The Duggars

[Joanne]

[quote name=missmoe;2909907

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' date=' but rather are preparing their child to be self-supporting without any debt.[/b]

 

?

 

The bold is the one part I've always respected about the Duggars, from their very first TV special.

[tadbhoward]

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

 

 

 

Weird, no?

 

Not really. My dh does this to his internet capable phone of his own accord b/c of his struggles with inappropriate images.

[Veritaserum]

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)?

 

I think that's far more likely than Michelle doing it on her own.

[LuvToRead]

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.

 

I was trying to point out in my post that maybe JimBob doesn't have internet on his phone because he doesn't want it. His decision may have nothing to do with Michelle. It's hard to tell from just that one quote. But, if he really wants it, and Michelle has said no, you can't have it, it still isn't strange to me, but it would make me think differently on the matter.

[YLVD]

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'm not her but I will butt in here and say yes, I believe that patriarchy is unhealthy in all situations, especially for children.

[mommaduck]

It is not uncommon for certain sects to limit access to the internet for males. You would not believe the amount of porn issues some of the men in some of these sects have. So this is their way of either being kept accountable or avoid any possible accusation (being "above reproach").

 

I've known many wives that have their computer on lockdown, have the password, and have certain software to both limit and monitor internet activity. Personally, I can't imagine having that kind of trust issue with my spouse nor showing any trust. But such is reality for many women and the choice of some men.

[YLVD]

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.

 

:iagree:

 

You summed this up perfectly. It is an imbalance of power. My being subservient because I'm a woman is absurd and I could never subscribe to that.

[Joanne]

:iagree:

 

You summed this up perfectly. It is an imbalance of power. My being subservient because I'm a woman is absurd and I could never subscribe to that.

 

Or teach the same to my sons or daughters. :confused::001_huh:

[Jennifer3141]

Or teach the same to my sons or daughters. :confused::001_huh:

 

Not only teach it but I cannot have friends/peers like that in our lives. I will not allow my children to even SEE it at this point in their lives so we've never seen one episode of the Duggars.

 

I'm also just not hip to the idea of people raising their kids on TV. It's unhealthy and disturbing. I do not believe you should be allowed to profit from simply being a parent. It's creepy.

[mamajudy]

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.

:iagree:This is exactly what I've been thinking. Children who are raised in larger families understand that they are not the center of the universe. They know how to thnk about others. To say that these kids are being "damaged" as a previoes poster said, is being rather harsh. Our present 2 child per family culture is a relatively new thing. (and, I might add, not natural)

Now, on to read the other posts!

[mamajudy]

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

:iagree:

[Koerarmoca]

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?)

 

Because we follow the bible and my husband is the Head of our home and marriage we must be in the "dyshealth" Seriously?

Please don't lump all families that follow the Bible into some dysfunctional bucket I don't subscribe to any particular quiverful or patriarchal movement. But, I do believe that the husband is the spiritual leader of the home, and I do feel that all children are a blessing and if I could still have children I would but secondary infertility does happen :( I am not abused, brainwashed, etc. And I also have happy and well adjusted daughters who gasp do chores and help with siblings.

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 think it's quite possible too that Jim Bob and Michelle came to a decision together about the internet. They "lead by example" and maybe Jim Bob didn't want internet because he knows what it's like to be a young man faced with temptations. We have filters on our family computer more for safety. I don't worry about my husband on the net all he does is play pogo and poker :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.

 

:iagree:

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.

 

:iagree:

 

apparently I didn't multi quote everything I wanted to lol. I wanted to address the girls turning pants into skirts. This was for the "dress" uniform not the running into a blazing fire uniform. As much as I have advocated and taught my girls you can do anything in a skirt.. putting out fires is a pants only event :lol:

[mamajudy]

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. :)

:iagree::iagree:I respect the Duggars' right to live their lives as they choose. I've never seen the tv show, but I have read their book. I was very impressed by them. They have examined their lives and are living according to their convictions. If another family chooses to have one child, that is their own business.

[catz]

Not only teach it but I cannot have friends/peers like that in our lives. I will not allow my children to even SEE it at this point in their lives so we've never seen one episode of the Duggars.

