Jill Duggar Dillard is pregnant.

[mommaduck]

Yep, too many of us have quit that kool-aid.

 

[Guest]

Ok. So I shouldn't have assumed you had no personal experience with ATI. It is, however, still insulting to say that adults raised in ATI don't even know what a choice is, much less how to act on one. Your parents may have been influenced by Gothard's teachings but my family, and several of my aunts and uncles and a bunch of my cousins were actually IN the program for many years. We attended conferences, lived, worked, and took classes at training centers both in the US and oversees, taught in Children's Institutes, I was even a Family Coordinator's assistant and responsible for contacting dozens of other ATI families throughout the year. I, and my family members, know literally hundreds of former ATI students. Some are disillusioned, some have completely turned away from God which is very sad, but I can't think of a single one who doesn't know how to make or execute a choice. In fact, the vast majority have *chosen* to leave ATI as adults. But choosing to do something the same way our parents did - like Jill Duggar (and myself) not using birth control, is not a sign that we don't know how to make choices. And to insinuate otherwise is insulting.

I am sorry that you feel insulted. I am speaking from my own experiences and how it affected myself, my siblings, and others I have known.

 

It is true that a person (or even an animal) trained in certain ways does not realize the choice that is available. It is called "Learned Helplessness." You've heard of it, perhaps? It is the reason (most) dogs can be trained to stay in a yard with an invisible fence. They have been thoroughly conditioned to believe moving beyond an area previously defined as "the yard" results in unpleasant correction.

 

This happens in families that tightly control choices, too. I know firsthand because I came from one. For example, though my parents never directly told me I was not allowed to go to college, it wasn't an opportunity that got any real consideration from me until I was well into my twenties. I didn't act on it until I was 38. Why? My parents subtly deterred their girls from this option. In overt moments, too, my mom disparaged career mothers. My mom took a PT job once when I was a teen (we were quite poor) and she was fearful that my dad would not approve, or would insist that she quit because, as she said, "When we got married, we agreed that I would not work outside the home." My dad is not a threatening guy, but they believed this was most often wrong. (She kept the job. I guess the desperation of their situation made it acceptable).

 

Let's just consider choice in the Duggar family, from what we can see publicized. For instance, I read in an article once that "the older girls are allowed to make decisions about what modesty means to them." Michelle stated that the older girls do not have identical standards about this and one "may be more conservative than I would require." I do see a range; Jinger wears shorter and tighter denim skirts than Jana does. However, do any of them (so far) say, "Actually, I am fine with this skirt that comes three inches above my knees; it has a built in short, so I'm fine with it." Or...have any dropped by American Eagle and picked up a few pairs of denim shorts? Even in Bermuda length? It certainly will be interesting to see how M & JB respond if this happens.

 

Or let's consider choice with respect to vocation and marriage choices. They are only permitted to court approved potential marriage mates. This assures that the "choice" they have available to them occurs only within a narrow range of (in the parent's eyes) approved Christians. So the girls are only permitted to come out from under their father's "authority" when they have a husband ready to assume that role. (I need the retching icon.)

 

Now, might it work out in such a way that one or more of the kids, when they've been married five years and have four kids, reconsider what they were taught, draw new conclusions, and don't have 15 kids and one bathroom. Even adults who were conditioned to think one way do become aware of other ideas over time and may choose a different path. I would say the internet has made "de-conditioning" easier and more common than ever, if only because different POV are so available and the illogical base of one's belief system is easily realized on the web.

 

Anyway, I wish no ill for Jill or any other Duggar. I hope they will have happy lives however they turn out. They do seem like nice people and I would probably admire those girls a lot if i knew them IRL. Still, at the end of the day, I find nothing recommendable in the ATI model; there aren't even bits of it I kinda agree with a little. The people I knew growing up who followed the IFBYC materials where admirable in an inverse relationship to how thoroughly they adhered. I'm only glad my parents were moderate in how much they adhered and they never did think troll dolls or cabbage patch dolls were evil.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

I read this Open Letter to the Duggar Defenders and I thought this part goes along with the do-they-have-choice-or-not:

Edited September 10, 2014 by Susan Wise Bauer
I removed a lengthy quote from another site. Click on the link!

[Audrey]

I find the statement that her sisters were repeatedly asking if she was pregnant and then urging a pregnancy test on her incredibly intrusive. Aside from Jill's desire for pregnancy, I think the answer to that should have been, " Mind your own business."

