The Dugger's female children raise their siblings!

[Liberal_in_LA]

the next Dugger daughter will be assigned the care of that baby Dugger mama will birth! that's how these 'quiver full' families operate.
A major responsibility lands on the shoulder of a teen girl. bleh!

[slackmaster]

1. Young women often assume maternal roles when the real mother is unable to

I know several families in which older daughters took over when their mother died or became disabled.

It's human nature, and it's a good thing.

[Scout]

4. well, perhaps these teen girls don't WANT to be a mother .... and their own

mother is being selfish and teaching them that their wants/needs aren't important, while she forces them to care for the children she keeps squeezing (i mean dropping) out.

this is entirely different from a teen girl voluntarily taking responsibility when her mother dies or is disabled.

[REP]

7. Don't be silly. ALL girls just looooooove babies and can't wait to have them!

:sarcasm: for those who don't know me

[slackmaster]

16. What qualifies you to judge how someone else's family runs its affairs?

If no laws are being broken, I can't see how it's any of your business.

[Scout]

57. what qualifies you to judge me expressing my opinion on a discussion board? n/t

[WolverineDG]

22. While I'm sure your parents never made you do anything you didn't want to

mine certainly did. Things like: Going to school. Washing dishes. Cleaning my room. Laundry. Mowing the yard. Running errands. Mopping. Ironing. Cleaning windows.

Since I was a tail-end Charlie, I didn't have to worry about babysitting duty.

I guess my own parents were selfish bastards for expecting me to do chores (& thereby learn how to take care of myself as an adult).

dg

[wickerwoman]

35. I think there's a limit though,

particularly in situations where children are "home-schooled" and where a significant amount of the "curriculum" involves free labor including farm work and babysitting.

There's an episode of Supernanny where the parents had two teenaged girls and four preschool boys. They "homeschooled" the girls by expecting them to watch the boys and the clean the house all day (and often well into the evening) while they were at work and then had them spend an hour or two learning online (by which time they were so exausted they usually fell asleep at the keyboard). During the episode, one of the girls actually collapsed on camera from the exhaustion and stress.

I had to do chores, but I wasn't expected to sacrifice my education or my future career opportunities for the sake of my family. That's where I would draw the line.

The Duggar girls are all "homeschooled". While their parents *say* the girls can go to college if they want to, none of them as far as I know has even applied. The older two or three girls are college-aged now but aren't even taking community college classes (except CPR). They just run around the house raising their siblings and waiting for Mom and Dad to approve a suitor for them.

I think it's the loss of opportunity for the older girls that people are objecting too rather than the expectation that they do a reasonable amount of chores to contribute to the family.

[Arugula Latte]

50. Why don't they have the boys do it too, then?

[Scout]

54. heh heh heh. although, they are probably exploiting the boys too, just not

with childcare and housework.

[Scout]

52. yeah right because taking out the trash a couple of times a week

and keeping your room clean is JUST LIKE not only going to school and trying to have a life as a normal teen/child, but also being responsible for an infant/toddler.

there really isn't room in a debate for hyperbolic binary thinking.

oh, and you really don't have a fucking clue about my own personal life and what i did or did not have to do as a child, so you can ....

[treestar]

84. Not talking about doing chores

It's about having responsibility for a younger sibling in a sort of permanent sounding way!

[Xithras]

122. Four of the young Duggar women have reached adulthood. None have spoken against it.

I'd agree with the denouncements if the young women were speaking against the practice after reaching adulthood, but that's not the case. All of them continue to embrace and support that lifestyle.

It seems like an insane way to live to me, but as a genuine liberal, I believe that everyone should be able to live the way they choose, so long as they are not directly harming others. Without evidence of harm, there is no reason to object. Yes, it's different, and it's not something any progressive would choose...but liberalism isn't about only supporting people who choose your own lifestyle. I support the Duggars right to do this for the same reason that the ACLU supports the free speech rights of the KKK...rights should never be impinged simply because they are used in unpopular ways.

[wickerwoman]

125. Few Muslim women speak out against burqas...

that doesn't mean it's not a horrible, sexist practice.

I would respect the girls' decision to embrace this lifestyle if they had ever been offered a real alternative.

But their "homeschooling" pretty much guarantees that they can't go to a real college or get a real job. They still live at home and are still largely treated like children even though the oldest one is 21.

Patriarchy isn't a "lifestyle". It's a system of oppression. Just because the oldest girls either have Stockholm Syndrome or realise that their options for employment and independence in the real world are essentially nil thanks to their non-education, doesn't mean that we should accept the arrangement.

Your rights extent to the point where you are infringing on the rights of others. And denying education and opportunity to girls is infringing on their rights.

[Xithras]

127. That's dangerously close to the White Mans Burden argument.

"They just don't know any better" is a horrible reason to try and impose a belief system that the recipients do not want. As an anti-interventionist, both at a macro and micro level, I simply can't support your argument. Your position could be applied to virtually ANY cultural practice found in mono-cultural societies, and has been used in the past to wipe out minority practices that weren't ultimately harmful, but were simply "objectionable" to the more powerful controlling culture. It's a perspective that should generally be opposed by all progressives.

If they ask for help, we offer it. But if the quiverfull belief is genuinely embraced by these young women, we should stay out of it. It's their life, their vagina, and their choice. We may see it as a horrible choice, but it's not our choice to make. Supporting freedoms sometimes means supporting the freedoms of those you disagree with.

Defending the quiverfull nuts...ugh. I feel like I need a shower now. :yoiks:

[wickerwoman]

131. Oh horse puckey.

Two hundred years ago we recognized the need for public education. The UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child recognizes the right of young people to access education and information that exposes them to a different worldview from the one held by their parents. Is that Declaration based on "The White Man's Burden"? No. It's based on the recognition that children are people and that they have rights to education, to opportunity and ultimately to economic independence from their family of origin.