 

I'm also just not hip to the idea of people raising their kids on TV. It's unhealthy and disturbing. I do not believe you should be allowed to profit from simply being a parent. It's creepy.

 

:iagree: This is exactly how I feel about it.

[twoforjoy]

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

 

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

[silliness7]

It is not uncommon for certain sects to limit access to the internet for males. You would not believe the amount of porn issues some of the men in some of these sects have. So this is their way of either being kept accountable or avoid any possible accusation (being "above reproach").

 

I've known many wives that have their computer on lockdown, have the password, and have certain software to both limit and monitor internet activity. Personally, I can't imagine having that kind of trust issue with my spouse nor showing any trust. But such is reality for many women and the choice of some men.

 

If wife is taking the role of accountability partner instead of jealous lover that's not really a lack of trust issue, imo. If a husband wants to minimize temptation or be "above reproach" and engages his wife's help in the matter, on the contrary, I think it shows a great deal of trust.

[YLVD]

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.

 

This is how I feel about it. Not everyone, man or woman, is going to marry or wants to marry, or marries later in age. Not all women, or men, follow the prescribed path.

[silliness7]

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

 

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

 

I had many similar misconceptions about their wealth before I read their book. The first one. Their story really is inspirational. They started from nothing, not even college educated. Hard, hard work and wise money decisions. I don't think I'm an irresponsible idiot because I'm not debt free with 7 kids. But their story inspires me that it's possible. Read what their life was like before the TV show.

[YLVD]

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.

 

This is what makes me angry about all of it, tbh. The premise that women need to be under that authority and not being encouraged to go to college as much as males. Angry and upset..that's how it makes me feel. Enough that I sat down with my own DD this morning and reiterated my own beliefs that she can do whatever she wants to do and that she need not take a "traditional" path prescribed to women.

 

I'm getting all heated now, lol

[GardenTenders/Kim]

So, let me get this right..... and correct me if I'm wrong....

 

They are raising their daughters to be good mothers in the future (don't we all hope that????:confused:). The daughters appear to be the caretakers of the smaller children. So the only way to be a really good mother, by this analogy, is to be the caretaker of your younger siblings? :confused:

 

I HELPED my mom with my younger brothers, but I was never in any shape or form the caretaker. When they got a ouchy, they didn't run to me, they ran to mommy. That is where I think they have over stepped some important roles in the family (or appears to have, and I am also basing this on large families I have known IRL, yes it is just an assumption and not all large families function this way. Some smaller families function this way too and it's because the mother steps back away from the role of Mommy).

 

I am concerned by the blurred roles and boundaries. It might work for them, and if it does great. In my mothers family it lead to animosity among the siblings. The mothers in my peer group that I have known that have large families foist a lot of child rearing onto girls as young as 9 or 10. We all agree that it isn't just giving birth that is wrong for babies having babies right? I mean emotionally they need to still be allowed to be kids, right? :confused: The boys are never cast into the role of being a dad at 10. they are allowed to stay play and have fun, even when older.

 

I guess my way of saying help is different what most here think the word means.

[YLVD]

Not only teach it but I cannot have friends/peers like that in our lives. I will not allow my children to even SEE it at this point in their lives so we've never seen one episode of the Duggars.

 

I'm also just not hip to the idea of people raising their kids on TV. It's unhealthy and disturbing. I do not believe you should be allowed to profit from simply being a parent. It's creepy.

 

:iagree:

 

I personally don't know anyone that subscribes to that belief system but if I did, my DD would not be spending time with them or their children. To me, it's as damaging as being around people making poor lifestyle choices.

 

I'm also bothered that it's the girls in the caretaking roles and substitute moms. The boys are not put in that same role and it's really unfortunate. Although, neither gender should be in that role IMO.

Edited July 8, 2011 by YLVD

[ereks mom]

I am all for "the more, the merrier" philosophy when it comes to children, BUT, I believe one should have only as many children as they can successfully parent on all levels (financially, emotionally, quality time-wise, educationally, etc.).

