Quiverfull, Providentialism -- Your Opinion

[ysolde]

Well the Duggars, perhaps the most famous members of the Quiverfull movement, are expecting their seventeenth child.

Essentially, the Quiverfull movement posits that all sexual contact should be open to reproduction, and that to use birth control or to otherwise space or time the birth of your children is a sin:

The principal Quiverfull belief is that Christians should maintain a strongly welcoming attitude toward the possibility of birthing children. With minor exception, adherents reject birth control use as completely incompatible with this belief.


[edit] Majority doctrine
Most Quiverfull adherents consider children to be unqualified blessings, gifts which should be received happily from God. Quiverfull authors Rick and Jan Hess argued for this belief in their 1990 book.

"Behold, children are a gift of the Lord." (Psa. 127:3) Do we really believe that? If children are a gift from God, let’s for the sake of argument ask ourselves what other gift or blessing from God we would reject. Money? Would we reject great wealth if God gave it? Not likely! How about good health? Many would say that a man’s health is his most treasured possession. But children? Even children given by God? "That’s different!" some will plead! All right, is it different? God states right here in no-nonsense language that children are gifts. Do we believe His Word to be true?[2]

Quiverfull authors such as Pride, Provan, and Hess extend this idea to mean that if one child is a blessing, then each additional child is likewise a blessing and not something to be viewed as economically burdensome or unaffordable. When a couple seeks to control family size via birth control they are thus "rejecting God's blessings" he might otherwise give, and possibly breaking his commandment to "be fruitful and multiply".[18][21][2][22]


Charles D. Provan's 1989 The Bible and Birth Control is credited as strengthening the theological justification for the Quiverfull movement.Accordingly, Quiverfull theology opposes the general acceptance among Protestant Christians of deliberately limiting family size or spacing children through birth control. For example, Mary Pride argued, "God commanded that sex be at least potentially fruitful (that is, not deliberately unfruitful).... All forms of sex that shy away from maritial fruitfulness are perverted."[18] Adherents believe that God himself controls via Providence how many and how often children are conceived and born, pointing to Bible verses that describe God acting to "open and close the womb" (see Genesis 20:18, 29:31, 30:22; 1 Samuel 1:5-6; Isaiah 66:9).[2][23] Hess and Hess state that couples "just need to trust God to provide them with the perfect number of children for their situation."[2]

Rejection of birth control by some Quiverfull adherents is based upon the belief that the Genesis creation and post-Noahic flood Bible passages to "be fruitful and multiply" (see Genesis 1:22; 9:7) are un-rescinded Biblical commandments.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull

I find this movement unsound, ecologically frightening, and quite unhealthy for women and children. However, those within the movement claim increasing numbers (perhaps because they are having so many children). What do you make of this?

[msnicolea]

I think that having more children than you can adequately provide for (physically, emotionally, and financially) is a "sin," not to mention a burden on the Earth's resources.

[MLA]

Honestly? I think it's backwards. It's unhealthy, impractical, and downright irresponsible to have more children than you can handle financially, emotionally, or physically. But I'm not Christian, so my opinion about this may not really matter.

[Linz]

I am a Christian and have been told by other Christians in groups at school that I need to have as many children as God will allow :rolleyes:, HOWEVER, I agree with msnicolea that you should not have kids that you cannot provide for and I believe that God gave us the resources and the brains to produce things such as BCP's and condoms and the ability to temp and so on and so forth.

[ysolde]

The whole thing confuses me. If members of Quiverfull did not cook their food, did not take antibiotics, did not use vaccinations, did not drive cars, did not wear glasses, and, oh, a million other little things that go against nature, it would be consistent. But to say that G-d is in control of this one aspect of our lives, but we have to take care of our lives and health in every other aspect is, umm, odd.

[IrishEyes]

Well, putting aside the Duggars, because they seem to do pretty well in monetary terms of being able to afford 17 children (obviously we can debate, and have, whether they have the time and attention to raise these children, and how they are being raised), I think people should take into account whether they have the resources for each child they bring in this world.

DH and I are spending a lot of time evaluating every aspect while we consider having another child. We have certain expectations (from ourselves only) as to making sure we have enough time, space, appropriate daycare, savings plans for both children's possible private HS and college educations as well as vacations, etc. Not everyone is going to see this how we do, but this is how we want to provide, and we will actively work to prevent having another child until we decide to.

I am Christian, but have never heard my church's official stance on birth control, having children, etc., because they aren't very vocal about whether or not they have an official stance. I'm pretty happy about that, as well. I think our decision is a personal one.

[katmg]

DH and I are spending a lot of time evaluating every aspect while we consider having another child. We have certain expectations (from ourselves only) as to making sure we have enough time, space, appropriate daycare, savings plans for both children's possible private HS and college educations as well as vacations, etc. Not everyone is going to see this how we do, but this is how we want to provide, and we will actively work to prevent having another child until we decide to.

I am Christian, but have never heard my church's official stance on birth control, having children, etc., because they aren't very vocal about whether or not they have an official stance. I'm pretty happy about that, as well. I think our decision is a personal one.

Yup, I agree.

I too have never heard my church's (Methodist) official stance on bc. I'm totally fine with that too. :D

[emmjay]

I think that having more children than you can adequately provide for (physically, emotionally, and financially) is a "sin," not to mention a burden on the Earth's resources.
What she said. Especially the part about it being a burden on the Earth's resources.

[ginadc]

I think the Duggars do particularly well because they've become a cottage industry on Discovery--not exactly something too many families can do. Generally, my guess is that most families would have trouble supporting that many kids, or even half that many. Hell, DH and I do pretty well for ourselves and I know we would! (Not to mention the fact that I'd be a gibbering insane wreck...)

And beyond being able to financially support your kids, there is the issue of emotional support and just being able to actively parent them. From everything I've read about the Duggars, it sounds like Michelle hands off the latest baby to a chosen older sibling when they're about six months old, and from then on the baby is more or less that child's responsibility. So who's really doing the parenting here? And are these kids having childhoods? How well do the parents really know each child individually? I know how much time it takes to care for my one DD, and even more so, I've seen how hard it is for our friends who have four kids under the age of 7 to give each one quality time and still support their family. They do it, and they're great parents, but it's really hard. Alex, the mom, is one of my parenting idols, and she says there's no way she'd ever have more than four. Getting into double digits, now, I just don't see how you have enough time in the day to give one-on-one time to each child--and I think each child deserves that.

And as others have said, there definitely is an issue about excess consumption, burden on the earth's resources, and so on. As far as the Christian theology behind it, well, not being one, I can't speak to that.

Of course, then there's the "How many is too many?" question. I wouldn't presume to answer that for anyone else, but given that eight kids was enough (no pun intended) to spawn a major TV series about the craziness of managing that many children, I'm thinking once you can't count them unless you take off your socks, you might be out of control...

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I trust they're not rejecting God's blessings by wearing seatbelts in cars or helmets on bikes/motorcycles!

[ysolde]

Is it a rejection of G-d's blessings to wear SPF 30? To smear it all over your child? Sunlight is good, but in excess, it causes cancer. Of course, if you leave these things to Providence . . .

[jesvet]

Like most people on here (and I imagine most people in general) this isn't a theory to which I would adhere. The idea of having as many children as you can made sense when you were in a self-sufficient environment and needed help on the farm, etc...but these days children are an economic burden, not a help.

Unless you are *exceptionally* independently wealthy, the idea of providing the same quality of life you experience yourself to that many children is pretty much out of the question. We have two children right now, and if we have more than that it will become exponentially more difficult to provide for cars, college, the sorts of things I would like to be able to do for them.