 

The Duggars have been on tv for at least the last 10 years, a bit less than half of Jill's life, and in all of that time (and probably before) the main focus in their lives has been fertility and reproduction. Their family culture revolves around that. Most certainly, their public lives are based entirely on that.  To them, asking "are you pregnant yet?" wouldn't phase any of them at any point.  It's what they've been groomed to produce, both by their family and by reality tv.

[Guest]

I just get really tired of people insinuating that the grown Duggar kids only make the decisions that they do because they are brainwashed, mindless robots who are incapable of thinking for themselves. Is that what people think of me? I still agree with my parents on a lot of the things they picked up from ATI; not everything but quite a bit. Do people think that's because I'm incapable of thinking anything else

Do you really think the grown Duggar kids have a full range of choices? In one of their books a few years ago, Michelle told that, though they all use Apple products (iphones, macs, etc.,) NONE are given "open internet access." (That included JB, btw. Guess he doesn't trust himself to that temptation?) Jana and Jill were the only kids who kept the internet passwords for anyone who may need access. Does this represent choice? Would any of those beautiful young ladies buy a bikini? No? Why not? Do you really think they just happened to come to think bikinis are too exposing? But...hmmm. Other young ladies who don't have that tightly-controlled swimsuit selection rarely choose swimwear that can only be special-ordered from a modesty swimwear store. My dd chose a small bikini this year for the first time ever. Why did she pick that, instead of a knee-length swimdress? Probably because she liked it, and I haven't prevented her from buying a bikini that, while very cute, is only equally revealing to those worn by other girls her age. But I doubt she would buy a floss-thong. Why not? Because i have shaped her thinking over the years that floss-thongs are showing too much. (Also illegal on the beaches we visit.)

[Guest submarines]

Do you really think the grown Duggar kids have a full range of choices? In one of their books a few years ago, Michelle told that, though they all use Apple products (iphones, macs, etc.,) NONE are given "open internet access." (That included JB, btw. Guess he doesn't trust himself to that temptation?) Jana and Jill were the only kids who kept the internet passwords for anyone who may need access. Does this represent choice? Would any of those beautiful young ladies buy a bikini? No? Why not? Do you really think they just happened to come to think bikinis are too exposing? But...hmmm. Other young ladies who don't have that tightly-controlled swimsuit selection rarely choose swimwear that can only be special-ordered from a modesty swimwear store. My dd chose a small bikini this year for the first time ever. Why did she pick that, instead of a knee-length swimdress? Probably because she liked it, and I haven't prevented her from buying a bikini that, while very cute, is only equally revealing to those worn by other girls her age. But I doubt she would buy a floss-thong. Why not? Because i have shaped her thinking over the years that floss-thongs are showing too much. (Also illegal on the beaches we visit.)

 

I'm not sure this is unique to the ATI, though. There are many mainstream religious families (and even atheist families) that believe that as long their adult children live with them, the parents can and should control their choices. I learned this on this board, btw. :tongue_smilie:

 

Parents be definition often limit choices, just by expressing their own views on what's moral, pretty, healthy.

 

[amy g.]

I understand,"As long as you live under my roof, you follow my rules."

 

What if the adult child is required to live under their roof until they get married?

 

What if they are not allowed to get married until they have permission?

 

It really changes things.

[Guest]

I'm not sure this is unique to the ATI, though. There are many mainstream religious families (and even atheist families) that believe that as long their adult children live with them, the parents can and should control their choices. I learned this on this board, btw. :tongue_smilie:

 

Parents be definition often limit choices, just by expressing their own views on what's moral, pretty, healthy.

 

Sure, they do. I get that. I do that with my kids, too, as I said. The point I was trying to make is that having tightly controlled choices DOES affect the children and DOES make them likely to choose from within a narrow selection of acceptable choices. If Michelle and JB demonstrated NO opinion over, say, how a woman's hair should be, is it equally likely that all the girls would wear their hair long? Don't get me wrong; they have gorgeous hair; I quite agree with the aesthetic choice they've made about hair, but would any consider cutting it in a pixie and dying it purple? I highly doubt it. The parents have opinions about appropriate girl hairstyles and the girls have absorbed that, at least for the time being.

 

To some degree, we all brainwash our kids.

[Scrub Jay]

Or... maybe it could be that a grown woman entering marriage may be excited about one of the huge perks of such a relationship - that of conceiving children. I know it's awfully counterculturally these days to want babies and be excited or eager to have children of your own after spending years around your siblings, but believe it or not it does happen. Sheesh.

 

Not everything has to be brainwashing, just because it isn't what we would choose for ourselves.

 

Since when it it counter-culture to want babies??  Wow, that's a new one.  Try telling that to childless by choice families.

