The Duggers just announced that they are expecting their 19th, they just announced it today. Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I swear I heard that on the radio a few days ago.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I remember seeing the announcement on news sites a couple weeks ago. Maybe today was the first time they mentioned it on their show or something?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What's a Dugger?
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Maybe they already had that one and she's pregnant again.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Yeah, it was a couple of weeks ago that the story came out. The baby is going to be younger than the grandchild and my whole family has already gotten into a fight with my mother about whether or not that's creepy. (That was two weekends ago, so it's been at least that long)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes, of course it's creepy. They've made breeding into their hobby and vocation. I'm glad it works for them, but it's basically just another fetish.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yes, of course it's creepy.
*laugh*
Tom, there are a number of neighborhoods in Israel and New York you should never visit.
There are many people with aunts or uncles younger than they are. Including some who are fairly closely related to me. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not the age, per se. It's the vocation. The Duggars are creepy as all hell.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm only sad I don't get to be the first person to mention that the Duggars are astoundingly creepy breeding-fetishists.
I swear, watching the Bridezillas is more comfortable. The Bridezillas. Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
It is extremely creepy and a little sick that they keep having so many kids. Exercise some self control, sheesh!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
They support themselves. Every indication I have seen is that all the children are happy and healthy. What the hell is wrong with them having as many children as they like?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: What the hell is wrong with them having as many children as they like?
Not that this is necessarily or inherently related to their creepiness (they are creepy) but honestly at some point you need to stop fixating on having more children for the sake of the ones you already have.
most people agree that nearly anyone is pushing it when they get up to 8 kids, at which point the time requirements for attention start getting worn extremely thin; no amount of money or self-sustaining financial condition can compensate for that lessening of interaction between the parents and the kids.
And the Duggars are expecting their 19th child. I do not know a single child psychologist or counselor, be they religious or otherwise, who does not look upon these Quiverfull-movement styled practices of unconstrained child production without extreme concern.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
The parents teach the big ones, and the big ones teach the little ones.
Of course, nobody ever taught the parents, so the whole thing is an exercise in futility.
Posted by JWAAL (Member # 12182) on :
I just watched the episode where they announced that. I see nothing wrong with it. They provide for all their children. As far as I know, the children in the show seem all very healthy and happy. The kids are all well-behaved and kind. The only creepy part to me is that the girls always are wearing dresses, but thats just their conservative life style and there is nothing inherently wrong with that either. Congrats on making it 19 Duggars!
oh and Samprimary, how many child psychologist and/or counselors have you talked to about this? Cause i can safely make the statement that I don't know a single child psychologist or counselor who doesn't look upon this without extreme joy. (i really just don't know any child psychologists or counselors)
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"at which point the time requirements for attention start getting worn extremely thin; no amount of money or self-sustaining financial condition can compensate for that lessening of interaction between the parents and the kids. "
Of course, there's some question as to whether or not parent-child interactions matter
Read the Nurture Assumption. Fascinating stuff.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
And there's the increasing evidence that the more children one has, the less healthy the youngest ones are... Time magazine link
But, really. Nineteen children? That's something wrong. Can you think of a single other major event in one's life one could voluntarily go through nineteen times without concerns that the behaviors associated were pathological? If fertility was always parallel to good parenting, glee, but it's not.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I do not know a single child psychologist or counselor, be they religious or otherwise, who does not look upon these Quiverfull-movement styled practices of unconstrained child production without extreme concern.
You need to meet more child psychologists.
I would not personally want 19 kids. But I know families with 10+ kids -- some very well -- that are all happy and healthy. (I also know some who are less so. As well as some families with one or two kids that are less so.)
The judgy-judging in this thread is absolutely sickening.
And Sterling, I expected better of you.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: And there's the increasing evidence that the more children one has, the less healthy the youngest ones are... Time magazine link
ETA: Actually, the article says they may be slightly smaller, have slightly lower IQs, and make 1% less money.
I've noticed following European royal genealogy that there's a fairly strong tendancy to lose either the first batch of children or the last. I assumed it was related to syphillus since so many kings and nobles were philanderers.
[ September 16, 2009, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: AvidReader ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know... they may be acolytes of Gothard and I dislike that guy as he gives scary parenting advice and doesn't have kids.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
gugh, I wish this forum didn't have stone-age quote formatting, well, maybe this will do for now~~
quote:Paul Goldner:
Of course, there's some question as to whether or not parent-child interactions matter
that is very true! I agree, apparently, you can do just as well enough devoted individual attention by caretakers/parental analogues (two of my cousins were essentially raised by a nanny!) and there's no real requirement for "your mommy and daddy specifically," one of the reasons which — to the disdain of many — "two daddies" or "two mommies" works just fine.
But for a family of nineteen, that's ... a lot of caretakers. Or would be, if that's what they had. As it is, these children are being juggled between two parents, and live hectic lives defined primarily by a mechanical child-handling operation, with the elder children pressed necessarily into service caring for the legions of younger children. Their breakfasts are only vaguely more intimate than their cafeteria lunches.
quote:Rivka:
You need to meet more child psychologists.
I could cast a wide enough net to finally score a psychologist or family counselor who would not even be a little bit concerned by a family of now 20+ individuals whose central and utterly monomaniac pursuit is unconstrained breeding without regard to extant family size, but there's absolutely no intellectually actionable point to doing so: if for every one licensed expert I can find who celebrates it, I find tens or even hundreds who find this practice concerning, my notions are only strengthened.
I'm sorry you're sickened by all this quote unquote "judgy-judging" but really what are you sickened by? the sentiment that they should not be allowed to have this many children, or just the impression that many people get that these people come off as extraordinarily weird?
Because that's my camp. The TLC show is just surreal. It's better than "Kate Emotionally Abuses Jon Constantly, In Front of 8" — I'm allowed to think that they come off as creepy.
quote:JWAAL:
oh and Samprimary, how many child psychologist and/or counselors have you talked to about this? Cause i can safely make the statement that I don't know a single child psychologist or counselor who doesn't look upon this without extreme joy. (i really just don't know any child psychologists or counselors)
In meatspace where I am busy bouncing around in an environment rich with counselors and being a TA subject to the rightful and tyrannical rule of licensed child experts, about three. Including the wonders of the internets, wherein I preside over some communities with good representation of many vocations including child psychologists, family therapists, pediatricians, etc, about 12.
to note: discussions about the duggars was in nearly all instances precipitated by discussing with them specifically about the breakup between Jon and Kate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What the hell is wrong with them having as many children as they like?
I know someone who collects Barbies. (Yes, he's gay.) They fill his apartment. Completely. He can afford it; this is in many ways his biggest hobby, so he's not irresponsibly bankrupting himself. And they clearly give him joy.
That does not mean that walking into his apartment and seeing every inch of its surface staring back at you with glassy, expressionless eyes is not creepy -- no matter how responsible he's actually being, or how satisfied it makes him.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
From what I can tell, the Duggars are a loving, happy family, who work together well, take care of one another, and are generally boons to society.
If this is a fetish, may all America be afflicted with it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I find all the attention they get creepy. To the extent that they seek it out, I think they are contributing to a negative trend in society.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I know someone who collects Barbies. (Yes, he's gay.) They fill his apartment. Completely. He can afford it; this is in many ways his biggest hobby, so he's not irresponsibly bankrupting himself. And they clearly give him joy.
That does not mean that walking into his apartment and seeing every inch of its surface staring back at you with glassy, expressionless eyes is not creepy -- no matter how responsible he's actually being, or how satisfied it makes him.
Perhaps, but isn't this your problem, not his problem? The creepiness is stemming from your perception rather than anything he's done wrong. The same may be true with the Duggars.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I find all the attention they get creepy. To the extent that they seek it out, I think they are contributing to a negative trend in society.
This I agree with.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that creepiness, as an inherently subjective evaluation, is always in the eye of the beholder. An old house at the edge of town populated by owls and full of mysterious mists is not objectively creepy; a man licking the photograph of the woman he loves from afar is only "creepy" if someone else is aware that he does it.
And the Duggars are hella creepy.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I must be out of it because I have no idea who the Duggers are....it seems, from reading the posts here, that they have many children and their own TV show? Why are they interesting? Is it only because they have so many children, because I know some people who could beat them in that competition...
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
My knowledge of the Duggars is limited to what I've read in this thread and consequently I have no opinion as to their factor of creepy. However, I do think that having 19 children is selfish. With the earth's human population being what it is, that level of breeding is simply not sustainable. What the Duggars are doing is therefore essentially hogging our common future natural resources for the benefit of their own genetic material. Since I've seen no evidence that their offspring are more likely to benefit mankind than anyone else's, that, to me, is selfish.
Oh, and to bring my argument to its logical conclusion (and perhaps generate some discussion), I think having more than perhaps three children is selfish. You may have religious views that in your personal frame of reference cast such decision in a different light, but with regard to your fellow humans (genetic competitors), as long as our resources are finite, it is indeed selfish.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I believe the Duggar children will be above-average contributors to society. All but the youngest few will certainly be experts at child rearing, so I think the next generation will probably also be above average.
Imagine the logistics of Thanksgiving in 20 years. *shudder*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As long as they take the stairs. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Well, to be fair, having any kids (or none at all, for that matter) is arguably just as selfish. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. It may be irresponsible, sure, but I don't think the selfish factor is anything morally significant.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Ha!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: As long as they take the stairs.
Aaaaand first laugh of the day. Thanks Kate!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:All but the youngest few will certainly be experts at child rearing, so I think the next generation will probably also be above average.
This assumes that factory-farm child-rearing is a skill that scales up or down.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The scale of responsibility and involvement that the older kids have with the younger kids will translate well to having a few of their own. If they have more than a few, they will delegate their practiced roles to their older kids and adopt the techniques used by their parents.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Has anyone read Cheaper By The Dozen? That's an excellent view of a large family from the inside. Everyone seems happy, well-loved, educated, and so forth. And yet even in that book, the kids admit that they would always get jealous of a sick child, because being sick was the only way that a child was able to have one-on-one interaction with their parents. I love the idea of a big family, but I can't stand the thought of having a child that can only get my undivided attention when they're sick.
Posted by paigereader (Member # 2274) on :
I can't imagine what being prego that many times and that long has done to that poor lady's body and hormones. As long as she is healthy, they can afford it, I say go for it. And for Tristan, since I can't have kids, I allot my 3 to the Duggars.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I only have three kids and I have to leave the house with one of them if I want to give undivided attention. Will soon have a fourth...investigating sleep-obviating medication.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: As long as they take the stairs.
Aaaaand first laugh of the day. Thanks Kate!
She owes me a new keyboard.
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Has anyone read Cheaper By The Dozen?
I love that book. My grandmother knew the mother and one of the daughters (much later, after all the kids were long grown up).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
They support themselves. Every indication I have seen is that all the children are happy and healthy. What the hell is wrong with them having as many children as they like?
If I actually thought you wouldn't get highly indignant and dismissive if I were to name a couple of reasons why not, then I would name a couple of reasons why not. But you've never listened to anyone on this, so why bother?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
While I don't necessarily agree with all their beliefs as a family, the only thing that has truly bothered me about the family is the naming scheme for the children. Gah, it ruins my day just thinking about it.
Yes I have an extremely fragile day today.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From what I can tell, the Duggars are a loving, happy family, who work together well, take care of one another, and are generally boons to society.
I'm not in a position to negate this, but you really aren't in a position to take it as a given. They're the subject of a TV show right? We all know what reality tv is all about, and the one thing it isn't really about is "reality."
I should also note that just statistically speaking, if the Dugger family were to continue to breed in this fashion, or even close to it, in 300 years their descendants would reach numbers in the trillions. Obviously, that is unsustainable.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And Sterling, I expected better of you.
I'm sorry to hear it. And I'll grant, i don't know a lot of families with more than ten children. But I also don't know of a lot of people who are so absolutely wonderful that they need to pass their genetic code onto the future nineteen times, and I wouldn't assess anyone as such based on ability to procreate that many times alone. Nor do I think the rearing of a child can necessarily be fully measured until they are fully grown; one of the things that pops up in browsing articles on the subject is that the youngest children are the ones most likely to have problems with the law or drugs and alcohol.
And, again: what other major life event could you voluntarily undergo nineteen times and not expect, at best, to be thought a little odd? What would an employer be expected to think of someone who had nineteen different jobs on their resume? What would one think of starting a relationship with someone who had been married nineteen times? What would a landlord make of someone who had lived at nineteen different addresses in as many years? If someone had been a student at nineteen different colleges, wouldn't some explanation be in order? (If they had earned degrees from all nineteen, one might be impressed, admittedly- but one would still probably expect an explanation.)
I should probably also note for context that my closest relationship with a large family is my wife's mother, one of seven children... And that lot is a tangle of mental illness, drug abuse, felony convictions, and child abuse that would make a soap opera writer cringe.
It may be that there are families that could raise very large numbers of children and have them all become sound, whole people. I would never presume that outcome as a baseline.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I wouldn't assess anyone as such based on ability to procreate that many times alone.
You did, actually.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: It may be that there are families that could raise very large numbers of children and have them all become sound, whole people. I would never presume that outcome as a baseline.
Good. Neither would I.
I also wouldn't make that assumption about a family with 1, 2, 3, 7, or any other number of offspring.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: And, again: what other major life event could you voluntarily undergo nineteen times and not expect, at best, to be thought a little odd?
I have no idea why you think this is remotely relevant.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: It may be that there are families that could raise very large numbers of children and have them all become sound, whole people. I would never presume that outcome as a baseline.
I have a similar view. I'm dubious of any couple's ability to care for 19 children. Most parents that I know would not be capable of such a feat so I don't think that people are being unreasonably judgmental when they express doubt as to the Duggers' parenting abilities.
On the other hand, I need to see examples of mistreatment before I'm willing to bring out my pitchfork. As it is, I had never even heard of this family before so I don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that they are doing anything wrong. I don't have any problem with big families. My grandmother was one of 13. I do, subjectively, find them creepy, though. I think that the naming scheme is part of that. It gives me the feeling that the kids are sort of a collection. I get the sense that they don't happen to have a lot of kids; they are about having as many kids as they can.
This is entirely subjective.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From what I can tell, the Duggars are a loving, happy family, who work together well, take care of one another, and are generally boons to society.
I'm not in a position to negate this, but you really aren't in a position to take it as a given. They're the subject of a TV show right? We all know what reality tv is all about, and the one thing it isn't really about is "reality."
Then there are an awfully lot of people acting kindly towards each other on a widely distributed television series.
I'm okay with that.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm wary of large families, but since I married into one it's hard to pass judgment. My husband is one of 6. His mom is 1 of 6 and his dad is 1 of 5. He has a grandfather who is 1 of 21 children (although his great-grandmother apparently only claimed 19, since 2 died before the age of 2).
When I go to visit them it is noisy and I feel claustrophobic. There is always a lot going on and very little time to just talk. My husband, the oldest of this crew, used to ride his bicycle up to the top of a mountain to get away from it. He is perfectly happy with our 2 children and thinks his parents are nuts for having so many. (I'm not entirely sure whether he is joking, but I rather get the impression he isn't...at least not completely.)
My analysis of the situation is this: It is harder for some kids to cope in large families than it is for others. A lot of people assume that kids will just adapt to their environment and if they end up with 5 brothers and sisters, then that will define them. And to a certain extent that's true. My husband is definitely better with children than I am (not a fact I'm thrilled with, since I stay home with them). And he turned out great (not biased or anything ).
But he and I have talked at length about family size and we are both of the opinion that children need real, focused attention from their parents. The more children you have, the harder this is to come by. For me, I don't think I could handle more than the 2 I have. I know some people who just love kids can juggle 3, 4, 5, 6, especially when the ages are staggered enough that the types and amounts of attention are not in direct conflict.
When I think about a family with 19 children, I start to think...ok, 24 hours in a day, divided by 19...yes, I know that the older kids help out with the younger kids but I would assume they aren't having kids so that their older kids can raise them.
There's no bottom line here. I don't know what to think. Or, I suppose, if there is a bottom line it's that it's their business and I wish them the best.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I do, subjectively, find them creepy, though. I think that the naming scheme is part of that.
But the naming thing becomes a habit that prevents its own breaking. You might give two or three kids names that start with J, and with each subsequent child it becomes harder to stop because you don't want the new child to feel like they're different somehow. I have two kids, both with J names, and I always promised myself that if I had any more kids I would pick a different letter, just to avoid getting stuck. And it's largely the Duggars that helped me make that decision.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:it's largely the Duggars that helped me make that decision.
Well, you know-- if they've helped only one person out of all the people in the world who've heard of them, then it's all been worth it...
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
But it only goes into effect if I have more kids, and the fact that I'm fixed might put a damper on that possibility.
And the Duggars had nothing to do with that decision. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The judgy-judging in this thread is absolutely sickening.
I really don't think so. It's too bad that you can't bear to hear how other people feel about big families, or the concept of big families, but since we all come from a family, we all have complex feelings about what is best for other families. Nobody here has suggested any action to limit these people's rights, but we as social animals also have a right to dislike and even scorn such behavior if we feel it is not appropriate. If we were ever to remain silent, society wouldn't have much of a compass to let the younger people watching this show know that some of us feel this large of a family is undesirable. Scott is evidently inclined only to heap praise on this show and these people, but I remind that he and you know them no better than we do, so your positivity towards them is just as false, or just as valid.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have a friend who has Irish triplets (3 daughters under three, 3 separate pregnancies). Sometimes, I envy her daughters having siblings so close in age to each other. They always have someone to play with, wheras my daughter will have atleast 3.5 years difference between her and a hypothetical sibling(since I am still on the pill, that short a difference is unlikely). But there are times when I am so glad I get all the one on one time with my little girl. And by the time I have another one, bin will be in school (well, she is already in preschool) and so the next one will get a lot of one on one time too. I don't know which way is the best, but I can see arguments either way. Of course, at 19 kids...
Another point- the Duggers are not trying to have kids. They just don't prevent. One of the tenants of the Quiverful movement is that you take what God gives you, so fertility treatments are frowned upon, as are birth control methods.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's a good point, scholarette.
They aren't trying for a record, they just aren't stopping it. Holy moly, the mother must be uber-fertile.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What behavior is it that you're scorning?
Just the act of having lots of kids?
Or are you specifically condemning something (aside from Xtreme baby-making) that you've seen the Duggars do?
I don't really buy the idea that having lots of kids is inherently selfish or harmful to modern society, or to children. The economics of the situation are heck of a lot more complex than what has been hinted here by those critical of them. A family with ten kids whose parents emphasize hard work and education is likely to be of more benefit to society than a family with one child that lets him veg on Nintendo all day.
