The Duggars

[LibraryLover]

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.

 

 

And I live in a US state where it is legal. This thread has nothing to do with same sex marraige, and I am sure I would get myself a 24 hour ban if someone started bashing that here.

[GardenTenders/Kim]

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

 

Well it's been implied that we are, which I find abhorrent.

 

So until someone knows my life, don't pass judgment.

 

35+ pages later this topic has gotten out of hand and certainly far away from the subject of the OP. The Duggars. We can love 'em, hate 'em or have indifference toward them. But I will say one thing, look at all this FREE advertisement they have gotten. How many people never gave them a thought before that will now buy their books or watch their show just to see for themselves? Free marketing.... wow. ;)

[Pink Fairy]

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.

 

Even if we assume that the Duggars aren't providing a college prep education for their children (which is a big assumption), it's entirely logical that it won't hinder them from going on to receive a four year degree from a university. In fact, having the classes that you listed on a high school transcript doesn't necessarily mean that a student is ready for college level work, as the classes themselves in most ps have been so dumbed down. And comparing them to homeschool transcripts is a waste of time, as there is no set of standards in the homeschool community to go by.

[scrappyhappymama]

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).

 

I believe that if I understand your previous post correctly, that you mean that the patriarchal model derives its status through the threat of hell for non-compliance? If so, then all the other modes of authority I listed, which are also folks Christians are supposed to submit themselves to, these would also all be derived the same way. So, submission to a police officer, laws of the land or an employer would all be capable of the same psychological harm, no?

 

Or do you mean that every individual man in a patriarchal home threatens physical harm against his wife if she does not comply?

 

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.

 

Exactly. This is an example of ABUSE of authority. Which can be true, or not, in a male head-of-household home.

 

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.

 

But for consistency's sake, the same would have to be said of all the other forms of authority advocated by the Bible. I think perhaps the real issue here is that you do not consider a husband-led home to be a legitimate form of authority period.

 

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.

 

Uh, by WE you mean America, right? Because people are born everyday into undesirable circumstances. And even here in America, folks are born into poverty, abusive homes, poorly educated, discriminated against based on many different factors. My point is that we can raise our children, male or female, to value themselves and to have a strong sense of self-worth, regardless of our financial or social status. Just because a person is by circumstance "doomed" to a life of blue-collar work does not mean they should have to feel demeaned or debased by the fact that they may ever be the employer but always the employed.

 

The fact is, systems of authority give structure to our world and our society. Some authority we can choose to submit ourselves to and some is inherent. Amazingly, no woman is absolutely commanded to submit to the authority of a husband at all. And many families have chosen to structure their spousal relationships in other ways. Fine. But if someone CHOOSES to submit to the authority of her husband because she happens to value that particular family structure, then I think it is offensive for others to call it inherently abusive., Potentially abusive? Fine. Not your cup of tea? Fine. Not the model you want for your own children? Fine. But inherently abusive? Not cool. There are too many of us that are living proof to the contrary.

[albeto]

:001_huh:

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.

 

Discrimination based on value-choices is something we all do. We pick and choose friends, homeschool co-ops, extra-curricular groups based on similar values and behaviors. Homeschool co-op statements of faith formalize this process. Race isn't a behavior or a choice, neither is sexual orientation. Religion kinda is, but that's tricky because often it's something that's an imposed identification on a child from the very beginning.

[Koerarmoca]

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

With out even thinking about it I wore a denim jumper to the end of year HS picnic.. maybe that is why I felt like an outcast. they must of thought "oh she is one of those homeschool moms" :lol: my jumper is way cute though ;) but it doesn't get much wear its more or less I wear it when I think I might get dirty or stained because I don't care much about that outfit :lol:

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. ;)

admittedly that made me giggle. I do however hope that no one here would be abused for such a thing and take offence. :grouphug:

Also extremely insulting.

 

But you already knew that.