My grandparents came from families of 17 + kids- in the depression era, without access to birth control, that was not the sort of thing that would raise an eyebrow at all in their community. But I don't think a single one of them would describe their childhood in glowing terms; their poverty was only worsened by the straining of their resources. And none of them had more than 3 children themselves, when they had the choice.

Few families *choose* this for themselves, now that we can choose. Obviously there is a reason. If the Duggars do it in a self sufficient way that makes them happy, more power to them. But I have a hard time ever seeing this movement ever truly gaining mainstream momentum.

[Delta]

The movement may be growing in number but it's still tiny.

My impression of them is that they are almost racing to see how many kids they can have. That's not necessarily letting nature take its course.

[amew]

I find the movement fascinating for its novelty, but I ultimately I agree that it is ecologically unsound to the point of being sinful. I also question whether many families could ever provide for the financial, emotional, and physical needs of so many children.

I too have never heard my church's (Methodist) official stance on bc. I'm totally fine with that too.

Assuming you mean the United Methodist Church and not a more conservative or fundamentalist offshoot, they think birth control is just dandy. :) They are far more ambivalent about abortion, which they do not consider an acceptable means of birth control but recognize as justified in some circumstances.

[imagirliegirl]

It is completely twisted logic to me. I guess they would prefer that poor and unfit people had tons of kids rather than people make informed decisions about reproduction. Sounds like a great idea.

I have family members that are hard core Catholic. They had 8 or 9 kids and couldn't afford one of them. Those poor kids were always starving and never had anything. They all had to share 2 bedrooms. She only stopped having kids because she got sick and wasn't able to anymore. She was actually SAD that she couldn't have more kids. I find that shocking. How can you look at your starving children in their tiny overcrowded rooms and think for one second that it's God's will for them to suffer?

From everything I've read about the Duggars, it sounds like Michelle hands off the latest baby to a chosen older sibling when they're about six months old, and from then on the baby is more or less that child's responsibility. So who's really doing the parenting here?

On their TLC show she was talking about that, how the younger kids have older "buddies". Basically she does just pass them off to an older sibling. I think that is so unfair to those older children. They are 10 years old having to act like grown ups.

[katmg]

Hijack


Assuming you mean the United Methodist Church and not a more conservative or fundamentalist offshoot, they think birth control is just dandy. :) They are far more ambivalent about abortion, which they do not consider an acceptable means of birth control but recognize as justified in some circumstances.

Sweet! I knew I liked my church. Y'know, I grew in the UMC but it's not the sort of thing they really go over in the confirmation class in 6th grade. :D

Hijack over!

[jnettie]

Is it a rejection of G-d's blessings to wear SPF 30? To smear it all over your child? Sunlight is good, but in excess, it causes cancer. Of course, if you leave these things to Providence . . .

That's a fundamentalist - Choose your verses selectively and interpret literally.

What's more, groups like this who keep themselves separate from the rest of America (or where ever) are hotbeds of abuse. Women and children don't meet anyone else and think that this is just how it is. You are told God says you have to obey your husband/father, so you don't question when he beats you. And when your mother has her 17th kid and passes him off to you to raise, you don't know any other way.

[Asha]

why is this so shocking to us (myself included)? there are many religions that encourage massive procreation and prohibit the use of birth control. why are we singling out this group as being an aberration?

[kris97]

What's interesting to me is that they seem to discourage anything that would space children - even the Catholic church approves of natural family planning (i.e., temperature taking and avoiding intercourse on fertile days).

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

why is this so shocking to us (myself included)? there are many religions that encourage massive procreation and prohibit the use of birth control. why are we singling out this group as being an aberration?
I personally wasn't aware that there are many religions that encourage massive procreation.
But I'm perfectly willing to scowl at any couple who has adequate access to birth control and continues to pop out babies without regard to how their actions are detrimental to the environment and their own children. Especially those couples that decide to advertise their lifestyle.

[greenbunny]

Looking at this strictly from a cold scientific standpoint, it's not in the best interests of our species for a small specific group to consistently over-reproduce. At six billion and counting, humanity obviously isn't in any danger, but the concept as a microcosm is not genetically wise.

There are some people who just should not pass on their genes--not for any judgmental or moral reason, but simply because they are harboring traits of harmful disease. (I'm not saying that the Duggars specifically fall into that category because I have no knowledge of their genetic health, I'm just speaking conceptually.) I can only imagine if DH and I were to decide to reproduce en masse--we'd be creating a population of children with the potential to suffer from diabetes, lupus, autism, and possibly schizophrenia (jury's still out on a few relatives :rolleyes: ). Oh, and they'd all probably die before 60 of heart disease.

[Sarah]

I personally would not do this, and I find it rather foolish and pretty scary for me and my family. But, as a Christian I do tink God calls certain people to certain things others find nuts. I don't think there's any Biblical basis to this belief of theirs, but I do think there's a biblical basis for God calling people to things. It is not for me to judge, especially if they provide for their kids and they are well cared for. As for comments like this one:
The whole thing confuses me. If members of Quiverfull did not cook their food, did not take antibiotics, did not use vaccinations, did not drive cars, did not wear glasses, and, oh, a million other little things that go against nature, it would be consistent. But to say that G-d is in control of this one aspect of our lives, but we have to take care of our lives and health in every other aspect is, umm, odd.

Is it a rejection of G-d's blessings to wear SPF 30? To smear it all over your child? Sunlight is good, but in excess, it causes cancer. Of course, if you leave these things to Providence . . . don't make sense. Their insistance has nothing to with what is "natural" it has to do with their belief that God has commanded people to not use BC (i don't agree with them on that). God never commanded us not to wear sunscreen or use seatbelts.
What's more, groups like this who keep themselves separate from the rest of America (or where ever) are hotbeds of abuse. Women and children don't meet anyone else and think that this is just how it is. You are told God says you have to obey your husband/father, so you don't question when he beats you. And when your mother has her 17th kid and passes him off to you to raise, you don't know any other way.Well, I think this is rather unfair. I've never seen the Duggars' show, so I can't speak to them, but I know many families in my church don't use any BC and they aren't like this. Likewise my church encourages and believes in the husband as the head of the family, and submission, and all that, but that in no way excuses, encourages, condones, or justifies abuse. Many people have been excommunicated from "fundamentalist" churces for wife/child abuse.

ETA- I know oh, at least 6-8 families like this, all (except one) of whom are out of their childbearing years, and none has anywhere near this number of children. I think 2 of them have 6, 2 have 5, 2 have 2 (odd), and I think I know 1 with 9 and 1 with 8. Still incredibly large by American standards, but not crazy huge.

[villanelle75]

It is important to note that these people don't' just shun the use of BC. They also shun the use of temping and any attempt to avoid sex during fertile times.

Most couple who don't approve of BC still don't' have 17 kids. They temp if they aren't ready for another kid, or sometimes, they just stop f@#$ing.

Sarah do you really know 6-8 families like this? "Like this" meaning that they not only don't use BC,but that they also don't avoid pregnancy by any other means, including temping or timed abstinence?

Of course, the primary burden for this falls on the woman. Not only is her body put through the utter trauma of gestating and birthing 17 kids, but she's the one at home trying to care for her mega-litter.

And these kinds of insular groups are always potential breeding grounds for abuse, just like any cult. With only limited contact with the outside world and very limited interaction with outsiders (homeschooling, socializing only within your group, etc.), kids not only don't learn a broader view of what is acceptable treatment, instead having to relying to rely on whatever their parents tell and show them is okay, they also don't know what resources exist if they do realize their treatment isn't okay, and their ability to contact those resources for help is extremely limited.