(I like what I've seen of the Duggars' work ethic. I am skeptical of what I've seen of their educational habits.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Another point- the Duggers are not trying to have kids. They just don't prevent. One of the tenants of the Quiverful movement is that you take what God gives you, so fertility treatments are frowned upon, as are birth control methods.
I don't find that particularly compelling. They are clearly aware of their fertility, and they are clearly making a choice to have more children. If this has to do with their religious beliefs, more's the pity.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I wouldn't assess anyone as such based on ability to procreate that many times alone.
You did, actually.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: It may be that there are families that could raise very large numbers of children and have them all become sound, whole people. I would never presume that outcome as a baseline.
Good. Neither would I.
I also wouldn't make that assumption about a family with 1, 2, 3, 7, or any other number of offspring.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: And, again: what other major life event could you voluntarily undergo nineteen times and not expect, at best, to be thought a little odd?
I have no idea why you think this is remotely relevant.
Rivka, do you have an objection to having children in the prime numbers or something?
My main objection to the Duggars isn't their lifestyle or the number kids they choose to have. What concerns me is, what is the point of the show? It seems like nothing other than exhibitionism on their part and voyeurism on the part of the viewers. This can also be said for "Jon and Kate", with the added element of watching a train wreck.
On the other end, I see the show "Little People, Big World" as being a potentially enlightening and educational show on the challenges faced by those with varying forms of dwarfism. At least it started that way. Lately, it seems to me to be an almost perpetual advertisement for the Roloff's family farm.
The Duggar's TV show could arguably demonstrate the challenges (and joys, I suppose) inherent in adhering to the Quiverful philosophy.... It just doesn't seem likely that that was how the show was marketed.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
I don't really care one way or another about the Duggars, but I'd like to point out that they aren't raising 18 children. The oldest four are all adults.
--Mel
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have no problem with families who have large numbers of children as long as the children are fed, clothed, educated, and happy, and the family is self sufficient.
That's more than can be said for a whole lot of families, even in this country.
I do have a problem with the television show, but that has nothing to do with the number of children. I think putting your children on TV at all is selling out your family life, and I think it's tacky, trashy, and short-sighted no matter who the family is or how many people compose it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Rivka, do you have an objection to having children in the prime numbers or something?
Being the offspring of mathematicians comes out in the oddest ways sometimes. I didn't even realize I had done that!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I do have a problem with the television show, but that has nothing to do with the number of children. I think putting your children on TV at all is selling out your family life, and I think it's tacky, trashy, and short-sighted no matter who the family is or how many people compose it.
I agree with this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Nobody here has suggested any action to limit these people's rights.
I think this is important. I may think that a particular family is less than ideal or even creepy. I certainly would not (baring demonstrable harm to the children*) vote that those people could not be a family.
I think this is a good rule when it comes to other kinds of families as well.
*harm serious enough that the state should take custody.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Rivka, do you have an objection to having children in the prime numbers or something?
Being the offspring of mathematicians comes out in the oddest ways sometimes. I didn't even realize I had done that!
In truth, you skipped 5. Besides, when picking numbers between 1 and 10, there is a statistically greater likelihood of selecting a prime number than in any other 10-number range. (Is that provable?). Anyway, it's 50/50 in that range, so take it or leave it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
One concern I read about is that a lot of the participants in the Quiverful movement are not able to actually take care of all the kids they have. While the Duggsrs are able to, they do not represent the majority of families. The positive publicity given to the Duggars (who are the exception) minimizes the actual problems facing most people who choose this life and encourages people to choose the lifestyle, without actual awareness of the real challenges. I don't know how realistic this concern actually is, since I cannot imagine watching a show about 19 kids and going, hey, that looks fun! I'll do that. But I also can't imagine doing a lot of things my fellow Americans do.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Rivka, do you have an objection to having children in the prime numbers or something?
Being the offspring of mathematicians comes out in the oddest ways sometimes. I didn't even realize I had done that!
In truth, you skipped 5. Besides, when picking numbers between 1 and 10, there is a statistically greater likelihood of selecting a prime number than in any other 10-number range. (Is that provable?). Anyway, it's 50/50 in that range, so take it or leave it.
Ah, but I did deliberately not choose 4. I didn't really think about why, but I do recall skipping it deliberately.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I took a step back to think about this.
I have a visceral reaction to hearing about a family having nineteen children, and I distrust visceral reactions. I think they tie into ancient fight-or-flight, prey/danger/mate/family/alien reactions. I think on some levels racism and homophobia are visceral reactions; they're made without taking a second look, and they're often wrong.
So I thought about this. And... I came to pretty much the same feeling. I realize that my opinion doesn't change what people will do. And I realize what I'm about to say may not make me very popular.
It's not just the Duggars. No one should have nineteen children. No one should have nineteen children.
In another thread, the fact that world seafood stocks are expected to utterly crash in the next forty years is the topic. The briefest of searches will also quickly paint a very grim picture for you: all over the world, we have an agricultural system that is based on a limited number of plant strains (and thus increasingly susceptible to blight), chemical fertilizers (which poison the water systems and are becoming increasingly expensive and untenable in their own right), and an excess of available water (as ancient springs and aquifers are sucked dry and annual rainfall/snowmelt is steadily decreasing in many formerly fertile areas.) And then there's petroleum, the diminishment of which I don't think even dedicated think-tanks have fully grasped the full ramifications of.
Into this mess come... My daughter (six). My middle-sister's daughter (now a year old); my eldest sister's adopted son (twelve).
And the Duggars' nineteen, soon-to-be-twenty children.
Not because they're terrific people. Not because they're clever, or generous, or the leaders of the future. Because they breed like rabbits. That is the only reason they're bringing this enormous genetic footprint onto the world, to compete with all the other people who decided to circle their wagons around one or two or five or eight, intentionally or not both giving the best chance to their children- and giving the best chance to everyone else's.
I've always found Kant's categorical imperative useful as a fallback when all else fails. For the unfamiliar, it amounts to: "Can you consider it right for anyone to do the same, in the same situation?"
So, yes, what does happen if everyone who can has nineteen children?
I also think of a much blunter argument that rang in my mind back in my college days talking with a friend who argued for polyamory: Just what makes you so damn special that you need to be spread around?
Now just to stick my foot a little further into my mouth, I will note and sympathize that I can certainly see how groups that in the recent past had suffered widespread persecution- or even genocide- might feel a need, or even a duty, to make sure that their heritage didn't vanish.
But generally speaking... Are the Duggars so special that they need to be spread around? Are they, say, twenty times better than a typical Chinese family?
When the fish stocks have run out, modern agriculture has collapsed, gasoline based transport is a memory, am I to say it's just fine that my grandchildren are competing with a few hundred Duggars, just because they were able to breed and decided that three or five or seven was just some kind of arbitrary cut off, not for the likes of them?
My condemnation doesn't make a tinker's damn worth of difference. I'm not about go off to forcibly sterilize anyone, or demand that my Senator start at Chinese-style one-child system. But I'm not going to pretend that having nineteen children is okay with me. It's not. It's selfish and self-centered to have that many children, even if "you" can care for them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Anyone" does NOT equal "everyone."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It's not. It's selfish and self-centered to have that many children, even if "you" can care for them.
Your criticism is based on the ability of your descendants to compete with them.
Who's selfish?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
They are.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:It's not. It's selfish and self-centered to have that many children, even if "you" can care for them.
Your criticism is based on the ability of your descendants to compete with them.
Who's selfish?
I didn't entirely interpret the criticism this way. I think the visceral reaction may have had to do with this -- competing grandchildren or great-grandchildren -- but the overall argument was more a stance based on the idea that the Earth is tapped for resources due to our greed and overpopulation as it is. By this logic, adding to the population with 19 children lacks foresight and puts undue strain on future Earth for the sake of your genetic heritage.
I would agree with this idea if it were not for one important thing: The Earth will make us pay. Sooner or later, when we've stretched ourselves to the limits, forces will set to work reducing the number of humans on this planet. It may be disease or famine or war, but it will happen.
When that happens, the Duggers have given themselves a lot better shot at having descendants among the survivors. This brings us right back to the visceral response -- the competition. So from a certain point of view, they're smart.
Not that intelligence and selfishness are mutually exclusive.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: When that happens, the Duggers have given themselves a lot better shot at having descendants among the survivors. This brings us right back to the visceral response -- the competition. So from a certain point of view, they're smart.
Not that intelligence and selfishness are mutually exclusive.
Does anyone actually care about having their descendants surviving in two hundred (or whatever) years? I can understand caring about children and grandchildren - and any other descendants you have a personal connection to - but great-great-great-great grandchildren? Why would you care?
I think I missed out on the tribalism gene.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: They are.
OH!
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: When that happens, the Duggers have given themselves a lot better shot at having descendants among the survivors. This brings us right back to the visceral response -- the competition. So from a certain point of view, they're smart.
Not that intelligence and selfishness are mutually exclusive.
Does anyone actually care about having their descendants surviving in two hundred (or whatever) years? I can understand caring about children and grandchildren - and any other descendants you have a personal connection to - but great-great-great-great grandchildren? Why would you care?
Genetic heritage. It's embedded in my DNA to care.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Does anyone actually care about having their descendants surviving in two hundred (or whatever) years? I can understand caring about children and grandchildren - and any other descendants you have a personal connection to - but great-great-great-great grandchildren? Why would you care?
I think I missed out on the tribalism gene.
You didn't, this just isn't an issue that you get tribal about. There are others, I'm sure.
It's the same reason that despite knowing and liking several (though not that many) Mormons, I would not want the world to be populated with a majority of Mormons in the future. Nor Muslims, nor Jews, nor Japanese, nor Americans. I want my tiny slice of the gene pool that is half a distant descendant of the noble families of Western Europe from a thousand years ago, mixed with 4 centuries of white-bred American stock, and half poor German immigrant, to continue on its merry way in such a fashion as I, my father, my grandfather, and as many of those distant ancestors as possible could be proud of. We don't want our families to fall into decline, and we don't want them to change all that much. But when one group seeks that destiny by simply outbreeding the others? Yeah, I think that's selfish, and I think it will lead to a bad end.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: When that happens, the Duggers have given themselves a lot better shot at having descendants among the survivors. This brings us right back to the visceral response -- the competition. So from a certain point of view, they're smart.
Not that intelligence and selfishness are mutually exclusive.
Does anyone actually care about having their descendants surviving in two hundred (or whatever) years? I can understand caring about children and grandchildren - and any other descendants you have a personal connection to - but great-great-great-great grandchildren? Why would you care?
I think I missed out on the tribalism gene.
You know, I don't care either, but I think that's largely due to my identity not being tied to family history. My only known blood relatives are my dad and sister (my dad was adopted), and culture as a concept just doesn't make much sense to me. If I have kids, of course I'll be concerned with their well-being and the well-being of their children - up to, I suppose, the children of the last generation I know personally. But beyond that, I don't think I would or should care. I don't really see the point.
Of course, when cyborg technology comes around I'm tot'ly jumping on that, so I may end up caring more about my lineage than I expect to.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Rivka, do you have an objection to having children in the prime numbers or something?
Being the offspring of mathematicians comes out in the oddest ways sometimes. I didn't even realize I had done that!
In truth, you skipped 5. Besides, when picking numbers between 1 and 10, there is a statistically greater likelihood of selecting a prime number than in any other 10-number range. (Is that provable?). Anyway, it's 50/50 in that range, so take it or leave it.
Hmm. Depends. First, 1 is not usually considered a prime, so your odds may be 50% or 40% depending on how you feel about that. Then, in any 10-number range which excludes 2, at most five numbers (the odd ones) will be prime; but we can find a better bound. We seek prime n such that as many as possible of (n+2, n+4, n+6 and n+8) are all prime. By construction n is not divisible by 3; it follows that either n+2 or n+4 is divisible by three. (Because n mod 3 is either 1 or 2; if 1, then (n+2) mod 3 = 0, if 2, then (n+3+1) mod 3 = 0.) Therefore, we can have at most 4 primes in a ten-number range.
It is clear that this is the best possible bound, because I can give an example of a ten-number range with four primes in it, namely 11 through 20 (or 10 through 19, take your pick). Or 5 through 14. So, there exist ten-number ranges with a 40% chance of picking primes, but no higher percentages. Whether you consider this strictly less than the chance in the 1-10 range depends on whether you consider one to be a prime.
[ September 16, 2009, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I have a problem with the "they don't have to raise all the kids, the older ones help out with the youngers" defense. It's not my daughter's job to raise her younger siblings. If I bring children into the world it is MY job to raise them.
If you have so many kids you have to dole out the raising of them to other kids - then you have too many kids, IMO. Yes, I respect they support their children themselves and have the resources to care for them, but raising children requires more than just feeding them, clothing them and providing them with shelter. It means giving them the emotional support they need and spending time with them. Not only is it better, IMO, for kids to receive that kind of caretaking from actual parents, but also assigning a child of yours to be a caretaker of a younger sibling is not fair. That is putting way too much responsibility on someone who is not an adult and isn't responsible for bringing that child into the world.
I also agree completely with everything that has been said about the exploitive nature of the tv show, as well. That applies to all the families, Jon and Kate being IMO the worst offenders.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Are you really going to advocate children having zero responsibility to help their parents with younger siblings? That seems strange to me. Surely you would not balk at children being required to do chores; if the chores include "babysit your younger brother while I go for groceries", what's the problem? If it's at the level of "Take this paper route so you can pay for your room and board, freeing up money for your other siblings", that's a bit different. Although I do note that my mother and her brother were required to pay a share of rent and groceries from age 15 or 16, out of whatever jobs they could find. This was in sixties Britain and a working-class home - in other words, conditions of grinding poverty now foreign to Western nations - but still, such a requirement doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me. Housing and food is not free, and it does seem to me that many things could be improved if a larger fraction of young adults realised this at an earlier stage; parents could do a lot worse for their children than teach responsibility this way.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Rivka, do you have an objection to having children in the prime numbers or something?
Being the offspring of mathematicians comes out in the oddest ways sometimes. I didn't even realize I had done that!
In truth, you skipped 5. Besides, when picking numbers between 1 and 10, there is a statistically greater likelihood of selecting a prime number than in any other 10-number range. (Is that provable?). Anyway, it's 50/50 in that range, so take it or leave it.
Hmm. Depends. First, 1 is not usually considered a prime, so your odds may be 50% or 40% depending on how you feel about that. Then, in any 10-number range which excludes 2, at most five numbers (the odd ones) will be prime; but we can find a better bound. We seek prime n such that as many as possible of (n+2, n+4, n+6 and n+8) are all prime. By construction n is not divisible by 3; it follows that either n+2 or n+4 is divisible by three. (Because n mod 3 is either 1 or 2; if 1, then (n+2) mod 3 = 0, if 2, then (n+3+1) mod 3 = 0.) Therefore, we can have at most 4 primes in a ten-number range.
It is clear that this is the best possible bound, because I can give an example of a ten-number range with four primes in it, namely 11 through 20 (or 10 through 19, take your pick). Or 5 through 14. So, there exist ten-number ranges with a 40% chance of picking primes, but no higher percentages. Whether you consider this strictly less than the chance in the 1-10 range depends on whether you consider one to be a prime.
Hm. I haven't taken a math class or pursued mathematics seriously since junior-year calculus in high school, so I'm impressed that I understood that. (Or at least, I think I did.)
I hadn't realized that 1 was not considered a prime number, and it apparently has been considered non-prime and non-composite by mathematicians for nearly a century. Is this just one more example of how backwards the US education system is? Then again, I learned about primes in my parochial elementary school, so that's another story entirely...
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: One concern I read about is that a lot of the participants in the Quiverful movement are not able to actually take care of all the kids they have. While the Duggsrs are able to, they do not represent the majority of families. The positive publicity given to the Duggars (who are the exception) minimizes the actual problems facing most people who choose this life and encourages people to choose the lifestyle, without actual awareness of the real challenges. I don't know how realistic this concern actually is, since I cannot imagine watching a show about 19 kids and going, hey, that looks fun! I'll do that. But I also can't imagine doing a lot of things my fellow Americans do.
Interestingly, I noticed this during an episode or two of the show in which the Duggars were helping another Quiverful family by adding on to their house. The other family had something like 15 members living in a one-bathroom house. Several of the children lived in a non-insulated, non-ventilated attic space. It speaks to the Duggars character (and relative wealth) that they were willing to work so hard and give so much for another family, but the episode also highlighted the many difficulties and potential criticism of the Quiverful way of life.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
There is nothing wrong with kids having chores. There is nothing wrong with older siblings helping out. My sixteen year old sometimes takes my 9 year old to gymnastics for me. All my kids, even the youngest do chores.
What I see in the Duggars is far beyond chores or simply helping out occasionally. I have heard that when a baby is born it is "assigned" to an older sibling who then becomes responsible for a large part of the care. That is what I object to.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The "1 is not a prime" thing isn't, to the best of my knowledge, for any particularly deep reason, so if your school didn't teach it, that's no slam on them. As far as I can tell, it's just a question of taste, like calling truth quarks 'top'. But perhaps some mathematician will be along to correct me?
Edit: Actually, when I think about it, perhaps it's for consistency in the Sieve of Eratosthenes. It would be awkward to do "For each prime, strike out all higher numbers divisible by it" if 1 were considered prime. Mathematicians like to have consistency in that kind of thing.
[ September 16, 2009, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: What I see in the Duggars is far beyond chores or simply helping out occasionally. I have heard that when a baby is born it is "assigned" to an older sibling who then becomes responsible for a large part of the care. That is what I object to.
Well, it's not as though I watch the show, so I'll have to take your word for it. Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The "1 is not a prime" thing isn't, to the best of my knowledge, for any particularly deep reason, so if your school didn't teach it, that's no slam on them. As far as I can tell, it's just a question of taste, like calling truth quarks 'top'. But perhaps some mathematician will be along to correct me?
When I asked Google, I got a reasonable explanation for why 1 isn't prime. It comes down to the definition of prime numbers being that they can only be divided by two integers: 1 and itself. If you define prime numbers that way, then 1 isn't prime because it can technically only be divided by one integer: 1.
You're right though. It's how you define it. "If A, then A"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. Still a matter of taste, in my opinion, as is the Sieve of Eratosthenes explanation I gave in my edit of the post you quoted. But, you know, whatever. Mathematicians are the next best thing to physicists, and are entitled to one or two just-plain-conventions. How else are we going to tell the second-class citizens from the fourth-class ones like biologists, if we don't allow them some extra privileges?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I agree with you...
My mother came from a family of 11, but there was a loooooot of abuse in her family and some of it sadly passed to me...
But when I have kids, I'm not passing it to them. I'll do all I can to avoid that.