Can the Duggars successfully parent all those children? Sure, we could argue about that. For example, every hour with child A is an hour less with child B, and whether you like it or not, at some point, the time does get divided. If there are 10 hours daily one actively spends with children (and that is A LOT!), how much quality one on one time does each Duggar kid get with their mother and their father? Is that time really quality time if there are a dozen other kids "in the queque" for that some hour with mom? Can Michelle, for example, take a day off from other kids to more or less fully devote herself to one child that has a particular problem and needs full time attention that day, without looking at her watch and being fully present for that one kid?

 

Or, say, education. I have some difficulties devoting myself to my TWO advanced (!) daughters since I had a third child who interferes with our schedule. That is cute and fine :), because such is life, but seriously, I am not going to lie - it DOES affect the quality of studies, the quality of my concentration and how fully I can concentrate on one kid's translation (for example) if I know there is a baby that can need me any moment. But, my kids are big and independent and half-tutored, so they would be fine in any case, but if I try to imagine the picture with "only" five more kids of different ages... Could I honestly say that, if I had eight children, they would be getting the same education they are getting when they are only two? Honestly? Probably not. There would be a price to pay in academic quality. For many people, that would probably be a perfectly acceptable price to pay. For me, I am not sure I would be willing to even homeschool in such a case, or at least not all of them.

 

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

 

Basically... While I can respect their path as their path (and it is a legitimate path), and trust that as parents they go with their best judgment (as we all do), it is a path I would never willingly accept upon myself. It seems idyllic on the outside, maybe, like a big warm family, but I know much smaller families (with 10ish kids "only") where the amount of subtle damage that happens over the years on all those levels - not enough one on one time, constantly "in queque" for time, not enough time for intensity of kids' interests and passions, intellectual sacrifices that are made along the way (even in families which do not homeschool and are very intellectually intensive, such as our Orthodox friends and relatives - they admit, at the end, that the sacrifices were made and they cannot learn with kids or expose their kids to as much as they would like, etc.) - is rather big. I am not claiming it is not tempered with wonderful things and experiences, in fact, I am sure that from their perspective, those of us with "only" a typical small number kids are also losing out on something. But it is still the amount of sacrifice that *I personally* would never subscribe to.

 

To each their own, I guess. :)

Personally, I have a sort of distant admiration for families like that, but paired up with understanding that what DH and I want out of family life, education, family experiences with kids and so forth could never "click" with such a lifestyle and that number of children. It is not sports that are a problem in my eyes - we are a non-sporty family too, even if kids could do sports if they wished - but all those subtle sacrifices that seem to happen in very large families on a daily basis, in terms of individual time with parents, intellectual intensity, etc. I do realize that it is highly individual how many kids people can successfully parent, so maybe 3 is my upper limit and 7 somebody else's, but I honestly do not think that the upper limit is that relative.

 

I honestly hope this post does not offend anyone or comes across as (too) judgmental, as I know there are people raising large families on these boards too who probably do not "compartmentalize" things they way I am doing now (thinking in terms of logistics of money / time / intellectual engagement past 3Rs, etc.).

I may admire some aspects of what they do (from work ethic, to team spirit, etc.), but I reserve the right to be skeptical regarding those subtle, added-up along the time, downsides of growing up in such a large family.

 

(I do not watch the show regularly, I stumbled upon them at one point and got to read a little about them and saw with interest an hour or a few in their lives, but I am by no means familiar with the specifics of the big picture.)

 

:iagree: --especially with the bolded parts and most especially with the purple bolded parts.

 

Disclaimer: I have watched the Duggars on television exactly ONE time, and I had to change the channel before the show even ended. To me, it all seemed staged for the cameras, and I did not find the characters endearing.

Edited July 8, 2011 by ereks mom

[Impish]

:iagree:

 

I personally don't know anyone that subscribes to that belief system but if I did, my DD would not be spending time with them or their children. To me, it's as damaging as being around people making poor lifestyle choices.

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

 

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

 

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

[Mosaicmind]

I don't think any of us can say what is right and wrong because the Lord sees fit to give us what we can handle with His help. Apart from Him we can do nothing and that includes parent 1 child or parent 19. There are pros and cons to having many children just as there are pros and cons to having many children.

 

I personally have a friend that uses ATI curriculum and we even thought about it, but I do not see the quiverfull or patriarchial attitude in their home; it is quite the opposite. So, let's not stereotype someone just because they chose a certain curriculum.

