The Duggars

[Aelwydd]

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

 

That's icky.

 

Um, do I think that majority of college students, hs'ed or ps'ed, has a transcript that includes:

 

4 years of English

3 years of Science (including Biology and Chemistry)

3 years of Math (Alegebra I, II, and Geometry)

3 years of Social Studies (U.S. History, World History, State History)

2 years Foreign Language

 

And includes participation in sundry activities and groups like, Year Book Club, Photography, Swim Team, Tennis, Student Body Leadership, etc.

 

Also, taking the PSAT in sophomore year, and SAT in junior year.

 

Then, yeah. I do. That was the minimum to get into any UNC school when I graduated. In 1995. My friends who hs their children don't have kids in hs yet, but they are both planning on going above and beyond those requirements.

[LibraryLover]

When they do begin filming Lifestyles of The Middle Class & Boring, I will be sure to include my children sitting in a chair reading for an hour, and then typing for an hour. It will be required viewing on Death Row.

[Surfside Academy]

When they do begin filming Lifestyles of The Middle Class & Boring, I will be sure to include my children sitting in a chair reading for an hour, and then typing for an hour. It will be required viewing on Death Row.

 

:lol::lol:

[Koerarmoca]

When they do begin filming Lifestyles of The Middle Class & Boring, I will be sure to include my children sitting in a chair reading for an hour, and then typing for an hour. It will be required viewing on Death Row.

:lol: yeah if I want to veiw kids doing school work I will just watch mine..

[Aelwydd]

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

 

I stay up late, so I catch the reruns. I watch 'em online sometimes. I don't know how many episodes there've been, but I've been watching since 2004? I think? When it first started it. I was at first mystified, then really turned off by it, but still found them interesting. Then, after I saw how JimBob was so nice to his niece, Amy, I was hopeful that maybe they weren't judgmental of other people at least. Now, I think they are a nice family, with simple values. I don't think they are abusive at all, in the sense that they love their kids, and provide for them a nice, safe, loving home.

 

 

You can't get episodes online???

[scrappyhappymama]

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

 

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

 

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

 

Couldn't one make the same argument about ANY source of authority? The Bible also directs Christians to submit to the authority of local government, and the king, and employers, parents and even masters. So... because this is expected of Christians by God, does it make it impossible for one to have a healthy relationship with authority in any form?

 

Or, could it be that the scenario you describe is an ABUSE of authority? That just as a king or an employer or local law enforcement can get the big head and overstep the bounds of their rightful authority and commit abuses, so could a husband in a head-of-household role?

 

I think what is being confused here is a difference between the roles and stations we find ourselves in life and inherent worth. If I were born a peasant in the middle ages rather than nobility, would I be less valuable as a human being? If I were born the child of a slave, am I less capable than and do I have less worth than a freeman? If I were born the daughter of a princess, should I be brought up to consider myself better than everyone else or rather grateful for the opportunities my chance birth gives me to serve others? Should I be made to feel that I am less worthy because I am an employee rather than an employer?

 

The same Bible that advocates patriarchy in the family, as well as submission to many other forms of authority also states that "There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Submission to authority does not automatically engender abuse, and neither does an equality of authority guarantee a healthy self-worth.

[cin]

Originally Posted by Joanne

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.

 

 

 

This surprises me out of you, Joanne. This is such a blanket statement. Patriarchy cannot EVER be benign?

 

That, to me, is like a statement that we homeschoolers complain about;

 

All Homeschool families are abusing their kids.

 

All Homeschool moms wear denim jumpers (couldn't resist that one!)

 

All Muslim families are terrorists.

 

All Patriarchial families are dysfunctional.

 

 

And the fact that some of you couldn't be friends with someone who has a different family style. WOW. That's like, 40 years not being able to be friends with someone because he's Black. Or not letting your kids play with the kids down the street because their parents are divorced. Now, if their mom/dad was a perv, that's something different, but geez, just because they live differently? WOW. is all I can say.

 

 

:leaving:

[Impish]

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

 

How do you feel about sharia law?

The role of women in extreme Islam?

Clitoral removal?

 

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

 

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

You're comparing extremes. You've stated patriarchy in any form, but are now comparing to extremes. A flawed example. Very.

 

And you are discriminating against someone's faith by saying its all unhealthy. There's no other way of putting it. Flat out discrimination, making assumptions about someone's marriage and family based on a single issue.