I think the Quiverfull movement seems unhealthy; the insistence of a strict role for men and women, having many kids for what I consider the wrong reasons. I want to have and adopt kids because I want kids, not to outbreed Muslims or for religious reasons. I just want to raise a child, teach them about love and trust and hope they grow up healthy. Babysitting siblings is one thing, but kids should be allowed to have a childhood and that's difficult when you're helping to raise siblings. I imagine it must be hard on just 2 parents having that many kids and that means strict discipline. A lot of quiverful people believe in discipline practices that border abuse (some which are actually abusive, many of them are acolytes of Pearl who recommends switching babies at the age of 4 months!!!) So, I don't know... a lot of quiverful people according to a book I read called quiverfull have a lot of problems taking care of all of those children and having enough resources for all of them. The Duggars at least are financially independent.
Mostly they are eerily respectable... Respectful, wholesome people kind of squick me. Maybe if they had a few tattoos and piercings.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: There is nothing wrong with kids having chores. There is nothing wrong with older siblings helping out. My sixteen year old sometimes takes my 9 year old to gymnastics for me. All my kids, even the youngest do chores.
What I see in the Duggars is far beyond chores or simply helping out occasionally. I have heard that when a baby is born it is "assigned" to an older sibling who then becomes responsible for a large part of the care. That is what I object to.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
KoM - it's not as if I watch the show either, I'm going on interviews of them I've seen and stuff I've heard.
I don't consider watching how another family lives their lives a good use of my time...I'd rather live life with my own family, thank you.
You know, spending good quality time doing stuff like killing Nazi zombies with my son playing Call of Duty on the XBox. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: You know, spending good quality time doing stuff like killing Nazi zombies with my son playing Call of Duty on the XBox.
I can't wait until my kids are old enough to play video games! That will be so much fun.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It's a real shame the Beta season of 1 vs 100 is over on XBox live - the whole family loved that game...we would take turns "helping" the person holding the controller answer the questions, and making the avatar dance on the screen.
There's not many games the whole family can be involved in and enjoy, but that was one of them. My 9 year old daughter was crushed that we never made it into the mob or became the one. She was convinced we would win money if we did. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I have a visceral reaction to hearing about a family having nineteen children, and I distrust visceral reactions.
I at first thought they were kinda cute. Then I started to observe their blatant monomania. Then somebody showed me their website, which kind of looks like this:
quote:Welcome to the duggar family website! babies babies babies babies babies. baaaabies. have some babies. have all of the babies. babies are so wonderful. lets bible quote about babies! Proverbs 9:14: and lo, babies and more babies. we like babies, do you like babies? have some babies. never stop making babies.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: But the naming thing becomes a habit that prevents its own breaking. You might give two or three kids names that start with J, and with each subsequent child it becomes harder to stop because you don't want the new child to feel like they're different somehow.
Yeah, compared to the Reuss family who name every male Heinrich and number them all by birth order, the J names are pretty tame.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Welcome to the duggar family website! babies babies babies babies babies. baaaabies. have some babies. have all of the babies. babies are so wonderful. lets bible quote about babies! Proverbs 9:14: and lo, babies and more babies. we like babies, do you like babies? have some babies. never stop making babies.
The most startling part is how big the house actually is. These are obviously wealthy people- the kitchen is practically a school cafeteria, with an 8 burner stove and two huge sinks. The living room and kitchen are the size of a decently large hotel lobby, with an actual bona fide cafeteria in it, and a soda fountain to boot. The rumpus room appears to have lockers in it, and the most disturbing part of the whole thing is that the house appears to have two very large dormitories for the girls and boys. No individual bedrooms other than the parents' are shown.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
They gave the kids the option when they were building the house. The kids chose to have dorm style rooms.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boon: They gave the kids the option when they were building the house. The kids chose to have dorm style rooms.
...which also seems creepy. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Oh, well, as long as they claimed "the kids" made that decision, then it's all cut an dried and absolutely fine since apparently several of them are barely old enough to talk. Yeah, "the kids" were obviously in the best position to make that decision. :nod:
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I really don't see anything especially wrong with dorm-style rooms, especially in a large house affording lots of space when someone wants time more alone. Sharing a room is a perfectly normal sort of family life.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, the kids who have been placed in surrogate parent mode might find it easier to sleep in the same room as their "charge".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I recall being a kid. And I would probably have chosen dorm-style rooms before the age of 12, myself. After 14, I would have wanted a separate room all the way on the other side of the compound, surrounded by barbed wire and armored jellyfish.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
hehehehe. Barbed wire and armored jellyfish!
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I was the oldest of 6 - so I get the big family thing, and there are some benefits. 6 isn't all THAT big either. Still, being the oldest, I got a pretty decent dose of that parent/sibling factor. My parents were no where NEAR as bad at "assigning" me
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I was the oldest of 6 - so I get the big family thing, and there are some benefits. 6 isn't all THAT big either. Still, being the oldest, I got a pretty decent dose of that parent/sibling factor - and that's without being assigned a kid.
Babysitting on occasion is one thing, but how is it fair to expect a sibling to get up with a crying child in the night?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Assigning a kid to an older sibling doesn't bother me so much on the "fairness" score. Children have been asked to do all kinds of things to adapt to and support the family structure, even if it was not something they chose. Case in point: farmers kids working on the farm for like, all of history.
I know in our modern style of child rearing we have this idea that "children should be children" and to a point, I agree, but I also know that children can thrive under bigger expectations.
The problem I see with the assigning of kids isn't that workload, then, but rather it is the absence of the parent responding to those needs. High order multiples, for example, are highly susceptible to attachment disorders and while as far as I know, none of these kids were born at the same time, they all do have to compete severely with many, many others for the attention of a parent.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
In the whole "what will happen 200 years from now" discussion, unless all of the 20 children are completely on board with their parent's level of quiverfull ideology *and* have the biology to back it up (along with any potential spouses/partners they might have), I kinda imagine it'll even out over the long run.
I only say that because in my large family experience (six kids in my family), almost none of the siblings are even close to approaching my parent's numbers. The most kids born by a sibling is my sister at 3 (and she's not having any more). My husband and are considering potentially having 4 at a maximum, and even that's not a sure thing. Factors like careers, education level, biology, and a myriad of other things are essentially evening things out with subsequent generations.
The Duggar parents did something that worked for them, I highly doubt it would work for everyone, or even all of their descendants. You'd be surprised at how well evolution will even the odds. Maybe their weird upbringing will make them unmarriageable, or something.
Posted by Fractal Fraggle (Member # 9803) on :
I just went to their website. I had heard of them before but just never paid any attention. There are a lot of things that struck me as just plain weird, but I think that's only because they live a lifestyle that I would never choose for myself. But I'm glad that they're debt free and that their kids don't appear to be turning into serial killers or junkies.
The one thing I really don't like about their website is that they blame getting pregnant while taking the birth control pill for her subsequent miscarriage. I've never heard of this being a side-effect of the pill, but I'm not a doctor or medically trained. (I did a quick google search and it seems not to be a side-effect, but again, I'm not a doctor).
I don't mind if other people decide that they're going to let God decide how many children they'll have (as long as I don't have to do the same). But I don't like the idea that there's this mis-information out there. Early miscarriages happen, usually regardless of what the woman does or does not do. It bothers me that someone else might come along and read the website, and think that her miscarriage happened because she had the audacity to use the pill to space her children according to her own abilities and desires.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fractal Fraggle: The one thing I really don't like about their website is that they blame getting pregnant while taking the birth control pill for her subsequent miscarriage. I've never heard of this being a side-effect of the pill, but I'm not a doctor or medically trained. (I did a quick google search and it seems not to be a side-effect, but again, I'm not a doctor).
Afaik, the known effect of birth control pills is the suppression of a certain hormone, causing ovulation not to occur. A possible side effect is an decreased likelihood of implantation of a fertilized egg, but an egg that fails to implant is not distinguishable from an ordinary menstrual cycle. Actual spontaneous abortion or miscarriage are not at least much talked about side effects of BC medications.
Besides, it strikes me as a bit strange for someone to have been on BC (which is after all a drug intended to alter your body chemistry) and then become indignant about their bodies acting in a way they had not foreseen or hoped for.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
If they're Quiverful why was she on birth control? That's contrary to the philosophy. Even the Rhythm Method is contrary to the Quiverful philosophy.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
She used to be on it. Maybe they weren't totally quiverfull then.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Never mind, just read the site, it was the miscarriage that inspired the decision not to use birth control. If they like their life that's fine. However, it's a shame that they were given incorrect information by their doctor. In fact according to this article, while you should stop taking the pill once you know you are pregnant, studies have shown that there is little to no evidence that miscarriage is linked to conceiving while on the pill. In fact, it may reduce the chance of age related miscarriage, and speed up conception time once a woman stops taking it.
There are links to the studies on the site, and before someone gets on me for using an about.com article, they have a medical review board made up of 12 doctors who approve and review their medical articles.
Edit: Of course, this was years ago, probably back in the early 80's. Maybe the side effects weren't as well known then.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
The only way in which the birth control might possibly be said to cause a miscarriage would be that if ovulation is not properly suppressed while on the pill and an egg becomes fertilized, the effects of the BC pill may also cause it not to implant. But in this case, you'd never know it because you'd just have your normal period. I've never heard anyone suggest the pill causes real miscarriages.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I was really interested to recently find out about this stuff involving Bill Gothard, the guy who runs a sort of cult of personality style scriptural adherence program, and who is the primary source of the Duggars' life rules for themselves and their children.
A big part of it is apparently, essentially, lifetime male dominance fostered on women. The dress code is required, and the girls are to remain under their father's supervision until they are pretty much given away for marriage.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Never mind, just read the site, it was the miscarriage that inspired the decision not to use birth control. If they like their life that's fine. However, it's a shame that they were given incorrect information by their doctor. In fact according to this article, while you should stop taking the pill once you know you are pregnant, studies have shown that there is little to no evidence that miscarriage is linked to conceiving while on the pill. In fact, it may reduce the chance of age related miscarriage, and speed up conception time once a woman stops taking it.
There are links to the studies on the site, and before someone gets on me for using an about.com article, they have a medical review board made up of 12 doctors who approve and review their medical articles.
Edit: Of course, this was years ago, probably back in the early 80's. Maybe the side effects weren't as well known then.
You could absolutely prove that BC can't cause a miscarriage, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I still think she would refuse to use it.
Afaict she feels she had to endure divine retribution for using birth control.
-----
I come from a family of six children, and I absolutely adore all my siblings. But I'll be surprised if any of them make it to six themselves. My older sister has two and she just hit 30. My wife is 24 and we don't have any children yet, we will soon, (no she's not pregnant.) Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not to mention really strict parenting that borders abuse. I can't stand Gothard. The man doesn't even have kids! At least when OSC says, go get married and have babies he's actually married with kids, so he's not being a total hypocrite about that and you can respect him as a result.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I was really interested to recently find out about this stuff involving Bill Gothard, the guy who runs a sort of cult of personality style scriptural adherence program, and who is the primary source of the Duggars' life rules for themselves and their children.
A big part of it is apparently, essentially, lifetime male dominance fostered on women. The dress code is required, and the girls are to remain under their father's supervision until they are pretty much given away for marriage.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
The family rules are creepy and a little contradictory. For example, you are supposed to find reasons to praise others, but you are also supposed to decline said praise. I suppose this is an attempt at teaching humility. I think it would be better to simply say thank you, or give some form of praise back to the other person. Another rule is to never raise your voice to yell. I know this is a large family and therefore they would want to avoid fighting, but heads up! Families are supposed to have arguments. People are supposed to shout at each other sometimes. Why? Because that's what people do. Never being allowed to express your anger isn't healthy.
Posted by Fractal Fraggle (Member # 9803) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You could absolutely prove that BC can't cause a miscarriage, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I still think she would refuse to use it.
Afaict she feels she had to endure divine retribution for using birth control.
I just went back and looked at their site and had totally missed that a doctor had told them that the pill had caused their miscarriage. I thought they had just jumped to that conclusion on their own. You'd think that some OB along the line would have contradicted that (unless she's going to the same one still).
However, I think you're right, BlackBlade. I think part of the "story" of their family is that they have to endure some sort of punishment (or at least wallow in guilt) because they were somehow to blame for that early miscarriage.
Oh well, I don't know why it bothers me. There's lots of misinformation on the web that doesn't rub me the wrong way like this does.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I just want to point out here that there is a big big difference between having 5 kids (or 7, 9 or even 11 kids) and having 19 - 20 kids.
My parents have 7 children and I know quite a few families with more than that and one thing all the mothers tell you is that every child brings a significant increase in the work load and responsibility. The idea that once you reach a certain number, one more makes little difference is a total fallacy, at least if you are a good parent. Having the kids spread out over a wider age range makes it harder not easier as the demands of being a parent of teenagers or even adults often conflict with demands of parenting much younger children. Having 20 kids is at least twice as much work and responsibility as having 10 kids and having 10 kids is more work and responsibility than most of us could handle well.
I find it impossible to fathom that anyone could be a good parent to 20 children. There simply aren't enough hours in the day to be able to have personal individual contact with that many kids even if you had hired help doing all the menial work.
I also think its necessary to point out that there is a difference between teaching kids to have a good work ethic and exploiting them and this family seems to be exploiting their kids in a large number of ways (like putting them on reality TV for example). I don't think its in the least bit relevant that kids routinely did heavy farm labor 100 years ago or even once had jobs in factories at the age of 8. These kids aren't living in the nineteenth century or even a closed community like the Amish. They will grow up to live in a world where their peers will have had opportunities in education, sports, the arts and society that they could not have because they had responsibility for a baby in their teenage years.
The idea that these parents are bearing the full responsibility for these kids is just wrong. They are forcing their children to carry much of the burden.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: People are supposed to shout at each other sometimes. Why? Because that's what people do. Never being allowed to express your anger isn't healthy.
No. There are healthy ways to express feelings that don't involve shouting at people. Yes, people do it, and no, it isn't the most horrible thing in the world, but there is certainly nothing unhealthy about trying not to yell at each other.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
While I don't think that "People are supposed to shout at each other sometimes," I do think that setting a rule to never yell is unhealthy. I know nothing about the Duggars other than what I've heard on this thread, but it seems to me that:
1, 19 kids is extreme even for advocates of large families.
2. The argument that they are "allowing themselves" to have more children, rather than trying to have more children, doesn't fly. It was rare before the days of birth control to have that many kids. And the fact of their procreation is the focus of their lives. This leads me to the conclusion that they are humping like bunnies with that specific intent.
3. I have nothing against large families in terms of family dynamics. Having siblings creates an environment where children have many opportunities to develop their social skills, and particularly, to develop a sense of self that is not as self centered as only children often are.
That said, what I can see of the Duggars' family dynamic is pathologically dysfunctional. Specifically, the parents seem to collect children, and then assign responsibility for those children to their children, rather than taking responsibility for them themselves. This is selfish and lazy parenting. The rule against yelling seems to me like a cultish discipline, largely designed to repress emotions that the parents would rather not think about.
BTW: My only reason for disapproving of large families in this day and age has nothing to do with family dynamics, it is purely based on the damage that overpopulation has on the environment. Even then, what I know of population models leads me to believe that artificially limiting family size is counter productive in the long run.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:That said, what I can see of the Duggars' family dynamic is pathologically dysfunctional. Specifically, the parents seem to collect children, and then assign responsibility for those children to their children, rather than taking responsibility for them themselves. This is selfish and lazy parenting. The rule against yelling seems to me like a cultish discipline, largely designed to repress emotions that the parents would rather not think about.
I agree with all of this. I watched some videos and am appalled especially with how the Duggars "envelop" their children and especially keep the women educationally sub-literate and docile, to be awarded away by the father as submissive awards.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Huh?
The men are just as educationally sub-literate as the women, and the women have a say in who courts them and who they marry ultimately. I am not sure how you got to that one.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Read Quiverfull Some may not... Especially when you got folks like Gothard who think people should have a tight tight TIGHT rein on kids and control just about everything... Man, that guy burns my biscuits to put it mildly. He's totally warped.
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Huh?
The men are just as educationally sub-literate as the women, and the women have a say in who courts them and who they marry ultimately. I am not sure how you got to that one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Huh?
The men are just as educationally sub-literate as the women, and the women have a say in who courts them and who they marry ultimately. I am not sure how you got to that one.
Gothard's rules on courtship are, in fact, practically and in most real senses arranged marriage.
quote:As an offshoot of Gothard's teachings on authority, Gothard teaches that young people must allow their authorities to determine whom they will marry, and that God can bless no marriage if it goes against parental counsel. In his booklet titled Establishing Biblical Standards of Courtship, beneath a picture of a couple riding bikes, Gothard writes: "Is this couple dating, or courting? The answer will have an important effect upon their lives, the lives of their families, and (if they marry) the lives of those in ever generation which follows. There is a definite and vital difference between courtship and dating. Unless this difference is understood and the principles of courtship are applied, defrauding and hurts can result, as well as lasting physical, mental, and spiritual consequences."
Gothard must view dating as an abominable sin if it can have consequences "in every generation which follows!" Courtship, on the other hand, "is a father's agreeing to work with a qualified young man to win his daughter for marriage …" "the Lord has warned us not to follow our natural inclinations but to receive His precise guidelines for carrying out a Godly courtship."
...
Gothard argues that when a single person feels the need to have companionship, he or she is not being content with the Lord and "… unless we are content with the Lord in singleness, we will not be content with another person in marriage." In other words, feelings of loneliness indicate a spiritual problem.
It must be emphasized again that in Gothard's system, under no possible circumstances is a courtship to be entered into without the consent of the parents. In his seminar Gothard says, "I'm firmly convinced that God never intended girls to turn down dates. He intended for their father's [sic] to." This principle applies equally to marriage. In Gothard's booklet Establishing Biblical Standards of Courtship, there is a page for sons and daughters to cut out, which is a covenant they sign with their fathers to "… demonstrate your commitment to God's plan for courtship instead of man's philosophy of dating. …"
The young person must say to his or her father, "I will wait for your full release before entering into marriage." The father, in turn, tells his daughter that "I will protect you from unqualified men." To his son the father says, "I will protect you from strange women." This covenant is "between a father and a son as witnessed by the Lord Jesus Christ," and must be signed by the child, the father, and the family's pastor.
Stuff like this also drives the 'sub-literate' — which I think of more as vocationally sub literate more than anything, because the women are trained specific to the purpose of being put into courtship by the father to become a stay-at-home mother.
[ September 20, 2009, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
The courtship/dating thing doesn't bother me. They're different value systems that don't compare well.
Dating means going out alone with different people trying to find someone you're compatible with. And maybe fool around with a bit. Courting means going out with supervision and trying to decide if you could spend your life with this person.