Parents do not have a right to isolate their children from the world, to feed them only what information they find acceptable, to raise them to be blindly obedient and never to question anything, to deny them relationships of their own choosing, to demand labor from them that takes up so much of their free time that they aren't able to pursue an education or any real job skills.

That is oppression. And there is no such thing as a "freedom to oppress others".

People who are being oppressed often aren't in a position to ask for help (or are brainwashed either to think that they don't need it or that they will never get it.)

Why not go a very slight step further to the right and look at the FLDS church. They believe that 13 year olds should marry 40 year olds. The girls didn't ask for help. Many of them lied to the police and obstructed investigations to establish that their children were theirs and were conceived when they were underage. That's a "lifestyle" that those girls/women embraced so its none of our business, right?

[Xithras]

134. There are, of course, a few fundamental differences...

Parents do not have a right to isolate their children from the world, to feed them only what information they find acceptable, to raise them to be blindly obedient and never to question anything, to deny them relationships of their own choosing, to demand labor from them that takes up so much of their free time that they aren't able to pursue an education or any real job skills.

Whether or not they have a "right" to do so can be debated, but what you are objecting to covers 95% of parents throughout human history. As a parent, I have a right to raise my own children according to my own moral values, to isolate them from values that I consider harmful, and to deny them the right to form relationships with people I object to. As a parent, that IS my right and duty. As a liberal, I am raising my kids to be liberals, regularly tell them how conservatives are evil and are destroying the world, absolutely prohibit them from listening to right wing claptrap like Beck and Limpballs, and would jump in swinging if I discovered that my kids were hanging around with skinheads or fundie nutballs. As a parent, that's what I do. The only difference between me and them are the particular morals I enforce.

As for the FLDS, there are two fundamental differences. First, the FLDS are directly and blatantly violating laws that specify the minimum age at which people can engge in sexual intercourse. Second, people HAVE escaped (or been thrown out) of the FLDS church and have asked for help. There is no question that some within that particular sect are being forced to engage in practices against their will. Many young men and women within that church HAVE requested outside assistance, which makes our intervention warranted.

FWIW, if the FLDS church was comprised entirely of people who consented to that lifestyle, and if they weren't sexually assaulting young women against their will, then my perspective on them would be the same as it is toward the Duggars. What consenting people do with their lives is not the business of society. What thugs do to the non-consenting IS the business of society. With the FLDS, there is plenty of evidence suggesting that the lifestyle is forced and nonconsensual for at least a portion of their members. With the Quivernuts, there is no such evidence. Show me a pattern of young women being forced to have babies in the Quiverfull movement against their will, and my opinion will change in a heartbeat. In the meantime, they have a right to believe what they believe.

[wickerwoman]

140. In most states, you do not have a legal right to not educate your children.

Yes, you can raise your kids according to your values, but you can't deny them education. Try withdrawing your kids from school and see what happens. Even where homeschooling is allowed, parents often still need to submit the kids to testing or prove that children are spending a certain number of hours receiving a basic education in some cases with approved curricula. Not educating your child is grounds for intervention by CPS and rightfully so.

And children cannot be "consenting" to the lifestyle. It's less obvious with the Duggars because they've been cleaned up and carefully edited for mainstream acceptance, but the main body of Quiverfullers believe women and girls must submit absolutely to the authority of their husband/father. You can't convince me that spousal abuse, rape and child abuse aren't rampant in many of those families. Some girls wear rings to show that they are married to their fathers before he decides to hand them off to their husband. And people have "escaped" and complained about the Quiverfull movement too. Check out the website "No Longer Quivering".

The fact is that when you don't have a real education and you have six or seven kids by your mid-twenties, "escaping" isn't as easy as packing a car and driving away. Childhood brainwashing can persist for years, and by the time it wears off it can often be too late for these women to make any kind of real life for themselves, particularly when leaving the movement means that they will be shunned by their own family and their whole support network.

I'm sorry that you insist on turning a blind eye on what is clearly exploitative and coercive behavior in these families. I agree that people can believe what they believe right up the point where it infringes on the rights of others. And asking your 14 year old daughter to essentially run a small restaurant while raising a toddler or two with minimal help and not go to school is pretty blatant exploitation in my book regardless of her good-natured acceptance of a raw deal. That's not a lifestyle or a belief system. It is a denial of rights.

[riderinthestorm]

132. You are defending cultural relativism as it applies to patriarchy full stop.

As a progressive, we should be doing everything we can to erase THAT but instead, because you don't want to "intervene" or "impose a belief system", we have to endure a major US teevee network pimping these children, promoting a theological patriarchal program that subjugates the women keeping them truly barefoot and preggers at all times.

Besides that, the Duggars teach others who believe in the Quiverfull movement on how to dodge taxes and not pay their fare share for their great broods of children.

I'm sorry but as a progressive I can't support any of that and I don't think it's regressive in the least to say that out loud. The civil rights movement, women's rights, ERA - all of that challenged people who "didn't know better" yet as a nation we purposefully and deliberately moved forward anyhow to do our best create a better civil society. That's not "White Man's Burden" at all imho.

[Xithras]

133. The opposite of cultural relativism is bigotry.

So, yes, I am absolutely defending cultural relativism. How it applies to an individual subject is irrelevant to the concept as a whole.

And no, the object of liberalism is NOT toerase or impose ANYTHING on ANYONE against their will. The object of liberal progressivism is to support the fundamental ideal that we are all free to live the lives we choose, however we choose them. As unfortunate as the idea is, that DOES mean that we must allow those who would choose to live in a patriarchal society the ability to do so. To attack and attempt to destroy cultural concepts that are directly supported and advocated by the majority of any particular culture is anti-democratic, anti-freedom, and antithetical to the fundamental precepts that classical liberalism was founded upon.

We may indeed know better, but we have no right to impose our beliefs on those who do not want them.