:iagree: that was totally rude :glare:

[Nestof3]

Wow, you've just described the life of nearly every public-schooled teen. I think most teens receive at best an average education in the states. How, then, are the colleges crammed with people and tuition rates still climbing. LOL. I've known some very average people who got into college. One is my brother who finally grew up and rose to his potential upon college graduation. He has since then obtained a masters, has a very successful employment in business banking, and is quite unique now. Post high school? He was a total goofball.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Aelwydd]

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

 

Like I said about 20 pages ago, I don't get the hate and judgemental attitudes toward this family.[/Quote]

 

You conflate my questioning about one aspect of the Duggars, namely, whether or not that the educational prep they've given their children will be specifically useful enough if one chooses to apply to college, as some sort of hate on for the family.

 

My questioning a single aspect of their lifestyle--when I have made positive remarks about many other aspects--and then using that as fodder for throwing the whole "hate" thing at me or other posters, comes across as you being judgmental.

 

Because you apparently judge any critique or suggestion of imperfection on part of their family to be proof that someone must just despise the family or looking to tear them down. That's judgmental.

 

Furthermore, it's an attitude at odds with critical thinking. FTR, I can like the Duggars as a family, and I can appreciate the many things they teach their children about character, and I can enjoy the way they emphasize experiential learning about their world, and still have questions about certain aspects of their educational paradigm.

 

It's not an either/or situation! And I'm tired of being accused of being out to "judge" them or "hate" them (why would I spend time watching or reading about them if I did???), because I'm pointing a potential weak area in hs'ing?

 

Is that what this board is about? Summing up any and all criticism of ANY hs'ing family as baseless and prejudiced and then attacking people in a defensive manner?

[Renee in NC]

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.

 

My point was that it doesn't matter *what* the state schools require. Not only that, but Switched on Schoolhouse would meet those minimum requirements. Even if it didn't, lots of students go to Guilford Tech first and then transfer to UNCG (which isn't that great of a school anyway!) On the other end of the spectrum, Durham Tech has an articulation agreement with UNC that allows students who go to DT, take certain classes, and earn a minimum GPA to go to UNC as juniors. Even a high school dropout could do that.;)

[Aelwydd]

Wow, you've just described the life of nearly every public-schooled teen. I think most teens receive at best an average education in the states. .

 

Again. AGAIN. The debate isn't whether ps'ers aren't likewise challenged--yes, many of them are! I certainly didn't get intellectual debate at home, or any of that. I got it through classes at school, and they were mostly advanced courses. I took the more advanced courses precisely because I knew I needed that academic preparation. I knew I wouldn't get it at home. I knew I wouldn't get it in the "basic" hs courses.

 

Yes, you can get into college with a basic hs course. I have not said the Duggar children couldn't get INTO college. I said, that if one of them DID go, they'd probably require some remedial courses to get them on par with what the assignments and readings would require.

 

No, that's no different from many ps students. If it helps any, if the Duggars were ps'd, and were apparently following a similar course, in terms of academic strength, I'd make the same argument--that better colleges may not accept them, and most state colleges will require remedial work first.

[Nakia]

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

 

 

For some darn reason, I am still reading this thread, and I just found myself wanting to vomit. How can people even joke about spousal abuse? Disgusting.

[albeto]

I believe that if I understand your previous post correctly, that you mean that the patriarchal model derives its status through the threat of hell for non-compliance? If so, then all the other modes of authority I listed, which are also folks Christians are supposed to submit themselves to, these would also all be derived the same way. So, submission to a police officer, laws of the land or an employer would all be capable of the same psychological harm, no?

 

Or do you mean that every individual man in a patriarchal home threatens physical harm against his wife if she does not comply?

 

I mean that if one submits under duress for fear of physical or mental harm, that reflects an abusive system. A police officer who forces compliance through this threat would be abusing his or her authority as a keeper of the law. An employer who threatens physical or mental harm for non compliance would be abusing his or her authority as an employer. Neither of these systems have at their roots the threat of bodily or mental harm. Neither does marriage, and no, I don't mean that every individual man in a patriarchal home threatens his wife.

