

 

I would think that the internet usage probably goes along with this line of thinking.

 

Dawn

 

I have only seen the show once, so I don't know much about the Duggars.

Is it possible Jim Bob doesn't want internet on his phone? Or did Michelle say he can't have it? To me, the quote just said Jim Bob doesn't have internet on his phone. It doesn't go into detail on why he doesn't.

 

My DH does not want internet on his phone, and he rarely uses it at home. Also, I am the password keeper, not because I won't allow DH the passwords, but because it's just easier that I do it. Every time my DH logs onto our internet banking, which is once a year, I have to remind him of the password.

 

So I guess the fact that Jim Bob doesn't have internet on his phone doesn't seem weird to me. But if he isn't allowed it, well then, I might feel differently.

[Kelly1730]

My only concern about them... is what will happen when one of their children rebels or wants to wear pants or not have any children or questions their faith or wants to go off to a secular college or date somebody that JimBob doesn't like.. what if they're gay? I'm curious how the Duggars would approach this. I'd like to see that episode!

 

 

I don't know how they would handle a child of theirs going a different direction (do any of us really know how we would react to something until we are faced with it?) But, I do know that JimBob's sister's family has done things quite differently than the Duggar's have and they seem to have a wonderful relationship.

[Joanne]

:iagree: Joanne, you seem overly visceral on this subject.

 

I know a lot of families who do a lot of things that are not what I do and not what I believe, but that doesn't make them fundamentally unhealthy and emotionally damaged.

 

Everything I've seen with Duggars (which is a lot) shows JimBob as incredibly loving and a great example of a man who loves his wife "as Christ loves the church." The family does believe in male headship, but I have never seen anything to indicate that he lords it over her or is abusive in the execution. I do not embrace the concept of patriarchy, but I would never presume that ALL patriarchal families are somewhere on the spectrum of dysfunction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Danielle,

 

Please show me where I have been "visceral" on the specific topic of the Duggars? Show me one post in which I talked, specifically, about them, their personality, etc?

 

I wholeheartedly disagree with quiverful/patriarchy. I do not believe in a paradigm in which any adult is subservient based on gender. I believe the power differential = unhealthy.

[Joanne]

So even if a family is happy & thriving (as the Duggars appear to be), comfortable & content with their choices - you'd label them as unhealthy because they choose to hold a patriarchal view? I don't understand that.

 

I *can* understand viewing SPECIFIC situations as unhealthy - a SPECIFIC family where there wasn't happiness, comfort, contentment, growth, etc etc…a SPECIFIC family where the patriarchal view was used to abuse or some such thing… but just 'all' families who carry that view? They all get tossed into the "dyshealth" bucket?

 

(is that actually a word?)

 

I don't know that the Duggars are happy, thriving, or not. You can't judge one way or another from "reality" TV.

 

I know that I'm still allowed to feel (and post) that I believe patriarchy is damaging in any form. :glare:

[Ginevra]

Danielle,

 

Please show me where I have been "visceral" on the specific topic of the Duggars? Show me one post in which I talked, specifically, about them, their personality, etc?

 

I wholeheartedly disagree with quiverful/patriarchy. I do not believe in a paradigm in which any adult is subservient based on gender. I believe the power differential = unhealthy.

 

I meant visceral on the subject of patriarchy/quiverful. You are presuming that ALL families who agree with male headship are on a continuum of "dyshealth." Since that presumption is fundamentally illogical, I find your reaction to patriarchy visceral. It is no different from people who feel that ALL Attachment-Parents are weak-will pushovers, or ALL homeschoolers are back-woods Bible-thumpers who shelter their children or any other sweeping generalization.

 

I typically love you in the cyber-sense; many of your parenting views are brilliant and spot-on. But I think something about male-headship is just too inflammatory a topic for you. You cannot know the inner workings of every family who agrees with male headship. It is illogical to lump them all together because you have seen or known people who have been harmed by this philosophy.

[Nestof3]

Has anyone said helping with chores and siblings is wrong? :confused: I think children should have chores. I helped with my siblings. Helping is not wrong and only to be expected in a family.

 

I give up....:lol:

 

I think there are two thoughts to chores -- oh, ok. Probably a gray area in between, but here are the two poles, so to speak.

 

1. Has a chore chart perhaps, does dishwasher, makes bed, sets table, cleans up after himself sometimes, maybe cleans the bathroom and feeds the cat. Parents feels like if child does one or two things aside from cleaning up after one's self, that's enough. They contribute to the family only when asked, for the most part, and actually argue about or complain about doing anything beyond the minimum.