[riderinthestorm]

135. We can and do impose our beliefs on others. We do it daily, both as a society and legally

We don't allow FGM, virgin sacrifices, bullfighting, or naked dancing in the streets. There are literally THOUSANDS of examples more I could provide of things we absolutely do enforce and impose on people who are deeply unwilling to cooperate in our societal norms. You seem to want libertarianism or even maybe anarchy if you are truly advocating for total societal "freedom".

I completely disagree that this is bigotry, it's a society and culture deciding what they want in the public square. Labelling that as bigotry is lazy thinking and a lazy answer imho. Right now our culture is skewed heavily towards theocratic patriarchy and as a progressive I will work towards eradicating that.

[REP]

5. She's neither dead nor disabled though

In the legal sense of either word. Morally and ethically is in the eye of the beholder.

[slackmaster]

17. I think having 19 or 20 children would stretch a person's resources kind of thin.

It's not my problem, or yours.

[RainDog]

23. it is an irresponsible, selfish action in a time when overpopulation threatens our planet

it's stupidity.

so, yeah, it is a social issue when there's a group that tries to encourage women to use their vaginas as clown cars while our planet is already staggering under the weight of 7 billion people.

it's not my business whether any one person has no kids or two dozen, but when this person acts as the figurehead for a group that expounds regressive views, then it's my business too.

anyone who would have this many children is simply a selfish twit, imo.

[slackmaster]

26. Appeals to "isness" don't contribute anything meaningful to the discussion

You say something "is" this or that all day, but you really haven't said anything useful.

[RainDog]

30. lol. to you, obviously

if you do not understand that the issue of overpopulation is a HUGE problem facing this planet, well, that "isness" isn't useful to you either, I see. what an ignorant pov.

if you do not understand that groups that strive to keep women barefoot and pregnant are a problem for all women in this society, well, what is there to say to you, really?

oh, and your remark about it being "human nature" to become the parent of a younger sibling? that's another bit of bullshit. when my mother died when I was a kid, my sister did not want to be the surrogate wife for our father. she was a horrible substitute. she was abusive.

however, what I really want to tell you is that your claim that overpopulation isn't a useful issue to talk about in the context of such ideological mindsets tells me that you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to any discussion on this issue - well, that and your sexist view that all women are natural mothers.

[slackmaster]

32. As long as the Duggars aren't violating any laws and are paying their way, it's none of my business

The whole MYOB thing is difficult for a lot of people on this board to grasp.

...if you do not understand that the issue of overpopulation is a HUGE problem facing this planet...

The Duggars' contribution to overpopulation is a nit, and that of our country pales in comparison to a lot of other places in the world. That couples' exceptional fertility is a statistical anomaly. Someone has to be out at the far end of any bell curve.

...when my mother died when I was a kid, my sister did not want to be the surrogate wife for our father. she was a horrible substitute. she was abusive....

I'm sorry for your tragic family experience.

...however, what I really want to tell you is that your claim that overpopulation isn't a useful issue to talk about...

You must have me confused with someone else. I haven't said any such thing.

[RainDog]

33. the Duggars are part of a social movement

they present themselves as representatives of this movement. therefore, they are not simply acting as private citizens.

so, no, it's none of my business if some family chooses to have ten thousand kids. But if that family went on tv to talk up a barefoot and preggers ideology for women, then it's no longer just about their personal choice.

and, honestly, anyone in this day and age that chooses to have so many children, to me, remains a selfish person. that's my opinion and I am entitled to the same. if they don't want people to have an opinion about their actions, then they shouldn't go on national tv and talk about their lives. but they do. so they have made themselves public persons.

THEY have invited others to have an opinion about their lives by making money off of choosing to have so many children.

[Scout]

56. i'm pretty sure "paying their way" is open to debate. n/t

[musette_sf]

94. Looks like I am (wisely) ignoring whoever said

that it's "human nature" to become the parent of a younger sibling. Because THAT is a complete steaming LOAD.

All that being impressed into child care services for younger siblings did for me, was to further confirm that I was completely NOT interested in bearing and raising children. Which for me, was already part of my self-knowledge since my preschool days.

"all women are natural mothers", what a crock. I've never regretted for a second NOT having kids. And from earliest sentience, I KNEW I didn't want to have kids.

[drmeow]

115. Amen!

I am also childfree (but did not have the responsibility for raising my siblings) and I know other women who had the responsibility and it either lead to or cemented a desire not to have children.

[MadrasT]

130. Thank you for saying that.

It is absolutely a complete load. As a 40-something adult female, I have never for one moment in time wanted to become a parent. No, I don't want kids. And no, I don't want to care for anyone else's kids, not even for 5 minutes.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

137. same here.

I have no siblings, so never had that experience, but I knew from a very early age that I did NOT like babies. Human ones, anyway. They have never "turned on" any "maternal instincts" for me.

Even as a very young kid, I bristled at the suggestion that as a girl, all I could possibly be interested in was mommying. Media representations of girls and women drove me up a wall with anger. "That's NOT ME!!!"

[efhmc]

118. Amen. This whole subject goes to the idea of women as

primarily reproductive units.

[yawnmaster]

70. overpopulation is absolutely no threat to the planet. The planet (and its biosphere) will...

continue.

[REP]

38. I was responding to 'dead or disabled.' She is neither. You change the subject.

I can certainly have an opinion, though. And I do.

[MedicalAdmin]

91. Actually. The diggers game the system and pay zero taxes

By incorporating as a church and teaching other quiverful "scamilies" how to run the same scam. They also take school funding to support their church school.

You and I support this shot with our tax money.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

138. ......

:puke: on them and their fellow scamlies.


:mad:

[hamsterjill]

6. It's not always a good thing.

I know of at least two instances where this occurred (a mother died and an older daughter was responsible for her siblings). In each case, the older daughters grew up resenting the burdens that were placed on them.

Each case is individual.

[Liberal_in_LA]

9. purposely birthing kids after kid with plan to HAND THEM OVER TO TEEN GIRL!