So if you want to beat your kids, or have sex with them, or pass them off to the neighbors for sex, or if you want to beat your wife, what better place to do it than one where you wife or kids don't' really know this is wrong and don't' have anyone outside of your like-minded community to turn to about it?

[Secret_Squirrel]

I had an intimate look into a family that was a part of this mindset. She was my midwife and she practiced out of her home, so I spent time there for appointments over two pregnancies. Her daughters all wore long skirts with leggings and small "hats." She was pregnant with her 7th when we met.

While I found their lifestyle unusual, I never once felt uncomfortable. She was the calmest, most supportive person I'd ever known. Never once did she try to prostelytize me or call my choices into question. And after my son was born, she fitted me for a diaphragm.

When I asked about how she managed the practice with the little ones and another on the way, she explained the "buddy system." She had older teenagers from a previous "normal" marriage before she converted. The kids were homeschooled, everyone had their assigned chores. She was essentially the breadwinner, as her practice was the family's main source of income and her husband did the books.

One of her older teenage sons rebelled, moved out and lived "normally" when I was pregnant with baby #2. She took it in stride, he wasn't ostricized or anything. Eventually, he moved back and brought a friend who needed help with him, and the family took that person in.

The family was unique, but they weren't unhealthy. Even the older daughters who were stuck with child-watching and cooking were happy and seemed to truly enjoy playing with the kids in the front yard and preparing meals.

As for the impact on resources, this family was very conservationist. Clothes were simple, hand-me-downs and they wore them until they wore out. They gleaned their food from grocery stores that would have gone to waste and prepared a lot from scratch. They'd never go to Pottery Barn, dump a wad on trendy home furnishings and accessories and they throw it out after it went out of style. Despite their size, they probably consumed significantly less resources than your average suburban, suv-driving, mall-shopping, vacation-taking family of 4. And the kids were a lot less whiney and selfish.

I'm in disagreement with how they interpret the Bible. It sounds crazy to me and I think their lives are out of balance. But so are a lot of other lives. Most people search their lives looking for a cause and a purpose they can believe in. For them, it was family and children. I could see harm if their beliefs ever became mainstream, but it's a difficult life that a lot of people wouldn't enjoy, so I don't see it ever being widespread. I say save your judgement for your self and live and let live.

[greenbunny]

One thing I really don't understand is, whether you want to take the Bible as a direct channeling of God's word or just the writings of a set of men from thousands of years ago, we're still talking about a set of guidelines that were put down when the world was a very, very different place. Humanity is no longer even close to fighting for survival as a whole (meaning dying off from disease or some such, I realize we're now dealing with destroying our environment, etc.).

If I were someone who believed in God and the Bible, I'd be wondering why he hasn't sent any software updates in so long. Wouldn't they concede that this "populate the Earth" mentality is due for version 2.0? I don't mean that at all facetiously--things are so different now that I can't conceptualize a literal interpretation of these types of Biblical writings as having any relevance to our planet. Obviously love thy neighbor and thou shalt not kill are still timely, but a great many items are not.

[ysolde]

SS --

I agree to a certain extent. I have to wonder, however, how this family would have reacted if a daughter had "rebelled" (at, say, the ripe old age of 14) by refusing to take care of a younger child, refusing to cook for the family, and wanting to attend a public high school. Frankly, it is not a child's responsibility to be the full-time caretaker of young siblings, let alone infants, nor is it her responsibility to cook, clean, and launder for a large family while Mom and Dad go out into the world and earn a living.

If/when I have children, it will be because I have the resources to provide for other adults to care for infants, clean our home, do the laundry, and, when necessary, cook. What kind of a parent places all of the responsibilities of adulthood on a child, then continues to have an ever-increasing number of babies, only to pawn them off on tweens and teens to raise?

[villanelle75]

Certainly ever super large family isn't wasteful, or abusive But that's what comes to mind first form me every time I ht ink of any kind of insular group, whether they each have 17 kids or 1. Isolation creates a potential breeding ground for abuse. It doesn't always happen, of course. But the potential is there, and that makes me uncomfortable.

As for the Duggars specifically, I readily admit they did seem happy. Even the older kids who were thrust into caretaker roles seemed to really enjoy their lives and from the he brief (and possibly no completely accurate) view we got into their lives on their shows, it did seem like even the older kids were allowed to still be kids and do kids things.

I remember reading that for a while they were on public assistance, but I'm sure they've done fairly well on their TV shows so I suspect that isn't the case any longer. But the if that's true, then it seems amazingly irresponsible to have a 12 and 13th kid when you need public funds to pay for them. And I would say the same thing about a family of 4, especially where the pregnancy wasn't an accident.

[LyLMyssChaos]

I see nothing wrong with someone having as many children as they want if they can care for them. I think that to have or not have a child is such a personal decision that it wouldn't be right to criticize someone based on what they chose. Just because it doesn't seem right for you and your family doesn't mean it isn't right for another family.

I would have loved to have many more children than we did. Unfortunately, my health and financial reasons prohibit that. Now if we were to ever correct our financial issues, I would love to adopt more children since I am not able to have any more.

Would anyone be questioning this family if they had adopted 17 children instead of conceiving their own?

[Rico'sAlice]

My impression of them is that they are almost racing to see how many kids they can have. That's not necessarily letting nature take its course.

I have the same impression.

I can't find a source right now, but I know that I've read that Mrs. Duggar deliberately weans "early" so that she can start TTC the next child. I think around 6mo.
While I know that BFing is not a guaranteed method of BC, in general I would think a more "natural" arrangement would include full-term breastfeeding which would most likely result in the children being spaced further apart. Many Quiverfull families that I *know* (online, not IRL) consider it wrong to continue BFing for the purpose of delaying return of fertility but also find it wrong to wean for the purpose of getting pregnant- ie these decisions must be made totally independently of any child-bearing concerns, otherwise it is an attempt to take control over procreation into your own hands, one way or the other

(I realize that the exact timing to define "early" weaning, "extended" breast feeding, etc. is not agreed upon, I'm really not trying to start that debate. My point is more about her intent than when.)

[villanelle75]

Would anyone be questioning this family if they had adopted 17 children instead of conceiving their own?


I would be less critical, though only somewhat so. Adopting 17 kids isn't creating mroe lives that use up resroucres, so the environmental impact issue is negated.

But I would still question whether they could adequately provide for 17 people, both financially and emotionally. As I said, I believe the Duggars were on public assistance for a whiel, andyet that didn't stop them from makign more mouths to feed and feet to shoe. Had some or all of those kids been adopted, this issue would have been the same. Likewise, emotionally nurturing 17 kids and giving each the time he or she needs seems all but impossible, whether they are adopted or biologically "yours".

And lastly, the insularity issue woudd be the same with adoption, if it was a family that kept to themselves and limted outside contact and influence.

[ysolde]

I know that questions have been raised about Mia Farrow's ability to care for her many children, most of whom are adopted, and whether she can adequately provide for their emotional needs.

[jnettie]

Looking at this strictly from a cold scientific standpoint, it's not in the best interests of our species for a small specific group to consistently over-reproduce. At six billion and counting, humanity obviously isn't in any danger, but the concept as a microcosm is not genetically wise.
Take, for example, the Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish communities. They have such a serious problem with genetic diseases now, that genetic testing is often mandated by Rabbis before a couple is allowed to marry. Plus, the Hasidic community actually has a high rate of infertility as well.