 

[Guest]

Or it could just be for accountability, too. My husband has all my passwords and I have his. Our children won't be allowed unlimited Internet access under our roof. These are parenting and relationship choices we make for very good reasons, and believe it or not we're totally comfortable with it.

 

Parents having guidelines of conduct or attire for children might be crazy. Ooooor it might just be that family's culture. My family was pretty darn worldly compared to many Christians and yet we weren't allowed unlimited clothing, media, or activity choices even as adults under their roof. Because it's THEIR roof and their rules.

 

And they never had to go to ATI seminars or read any literature to think that perhaps giving young men and women unlimited access to vice and potentially sexual situations was a bad idea.

 

I get that you had a bad experience and anything ever associated with the things you detest MUST to be related. But maybe it's not cult brainwashing, but an eyes wide open choice the family makes for themselves that the children assimilate because they agree in principle and action with how their parents raised them. And that given the choice, they still wouldn't depart from it.

 

Believe it or not, clear thinking individuals can and do choose to live in strict self discipline and under biblical principles. Some of us really like it and believe it to be right for us, even having tasted fully of the 'other side' of things.

 

I don't know how else to say it - choosing these things for our families and ourselves doesn't mean there is a paternalistic psycho running our lives or epic emotional abuse. Your posts in this area veer pretty strongly into this insinuation and honestly it's projecting to keep assuming that these adult children must be damaged goods unable to make cogent, free will choices on these issues just because their parents raised them a particular way.

 

ETA - and in case this somehow gets lost, I am not attacking you, Quill. I know you are very sensitive on this subject. But I do think some of your posts make an awful lot of assumptions about people you don't know, and paint with an overly broad brush.

I don't know how you make some of the leaps you make here.

 

Do you even understand how human beings form beliefs and make choices? Because this is what I'm talking about.

[*Lulu*]

 

 

To some degree, we all brainwash our kids.

Amen.

 

I have been working for years to brainwash Punk that his dirty clothes belong in the hamper and his clean clothes belong in the drawer. I also have been working to brainwash him about where is and is not an acceptable location to pass gas.

 

I have about decided we are going to need to move on from brainwashing to electroshock therapy.

[momacacia]

I am an ex-ATI "student." DH is also ex-ATI, oldest of 9. (I'm an only--yeah, I know. :laugh:) What is interesting about this Duggar fast pregnancy is that it reminds me of the second and last sister of DH's to get married a few years ago. I think she was 20 or 21. She found out she was pregnant when going in for foot surgery a month or two after her wedding. They do a blood test before surgery or anesthesia, I guess, and told her she was pregnant. Clearly was a wedding night or honeymoon baby.

 

Her comment afterwards was, "Well, I was planning on getting to the doctor (as in gyn) at some point after we got married. I just hadn't gotten there yet." Erm, kiddo, the time to get to the gyn to discuss pregnancy and bc is before the wedding NOT after. All this left me realizing that while I'm sure SIL knew how babies were made, she didn't realize "it only takes once," and probably had precious little knowledge of how her own fertility works. I realize my MIL didn't talk with her about *anything* before the wedding, bc options, maybe wanting to at least chart her cycle or *something* unless she wants to get pregnant right away. SIL was completely uneducated by either herself or her mother.

 

The really amusing part was that MIL (mom to 9, ATI kool-aid drinker) comments to me after this how SIL's husband's parents think that they should have their kids young and early on in marriage---as though MIL thought this was not entirely sensible. I'm so confused at this point about what her philosophy actually is. :lol: "Have a lot of kids, don't use bc, but just don't do it too soon, and for heaven's sake don't talk to anyone about it." :confused1: 

[MFG]

I can barely remember my own computer passwords. I certainly do not want to bother with anyone else's. Fortunately, I share my home with another adult so that is not a problem.

[Audrey]

Or... maybe it could be that a grown woman entering marriage may be excited about one of the huge perks of such a relationship - that of conceiving children. I know it's awfully counterculturally these days to want babies and be excited or eager to have children of your own after spending years around your siblings, but believe it or not it does happen. Sheesh.

 

Not everything has to be brainwashing, just because it isn't what we would choose for ourselves.

 

I'm not sure why you quoted me, as your post bears no relation to what I was saying.  I think you may be applying other posters' words to me, or maybe you quoted the wrong post.  The post I was responding to said they thought that nagging Jill to take a pregnancy test was intrusive.  I was simply saying that, in their culture, it isn't. 

[gardenmom5]

I guess, being Catholic, having children shortly after marriage, and not utilizing birth control to counter that possibilty, simply doesn't register on my radar of "weird", however much I may not understand the Duggar's particular faith and/or beliefs.