For a culture that values chastity and committment, courting makes sense. For one that values personal growth and experience, dating makes sense. Teens that court will probably marry younger than those who date, but having married the boy I fell in love with at 14, I don't see that as a blanket bad idea. I'm not sure how the courters get through the "immediately after high school crazies", but maybe mine was an extreme example of that sort of thing.
I can see pitfalls in courting. I can see pitfalls in dating. I'm not sure I see one pit being deeper than the other.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The argument that they are "allowing themselves" to have more children, rather than trying to have more children, doesn't fly. It was rare before the days of birth control to have that many kids.
My parents have 7 children. There is a gap of several years between the fifth and sixth child and my mother was in her forties when my youngest brother was born. When she was in college, my sister who is the sixth child asked my mother if she was "an accident". My mother said "No, our first child was an accident, by the time we got to you we knew very well that if we weren't trying not to have another child, we were trying to have another child".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I can see pitfalls in courting. I can see pitfalls in dating. I'm not sure I see one pit being deeper than the other.
Yes, but are you looking at Gothard's version of courtship? He literally demands that fathers choose who their daughters can marry, and that daughters go straight from subservience to father to subservience to husband.
I can definitely see one pit being deeper than the other because only one of the pits being talked about here mandate female subservience and arranged marriage.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Is this radically conservative Christianity or Taliban Islam?
Is their a difference besides who you pray to?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I have no idea how Gothard does it. I know on the show, the Duggars meet other families that believe similar things to them and spend time together. When Josh decided he was interested in Anna, he asked permission to see her. Chaperones were assigned, and the kid talked about trying to discern if she would be a good wife. She told him she didn't want to get married before she was 21, so he waited for her 21st birthday to ask her. It was pretty sweet.
While it's not what I chose for myself (cause we'd have killed each other) I don't see a problem with the way it's presented on the show. If Gothard advocates super restrictive arranged marriages, they seem to have departed from his theory. The Duggars' version of courtship seems to be healthy, just from a different culture.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
As I said before, I'd never heard of the Duggars before I read this thread. Where are they getting their notoriety? Is this on mainstream TV?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't think it's a safe assumption that the Duggars believe absolutely everything word for word that Gothard says. They may follow everything to the letter, but if people started quoting verbatim statements by Thomas S. Monson and said that I obviously believe every single word in the order in which it was said, I would say that's very unlikely.
Further I would not say this is the equivalent of arranged marriages. Dating and courtship are still a component of marriage in their family. If their child said, "No I don't want to marry them," as far as I can tell they would respect that decision. When the child has determined they want to date/court person X it then falls to the parents to inspect the person and make sure they cut mustard.
Not saying I completely agree with the practice, but I do not think it's the same as giving a way a 12 year old girl to a 40 year old man, and allowing him to marry her in order to pay off a debt. It's not even the same as telling an 18 year old girl who, where, and when she will marry.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Read Quiverfull Some may not... Especially when you got folks like Gothard who think people should have a tight tight TIGHT rein on kids and control just about everything... Man, that guy burns my biscuits to put it mildly. He's totally warped.
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Huh?
The men are just as educationally sub-literate as the women, and the women have a say in who courts them and who they marry ultimately. I am not sure how you got to that one.
But that post was specifically talking about the Duggars.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: If Gothard advocates super restrictive arranged marriages, they seem to have departed from his theory.
We can't say they are word-for-word followers but the requirement for female subservience is there and has been confirmed, and the duggar wedding that was engaged upon did follow the practices of swapping male dominion over the woman.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Further I would not say this is the equivalent of arranged marriages. Dating and courtship are still a component of marriage in their family. If their child said, "No I don't want to marry them," as far as I can tell they would respect that decision. When the child has determined they want to date/court person X it then falls to the parents to inspect the person and make sure they cut mustard.
How many people do you know with "arranged marriages"? I have quite a few friends from cultures where arranged marriages are still common and this (what you describe the Duggars doing) is actually very close to the reality in most arranged marriages. The western stereotype of a father who forces his daughter to marry a man twice her age or sells her to pay off a debt are far from the norm. Most parents want their children to be happily married and do their best to arrange matches with that in mind. Most people are given the opportunity to meet and discuss the possibilities before their marriage is "arranged". Very few parents would demand a child marry against their will and fewer children would comply. Its very common for a son or daughter to go to a parent and suggest they are interested in marrying someone. Then the parent goes to the other parent and discusses it. Then the two partners have a chance to meet and discuss it.
The funny thing is, that the people I know who have "arranged marriages" are often very satisfied with the system and very critical of the western approach that leads to so many divorces. My friends from these cultures enter marriage with a different attitude and different expectations. In many ways, their attitudes are much more healthy. They are more likely to view love as something you actively choose to do rather than something you fall into and out of.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*nods* Have you seen Arranged? Good movie. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Heh. I was about to recommend it.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Rabbit:
Too much eros, not enough agape, perhaps?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't have a problem with parental guidance and "logistical support" when it comes to marriage. I do have a problem when it crosses the fuzzy line of being a transfer of property - the property being the bride - no matter how benevolent the owners.
I am also a little bugged by the situation where women go straight from their father's house to their husband's house. I, personally, think that living on one's own is as useful and enriching experience for women as it is for men.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't know how obvious this is and I may be Captain Obvious for pointing it out.
But at least from a Chinese perspective, there is this thing called "arranged marriages" which in its modern incarnation involves either parents on both sides or a dedicated matchmaker, often enlisted by the male and female themselves. In this modern incarnation, the goal is pretty much to trim the list of potential candidates and find a good potential match. But the marriage is ultimately decided by the couple themselves after a (relatively short) getting-to-know-each-other phase.
There is also this thing called "arranged marriages" (at least in China, either illegal or pre-1950s or so) which can involve child betrothal and forced marriage without consent.
I think some like Samprimary and BlackBlade are referring to something like the latter while others are referring to something like the former, but two can be pretty different and almost deserve different names.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I don't know how obvious this is and I may be Captain Obvious for pointing it out.
But at least from a Chinese perspective, there is this thing called "arranged marriages" which in its modern incarnation involves either parents on both sides or a dedicated matchmaker, often enlisted by the male and female themselves. In this modern incarnation, the goal is pretty much to trim the list of potential candidates and find a good potential match. But the marriage is ultimately decided by the couple themselves after a (relatively short) getting-to-know-each-other phase.
There is also this thing called "arranged marriages" (at least in China, either illegal or pre-1950s or so) which can involve child betrothal and forced marriage without consent.
I think some like Samprimary and BlackBlade are referring to something like the latter while others are referring to something like the former, but two can be pretty different and almost deserve different names.
Yes, this is largely the point I was trying to make. And while I obviously didn't live in China or India in the 1930s or even France in the 17th century, I strongly suspect that the majority of arranged marriages have always fit into the former category and not the latter. Although I know child betrothal was common in many cultures, I find it hard to believe that most of the uglier aspects of arranged marriages were ever all that common.
Based on what I know of human nature, the overwhelming majority of parents love their children and are sincerely seeking the best for them. Its hard to imagine that most parents would have arranged marriages for their children with out concern for whether or not the child would be happy in the marriage.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am also a little bugged by the situation where women go straight from their father's house to their husband's house. I, personally, think that living on one's own is as useful and enriching experience for women as it is for men.
They should already know how to cook and clean - what possible benefit could there be to living by themselves?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It's the treatment of women as property to be handed off that bothers me too. I mean, if one of the Duggars girls say, wanted to go to college, get a degree, and then choose to focus on her career and never marry would she get support from her parents? Or, what if she wanted to marry and have kids but not give up her career?
While I think being a full time Mom is wonderful, I believe it should be something women choose to be. There should be other options available to them - I certainly want my girls to get college degrees and at least have the option of a career. One never knows what will happen - what if the husband dies? How is the wife supposed to support herself and her children? I want my girls to have the ability to choose - career, stay-at-home, or both like I did - I stayed at home until my youngest kids were school age then I went back to work.
It sounds like these Duggar girls don't get many options - they are raised to be wives and mothers and that's it. I have a problem with that, if it is true.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... I strongly suspect that the majority of arranged marriages have always fit into the former category and not the latter. Although I know child betrothal was common in many cultures, I find it hard to believe that most of the uglier aspects of arranged marriages were ever all that common.
From what I understand, this is not the case.
The problem is that what we see as uglier aspects to the practice would have been seen as progressive at one point. For example, while child betrothal is illegal now and pushed to the margins of the provinces, at point it would have been practiced by the upper class as a virtue, in the sense of planning for the future and making sure the other side does not back out.
And while marriage for romantic love may be a common option now, from what I understand it would have been exceedingly rare back then. Rather, you play at romantic love with your second (or third) wife if you can afford it, and if you're really well off, you romance high-end prostitutes (which at the time occupied a much higher social niche than today).
But whether upper class or lower class, the first wife was to build a family, manage the household, and secure a future.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: My mother said "No, our first child was an accident, by the time we got to you we knew very well that if we weren't trying not to have another child, we were trying to have another child".
Well said. Smart woman, your mother.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would, I believe, feel better about arranged marriages where the bride and the groom were treated equally in terms of choice.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: It's the treatment of women as property to be handed off that bothers me too. I mean, if one of the Duggars girls say, wanted to go to college, get a degree, and then choose to focus on her career and never marry would she get support from her parents? Or, what if she wanted to marry and have kids but not give up her career?
They would most likely be extraordinarily disapproving. Your standard Gothardite holds that women are not to go to college. They are to be married off, do housework, and care for the children they are to have.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Belle: It's the treatment of women as property to be handed off that bothers me too. I mean, if one of the Duggars girls say, wanted to go to college, get a degree, and then choose to focus on her career and never marry would she get support from her parents? Or, what if she wanted to marry and have kids but not give up her career?
They would most likely be extraordinarily disapproving. Your standard Gothardite holds that women are not to go to college. They are to be married off, do housework, and care for the children they are to have.
I find this aspect of the "quiver full" movement far more disturbing than people having 20 kids.
Mormonism doesn't go to anywhere near that extreme, but it does place a very strong emphasis on motherhood and its importance. That emphasis is certainly stronger within certain Mormon subcultures than others, but the basic premise is not simply a cultural tag along.
I know many LDS women who are deeply conflicted about having desires, interests and abilities that take them out of the home; I know others who struggle with guilt because they aren't satisfied being stay at home moms and women, like myself, who struggle with being childless in a culture where children and motherhood are considered so important. Being intimately familiar with these struggles in my own faith, I have very deep concerns about the well being of women who are raised with much more severe and extreme ideas about appropriate women's rolls.
I know that some women are very very happy being stay at home moms and some women want nothing more than to be mother to many children. But these women are somewhat exceptional. Women aren't baby making machines. We are sentient beings, individuals with desires, interests and passions that are strong and diverse and part of us. What happens if one of the Duggar's daughters has a talent and a passion for science or writing or music or dance or medicine? Will she be told that these desires are an unnatural perversion, that they are a temptation she must suppress? Will she be denied any opportunity to pursue those interests and develop those talents? Will she be shunned if she chooses to pursue those desires? What will happen if one of the Duggar daughters (or daughter's in law) turns out to be infertile after being trained her whole life to believe that child baring is a woman's only purpose?
These are very very serious concerns and it is naive to think that simply because a woman has been raised within this culture, she will not face those dilemmas. I think perhaps this is why I like Chaim Potok so much. He deals so well with the challenges that arise when an individuals natural proclivities conflict with the culture in which they are raised.
[ September 22, 2009, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Sorry to add to the discussion so late, but there are several issues here that I feel rather intensely about.
1) I am the oldest of eight children. My family and I are conservative Christians. My parents and I believe in what it generally called courtship as a way to find a spouse. My siblings and I are all named according to a pattern. One of my parents is one of seven. My siblings and I are all homeschooled grades 1-12. My parents and I believe in biblically defined gender roles. The older siblings in my family generally have significant child-care responsibilities.
So, obviously, I'm fully in favor of everything the Duggards are doing.
2) I hate pattern naming. My parent's pattern slightly annoys me, but it is a complex one (following syllable numbers increasing, progressing through the alphabet, and name endings). But naming all one's children starting with one letter (or even, as another family I know, starting with A and moving on through the alphabet) bothers me. So does having all children dress alike - my family has encouraged our individuality in dress and interests. My parents really want every one of their children to get a college degree - male and female (so far, I'm in grad school, my sister has a two-year degree and is living by herself, and my next two brothers are in undergrad programs). I am very worried about the physical effects of having many children.
Thus, I must hate the Duggars and their ilk.
I think that there's a lot of unnecessary bile and unhelpful labels (creepy being one) being thrown about. While I obviously have concerns with a significant portion of what the Duggars are doing, I think these concerns can be articulated respectfully.
I want to have about five children (but only if my theoretical wife wants that many independently of my desires), because although I admire my parents greatly and think they are very good parents, I want to see if I can prevent my children from falling through the cracks as some of my siblings sometimes do. However, I think that even if there's only one child, they can fall through the cracks just as easily. I really think that in general, children not getting enough attention really depends on the maturity of the parents, not on the number of kids. Though obviously the number of kids does put a practical constraint on things.
I don't have the background to speak knowledgeably about the population "crisis," but my gut level response to all such "doomsday" claims is rather skeptical. Additionally, how does one know that one of these "irresponsibly" created children won't come up with solutions to many of these problems?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Biblically defined gender roles are awesome when you are a man. When you are supposed to be the subservient one, it is a very different view. Though to be fair, my husband wishes he was the stay at home dad- our agreement on that was whoever got a job that paid the bills worked- I tutor part time with Sylvan so that my resume won't have a large blank spot on recent work.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Your gut level response probably doesn't take into account things like the historic need for the Green Revolution, and living conditions in non First-world nations.
Also, how does one know that one of those "irresponsibly" created children won't out-Hitler Hitler?
But little sniping of arguments I've heard a lot in the past aside, the problem isn't that people are feeling a dichotomous "you must be for them or against them!" thing as suggested by the meat of your post, but instead the fact that a lot of what these people do is disturbing to a number of people, while others find them strange but benign, and others don't feel anything negative at all, but even then 19 kids is a LOT.
Some people find their philosophy creepy. That's because it gets rather strange at times. Your own beliefs are probably something I'd consider creepy at times as well.
However, a key things are things like the post directly above yours, describing what can only be seen as worries about the potential flaws of the philosophy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Belle: It's the treatment of women as property to be handed off that bothers me too. I mean, if one of the Duggars girls say, wanted to go to college, get a degree, and then choose to focus on her career and never marry would she get support from her parents? Or, what if she wanted to marry and have kids but not give up her career?
They would most likely be extraordinarily disapproving. Your standard Gothardite holds that women are not to go to college. They are to be married off, do housework, and care for the children they are to have.
I find this aspect of the "quiver full" movement far more disturbing than people having 20 kids.
Mormonism doesn't go to anywhere near that extreme, but it does place a very strong emphasis on motherhood and its importance. That emphasis is certainly stronger within certain Mormon subcultures than others, but the basic premise is not simply a cultural tag along.
I know many LDS women who are deeply conflicted about having desires, interests and abilities that take them out of the home; I know others who struggle with guilt because they aren't satisfied being stay at home moms and women, like myself, who struggle with being childless in a culture where children and motherhood are considered so important. Being intimately familiar with these struggles in my own faith, I have very deep concerns about the well being of women who are raised with much more severe and extreme ideas about appropriate women's rolls.
I know that some women are very very happy being stay at home moms and some women want nothing more than to be mother to many children. But these women are somewhat exceptional. Women aren't baby making machines. We are sentient beings, individuals with desires, interests and passions that are strong and diverse and part of us. What happens if one of the Duggar's daughters has a talent and a passion for science or writing or music or dance or medicine? Will she be told that these desires are an unnatural perversion, that they are a temptation she must suppress? Will she be denied any opportunity to pursue those interests and develop those talents? Will she be shunned if she chooses to pursue those desires? What will happen if one of the Duggar daughters (or daughter's in law) turns out to be infertile after being trained her whole life to believe that child baring is a woman's only purpose?
These are very very serious concerns and it is naive to think that simply because a woman has been raised within this culture, she will not face those dilemmas. I think perhaps this is why I like Chaim Potok so much. He deals so well with the challenges that arise when an individuals natural proclivities conflict with the culture in which they are raised.
That's a very interesting look at it Rabbit. I often wonder how women feel inside Mormonism and some of its' Utah subcultures. I know it's pretty personal, but how have you dealt with not having children, I know it bugs you at times? Is adoption not an option?
Also, is there a chance in the near future that you would come back to Utah?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Its a complicated story BB. Adoption is an option we have considered but there are a lot of complex reasons I don't really care to go into that we've never pursued it.
I wish I could answer your question about how have dealt with it. It is very personal and I'm never very comfortable talking about such personal things even with close friends. But it isn't just that, I don't really have any idea what to say. I don't understand it well enough to have the words to articulate it. I think perhaps I avoid exploring the question to avoid reopening wounds. Perhaps it is a that it is a thing that is still in flux. Some days I deal with it very badly, others I'm just fine. Let's just sayI have yet come to sufficient closure to be able to talk about it. Maybe someday, but not today.
There is a chance I might move back to Utah, probably not but there is a chance. It isn't in the immediate future but it could happen. We are much more likely to return to Montana.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
This is JenniK posting as Kwea.... I have actually watched their show. The children are all home schooled by the mother, and they are allowed to watch very minimal television (something like an hour per week - if that). They are a very religious family who believe that all of their children are gifts from God and try to share their beliefs (or explain) them wherever they go. None of the children play sports (can you imagine being "soccer mom" to 19 kids of different ages?), but they do play games and do activities as a family. The older kids help the younger kids, both with their care and their learning.
The family owns several rental properties which helps pay for all of those kids, they apparently shop at second hand stores and the like, and as I have heard it, they do not use any products from big name brands unless those companies are willing to pay them for endorsing their products! This I have a problem with. If you ever do get to watch the show and see some logo "fuzzed" out so you can't read it, this is the reason.
Other than that, they are a highly scheduled and ordered family for having 18 kids already (with a set of twins). Many of the places they go are paid for them (Disneyland), and they are asked to speak in many places, but they get a speaking fee for this service (unless it is a church). So they are in the business of making money (they need to in order to support all those kids). I don't think they are creepy, but I am put off by the constant preaching...even if it is when they talk of saying the word "Nike" when they see a woman dressed immodestly so the boys will lower their eyes! That is a bit much (think of a woman wearing a tank top...that is immodest to them.) SO that is what I have seen and noticed about them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Biblically defined gender roles are awesome when you are a man. When you are supposed to be the subservient one, it is a very different view. Though to be fair, my husband wishes he was the stay at home dad- our agreement on that was whoever got a job that paid the bills worked- I tutor part time with Sylvan so that my resume won't have a large blank spot on recent work.