Well, I think this is rather unfair. I've never seen the Duggars' show, so I can't speak to them, but I know many families in my church don't use any BC and they aren't like this. Likewise my church encourages and believes in the husband as the head of the family, and submission, and all that, but that in no way excuses, encourages, condones, or justifies abuse. Many people have been excommunicated from "fundamentalist" churces for wife/child abuse.
Social Workers might disagree with you. I was speaking mostly about the most closed off fundimetallist communities - this group, Hasidic Jews, the Amish, etc. People with very little contact with the outside world. Often, they don't even speak out to their pastors because they think this is "normal" and how it is supposed to be. Often, Bible verses are used to show that it is the husband's right to beat his wife if she disobeys.

But I'd expand "abuse" to include restriction of activity. Refusing to allow your daughters to attend school. Forcing your older children to care for the younger children. Forcing your wife to give birth to 17 kids.

It just happens that I had a conversation with a woman who is a social worker and minister who works with these types of cases, so this is where my information comes from. She worked with Amish women in particular for a while.

[Secret_Squirrel]

SS --

I agree to a certain extent. I have to wonder, however, how this family would have reacted if a daughter had "rebelled" (at, say, the ripe old age of 14) by refusing to take care of a younger child, refusing to cook for the family, and wanting to attend a public high school. Frankly, it is not a child's responsibility to be the full-time caretaker of young siblings, let alone infants, nor is it her responsibility to cook, clean, and launder for a large family while Mom and Dad go out into the world and earn a living.

If/when I have children, it will be because I have the resources to provide for other adults to care for infants, clean our home, do the laundry, and, when necessary, cook. What kind of a parent places all of the responsibilities of adulthood on a child, then continues to have an ever-increasing number of babies, only to pawn them off on tweens and teens to raise?

I can't speak of how the family would have reacted if it were a daughter who rebelled, because I don't know.

I largely agree with you, too. I don't think it is the child's responsibility and I wouldn't choose to do it.

But broadly, "my way" to raise a child isn't the only way. Children are raised in what I think are less than ideal situations everywhere, but where to we draw the line as to what we think is harmful?

How harmful is it for an only-child of parents who work in demanding careers to grow up in a big empty house with an impersonal nanny? How harmful is it to children who's parents are hippies and raise him or her in a commune? How harmful is it for a child raised on a farm to wake up at the crack of dawn and do farm chores before school - and after? How harmful is it for a child to be spoiled in a family where they never have to cook and clean, be accoutable for their actions, and are indulged with their every whim?

It's a different culture, to be sure. But that's what it is - a culture. Are the child's basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, and love being met? I think for the most part, yes. Are they being raised with a sense of community and social responsibility? For the most part, yes. Are they being permanently injured, maimed or physically abused? No.

Many young people today feel entitled to Tiffany's, Gucci, luxury cars - and in my area, a lot of those kids get them. That to me is more harmful. At least these kids are learning about the importantance of relationships, sacrifice and giving.

I'm not really defending this. I just don't think the people are evil or that it is truly abusive to anything but the mother's body - and that's her choice. It's just that their way of life seems so foreign.

[Sarah]

And these kinds of insular groups are always potential breeding grounds for abuse, just like any cult. With only limited contact with the outside world and very limited interaction with outsiders (homeschooling, socializing only within your group, etc.), kids not only don't learn a broader view of what is acceptable treatment, instead having to relying to rely on whatever their parents tell and show them is okay, they also don't know what resources exist if they do realize their treatment isn't okay, and their ability to contact those resources for help is extremely limited.

So if you want to beat your kids, or have sex with them, or pass them off to the neighbors for sex, or if you want to beat your wife, what better place to do it than one where you wife or kids don't' really know this is wrong and don't' have anyone outside of your like-minded community to turn to about it?
I see that you think that, but I would like to see support for that. I don't think it's fair to call them a cult for believing what they do. In most bible believing christian denominations there is a lot more free thinking going on than many would have you believe. It's a stereotype that women in fundamentalist groups are necessary oppressed or unthinking, that they aren't respected or valued, and that wife submission has anything to do with value or worth or importance or holiness. Just like it's a stereotype that women in other faiths who wear headcoverings are necessarily being oppressed or victimized.
But I'd expand "abuse" to include restriction of activity. Refusing to allow your daughters to attend school. Forcing your older children to care for the younger children. Forcing your wife to give birth to 17 kids.Well, that's your business, but I might call it abuse to give your 16 year old condoms, or to give a 17 year old a Lexus, or to not teach them that Jesus is Lord. I mean, we all are entitled to our own definitions of abuse, but I don't think that not allowing your kids to go to school and homeschooling them can be characterized as abuse. And no one ever has said that Mrs. Duggar is being raped or "forced" to carry children. She seems quite happy about it. But I guess she's a brainwashed victim, right?
Sarah do you really know 6-8 families like this? "Like this" meaning that they not only don't use BC,but that they also don't avoid pregnancy by any other means, including temping or timed abstinence?Yes, I do. I think many of them may have used ecological breastfeeding to delay fertility, but I have no idea about the rest.

[villanelle75]

Just to clarify, I didn't mean they were a cult. I mean that just as a cult is a potential breeding ground for abuse, so is any group that is totally insular. Poor wording on my part.

You seem to be thinking that I am saying that these women (being defined I guess as any woman with a lot of kids) are abused or controlled. I am totally not saying that. I am saying that when I hear about environments where there is little outside contact, I worry that there could be abuse going on since it is a perfect situation for that. I'm not saying fundamentalism or outside-the-mainstream = abuse. But it can and does happen and when it does happen in this kind of environment, it all the more difficult for victims to escape.

You said you want to see support for what I said. Since i didn't quote numbers or make claims about frequency, I'm not sure what you are looking for. Do you think there is never ever any abuse in these communities? And do you not see that if an abuser was in oen of these communities, it woudl be easier for him to normalize and get away with the abuse? Do you not see that an environment where children aren't exposed to other ways of thinking is one in which it would be easy to teach a child that things like sex or abuse were normal, if someone chose to do that? Do you not see that in an environment with almost no exposure to or contact with outsides is one where someone in an abusive situation would have great difficulty reaching out for help?

I really don't know what part of that you are taking umbrage with. It's very logical. I'm not saying it happens in most or even many of these kinds of communities.

[JamieTheTiger]

Judgemental bunch of bitches, aren't we all?

[Sarah]

You said you want to see support for what I said. Since i didn't quote numbers or make claims about frequency, I'm not sure what you are looking for. Do you think there is never ever any abuse in these communities? And do you not see that if an abuser was in oen of these communities, it woudl be easier for him to normalize and get away with the abuse? Do you not see that an environment where children aren't exposed to other ways of thinking is one in which it would be easy to teach a child that things like sex or abuse were normal, if someone chose to do that? Do you not see that in an environment with almost no exposure to or contact with outsides is one where someone in an abusive situation would have great difficulty reaching out for help? Well, of course I think it could and does happen, I just haven't seen support for the idea that it happens more there than in other places. Especially in a group which prioritizes their faith so much, and any sane reading of the bible emphasizes the proper context of sex not being with children and the proper context of violence (if any) not being abuse.

[Sarah]

I;m also surprised to see so much judgment from women who have otherwise purported to be prochoice. I do realize that feeling something is unethical/immoral/strange/weird is not the same as feeling it should be illegal, and I am sure none of you want to sterizile this woman or make it illegal, but I bet the kind of things being said here (about Ms. Duggar) about a woman with 5 abortions would rankle you.