 

You are right on one thing. This would have gone down differently if they were Wiccan, Ba'hai, Siik or Hindu. Nobody would dare to label all families that participate in those religions as abusive or 'dyshealth'.

 

This is terribly rude. Incredibly rude.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In any case, your post was terribly rude.

 

 

 

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

 

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

Labeling all families who follow a patriarchial model as unhealthy is incredibly rude and thoroughly insulting. Horribly so. And its all opinon, not fact.

[Aelwydd]

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

 

Which is why, I've taken pains to read about them as well. And again, they themselves, have always been eager to show that their education was and is equal to what they'd get at ps or private school. If they were doing things, like titrating chemicals or debating Ayn Rand, or going to the library to do research on an English paper, I have a really hard time believing that the Duggars would say, "Wait! Cut that. Don't want that in the program."

 

The producers on the show, are so eager to show just about every and any aspect of the Duggars' lives, that they filmed Anna giving birth. Twice.

 

They know that the public has had many inquiries about the lifestyle of the Duggars, including their hs'ing. Given the interest, and the Duggars' own willingness to demonstrate their choices (they are always eager to talk about how they do things), again...if there's an absence of proof of these particular educational activities--and I've been watching since 2004--you're going to have to convince me otherwise than just, "Oh, they're not showing it."

[LibraryLover]

This is a basic list, yes. You spoke of more in your other post, not just the minimum requirements of most colleges.

 

I admit I have not seen the transcripts of the Duggar teens.

 

But as far as far extra curic, I think they are fine. At any rate, colleges want a well -rounded student population, but not every student needs to have done a bunch of stuff. (I have several friends who do college admissions, and this is what they tell me.) You don't have to be on the tennis team, the debate team, and be first violinist. Their advice on extra: Do one, maybe two things, but do them well, and show a passion.

 

Um, do I think that majority of college students, hs'ed or ps'ed, has a transcript that includes:

 

4 years of English

3 years of Science (including Biology and Chemistry)

3 years of Math (Alegebra I, II, and Geometry)

3 years of Social Studies (U.S. History, World History, State History)

2 years Foreign Language

 

And includes participation in sundry activities and groups like, Year Book Club, Photography, Swim Team, Tennis, Student Body Leadership, etc.

 

Also, taking the PSAT in sophomore year, and SAT in junior year.

 

Then, yeah. I do. That was the minimum to get into any UNC school when I graduated. In 1995. My friends who hs their children don't have kids in hs yet, but they are both planning on going above and beyond those requirements.

[LidiyaDawn]

 

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

 

You 'disagree' with couples who are happy with their lifestyle/religious/etc choices? Couples who tell you that the patriarchal model works very well in THEIR life and home?

 

I just don't understand that…don't you think that those families can decide for themselves as to whether their lives are "damaging" or "unhealthy"? :confused:

[LibraryLover]

 

The producers on the show, are so eager to show just about every and any aspect of the Duggars' lives, that they filmed Anna giving birth. Twice.

 

 

QUOTE]

 

Well, that's the thing...do the producers really want to show any and every aspect? Or just the cool stuff? Like giving birth? 19 or 20 times.

[Marylou]

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

 

Your typo makes me smile :001_smile: (If it wasn't a typo :001_huh: please forgive me) Headship can seem like a hardship, and so can many other things in life, but that doesn't mean they're wrong.

[GardenTenders/Kim]

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

 

I am sorry. Really I am. I was not raised with such a view and in my marriage there is no such view. The last thing either of us would say is that I am any less ANYTHING than my husband. We make decisions jointly. Like someone else, I will defer to him when I have no POV on a subject or should I say, I don't care either way ( he does the same). I seek his advice, because I admire his world experience and knowledge which is different than mine, just as he seeks mine. I am a very vocal if I feel that something is or isn't right.

 

I know some teach inequality, but seriously this has never been something I have experienced (though I have seen what I might call inequality by others so I can see your POV). I am really really sorry you have gone through this and I can understand completely where you would view it with trepidation.

 

As far as the other points that she--sorry can't remember her name-- made, I have no personal insight into them, though I consider clitoral removal, personally, as mutilation, but also understand it as a cultural attempt to stifle a females sexual satisfaction thus making her submissive or something. I think it's abuse, personally. That being said, I just can't in my mind equal it with my experience of "head of house" --for lack of better wording right now.

 

I know you probably have no understanding of what I am saying or might view it as condescending but that is not my intent.