 

Exactly. This is an example of ABUSE of authority. Which can be true, or not, in a male head-of-household home.

 

I'm suggesting some systems are abusive in their design, not that authority is abusive, but certain systems that rely on this authority.

 

But for consistency's sake, the same would have to be said of all the other forms of authority advocated by the Bible. I think perhaps the real issue here is that you do not consider a husband-led home to be a legitimate form of authority period.

 

Yes on both accounts.

 

Uh, by WE you mean America, right? Because people are born everyday into undesirable circumstances. And even here in America, folks are born into poverty, abusive homes, poorly educated, discriminated against based on many different factors. My point is that we can raise our children, male or female, to value themselves and to have a strong sense of self-worth, regardless of our financial or social status. Just because a person is by circumstance "doomed" to a life of blue-collar work does not mean they should have to feel demeaned or debased by the fact that they may ever be the employer but always the employed.

 

Oh, okay. I don't disagree with your point as you've explained here.

 

The fact is, systems of authority give structure to our world and our society. Some authority we can choose to submit ourselves to and some is inherent. Amazingly, no woman is absolutely commanded to submit to the authority of a husband at all. And many families have chosen to structure their spousal relationships in other ways. Fine. But if someone CHOOSES to submit to the authority of her husband because she happens to value that particular family structure, then I think it is offensive for others to call it inherently abusive., Potentially abusive? Fine. Not your cup of tea? Fine. Not the model you want for your own children? Fine. But inherently abusive? Not cool. There are too many of us that are living proof to the contrary.

 

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't suggest that people are in danger just because of this set-up. However, the set-up itself relies on the fear of hell at its root and that fear is a fear of physical and mental pain. For ever and ever and ever. As such, the set-up itself is intrinsically abusive in that it takes advantage of the stronger to coerce the weaker into submission. That the weaker (humans) accept this coercion from the stronger (Yahweh) doesn't make the system not abusive, it just means there is effectiveness within the system. Does that make more sense?

 

ETA: I'm reconsidering the word "abusive" in this context but I would maintain that it's an immoral set-up

Edited July 9, 2011 by albeto

[LibraryLover]

Spousal abuse is evil. I would never argue it wasn't.

 

I do think the person was being all hyperbole -ish ;) in the same way people post on the boards sometimes. "I am going to sell/kill this kid!" or "I will beat this man if he gives me another waffle iron for my birthday!"

 

And no. I have no idea why I am still reading this thread. I hate myself. I am going to kick my own assway. (In a hyperbole-ish way.)

Edited July 9, 2011 by LibraryLover

[tex-mex]

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: I happily slave away in the kitchen for my hubby and ds. But have to confess tonight's meal was a frozen pizza from ALDI.

Edited July 8, 2011 by tex-mex

[Aelwydd]

My point was that it doesn't matter *what* the state schools require. Not only that, but Switched on Schoolhouse would meet those minimum requirements. Even if it didn't, lots of students go to Guilford Tech first and then transfer to UNCG (which isn't that great of a school anyway!) On the other end of the spectrum, Durham Tech has an articulation agreement with UNC that allows students who go to DT, take certain classes, and earn a minimum GPA to go to UNC as juniors. Even a high school dropout could do that.;)

 

No, it's not that great of a school. And it still has standards.

 

Did I say that the Duggars couldn't get into college? I said, IF one of them did, they might not be prepared for the critical nature of college, and the academic work involved. Thus, they'd require remedial courses to get them up to speed.

 

The question isn't CAN they get into a college. It was always, would they be prepared? Would they prepared, on Day 1, to go into English 101 and write a 10-12 page thesis paper, with proper notations and bibliography? Would they be prepared to go into College Algebra or Trig and keep up? Would they be prepared to go into a sociology class and discuss class warfare or the three waves of feminism? Would they go into a science course and know how to conduct an experiment from start to finish using the scientific method?