[Toonces]

Ladies, please remember to play nice and be respectful of one another's opinions. :cool:

[MLA]

I;m also surprised to see so much judgment from women who have otherwise purported to be prochoice. I do realize that feeling something is unethical/immoral/strange/weird is not the same as feeling it should be illegal, and I am sure none of you want to sterizile this woman or make it illegal, but I bet the kind of things being said here (about Ms. Duggar) about a woman with 5 abortions would rankle you.

Why am I not surprised that you're trying to turn this into a pro-choice/anti-choice discussion?

[MLA]

Ladies, please remember to play nice and be respectful of one another's opinions. :cool:

Oops. Sorry. I missed this post before making my response to Sarah.

[villanelle75]

I don't think I'm a bitch, but sure, I judge people who do things that I think are wrong. Don't you, Ms. Tiger? Or are you okay, with murderers and rapists? Afterall, we woudln't want to judge, now would we? Of course, you came out of lurkedom just to judge people in this thread and contribute nothing to the conversation anbd to call us bithces, so I guess you do judge afterall.

I'm not even saying I have a serious issue with this lifestyle. Without really being in it, I can't say wheterh these peopel can give their kids the emotioanl support each of them needs. It would be very difficult, but not impossible, I guess. I've merely pointed out that any kind of insular lifestyle has in it an inherent advantage for any abusre who migh tbe in that sytem.

[jnettie]

You know, this conversation has been had before on CC, and I don't foresee a different outcome. I just don't agree with any group, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Secular Humanist, Hindu, whatever, purposefully restricting their children and wives (and somehow it's always the wives) and not allowing any free choice whatsoever. In 2007, every daughter should have the option of college. In 2007, every teen should know about condoms, because they could damn well save their lives. In 2007, groups that purposefully close themselves off from the rest of the world are at best short sighted. Denying options IS abuse, IMNSHO.

There's no other way to put it, groups like the Quiverfull use God's word to control women and deny them options. Their daughters are taught that their only worth is to have children constantly and without pause. Sure, the Dungers' daughters say that is what they want for themselves - that is the only way they know! High School isn't even an option for these girls. They'll be married off to the man of their parents choosing. And they'll never complain because they know no other way.

[Scooter]

Well, putting aside the Duggars, because they seem to do pretty well in monetary terms of being able to afford 17 childrenSure they do, now. Especially after the Discovery channel gave them a house. But they started having lots of children before they were able to afford it, and used to be on government assistance. This conversation was had in the Duggar thread (http://www.constantchatter.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8196), which started the last time she got pregnant.


To get back to the Quiverful idea--it seems like the logic just isn't there. To put having children first before health, money, and resources just doesn't seem like what most Christians I know would think of as God's plan.

I have a family member who believes in this idea basically. After their 3rd kid, the doctors told his wife that her pregnancies were putting too big a toll on her body and she should actively avoid getting pregnant again. She rejected the idea, because they believe that's God's decision. So she had three more children. Now they're very poor, have little to nothing saved for retirement, the kids are unable and unprepared to go to college, and worst of all, she's in her 40's and has congestive heart failure because of those pregnancies and is currently on the heart donor list waiting for a new heart. :( It's just mindboggling.

[Sarah]

Why am I not surprised that you're trying to turn this into a pro-choice/anti-choice discussion?Oh heavens, I have no desire to do that, in fact I don't want to discuss it. I just was surprised by people's vehement problems with this woman's reproductive choices. I really don't want to (and actually won't) discuss the other issue here. In 2007, every daughter should have the option of college. In 2007, every teen should know about condoms, because they could damn well save their lives. In 2007, groups that purposefully close themselves off from the rest of the world are at best short sighted. Denying options IS abuse, IMNSHO. I think it's wrong to say that a style of parenting or living that is different from your own is abusive. Especially since as I said, every style of parenting closes off certain options and choices. Your style might prevent your children from different things than mine or the Duggars, but I think it's closed-minded to assume that their way is abusive simply because they choose to teach different values than you do.

There's no other way to put it, groups like the Quiverfull use God's word to control women and deny them options. All viewpoints and styles of raising children deny certaint things and enable others. Just because you disagree with their choices doesn't make the more limited.
Their daughters are taught that their only worth is to have children constantly and without pause. As I said, I haven't seen the show, but how do you know this? Have they said it's their only worth? There's a difference between wanting to have a whole lot of kids and feeling you are commanded to do so, and feeling like it's your only worth.
Sure, the Dungers' daughters say that is what they want for themselves - that is the only way they know! High School isn't even an option for these girls. They'll be married off to the man of their parents choosing. And they'll never complain because they know no other way.
Did they say in that show that the girls don't choose who they marry? Aren't they homeschooled for high school?

I have real problems with people saying that an insular way of life is so horrible. Yes, it's not the way I would do it, and I find it strange, but I think it's perfectly acceptable and hardly abusive.

[LyLMyssChaos]

Do those of you that are criticizing the Duggar's lifestyle (homeschooling, specific gender roles, etc.) have a problem with a family teaching their child that there are other options, but encouraging a specific one?

For example, my daughter is well aware that there are women whom go to college and work. However, she sees that I stay at home with her, and she likes the idea of "being a wife and mommy" when she grows up. She says that college and going to work is for boys. Now, she is only 4, so it's of course natural that she wants to emulate me. But if she holds onto this viewpoint as she grows up, I'm not going to discourage her because I think it's what God wants for us. Would that be considered abuse? She has been exposed to ideas (we repeatedly tell her that she can do/be ANYTHING she wants when she grows up) but she may choose to follow this lifestyle.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I;m also surprised to see so much judgment from women who have otherwise purported to be prochoice. I do realize that feeling something is unethical/immoral/strange/weird is not the same as feeling it should be illegal, and I am sure none of you want to sterizile this woman or make it illegal, but I bet the kind of things being said here (about Ms. Duggar) about a woman with 5 abortions would rankle you.
Oh no... I'm totally prochoice, but I am quite willing to say that a woman who has had 5 abortions (without extenuating circumstances, like being forced somehow, being raped, whatever) is abusing her rights.

[greenbunny]

I have a problem in homeschooling in general because being surrounded by teachers has made me realize how incredibly incompetent most of us are at giving information to another human being. I don't think anyone who has not had the proper education should be teaching their, or anyone else's, kids. That said, I am aware of the many problems with the public school system, but I think that is a lot more heavily weighed towards curricula and resources than teacher preparation.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Do those of you that are criticizing the Duggar's lifestyle (homeschooling, specific gender roles, etc.) have a problem with a family teaching their child that there are other options, but encouraging a specific one?

For example, my daughter is well aware that there are women whom go to college and work. However, she sees that I stay at home with her, and she likes the idea of "being a wife and mommy" when she grows up. She says that college and going to work is for boys. Now, she is only 4, so it's of course natural that she wants to emulate me. But if she holds onto this viewpoint as she grows up, I'm not going to discourage her because I think it's what God wants for us. Would that be considered abuse? She has been exposed to ideas (we repeatedly tell her that she can do/be ANYTHING she wants when she grows up) but she may choose to follow this lifestyle.
I wouldn't necessarily consider it abuse, but I'd definitely consider it encouraging sexism if you didn't disabuse her of the notion that "college and going to work are for boys."

[Rico'sAlice]

There's no other way to put it, groups like the Quiverfull use God's word to control women and deny them options. Their daughters are taught that their only worth is to have children constantly and without pause. Sure, the Dungers' daughters say that is what they want for themselves - that is the only way they know! High School isn't even an option for these girls. They'll be married off to the man of their parents choosing. And they'll never complain because they know no other way.