[astrid]

You 'disagree' with couples who are happy with their lifestyle/religious/etc choices? Couples who tell you that the patriarchal model works very well in THEIR life and home?

 

I just don't understand that…don't you think that those families can decide for themselves as to whether their lives are "damaging" or "unhealthy"? :confused:

 

 

Where did Joanne say that the families cannot decide for themselves? She said she didn't agree with it.

 

In my professional capacity, I've had women tell me that they are happy in their abusive marriage. They admit the abuse to me, show me the bruises, and still insist they are happy. They may be. But it doesn't mean I agree it's right or just because the wife insists she's happy.

 

astrid

[Aelwydd]

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

 

The only one who is judging here is you.

 

I'm actually employing logic here. And that is, if after more than 6 years of shows, and reading about them, I have not seen evidence of the kinds of educational activities that I've talked about, that are COMMON for other children, both hs'ed and ps'ed, then I don't assume that such activities are being conducted by the Duggars.

 

Not when they don't show it.

Not when they don't talk about it on their website.

Not when they don't ever mention the value of such education. Or, the intention of preparing their children for a college education.

 

Jim-Bob does not have a college education himself. I don't think he feels that his kids require college to succeed. (I agree that it's not a given.)

 

Saying that they would "work something out" IF one of their kids wanted to go to college, is not the same as actively promoting and PREPARING your children for college. Why would you go to the trouble of doing so, if you don't really consider college necessary anyway?

 

Based on ALL of that, is why I have the opinion that they do not give their children the equivalent of a college prep education. And that's FINE. It's only a problem if one of their children decides they want to go--THEN, as I stated before, he or she may end up being disadvantaged and having to take remedial courses.

[Renee in NC]

That's icky.

 

Um, do I think that majority of college students, hs'ed or ps'ed, has a transcript that includes:

 

4 years of English

3 years of Science (including Biology and Chemistry)

3 years of Math (Alegebra I, II, and Geometry)

3 years of Social Studies (U.S. History, World History, State History)

2 years Foreign Language

 

And includes participation in sundry activities and groups like, Year Book Club, Photography, Swim Team, Tennis, Student Body Leadership, etc.

 

Also, taking the PSAT in sophomore year, and SAT in junior year.

 

Then, yeah. I do. That was the minimum to get into any UNC school when I graduated. In 1995. My friends who hs their children don't have kids in hs yet, but they are both planning on going above and beyond those requirements.

 

I managed to get a good scholarship to a decent private school in NC in 1995 without any of that. You can get into community college with none of that, work hard, transfer to a 4-year school and get the same degree as someone who *did* have that kind of background.

[LibraryLover]

I probably look like a Duggar- hater from my religious/geographic resume, but here I am, willing to live and let live. I shame my people.

Edited July 8, 2011 by LibraryLover

[albeto]

Couldn't one make the same argument about ANY source of authority?

 

Any authority that has acquired it's status by use of threatening physical harm or distress for noncompliance, yes. At it's root, the patriarchal movement does this by equating submission to faith and faith to salvation. The alternative to submission is expected physical and mental harm (for eternity).

 

The Bible also directs Christians to submit to the authority of local government, and the king, and employers, parents and even masters. So... because this is expected of Christians by God, does it make it impossible for one to have a healthy relationship with authority in any form?

 

Any political authority that requires submission under penalty of physical or mental ham would also be considered abusive. There's a reason Amnesty International exists. Authority itself isn't the problem, authority based on the threat of physical harm is.

 

Or, could it be that the scenario you describe is an ABUSE of authority? That just as a king or an employer or local law enforcement can get the big head and overstep the bounds of their rightful authority and commit abuses, so could a husband in a head-of-household role?

 

Certainly people can abuse legitimate or morally acquired authority. I'm suggesting that the patriarchal movement is by nature an abusive movement because it is build on the foundation of submissive behavior in order to avoid physical and mental harm.

 

I think what is being confused here is a difference between the roles and stations we find ourselves in life and inherent worth. If I were born a peasant in the middle ages rather than nobility, would I be less valuable as a human being? If I were born the child of a slave, am I less capable than and do I have less worth than a freeman? If I were born the daughter of a princess, should I be brought up to consider myself better than everyone else or rather grateful for the opportunities my chance birth gives me to serve others? Should I be made to feel that I am less worthy because I am an employee rather than an employer?