 

Maybe they would. I don't doubt their intelligence. I only doubt their preparation in all these areas is equivalent to a college prep hs program. If I'm right, then they'd have to take remedial courses. Or, worse case, they just find it a completely foreign environment and decide to pursue other avenues.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Aelwydd

[Nestof3]

:lol: I happily slave away in the kitchen for my hubby and ds. But have to confess tonight's meal was a frozen pizza from ALDI.

 

Our dinner was eaten at Carvel -- ice cream to celebrate the boys doing well on their CAT tests. :lol:

 

I did just serve them pasta, watermelon and hard-boiled eggs. I'm eating a 7-layer salad with watermelon.

[Aelwydd]

Even if we assume that the Duggars aren't providing a college prep education for their children (which is a big assumption), it's entirely logical that it won't hinder them from going on to receive a four year degree from a university. In fact, having the classes that you listed on a high school transcript doesn't necessarily mean that a student is ready for college level work, as the classes themselves in most ps have been so dumbed down. And comparing them to homeschool transcripts is a waste of time, as there is no set of standards in the homeschool community to go by.

 

Well, and like I've only said about 5 times already on this thread, I never said they couldn't go to a 4 year college. What I said was, if they don't have the equivalent prep program that these universities list as their admissions standards, then they can either possibly be admitted on condition of completing remedial courses to fill these deficiencies, or they could possibly CLEP or test out, or they could go to another college or school, take the required courses and transfer.

[Pink Fairy]

Well, and like I've only said about 5 times already on this thread, I never said they couldn't go to a 4 year college. What I said was, if they don't have the equivalent prep program that these universities list as their admissions standards, then they can either possibly be admitted on condition of completing remedial courses to fill these deficiencies, or they could possibly CLEP or test out, or they could go to another college or school, take the required courses and transfer.

 

Or, they might be admitted based on their college prep high school transcripts, high SAT scores, and multitude of extracurricular activities. Which no one here can say with any sort of certainty don't exist, as has been pointed out time and again. Or which may not exist at all--no one really knows. (ETA: <---- That's the whole point, really)

Edited July 9, 2011 by Mamabegood

[Renee in NC]

No, it's not that great of a school. And it still has standards.

 

Did I say that the Duggars couldn't get into college? I said, IF one of them did, they might not be prepared for the critical nature of college, and the academic work involved. Thus, they'd require remedial courses to get them up to speed.

 

The question isn't CAN they get into a college. It was always, would they be prepared? Would they prepared, on Day 1, to go into English 101 and write a 10-12 page thesis paper, with proper notations and bibliography? Would they be prepared to go into College Algebra or Trig and keep up? Would they be prepared to go into a sociology class and discuss class warfare or the three waves of feminism? Would they go into a science course and know how to conduct an experiment from start to finish using the scientific method?

 

Maybe they would. I don't doubt their intelligence. I only doubt their preparation in all these areas is equivalent to a college prep hs program. If I'm right, then they'd have to take remedial courses. Or, worse case, they just find it a completely foreign environment and decide to pursue other avenues.

 

I guess what I was saying that I was. I dropped out of high school, went to college, and was able to do just that. So, it is hard for me to think that they couldn't do the same. Maybe they would need remedial classes, but really, in the grand scheme of things, why does it matter?

 

Honestly, I don't even know why I keep arguing with you about this - I really don't care about the Duggars!:lol: I think I'll go join Library Lover!

[Marylou]

For some darn reason, I am still reading this thread, and I just found myself wanting to vomit. How can people even joke about spousal abuse? Disgusting.

 

And comparing bodily mutilation to Christian headship practice is disgusting (Joanne's post).

[Susann]

 

Just thought I'd lighten the mood!

[LibraryLover]

[quote name=Renee in FL;2912056

 

Honestly' date=' I don't even know why I keep arguing with you about this[/i] - I really don't care about the Duggars![/B] I think I'll go join Library Lover!