It's NOT A GOOD THING. Let the girl have her childhood.

[slackmaster]

19. That's mighty judgmental.

It's not your family.

[Scout]

58. it's not your childhood being spent in virtual slavery to snot, shit and puke. n/t

[Liberal_in_LA]

85. You bet it is.

[treestar]

86. Where do you draw the line?

Certain things other families decide to do are condemned by society.

[Orangepeel]

113. Meh. They asked for it.

They voluntarily participate in a "reality" TV show based on the fact that they have 10 times more children than average. Of course those decisions are being judged. That's what they get paid for.

[Missy Vixen]

62. The Duggars' mother isn't dead

She's not disabled.

She chose to have TWENTY CHILDREN. By making that choice (and not being courageous enough to shoulder the burden herself,) she's forcing an underage child to raise the baby she has no intention of caring for herself.

It is not "human nature" or a "good thing". It's nothing more than passing the buck - or in this case, the baby - onto a teenager that could be doing things like oh, graduating from high school and college, discovering a career to enjoy, etcetera.

I wonder how many of the daughters in that family will be childfree by choice as well.

:eyes:

[Katarina]

77. It's a good thing?

How in the world can it be a good thing that these girls have to assume the role of mom because her Mother can't close up shop? They certainly didn't ask for it. It she wants to have 20 children let her take care of them...not her children. Maybe if she had changed all the diapers for all the babies she has popped out she would have quit way before now. I don't consider her a mother...she's a freaking incubator.

[snooper2]

128. Mother would be able to if she didn't keep tripping over her vulva

:P :hide:

[ingac70]

2. Yep... saw that years ago before they went on TV....

If these people had that many cats instead of kids, that show would be nothing but an episode of "Animal Hoarders".

[REP]

8. I've often said and thought the same thing

But when it's helpless human beings, then it's different for some reason.

[Matariki]

11. lol. good point.

"crazy cat lady" - "crazy baby lady"

[renate]

34. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but you're right

Although I think there's some kind of weird dynamic going on in that family (addiction to pregnancy? some kind of religious "behold all the fruit of my loins" thing?), I also think that it's not anybody else's place to dictate how many children a family has, especially since they seem to be well cared for (thanks in large part to the older girls, poor things). (I just hope Michelle really does have a say in this, and that Jim Bob or whatever his name is isn't forcing unwanted pregnancies on her.) And I have to admit that the one time I watched the show, the family did seem very sweet; I liked the way that they all moved to be near Josie when she was in the hospital, so they could all stay together.

But if this was a family with 20 cats, it really would be a case of hoarding. I'm still not voicing an opinion either way on whether this family is making good choices, but you present an interesting way of looking at the situation.

[hamsterjill]

3. Yes, and I have a question

Jon and Kate Gosselin got into some trouble for not putting aside a certain percentage of the monies made on Kate Plus Eight for their children. I believe they were ordered to set aside 15% for when the children reach maturity. This happened in Pennsylvania.

How are the Duggar children compensated for their work on the shows? Since this is Arkansas (as opposed to Pennsylvania) does that make it different? Wouldn't child labor laws be a federal issue?

I've never seen this issue addressed as to the Duggars.

[awoke_in_2003]

78. I guarantee the kids ain't getting squat. nt

[SomethingFishy]

10. LOL.. hate teen pregnancies love teen moms...

Loonyville!

[Skidmore]

12. As the eldest child of eight children,

I helped my mother raise my younger brothers and sisters. It was common in big families for older siblings as well as grandparent sto share the responsibilities of family, especially when the father was not around. And large families used to be common in this nation. How quickly we have forgotten that an isolated family of parents and two children were not always the norm. How quickly we have forgotten obligations to one another in general.

[Still Blue in PDX]

24. Your family of origin with eight kids is a far cry from the Duggars with 19.

I had four kids and my husband comes from a family with six kids, so we understand the dynamics of a large family. Nineteen kids, though? I've only watched the Duggar family once on TV, and there wasn't anything about that family that struck me as anything near normal.

[gkhouston]

27. My dad's mom had 22 siblings.

Grandma was born fifth or sixth out of 23.

My father was an only child.

[Skidmore]

43. My father was one of 13 and

one of my great-great grandfathers had 21 children. Families made it through somehow, and I'll lay odds that involved cooperation and sharing responsibilities.

[Still Blue in PDX]

46. My mom was from a large family, too, but I wonder if her mom would have chosen it.

My mom quit school in the 7th grade (1934) to go to work to help support the family. Large families were the norm back then. Women in my grandmother's generation were expected to bear children. Lots of children.

The world is different today. I don't know if it is better or worse, but it is definitely different. For most of us, anyway.

[Hippo_Tron]

144. For the planet's sake, it's definitely better

Granted, I have no problem with a people choosing to have a large family. No one family is large enough to have a significant impact on the resources of the planet.

But as a trend, I'm glad that large families are less popular than they used to be.

[onpatrol98]

99. My parents come from huge families...

In my parents families it really did seem to work the same way. The older siblings became responsible for younger siblings. It was a bit like slave labor. They looked after the younger children, worked in the fields, kitchen, ironing, etc. When it rained, or the season was over, they were allowed to return to school. Even so, my grandparents demanded wonderful grades. They would miss school for days on end, and be expected to make it up and bring home A's. They typically did. But, they do speak of being quite resentful growing up. Still happy, but resentful.

They're not resentful, now. They're all doing quite well. But, I think most think they could have lived without the experience and did just fine. My grandparents had over 13 children each. But, most of their children have two, and a couple have none (on purpose). The two with four children are considered odd.

But, my grandmother was quick to tell you that was in the days before birth control. She didn't "choose" to have so many children. But, just saying No, wasn't an option in her marriage. At least, not if you wanted to be in a happy marriage. She impressed upon "us" girls, that we didn't have to live our lives the same way they did...and shouldn't.