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There's a reason we've done away with the feudal system of medieval Europe in our culture. There's a reason we've done away with enslaving people to labor for others. There's a reason we've replaced a monarchy with a democratic republic in the US. These systems had their benevolent tyrants but our moral expectations today deny these systems - the alternatives are far more morally desirable.

 

The same Bible that advocates patriarchy in the family, as well as submission to many other forms of authority also states that "There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Submission to authority does not automatically engender abuse, and neither does an equality of authority guarantee a healthy self-worth.

 

I understand but the same bible advocates capital punishment for homosexuals, non believers and children who do not honor their fathers. Rather than hoping for the best, a moral society provides an environment that allows everyone the same liberties from the start.

[Renee in NC]

This is a basic list, yes. You spoke of more in your other post, not just the minimum requirements of most colleges.

 

I admit I have not seen the transcripts of the Duggar teens.

 

But as far as far extra curic, I think they are fine. At any rate, colleges want a well -rounded student population, but not every student needs to have done a bunch of stuff. (I have several friends who do college admissions, and this is what they tell me.) You don't have to be on the tennis team, the debate team, and be first violinist. Their advice on extra: Do one, maybe two things, but do them well, and show a passion.

 

Someone I know who was in academia called it the "purple mustache." A student who has something that makes him or her "stand out" from the pack is more likely to get in than someone who has the standard stats.

[TXMary2]

Which is why, I've taken pains to read about them as well. And again, they themselves, have always been eager to show that their education was and is equal to what they'd get at ps or private school. If they were doing things, like titrating chemicals or debating Ayn Rand, or going to the library to do research on an English paper, I have a really hard time believing that the Duggars would say, "Wait! Cut that. Don't want that in the program."

 

The producers on the show, are so eager to show just about every and any aspect of the Duggars' lives, that they filmed Anna giving birth. Twice.

 

They know that the public has had many inquiries about the lifestyle of the Duggars, including their hs'ing. Given the interest, and the Duggars' own willingness to demonstrate their choices (they are always eager to talk about how they do things), again...if there's an absence of proof of these particular educational activities--and I've been watching since 2004--you're going to have to convince me otherwise than just, "Oh, they're not showing it."

 

That is amazing. Especially since their regular series started in 2008. They had a handful of specials prior to that. Even if you have seen every episode and every special, you still can't reasonably make the judgements you are making. The cameras aren't present 24/7 - not even close.

[Aelwydd]

I managed to get a good scholarship to a decent private school in NC in 1995 without any of that. You can get into community college with none of that, work hard, transfer to a 4-year school and get the same degree as someone who *did* have that kind of background.

 

 

Private schools have their own admissions standards. I'm talking about UNC's standards, which yes, you had to meet in '95 to be admitted. I only had one year of a foreign language on my transcript (I was planning on going out of state, so I didn't pick up the second), and when I transferred from the private school I went to, to UNCG, it was conditional upon me completing 2 semesters of FL. They wouldn't have admitted me at all, if I hadn't already had 30 hours of credits, because of that one deficit.

 

Also, please pardon me, but if you didn't have any English, any math, any science, or social studies, what is it you did do for hs?

[TXMary2]

The only one who is judging here is you.

 

I'm actually employing logic here. And that is, if after more than 6 years of shows, and reading about them, I have not seen evidence of the kinds of educational activities that I've talked about, that are COMMON for other children, both hs'ed and ps'ed, then I don't assume that such activities are being conducted by the Duggars.

 

Not when they don't show it.

Not when they don't talk about it on their website.

Not when they don't ever mention the value of such education. Or, the intention of preparing their children for a college education.

 

Jim-Bob does not have a college education himself. I don't think he feels that his kids require college to succeed. (I agree that it's not a given.)

 

Saying that they would "work something out" IF one of their kids wanted to go to college, is not the same as actively promoting and PREPARING your children for college. Why would you go to the trouble of doing so, if you don't really consider college necessary anyway?

 

Based on ALL of that, is why I have the opinion that they do not give their children the equivalent of a college prep education. And that's FINE. It's only a problem if one of their children decides they want to go--THEN, as I stated before, he or she may end up being disadvantaged and having to take remedial courses.

 

 

Wow. I must have missed it, but how am I judging? And whom am I judging?

[Pink Fairy]

I managed to get a good scholarship to a decent private school in NC in 1995 without any of that. You can get into community college with none of that, work hard, transfer to a 4-year school and get the same degree as someone who *did* have that kind of background.