 

2. Parent's job is to train children in academics, practical maintenance of house and vehicle, how to care for children. These parents feel that children learn how to care for and provide for a family by actually practicing it. They also believe it makes the family closer and stronger. Young ladies and men learn how to homeschool by helping out with it. For these families, it's a way of educating their children. Many young ladies desire to be stay-at-home moms when they grow up. There is nothing wrong with aspiring to that.

[Joanne]

I meant visceral on the subject of patriarchy/quiverful. You are presuming that ALL families who agree with male headship are on a continuum of "dyshealth." Since that presumption is fundamentally illogical, I find your reaction to patriarchy visceral. It is no different from people who feel that ALL Attachment-Parents are weak-will pushovers, or ALL homeschoolers are back-woods Bible-thumpers who shelter their children or any other sweeping generalization.

 

I typically love you in the cyber-sense; many of your parenting views are brilliant and spot-on. But I think something about male-headship is just too inflammatory a topic for you. You cannot know the inner workings of every family who agrees with male headship. It is illogical to lump them all together because you have seen or known people who have been harmed by this philosophy.

 

Ok. I understand what you are saying now. I have to continue to own my views that patriarchy, in any form, is never healthy.

 

I'd like to explain a distinction, as I see it, though. I don't believe that AP is inherently flawed. I don't believe homeschooling is inherently flawed. However, AP does have a percentage of their population that have a list of characteristics/behavior this is unhealthy. Homeschoolers do, also.

 

I believe that patriarchy is inherently flawed. That's the difference for me. My feelings aren't because there are a group of people hurt by it. I believe the group of people exist because it is an inherently flawed paradgim.

 

Thanks for the respectful post. :)

[Nestof3]

I would imagine the dad puts this limitation on himself (perhaps he has had p*rn addiction in the past or he doesn't want it to even be an issue -- I don't know). I imagine the parents put this limitation on their boys. I have a 21 year old son with friends. One of his friends was so addicted, he made my son carry his battery with him so he could only have access while at school. These years prior to marriage can be really hard on a guy who has had sexual urges since he was 12 or so. I don't know a single young many who hasn't gone online if having the chance to view p*rn. I know many married men who reach for it instead of their wives. My husband even stopped going to Fox News because they always had ads with Sports Illustrated links.

 

I've never known a single woman addicted to p*rn. Some college girls and I saw some Playgirl mags in college, and it was all funny. I don't think any of us sneaked into the bathroom with it. But, we sure loved a good romance movie. ;)

 

Moms with boys, if you think your sons aren't going to go looking, I think you're kidding yourself.

 

QUOTE=Quill;2908651]

 

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.

[unsinkable]

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm with you. My children help with siblings (though I only have 3 to raise). If I had 6 or 7 kids, they would help with siblings more than they do at this time, but helping is not the same as having an older sibling be such the go-to "nanny" that the kids are being "helped" by a sibling when they are throwing up or when they get lost in an airport. Two episodes of the show that depicted those scenarios bothered me. If my toddler was sick and vomiting, I would absolutely expect to be their first resource. It would disturb me if they naturally gravitated to a sibling instead. Same with Jackson, who got lost in the airport. When he was back with the family, he was sitting on Jana's (or maybe Jill's) lap, sobbing, while you could see Michelle vaguely in the background. That bothered me. It makes me think of families where the paid nanny is more emotionally connected to the children than the mothers are. The children seek help and comfort from the "buddy" who is raising them, which does seem wrong to me.

 

 

 

I felt similarly about the show when the baby Josie had the seizure and was hopitalized. Michelle and JB were out of the country and when they arrived at the hospital a few days later (after the baby was doing much better) the baby had little to no reaction upon seeing Michelle. I played it back a few times because I was so surprised that the baby didn't smile or brighten up when she saw her parents, particularly her mom.

Edited July 8, 2011 by unsinkable

[6packofun]

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

 

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

 

I think that's all fine and good, if motherhood is the future that every one of their daughters would like, but it makes me sad that it seems (from the episodes I've watched) like the girls are so focused on doing what their mother does. Yep, it's pretty good practice to have to raise your siblings, but I wonder if the parents have ever thought that maybe God has plans aside from marriage for some of their GIRLS? I don't *think* they are a no-college-for-daughters family, but only because I can't watch their show and don't keep up with those details.

 

Have Michelle or Jim Bob ever been seen discussing the future with their kids? I'm basing these thoughts only on what I have seen, so I'm curious. Maybe that's pesonal and they don't want it shown on tv--there is a lot we don't see or hear, of course. Have any of the girls left home yet?