(Not being snarky) What do you mean by "groups like Quiverfull." I'm really not familiar. What I've been exposed to are individual families who felt convicted by God (and/or commanded by their interpretation of scripture) to put their fertility 100% in His hands, but were not doing so as part of a group. I mean they may have joined groups of like-minded folks after coming to this conclusion (meaning message boards and stuff) but they weren't part of a community where this was a requirement or something.

Are there actual communities/insular groups of protestant or non-denominational Christians that identify as Quiverfull?

B/C then I might start to understand more of what you are talking about.

The Quiverfull families that I know of have widely divergent views on the other issues you're talking about (homeschooling, arranged marriages,
Lots of them raise daughters who go on to college. They just don't get married and start having sex until after they are open to having children.

I'm not sure the Duggars are particularly typical for a Quiverfull family.

[Rico'sAlice]

I have a problem in homeschooling in general because being surrounded by teachers has made me realize how incredibly incompetent most of us are at giving information to another human being. I don't think anyone who has not had the proper education should be teaching their, or anyone else's, kids. That said, I am aware of the many problems with the public school system, but I think that is a lot more heavily weighed towards curricula and resources than teacher preparation.

Woah. I don't think I don't believe I can address this in a meaningful way w/o a spin-off thread. But to be extremely brief I would say that I vehemently disagree and believe that the evidence regarding performance of Home schooled children vs. those in "regular" school backs me up.
[One reason for this could be that many home schoolers do not try to "give information to another human being" but rather guide their children in finding that information for themselves.]

[Sarah]

I have a problem in homeschooling in general because being surrounded by teachers has made me realize how incredibly incompetent most of us are at giving information to another human being. I don't think anyone who has not had the proper education should be teaching their, or anyone else's, kids. That said, I am aware of the many problems with the public school system, but I think that is a lot more heavily weighed towards curricula and resources than teacher preparation.
I don't know if it's okay to discuss homeschooling here, or if there should be another thread, but it might interest you to know (it surprised me, as I am a certified teacher) that actually, there is no statistical difference in the performance of HSed children with respect to their parents' level of education? High school diploma, college, grad school, post grad, vocational- all pretty similar results with HSing. Parental involvement and care matters more than training and education.

Also, as I am sure many of us would agree from our own schooling experiences, having teacher credentials does not in any way ensure good teaching. That's one of the many huge problems with Bush's NCLB legislation- it forces teachers to have certain credentials and be "highly qualified" but there doesn't seem to be much correlation between credentials and performance. I know that I've worked with tons of teachers with teaching degrees who were dreadful, and I've worked with wonderful teachers at private schools which didn't require teaching certs. Teaching is an art, not a science, and it's pretty hard to teach or learn in a teaching program.

[Scooter]

Especially since as I said, every style of parenting closes off certain options and choices. I don't think that's necessarily true. Why do you say that? You can parent in a way that gives your child a range of information and encourage them to make their own choices, figure out what they are talented at, interested in, what they want to do and who they want to be. I don't think that's really closing off any options.

And in the case of an insular family like the Duggars (just as a representative example), the girls are not being given any of those things. Their information and life experiences are being limited and controlled by their parents. When you have controlling parents, you either rebel or you learn to be submissive--because you've never learned how to speak up for yourself or do things on your own.

[LyLMyssChaos]

I started another thread to discuss homeschooling if anyone is interested.

[greenbunny]

Also, as I am sure many of us would agree from our own schooling experiences, having teacher credentials does not in any way ensure good teaching.

I agree that because one is trained doesn't make them a good teacher--but they've got a lot better shot at it than someone pulling stuff out of their ear. And I won't argue that it's possible for a regular kid to go through homeschooling and come out the other side with comparable results. But I think that the problem is when you have a kid who needs extra help, has learning disabilities, etc, and parents are not trained in how to spot or accomodate for those issues. Conversely, what if the kid is gifted and the parent does not have the resources to "up the ante"? Which leads me to this statistic you mention:


actually, there is no statistical difference in the performance of HSed children with respect to their parents' level of education? High school diploma, college, grad school, post grad, vocational- all pretty similar results with HSing. Parental involvement and care matters more than training and education.



does that really prove anything other than that the parent is teaching up to their own ability? What if the kid had the intellectual potential to surpass the parent? How would we know?

[Sarah]

I don't think that's necessarily true. Why do you say that? You can parent in a way that gives your child a range of information and encourage them to make their own choices, figure out what they are talented at, interested in, what they want to do and who they want to be. I don't think that's really closing off any options.

And in the case of an insular family like the Duggars (just as a representative example), the girls are not being given any of those things. Their information and life experiences are being limited and controlled by their parents. When you have controlling parents, you either rebel or you learn to be submissive--because you've never learned how to speak up for yourself or do things on your own.

Well, for example, I am raising my daughters to beloieve that racism and discrimination are wrong, and I won't encourage them to make their own decisions about that. Were they to grow up and be bigots, I'd be upset. Am I a bad parent and abusive for telling them this, or should I say "some people believe white people are better, some people believe we're all the same, but you can decide when you are older." Of course not. I know that's sort of a ridiculous example, but I am trying to choose something I think we can all agree one (hopefully!).

Or if your DD steals, do you say "We believe stealing is wrong, and it's against the law, but if you choose to steal when you grow up, that's okay with us, make your own choice." Of course not.

To be specific, if your daughter was saying something like "Boys are doctors, girls are moms- daddies are in charge of families" etc, would you tell her that's not true, or would you give her a choice? Honestly? I think you'd tell her that's not true, that women are the same as men, have the same opportunities, and then tell her that women and men are equals in the family and in society, right? Is that giving her a choice? I know she can still change her mind when she's older, but are you telling her that it's okay if she wants to grow up and be a submissive wife?

I bet you're not. And I have no problem with that. I believe it to be parents' job to impart values and morals into their children. If it's okay with you that your kid's do something different than you, that's cool. There's plenty of things I am fine with my DDs doing differently than I- if they want to SAH or be doctors or never marry or not have kids, that's all fine. But I have no problem with something thinking that women have a mandate to SAH and then teaching that to their kids, as long as they allow their DDs to make their own choices once they grow up.

[Sarah]

does that really prove anything other than that the parent is teaching up to their own ability? What if the kid had the intellectual potential to surpass the parent? How would we know?Maybe I don't understand you, or maybe I wasn't clear. The children of MDs, PhDs, rocket scientists, etc, perform the same on tests and in college as the children of high school diploma holders, vocational school graduates, and GED-earners. HSed kids have much better academic performace as a whole than other groups. So in most cases the kids of the latter group are outperforming their parents.

And although I think you have an argument about SN kids, you'd be hard pressed to prove that a SN kid is going to do better in most public schools (especially urban or rural schools) with out of control teacher student ratios and crappy funding than they will at home with their parents, who usually care more and are more personally invested in helping their kid learn. You cannot do better than a 1:1 ratio.

[wendalah]

I believe it to be parents' job to impart values and morals into their children.

I agree with this concept--I believe that giving kids a wide range of choices across the board and encouraging them to "choose for themselves" can often result in confusion about making a decision at all. For example, I will raise my children in one religion, so they have a concrete experience to either accept or reject as they get older. (If I didn't believe in God, I'd teach that and let them accept or reject that.)

I am not an advocate of homeschooling for much the same reason (and I do know some homeschooled kids who are doing fine--it's just not my favored choice). I think kids do better bouncing off actual experiences rather than grappling with "seeking," at least in the early stages.