"Biblically defined"* roles in general - along with socially defined roles, culturally defined roles, parentally defined roles or roles defined by whoever else feels the need to define who somebody else should be - are probably just ducky for people who fit into those roles anyway. For people that don't fit the roles someone else has assigned to them, trying to fit can be pretty miserable, futile, and a waste of human potential.
*I don't think that the Bible defines roles so much as reflects the cultures in which it was written nor do I think that we, most of the time, correctly interpret even that.
ETA: I watched a few minutes of their show last night because of the conversation here. They were eating in an Ethiopian restaurant. Given their clear disdain for whatever Ethiopian culture was presented for them (food, dancers, and so forth) I don't feel particularly bad about calling them creepy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Its a complicated story BB. Adoption is an option we have considered but there are a lot of complex reasons I don't really care to go into that we've never pursued it.
I wish I could answer your question about how have dealt with it. It is very personal and I'm never very comfortable talking about such personal things even with close friends. But it isn't just that, I don't really have any idea what to say. I don't understand it well enough to have the words to articulate it. I think perhaps I avoid exploring the question to avoid reopening wounds. Perhaps it is a that it is a thing that is still in flux. Some days I deal with it very badly, others I'm just fine. Let's just sayI have yet come to sufficient closure to be able to talk about it. Maybe someday, but not today.
There is a chance I might move back to Utah, probably not but there is a chance. It isn't in the immediate future but it could happen. We are much more likely to return to Montana.
Thanks for that Rabbit. I wish I had some way of pointing you in the right direction if not out and out solving your dilemma, but it sounds like an extremely difficult situation to live with, and unfortunately I am very inexperienced in this predicament.
I asked because Tiffany feels almost like she is wearing a scarlet letter because we've been married 3 years, she's 24, and she does not have any children while many of the women her age have one, two, three, even four kids. I'm trying very hard to make my career work so that the financial obstacle is out of the way, but it just hasn't happened yet, and if it doesn't happen in another year, I'm not sure what I will do.
Posted by paigereader (Member # 2274) on :
My mother-in-law's father is one of six (with one of the sons named after the father and one of the girls named after the mother), she is the only girl of 6 kids, and she had 5 kids. My husband is the youngest of the 3 boys and 2 girls and thought his name was TodChadDerek until he went to kindergarten. How in the world would you keep all J names straight?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, you have my best wishes that you and Tiffany have a life that beautifully suits and works for you.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
kmbboots: Out of curiosity, what exactly was said about Ethiopian food? Just the standard "Ewww, gross, I can't believe that people eat that?" or something more controversial?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... I asked because Tiffany feels almost like she is wearing a scarlet letter because we've been married 3 years, she's 24, and she does not have any children while many of the women her age have one, two, three, even four kids.
If it helps, she would have plenty of company (as in the majority) in Canada even if she waits 6 years. Its just a matter of perspective.
quote: In 2007, 115,415 babies were born to women aged 30 to 34, the highest number of all age groups and up 3.7% from 2006.
During the previous 10 years, there was an important shift in the age structure of fertility. In 1997, the age-specific fertility rate was highest among women aged 25 to 29. (The age-specific fertility rate is the number of births per woman within a specific age group.) In 2006, the highest fertility rate shifted from that age group to women aged 30 to 34.
Mucus, it wasn't so much what was said, it was the facial expressions. I have no problem with people not liking cerain types of food - it probably wouldn't be my thing either. It was the sort of eye-rolling, smug attitude that surprised me. I expected them to have better manners.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: How in the world would you keep all J names straight?
My husband has a huge family with the J-name tradition going back four generations. But they actually do remarkably well remembering/saying the correct names. You almost have to, because they all sound so much alike. Usually the trouble comes in the children understanding the names and not all responding at once, especially when they're abbreviated. Then you get Jesse/Jilly/Jazzy/Jacci/Josie/Jodie/Johnny/Joshy. Those are all real nicknames in our family, for names that are actually pretty unique and far more easily distinguishable. Jesse, Jillian, Jazmine, Jacqualine, Josephine, Jodie, John, Joshua. It drives me bonkers.
quote: I don't think they are creepy, but I am put off by the constant preaching...even if it is when they talk of saying the word "Nike" when they see a woman dressed immodestly so the boys will lower their eyes! That is a bit much (think of a woman wearing a tank top...that is immodest to them.)
A couple of the branches of our family also seem to have developed this extremist view on female clothing. I view it as problematic, not because I think there's anything wrong with wanting to dress modestly, but because it seems to warp their whole view of humanity. It's tough to talk to a fifteen-year-old who only wears long, blousy shirts and skirts because she "doesn't want to give boys the wrong idea." Not because she doesn't want them to see her body, but because she thinks they'll get the impression that she's easy if she wears short sleeves. That strikes me as an unhealthy view of the people around you, not to mention men in general.
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
Interesting choice of words, Nike - invoking the goddess of victory whenever you see a hottie is kind of an amusing thought. I wonder why they chose that word? I don't know that they would consider Nike to be a model of modest dressing, that top is kind of clingy!
(What an amazing sculpture *sighs*.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My guess is that saying "Nike" is so that they will look at their shoes.
Posted by Fractal Fraggle (Member # 9803) on :
All this talk about Ethiopian food is making me want to go out and get some for dinner this weekend.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I asked because Tiffany feels almost like she is wearing a scarlet letter because we've been married 3 years, she's 24, and she does not have any children while many of the women her age have one, two, three, even four kids. I'm trying very hard to make my career work so that the financial obstacle is out of the way, but it just hasn't happened yet, and if it doesn't happen in another year, I'm not sure what I will do.
I feel for your wife. I had a kid about 3-5 years later than most of my friends because we just weren't ready financially and we weren't where we wanted to be. It's hard being the odd woman out, especially when you DO want kids and you see other people who are less prepared make it work. Especially when these other people start to make unhelpful comments.
Sometimes it can be difficult to tune out other people's expectations but you have to do what's right for the future success of your family. Good luck!
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
*slaps forehead* Oh, duh. Thanks!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Thanks for that Rabbit. I wish I had some way of pointing you in the right direction if not out and out solving your dilemma, but it sounds like an extremely difficult situation to live with, and unfortunately I am very inexperienced in this predicament.
I asked because Tiffany feels almost like she is wearing a scarlet letter because we've been married 3 years, she's 24, and she does not have any children while many of the women her age have one, two, three, even four kids. I'm trying very hard to make my career work so that the financial obstacle is out of the way, but it just hasn't happened yet, and if it doesn't happen in another year, I'm not sure what I will do.
Thank you for your concern and understanding. I think I may have painted to stark a picture in my previous post. I am not unhappy with my life or perpetually troubled by not having children. I am not looking for anyone to resolve my inner conflicts or point me in the right direction. Although my life is not all that I might have dreamed as a young girl, it is a good life and the life I believe God intended for me. I have for the most part come to accept that I'm not going to be able to fully resolve these inner conflicts until I am able to see with God's full perspective. Until them, I am simply trusting and trying to find joy in the life I have rather than focus on the life I don't.
As for you and Tiffany, remember that you too are individuals. God doesn't expect you to be like all the other young couples you know. There will be a right time for you to have children and you need to decide that thoughtfully and prayerfully based on your personal situation and then you need to have the confidence to do what is right for you without concern for or comparison to all of those around you. Having children isn't something you should do because its what your peers expect. It is a very important step. It will radically impact not only your life and Tiffany's, but also the lives of all your future children. Don't let culture and peer pressure be the determining factor in your decision.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Rabbit, if I haven't said so recently, I think you are a strong, amazing person.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Thanks Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Also, is there a chance in the near future that you would come back to Utah?
When I first responded to this question, I presumed you were asking if I would be moving back to Utah. Now that you started a Utahcon thread, it made be wonder whether you were actually asking if I would be visiting you to any time soon.
I have family in Salt Lake and have visited there a couple of times during the past year and will very likely be visiting again around Christmas.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I love hatrack. Few other places on the internet would the mention of "Nike" lead someone to think first of the goddess, and not the shoe company. Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I love hatrack. Few other places on the internet would the mention of "Nike" lead someone to think first of the goddess, and not the shoe company.
I thought of the missiles.
--j_k
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I thought of Nike the goddess, but only because I don't know much about her and made the assumption that she was a harlot or some such. I guess my brain translated it as "Jezebel."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I love hatrack. Few other places on the internet would the mention of "Nike" lead someone to think first of the goddess, and not the shoe company.
It's a link to one of Chabad Lubavitch's sites. I assume a reference to the fact that Lubavitchers frequently have many kids. (Why them and not Satmar, Belz, or some other Chassidish group? Well, I doubt Satmar or Belz have websites. )
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: I thought of Nike the goddess, but only because I don't know much about her and made the assumption that she was a harlot or some such. I guess my brain translated it as "Jezebel."
Part of me wants to name one of my daughters Jezebel because dang it that name needs to be taken back!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Why?
Do you know what Izevel means? See first comment. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, that's fairly gross. But I have to say that I really wanted to name my daughter Jezebel, too. It's a freaking cool-sounding name, at least to Hebrew-non-speakers such as myself. Obviously, the social stigma alone was enough to make me change my mind, but I think Jezebel is probably my favorite female name ever.
ETA: I mean, for the nickname alone. Jez!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I kinda want to have a son named Raistlin. But I also feel like if I have children I should at least try to adopt one of the many (somewhat) older children in fostercare. And I hear they come with names.
Cause, clearly, the only reason you wouldn't name a child Raistlin is if they had already come with a name.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Does Raistlin have a long A?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I know an 8 year old boy named Raistlin. He's not in foster care, and he has a lot of people who would get him first, but where there is one, there must be more.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
huh. Interesting...
I forget what long-a means, but it rhymes with Waste Bin
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Long" means it sounds like the name of the letter. So, that would be a yes for Raistlin.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Well, that's fairly gross. But I have to say that I really wanted to name my daughter Jezebel, too. It's a freaking cool-sounding name, at least to Hebrew-non-speakers such as myself. Obviously, the social stigma alone was enough to make me change my mind, but I think Jezebel is probably my favorite female name ever.
ETA: I mean, for the nickname alone. Jez!
You could always go for "Jezre'el' as a sustitute and use the nickname Jez!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
But isn't that word play, rather than what the name literally means? I mean she was eaten, processed, and excreted just prior to that comment being made.
The only way to deal with a stigma is to be brave enough to attack it. Of course it might be terrible for a young girl who every time she gets mad people say, "figures." Oddly enough it surprises me how many people at church know Jezebel slew the prophets and tried to get Elijah, but almost nobody knows who she met her end. Then again, maybe that part of the story just doesn't make for good Sunday School material. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But isn't that word play, rather than what the name literally means?
No.
In fact, it almost certainly was not her real name, but the name the text gives her because of her actions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But isn't that word play, rather than what the name literally means?
No.
In fact, it almost certainly was not her real name, but the name the text gives her because of her actions.
Ah I see. But every other Bible name has been used up beyond all reckoning!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
What does Jezre'el mean, Rabbit? That's pretty cool, too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But every other Bible name has been used up beyond all reckoning!
How many of the following do you know? Na'amah Naomi Yocheved Tzipporah Shira Zilpah Bilhah
Anyway, what's wrong with common biblical names? Or even a NON-Biblical name?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
rivka: Hmm, out of that list I actually knew a Na'amah, went on a date with a Naomi, met a Tzipporah (She was Jewish), watched Shira on my television set in the 80's, but you've got me with Yocheved, Zilpha, and Bilhah. Are any of those names in use in Israel?
Nothing wrong with non-Biblical names but whenever you brave the dark and create your own name there is usually a period of time, sometimes one that never ends, where you have to endure the weird looks.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
When I see the name Raistlin I think of "Wheel of Fortune."
Why?
For the big money round you are given the following letters--RSTLN and an E. Raistlin is the key to winning Wheel of Fortune. See, he did become the ultimate evil.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The one on TV was She-Ra, not Shira.
Yocheved is quite common. Bilhah and Zilpah are pretty rare -- they were secondary wives, after all.
There are many many non-Biblical names that won't get you weird looks. There are books upon books and sites upon sites just chock full of them!
And I suspect you'd get far weirder looks for Jezebel than for most anything else you could come up with!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: What does Jezre'el mean, Rabbit? That's pretty cool, too.
Jezréel means "God Sows" or something like that. It is the name of am ancient city and valley in central Israel. The city of Jezréel was home to King Ahab and Jezabel. I don't know think its ever been used commonly as a person's name, but I think it would make a great name. Its one of the things I considered naming a daughter, should I ever have had one.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
My grandmother's name is Naomi. She's Jewish though. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I've know several non-Jewish Naomis.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Um, so...this is really weird. That Naomi I mentioned? I haven't seen her or heard from her or heard about her in thirteen years because she's been doped up and in a halfway house. But within about five seconds of making that post, my dad called and said she's clean, and we're all going up to see her next month. Talk about coincidences.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
She was in a halfway house for thirteen years? Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: What does Jezre'el mean, Rabbit? That's pretty cool, too.
Jezréel means "God Sows" or something like that. It is the name of am ancient city and valley in central Israel. The city of Jezréel was home to King Ahab and Jezabel. I don't know think its ever been used commonly as a person's name, but I think it would make a great name. Its one of the things I considered naming a daughter, should I ever have had one.
It was also the name of Hosea's oldest son.
I met a Peninnah once. She had a very positive way of looking at her Biblical eponym.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*blink*
I don't even think as Penina as uncommon! I know lots. And it's a lovely name -- it means pearl.
As for the Biblical personage, I suspect the Jewish take on her is quite different than the Christian.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Tom, I have to say that I don't know very many of the details. She's not been in the halfway house that long, but she's been in the care of various institutions like that. The last few years she's been in a place that, in theory, was supposed to keep her from using, but she had enough knowledge to mix over-the-counter medicines that she purchased during the weekly outing to Wal-Mart to get the kind of effects she was looking for. I have to assume that she wasn't very well monitored. I really have very little info.
But she's in a nursing home, now, and she's not getting the stuff. So that's good.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Let's hope everything turns out okay.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's very early. I hope everything is ok.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: ...according to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in June, babies born at 25 weeks who receive aggressive treatment through intensive care have an 82 percent chance of survival.
That's pretty good odds. Here's hoping.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Oh, I hope things go ok.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Would that be her body saying "i quit?"
1 pound 6 ounces is tiny.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: Would that be her body saying "i quit?"
I honestly want to see if there is any chance she will quit prior to an age-related miscarriage. Or two, or three.
it really does not seem like it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yeah, probably not. I think her view is that if the child survives, she's meant to have it, and if not, not. No reason not to see whether she's meant to have more, in that frame.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I think that is an overly harsh characterization of her. This is a woman who decided to give up birth control after a miscarriage scarred her. I am pretty sure she is not taking the potential death of her children lightly. I think she is someone who, for better or worse, has decided to trust that her God will watch over her and do what is best for her and her family in the long run even if it brings her terrible short term pain. You make her sound much more callous than I think her motives are even if I'm not sure a family her size is a great plan.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don;t think that is a harsh opinion of her at all...I have heard her say almost those exact words when asked to explain her beliefs on birth control and the dangers of having so many children.
I don't think it is callous, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by theresa51282: I think that is an overly harsh characterization of her. This is a woman who decided to give up birth control after a miscarriage scarred her. I am pretty sure she is not taking the potential death of her children lightly. I think she is someone who, for better or worse, has decided to trust that her God will watch over her and do what is best for her and her family in the long run even if it brings her terrible short term pain. You make her sound much more callous than I think her motives are even if I'm not sure a family her size is a great plan.
I don't think she's callous. I think she's obsessive and naïve.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by theresa51282: I think that is an overly harsh characterization of her. This is a woman who decided to give up birth control after a miscarriage scarred her. I am pretty sure she is not taking the potential death of her children lightly. I think she is someone who, for better or worse, has decided to trust that her God will watch over her and do what is best for her and her family in the long run even if it brings her terrible short term pain. You make her sound much more callous than I think her motives are even if I'm not sure a family her size is a great plan.
No, I think people are being very charitable by not talking about this woman using the births of 19 children to promote herself and her religious lifestyle in the public eye. That the continued attempts to have more children could actually cause the family a great deal of emotional suffering is a consequence of that decision- whether you believe my ascribed motivation or not.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
She had pre-e. That can happen to any pregnant woman. However once you've had it it's more likely to happen again. They've always said that if it becomes dangerous to her they will stop. I don't know what they'll decide now but I'm sure it may be time to stop soon even if they have one more. And this baby was born closer to 26 weeks than 25. I think that whatever happens to this baby, she will have the best life they can give her, and that's all I hope for from any parents.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I read it was Hellp and not just pre-e. Which scares me even more since the only case of that I know of in person, turned out tragically.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, by all means let the childless single people think the very worst of people who dedicate their lives to raising children. Clearly its the people whose lives are all about themselves who know best how to dedicate their lives to little someone elses.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm not exactly old enough to have started a family, so let's not go too far with your liberal elitist fantasy, please. Your scorn for the childless doesn't change the fact that 19 children is too many- and it certainly doesn't change my opinion.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
theresa, I'm sorry if it sounded harsh. While I think the Duggars been very lucky to be able to support such a large group, they are quite the model of how to make a ginormous family work well. They're impressive people.
I do think that if you take the view that you're going to have as many children as you can (even with a limit such as stopping when it becomes dangerous for the mother), a miscarriage or the death of a newborn doesn't mean you should stop, though. That's all I was trying to say.
(Unless she's beat the odds significantly, she must have had a dozen or so miscarriages already.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: (Unless she's beat the odds significantly, she must have had a dozen or so miscarriages already.)
The odds are about 1 in 5. By my count, that would most likely be 3-6. And we know about at least one, which they have talked about.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Oh, by all means let the childless single people think the very worst of people who dedicate their lives to raising children. Clearly its the people whose lives are all about themselves who know best how to dedicate their lives to little someone elses.
That's rather callous stereotyping. I know quite a few childless people whose lives are all about serving other people and several very self centered parents.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: While I think the Duggars been very lucky to be able to support such a large group, they are quite the model of how to make a ginormous family work well. They're impressive people.
I have to disagree. Making your children a public spectacle on reality TV is exploitation. Even if I approved of everything else they did, that one simple fact makes them anything but a model family.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, I think people are being very charitable by not talking about this woman using the births of 19 children to promote herself and her religious lifestyle in the public eye.
Being charitable is, I think, an appropriate response to parents in this situation and does not have to indicate an endorsement of their choices.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: (Unless she's beat the odds significantly, she must have had a dozen or so miscarriages already.)
