In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Wherein I contribute to the problem I lament

evil fizz

Said problem being the unrelenting publicity surrounding the Duggar family.

17 children! And counting! More than 10 collective years of pregnancy! (Abuse of exclamation points concludes.)

It’s stories like this one and posters like this that make me feel like a bad feminist blogger. (I also have this problem when talking to an acquaintance who is obsessed with becoming a stay at home mom.)

I want so desperately not to be judgmental and really to encourage reflection and introspection about one’s choices…and I fail. Try as I might, I cannot avoid thinking that Michelle Duggar is out of her mind and wishing, hope against hope, that we could, collectively, look away from the scene. I want to think critically about the situation and why anyone, under any circumstances, would think that featuring the power of their uterus on national television was a good idea or that their entire purpose was to keep having babies. And all I wind up doing is snickering.

This isn’t a comment on choice feminism, but rather a comment on my own unwillingness and inability to look at individuals making (mostly) private choices that I fundamentally disagree without jumping up and down and explaining exactly how I feel about said choices, why they’re wrong, and I know better. (And, as we all know, how I am possessed of superior knowledge and insight which enables me to tell others exactly how to comport their lives.) Rather, this is my own admission of self-righteousness judgmentalism.

Certainly, I have no desire to legislate on any of these issues, but I think that I (and if I may be so bold, most of us) fall into the trap of belittling others rather than critiquing choices within the dominant paradigm. It’s so much easier to snicker at Michelle Duggar (Vagina. Clown Car! *snerk*) than it is to try and understand why she’s planning to have more kids.

How do we work to keep the focus on the patriarchy, the systemic factors at work, and not on the couple who named one of their 17 children Jinger*?

*Is this a misspelling of Jigger, Jingle, a variation on Jingoism or something else entirely?

131 thoughts on Wherein I contribute to the problem I lament

  1. One of the consequences of being pro-choice is also being for the choice that women make to become pregnant year-round for 10+ years–just like the choice that women make not to stay pregnant. If pro-choice means “equality of choice without patriarchal condemnation,” both of these must be equally valid if they’re made voluntarily and without external/ cultural pressures. So, yes, the Duggarts are a fundamentalist Christian family, and, as you yourself say, this cultural motivation, if imposing patriarchal restraints on Ms. Duggart’s free will, would make a more adequate focus for feminist critique. But again, individual choice has to be individual choice; otherwise, you’re in danger of taking up the master’s tools and applying them in the same fashion.

  2. To answer your question, I think Jinger is a zomg!kre8tive spelling of Ginger. (ot, but what is *with* all the J names?)

    I’m struggling with much the same dilemma as you are, especially since I’m childfree and my main reaction to Ms. Duggar is a combination of ‘eww!’, ‘WTF?’, and ‘Poor woman.’

    Personally, I think that when a person agrees to be featured in the mass media, she opens herself and her actions to debate.

  4. I believe Jinger is supposed to be pronounced “Ginger,” but they changed the G to a J to keep with all the J names.

  5. It’s amazing that all this posting on various sites hasn’t prevented her from having more kids. Oh well, I’m sure it was good for something.

    Of course, legendary African-American photographer and filmmaker Gordon Parks was the youngest of 15 children. Using the google search “youngest of (x) children” can produce some interesting results.

  6. Sometimes I think that after people have a certain amount of kids, it’s stops being about their own choice and starts impeding on the choices of others. Drain on the economy, natural resources, etc. Obviously, I’m not for legally stopping them. All I can do is hope that they realize how unnecessary & selfish it is to have kids in the double digits in this day and age.

  7. It’s especially hard not to judge Michelle Dugar, because she and her husband are actively speaking out against birth control, claiming that “contracepting” is a selfish, sinful, marriage-destroying practice that no woman should be able to choose. They’re actively threatening the ability of women to control their own bodies and lives. That being said, I think that 90% of postings about them on the internet are dreadful, misogynist, and just as bad for women as the Duggar’s anti-BC nonsense.

  8. How do we work to keep the focus on the patriarchy, the systemic factors at work, and not on the couple who named one of their 17 children Jinger*?