 

That the young man was shocked doesn't suprise me, either, lol. My husband is older thand I am by 15 years, certainly not sheltered in any way... but that positive pregnancy test, only a couple months after our wedding, seemed to have shocked him a bit :p

 

dh was more excited than I was . . . .

 

[Joanne]

Or... maybe it could be that a grown woman entering marriage may be excited about one of the huge perks of such a relationship - that of conceiving children. I know it's awfully counterculturally these days to want babies and be excited or eager to have children of your own after spending years around your siblings, but believe it or not it does happen. Sheesh.

 

Not everything has to be brainwashing, just because it isn't what we would choose for ourselves.

It is not counter cultural to want and celebrate children. It is still - by far - the expected life path for women.

[Guest]

I read this Open Letter to the Duggar Defenders and I thought this part goes along with the do-they-have-choice-or-not:

 

But there’s something else, something that’s been bothering me ever since I saw the following video some time back, and that has to do with the way the Duggar parents work to limit and carefully circumscribe their adult children’s choices.

In the video the older Duggar girls are talking about what they want in a husband (since the Duggar girls are expected to find the right man the first time through a parent-controlled courtship, they have to guess at what they want rather than finding out by dating around). I was especially struck by an exchange between Jinger and some of her siblings in the last half of the video.

“She doesn’t want to live three hours out from civilization,†one of the girls said of Jinger.

“No, okay, city please!†Jinger burst out, “City please!

“She would do fine in New York City or something,†one of her sisters adds in the background.

“I’d be okay anywhere,†Jinger goes on, “but city would be awesome.â€

“But if you didn’t get somebody like that,†one of her sisters butted in, “the Lord could be working and teaching you something in that area.â€

“Yes, that’s for sure, I need to work on a lot of things, you know, contentment,†Jinger admits.

What you see here is Jinger actually saying what she wants, and being talked down by her sisters because in the Duggar home what someone wants is not all that relevant. What God wants for them is what’s important.

This would be bad enough if this were it, but it isn’t. In an article released after the clip came out, Michelle had to come in explaining what Jinger really meant. Because apparently Jinger isn’t even allowed to say what she wants without her mother cleaning up for her afterwards, and explaining that that wasn’t really what she meant.

Jinger didn’t mean she wanted to move to New York City. She meant that she wants to live closer to a city. We’re talking right near a city, but not New York City. Jinger meant she wanted to live 15 minutes from a Wal-mart. We live so far out of town on 20 acres, but Jinger wants to live closer to town, so she doesn’t have to drive so far to go shopping. New York City is way above what we would ever consider a city where she should move!

How old was Jinger at this time? Nineteen.

I read that entire blog post, plus the original one she referred to about her concerns with the Duggars. She is spot-on. I nodded my head through the whole thing.

 

And I watched that video about living in the city. I can totally relate to the way Jill over rides what Jinger says. It kinda kills me. In my family, it was my mother who did such things, but it was exactly like that. "Oooooh, I'm sure you don't mean you would want to be an architect, you just mean that you enjoy house plans. Architects have to go to college for YEARS and YEARS and have to do a lot of Math!"

[stripe]

Her comment afterwards was, "Well, I was planning on getting to the doctor (as in gyn) at some point after we got married. I just hadn't gotten there yet." Erm, kiddo, the time to get to the gyn to discuss pregnancy and bc is before the wedding NOT after. All this left me realizing that while I'm sure SIL knew how babies were made, she didn't realize "it only takes once," and probably had precious little knowledge of how her own fertility works. I realize my MIL didn't talk with her about *anything* before the wedding, bc options, maybe wanting to at least chart her cycle or *something* unless she wants to get pregnant right away. SIL was completely uneducated by either herself or her mother.

But in my opinion this is typical. I would say it's typical American mindset, but it's not just in the US! Tons of people think you get pregnant after some large amount of tries, never on the first, like it's a cumulative effort. I know several people with MULTIPLE unplanned pregnanies. There is a HUGE amount of denial about where babies come from -- not the least of which is that study of the 1% of US women who claim to have gotten pregnant without any sexual contact! (no invitro either)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/virgin-births-claimed-by-1-percent-of-us-moms-study/

 

It's not limited to some fringe, sheltered group.

 

During my first prenatal appointment for my youngest, I was asked about five times if the pregnancy was planned. I am not sure what that was about, but it was weird.

[Joanne]

I DO realize that some families take things to an awful extreme. I find it incredibly sad. But people need to know that these are actually rare cases. It isn't like that for most families. You only hear the horrible extreme stories. A few ATI kids grow up never getting to make any decisions for themselves. Most do.