The odds are about 1 in 5. By my count, that would most likely be 3-6. And we know about at least one, which they have talked about.
The odds of miscarriage are kind of misleading because its not random. Some women have a much higher tendency to miscarry than others. Given that she's had 19 live births in 21 years, she really hasn't had time for a statistically average number of miscarriages.
In looking for the ages of the Duggar children, I noted that 3 of her last 5 children were born by C-section. She's 43, had pre-eclampsia, at least 20 pregnancies and at least 3 C-sections. For her sake, I really hope they decide its time to stop. It really isn't remotely safe for her to have more children.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The odds of miscarriage are kind of misleading because its not random. Some women have a much higher tendency to miscarry than others.
While the latter is certainly true, many miscarriages (IIRC, my doctor's statistic was 1/2-2/3 of miscarriages, but I don't know what she was basing that on) are random, as far as medical science thus far has been able to determine. Blighted ova, certain genetic or developmental abnormalities, and some other causes do seem to strike fairly randomly. Other issues -- uterine or other structural abnormalities, maternal health, genetic incompatibility between the partners, are less random, of course.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, I think people are being very charitable by not talking about this woman using the births of 19 children to promote herself and her religious lifestyle in the public eye.
Being charitable is, I think, an appropriate response to parents in this situation and does not have to indicate an endorsement of their choices.
Well said, Kate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're missing stuff, Rabbit. Don't worry about it - it doesn't concern you.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
18 pregnancies, not 20, two sets of twins, one discussed miscarriage after Josh but before the first twins.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: 18 pregnancies, not 20, two sets of twins, one discussed miscarriage after Josh but before the first twins.
Thanks for the correction. It still doesn't leave much room for miscarriages.
I'm not anti-big family. I come from a family with 7 children and lived in a community where that wasn't considered unusually large. I know quite a few families with 10 or more children and they didn't seem to be any more trouble prone than families with two or three kids. None of the families I've known with 10+ children even seemed to be leading some sort of fringe lifestyle. The kids were involved in sports, music, theatre, generally very social, well groomed "normal kids". Most of them have gone to college, some to graduate schools and seem to be leading normal happy successful lives. Some of them have chosen to have big families, some have not.
But for some reason, something about the Duggars creeps me out. Putting their children on reality TV is exploitive and their efforts at promoting the enormous family lifestyle seem over the top excessive, even to someone who is completely comfortable with big families. Maybe its that I'm just not comfortable having them become the defacto stereotype for big families since they seem to me to be so much further on the cultural fringe than the big families I've known.
That said, I do wish them and their tiny new child the best.
[ December 19, 2009, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You're missing stuff, Rabbit. Don't worry about it - it doesn't concern you.
If its a private discussion, have it in private.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: (Unless she's beat the odds significantly, she must have had a dozen or so miscarriages already.)
The odds are about 1 in 5. By my count, that would most likely be 3-6. And we know about at least one, which they have talked about.
My understanding is that the rate of miscarriage after implantation is more like 1 in 3. However, many times the miscarriage happens before people are aware of a pregnancy (and may never be aware). If she's had 19 kids, and they are 70% of the implanted embryos, then I guess the likely figure is closer to 8 than a dozen.
Now I'm feeling creepy for speculating about it, but I let my desire to clarify outweigh enough to post this.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:My understanding is that the rate of miscarriage after implantation is more like 1 in 3.
I have some general skepticism about that number. If I remember carefully, it comes from very careful monitoring of women who are having difficulty conceiving a child. The sampling bias in that is unbelievable. There is every reason to believe that women who are having difficulty conceiving a child are abnormally likely to miscarry in the first few weeks. That alone would explain why they are having the difficulty in the first place.
Extending those results to normally fertile women is simply unjustified and extending them to extraordinarily fertile women, like Mrs. Duggar, is way out.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Being charitable is, I think, an appropriate response to parents in this situation and does not have to indicate an endorsement of their choices.
Heck yes. I know we don't see eye to eye on most things, but this?
Yep.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Hasn't anyone explained to this family that it may be unhealthy, both for the mother and the new child to get pregnant again so quickly after giving birth? It was my understanding that most doctors think that you should wait at least 18 months to get pregnant after giving birth. If she's had 18 pregnancies in 20 years she has spent the majority of the last 20 years pregnant. It can't be healthy. Even in animal husbandry, ethical breeders wait a period of time between pregnancies to ensure the health of their animals.
If we assume a pregnancy of exactly nine months and factor in 17 successful pregnancies (not counting the miscarriage) that's approximately 153 months of pregnancy which equals about 12.75 years of pregnancy. She's only 43 which means she has spent 1/4 of her life pregnant. It can't be healthy. And she's now old enough (as brought up by several people) to have to worry about age related birth defects.
I hope that this new baby is healthy, but it's time to seriously consider some form of birth control. If the pill and other chemical controllers are out, then condoms or the rhythm method. But for her own health, they should really consider stopping.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Hasn't anyone explained to this family that it may be unhealthy, both for the mother and the new child to get pregnant again so quickly after giving birth? It was my understanding that most doctors think that you should wait at least 18 months to get pregnant after giving birth.
I'm sure they are not ignorant of the risks. There is so much variability between individual women that it is unwise to apply some doctors rule of thumb to a specific person without a much more detailed knowledge than any of us have.
Mrs. Duggar is clearly an unusual woman. Even in back in the days when abstinence was the only common form of birth control, very few women had that many successful pregnancies.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I'm sorry if someone already mentioned this, but anyway:
While I disagree with this kind of serial breeding, for reasons others have already well articulated, there might be one positive side to the life of this family. It might also be a reason why they might seem happy with their lives:
They have a large pack with strong, intimate emotional ties.
Not just a pack of 4 people, which is what people usually have, and which is likely too small for a human. A pack of 21 people is probably pretty close to the size of the packs humans have traditionally had, and from an evolutionary and biological standpoint it might feel more emotionally rewarding. It's close to the size of packs (either villages or nomad groups) in tribal cultures. In my understanding it's close to the size of packs we had when we were still hunter-gatherers. And biologically, we are not that different from that age.
Personally I think that a lack of proper pack with strong, positive emotional ties is one of the main reasons why a lot of people in modern societies feel emotionally dysfunctional, and lonely.
This doesn't mean that people should start forming big families to have their own pack, as there are many other, mora practical ways to build one. And a large family can also be very dysfunctional as a pack.
But I just thought this was something interesting to point out.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: It was my understanding that most doctors think that you should wait at least 18 months to get pregnant after giving birth.
Most? Really? A 21 month seperation between the first two kids is pretty common, which means getting pregnant again when the first is a year old.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
dkw, I'm not sure what "most" recommend, but just because people do it doesn't mean it's healthy. After all, people smoke and eat at McDonalds, and both of those have been proven to be unhealthy!
While I don't know what "most" doctors recommend, I have heard that it's a bad idea to nurse while you're pregnant (though extended breast feeders claim it's not really bad). I'm pretty sure Mrs. Duggar is breaking this rule too.
Besides, even if it's perfectly safe to do 21 months between pregnancies for two or three pregnancies in a row, doing it 15 or 16 times is quite different. Even if she is the perfect breeding stock human, eventually this has to become unsafe. While normally I would say, "It's her life, if she wants to put it at jeopardy, it's none of my business." However, if this preemie isn't a one time event, and if she starts to have successive pregnancies that end in preterm births, then it is no longer only her health she is putting at risk. She's risking helpless infants, and at that point I begin to think it's morally questionable. So far, though, we have no evidence that she will get pregnant again. I believe (or at least hope) that for right now their attention will be focused on the children they already have, especially the one that is in so much danger right now.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: While I don't know what "most" doctors recommend, I have heard that it's a bad idea to nurse while you're pregnant (though extended breast feeders claim it's not really bad). I'm pretty sure Mrs. Duggar is breaking this rule too.
Whose rule is that, exactly?
eta: I've done a lot of reading on that topic, and there are no studies that show increased risk to an otherwise healthy mother and baby from breastfeeding during pregnancy. The only time there is a medical reason to wean is if the mother is on "pelvic rest" because of increased chance of miscarriage/pre-term labor.
eata: Lots of women do chose to wean when they get pregnant, and lots of babies self-wean either becasue supply dips or the taste changes, but that's personal preference, not a "rule."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: Lots of women do chose to wean when they get pregnant, and lots of babies self-wean either becasue supply dips or the taste changes, but that's personal preference, not a "rule."
Additionally, some women do not ovulate while they are breast feeding and some women stop producing milk when they become pregnant. But in both cases, that is only SOME women. Many women have no difficulty conceiving while breast feeding and no difficulties breast feeding while pregnant.
I expect, that if a woman is both pregnant and breast feeding she would need to be quite careful to be sure she was getting enough nutrition, but that should be perfectly doable for most women.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:My understanding is that the rate of miscarriage after implantation is more like 1 in 3.
I have some general skepticism about that number. If I remember carefully, it comes from very careful monitoring of women who are having difficulty conceiving a child. The sampling bias in that is unbelievable. There is every reason to believe that women who are having difficulty conceiving a child are abnormally likely to miscarry in the first few weeks. That alone would explain why they are having the difficulty in the first place.
Extending those results to normally fertile women is simply unjustified and extending them to extraordinarily fertile women, like Mrs. Duggar, is way out.
Completely agree.
Also agree with Rabbit and dkw on nursing while pregnant. And while spacing pregnancies 12 months apart is often recommended (and I have heard longer times suggested as well), I am unaware of any studies indicating that for otherwise healthy women closer-spaced pregnancies are necessarily unhealthy. As Rabbit said, the key is to be sure the mother is getting adequate nutrition.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Oh, by all means let the childless single people think the very worst of people who dedicate their lives to raising children.
sure, that's exactly what's going on here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: But I just thought this was something interesting to point out.
I want to add something to this observation, and in this case it's going to be a non-judgmental interpretation, kind of "Duggars as anthropological case study" style. I'm not saying any of these things are good or bad. I'm simply observing that they are.
In the case of this family, the need for a self-bred pack is extraordinarily large, since them and the rest of their Gothardite, inclusivist community is very small and very self-secluded from the world at large. Aside from the business interactions which the males (and ONLY the males) are being groomed for, the family is being rigidly defended from exposure and 'contamination' to society. It is actually a persevering means by which they maintain an inter-generational transmission of mores.
These isolated packs of children are what essentially amount to cultural 'sibkos,' shielded from outside corruption for the defense of moral purity, and thus allows this fascinating moral culture to at least maintain its numbers.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
They haven't put any updates about it on their web site so I truly pray all is going well with mama and baby..
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah so I'm gonna necro this thread up again after half a decade or so.
This thread was the one that inspired me to really look into Gothardites, Quiverfull, purity values, courtship, the Family Research Council, all of that and how extraordinarily and fully creepy and actually frankly disturbing the values and practices of the Duggars truly were.
But I guess I couldn't have possibly guessed just how this was all going to turn out. Well, I mean, I could have, apparently, according to ex-Quiverfull who document the movement's propensity towards equipping sexual molestation, abuse, and rape of women and girls.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's horrible. Don't even get me started on how much rage this fills me with.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Duggars follow Gothardite quiverfull movement. Gothard produced publications and teachings which were big on basically blaming women and girls for being abused, and encouraging families to keep it hidden and secret and the abusers could blame it on women being immodest, and the women and community were to forgive the abusers and move on.
Appropriately, Gothard was a serial molester/rapist who probably had upwards of 80 victims. Resigns because of being horrible molester/rapist.
Doug Phillips of Vision Forum Ministries, apparently a very or most important leader of the Duggars' sect/following/whatever, awarded Michelle their "mother of the year" award and is now in court for sexually assaulting a woman he claims was his mistress, while she attests that it was actually abuse and molestation.
The policeman who patriarch Jim Bob eventually took Josh Duggar to report the crime just gave Josh a 'stern talking to' and then covered it all up for them. That policeman is now in jail for child pornography serving a 56 year sentence.
The founder of the 'treatment center' that Josh Duggar reported to for ministry-approved rehabilitation left that center after getting caught sexually grooming teens and young women.
A judge who was appointed by Huckabee, a big supporter of the Duggar family, ordered the case file on Josh to be destroyed. This despite similar records being kept indefinitely.
Last year, the Duggar matriarch recorded a robocall warning voters of Fayetteville, Arkansas, against a bill that would allow trans women to use the women’s bathroom.
A judge who was appointed by Huckabee, a big supporter of the Duggar family, ordered the case file to be destroyed. Despite similar records being kept indefinitely. Ostensibly, it was done in order to protect the identity of the victims.
It just does not stop. The whole movement is just exploding in filth centered around a show that was their largest stage for providing them an opportunity to pitch a sanitized, idealized version of their disgusting values.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Something on common with the sex abuse facilitation among Catholic clergy is the notion of dealing with the abuse as a sin rather than a crime when in reality it is both. Another lapse is forgiveness does not mean avoidance of consequences. Apology is hollow without atonement.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Cue the 'no way we could have known', I wonder, from people who objected to the term 'creepy'?
I thought it was creepy as hell when I first heard of it, which by the way was no less valid an opinion to have than that it was somehow praiseworthy as many in this thread did. Just turns out in this case that the 'creepies' were right.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Josh Duggar's crimes are one of the failure modes of a total lack of sexual education and absence of a system of gradual assumption of responsibility. It's also something that can happen in other systems/conditions, for other reasons, but I think it's nearly inevitable for some fraction of people in those conditions to do exactly this.
Gothard's crimes are similar - insist that everyone has to act happy all the time, and also submit to authority, and that pattern is fully set up.
That's something that I think a lot of groups fail to deal with: all the various failure modes. Not just the ones where someone steps out of line and has to be brought back, but what goes unseen or gets hidden? How does that feed back into the system? What can grow in this ecosystem?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah. Gays and transgender molest kids. BUT THIS GUY, oh, forgive him. Hide what Gothard did. Take the Pearl's horrible advice about how to abuse children to GROOM them for this sort of thing. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS WORLD?! Why don't these folks understand WHAT is really wrong?!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Because women aren't fully human. Using women and girls will always be excusable to those who don't consider women to be as entirely, individually as human, as worthy as men. That is why gay molestation is so much worse. Men and boys are human and you don't do that to humans. Women and girls, though...
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I gotta wonder if you guys were this upset about Lena Dunham's biographical admission of having done pretty much the same thing to her sister. I say that because Lena still has a TV show and after basically just saying "sorry" for what she did the whole thing went away.
As someone who was a victim of numerous types of abuse (including sexual abuse) from a sibling, that kind of double standard really pisses me off, and makes me wonder if what you guys *actually* find objectionable about this incident is just its proximity to a set of beliefs that you don't like. /relurk
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, listen, while you're clambering back up onto your cross as you scurry away and hide from a conversation you don't want to have (except to take shots and then leave), a few things to consider.
Speaking for myself I had to look up Lena Dunham and I suspect others would too. Having done so I can say that my only exposure to her has been a single episode of Adventure Time wherein she did some voice acting. To my awareness, anyway. Never watched Girls on HBO.
Second, it is pretty ridiculous of you to get all outraged and then say, "Y'all don't actually mind molesting children, it's conservatives!"
Third, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not aware, now that I looked her up, that Dunham has any sort of history, say, claiming to be living a life in accordance with God's will, putting forth herself as a moral authority to others in a reality television show, pushing for legislation to control the behavior of others based on religion...you know. All that stuff.
People who claim divine insight as to the morality of their own behavior and that of others simply do not get to complain 'but what about the misbehavior of others!' You claim that much authority, you get the criticism it earns you.
Ok, now, need help nailing yourself back up there, or do you got that?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
If you are going to claim that the objectionable thing is the actual *act* of molestation, you better be consistent in your application of moral outrage, Rakeesh. It doesn't matter if they are conservative or claiming some type of moral authority.
Further, before going to the audacious extent of "apologizing" for her actions, she refused to accept any kind of responsibility for them and went to extreme lengths to defend herself from the criticism that was piled upon her.
And I'd be glad to have this conversation, if I had some actual time to do so, now that I'm married and have step kids to take care of. Then there's the fact that the only reason I'm pointing this out is the incredibly insulting nature of the discussion so far, and that's without considering the vast amount of logical fallacy and outright arrogance that has been shown. But I'd expect that in any echo chamber like this forum has become.
quote: Speaking for myself I had to look up Lena Dunham and I suspect others would too.
Ya think that might be because of that double standard I was talking about?
Edit: For information, go visit Lena's twitter feed and you'll see that almost every post involves some comment on feminism, then learn that she's a pretty prominent feminist activist. Then let's start talking about how a liberal who espouses the left wing ideals of sexual experimentation and free love should be allowed to continue to work in the entertainment industry after admitting to the sexual abuse of a 7 year old.
Note here that I don't give a crap about the Duggars being conservative. I think the show should be cancelled. But I think that if we're going to have that be the standard for people who committed sibling sexual abuse and their parents (who tried to cover it up) then we should apply that standard to *all* of them. Not just the ones we don't like.
[ May 27, 2015, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
...that I hadn't heard of the creator of an HBO series I didn't watch but did hear about a family with 19 kids who were the stars of their own reality show? Not really, no. One is one of many (creators of HBO shows I haven't watched); the other is a family that numbers near two dozen in two generations with a reality show.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, just a little fact finding seems to be suggesting that Lena was 7 and her sister was 1 when the events in question happened.
Given that you are likening the situation with the Duggars to a 7 year old doing...I'm not even sure what to call it, is it actually molestation that young? 7? Serious question...makes me wonder if your primary sourcing for this comparison was a, you guessed it, report by a Breitbart editor on a website whose first popup ad is a bit of pap propaganda about Obama?
But in any event, at this point Boris? As I have said, I hadn't heard of her, so your continued carping on 'what about her?!' falls utterly flat. But even if it didn't...so she is a feminist activist (I admit I would be curious as to what standards you would choose for that label).
Alright? I'm unfamiliar with any rhetoric of hers that claims a pipeline to God's will for herself and the rest of her fellow hairless apes.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Never heard of Lena until now, but yes, I think there's a fairly large difference between a 7 year old and a 15 year old inappropriately touching someone.
I'm trying to avoid going into detail here (as Lena's story is easily Googled and it's a rather disturbing subject), but Lena *didn't* admit to molesting her sister. She mentioned a singular incident where she did something out of curiosity and then told her mom about it. Presumably she didn't know any better, and she wasn't doing any of the "things" you would associate with molestation.
Or to share another story a friend shared with me several years ago, she was in the living room of he house and heard her vacuum cleaner running, and then shortly after that a lot of giggling. She went upstairs and found her 6 and 4 year old sons taking turns putting the hose on their penises. They apparently thought it was hilarious. She disciplined them both and had several stern talks with them about why private parts are private, but I have a hard time believing anyone would suspect it was sexual or predatory in nature. For her it was a funny story she's probably threaten to embarrass them with when they're teenagers.