 

 

:lol: Yes! I have wine!

 

I've missed you, Renee.

[LibraryLover]

No way. :lol: The internet is an amazing thing. :lol:

 

 

Just thought I'd lighten the mood!

[Renee in NC]

:lol: Yes! I have wine!

 

I've missed you, Renee.

 

I'll be there in, oh, 12 or so hours.;) Thanks for saying you missed me, but I think maybe I was better off without the internet since I can't seem to not engage in really crazy arguments!:lol:

[Marylou]

No way. :lol: The internet is an amazing thing. :lol:

 

How do you know it's not her bunny rabbit?

[AvasMom]

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

 

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

 

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

 

This post made dd and I :lol:. I read to her the post you were replying to and she says (with an eye roll) "Um, yeah they don't tape every little thing they do. It doesn't show them going to the BATHROOM either but I'm sure they DO!" From the mouths of babes...

[elizabeth]

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

Wow, this post really took off! I just to add, since I think I'm being misunderstood(!)....I didn't expect ALL of the 19 kids to play sports...when I wrote the post I meant that I think it's weird that NONE of them do. I would think a few of the boys (or all of them) to want to play SOMETHING, like most boys do and I don't know where you guys live but around here soccer is H.U.G.E for both boys and girls...and Joy Anna seems like she could be a jock if she were given the chance...I guess that's it really, I don't think they have a choice and I don't think the older girls have a choice if they want to help out so much either. I know that my one daughter would love nothing more than to be a wife and mother but my other daugther wants nothing more than to go to college to be an accountant...having said that, I can't imagine that every girl in that family wants to be a SAHM...I dunno...just my opinion and observation!

 

Right there with you. They have done quite a bit of perpetuating false stereotypes of home educating families. I am not a fan. I know you are all shocked beyond belief...:lol: To each his or her own but not my cuppa.

[tex-mex]

 

Just thought I'd lighten the mood!

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

Hubs, son, and I died laughing when we saw your photo. They both know when the kilts come out... this thread is taking a fun turn! I've got fried pickles, ranch dip, and Miller Lite. Who else is bringing treats? :D

[elizabeth]

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)

 

What she said. I am also in favor of full civil rights for all people, including the right to marry . Loving v. Virginia .

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

I see gay marriage as no different.

[elizabeth]

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

Hubs, son, and I died laughing when we saw your photo. They both know when the kilts come out... this thread is taking a fun turn! I've got fried pickles, ranch dip, and Miller Lite. Who else is bringing treats? :D

 

You are delightful.

[AvasMom]

 

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:

 

I was one of those dreadful people so let me give you my perspective. It's not about not being friends with someone because of their lifestyle. The "no college, no life outside of home and hearth for girls" mindset *to me* is equivalent to having children of different races and saying "this one can't do X because he is black and all black people should do Y." I do think it is wrong to put limitations on a person because of race, gender, etc.

[Koerarmoca]

 

Just thought I'd lighten the mood!

When the animals come out that is always a sign that I have been reading a thread for too long and should go clean my house or engage my children in someway or another. :lol:

[Joanne]

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:

 

The "how can you counsel" card is in poor taste. First, I am not your counselor. Second, every human being has world views and biases. Third, counselors are trained to counsel ethically in response to their biases.

 

Frankly, being against patriarchy is consistent with most counseling and psychological theory, research, and paradigms. It's only *here*, where the Duggars have an immunity necklace and extreme conservatism is normalized that being against it is pathologized.

[Heatherwith4]

I have now wasted untold amounts of time reading this thread. That is all.

[Susann]

The hedgehog & rooster always feel overshadowed by that darn bunny!

[Scarlett]

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.

 

 

 

 

hahahaah.....that is what get for trying to post on my phone.