[greenbunny]

Maybe I don't understand you, or maybe I wasn't clear. The children of MDs, PhDs, rocket scientists, etc, perform the same on tests and in college as the children of high school diploma holders, vocational school graduates, and GED-earners. HSed kids have much better academic performace as a whole than other groups. So in most cases the kids of the latter group are outperforming their parents.

Okay, gotcha. I misunderstood you to mean that homeschooled kids were performing similarly to the parents that taught them, and I was wondering how that proved anything. :confused:

I agree you have valid points about funding issues and SN students not getting the attention they need. Thinking about it from the perspective specifically of my DH's students (and ignoring that of other teacher friends and relatives, where the demographic is drastically different) I can't even imagine how they would be homeschooled in the first place. Assuming they have parents at home, which many do not for a variety of reasons (some being children of war-torn countries) many of the students are first-generation English speakers.

I totally agree that public schools are in the crapper and a lot needs to change. But I still think that a teacher who is good at their job will be able to do more with a student than Joe Average Parent. It's unfortunately somewhat of a moot point because there's no way to pull such a stat out of the pool of lazy/crappy teachers, underfunded schools with huge ratios, etc., etc., etc.

[Sarah]

The Quiverfull families that I know of have widely divergent views on the other issues you're talking about (homeschooling, arranged marriages,
Lots of them raise daughters who go on to college. They just don't get married and start having sex until after they are open to having children.

I'm not sure the Duggars are particularly typical for a Quiverfull family.Yeah, this is what I was trying to say, rather clumsily. All the people I know who do this aren't wearing bonnets and long skirts and bowing their heads at their husband's commands. One woman I know who does this (probably my BF) is in grad school, wears jeans (and not mom jeans, lol), lets her son play with aprons and dolls and high heels, if he wants, and has a husband who's very involved in childcare, etc. So I guess it's hard for me to hear discussion of "these groups" because it's not usually some fringe movement, it's just a personal decision about contraception, or lack thereof.

[nylons73]

I say, let the Duggars, and others like them, do what they want to do! 100 years ago this wasn't that unusual. Ok, 17 might have been, but 8,9, 10 kids were not unusual at all. Just because everyone has to have the newest SUV or the largest home, everyone is getting all up in arms about 'providing for' these kids. Are they clothed, fed and loved? If the answer to those questions is yes, I see no problem with as many kids as God gives you.

People scream and yell that in China, the govt. has made it almost impossible for families to have more than one child. This has led to the killing (in some instances) of girl babies, and now, a marital crisis in that country because the crush of young men, now have nobody to marry (gee - go figure :rolleyes: )

I don't think restriciting anybody's freedom to do whatever they want (reproductive -wise) to their body is ever correct. Sarah was correct, IMO in pointing out that people who endorse Pro-Choice values (letting women do what they want to their own bodies) shouldn't have a problem with allowing women to also have as many children as they want. To take a contrary position, IMO, is hypocritical.

[greenbunny]

ISarah was correct, IMO in pointing out that people who endorse Pro-Choice values (letting women do what they want to their own bodies) shouldn't have a problem with allowing women to also have as many children as they want. To take a contrary position, IMO, is hypocritical.

I don't remember seeing anyone endorsing restriciting the Duggars' actions, but rather saying they don't feel it's a wise decision. One can disagree with a person's reproductive choices and still defend their right to make them. It's quite similar to the "I don't like what you're saying, but I defend your free speech" argument.

[MaineBelle]

Sarah was correct, IMO in pointing out that people who endorse Pro-Choice values (letting women do what they want to their own bodies) shouldn't have a problem with allowing women to also have as many children as they want. To take a contrary position, IMO, is hypocritical.

I have to disagree with this. I am pro-choice and I have a problem with The Duggars or any other family having 17 children. I believe that there is a certain number of children, after which does not add to your happiness level as parents. Especially because it seems that in the case of the Duggars they pass off each younger child to an older child. And so I feel there is no need to have 17 children. And I take issue with it, because their choice affects the world where I live. There are a limited number of resources in this world. Each of those 17 children use up resources and add to the pollution level. Sure, maybe it isn't as obvious when they are all in one house, but when they eventually live on their own, each of them will require land to live on, energy to heat their house, cars to drive and add to the pollution and how many of them will go on to follow in their parents footsteps and have 10+ children. In this age, when we see the effects that humans have on the earth, I think it is irresponsible.

[thedoorchick]

Lots of choices affect the world in which we live. For that matter, all of us affect the world in which we live. I don't understand how a living breathing person can logically argue that fewer living breathing persons ought to be born because of the drain on resources. Should some of us not have been born?
I believe that there is a certain number of children, after which does not add to your happiness level as parents.
What certain number is this? (Rhetorical question, the answer to which is "it depends" which is precisely my point).

[wendalah]

I believe that there is a certain number of children, after which does not add to your happiness level as parents.

I admit I'm personally not really on board with the Duggars' decision to have 17 kids. But I also do not understand this statement. As thedoorchick said--who determines this number?

I'm a dog lover. Is there a certain number of dogs I can have? I mean, come on.

[MLA]

I'm a dog lover. Is there a certain number of dogs I can have? I mean, come on.


Well, actually, depending on your city ordinances, there probably is. ;)

[msnicolea]

I don't understand how a living breathing person can logically argue that fewer living breathing persons ought to be born

So we can't logically suggest that people should engage in responsible reproduction out of environmental concerns? Why not? The "should some of us not have been born" question is just a silly and over-used non-argument--I'm not even going there.

And where did someone who is pro-choice suggest that laws or restrictions be placed on the Duggars? Where is this so-called hypocrisy?

[wendalah]

LOL, you got me there. But you know what I mean.

If we're going to be really strict about "happiness levels": One child should be enough. I mean, there you go. You get to carry and deliver and raise a kid. Should be enough to satisfy the parenting urge. I suppose you could say two kids at the most, to satisfy the "well, I want the experience of raising both sexes."

[msnicolea]

And Sarah, are you suggesting that parents' level of educational attainment has no bearing on youth educational outcomes?

[katmg]

The "happiness level" confuses me. I didn't have a baby to be happy. Sure she does have that effect on me, but that wasn't why I had her. I won't decide to have additional children in order to be happier. In fact, I find that idea to be dangerous, much as I find the idea that you get married to make you happy. I strongly believe that another person can't make you happy, you've got to find happiness on your own first.

[MLA]

And Sarah, are you suggesting that parents' level of educational attainment has no bearing on youth educational outcomes?

That's the way I read it . . .

[thedoorchick]

So we can't logically suggest that people should engage in responsible reproduction out of environmental concerns? Why not?
Well, to get back to my point, what exactly is responsible reproduction, and who is entitled to define it for others? As others have said, how do we reconcile the difference between having a baseball team's worth of kids and living in the type of suburban affluence that wastes untold amounts of natural resources? Who is the bigger environmental concern? (If you can answer that, you're smarter than me, because I have no idea).
The "should some of us not have been born" question is just a silly and over-used non-argument--I'm not even going there.
I really don't understand this comment. To the best of my memory, I am not sure I have even heard that phrase before, let alone used it. And here I was deluding myself that I had an original thought!