As a former latchkey responsible for looking out for just one younger sibling, it's not always a warm and fuzzy feeling. You didn't ask for the child, and yet, it feels like you get all the responsibility. I would get my sister ready for school, help her with homework, and put her to bed...sometimes before my parents would get home from work. It started when I was 12 and continued until I left for college. She even called me Mom first. I was thrilled to leave for college.

[Skidmore]

107. I agree with you entirely.

I only have two kids, as do most of my siblings. Women used to become old before their time, even those who did not work outside of the home.

[LeftyMom]

36. This is a different situation, unless you had parenting one child assigned to you full time,

and were expected to be the full-time teacher to more kids than that, which is the actual situation of one of their teenage daughters. Nobody's saying it's unfair to ask the older children to run a load of laundry, babysit sometimes or make an occasional dinner.

[hedgehog]

44. I'm the oldest of five, mother of six so I am well aware of the dynamics of

large families. I think the key question isn't whether the older children help with the younger children, but whether they are required to put so much effort into helping that their own childhood is lost ( and teenagers are still children!) It appears to many that what the Duggars call home schooling is a cover for having a young teenager provide almost full time care for a toddler. That's not right! Assuming increased age appropriate responsibilities for helping around the house - cleaning, mowing the lawn, supper dishes, maybe running some laundry is part of learning to be an adult.

[Number23]

49. Great post. My husband is the youngest of six

And if you ask him to this day, he'll tell you his oldest sister was more his mother than his own mother.

[Raine]

59. My father was the youngest of eight, his older sister

who was about 17 years older was like a second mother to him. When she moved away from home a few years later he went with her and lived with her for a year or so. Still they were a close family and my father loved his mother and sister. No one seemed to be the worse for it. Also this same sister (my aunt) was like a second mother to me too, she was very beloved.

[treestar]

87. How much work did it involve?

I babysat for younger siblings from time to time and that did not impinge on my childhood. But with the Duggars, it sounds like quite a burden.

[Angry Dragon]

13. The mother declares:

I do not have time to take care of the babies because I have to spend so much time having sex to make more babies, because I love them so much.

[geardaddy]

14. Every sperm is sacred

DAD: So, you see my problem, little ones: I can't keep you all here any longer.

GIRL: Speak up!

DAD: I can't keep you all here any longer! God has blessed us so much, I can't afford to feed you anymore.

NIGEL: Couldn't you have your balls cut off?

DAD: Hohh, it's not as simple as that, Nigel. God knows all! He'd see through such a cheap trick. What we do to ourselves, we do to Him.

GIRL: You could have had them pulled off in an accident.

CHILDREN:

DAD: No. No, children. I know you're trying to help, but, believe me,...

CHILDREN: Ohh...

DAD: ...me mind's made up. I've given this long and careful thought, and it has to be medical experiments for the lot of you.

[musette_sf]

15. Exactly what I said on another thread about Duggars:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2263192&mesg_id=2263756

[WolverineDG]

18. zOMG call CPS

:eyes:

ffs

Seriously, I was often looked after by my older brother (& cousins, when we visited them). Expecting older children to help out around the house & with younger family members isn't anything new, or something limited to only "quiver full" families. It's also NOT child abuse.

dg

[LeftyMom]

37. How about expecting a teenage girl to homeschool all of the younger children?

Or assigning a medically fragile premature baby to one untrained teenage girl for round-the-clock care? Mrs. Duggar does no parenting duties once she weans the children at six months.

Nobody's worried about these kids having to make dinner or run the washer. The problem is that they're raising kids at the expense of their own education. If the teenage girls were being farmed out as domestics and nannies that would be illegal, but at least they'd get hours off and a salary.

[wickerwoman]

40. One girl cooks for that entire family.

I enjoy cooking and I often do it for my family (of four) when I go home for the holidays. But I can't imagine having to cook for 21 people, three meals a day, every day. And this started when the girl was 14 or so.

Ridiculous.

[LeftyMom]

41. The girls also take the babies to bed with them and wake with them at night.

The parents can't be bothered.

[wickerwoman]

42. It's a question of equity as well.

My brother and I took turns doing the dishes.

The Duggar boys do sweet f*ck all in that house except horse around on the riding lawnmower once a week while the girls are on call 24/7.

[LeftyMom]

47. Doing jack shit and watching the women work their fingers to the bone is good training

for being a Quiverfull daddy. :eyes:

[redqueen]

111. +1

[MedicalAdmin]

92. Mark my words.

Either daddy dearest will be mounting up in the saddle with the girls once mommy dries up. Either that or he'll start taking "vacations" with Rush to the DR with a bottle of Viagra.

[musette_sf]

96. The idea is to drive the current one into the ground

(literally) from repeated plowing.

Then, get a new one.

A walk through eighteenth and nineteenth century graveyards will amply demonstrate how this works.

[onpatrol98]

100. That is quite concerning...

How will her health hold up, if she continues at this rate?

[LeftyMom]

109. She (and the baby) almost died the last time.

[onpatrol98]

110. And, who...would have raised all of these children?

It seems like quite a risk for her to take with the well being of her other children. I realize it's not my business. But, as well adjusted as they seem the few times I've seen the show, I can't imagine her being pregnant most of time and risking her life for child after child is good for the kids. Not to mention, I imagine she is risking problems for each newborn as she gets older.

[musette_sf]

142. Mister Jim Bob would just go buy, um, obtain

him a newer, younger model. That's the way it's worked since time immemorial.

[awoke_in_2003]

80. Too busy making new babies. nt

[Texasgal]

55. Exactly-

Many other cultures world wide have generations of families living under the same roof. It is quite common to see the younger ones taking care of the elders or the each others kids. It's a family effort under one roof.

Perhaps as Americans we have become spoiled. :shrug: I don't know. In many Hispanic culture you will see Grandma and Grandpa, sons, daughters, aunts cousins and kids providing for the welfare of the "family". each person has a responsibility. That's not a bad thing is it?