 

I just get really tired of people insinuating that the grown Duggar kids only make the decisions that they do because they are brainwashed, mindless robots who are incapable of thinking for themselves. Is that what people think of me? I still agree with my parents on a lot of the things they picked up from ATI; not everything but quite a bit. Do people think that's because I'm incapable of thinking anything else?

 

I'm tired of people only hearing the bad side of ATI. It's horrible, it needs to be told, but it wasn't the norm. I guess it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks but that's the point of these sorts of threads right? To express our expert opinion on the lives and thought processes of people we've never met?

 

Sheesh...3 posts on one thread on the Chat Board. That's a personal record I think. Going back to just being primarily a reader now.

 

 

 

We clearly disagree, then, on the psychological mechanism at play in a cult.

 

I personally believe that ATI is poison - it poisons faith, spirituality, family, culture, hope, ambition, gender roles, and literally shapes and changes minds/brains.

 

There is nothing "good" in terms of ATI and its culture/content. There isn't a "bad side." It is ALL bad.

 

I have been counseling families out of the abusive, controlling effects for over a decade now - starting with helping Christian families formulate and adopt a developmentally informed, research based parenting paradigm that centers on grace rather than sin. I've seen the effects of ATI. Yes, it's a continuum - some are less effected.

 

The idea that "we", if we knew more, or the real story, would feel differently is patently wrong.

[PeacefulChaos]

Congrats to them!

 

(Note: I knew I was pg before I took the test the last 3 times. With my 1st, I dreaded it a bit but I was 2 weeks late so I knew I had to be, confirmed with test. With the last 3 I took the test the day of or the day after I missed my period. So knowing within 30 days is definitely not weird in my book.)

[UmMusa]

I must admit, I didn't see that coming, but it shouldn't surprise me given the family culture. I was hoping to see her a happy bride for a while (not that it's any of my business). I thought she and Derek wanted to travel for mission work, that's why I was surprised.

[Tohru]

NM- I have no idea what I'm talking about :)

[Aelwydd]

 

Yeah, but it's not often you see all those various factors (and more) present in one discrete sample. At the same time. And marketed and packaged as a "genuine Christian worldview" complete with formulaic instructions.

 

 

ETA: Well, I guess disregard this too as it was in response to the above post.

[gardenmom5]

I know several people with MULTIPLE unplanned pregnanies.

During my first prenatal appointment for my youngest, I was asked about five times if the pregnancy was planned. I am not sure what that was about, but it was weird.

 

ah yes, the "just this once won't matter" form of bc. . . . . I know some of those, for whom most of their pgs were that method.

 

as for the other - there is an increased risk of dv for pregnant women - especially if the pg was unplanned.  even last time I had a baby, I had lots of questions in the hospital - and the freak out the mom-baby nurse had when she saw my arm covered in bruises.  well, actually the labor and delivery nurse caused those!!!!!  (I hated that woman, but was afraid to demand a different nurse. she was very disrespectful, and controlling.  and I'm not sure there were any other's available. besides, I was in active labor, so not really in condition to do the demanding necessary. yes I complained afterwards to the head nurse, not that I think it did any good.)

 

[gardenmom5]

It is not counter cultural to want and celebrate children. It is still - by far - the expected life path for women.

 

It might not be counter cultural - but I HAVE met (older even) women who think there is something wrong with you if you have more than one (very token) child.  they were either childless by choice, or only had one - by choice.

the two women I know who deliberately chose to not have children didn't think there was anything wrong with children, just not for them.  (though one later changed her mind and announced her pg by saying h3ll had frozen over, she was pg.)

[Aelwydd]

It might not be counter cultural - but I HAVE met (older even) women who think there is something wrong with you if you have more than one (very token) child. they were either childless by choice, or only had one - by choice.

the two women I know who deliberately chose to not have children didn't think there was anything wrong with children, just not for them. (though one later changed her mind and announced her pg by saying h3ll had frozen over, she was pg.)

Those women an entire culture do not make. I've met plenty of people, of both sexes, that think the choice to only have one child is selfish, pitiable, sinful, materialistic, unpatriotic, evidence of child hatred...shall I go on?

 

I grew up hearing and seeing the message that it is woman's main purpose in life to marry and reproduce. This was in both religious and secular spheres.

 

I almost never heard that it was a woman's highest purpose to pursue love and life first, and that children were not a necessary component for happiness. Anytime I did come across such an ideal, there usually at least 10 more angry loud voices decrying what rubbish such radical feminism is. Pah, living for yourself, instead of for your progeny! The very ideal.

 

Even with as accepted as childless couples are now, the overwhelmingly default is still to have children.