[Aelwydd]

Or, they might be admitted based on their college prep high school transcripts, high SAT scores, and multitude of extracurricular activities. Which no one here can say with any sort of certainty don't exist, as has been pointed out time and again. Or which may not exist at all--no one really knows. (ETA: <---- That's the whole point, really)

 

If that's the case, then where's the evidence of them even talking about the kids getting ready for the SAT? They make a big deal about driving tests for the kids. As I pointed out in a previous thread, the Duggars talk about college as a kind of, "Well, IF one of them wanted to..." like it's a concession they'd make. Not something they actively promote.

 

I think it's actually more interesting that so many posters here insist that even though there isn't evidence of a serious college prep program in the show, or on their website, that they must simply be choosing to keep that aspect out of the cameras.

 

I want to know why that is the case. If the Duggars are just using a general H.S. program, and not giving them SAT prep, or engaging in chemistry or biology experiments, or whatever, why is that is so offensive. Why is it offensive to believe that this may indeed be their philosophy of education? There's a lot of hs'ers here, even, who don't necessarily see the value in a college education, and wouldn't go the college prep route with their kids.

 

ETA: It appears that Jill is looking at colleges because she wants to be a nurse. Having been a nursing major (before I switched to public health), I can that's a pretty academically demanding major, no matter what your school is. I'm hopeful she goes for it!

Edited July 9, 2011 by Aelwydd

[LibraryLover]

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

Hubs, son, and I died laughing when we saw your photo. They both know when the kilts come out... this thread is taking a fun turn! I've got fried pickles, ranch dip, and Miller Lite. Who else is bringing treats? :D

 

 

No can do on the Miller Lite. :lol: Everything else is hail yes!

[Marylou]

The hedgehog & rooster always feel overshadowed by that darn bunny!

 

 

Okay, now I think she's using hte web :D!

[Renee in NC]

If that's the case, then where's the evidence of them even talking about the kids getting ready for the SAT? They make a big deal about driving tests for the kids. As I pointed out in a previous thread, the Duggars talk about college as a kind of, "Well, IF one of them wanted to..." like it's a concession they'd make. Not something they actively promote.

 

I think it's actually more interesting that so many posters here insist that even though there isn't evidence of a serious college prep program in the show, or on their website, that they must simply be choosing to keep that aspect out of the cameras.

 

I want to know why that is the case. If the Duggars are just using a general H.S. program, and not giving them SAT prep, or engaging in chemistry or biology experiments, or whatever, why is that is so offensive. Why is it offensive to believe that this may indeed be their philosophy of education? There's a lot of hs'ers here, even, who don't necessarily see the value in a college education, and wouldn't go the college prep route with their kids.

 

I never said that at all - I said it didn't matter whether they were or not. I don't know *what* they do except that they use Switched on Schoolhouse. That program does cover all the minimums you posted, as far as I know. It isn't offensive to me if this is their philosophy (no college) - to each their own. In the end, if the child wants to go to college, they will, despite the beliefs of their parents. Besides, paying for it is the biggest obstacle and they have said they will pay for it if the child wants it, right?

[Aelwydd]

I never said that at all - I said it didn't matter whether they were or not. I don't know *what* they do except that they use Switched on Schoolhouse. That program does cover all the minimums you posted, as far as I know. It isn't offensive to me if this is their philosophy (no college) - to each their own. In the end, if the child wants to go to college, they will, despite the beliefs of their parents. Besides, paying for it is the biggest obstacle and they have said they will pay for it if the child wants it, right?

 

 

Guess what? I stand corrected! It looks like the Duggars, while not really promoting college (they seem neutral on it), several of the kids are taking college credit courses from College Plus. Very awesome! I like the Duggars even more now.

[Impish]

Frankly, being against patriarchy is consistent with most counseling and psychological theory, research, and paradigms. It's only *here*, where the Duggars have an immunity necklace and extreme conservatism is normalized that being against it is pathologized.

I'd be interested in learning about that statement regarding research.

 

As I've said before, I don't care about the Duggars being liked/disliked. I object to discrimination and gross generalizations.