 

I believe that the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church. I see this in the Duggar family and in many families big and small. I know there are "big" families where the husband has become out of control and abusive, but this is not the norm and should not be seen as such.

[LidiyaDawn]

 

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

 

…And what about all of the happy, content-with-their-choices, growing & thriving families *right here on this board* who follow the biblical model of "headship"? The families that you are calling unhealthy and damaged?

[Mosaicmind]

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thank You for all of this. I was going to bold some of it, but it's all good and :iagree:

[pdalley]

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

:iagree:

 

And try being raised by someone who screamed and browbeat you into being something other than a wife and mother and all men are evil. The other side of the fence is just as damaging. But for some reason all people can talk about is how bad patriarchy is. Matriarchy - in my experience - was worse!

 

I take people as I find them - regardless of their beliefs or lifestyle. We teach our boys the same.

[Koerarmoca]

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

 

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

 

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

 

:iagree:

 

I don't think any of us can say what is right and wrong because the Lord sees fit to give us what we can handle with His help. Apart from Him we can do nothing and that includes parent 1 child or parent 19. There are pros and cons to having many children just as there are pros and cons to having many children.

 

I personally have a friend that uses ATI curriculum and we even thought about it, but I do not see the quiverfull or patriarchial attitude in their home; it is quite the opposite. So, let's not stereotype someone just because they chose a certain curriculum.

 

I believe that the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church. I see this in the Duggar family and in many families big and small. I know there are "big" families where the husband has become out of control and abusive, but this is not the norm and should not be seen as such.

 

:iagree:

…And what about all of the happy, content-with-their-choices, growing & thriving families *right here on this board* who follow the biblical model of "headship"? The families that you are calling unhealthy and damaged?

 

:iagree: I agree 100% and find some of the comments to be hurtful...just wow!

[LibraryLover]

I just can't hate on them. Those kids are so cute. The little ones also seem rather mischievous at times. They don't look afraid of nobody. ;) Michele can't be faking her gentleness. You never hear anyone say she's not kind , and if jimbob or whatever his name is, were pounding or verbally abusing her behind the scenes we' hear about it, john and kate plus 8 thankyouverymuch. Not to mention the hsing conference gossip that could come of that. I've known plenty of nutty families who might seem " unhealthy" but who are quite fine and thriving. Were all flawed, says the strong agnostic. ( trying to not say atheist since it seems so final lol.)

Edited July 8, 2011 by LibraryLover

[twoforjoy]

I had many similar misconceptions about their wealth before I read their book. The first one. Their story really is inspirational. They started from nothing, not even college educated. Hard, hard work and wise money decisions. I don't think I'm an irresponsible idiot because I'm not debt free with 7 kids. But their story inspires me that it's possible. Read what their life was like before the TV show.

 

Lots of people work hard and make wise financial decisions. Sometimes they end up doing really well, sometimes they don't. Sometimes taking on debt is a wise financial decision.

 

I just don't like how dogmatic people are about their debt-free life being ideal.

[LibraryLover]

Towforjoy quote- "I just don't like how dogmatic people are about their debt-free life being ideal. "

 

I'm not gonna lie. I would love to be debt free. Somebody make an offer on my house; preferably one that is more than its worth. Or! Somebody offer be a reality show. Lifestyles of the Middle Class & Boring. The ultimate program about nothing.It can be a show for insomniacs.

Edited July 8, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

I just can't hate on them. Those kids are so cute. The little ones also seem rather mischievous at times. They don't look afraid of nobody. ;) Michele can't be faking her gentleness. You never hear anyone say she's not kind , and if jimbob or whatever his name is, were pounding or verbally abusing her behind the scenes we' hear about it, john and kate plus 8 thankyouverymuch. Not to mention the hsing conference gossip that could come of that. I've known plenty of nutty families who might seem " unhealthy" but who are quite fine and thriving. Were all flawed, says the strong agnostic. ( trying to not say atheist since it seems so final lol.)

 

:iagree:

 

I hate the concepts of 'Christian' patriarchy and dominionism with an inborn, deadly hate, but I just can't transfer that emotion to this family. My criticism is canceled by my admiration, leaving me mostly neutral.