    Well, here’s a start: consider why virtually all of the focus is on Michelle Duggar and not her husband–what’s his name, afraid I can’t tell from your post. A nod to the fact that, yes, there must be a male involved there gets rushed by while we point out that the posting hasn’t preventing HER from having more kids, that SHE is out of her mind, etc.

  10. If you look into Jim Bob, you see just how twisted the whole thing is.

    It’s amazing that all this posting on various sites hasn’t prevented her from having more kids. Oh well, I’m sure it was good for something.

    And it’s amazing that all your comments on all sorts of blogs wagging your finger at posters for giving attention to whoever you don’t want them giving attention to haven’t stopped those bloggers from using outside material as a springboard for their own thoughts.

    IOW, take your own advice and give it a rest already.

  11. I have 19th Century Mormon ancestry (I’m also related to Thomas Paine, so not all my genes are doomed). Anyway, my great-great-some many greats-grandmother had 21 children. Her husband, after his first wife died, married three other women (all at the same time) and he had a total of 47 children survive to adulthood. Even in the 19th century this was extreme. Why did they have this many children? Because their fundamental philosophy had to do with procreation. That’s also why contemporary fundies of the quiverful movement have so many children. Their version of Christianity is really 99% about sex. They don’t do the whole Jesus-called-for-justice-and-cared-for-the-poor-thing, but rather they view human biological reality to be guided in every way by God (in terms of conception, not lust/sex-acts). God directs the sperm and egg, but the devil directs lust outside of marriage. I just graduated from Divinity school and I remember that in my very first semester, a young, male seminarian raised his hand in our early Christian history class and asked, “So, when did Christianity become all about sex?”–the class burst out laughing, he was completely earnest, but laughed too. When did Christianity become all about sex? Well, Christianity is all about sex among those males in power–Augustine helped out quite a bit on this score. Controlling people and claiming divine purpose or demonic presence in sex/reproduction is at the heart of controlling the lives of women (and some men…poor men, working class men, gay men, not patriarchs). These people have a very specific worldview based in a kind of Christian science fiction–where there is wonderworking all around us, God is the MIGHTY MICROMANGER. God can defy gravity; God kills or brings back to life people at will. Natures laws are not based in the relationship between particles and chemical reactions, but rather are directed at every moment by will, HIS WILL (and I do mean HE, they have no nuanced view of God as he/she/me/you/it/we/love.
    God is a man, with a penis and a beard. Read “God’s Phallus” for a more fleshed out explantation of this; also read ‘Beyond God the Father” for an early feminist critique of this view. Then read any Sallie McFague or Carol Christ text for alternative opinions.

  12. Point well taken, mythago. The husband’s name is Jim Bob, and I think I probably should have pointed out that the children all have J-names because every single last one of them has to be named after ye olde patriarch.

    There certainly is no “You Wife is Not a Clown Car Either” poster.

  13. Well, Christianity is all about sex among those males in power–Augustine helped out quite a bit on this score.

    Oops, I mean, Christianity is all about sex when those males in power are the sole determiners of Christian self-identity and practice.

  14. These people scare me. Not only do they rely on donations from their neighbourhood churches to support their family but they appear to be intent on raising an “army of god” all by themselves. That’s what its really all about. Poor Michelle is really just her husbands property as is “properly” described in the bible. Its revolting.
    There are also some nasty white supremacist undertones about preventing the “breeding out” of the “white race.”
    These and others like the quiverfull movement are very troubling to my peace of mind and while I would be the last to attempt to impose any sort of restrictions on what they can or cannot do sometimes I just have to shake my head, groan and go mix a strong drink.

  15. I have to say, most of the media coverage of the Duggars focuses on Michelle rather than Jim Bob, perhaps because if they really got into how patriarchal and authoritarian the family structure was, they couldn’t sell it as one big happy [white] Christian family and how Michelle manages 17 kids. Nevertheless, you see hints of it if you watch the Discovery Health/TLC specials, or look into his political career at all, or consider that these kids don’t even get to go outside their home for church — Jim Bob runs that, too.