[Catwoman]

Those women an entire culture do no make. I've met plenty of people, of both sexes, that think the choice to only have one child is selfish, pitiable, sinful, materialistic, unpatriotic, evidence of child hatred...shall I go on?

I grew up hearing and seeing the message that it is woman's main purpose in life to marry and reproduce. This was in both religious and secular spheres.

I almost never heard that it was a woman's highest purpose to pursue love and life first, and that children were not a necessary component for happiness. Anytime I did come across such an ideal, there usually at least 10 more angry loud voices decrying what rubbish such radical feminism is. Pah, living for yourself, instead of for your progeny! The very ideal.

Even with as accepted as childless couples are now, the overwhelmingly default is still to have children.

Wow.

 

I don't know where you're from, but I'm glad I'm not from there. :eek:

 

I have never heard comments like that other than on the Internet. I would not react kindly to them if anyone ever said them to me in real life, but I seriously doubt that anyone I know would ever say such things.

[Aelwydd]

Wow.

 

I don't know where you're from, but I'm glad I'm not from there. :eek:

 

I have never heard comments like that other than on the Internet. I would not react kindly to them if anyone ever said them to me in real life, but I seriously doubt that anyone I know would ever say such things.

You are talking about disparaging only child remarks? I have heard such statements in church, at times in the workplace, and a few times among extended family members. I have lived in the southeast, northeast, and now in Texas.

 

When I would hear such remarks, generally the person sharing their opinion didn't realize I am the parent of an only child, or it was before I got married. When I hear such remarks now, I react with directness and anger. I am heartily sick of small families being targeted especially by some conservative religious groups as talking points for their bumper sticker culture war.

 

I didn't choose a large family, and frankly, I find the prospect of parenting one to be daunting. For me, personally. But, you will never find me saying anything but complimentary things about them in public places, and trying to be thoughtful and sympathetic, and not judgmental.

 

Why? Because I know what it feels like to have my reproductive choices publicly commented upon, judged, and disdained. No, I don't live in Oz or in some remote locale. If you listen to many posters here, they will confirm it's actually uncommon for people to keep their opinions about family size tucked away.

[Lisbeth]

Brainless? Nope. Clearly their gene pool offers average to above average IQ.

 

A scripted, limited, and restricted choice list? Yes. Their whole lived experience and culture shaped their brains to where, as young adults, they truly DO NOT have a range of choices.

 

I keep waiting for all of the snarky posts lamenting how generational welfare is a limited/scripted choice, in which culture shaped the members' brains - and so they have baby after baby with no intact family, living off of taxpayers, more likely to fall into drugs or crime...

 

It's amazing the snark and pity people feel for the Duggars. It really reveals a bias.

 

I have relatives who live the welfare way, complete with drugs and crime. They get pregnant young, but have no family structure/support. 

[Ripley]

It is not counter cultural to want and celebrate children. It is still - by far - the expected life path for women.

 

The former speaks to motive; the latter to behavior.

 

A woman can be said to "want and celebrate children" -

and even behave in a manner motivated by that -

but if she does so in the spotlight of following an "expected life path"

her behavior is culturally-driven, and completely ignores motivation.

 

A woman behaving outside the established mainstream ideals

to want children, to celebrate children, to have children, and/or to

fulfill (or attempt to fulfill) the expectation she will have children -

is said to be counter-cultural, without regard to her motivation.

 

Rhetorical questions:

Is her motivation to have children "to want and celebrate children" or is it to fulfill an expected life path?

Is the distinction an important one? And if so, is it only important if her behavior reflects the mainstream?

 

ETA My opinion:

Each subculture wants to believe it's following the right recipe for human existence.

It's necessary to the subculture's continued existence, and in that way is excusable.

But no one - not political liberals, not religious conservative, not any group in between -

is above the displaying or encouraging of social behaviors contrary to a woman's moral freedom to bear children.

[stripe]

It might not be counter cultural - but I HAVE met (older even) women who think there is something wrong with you if you have more than one (very token) child.  they were either childless by choice, or only had one - by choice.

the two women I know who deliberately chose to not have children didn't think there was anything wrong with children, just not for them.  (though one later changed her mind and announced her pg by saying h3ll had frozen over, she was pg.)

 

So have I, or that something is wrong with you if you have a child/children. My mother was subject to an enormous amount of criticism for having me. When I was a baby, she also struggled to find an apartment in which a baby was allowed. It was virtually impossible. Discrimination against babies was perfectly acceptable at that time -- no one wanted the anticipated noise. 

 

ah yes, the "just this once won't matter" form of bc. . . . . I know some of those, for whom most of their pgs were that method.