[TechWife]

Anytime :D

[butterflymommy]

I like the Duggars very much (well, I like the show anyway, I've never met them!). Jim Bob once said something that brought me to tears-- paraphrasing but he said something to the effect that they encourage mission work because if their children live "me centered" lives "it will destroy them." That being said, i would probably be climbing the walls if I had to hang out with them for a long period... :tongue_smilie:... we are geeky sci fi types around here with a lot of dark sarcastic humor being thrown around... I sometimes joke with my husband that we're like the Addams Family version of the Duggars (though not as many kids). But on a fundamental level I agree with how they raise their children and I have great respect for their religious faith and the gentle way they impart it to their kids.

 

I used to cringe at their "buddy system" (do they still have that?) but I have now seen in my own kids that caring for a younger sibling-- within reasonable limits-- is a wonderful way to teach responsibility. My older kids do about 2 hours of babysitting a day for me (I do pay them for it) and it brings out the best in them. My grouchy, misanthrope teenage son turns to mush around his 3 year sister. It has really brought out his humane streak in a way I don't think much else could have.

 

The older Duggars girls are for the most part very maternal but I don't see it being "forced" on them at all. The episode where one of the older girls cared for the youngest in the hospital was amazing.

[Jenny in Atl]

I'm also just not hip to the idea of people raising their kids on TV. It's unhealthy and disturbing. I do not believe you should be allowed to profit from simply being a parent. It's creepy.

 

I'm still at a loss for why all these reality shows are so popular. Our level of voyeurism has become frightening.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Jenny in Atl

[deacongirl]

:iagree:

 

I hate the concepts of 'Christian' patriarchy and dominionism with an inborn, deadly hate, but I just can't transfer that emotion to this family. My criticism is canceled by my admiration, leaving me mostly neutral.

 

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

[GardenTenders/Kim]

Towforjoy quote- "I just don't like how dogmatic people are about their debt-free life being ideal. "

 

I'm not gonna lie. I would love to be debt free. Somebody make an offer on my house; preferably one that is more than its worth. Or! Somebody offer be a reality show. Lifestyles of the Middle Class & Boring. The ultimate program about nothing.It can be a show for insomniacs.

 

:lol: have you been hiding in my closet? yeah I could be season 2. Life style of the middle class and VERY boring --duex.

[DawnM]

I will admit that I can be a bit dogmatic about living debt free. We are not completely debt free, we do still have a mortgage. I would love for that to be gone as well, but we bought this house before we journeyed on our debt free living crusade.

 

We do hope to never have consumer debt again.

 

Dawn

 

Lots of people work hard and make wise financial decisions. Sometimes they end up doing really well, sometimes they don't. Sometimes taking on debt is a wise financial decision.

 

I just don't like how dogmatic people are about their debt-free life being ideal.

[deacongirl]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

There must be something I am missing.

 

IMO it is abuse to the kid who is born prior to 28 weeks to endure painful procedures in the NICU and most likely a lifetime of complications related to prematurity, when it is clear prior to conception that there is a large risk of premature birth.

[pdalley]

IMO it is abuse to the kid who is born prior to 28 weeks to endure painful procedures in the NICU and most likely a lifetime of complications related to prematurity, when it is clear prior to conception that there is a large risk of premature birth.

 

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

 

But it still hurts....

 

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

[Pink Fairy]

Was she told before conception that her next child would definitely be a preemie? If not, how was it clear? After 18 normal births (at least I don't recall any prior struggles with premature labor/birth), I would have thought that number 19 would go the same way.

[Surfside Academy]

IMO it is abuse to the kid who is born prior to 28 weeks to endure painful procedures in the NICU and most likely a lifetime of complications related to prematurity, when it is clear prior to conception that there is a large risk of premature birth.

 

Wow! So it's abuse for a woman in her late 30s or early 40s to have a child because modern medicine says they have a large risk for Downs or other complications?? What about large risks of dwarfism among little people or other

"regular" moms who know prematurity is a strong possibility in their pregnancies due to a myriad of health issues?? That equates to abuse??