 

I don't agree with your baseless assumptions about the Duggars (Aelwydd), and Renee's experience is similar to my dh's. I believe your assumptions about education are flawed in general, and it's a well known problem that many if not most public school students are coming to college unprepared and in need of remedial education. ETA: That's now, not necessarily in 1995. My dh as a ps teacher is collaborating wiith the local community college to address this very problem.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Mamabegood

[Aelwydd]

That is amazing. Especially since their regular series started in 2008. They had a handful of specials prior to that. Even if you have seen every episode and every special, you still can't reasonably make the judgements you are making. The cameras aren't present 24/7 - not even close.

 

 

It started in 2004 or 2005, only it was "14 Children" then. I don't think it was a regular series then, but a special that they aired from time to time. It was a while ago. The girls wore these crazy jumpers and the boys always had tucked in shirts, and didn't even wear jeans then.

[astrid]

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

 

 

Mama, be good.

That had a pretty high snark factor. Completely unnecessary.

 

astrid

[GardenTenders/Kim]

All Homeschool moms wear denim jumpers (couldn't resist that one!)

.

 

 

:leaving:

 

We do? Oh my! No one ever informed me that there was a dress code! um, where does one by a "denim jumper" :bigear::lol:

[BlsdMama]

There are those that believe that lives should be very INTENTIONALLY led...

 

And some of those would see sports as a waste of time, effort, money, and energy because, simply put, they couldn't see it going anywhere good. And while, yes, there are certainly those insanely rare exceptions, for the most part sports are just time fillers. If you have enough purposeful, useful things to fill your time, then sports doesn't fit into the equation. They seem to be a very busy family what with their volunteer work, etc., that "ORGANIZED" sports isn't a good fit for them.

 

I've been on both sides of this fence and I really can see it from either perspective.

[LibraryLover]

I don't agree with your baseless assumptions about the Duggars (Aelwydd), and Renee's experience is similar to my dh's. I believe your assumptions about education are flawed in general, and it's a well known problem that many if not most public school students are coming to college unprepared and in need of remedial education.

 

 

Flawed or not, Renee speaks the truth.

 

This means that if the any of the Duggars didn't have the creds, our imperfect system would help them to be set free, if they so chose. ;)

[Impish]

Where did Joanne say that the families cannot decide for themselves? She said she didn't agree with it.

 

In my professional capacity, I've had women tell me that they are happy in their abusive marriage. They admit the abuse to me, show me the bruises, and still insist they are happy. They may be. But it doesn't mean I agree it's right or just because the wife insists she's happy.

 

astrid

Joanne has stated that no form of patriarchy is healthy. That's different from simply disagreeing.

 

I disagree about many things with many ppl. I wouldn't turn around and label their family dynamics unhealthy/abusive simply b/c I disagree.

 

That's what I'm objecting to. The broad generalizations that ALL families who are patriarchial must be negative.

[Jennifer3141]

We do? Oh my! No one ever informed me that there was a dress code! um, where does one by a "denim jumper" :bigear::lol:

 

And what idiot decided on denim jumpers?!?!? Goddess, help me!! :D

[Renee in NC]

Private schools have their own admissions standards. I'm talking about UNC's standards, which yes, you had to meet in '95 to be admitted. I only had one year of a foreign language on my transcript (I was planning on going out of state, so I didn't pick up the second), and when I transferred from the private school I went to, to UNCG, it was conditional upon me completing 2 semesters of FL. They wouldn't have admitted me at all, if I hadn't already had 30 hours of credits, because of that one deficit.

 

Also, please pardon me, but if you didn't have any English, any math, any science, or social studies, what is it you did do for hs?

 

If you look back at one of my previous posts, I dropped out of high school after the 10th grade. I went to a private university because I didn't want to jump through UNC's hoops (why bother when I could go to a good private school for free?) I did have *some* English, math, etc. but didn't meet the minimums in any subject. In addition, I missed 40+ days of school in 9th and 65+ days in 10th.

 

I know not everyone with the above could get in and be successful in school, but neither does everyone have to meet the standard you posted, either. I personally don't care *what* the Duggars do (but this thread has made me want to watch the show a few times.) I do know that if one of their dc was motivated to get a college education, they would be able to.

[GardenTenders/Kim]

You're comparing extremes. You've stated patriarchy in any form, but are now comparing to extremes. A flawed example. Very.