    Am I the only one wondering where they get the money to raise all these children?

    They do debt-free-living seminars and take a lot of handouts and tax deductions based on the fact that they have their own church. In addition, TLC helped them build their new house, using the kids as labor, and provided a fully-equipped media room for the oldest boy.

    They also buy things used, share underwear, and do most of their shopping for really cheap, salt-laden canned food at Aldi. Oddly enough, with all the land they live on and a whole shitload of kids, they don’t grow any of their own food. And for some reason, their piano teacher helps with the laundry. Probably because one preteen girl has to do the laundry for now 19 people every single day (and another has to do all the cooking). And that’s in addition to raising her younger siblings.

  16. Where do all the “J” names come from? The patriarch, of course, Jim, imposes as much of his name on his children as he can, just as he imposes his children on his wife and the world.

  18. They also force the girls (and boys, but much more emphasis on the girls) to “dress modestly” in clothing that draws attention to the “countenance” (I guess “face” is an unBiblical word). They wear a lot of truly hideous jumpers, and I’ve seen so many pictures of the girls dressing almost all alike.

  19. They use their children as free labor. The older girls are caretakers for the younger kids; they’ve been turned into mini-moms/mini-maids while they’re still children. I wonder if they’ll grow up to resent it and become feminists.
    And I’m sure the girls won’t be given the option to attend college, either. It must be a very oppressive environment for a girl to grow up in, even if she’s brainwashed into thinking it’s her destiny to be just like mom.

  21. Wow. 17. I wonder if Bob’s eyes grew wide as saucers in excitement when he first met Michelle. Mmmm, child-bearing hips… jackpot!

    In general, it doesn’t really bother me, as long as they have the means to optimally support each of their children. I know a few women who, despite a nice place in the corporate ladder or spent a lot for their PhDs, would gladly be a SAHM. I guess some people are just wired to be more maternal/nurturing– likewise as some men are wired to be as such, and gladly relinquish the breadwinner role to the wife.

    In this case, I would be more concerned with the psychological impact on the kids, more than anything else, especially after what zuzu posted.

  22. Can you imagine the apoplectic fit he would have if she (or even better, one of their DAUGHTERS) decided to name the inevitable 19th child with an M name, for Michelle?

    Of course it will never happen…

  23. “I have to say, most of the media coverage of the Duggars focuses on Michelle rather than Jim Bob, perhaps because if they really got into how patriarchal and authoritarian the family structure was, they couldn’t sell it as one big happy [white] Christian family and how Michelle manages 17 kids.”

    Pretty much. You start focusing on him too much, and it starts sounding like a pre-documentary on Jonestown II.

    “And I’m sure the girls won’t be given the option to attend college, either.”

    Well, Patriarch Jim Bob has already said that they’re saving for the boys’ college educations, but not the girls’. The interviewer who asked about the girls’ college educations got stared at like they’d grown a second head, out of which sprouted seven horns and on which were written many blasphemies.

    Given the fact that they’re all home-schooled, I’m sure the girls’ current education is reflecting the parents’ decision to not give them opportunities beyond wife-mother-broodmare, so it’s questionable that they’d even be able to get into college once they turn 18 and have the legal right to flee the compound.

  24. Sorry- meant 18th. But I guess 19th would work as well. I feel bad for their kids- if any of them venture out away from the safety of this podworld into the real world, they are in for a shock.

  25. Why the hell is it wrong to criticize the obviously bizarre and somewhat disturbing? Especially when you realize this woman likely believes this is how women *should* be? There is no way this woman believes her life should be anything more than being a walking womb factory and child maintenance service. This woman is not living in Afghanistan but in America where she has some damn options and yet she insists on living this way and presenting herself as some ideal, especially to her children (I can’t imagine her teaching her daughters that they have a right to enjoy sex without becoming parent of a brood, do you?). She is overtly sending this horrible message to her girls (and sons) about the role of women. If she sent an equally horrible message to her children about homosexuality (which she likely does) would we be referring to our criticism as “judgmental”?