 

More like the "if I am not trying to get pregnant, this won't count" mode of "birth control." People seem to think the brain can deflect sperm off the egg.

 

as for the other - there is an increased risk of dv for pregnant women - especially if the pg was unplanned. 

Does "dv" stand for domestic violence? Because they asked about that constantly as well, just as part of their protocol (basically whenever they talked to me). It was really annoying. Because the nurse wanted to differentiate between "happy accident" and intended pregnancy. Being fine about being pregnant, still had to be probed as to what the motivation had been at the time of conception. It was as if this was some philosopher's hospital or something. I found it none of their beeswax.

[puddleduck]

I had forgotten how much people love to judge one another, and how much you can get out of a little snippet on tv.Thanks for the reminder!

[MomtoCandJ]

Congrats to them :) otherwise I really don't give a rat's hiney, their lives their choices.

[ktgrok]

I think the most important thing to remember here, as far as their choices, is that they are all each other's only friends, for the most part. So if one was to leave, and be shunned, they'd lose their only support system. One of the authors they promote says that you must shun completely a child who is rebellious, so that the younger children are not led astray. Can you imagine what kind of emotional blackmail that is for kids raised that way? They live on 20 acres in the country, isolated, no youth group, no school friends, no team sports, no internet other than each other, no money of their own. Leaving that, knowing it means no contact with your very best friends, not to mention the little ones you've helped to raise....how does one even do that?

[gardenmom5]

You are talking about disparaging only child remarks? I have heard such statements in church, at times in the workplace, and a few times among extended family members. I have lived in the southeast, northeast, and now in Texas.

 

 

 

truly, it takes all kinds.  I got disparaging remarks from MY GRANDMOTHER because I had more than *one* . . . . (my mother was an only.  as were several of her maternal cousins.  despite her mother having been one of ten)

[Crimson Wife]

Since when it it counter-culture to want babies??  Wow, that's a new one.  Try telling that to childless by choice families.

 

 

It is socially acceptable to have 1 or 2 kids. 3 is okay if the first two are both boy or both girls but unacceptable if you had one of each and then get pregnant with #3. 4+ is unacceptable period.

[maize]

It is socially acceptable to have 1 or 2 kids. 3 is okay if the first two are both boy or both girls but unacceptable if you had one of each and then get pregnant with #3. 4+ is unacceptable period.

This was my experience in California. The comments I got from random strangers when I was pregnant with #3! People would look at my little girl and boy, then my pregnant belly, and ask in complete bewilderment "why would you have another?" !!! Apparently a girl and a boy completes the set and one must be crazy to think another child to love is a good idea.

[fairfarmhand]

This was my experience in California. The comments I got from random strangers when I was pregnant with #3! People would look at my little girl and boy, then my pregnant belly, and ask in complete bewilderment "why would you have another?" !!! Apparently a girl and a boy completes the set and one must be crazy to think another child to love is a good idea.

 

It was my own dad who said "whoops!" when I told him we were having #3. I thought, "WHAT IN THE WORLD???"

 

Then he was really shocked when I was pregnant with #4.

 

[Joanne]

I keep waiting for all of the snarky posts lamenting how generational welfare is a limited/scripted choice, in which culture shaped the members' brains - and so they have baby after baby with no intact family, living off of taxpayers, more likely to fall into drugs or crime...

 

It's amazing the snark and pity people feel for the Duggars. It really reveals a bias.

 

I have relatives who live the welfare way, complete with drugs and crime. They get pregnant young, but have no family structure/support. 

 

?? "Welfare" (sic - a misnomer) is time limited.

 

The "welfare way" and drugs and crime are not an automatic coupling and the actual demographics of welfare recipients would likely surprise many people.

 

Generational poverty is a complicated issue, and "living off taxpayers" reveals a bias as well.

[Scrub Jay]

It is socially acceptable to have 1 or 2 kids. 3 is okay if the first two are both boy or both girls but unacceptable if you had one of each and then get pregnant with #3. 4+ is unacceptable period.

 

But that isn't what was being discussed.  It still remains false that it is against the cultural norm to have babies when you are married.  And "4+ is unacceptable period" really isn't true, either.  That's a huge generalization.

 

The fact remains that married couples are expected to procreate by society at large.

 

[Crimson Wife]

This was my experience in California. The comments I got from random strangers when I was pregnant with #3! People would look at my little girl and boy, then my pregnant belly, and ask in complete bewilderment "why would you have another?" !!! Apparently a girl and a boy completes the set and one must be crazy to think another child to love is a good idea.