[wickerwoman]

61. Many of those same cultures don't believe in educating women.

It's fine for everyone in the family to have a responsibility as long as those responsibilities are negotiated between parties with roughly equal power, as long as the responsibilities are distributed equally and as long as peoples' option to leave is preserved.

It's a bad thing when a disproportionate amount of the really onerous and unpleasant work is piled onto one person or one gender. It's a bad thing when the amount of work piled on some prevents them from getting a real education, closes down pretty much every career option besides "mom" or "waitress" and deprives them of the economic freedom to ever leave the family and do anything else with their lives.

None of the Duggar girls will ever get a college education at a real university or a white collar job. Their parents *say* they would support them but their "homeschooling" has left them with extremely limited career options, mostly in low paying caretaker type jobs. The oldest girl is around 23 I think and still lives at home taking care of younger siblings and waiting for dad to "approve" of a suitor for her so that she can start pumping out her own kids.

I think that's really, really sad. They're missing *a lot* because of their parents' choices.

[Texasgal]

69. And many do?

I don't have any statistics on that. Do you?

Do we know know that any of the Duggar girls will not have a extended education. ???

I am not in agreement with the Duggars. I think it's nuts to have that many children but not because the family helps the other family members. I find it nuts in other ways.

My grandmother was a child of 12. She was the oldest. She helped take care of the whole family before marrying and "pumping out" her own family of eight whom My mother was born. Grandma found very good work, grandpa was in the Navy. She worked until retirement as a switchboard operator at a local hospital. She also had a family of extremely well rounded and very educated children all obtaining college degrees except one, they were not rich, my mother had to find a job to help fund her education as well as her siblings. My Mother helped raise her younger brothers and sisters as well, until she herself moved away from home and married.

I'm just wondering if we are not getting the whole story here, and perhaps we are just disgusted by the thought of 20 children?

[wickerwoman]

73. Go to the UN website and look at literacy rates for women in the third world.

It's pretty bleak.

In traditional families, the women and girls cook, clean, garden, tend small livestock, raise babies, etc. so that the men can work and the boys can go to school. That's where the whole "bread-winner" concept comes from. In a lot of very traditional families, it's still frowned on for women to work outside the home because that's the "man's job". You can't possibly be unfamiliar with this arrangement. It's been pervasive in most human societies until the 1960s.

Both of my parents came from families of six. In my dad's family, the oldest girl basically raised the other five because her mother had mental health issues and was in and out of hospitals. They did OK education and jobwise, *but* they were not homeschooled. And most of the girls still became teachers or nurses, not engineers or CEOs.

My mother's mother *hated* kids but grew up on a farm, got no real education and had no job options besides getting married. She had six kids because she was Catholic, wasn't allowed to use birth control and "that's what you did". And she beat the everliving shit out of her kids many of whom never spoke to her again as soon as they could move out. Women need a real education and they need options- not just for their own sake but for the sake of their kids.

I've watched the show and those kids are not getting a real education. They spend most of their school time learning Bible passages and taking online classes from a quack religious school. They aren't taught about evolution. There was one episode that showed one of the middle boys, about 12 or so, writing a letter to his mother in the hospital and the writing looked like a 5 year old- *huge* letters and all wobbly like he was just learning how to hold a pencil.

Their oldest three girls are all college-aged yet none of them are in college.

[Texasgal]

74. I am sure there are many large families

that the girls are not well educated. I agree. I'm sure that they exist. in fact, I know they exist. I am in 100% agreement that every young child deserves a shot with education in our world. Please do not misunderstand me. :)

But really you cannot say that many Hispanic, Italian and Middle Eastern cultures have the same problems. It is common to see generations of families living under one roof helping one another out, raising children and taking care of elders. It is very common. I am sure that many do go on to careers and education. Not all families that bind are poor and without resources. Many do and many understand their family responsibility. This is how their culture works.

The UN website cannot tell me that.

[treestar]

89. Not the case here

The grandparents are not there. Teenaged girls are assigned to babies. That's a lot more than just helping out with younger siblings now and then.

[onpatrol98]

101. Do they ever show the grand parents?

Do they ever show the grand parents? Are they around?

[treestar]

117. Not that I know if, but I'm curious about them

They'd have other grandchildren, too, or other children of their own that did not give them quite so many grandchildren.

[wickerwoman]

119. Michelle's parents live in Michigan

and are much older. Her father died in one of the episodes last season and I don't think they've ever shown her mother. She might have died as well.

Jim Bob's mother is in a few episodes. I think she only has one other daughter who only has one daughter. "Cousin Amy" shows up in a few early ones mostly to say how glad she is to be an only child. The mother and sister don't quiverfull and seemed to think it was all a bit nuts. I think grandma visits now and again and helps with the laundry but doesn't want to be on the hook for babysitting 20 kids on her own.

Can you blame her?

[Pithlet]

20. I agree. But apparently if you're pro choice you aren't supposed to judge that

Screw that, I say.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. judging and legislating are different things. ofcourse i judge it

but i wouldnt legislate the number of kids a woman can have

[Pithlet]

72. I agree.

That's how I see it, too.

[Juneboarder]

21. My sister is 10 yrs younger than me

And believe me - I was there changing diapers, feeding, burping, and babysitting. And ... I'm a guy!:)

[asjr]

25. I was 13 when my only sister

was born. I grew up overnight. Had to. Dad abandoned us when she was 2 weeks old. Mother was in such bad shape in many ways I took over. I have never regretted it. Now, the Duggars are another story.

[JI7]

31. yeah, thats totally different from continuing to have kids with the expectation that older daughters

will be responsible for them.

[Nye Bevan]

28. OH MY GOD. Older children helping their parents take care of the younger kids? That's UNHEARD OF!

CALL CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!

[Still Blue in PDX]

45. "Helping" is the operative word here.

My older kids helped with the younger ones. They weren't the sole caretakers of an "assigned" younger one.