  26. Can anyone tell me why the mother and daughters refuse to get haircuts? Is it somewhere in the Bible?

  27. I know the “1 in 10” rule of thumb isn’t quite accurate, but the odds are that one (or more) of those kids will be gay or lesbian. I feel so sorry for them. Afraid, too; I thought I had it bad when I came out to my parents, but at least I knew they would never kick me out to starve. The Duggars? That’d probably be a best case scenario.

  28. Meh… I hate the way the people on the internet react whenever Michelle Duggar has another baby. It’s always “whoa, her vag must be like a hotel lobby by now” and “ugh she needs to be fixed” and shit like that. (BTW, this is not directed at you or commenters here. For an example of what I’m talking about, go here.)

    After watching all the TV shows about them, I feel sorry for Michelle Duggar. After her first child, she went on the pill for a while, and then she experienced a miscarriage. She blames the pill for the miscarriage, and that’s why she gave up birth control. Sexist and icky as their religious beliefs may seem to me, she seems happy with her life and her choices, and her kids seem healthy. I’m sure if she took a peek in to my life, she’d probably feel sorry for me and appalled at my choices, too.

    Live and let live, I say. They’re not bad parents. Their kids seem healthy and happy. Yeah, they are trying to “brainwash” their kids with their sexist, Christian beliefs, but so what? I try to “brainwash” my kid with my liberal, non-Christian beliefs. In the end, none of us has absolute control over who our kids will grow up to be. My kid might grow up and convert to Christianity, like William Murray. A few of the Duggar kids will most likely grow up to be atheist/gay/childfree/etc. And most of them will probably go on to have average-sized families, to escape the constant pointing and staring and freak-show status.

  29. mythago Says: A nod to the fact that, yes, there must be a male involved there gets rushed by while we point out that the posting hasn’t preventing HER from having more kids, that SHE is out of her mind, etc.

    I think most of that comes from the fact that all 17 came out of her body and that she’s agreeable to that. However, you’re right, it does take two!

  30. Zuzu: Fair enough; however, I thought my normal curmudgeonly input was half-solicited, given that the name of the post was “Wherein I contribute to the problem I lament.”

  32. Live and let live, I say. They’re not bad parents. Their kids seem healthy and happy.

    They might seem to be happy, but you can also stop noticing chronic pain after a while, too.

    And yeah, I think if you have so many kids you’re needing to use your other kids as full-time live-in domestic help, you are a bad parent. I’m not saying I don’t think kids should help out around the house, but as one of the commenters mentioned upthread, one of their preteen daughters does the laundry for the family every day, and another one does all the cooking. Even with modern appliances, that’s damn near the life of a 19th Century scullery maid, which is nothing any rational, sane good parent would want to do to their own child.

  33. Miller, there is some comment someplace in the bible about a woman’s hair being her “crowning glory” or whatnot. Me, I thought it was just protein extrusion that meant nothing to anyone but ME DAMN IT, but yet again, it’s just another frigging body part that either human men pat themselves on the back was evolved specifically for their wanking needs, or that gets handed over to a Sky Male for ownership.

    My own hair is verging on mid-thigh length, and I used to frequent a few long-hair care boards. They have a VERY distinct right-wing, biblical feel to them sometimes, and there were an AWFUL lot of women who felt like their religion compelled them to grow the stuff. Sounds pretty damend arrogant ot me, that a creative force potent enough to generate an entire universe would give a shit for one little ape’s freakin hairstyle, but there you have it.

    Hair is weird — when the ends get past your backside, you get either Little Miss Godly or else Ms. Hiking-n-Biking Granola Radfem, it seems. Made for an occasionally contentious experience on that board, which was part of why I left.

  34. Yeah, they are trying to “brainwash” their kids with their sexist, Christian beliefs, but so what? I try to “brainwash” my kid with my liberal, non-Christian beliefs.

    And hey, “brainwashing” your kids into hating people or “brainwashing” your kids into being decent human beings, what’s the diff anyhow? Six o’one, half a dozen o’the other …

    You do realize that by this logic, the NAACP and the KKK are equivalent, don’t you?