[wendalah]

Hey--have as many kids as you want--just raise them to be vegetarians ;)

[Sarah]

And where did someone who is pro-choice suggest that laws or restrictions be placed on the Duggars? Where is this so-called hypocrisy?
Oh no, I wasn't making the argument that prochoice people can't disagree with the Duggar's- I certainly don't even think it's illogical to do so. I apologize if it sounded like I meant it was hypocrisy- I don't think it is, I just think that we could stand to be respectful in our language and in the way we think about other women's choices. I can see the argument for this being irresponsible, ecologically speaking, and I sort of agree. I mean, I won't have that many kids. I was just reacting viscerally with surprise to the fact that there was so much disrespect and judgment for the Duggars, and I feel like that isn't allowed (and shouldn't be!) for women who make other reproductive choices some of us don't agree with, such as being childfree, or having abortions.

And Sarah, are you suggesting that parents' level of educational attainment has no bearing on youth educational outcomes?
That's the way I read it . . .
Certainly not. :) That's not at all what I said, if you look back. I said that for homeschooling parents, there is statistical evidence which shows that there is no difference in the outcomes for kids from parents of different educational levels. Of course that's a self selecting group- most crackheads and 13 year olds don't care to homeschool. People who take the time and energy to HS their children (and go through the legal hassles in many states to do so) tend to care a lot, and the fact that they might not be well educated tends not to impact the quality of their children's educations. That's all I am saying.

[artist]

I think having 17 children and being forbidden by a religious group (or anyone for that matter) to have less children or use birth control is awful for a variety of reasons. I think it's selfish. I think it's terrible for the environment. I think it's terrible on a woman's body. I am also vehemently opposed to the sexist notion of a man being referred to as the "head of the household".

If someone on the other hand ADOPTED a lot of children and had a very large family as a result AND they were able to adequately care for all of those children, then I have no problem with that.

[Sarah]

I think having 17 children and being forbidden by a religious group (or anyone for that matter) to have less children or use birth control is awful
Is she forbidden to have fewer children? It's always been my udnerstanding that she wants to, enjoys having children, and feels called to do so.

Are you saying you think the Catholic church is awful? They forbid BC.

I think it's a complex issue. Even if a woman's religion forbids BC or says that women have to have a lot of children (which I would find oppressive, if it were me) I feel like I can't have a problem with it, as long as she chooses to be a part of it and agrees with the doctrine.
I am also vehemently opposed to the sexist notion of a man being referred to as the "head of the household". Man, I better not ever invite you to dinner at my house. :)

[artist]

Here comes the part where I probably get flamed...but yes, I actually DO have a lot of problems with not only the Catholic church, but many religions in general. There, I said it.

FWIW, my dad IS Catholic, many of my relatives of course are Catholic, I know many people who are Catholic, I went to Catholic schools as a kid, I have been to Mass many times in my life, and I do think there are many BEAUTIFUL aspects of Catholicism.

I have to say though, MANY Catholics I know (relatives and friends) have no problem using BC despite whatever the Pope says and disagree with many other things that the Pope or the Catholic church says.

[artist]

Even if a woman feels "called" to have 17 children, I still think it's selfish and irresponsible. We're not talking about 7 children (which is still A LOT in my opinion)...we're talking about SEVENTEEN!

I think it would be pretty irresponsible for someone to have SEVENTEEN cats or dogs as well.

[wendalah]

Catholics don't have any problems with natural family planning methods. In fact, sometimes they teach the methods in precana*. (My best friend and her then-fiance had a class in it.)

*ETA for clarification: Precana is premarital counseling which you have to go through before getting married in the Catholic church.

[Sarah]

Here comes the part where I probably get flamed...but yes, I actually DO have a lot of problems with not only the Catholic church, but many religions in general. There, I said it.I'm not a Catholic, but that's fine with me, as a religious person. No flaming.
Catholics don't have any problems with natural family planning methods. In fact, sometimes they teach the methods in precana. (My best friend and her then-fiance had a class in it.)
Yes, that's true, but if someone did a bad job of using NFP and ended up with 17 children, people would still say it was the fault of her oppressive religion, I think.

[artist]

Catholics don't have any problems with natural family planning methods. In fact, sometimes they teach the methods in precana. (My best friend and her then-fiance had a class in it.)

Very true Wendy. (When I mentioned the Catholic church having a problem with BC, I was mostly referring to methods such as the pill or I suppose condoms.)

But you're right Wendy, despite any issues I personally have with the Catholic church, it is true that the Catholic church certainly doesn't have a problem with families (at least to some degree) deciding when or if or how many children to have.

[wendalah]

Yes, that's true, but if someone did a bad job of using NFP and ended up with 17 children, people would still say it was the fault of her oppressive religion, I think.


Sure. The Catholic church takes it on the chin for a lot of things, including this ;).

A fundamental difference, though: Catholics aren't exactly *encouraged* to have as many children as possible. Avoiding BC except for natural methods does not quite equal "Have a carful and love it." If that makes sense. The "joyful acceptance" or whatever the doctrine is in Quiverfull...not exactly present in Catholicism. The end result, I suppose, is the same but the teaching isn't identical.

[jesvet]

What, Wendy, you don't want to be the next Michelle Duggar? Granted, you have a little catching up to do...so get crackin!!! :D :D

[artist]

What, Wendy, you don't want to be the next Michelle Duggar? Granted, you have a little catching up to do...so get crackin!!! :D :D

Somehow I think Wendy would be more likely to have 17 dogs as opposed to 17 children! :) (Vegetarian children of course!)

[wendalah]

I'm 36. If God wants me to have 17 children and blesses me thusly, you better believe I will consider it His Will. And I will joyfully accept them, because oh my, I am pretty certain that would constitute a miracle. Right up there with the star in the East and all that.

[ginadc]

Wendy, if you have 17 children, can I please call the Guinness people? ;)

[ysolde]

Do those of you that are criticizing the Duggar's lifestyle (homeschooling, specific gender roles, etc.) have a problem with a family teaching their child that there are other options, but encouraging a specific one?

For example, my daughter is well aware that there are women whom go to college and work. However, she sees that I stay at home with her, and she likes the idea of "being a wife and mommy" when she grows up. She says that college and going to work is for boys. Now, she is only 4, so it's of course natural that she wants to emulate me. But if she holds onto this viewpoint as she grows up, I'm not going to discourage her because I think it's what God wants for us. Would that be considered abuse? She has been exposed to ideas (we repeatedly tell her that she can do/be ANYTHING she wants when she grows up) but she may choose to follow this lifestyle.

I am kind of surprised by this, since I have worked with many LDS women, most of whom were attorneys. I never had the impression that the LDS teaches that being a SAHM is a woman's only role. Indeed, the LDS women I know irl are working mothers with a lot on their plate.

[LyLMyssChaos]

I am kind of surprised by this, since I have worked with many LDS women, most of whom were attorneys. I never had the impression that the LDS teaches that being a SAHM is a woman's only role. Indeed, the LDS women I know irl are working mothers with a lot on their plate.

It's not entirely an LDS point of view, but then again, we are not "textbook" LDS-er's either. However, I do believe that there are distinctive roles for men and women, particularly in regards to home life.

The church's "official" position is this:
From The Family: A Proclamation to the World (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html)
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

We have interpreted this teaching to be that it is a man's primary role to have a job and secure income for the family. If a family needs the assistance then a mother should also work, but it is not the optimal situation. We(I mean my family) believe that a woman's primary responsibility is to take care of her children and husband.

[salysaturn]

According to Discovery Health, the Duggars are expecting their 17th child...Has anyone else heard about it?

[MLA]

Yup. There's a thread (http://www.constantchatter.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1389577&highlight=duggar#post1389577)about the Duggars, already.

[JenniferEC]

Darn, I thought the baby was here. I thinks she's due right about now.