 

And you are discriminating against someone's faith by saying its all unhealthy. There's no other way of putting it. Flat out discrimination, making assumptions about someone's marriage and family based on a single issue.

 

You are right on one thing. This would have gone down differently if they were Wiccan, Ba'hai, Siik or Hindu. Nobody would dare to label all families that participate in those religions as abusive or 'dyshealth'.

 

 

Labeling all families who follow a patriarchial model as unhealthy is incredibly rude and thoroughly insulting. Horribly so. And its all opinion, not fact.

 

Some good points....

 

How can one hope to counsel people if one is closed minded? I shudder. Yeah I guess I am passing judgment, I just would never go to a counselor that had a preset idea of my life before I even seen him or her. It would cloud every thing they said. SCARY. I mean , think about it....... sorry.... it's scary to me. :001_huh:

[astrid]

Okay, this is getting confusing.

Lidiyadawn quoted a post from Joanne stating she didn't agree with patriarchy. THAT was what I was responding to. I haven't read all eleventy billion pages here, but I will say, with great certainty, that if we were discussing a Muslim, Ba'hai, Siik, or Wiccan, or same-sex family, I doubt there would be so many willing to defend their lifestyle choices with such fervent ardor. And, may I say, such snark.

 

astrid

[Joanne]

This surprises me out of you, Joanne. This is such a blanket statement. Patriarchy cannot EVER be benign?

 

That, to me, is like a statement that we homeschoolers complain about;

 

All Homeschool families are abusing their kids.

 

All Homeschool moms wear denim jumpers (couldn't resist that one!)

 

All Muslim families are terrorists.

 

All Patriarchial families are dysfunctional.

 

 

And the fact that some of you couldn't be friends with someone who has a different family style. WOW. That's like, 40 years not being able to be friends with someone because he's Black. Or not letting your kids play with the kids down the street because their parents are divorced. Now, if their mom/dad was a perv, that's something different, but geez, just because they live differently? WOW. is all I can say.

 

 

:leaving:

 

Cin, I'm surprised back at you. ;) African American doesn't embody an intentional belief system. Patriarchy does.

 

It's the intentional belief system that I am against in this regard. I explained the difference between the "all homeschoolers" and patriarchy in another post upthread.

 

:001_smile:

[Impish]

Okay, this is getting confusing.

Lidiyadawn quoted a post from Joanne stating she didn't agree with patriarchy. THAT was what I was responding to. I haven't read all eleventy billion pages here, but I will say, with great certainty, that if we were discussing a Muslim, Ba'hai, Siik, or Wiccan, or same-sex family, I doubt there would be so many willing to defend their lifestyle choices with such fervent ardor. And, may I say, such snark.

 

astrid

I would. I find discrimination to be stomach churning.

[Jennifer3141]

Some good points....

 

How can one hope to counsel people if one is closed minded? I shudder. Yeah I guess I am passing judgment, I just would never go to a counselor that had a preset idea of my life before I even seen him or her. It would cloud every thing they said. SCARY. I mean , think about it....... sorry.... it's scary to me. :001_huh:

 

DH and I needed marital counseling about 8 years ago, and as part of the interview process we both asked our counselor what his stance was on gender roles in marriage and his religious beliefs. We wouldn't have gone to someone who subscribed to a patriarchal view of marriage or someone who believed in a sky daddy. I in particular will not discuss my life with any man who believes that way. Period.

 

I presume that anyone who does need either of those world views would probably research the therapist as well.

[Mama Geek]

I think I am going to go fix supper for the patriarch of my family and my dd. He is leaving work in less than an hour and said he is hungry. I am going to go happily slave away in the kitchen so that he doesn't beat me when he gets home. ;)

[LibraryLover]

Someone I know who was in academia called it the "purple mustache." A student who has something that makes him or her "stand out" from the pack is more likely to get in than someone who has the standard stats.

 

 

And while I don't want to quote a friend, she did say, 'I turn away the 4.0 Class Presidents in droves, especially if they are thinking about majoring in psychology. They are wonderful, but we need a more diverse student population."

[Pink Fairy]

Mama, be good.

That had a pretty high snark factor. Completely unnecessary.

 

astrid

 

Okay, maybe it's "snarky" (doesn't that mean sarcastic?), but what is it called when you just make up crap that isn't there simply because it "fits" your idea of reality? I personally call it bs.