There's a huge divide between those type of instances and what Josh Duggar did, and trying to conflate them like this (as some media outlets are) is pretty reprehensible.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, no, Dogbreath. You don't actually have a problem with child molestation-it's just that you dislike conservatives, right?
When I 'ask' you that, also just take it as read that I'm also criticizing you for unfair and insulting statements, just to really round out the hypocrisy and self pity in my 'question'.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Guh. I hope she didn't hit them.
I don't even LIKE Lena Dunham. I don't like how Roman Polanski got away with raping a child. I'm pretty sure Woody Allen did molest his daughter and get away with it. And don't get me started on Sean Penn and Madonna.
But,the problem is the quiverfull system equals child abuse and abuse of women. Just look at books by the Pearls and Ezzos. They're just how to abuse a child instruction books. And the Pearls have a how to be an abused wife book. And Gothard, he's all about grooming young girls for abuse too!
They should not get away with this. Religion or fame shouldn't be a pass to create these abusive systems. It's even WORSE when they're religions and throw their stones at gay and trans people with all of this stuff going on? I'd like accountability regardless of whether or not someone is religious or famous, please?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No, no, Dogbreath. You don't actually have a problem with child molestation-it's just that you dislike conservatives, right?
When I 'ask' you that, also just take it as read that I'm also criticizing you for unfair and insulting statements, just to really round out the hypocrisy and self pity in my 'question'.
Gosh, and we wonder why I keep abandoning threads I get involved in. Also, you should read more into it...Because her book states pretty openly that the abuse continued until she was well into her teens.
quote: that I hadn't heard of the creator of an HBO series I didn't watch but did hear about a family with 19 kids who were the stars of their own reality show?
Hey, guess what. I hadn't heard about the duggars until my wife started asking me to watch the show with her. And I hadn't heard of Lena Dunham until the stuff surrounding her came up. So that's not much of an excuse.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I thought it was because you were so busy, Boris.
Have you read her book? I have not, and I'm curious as to what your sources are for what's in her book.
As for it not being a good excuse...so basically you yourself followed almost the same path as I did: you heard about the Duggars because of their reality show, before you heard of Lena Dunham. The only difference is that I went on not hearing of Lena Dunham, until now. So...yes, it's a good 'excuse'?
Also this is by now the second or third time you've ignored my point about how, even if we accept all other things being equal, there is a different between someone claiming divine guidance for their own and (most importantly, other people's) lives, and a secular supposed feminist activist (which I question because frankly I think it's much more likely you're getting that information second hand as well).
Put simply? The Duggars claim divine insight into the proper family and sexual behavior for themselves and for other human beings. Lena Dunham does not. So no matter how uncomfortable it makes you to see conservative figures hoisted on their own petard, given the same offenses, the perpetrator who is also a hypocrite on that same matter is worse.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I thought it was because you were so busy, Boris.
Have you read her book? I have not, and I'm curious as to what your sources are for what's in her book.
As for it not being a good excuse...so basically you yourself followed almost the same path as I did: you heard about the Duggars because of their reality show, before you heard of Lena Dunham. The only difference is that I went on not hearing of Lena Dunham, until now. So...yes, it's a good 'excuse'?
Also this is by now the second or third time you've ignored my point about how, even if we accept all other things being equal, there is a different between someone claiming divine guidance for their own and (most importantly, other people's) lives, and a secular supposed feminist activist (which I question because frankly I think it's much more likely you're getting that information second hand as well).
Put simply? The Duggars claim divine insight into the proper family and sexual behavior for themselves and for other human beings. Lena Dunham does not. So no matter how uncomfortable it makes you to see conservative figures hoisted on their own petard, given the same offenses, the perpetrator who is also a hypocrite on that same matter is worse.
Okay...I'll try to address this whole thing in a calm and non offensive manner so you can understand what I'm getting at.
1. I've been married for 2 months. I was introduced to the Duggars exactly 4 months ago. I hate reality shows. My wife loves them. I love sci-fi and spy shows. My wife hates them. I'm willing to suffer through a few hours of reality TV in order to spend time with my wife.
I was introduced to Lena Dunham when the scandal about her and her sister came to light. That was well over a year ago. So we didn't follow the same path at all.
2. Direct quotes from the relevant portion of Lena's book are pretty easily available if you look. Though, they're probably not available on places you find acceptable. Those silly right wing blogs and such. They do tend to...uhh...I guess totally fabricate direct quotes from easily obtainable media? If you want to go to the book store and go to page 158 to view the first excerpt, you're welcome to. http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/lena-dunham-threatens-sue-truth-revolt-quoting-her has some more quotes. I realize you probably think that's not an authoritative source, but you're welcome to do some actual primary source research on your own to verify the validity of their quote.
Note that she admits to a full decade of sexual coercion and abuse of someone 6 years her junior. Sexual activity between minors is considered harmful and abusive if there is greater than *3* years of difference between ages.
3. As to your argument that there's a difference between someone claiming divine influence for their beliefs and someone claiming secular influence. To claim that there is a difference is logical fallacy. The source of a belief or idea has no bearing on its validity, value, or usefulness.
Furthermore, there is no moral difference between the Duggars advocating their beliefs on sexuality and having a son who sexually abused his sisters and Dunham being an advocate for female victims of sexual abuse while having a long (and documented) history of sexually abusing her sister.
4. I need no more evidence to support my assertion that you don't actually care about the abuse than the fact that you have been *defending* Lena Dunham's continued entertainment career while condemning the Duggars. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse (I've heard that a lot on this forum...Does it not apply in this situation?) The only serious difference between Josh Duggar and Lena Dunham is their beliefs and their gender. Those are *not* logically valid reasons to treat them differently.
You are arguing that it *is* a valid reason to do so, thus improving my case that the real reason you guys care about this is its proximity to a set of ideals you find objectionable. Not the fact that a bunch of girls were abused by their brother.
As for the criticism of Mr and Mrs Duggar, why do you all seem to be ignoring the fact that two parents had to make a pretty difficult choice about how to approach a situation that has no good solutions? The fact that they actually reported it to the police is almost revolutionary in light of the fact that the majority of sibling sexual abuse goes completely unreported. Heck...Lena Dunham's parents knew what was going on and did absolutely nothing to stop it, let alone report it to the police.
I mean, seriously, why is this a conversation about how objectionable the Duggar's beliefs are to you all and how they are totally and absolutely responsible for this (without any actual evidence beyond anecdote to support yourselfs) and not "What can we do to prevent this type of abuse?" Because I can guarantee that there aren't many sex ed programs that discuss sexual abuse between siblings.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boris,
quote:Okay...I'll try to address this whole thing in a calm and non offensive manner so you can understand what I'm getting at.
I appreciate that. Your initial /relurk rubbed me the wrong way, and I overreacted. Apologies.
quote:I was introduced to Lena Dunham when the scandal about her and her sister came to light. That was well over a year ago. So we didn't follow the same path at all.
Well, in my defense your initial timeline wasn't clear. Anyway, your initial point was, "Why aren't you complaining about Lena Dunham too? That's a sign of the double standard!" Which was and is a silly point: I hadn't heard of her because I haven't heard of a *lot* of creators of television shows I don't watch, nor do I remember all of the Hollywood figures involved in some sort of sex scandal story from over a year ago. The Duggars I remembered because they're frigging unusual! I mean statistically speaking. A family of 21 people? With their own reality show? A religious conservative family of 21 with their own reality television show? It's unusual?
Answer me seriously: which sticks in the brain more, Boris?
As for your site, it's interesting you're talking about total fabrications and a Breitbart editor. Such as when their response to her lawyers' request to take down the story was phrased in such a way to suggest that a 28 year old Dunham molested her infant sister. They're sleazy hacks (Sherrod), but that's a different discussion.
quote:Note that she admits to a full decade of sexual coercion and abuse of someone 6 years her junior. Sexual activity between minors is considered harmful and abusive if there is greater than *3* years of difference between ages.
Well, this is a flat out lie, unless you grant that when it started, the *seven* year old was a sexual abuser.
quote:3. As to your argument that there's a difference between someone claiming divine influence for their beliefs and someone claiming secular influence. To claim that there is a difference is logical fallacy. The source of a belief or idea has no bearing on its validity, value, or usefulness.
Furthermore, there is no moral difference between the Duggars advocating their beliefs on sexuality and having a son who sexually abused his sisters and Dunham being an advocate for female victims of sexual abuse while having a long (and documented) history of sexually abusing her sister.
There's a huge difference. One person claims divine authority for their arguments, and the other doesn't. Or are you actually arguing that morality does not come from God? In that case I wholeheartedly agree, though it is a surprise to hear.
quote:4. I need no more evidence to support my assertion that you don't actually care about the abuse than the fact that you have been *defending* Lena Dunham's continued entertainment career while condemning the Duggars. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse (I've heard that a lot on this forum...Does it not apply in this situation?) The only serious difference between Josh Duggar and Lena Dunham is their beliefs and their gender. Those are *not* logically valid reasons to treat them differently.
Where have I defended Lena Dunham's 'continued entertainment career'? I have said multiple times now she is basically a non-entity to me. I also reject your characterization of what went on their. I simply do not grant your premise that a 7 year old touching a 1 year old's genitals is the same thing as what happened with the Duggars. If you wish to support that premise-with something other than tabloid hack job references-I welcome that discussion.
As for the suggestion that a *bunch of girls* (notice the difference there as well? Quantity?) is immaterial, you can simply go to hell on that, Boris. And seriously, the next time you whine about how unfairly and rudely you're treated here, please do remember this instance in which you've repeatedly stated not just suggested that I am indifferent to multiple children being sexually molested.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As to your final question, well by all means! Let us have truly comprehensive sex-ed in schools. Frankly the first year of middle school would be fine with me, really, if not even the last year of elementary school.
Gosh, I wonder who it is who prevents that sort of thing from happening in the United States, Boris?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am astonished at the number of my conservative friends that assume I knew who Lena Dunham is. And I am disappointed at the number who, instead of engaging in a discussion about the possible causes of systemic sexual abuse fell back on the, "Look, we found this obscure liberal who did it, too!", conversation ender.
Some differences: Josh Duggar was fourteen. Lena Dunham was seven. (When people claim that the abuse continued, they are talking about bribes for kisses and masturbating while her sister was asleep in the same bed.) Most of the child psychologists interviewed on this have described this as normal exploration rather than sexual abuse.
Still. I am certain that there are liberal abusers out there. The big differences are that, generally, they are not making their fame and fortune by holding themselves up as a moral example and they have not enshrined a moral system that breeds and facilitates sexual abuse. The police officer and family friend that they brought in to "counsel" Josh Duggar is himself serving time for being a pedophile. When they say they reported it to the police, this is what they are talking about. The police officer and family friend did not follow up on the report so there was no action taken at the time, but it still started the clock on the statute of limitations which means that Josh Duggar is not going to face legal consequences. Bill Gothard, the evangelical who is responsible for a good deal of the Duggar's theology is under investigation for sexual abuse and harassment.*
When you draw the line between what is acceptable sexual contact and what is not acceptable sexual contact at "not even kissing before marriage", when all of it - even thinking about sex - is "sin", then there is no difference between kissing your girlfriend and fondling your baby sister. Except that one is easier to keep secret. This was (is) a big factor in the Catholic Church sex abuse crisis as well. Normal sexual and even romantic urges are all forbidden and shameful so end up being expressed in a way that is predatory so it stays hidden.
What makes it even easier to hide and more damaging to the victim is the notion of sexual purity and shame. At the same time that Josh Duggar was abusing his sisters, his parents were likening girls who weren't pure to cups full of spit. Their value lay in their "purity"; how much harder to tell their parents that they have lost that? They are taught to be "modest" to keep from tempting men; how much more likely are they to feel that they are to blame for their brother's sin?
[ May 27, 2015, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Gosh, and we wonder why I keep abandoning threads I get involved in.
serious advice: lurk or don't. Pick one. Don't be schroedinger's doofball in threads over and over again, in a superposition of jumping out and making a controversial statement in a controversial tone then nailing yourself on a cross over people matching your tone and your pathological disdain
yo
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Gosh, I wonder who it is who prevents that sort of thing from happening in the United States, Boris?
The answer is conservative republican christians, in case anyone was wondering. Conservative christianity furthers rape culture and it is not an ambiguous point and it is worth dissecting and calling it out exactly for what it is.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: "instead of engaging in a discussion about the possible causes of systemic sexual abuse fell back on the,"
This is probably because you are so certain of the truth and validity of the rest of what you posted there, which is basically unsupported by anything objective. It's pure conjecture that you are purporting as fact.
As for the continued abuse, this support organization run by Tori Amos, who happens to share the exact same view as Ms. Dunham, just happens to completely freaking disagree with all the interviewed child psychologists.
And, Rakeesh, since you aren't willing to accept direct quotes from this lady's book because they are on a site you find icky, I'll just go ahead and do all the research work for you. I'll give you some page numbers and direct quotes when I'm done.
"matching your tone and your pathological disdain"
You mean the tone and disdain that I effect to match the tone and disdain that is already there regardless of whether I'm involved? If you want to know why I keep abandoning and disappearing, maybe you should try making arguments somewhere where there is a populace that hasn't already been indoctrinated to your point of view and see how much you enjoy it. Personally, I like a challenge, but I get a little overwhelmed when I have to answer 6 different people without any assistance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I specifically don't post on places that won't challenge my worldview completely or at least offer an assembled audience opportunity to hear the arguments out. I am stridently against echo chambers.
I enjoy it. I thrive on it. I love it. I seek the challenge. This should also not be an ambiguous point given my behavior.
For starters, if you want some sort of an out in terms of being 'dogpiled' may i sincerely recommend having a dialogue on the point explicitly with Dogbreath and Rakeesh, who will put in a great amount of effort, cross their t's and dot their i's, and be fairly aboveboard in not exceeding any negativity they are not already getting hit with independent of their contribution.
They have excellent points regarding the talking-counterpoint Lena Dunham thing which i am absolutely certainly positive is being trafficked heavily with people invested in the conservative christian version of "modesty" and "purity" and sexual repression as a mode to bring about better lives and morals. I have spoken at length about false equivalence arguments. You can focus on them, or kmbboot's linked article (which is quite good imo) and I can be a safely ignored peanut gallery.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: "instead of engaging in a discussion about the possible causes of systemic sexual abuse fell back on the,"
This is probably because you are so certain of the truth and validity of the rest of what you posted there, which is basically unsupported by anything objective. It's pure conjecture that you are purporting as fact.
As for the continued abuse, this support organization run by Tori Amos, who happens to share the exact same view as Ms. Dunham, just happens to completely freaking disagree with all the interviewed child psychologists.
Perhaps you could show me where you think the disagreement is? I read the link and didn't find anything in particular to support what you claim. You might also explain what the heck Tori Amos has to do with anything and what her qualifications are.
As to my "conjecture", what specifically, do you doubt? Which facts are you contesting? That the officer is now in jail? The specifics of Gothard's purity culture doctrine? Give me some specifics. Here. Spend a little time with him. Institute in Basic Life Principles
[ May 27, 2015, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: [QUOTE] If you want to know why I keep abandoning and disappearing, maybe you should try making arguments somewhere where there is a populace that hasn't already been indoctrinated to your point of view and see how much you enjoy it. Personally, I like a challenge, but I get a little overwhelmed when I have to answer 6 different people without any assistance.
*nods* Yes, no one else in this thread has ever disagreed with anyone else on any subject ever. When you're not here we just sit around high-fiving all the time and patting eachother on the back. It's pretty awesome, actually.
More seriously;
The reason you're seeing so much pushback on this, I think, is because if I understand you correctly, you believe Josh Duggar is being unfairly targeted because of his/his family's religious and political beliefs. And this is at least somewhat true - because his family's faith absolutely *is* a factor due to belonging to a group that is infamous for practices that lead to these sorts of situations and cover them up - but the way you've chosen to express that is pretty lousy.
1) As already mentioned, Lena Dunham's childhood interactions with her sister in no way are in the same league as Josh Duggar's molesting of 5 girls as a teenager. (I'm still unclear as to whether they were all his sisters or not) This sort of equivocation is pretty terrible, which is why I specifically wanted to address this.
2) Even if it was equivalent (which is clearly isn't), it doesn't really make a difference as far as your point is concerned: statistically, there's almost certainly liberal feminist women who have done far, far worse than Josh Duggar. I'm sure there are liberal feminist rapists and, who knows, there might even be a liberal feminist lesbian serial killer. (which also sounds like the title of a great "bad" horror movie, "Attack of the Liberal Feminist Lesbian Serial Killers!") It doesn't make what Josh did less bad, or his religious organization/family's cover up less troubling.
3) If there was a marked trend in feminism where people raised in feminist households, or part of a certain feminist organization, held beliefs and practices that led to a virtual epidemic of child abuse and coverups, the appropriate response would be "holy crap, look at what *crazy feminist organization* is doing, this has to stop!" not "well, since they're doing it too, I guess ATI/the Duggar family's situation isn't so bad."
Ultimately, your argument falls into the same zone as "men can be discriminated against too, so sexism doesn't exist!" or "black man kills cop, where's the outrage!" type arguments - the existence of bad behavior outside of the person or group being criticized doesn't excuse it, especially when a certain person or group (like Josh or ATI) claims to be a moral authority on the subject. It's a ridiculous argument, and therefore worthy of the ridicule you've experienced.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Note here that I don't give a crap about the Duggars being conservative. I think the show should be cancelled. But I think that if we're going to have that be the standard for people who committed sibling sexual abuse and their parents (who tried to cover it up) then we should apply that standard to *all* of them. Not just the ones we don't like.
Just responding to this...
Who is applying a standard to what is a key point you might want to think through a bit more. There might be some differences.
If you want people to be outraged at Dunham and do something about it, you might get more traction by being more specific about what they should do for what particular reasons/benefits.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: *nods* Yes, no one else in this thread has ever disagreed with anyone else on any subject ever. When you're not here we just sit around high-fiving all the time and patting eachother on the back. It's pretty awesome, actually.
While this made me laugh, he actually does have a point. Hatrack does somewhat lack conservative viewpoints these days.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have yet to hear a conservative viewpoint here or on any other social media that doesn't boil down to "Lena Dunham did it."
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
While it is true that Hatrack certainly has a shortage of red-state Republican archetypes, there are plenty of conservative viewpoints. I myself am pretty conservative compared to most of the posters here.