  35. Is mormonism a cult? just asking….

    It is according to some of the ex-mormons I’ve talked to …

    I think the dividing line between “religion” and “cult” is real hard to see without squinting sometimes, frankly.

  36. Yeah, they are trying to “brainwash” their kids with their sexist, Christian beliefs, but so what?

    Woman-hating: “So What.”

  37. If you can’t figure out how to diplomatically comment on the Duggers, especially as pro-choice feminists who like to respect individual women’s choices, just think of it this way–17 children = 17 times the ecological footprint. As much as I like to think of reproduction as a private matter, when you start having kids in the double digits, your private decisions begin to have a larger impact on our environment. 17 times the waste, 17 times carbon emissions, 17 times water resources, etc. etc.

  38. “They’re not bad parents.”

    Honestly, if you’re picking which kids you’re going to send to college based on nothing but what’s between their legs, it’s really hard to say you’re not a bad parent. On account of, you know, devaluing some of your children based on their gender.

  39. And hey, “brainwashing” your kids into hating people or “brainwashing” your kids into being decent human beings, what’s the diff anyhow? Six o’one, half a dozen o’the other …

    What makes you think the Duggar kids won’t grow up in to decent human beings? They don’t seem hateful, to me. They’re not out there, picketing abortion clinics or anything like that. I know I don’t have control over everyone else’s silly religious beliefs, and I’m perfectly OK with that.

  40. Thank you, Janis. I knew it was tied to “femininity” (obviously) but I was a bit surprised it looks as if their hair has *never* been cut. And I don’t think they even know how to wash their hair right because it looks so unhealthy. Anyways…

    Someone posted earlier about who cares if they teach their children bigoted beliefs: I do. And so should you as it affects how they view all women and girls. It is emotionally damaging to tell their children that the girls are in essence naturally immoral and must submit to the morality that is a man. Families are quite influential in how their children view the world, especially if the parents are devout fundamentalists who homeschool their kids. I realize that we are all guilty of perpetuating such beliefs to a certain degree, but this is extreme.

  41. “How do we work to keep the focus on the patriarchy, the systemic factors at work…?”

    We’re all guilty of losing focus sometimes. So, when we’ve lost our focus, we should apologize and hopefully learn from it.

    To stay focussed, we should try to do a few things always:
    1. Think critically and come at it from a different perspective
    2. Critique the most obvious and blatant examples of patriarchy, that is, attack the dominant normative first, then examine the less dominant ones.
    3. Remember our perspective and our biases.

  42. Someone posted earlier about who cares if they teach their children bigoted beliefs: I do. And so should you as it affects how they view all women and girls. It is emotionally damaging to tell their children that the girls are in essence naturally immoral and must submit to the morality that is a man

    For one, you don’t know that they’re teaching their daughters that women are “naturally immoral.” That’s a pretty out-there statement.

    But the main point of my comment was that kids don’t always grow up with their parents beliefs. My parents took me to church as a child. Did I hate it? Yes. Was it abuse or bad parenting? Hell no. Am I a Christian now? Nope.

  43. What makes you think the Duggar kids won’t grow up in to decent human beings?

    Like their parents, I suppose. Who think that educating women is worthless. But they’re decent OTHERWISE!

    “I know my buddy date-raped a few sluts, but except for that he’s a great guy, your honor!”

    Perhaps as someone with three degrees which I use to make the money that keeps a roof over my head and my belly full, I’m just the tiniest bit biased in favor of readin-n-writin. Clearly, you don’t feel these things are worth getting too emotionally invested in, which makes me wonder what the fuck principles you DO hold, if you find refusing to educate girls because you think it’s a useless enterprise to be so trivial a thing that your response to it is “so what?”

    I’m serious. If your response to a family that will not educate girls on principle is “so what?” then what the fuck are you doing on a feminist board, when part of the reason for the EXISTENCE of feminism is that withholding life opportunities to people because we squat to pee is NOT a “so what” issue?

    What the hell are you DOING here?