 

 

Flawed or not, Renee speaks the truth.

 

This means that if the any of the Duggars didn't have the creds, our imperfect system would help them to be set free, if they so chose. ;)

 

I think we're on the same page here, right? Or in other words, I'm not doubting Renee's experience, in case that isn't obvious.

[Aelwydd]

I don't agree with your baseless assumptions about the Duggars (Aelwydd), and Renee's experience is similar to my dh's. I believe your assumptions about education are flawed in general, and it's a well known problem that many if not most public school students are coming to college unprepared and in need of remedial education.

 

My assumptions about the standards colleges look for are based upon the entrance requirements of a significant number of state school systems. Would you like me to link to their web pages as proof?

 

Here's UNCG's bare minimum standards. UNCG is one of the more "open" colleges in the state for who it admits.

 

Here's a link to UTA, a school not far from me, has a minimum SAT/ACT score for hs'ed children.

 

Penn State. (My dh grew up in PA.)

 

Also, this debate isn't about hs'ing versus ps'ing. I commented that I felt that Duggar's program probably fell more in line with a basic hs education, and not a prep hs education, the logical conclusion from that statement is there are obviously ps students who opt for it. The discussion isn't whether there are ps' students who are unprepared (there are, we all know that) for college. The discussion is whether the Duggars' particular brand of education falls more in line with a general hs' diploma, or a more college prep type program.

[Marylou]

DH and I needed marital counseling about 8 years ago, and as part of the interview process we both asked our counselor what his stance was on gender roles in marriage and his religious beliefs. We wouldn't have gone to someone who subscribed to a patriarchal view of marriage or someone who believed in a sky daddy. I in particular will not discuss my life with any man who believes that way. Period.

 

I presume that anyone who does need either of those world views would probably research the therapist as well.

 

 

Also extremely insulting.

 

But you already knew that.

[LibraryLover]

I would. I find discrimination to be stomach churning.

 

 

As would I. I have.

[Nestof3]

Really? I take far more issue with the # of illegitimate births. I realize many of them end up being raised well, but I will always believe that our culture has become too open to promiscuity and too slack in taking sexual responsibility.

 

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.

[astrid]

: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.

 

 

Unless they happen to be same-sex families. Then the blanket, sweeping judgements fly freely, and tolerance, religious freedom and respect go right out the window.

 

I'm not saying this is YOUR feeling, Imp, I'm just pointing out that it's easy to make such statements when it's something with which you vehemently disagree on a visceral level, as many here do when it comes to same-sex marriage/familyhood.

 

astrid (very much in favor of same-sex marriage, FTR)

[GardenTenders/Kim]

I think I am going to go fix supper for the patriarch of my family and my dd. He is leaving work in less than an hour and said he is hungry. I am going to go happily slave away in the kitchen so that he doesn't beat me when he gets home. ;)

 

:lol:

 

My patriarch took our daughter to the zoo when I asked him to this afternoon. Glad he didn't beat me. ;)

 

and here is a five foot chicken.....

[Jennifer3141]

Also extremely insulting.

 

But you already knew that.

 

That's my opinion of it. You're entitled to whatever opinion YOU want. I really could not care less.

[astrid]

You know, these posts are getting ridiculous.

I don't find it funny to read about any man beating any woman, regardless of whether it's said in jest.

 

Not cool to joke about spousal abuse.

 

astrid

[Jennifer3141]

Unless they happen to be same-sex families. Then the blanket, sweeping judgements fly freely, and tolerance, religious freedom and respect go right out the window.

 

I'm not saying this is YOUR feeling, Imp, I'm just pointing out that it's easy to make such statements when it's something with which you vehemently disagree on a visceral level, as many here do when it comes to same-sex marriage/familyhood.

 

astrid (very much in favor of same-sex marriage, FTR)

 

:iagree:

[Impish]

Unless they happen to be same-sex families. Then the blanket, sweeping judgements fly freely, and tolerance, religious freedom and respect go right out the window.

 

I'm not saying this is YOUR feeling, Imp, I'm just pointing out that it's easy to make such statements when it's something with which you vehemently disagree on a visceral level, as many here do when it comes to same-sex marriage/familyhood.

 

astrid (very much in favor of same-sex marriage, FTR)

And again, I speak out against it, when I run into it. I can't force others to change their minds, but I don't have to stand silently by either.

 

I'm Canadian. Same sex marriage is legal here. I consider it a human rights issue.