I don't think there is anyone here who thinks it is abuse to expect kids to assume some responsibility around the house or babysit occasionally.

:eyes:

[Arugula Latte]

51. Why don't the boys help, then?

[WinkyDink]

67. The boys helped build the house, e.g.

[in_cog_ni_to]

76. The house is built. Why aren't the boys taking care of the children, doing dishes, mopping floors,

and doing laundry? This family is a Quiverfull Cult. It's not healthy for any of those kids. It boarders on Child Neglect. There's no way one mom and one dad can give 20 kids the love, nurturing and attention they need to grow. The older daughters get stuck doing it all. THEY didn't have the babies. The mom and dad did. It's NOT the children's responsibility to take care of them.

[Arugula Latte]

90. That was a limited project.

Now they have some free time so why aren't they wiping baby butts?

[Liberal_in_LA]

81. these parents spit out baby after baby KNOWING they can't care for them, planning to

saddle their daughters with them. The daughter becomes the mom to the baby. She's ASSIGNED the job of raising the kid.

[Mariana]

39. While I didn't mind HELPING to take care of my younger siblings

I sure wouldn't have liked it to be my (unpaid) all day, every day responsibility to raise any of them.

[Donnachaidh]

48. I'd like to see the government fund a report on how much welfare these gerbil families apply for

The Duggars get money from the show. But in real life I'll bet these overproductive families also put in for ANY help out there as the add kid after kid. And a real argument can be made about these families putting huge pressure on the social safety net.

[pstokely]

108. It's okay, they're white Fundy Christians

Not Cadillac driving ghetto welfare queens

:sarcasm:

[Nye Bevan]

53. BTW I'd much rather be born as the 20th Duggar child

than as the first, second or third child of some abusive, neglectful crack users or meth-heads.

[Raine]

60. Me too. I've watched the show and inspite of myself ended up actually liking

the family. I don't agree with their choices (on many things besides the many kids) but they are really likable. At this point all the kids seem well adjusted and not lacking attention from their parents.

[WinkyDink]

66. 100% agree.

[onpatrol98]

102. True...

The family seems likable. But, surely the camera isn't running all the time. They seem well adjusted.

[ljm2002]

63. I am amazed at some of the responses here...

...claiming that this is just teaching the girls responsibility, and that it's none of our business anyway.

First: it is not just teaching the girls responsibility. It is teaching them that their proper role in life is baby factory / homemaker and nothing more. It is also teaching the boys that about women. So I feel quite within my rights in criticizing them for it. Note, criticizing them does not equate to asking anyone to call the cops on them. It is indeed their choice -- but we are all free to comment on others' choices.

Second: the Duggars decided to have a TV show. By doing that, they made their lives and their choices everyone else's business. They didn't have to do it, it was their choice. But having done so, neither they nor their apologists can claim that the rest of us should keep our mouths shut because it's "none of our business".

Third: the mother could have died with the last baby, and that child had health issues as well, weighing under 2 lbs at birth. What if the mom dies this time? That's an awful lot of kids who would be without their mother. Or she could become disabled, which would put another burden on the family -- mostly on the girls. The new baby may not be as lucky as the last one. Sure, this can happen anytime with any pregnancy. But when is enough enough? They already have 19 children and this is a high risk pregnancy. IMO it is outright insanity.

As a woman, you better believe I feel free to comment on this. I find it appalling that this woman has agreed to be a baby factory, and even more appalling that this is what they are teaching their children. For those who don't want to see comments on this topic, I suggest you use the "Hide thread" feature.

[Liberal_in_LA]

79. +1000.

[awoke_in_2003]

83. "What if the mom dies this time?"

It would be god's will, of course. Seriously, I agree with all your points.

[redqueen]

114. +1000

Women have been treated this way for so long, it's not even visible to many.

[I Have A Dream]

121. Hear hear! nt

[Karenina]

124. Because this is a so-called "movement"

it's important to point out its similarities to the Middle Ages.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. Of course;

the queen bee their mother is too busy incubating the next sprog to do it herself; the earlier daughters must help support the hive family.

[WinkyDink]

65. What's it to you? Are they worse than rich women's nannies and au pairs?

[wickerwoman]

71. Nannies are paid and get time off.

Au pairs volunteer and can leave whenever they want to.

Again, a 14 year old girl in that family cooked 63 meals a day. They don't go to school. They raise their parents' kids, do all the housework, shopping, cooking and cleaning, aren't allowed to date and don't earn a red cent for any of it. They're lucky their parents don't make them all wear matching clothes and hairstyles anymore.

Yes. It's worse than nannies and au pairs. Those girls have a right to a real education and an opportunity to do something with their lives besides marry someone their father picked for them and pop out more babies.

[alterfurz]

68. Groucho weighs in...

Groucho: So, you got any kids?
"You Bet Your Life" female contestant: Yes, Groucho, I have eleven children.
Groucho: Eleven?! Did you say eleven kids?
Female contestant: Well, I love my husband...
Groucho: Lady, I love my cigar but I take it out of my mouth once in a while.

[Still Blue in PDX]

98. Excellent. nt

[Occupy_2012]

75. When large families were common, people lived on farms.

Nobody sat on their backside doing nothing while the girls acted as waitresses, cooks and childcare workers. My dad got up every morning at the crack of dawn, milked cows and fed chickens, then went to school, then came home and did more chores, when he was very young. No way would my grandmother let the boys slide while the girls did everything. Farm folk liked large families because it was free labor. The kids were earning their keep. That's quite different.

Helping babysit younger sibs is one thing, but those girls have to serve 3 meals a day for 21, plus guests and extended family, which means they are serving 63+ meals a day, essentially running a small commercial restaurant, and a commercial business size childcare operation. They couldn't legally watch that many small kids, one with serious medical needs, if they were a daycare center, because they'd need more staff. If there was some emergency, they're pretty young for that much responsibility. Those girls have every other avenue of life closed to them, and they're very young. Saying it's nobody's business that these girls will never have an opportunity for a normal life is like saying, let's not have CPS anymore because they pry into parents' irresponsible decisions. At some point you have to put innocent children's needs above their parents' egos.