The fact that I'm now far to the left of the Republican Party has less to do with a change of political opinions on my part (though I will say my opinion on gay rights/marriage equality has changed pretty significantly, as well as a few other minor issues, some of which I'm actually more right wing on), and more to do with the hard turn to the right they took in 2008. That, and the fact they've gone from merely tolerating racism, sexism, and homophobia in their ranks to outright reveling in it - there's a reason why the significant minority of black people who voted Republican 10 years ago has all but vanished, and no, it's not because Obama is black.
That being said, I've voted Republican before and still do for a few candidates in local elections, though mostly now due to their opponents being completely incompetent or crazy rather than any sort of ideological agreement.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Tori Amos is rather awesome.
But, I'm sorry, but this quiverfull culture is messed up. It's not the only culture that would rather protect rapist and abusers than allow them to be punished. It's not the only RELIGIOUS culture out there letting people get away with abuse! it's an entire CULTURE of abuse and it needs to be exposed and called out.
People who stand with a family that buries this sort of thing are part of a huge problem that needs to be fixed! It is NOT acceptable!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't care about the obvious and predictable outcomes of institutionalize, divinely mandated subservience of women. I'm just happy that a liberal somewhere apparently did something sexual to a kid too, so I can go back to my fundamental indifference towards child molestation.
Right, Boris?
Boris?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Well, there's no way we could've possibly known he would mysteriously disappear after taking a few pot shots and then running into some resistance. I mean, it's not like this has ever happened before.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i am actually kind of disappointed that all that came out of right wing circles i could see was more or less the same thing: a truly terrible equivalence argument about the dunham thing which had no comparison whatsoever to the issue of conservative christianity mandating female subservience and modesty and the resultant misery and sexual abuse that occurs on account of it
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Well, there's no way we could've possibly known he would mysteriously disappear after taking a few pot shots and then running into some resistance. I mean, it's not like this has ever happened before.
He's busy again, I'm sure. And I understand why he wouldn't want to talk here anyway, what with people outright stating he is indifferent to the sexual assault of children for political...wait. Got my pronouns mixed up.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's a cherry topped confection nobody is going to enjoy eating.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Schadenfreude is so so tasty though. Serious question: do cheaters have a right to privacy?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sure they do. Though in this case there is a nugget of humor in its loss.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
oh, his poor wife. Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sure they do. Though in this case there is a nugget of humor in its loss.
This.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Josh Duggar just made a statement saying that he's become addicted to pornography and has cheated on his wife, though he didn't actually mention the Ashley Madison thing.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I feel awful reading that. I mean, I hope it's genuine shame and he does some serious soul-searching that leads to making healthy adjustments. But what a torrid affair, and while there's no happy way to find out your SO has cheated on you the way it happened to Mrs. Duggar has to rank pretty far towards the bottom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to (sic) our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Does this strike anyone else as a really weird non sequitur? I mean, of all the lessons he might take away from this scenario, why this? Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I wouldn't call it so much a non-sequitur as the wrong lesson. It sounds too much like "I learned that it sucks to get caught." It just serves to underscore the bit about him being the biggest hypocrite ever.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to (sic) our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Does this strike anyone else as a really weird non sequitur? I mean, of all the lessons he might take away from this scenario, why this?
Perhaps he thought he really could make these choices and control the end results to a large extent.
I doubt he seriously considered that a hacking group would go after Ashley Madison and just leak everyone's information, when he signed up.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to (sic) our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Does this strike anyone else as a really weird non sequitur? I mean, of all the lessons he might take away from this scenario, why this?
It seems like he's a classic sociopath: he doesn't feel much about what he did to his wife and family, or even about nonchalantly breaking the rules of his religion - no, he cares about getting caught.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sociopath? No.
He's just a product of quiverfull's demented environment. He's learned the only lesson that his religion will teach. All through his life he's been part of a system that makes excuses for the men and demands on the women to accept the actions of those men, whether these women are being told that they were insufficiently modest to keep men from straying, or insufficiently appealing and supportive as a wife to keep them from being unfaithful. His tribe will always make excuses for him and ensure that everyone else obey the will of god to see him forgiven. The only crime in that tribe is to get caught by the eye of the outside world. And that's why he's saying that he's sorry he got caught, because that's all there is to be sorry for in his world. The philandering leaders of their sect are evidence enough of this object lesson.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I doubt he seriously considered that a hacking group would go after Ashley Madison and just leak everyone's information, when he signed up.
Maybe. That would have been kinda silly though. He was still going a year after the Snowden revelations which revealed the US hacking pretty much everyone. Of course those came well after several well publicized Wikileaks drops.
With the juicy juicy schadenfreude, he would have been a great target.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to (sic) our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Does this strike anyone else as a really weird non sequitur? I mean, of all the lessons he might take away from this scenario, why this?
I think some people think that the appearance of contrition is more believable if some suffering is evinced.
I think it goes along with a view that sin is going against God's will (even if it's arbitrary, as opposed to a more intersubjective morality), and that sins are punished with suffering. "Look, I'm suffering, therefore you should believe that I know I sinned."
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
That doctrine, as well as "prosperity doctrine" (i.e, God will make you rich if you follow him), have always struck me as particularly troublesome, especially since Jesus seems to directly refute it. (see Matthew 5, "...he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.") That and, you know, Jesus wasn't particularly rich and the apostles didn't necessarily have easy lives either. (all but one were violently killed at some point or another) It seems to go against some of the very core teachings of Christianity - give all that you have to the poor and follow me/take up thy cross/it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven/consider the lilies of the field/treasures in heaven... - the belief that you're giving up tangible goods and happiness in exchange for something less tangible and immediate but ultimately more rewarding and eternal. And that can be seen through a lot of church history, all the martyrs and the concept of "suffering for Christ"... this whole idea of "obey God so you can be happy and rich" seems to miss the point a little.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Or, you know, to miss the point so badly that even laypeople can see how cynical a subversion it is of that particular religion's message. To the point where it becomes difficult though not impossible to credit the good intentions of those who do adhere to such doctrines. Can't put a price on feeling good about yourself, after all...and to be able to silently gloat to most of the planet which is worse off in God's eyes compared to you if you're wealthy. Of course there's stuff about pride in the bible too, but that's really a warning for poor people.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Prosperity doctrine has become american Christianity's default state because it helps make churches and televangelism more profitable.
That's really it.
For decades a group of Christians have been evolving Christianity as a for profit system, and it worked, and today it's the type you most typically see.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Further abroad too, evangelism in the Chinese language is rife with this kind of Christianity leads to wealth and a strong nation stuff.
Variants on this go all the way back to at least the Opium Wars and the associated missionaries who pushed this kind of thing.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Prosperity doctrine has become american Christianity's default state because it helps make churches and televangelism more profitable.
That's really it.
For decades a group of Christians have been evolving Christianity as a for profit system, and it worked, and today it's the type you most typically see.
quote:As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to (sic) our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Does this strike anyone else as a really weird non sequitur? I mean, of all the lessons he might take away from this scenario, why this?
I think some people think that the appearance of contrition is more believable if some suffering is evinced.
I think it goes along with a view that sin is going against God's will (even if it's arbitrary, as opposed to a more intersubjective morality), and that sins are punished with suffering. "Look, I'm suffering, therefore you should believe that I know I sinned."
I think it's more "Look, I'm suffering, therefore you should feel pity for my suffering rather than add to it by confronting me with my wrongdoing. No further consequences necessary, already been punished enough! Time to move on to the forgiving and reconciling part of the program!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I suspect dkw's got the closest lock on it. He wants a verbal claim of regret and repentance to be sufficient for him to get to the 'washed clean, it's forgiven' stage of things.
That's perhaps the unique Christian sect means through which he gets to this. The much broader, more general human lens is probably a shade of not really sorry at all except for being caught, thinks it should be nobody else's business, and wanting people to like him again.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yeah, I agree with dkw's take on it.
But I also think he is aware it's going to suck more before it sucks less; he's more or less saying "Gosh, this is going to be really bad for me". At least he isn't quite whining about it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to (sic) our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Does this strike anyone else as a really weird non sequitur? I mean, of all the lessons he might take away from this scenario, why this?
It seems like he's a classic sociopath: he doesn't feel much about what he did to his wife and family, or even about nonchalantly breaking the rules of his religion - no, he cares about getting caught.
Well, there's not enough in that statement to really determine that. But yes, it is a perfect example of what a sociopath would say.
There were many interesting examples of this sort of thing in Jon Ronson's book "The Psychopath Test." It claims that psychopaths tend to dissociate their actions from harm to anyone but themselves- so when the harm occurs, it is oriented to the self. If something hurts someone else, that is still seen through the filter of how it affects *me,* and not that other person.
But again, there's way not enough evidence to prove something like that.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to (sic) our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Does this strike anyone else as a really weird non sequitur? I mean, of all the lessons he might take away from this scenario, why this?
It seems like he's a classic sociopath: he doesn't feel much about what he did to his wife and family, or even about nonchalantly breaking the rules of his religion - no, he cares about getting caught.
Well, there's not enough in that statement to really determine that. But yes, it is a perfect example of what a sociopath would say.
There were many interesting examples of this sort of thing in Jon Ronson's book "The Psychopath Test." It claims that psychopaths tend to dissociate their actions from harm to anyone but themselves- so when the harm occurs, it is oriented to the self. If something hurts someone else, that is still seen through the filter of how it affects *me,* and not that other person.
But again, there's way not enough evidence to prove something like that.
Was it this book or The Sociopath Next Door (more clincial, still good, I recommend) that tells about the experiment where they counted down to 10 and shocked the prisoners? Anyway, all reacted. They did it again, the the non-psychopaths heart rate goes waaay up in anticipation, while nothing happens with the psychopaths. They just don't fear it.
Given how manipulative and self-aware these people are, I'm still shocked they fall into that trap. It's what blows my mind about some of the police shootings-- has it occurred to any of these people to say "I was scared and panicked. Your brain does funny things, and exaggerates danger, even if the person is unwarmed. I think every day about that poor kid and how he will never grow up, go to college, marry have kids and grow old."
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to (sic) our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Does this strike anyone else as a really weird non sequitur? I mean, of all the lessons he might take away from this scenario, why this?
It seems like he's a classic sociopath: he doesn't feel much about what he did to his wife and family, or even about nonchalantly breaking the rules of his religion - no, he cares about getting caught.
Well, there's not enough in that statement to really determine that. But yes, it is a perfect example of what a sociopath would say.
There were many interesting examples of this sort of thing in Jon Ronson's book "The Psychopath Test." It claims that psychopaths tend to dissociate their actions from harm to anyone but themselves- so when the harm occurs, it is oriented to the self. If something hurts someone else, that is still seen through the filter of how it affects *me,* and not that other person.
But again, there's way not enough evidence to prove something like that.
Well, to be clear, my intention was not at all to prove anything. Just an observation that his odd reactions to the scandals that have popped up seem to be in line with the actions of a sociopath. It could also be, as sam pointed out, an artifact of his religious beliefs and upbringing. I don't really know.
I should note if you have a religion that encourages and rewards psychopathic behavior, then you can expect to see some conflation between actual sociopaths/psychopaths and people who merely have been brainwashed into acting and thinking that way. Though I honestly don't know enough about psychology to tell you if there's a difference.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i guess he was having affairs with porn models while his wife was pregnant too
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i guess he was having affairs with porn models while his wife was pregnant too
Allegedly. I find it kind of surprising she says he was too rough, but she wasn't adverse to second helpings.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's completely unsurprising and a pretty par for the course story for sex work. Sometimes the money is good enough to make you want to be okay with a renegotiation for round 2.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to (sic) our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Does this strike anyone else as a really weird non sequitur? I mean, of all the lessons he might take away from this scenario, why this?
It seems like he's a classic sociopath: he doesn't feel much about what he did to his wife and family, or even about nonchalantly breaking the rules of his religion - no, he cares about getting caught.
Well, there's not enough in that statement to really determine that. But yes, it is a perfect example of what a sociopath would say.
There were many interesting examples of this sort of thing in Jon Ronson's book "The Psychopath Test." It claims that psychopaths tend to dissociate their actions from harm to anyone but themselves- so when the harm occurs, it is oriented to the self. If something hurts someone else, that is still seen through the filter of how it affects *me,* and not that other person.
But again, there's way not enough evidence to prove something like that.
Was it this book or The Sociopath Next Door (more clincial, still good, I recommend) that tells about the experiment where they counted down to 10 and shocked the prisoners? Anyway, all reacted. They did it again, the the non-psychopaths heart rate goes waaay up in anticipation, while nothing happens with the psychopaths. They just don't fear it.
Given how manipulative and self-aware these people are, I'm still shocked they fall into that trap. It's what blows my mind about some of the police shootings-- has it occurred to any of these people to say "I was scared and panicked. Your brain does funny things, and exaggerates danger, even if the person is unarmed. I think every day about that poor kid and how he will never grow up, go to college, marry have kids and grow old."
In answer the first question, I think that experiment is listed in both books. It's a classic study of psychopathy.
The thing is, as far as I understand from reading these two books and a few other things, that there is a none-too-clearly understood *physical* malformation of the temporal lobe which affects not only emotional reasoning, but also things like speech and semantic understanding.
To a psychopath, there is no appreciable difference between a statement of regret for the consequences of an action, and a statement of regret for the person affected. It doesn't compute- that isn't in their software. For example, there is clinical evidence that psychopaths have more difficulty parsing abstract words- they cannot as easily grasp ideas presented in abstraction the way that normal people are able to.
So, for example, the idea that pain in the past is coming again at the count of ten doesn't somehow filter into their emotional responses. It just happens when it happens- the memory of the pain doesn't affect the way they feel about it. By extension, the knowledge that another person feels pain doesn't provoke a feeling of empathy, because the pain the other person feels is an abstraction that can't be appreciated easily.
That's why Ronson talks so much about psychologists who claim they can spot psychopaths by their speech patterns- they are unable to obfuscate their feelings because they don't actually understand the difference. But that's still a poorly understood area of study.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i guess he was having affairs with porn models while his wife was pregnant too
Allegedly. I find it kind of surprising she says he was too rough, but she wasn't adverse to second helpings.
Lots of people complain about crappy customers but don't quit their jobs. She wasn't having sex with him because she wanted to; she was getting paid for it.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Anyone see the latest review column?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Holy shit. Aside from the ridiculous and unnecessary pivot to abortion in a discussion about social security, it read very much like an OSC from earlier days, one whom politically I could not just respect but admire.
Part of me wants to remark that it's a bit hackish and partisan not to name any political names when he talks about particular policies that he objects to-which in this case would indict republicans-but I don't have enough familiarity with his pieces in similar situations to make an informed accusation, so I can't do that.
I also disagreed with his bit about hacking over the heads of government entities, since those same entities routinely lie to the American people and their own congressional and judicial oversight as to what they're actually doing, but aside from that, which alongside the bizarre abortion shot, props to you, OSC.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I for one am glad that the conversation about welfare is starting to involve corporate welfare. Including middle class welfare can only make it a better one.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Unless I missed something, there seems to be a pretty big math problem. OSC says that of the 38 million accounts, a significant number were fake, and of the non-fake accounts, 95 percent were male. So then he takes 95 percent of 38 million and gets 36 million potentially cheating husbands.
But we don't know—or at least he doesn't say—what percentage of the 38 million were fake. If 50 percent of the accounts are fake, and 95 percent of the real accounts were male, then that's only 18 million potentially cheating husbands.
(He's also assuming that all the male accounts are of married men, but he does say that some men may have multiple accounts.)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I was actually going to post in the other thread that several of his recent columns have been really good. Even in places he's said things I disagree with, he seems to have toned down the vitriol quite a bit.
As far as the Ashley Madison hacks: this is a pretty comprehensive data analysis. It seems pretty clear Ashley Madison was a giant scam - perhaps *the* giant scam considering the number of men using the site.
quote:About two-thirds of the men, or 20.2 million of them, had checked the messages in their accounts at least once. But only 1,492 women had ever checked their messages. It was a serious anomaly.
In other words, it seems very probable that almost all of the women on the site were fake. Like, 99.9%+ percent of them were fake. Men were paying hundreds of dollars a year just to indulge in the *fantasy* of possibly having an affair. Which is pretty sad.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm just surprised anyone didn't know. It's like all those other skeevy find-a-gurl-in-ur-area sites like adultfriendfinder: SPOILER ALERT THEY ARE ALL DUDES ALL OF THEM ARE DUDES
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Unless I missed something, there seems to be a pretty big math problem. OSC says that of the 38 million accounts, a significant number were fake, and of the non-fake accounts, 95 percent were male. So then he takes 95 percent of 38 million and gets 36 million potentially cheating husbands.
But we don't know—or at least he doesn't say—what percentage of the 38 million were fake. If 50 percent of the accounts are fake, and 95 percent of the real accounts were male, then that's only 18 million potentially cheating husbands.
(He's also assuming that all the male accounts are of married men, but he does say that some men may have multiple accounts.)
It's a bit more complicated than all that- many of the accounts are not "real" in the sense that the user created the account (for real), but never paid for a subscription, meaning they never actually used the service. Judging from my experience in this field (SAAS platforms, not cheating), that ratio is probably on the order of 20 or 30 to 1 at the very best. So the actual number of paying customers is unlikely to be over a million. It's probably much less than that.
A great ratio for a SAAS product is 3% conversion to paid products. At that rate, if you assume half the accounts are fake, and they company had a phenomenal conversion rate of 5%, that's still 900k. And that's highly optimistic. I'd guess they probably had closer to 300k.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm just surprised anyone didn't know. It's like all those other skeevy find-a-gurl-in-ur-area sites like adultfriendfinder: SPOILER ALERT THEY ARE ALL DUDES ALL OF THEM ARE DUDES
Well, or hookers. There are hookers on these services. A friend told me. Totally a friend.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm just surprised anyone didn't know. It's like all those other skeevy find-a-gurl-in-ur-area sites like adultfriendfinder: SPOILER ALERT THEY ARE ALL DUDES ALL OF THEM ARE DUDES
Man, I never thought beating a cheating website scam would turn out to be one of the davantages of being gay.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out the released data is misleading in some way. It wouldn't be that hard to just delete the last messaged and last checked dates only from profiles marked as female.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm just surprised anyone didn't know. It's like all those other skeevy find-a-gurl-in-ur-area sites like adultfriendfinder: SPOILER ALERT THEY ARE ALL DUDES ALL OF THEM ARE DUDES
Well, or hookers. There are hookers on these services. A friend told me. Totally a friend.
they only ever use sugaring sites where payment is much more explicitly presented as a condition.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Your friend told you that?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
a few who have been involved in sex work did. as did one of my girlfriends from a number of years ago, who was still actively sugaring when we first started going out. There was no real reason to put up with ashley madison at all.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)