 

What I really couldn't understand is getting comments from fellow Catholics. The immigrant families in my parish were great, especially the Filipinos. But the whites seemed to have forgotten that our faith teaches babies are blessings.

[Joanne]

But that isn't what was being discussed.  It still remains false that it is against the cultural norm to have babies when you are married.  And "4+ is unacceptable period" really isn't true, either.  That's a huge generalization.

 

The fact remains that married couples are expected to procreate by society at large.

 

 

That, and the get married and have babies is still the expected (scripted) life path - especially for women.

[maize]

That, and the get married and have babies is still the expected (scripted) life path - especially for women.

Well, if it ever becomes not the norm for women to have babies we just may see the human race on the endangered species list...

 

Unless of course you expect the men to start having babies?

 

:D

[Catwoman]

You are talking about disparaging only child remarks? I have heard such statements in church, at times in the workplace, and a few times among extended family members. I have lived in the southeast, northeast, and now in Texas.

When I would hear such remarks, generally the person sharing their opinion didn't realize I am the parent of an only child, or it was before I got married. When I hear such remarks now, I react with directness and anger. I am heartily sick of small families being targeted especially by some conservative religious groups as talking points for their bumper sticker culture war.

I didn't choose a large family, and frankly, I find the prospect of parenting one to be daunting. For me, personally. But, you will never find me saying anything but complimentary things about them in public places, and trying to be thoughtful and sympathetic, and not judgmental.

Why? Because I know what it feels like to have my reproductive choices publicly commented upon, judged, and disdained. No, I don't live in Oz or in some remote locale. If you listen to many posters here, they will confirm it's actually uncommon for people to keep their opinions about family size tucked away.

I have been the mom of an only child for 14 years now, and I can honestly tell you that no one has ever commented negatively about it. The only people I know who have received snotty comments are the moms who have several children, because their families seem to stand out from the crowd. People say some very mean things to them, and I think it's horrible.

 

I'm so sorry people have said such rotten things to you! I do think it must be regional or something, though, because small families seem to be the norm here. My brother and SIL had four children and got a lot of comments about how they must be "really good Catholics." :rolleyes:

 

I don't know why anyone would care about how many children another family chooses to have. That stuff isn't even on my radar. I mean, sure, I make jokes about the Duggars having a million children, but I think I also make it pretty clear that they seem to be a happy family and that's all that matters. And heaven knows, if I ever met Michelle Duggar, I would sincerely tell her that she has a beautiful family. I certainly wouldn't comment on the number of kids. It's none of my business, anyway!

[ocelotmom]

Since when it it counter-culture to want babies??  Wow, that's a new one.  Try telling that to childless by choice families.

 

 

I would say that quiverfull-style marriage/childbearing and being childfree are opposite ends of a continuum. They're both counterculture choices.

[vonfirmath]

I just said this because she got some negative tests and then a positive and its so early on. Normally I wouldnt, but I would make sure my "positives" outweighed my "negatives" before making a big announcement. 

 

Ah. That's not how pregnancy tests work though.

 

You get negative tests until your hormones build up. So you can't be 100% sure it is a true negative until your monthly comes. But a positive is a positive, even if it is faint.

 

I never felt I needed more than a single positive to let me know I was pregnant, even after several days of negative tests.

[Slartibartfast]

I still don't know why these people are on TV.

 

The only reality show I watch is Top Gear.

[Audrey]

It is socially acceptable to have 1 or 2 kids. 3 is okay if the first two are both boy or both girls but unacceptable if you had one of each and then get pregnant with #3. 4+ is unacceptable period.

 

 

In what fresh hell do you live?  That is absolutely not my reality.  I know very few families locally with less than 4 children.

[maize]

In what fresh hell do you live? That is absolutely not my reality. I know very few families locally with less than 4 children.

When we lived in California people definitely looked askance at--and felt free to make rude comments to--a mom with more than two kids in tow.

 

Where I live now larger families are relatively common, but given that the birthrate overall for the US is below two children per women, I'm thinking your area must not be typical if most families have four or more children.

[Scrub Jay]

When we lived in California people definitely looked askance at--and felt free to make rude comments to--a mom with more than two kids in tow.

 

Where I live now larger families are relatively common, but given that the birthrate overall for the US is below two children per women, I'm thinking your area must not be typical if most families have four or more children.

 

Where in CA?  I live in the LA area and there are families of all sizes here.  I've never heard one parent complain about a rude comment regarding a 4+ family size but I have heard several complaints from my childless by choice friends that they should have kids, aren't a real family, yadda yadda yadda.

 

Frowning down upon a larger family just isn't the norm here.