 

I think I get touchy about parents whose greatest hope for their daughters is that they'll find a young man right away and/or repeat what THEY'VE done. Little thought is given to what might happen if God's will for a young lady is to stay single, not put herself under the authority of a man the second she steps out into the world, and keep GOD alone in charge of her life (no daddy, either!) and follow wherever HE tells her to go.

[Nestof3]

It's not like the training is wasted. I mean, you can teach a guy (or girl) to maintain and do light repair on a vehicle, but the person may never perform their own vehicle maintenance after that. My brother is like that. He makes enough money that he will never be caught changing his own oil or even changing out spark plugs.

 

I know one woman (in her early 50's now) and one in her late 30's who never got married. The former adopted two children on her own, the latter works with children in South America as a missionary. Chances are the Duggar girls WILL get married or care for children. Even my brother whose wife claimed my kids were good birth control for them and who swore she'd never have kids ended up having two.

 

I think that's all fine and good, if motherhood is the future that every one of their daughters would like, but it makes me sad that it seems (from the episodes I've watched) like the girls are so focused on doing what their mother does. Yep, it's pretty good practice to have to raise your siblings, but I wonder if the parents have ever thought that maybe God has plans aside from marriage for some of their GIRLS? I don't *think* they are a no-college-for-daughters family, but only because I can't watch their show and don't keep up with those details.

 

Have Michelle or Jim Bob ever been seen discussing the future with their kids? I'm basing these thoughts only on what I have seen, so I'm curious. Maybe that's pesonal and they don't want it shown on tv--there is a lot we don't see or hear, of course. Have any of the girls left home yet?

 

I think I get touchy about parents whose greatest hope for their daughters is that they'll find a young man right away and/or repeat what THEY'VE done. Little thought is given to what might happen if God's will for a young lady is to stay single, not put herself under the authority of a man the second she steps out into the world, and keep GOD alone in charge of her life (no daddy, either!) and follow wherever HE tells her to go.

Edited July 8, 2011 by nestof3

[silliness7]

So I guess the fact that Jim Bob doesn't have internet on his phone doesn't seem weird to me. But if he isn't allowed it, well then, I might feel differently.

 

Does anyone else see the irony? The Duggars are bashed for being patriachal but in the same thread eyebrows are raised because Michelle doesn't let JimBob have internet.

Well I"m :lol::lol:

Is it possible that we don't have nearly enough information about them (despite them being on TV) to be able to make any accurate judgements about their marriage and their parenting? Just throwing that out there.

 

I've already exposed my bias...They look like a nice family to me. And my very un-Duggar-like sister and bil handle the internet in this same way.

[Nestof3]

Does anyone else see the irony? The Duggars are bashed for being patriachal but in the same thread eyebrows are raised because Michelle doesn't let JimBob have internet.

Well I"m :lol::lol:

Is it possible that we don't have nearly enough information about them (despite them being on TV) to be able to make any accurate judgements about their marriage and their parenting? Just throwing that out there.

 

I've already exposed my bias...They look like a nice family to me. And my very un-Duggar-like sister and bil handle the internet in this same way.

 

:lol:

[Impish]

I don't know that the Duggars are happy, thriving, or not. You can't judge one way or another from "reality" TV.

 

I know that I'm still allowed to feel (and post) that I believe patriarchy is damaging in any form. :glare:

But you're assuming based on their beliefs, not on any actual evidence.

I meant visceral on the subject of patriarchy/quiverful. You are presuming that ALL families who agree with male headship are on a continuum of "dyshealth." Since that presumption is fundamentally illogical, I find your reaction to patriarchy visceral. It is no different from people who feel that ALL Attachment-Parents are weak-will pushovers, or ALL homeschoolers are back-woods Bible-thumpers who shelter their children or any other sweeping generalization.

:iagree:

[NanceXToo]

Is it possible that Jim Bob doesn't have Internet access because HE doesn't think males should have that temptation and he TOLD Michelle to put passcodes on the phone? (As opposed to Michelle "not allowing" it)?

[SweetMissMagnolia]

have watched the DUGGERS for the past few years now and still don't think I have them all figured out---I too think about the older girls being "extra moms" to the younger kids but then a couple of the oldest are doing other things-I think a couple of the girls belong to the vol fire dept-and another is doing study for midwifery.....but yeah wonder if the girls are given too much mothering responsability---but then agree with what we see on TV isn't the whole picture of that family.......

[missmoe]

The only concern I have offered up related to the original intent of the thread, and that was whether their particular de-emphasis on any sports or clubs would possibly impede their attractiveness to future potential employers or universities. QUOTE]

 

I think they have enough other experiences in life to make up for the lack of sports on an application for work or school.