[AvasMom]

Not only teach it but I cannot have friends/peers like that in our lives. I will not allow my children to even SEE it at this point in their lives so we've never seen one episode of the Duggars.

 

 

 

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

 

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

[Halcyon]

As an environmentalist, I have an issue with people having such large families. The earth cannot sustain our population as it is, and I think having such huge families is a bit irresponsible.

 

I am not familiar with the quiverfull movement, but I do appreciate that the Duggar mom seems so kind and peaceful with her children. I don't watch the show often, however. As a raging feminist, I would take issue with a person/mother/father if they set their daughters up for a particular lifestyle (ie. SAHM, mom to many kids, subservient to husband) and did not give them the tools, both educationally and emotionally, to choose a different path.

[AvasMom]

This is what makes me angry about all of it, tbh. The premise that women need to be under that authority and not being encouraged to go to college as much as males. Angry and upset..that's how it makes me feel. Enough that I sat down with my own DD this morning and reiterated my own beliefs that she can do whatever she wants to do and that she need not take a "traditional" path prescribed to women.

 

I'm getting all heated now, lol

 

:cheers2:

[deacongirl]

Wow! So it's abuse for a woman in her late 30s or early 40s to have a child because modern medicine says they have a large risk for Downs or other complications?? What about large risks of dwarfism among little people or other

"regular" moms who know prematurity is a strong possibility in their pregnancies due to a myriad of health issues?? That equates to abuse??

 

I admit my logic is flawed and apologize to anyone I offended. It makes sense in my own head while I can't articulate it well, and I realize that it probably doesn't make sense to others. But as a mother with incompetent cervix, I had to think very carefully about these issues. We personally chose not to TTC again because I saw what 24 weekers went through and it wasn't something I would choose for my child and I couldn't live with myself if my *informed of the risks* choice led to it.

 

I will revise my choice of words--it is not abuse. And I have compassion for any parents who have to make these kinds of decisions. But I still strongly disagree with the choice.

[Aelwydd]

 

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.

 

That's a distinct possibility. The only thing is, if any of the kids would like to become something that requires a degree, say an engineer, they would be disadvantaged. The Duggars seem to discourage college for all their kids (not just their girls) by not even mentioning it, or suggesting it as an option.

[Koerarmoca]

As an environmentalist, I have an issue with people having such large families. The earth cannot sustain our population as it is, and I think having such huge families is a bit irresponsible.

 

I am not familiar with the quiverfull movement, but I do appreciate that the Duggar mom seems so kind and peaceful with her children. I don't watch the show often, however. As a raging feminist, I would take issue with a person/mother/father if they set their daughters up for a particular lifestyle (ie. SAHM, mom to many kids, subservient to husband) and did not give them the tools, both educationally and emotionally, to choose a different path.

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

[Joanne]

Towforjoy quote- "I just don't like how dogmatic people are about their debt-free life being ideal. "

 

I'm not gonna lie. I would love to be debt free. Somebody make an offer on my house; preferably one that is more than its worth. Or! Somebody offer be a reality show. Lifestyles of the Middle Class & Boring. The ultimate program about nothing.It can be a show for insomniacs.

 

To be fair, they were debt free with a debt free lifestyle before the show.

[missmoe]

That's a distinct possibility. The only thing is, if any of the kids would like to become something that requires a degree, say an engineer, they would be disadvantaged. The Duggars seem to discourage college for all their kids (not just their girls) by not even mentioning it, or suggesting it as an option.

 

How would they be disadvantaged?

 

I know the family built their house together. They have installed electric wiring, sound systems, plumbing, worked with computers, ect. How in the world would those experiences leave them at a disadvantage when pursueing a degree such as an engineering degree. I thought colleges were looking for kids with real life experiences. The kids have also been involved in the political process, volunteered in their community, showed iniative, ect. Aren't these all things most of us push our kids to do--not only to look good on a college application, but also to learn to be good citizens.

 

The Duggars have said that if they have a child that wants to go to college they will help make that happen for them. I know their oldest boy has mentioned wanting to go to law school. Not sure what is going on with him working towards that goal, but I imagine it would work like any other adult that makes the choice to go to law school. He would most likely start with a community college or online classes and then work his way on from there.