  44. That’s a pretty out-there statement.

    Like hell it is. It’s a fundamental cornerstone of the whole religious quiverfll horseshit that they openly espouse. Just because you seem incapable of connecting the dots doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t.

    This whole thing is pissing me off. Either give a shit about women, or get lost. And if you respond to an entire family of girls having educational opportunities beyond domestic chores withheld from them because they are girls with “so what?” then you’ve clearly chosen the second of those options.

  45. I think it is perfectly legitimate to comment on a story found in the news on a blog that is specifically geared towards feminist commentary on current news. The ones who should be getting the “shame on you” treatment are the media outlets who put this out there like it is really…news.

    I find this manufacturing of news disheartning because it plays into the hands of the Duggars. Make no mistake, the Duggars WANT you to hear about them. As was mentioned earlier, they make their living off of donations and a dubious seminar they run about “debt free living through Christ”. If the Duggars aren’t in the news, they aren’t making money. They are hucksters who are literally using their family as their profession.

  46. What #7 (Cooper) said. And mythago, you rock!

    Well, here’s a start: consider why virtually all of the focus is on Michelle Duggar and not her husband–what’s his name, afraid I can’t tell from your post. A nod to the fact that, yes, there must be a male involved there gets rushed by while we point out that the posting hasn’t preventing HER from having more kids, that SHE is out of her mind, etc.

    Amen!

    Am I the only one wondering where they get the money to raise all these children?

    One serious illness, and they won’t be “debt-free”–and they have umpteen more chance of that happening than the rest of us. I had some fairly high medical bills with just routine rough-housing accidents–and they live on a FARM, forgodsake. I feel like they are naive; if they get through all those kids’ lives without one dying of crack, contracting a long illness or becoming disabled, hey, maybe they have reason to think God blessed them.

    But I wouldn’t count on that. I wager they have already dodged some bullets, but they just won’t tell us what those are. It goes against the just-so stories of the quiverfull movement.

  47. I think it’s all well and good to acknowledge that there’s a choice involved, but it doesn’t mean we have to respect that choice, especially if we think there was flawed reasoning behind it.

    And in the case of Ms. Duggar, we also have to examine whether or not there are external forces that are preventing her from making an informed choice, namely that patriarchial pressure that tells her that abortion and contraceptives are murder. I can’t say, “Oh, well, she’s making her choice,” because there’s reason to believe it’s not really her choice–if the religious brainwashing were removed, would she have made the same reproductive decisions?

    I guess it bugs me because we assume that whatever decision that was come to is part of a free choice, and that’s not always true. I’m from an area where a lot of young women got pregnant early in life and “chose” to give birth. But I always think, did they really choose? Obviously being 16 and poor is not the optimal situation in which to bring life into the world, but that’s what they “chose.” But did they choose it because …

    –Access to abortion is extremely limited in my area (probably a 2 hour drive or more)
    –Family/friends pressured them to keep the pregnancy
    –Their religion tells them that abortion is murder

    In those situations, can you say it was her free choice to give birth? It’s really late and I’m kind of rambling, but that’s what the Duggar debate always brings up for me. Being pro-choice doesn’t mean just accepting every decision–to me it means also pushing for REAL choices free from external persuasions and doing what’s TRULY best for you rather than what’s convenient for someone else or their beliefs.

    People have kids for some really stupid/shitty reasons. Being pro-choice doesn’t mean I have to agree with those reasons or even respect them if I think they’re stupid. Someone might say “reasons for aborting are stupid too” but it’s better to have a “stupid” reason for not bringing another person into the world than having a kid for a really stupid reason. Maybe I’m crazy, but I think that people should have children because they’re wanted, not because they’re trendy, accidental, or a path to adulthood.

    That’s all.

  48. Do I need to tell you guys how much I hate that the fact that these people are SOUTHERN? They make us all look bad. I cringed when I heard “Jim Bob” and I thought, oh jesus no.

    Just FTR, not everybody named Jim Bob is a dick, okay?

    (I just felt it was necessary to say so!)

  49. Charlotte, at #1, hit a home run right out of the box. If there’s no question of neglect or abuse, how many children a woman has is no one else’s business.