 

I know the boys and girls work quite a bit--for Jim Bob and themselves which could go on an application.

 

And all of them are quite well trained musically and have performed in public many times. That would also look quite good on applications. As would their travel and mission trips.

 

So no, I don't believe their de-emphasis on sports would hurt them in that regard.

[Ginevra]

I think that's all fine and good, if motherhood is the future that every one of their daughters would like, but it makes me sad that it seems (from the episodes I've watched) like the girls are so focused on doing what their mother does. Yep, it's pretty good practice to have to raise your siblings, but I wonder if the parents have ever thought that maybe God has plans aside from marriage for some of their GIRLS? I don't *think* they are a no-college-for-daughters family, but only because I can't watch their show and don't keep up with those details.

 

Have Michelle or Jim Bob ever been seen discussing the future with their kids? I'm basing these thoughts only on what I have seen, so I'm curious. Maybe that's pesonal and they don't want it shown on tv--there is a lot we don't see or hear, of course. Have any of the girls left home yet?

 

I think I get touchy about parents whose greatest hope for their daughters is that they'll find a young man right away and/or repeat what THEY'VE done. Little thought is given to what might happen if God's will for a young lady is to stay single, not put herself under the authority of a man the second she steps out into the world, and keep GOD alone in charge of her life (no daddy, either!) and follow wherever HE tells her to go.

 

In the book, they talk about how they view roles of women, men and careers. They say they do not prevent their children or girls from pursuing career training. They are discouraging about "going away to college" as a paradigm; I think this applies to either gender. They advocate an on-line college for general studies, which could be transferred for advanced studies. I did not get the impression that any daughters (or many none of them yet, boys or girls) had actually completed College Plus on-line or had obtained any degrees.

 

They do subscribe to the idea that daughters are under their father's authority until they are under their husband's authority. I disagree very strongly with this viewpoint, but...live and let live. None of the daughters have left home yet and it appears to me that if they did not find someone to marry, they would continue to live at home under JB's "authority."

 

My own parents subscribed to some of Gothard's views and I infer that the Duggars are similar to my own parents WRT female careers. My parents did not actively prevent the girls from going to college or pursuing a career, but they subtly discouraged it. They never encouraged any thoughts of college or career. I think it was disadvantageous. They could have done worse, but they could have done better. I think the Duggars are the same. I don't get the impression that they are rallying any daughter towards a career; just that they would tolerate it if they came up with the idea on their own. I do think they would possibly oppose *some* career choices if the career placed their daughters over men in authority or if the career was incompatible with SAHM and homeschooling. In the book, they suggested for example that they would be fine with their girls being nurses or something similar.

 

Ok. I understand what you are saying now. I have to continue to own my views that patriarchy, in any form, is never healthy.

 

I'd like to explain a distinction, as I see it, though. I don't believe that AP is inherently flawed. I don't believe homeschooling is inherently flawed. However, AP does have a percentage of their population that have a list of characteristics/behavior this is unhealthy. Homeschoolers do, also.

 

I believe that patriarchy is inherently flawed. That's the difference for me. My feelings aren't because there are a group of people hurt by it. I believe the group of people exist because it is an inherently flawed paradgim.

 

Thanks for the respectful post. :)

 

Okay, I get that. I disagree; I don't see patriarchy as an inherently flawed structure, but I can see that we simply differ there.

[Ginevra]

Does anyone else see the irony? The Duggars are bashed for being patriachal but in the same thread eyebrows are raised because Michelle doesn't let JimBob have internet.

Well I"m :lol::lol:

Is it possible that we don't have nearly enough information about them (despite them being on TV) to be able to make any accurate judgements about their marriage and their parenting? Just throwing that out there.

 

I've already exposed my bias...They look like a nice family to me. And my very un-Duggar-like sister and bil handle the internet in this same way.

 

Yes, I did notice that. It is pretty funny.

[missmoe]

I think I get touchy about parents whose greatest hope for their daughters is that they'll find a young man right away and/or repeat what THEY'VE done. Little thought is given to what might happen if God's will for a young lady is to stay single, not put herself under the authority of a man the second she steps out into the world, and keep GOD alone in charge of her life (no daddy, either!) and follow wherever HE tells her to go

 

The Duggers have said if any of their child wanted to go to college they would work out a way to make that happen. They also said that is not their focus, but rather are preparing their child to be self-supporting without any debt.

 

And again--where is this viewpoint coming from that we know how the Duggers feel about what their daughters do? Have they come out and stated such?