Parents have traditionally sent older kids to school while mom cooked, cleaned and looked after younger kids. People used to believe mom and dad were responsible for raising their brood, not well-meaning youngsters without the maturity to make decisions. This is not "going back to the good old days." Not even June Cleaver was expected to home-school. Why are we even discussing re-inventing the wheel here? People have agreed for centuries that kids deserve an education and a better life than their parents. Why is this even being debated now?

Could these kids even get into a college? If they plan to have large families themselves, how will they support them without a college degree? This is not about homeschooling being "better," it's about controlling the kids' exposure to another lifestyle, and preventing them from meeting people that could help them get away.

[Liberal_in_LA]

82. exactly - these Dugger girls aren't babysitting periodically. They are assigned full responsiblity

for a baby.

[seabeyond]

88. i would think that was about a given. nt

[SoCalDem]

93. Older daughters in large families often end up doing much of the "raising"

and in many cases, these daughters choose to have no children of their own..or maybe settle for an only:)

[NMMNG]

95. That's God's Plan for them

It's all they have to look forward to; having babies, changing diapers, cleaning house and serving the menfolk. They might as well get trained up in it as early as possible. :sarcasm:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. I still remember a news feature I saw on TV at age 10 or 11

It was about a Wisconsin family that had 22 children.

The feature went on and on about how they all ate at a long table and slept in rooms full of bunk beds in a big old farmhouse and went through 15 loaves of bread and several gallons of milk each week.

At the end of the report, the reporter noted, "By the way, if you've been watching closely, you will have counted only 20 children. That's because the two oldest girls have become nuns."

Even as a grade school kid I got it. I was ROFL.

[onpatrol98]

103. LOL...nuns!!!

[BillyJack]

104. Michele Dugger is the "Kim Kardashian" of babies.....

Stop giving these opportunitics FREAKS any of your attention and they will disappear into the obscurity that they are due.

Stop paying attention to these freakish side-shows. There is much of importance to focus our attention upon....and these 'people' are not "bread". They are ALL "circus".

[applegrove]

105. I knew a woman who had raised her own sister. She didn't want children later in life. It was not

really her choice at all. I always felt sorry for her....it should be your choice not circumstance that make you childless.

[JI7]

106. to be fair i do think the Girls ARE Happy with their lives

but i just wonder if they would prefer something else if they got to experience that.

also the girls are not shut out as some other girls are like those warren jeffs people. the duggar girls can drive and they go out with the family and see the world. it's not like they are shut out from the outside world.

but there is the issue of experience in meeting other people and developing your own relationships apart from the ones you are born into.

what if one or mroe of the girls went out and they saw some guys they found attractive ? this family is not only against sex before marriage but they are opposed to kissing before marriage also.

what i am hoping is one or more of the kids breaks away from that type of life and do their own thing. i don't think the family will disown them as they do interact and have a close relationship with their other family members who are more normal.

[redqueen]

112. Apparently it is very hard to tell the difference

between girls "helping out" and actually raising your younger siblings and providing a maid service to your brothers.

Something tells me this distinction would not be so lost on so many if women hadn't been doing more than their fair share of these burdens for too long already.

[DainBramaged]

116. Dugger bugger OMG another Flubber

Olive Garden, AppleBees, Cigarettes, breastfeeding, circumcision, narwhals, pit bulls, smoking bans,

Elliot Spritzer, High school bands, soda pop and food stamps, kids on planes, drinking caffeine, bombing the moon, tax fast food, Rapture,

PETA, Vaccinations, orange juice, Jessie James, Ipads, Michael Vicks, Octomom, toilet paper dust, unicorns and Charlie Sheen,

we didn't hate the Weiner, 2 Broke Girls are the new screaming kids in restaurants, we didn't include the spare tire....... and the Dugger mom is

popping out another one......

[cbdo2007]

120. So what....just because it's different than how you would do it, doesn't mean it's wrong.

That's the great thing about America is everyone's got their own goals and hopes and dreams and how they reach those is none of my business.

[riderinthestorm]

123. There's a whole slew of ways it's wrong. Its a commercial teevee show advocating women stay barefoot

and preggers at home their whole lives, that they must defer to their man in all decisions, that the Christian Gawd is the only/best gawd etc etc (if you don't see the problem with promoting a hideous theological patriarchal major network show then I can't help you).

There's also the idea that the exploitation of their children for commercial purposes is wrong. Not to mention the overpopulation issue...

Beyond that the Duggars are tax cheats - you are basically subsidizing them.

There's been a ton of threads just like your post. You may want to peruse a few. Here's one....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2266834&mesg_id=2266834

[LanternWaste]

126. My brother...

My brother (two years older than I) raised me for all intents and purposes. :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

129. Weren't they also excused from classes so they could feed the herd, do the housework, laundry, etc?

Iirc, the parents stopped home schooling their young teen daughters because they didn't think they'd need an education since they'd be nothing more than brood mares when they grew up.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

141. My grandmother had to drop out of school to take care of her

younger brother when he was seriously ill for several months. She never went back.

[beam me up scottie]

143. Back then I guess it was expected, she sacrificed her education for her family.

Willingly or not, it was noble of her.

The girls in the Duggar family, otoh, are being groomed for servitude.

We've come a long way, baby, eh? :(





edit:speeling

[Mendocino]

136. "Daughter Wives"

the next reality series in Jim Bobs financial schemes. Beats working, just exploit the wife and kids.

[iris27]

139. I only had to do it for 4 years, and only for 2 kids (my younger brother and sister),

but it was enough to pretty much kill any desire for children of my own. I'm just not interested in being a parent, because I already had to be one at age 14, and I had no choice in the matter.