    My next door neighbor is pregnant for the fifth time in 36 months. It’s pretty surprising, especially since her husband told me after the birth of son No. 4 that “I think we’re done for awhile.” They’re very religious—always going off to church retreats and whatnot—and while I don’t know what their religion is exactly, I can only assume it forbids birth control.

    But you know what? They seem perfectly happy and serene. I’ve never heard so much as a raised voice from their place. If that’s how they want to live, more power to them, and I wish them the best of happiness. (The father is a former Marine who fought in Iraq. I just hope he doesn’t get yanked back there.)

  50. #26, Miller asked: Can anyone tell me why the mother and daughters refuse to get haircuts? Is it somewhere in the Bible?

    Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

    Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

    But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

    But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

    Corinthians 11:13-16

    Cultural footnote: Many baby-boomer-aged male hippies from the south (with long hair), can recite this from MEMORY, after hearing it quoted to them every single day of their lives. They even quoted it in public schools.

  51. Bitter Scribe, it IS neglect/abuse to withold opportunities from your daughters that you extend to your sons. Treating your children unequally based on gender is abusive. Treating your children as “girls” and “boys” rather than “children” is abusive.

  52. can anyone link me to where they said that about college education? I’d just like to direct others to it as well.

  53. I think you’ve made a really important point here that is easily lost because, well it’s easy to make fun of the Duggars. They aren’t like us.

    We spend a lot of time on this blog (rightly) fighting against the danger of “othering” people–usually women, minorities, and the disabled. In no way do I think we should give up that fight.

    I’m not exactly sure why we do it, but I think we all have some kind of primal urge to sort things into categories and then rank those categories. Sometimes this is helpful, but it is also what leads people to believe that “women are less important than men” and to comments like “her children look like monkeys.”

    I wish there was a way for us to effectively fight this tendency rather than try to fight fire with fire.

  54. “I know my buddy date-raped a few sluts, but except for that he’s a great guy, your honor!”

    That’s a nice strawman you’ve got there. I’m failing to see exactly what date-rape has to do with not sending their daughters to college.

    I’m serious. If your response to a family that will not educate girls on principle is “so what?” then what the fuck are you doing on a feminist board, when part of the reason for the EXISTENCE of feminism is that withholding life opportunities to people because we squat to pee is NOT a “so what” issue?

    What the hell are you DOING here?

    Nice. questioning why exactly someone would be here. Good job promoting feminism.

    I hardly think that trailer park is saying that it is a good thing that the Duggars refuse to pay for their girls’ college education. HOWEVER, short of infringing upon their rights as parents, what exactly can anyone do about it?

  55. Charlotte, at #1, hit a home run right out of the box. If there’s no question of neglect or abuse, how many children a woman has is no one else’s business.

    But I think that’s where we’re going with it — is it abuse to home-school your children to the point where they’re not even allowed to attend church with non-family members? Is it neglect to put a child in charge of laundry for 19 people?

    Family size is family size — some people want more kids, some people want fewer, some don’t want them at all. I might think that someone with 10 kids is a little cracked, but if they’re not keeping them all locked up on a farm with no contact with strangers other than a TV crew, it’s not really my business.

    And, as I’ve said other places and on other forums, once you agree to be the subjects of a TV show, you’ve opened yourself up for criticism. It’s not like we’re criticizing the weird family down the street — they have deliberately publicized themselves and the way they live. They are now public figures. And what do we Americans love to do with our public figures? Gossip and speculate about them.

  56. so the discovery channels “fun facts” about the family estimates that they’ve gone through 90,000 diapers and do approximately 200 loads of laundry each month. that’s a lot of landfill space, and a whole lot of water usage–and something tells me they haven’t given a second though to what kind of an ecological burden they are. all in the name of god, right?

  57. A lot of you have already gone over pretty much how I feel about this whole thing, particularly about having so many kids in this day and age affecting the entire web, not just your own briarpatch. One thing, though, it is not wrong to have your kids do housework, laundry, and take care of younger siblings. That is the way you raise responsible adults. What IS wrong is that it’s the girls who are made to do it and the jobs are not rotated. Every single one of those kids should help out, but I get the distinct impression the boys are exempt from any sort of “female” work…which angers me even more.