 

I would be very shocked if counseling and psychological theory, research, and paradigms condoned the sweeping generalizations and discrimination, labeling all families as unhealthy/abusive. But, I'm willing to learn and see for myself what is said.

[unsinkable]

Guess what? I stand corrected! It looks like the Duggars, while not really promoting college (they seem neutral on it), several of the kids are taking college credit courses from College Plus. Very awesome! I like the Duggars even more now.

 

Michelle states about Jill, "She literally loves people."

 

Ohmy. Laughing really hard. Can't breathe. :lol:

[Marylou]

Michelle states about Jill, "She literally loves people."

 

Ohmy. Laughing really hard. Can't breathe. :lol:

 

I don't get the funny part, do tell :bigear:.

 

Maybe she means this kind of love . . .

 

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. (from the Bible)

 

The same Jesus who washed the disciples' feet even when they protested. Could be considered kinda subservient. A form of submission even.

 

And if you think the verse means we should crucify ourselves you're (general) misunderstanding it.

[tex-mex]

No can do on the Miller Lite. :lol: Everything else is hail yes!

Whooo-hooo! :D

[tex-mex]

I don't get the funny part, do tell :bigear:.

 

Maybe she means this kind of love . . .

 

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. (from the Bible)

 

The same Jesus who washed the disciples' feet even when they protested. Could be considered kinda subservient. A form of submission even.

 

And if you think the verse means we should crucify ourselves you're (general) misunderstanding it.

:iagree:

I think it is great Jill Dugger is interested in nursing or becoming a doula. She can be a birthing doula or postpartum doula.

[WishboneDawn]

I don't get the funny part, do tell :bigear:.

 

Maybe she means this kind of love . . .

 

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. (from the Bible)

 

The same Jesus who washed the disciples' feet even when they protested. Could be considered kinda subservient. A form of submission even.

 

And if you think the verse means we should crucify ourselves you're (general) misunderstanding it.

 

It might be the use of "literally". :)

[Pink Fairy]

If that's the case, then where's the evidence of them even talking about the kids getting ready for the SAT? They make a big deal about driving tests for the kids. As I pointed out in a previous thread, the Duggars talk about college as a kind of, "Well, IF one of them wanted to..." like it's a concession they'd make. Not something they actively promote.

 

I think it's actually more interesting that so many posters here insist that even though there isn't evidence of a serious college prep program in the show, or on their website, that they must simply be choosing to keep that aspect out of the cameras.

 

I want to know why that is the case. If the Duggars are just using a general H.S. program, and not giving them SAT prep, or engaging in chemistry or biology experiments, or whatever, why is that is so offensive. Why is it offensive to believe that this may indeed be their philosophy of education? There's a lot of hs'ers here, even, who don't necessarily see the value in a college education, and wouldn't go the college prep route with their kids.

 

ETA: It appears that Jill is looking at colleges because she wants to be a nurse. Having been a nursing major (before I switched to public health), I can that's a pretty academically demanding major, no matter what your school is. I'm hopeful she goes for it!

 

I'm not offended by the Duggar's homeschooling choices, whatever those may be. I am simply pointing out that you are making a lot of assumptions.

There is no evidence of SAT prep because none is required. The general public has no right to be informed of the minutiae of the Duggar homeschool plan. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe they don't provide a rigorous college prep high school experience, but maybe they do. The point is, NO ONE KNOWS.

[Marylou]

It might be the use of "literally". :)

 

Was there a thread about "literally" I missed? I've been known to be quite dense after 8 p.m. :001_smile:

[missmoe]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

True, you haven't seen it. Neither have I. But I don't assume it doesn't happen because I haven't seen it. For all I know one or more of them takes online foreign language course. Perhaps the Duggers don't tape during their regular school year? Who knows? We aren't there and aren't privy to all their life.

 

 

 

Also sounds like you have one and only one idea of how one makes it to college. I'm glad your education prepared you for college, but I don't think it is the only path to get one prepared.