    The whole idea in the past of having as many kids as you could was a) because historically you’d lose a good number of them before they reached adulthood, and b) that’s the way you grew the religion. The more people raised in the faith (whatever that happened to be), the better–it was decidedly easier than converting, or in the case of certain religions that were tied to nationality, like Judaism, it meant a bigger army. This whole notion got written into the Bible as “be fruitful and multiply.” The notion of a quiver full of arrows” comes from this same idea, more arrows, better army.

  58. Live and let live, I say.

    Tell the Duggars and their supporters that. They’re the ones presenting their family as the ideal while putting all their efforts into furthering Jim Bob’s career as an anti-choice politician. “Live as we live” would be more their motto.

  59. I am on birth control and I only want two to three children. But I see nothing wrong with wanting seventeen children. My grandmother’s sister had 13. From a historical perspective, having kids into the double digits is not uncommon.

    You know, I can’t help wondering how the Duggar’s children would feel if they read this kinds of critiques. Personally, if I knew the feminist movement thought my mother was out of her mind, it would not make me want to convert to feminism.

  60. If there’s no question of neglect or abuse, how many children a woman has is no one else’s business.

    This is really the crux of the issue for me. I’ve watched their documentaries and web info, including stuff such as ‘blanket training’ to make children docile from an early age (use a wooden spoon to keep babies quietly staying on a small blanket, ugh) and I am disturbed. Not by Michelle Duggar’s choice to have children, but by the casual acknowledgment that daughters are, in fact, meant to be God-given nannies and free labor.

    The quiverfull crowd are so very proud of the gender segregation they espouse. Thus, the 16-year-old boy has the chore of feeding the dog every day, while the 11-year-old girl does all the laundry. The older girls do all the cooking. Oh, and the kids are each responsible, full-time, for a younger ‘buddy’ or two as soon as Michelle weans them. The TV shows are very upfront about this.

    When do these girls get to explore possible academic interests, creative pursuits or just escape to their rooms to write in their diaries? They don’t. They even have dormitories, actually. All of their chores will prepare them well for wifely submission and motherhood, dontcha know. Many in the quiverfull movement believe in ‘courtship’ (read: arranged) marriages, and from interviews it seems that the Duggars do as well. This is impossible for me to defend in the name of cultural difference.

    A woman can make her own reproductive decisions; fine. But is she entitled to basically turn her own daughters into child laborers because she has too many children to look after? Does ‘neglect’ start including things like education, not too many chores etc? I do see a feminist issue here. And – the Duggar parents chose to make themselves public figures, including entering politics and making the family a campaign issue. That sucks for the kids, but doesn’t make the parents off-limits for discussion, especially as they are the stars of a political religious movement. IMHO.

  61. And, as I’ve said other places and on other forums, once you agree to be the subjects of a TV show, you’ve opened yourself up for criticism. It’s not like we’re criticizing the weird family down the street — they have deliberately publicized themselves and the way they live. They are now public figures. And what do we Americans love to do with our public figures? Gossip and speculate about them.

    Not a good advertisement for the quiverfull lifestyle–is that the only way one can afford such a lifestyle with so many children? To rent your family out to the Discovery Channel for public inspection?

    Or do you think they are considering this “missionary work”?

  62. I find this manufacturing of news disheartning because it plays into the hands of the Duggars. Make no mistake, the Duggars WANT you to hear about them

    They most certainly do. If you’re a journalist anywhere near their Arkansas compound, you’ll get a mass e-mail after every little blessing arrives.

    I had some fairly high medical bills with just routine rough-housing accidents–and they live on a FARM, forgodsake.

    Yeah, but really, these kids aren’t rough-housing that much. Jim Bob and Michelle are big fans of blanket training. You train the baby to stay on a blanket by offering it something tempting. Then when the kid starts crawling off of the blanket to get the item, you hit it with a wooden spoon. Well, to be fair, you’re supposed to hit the floor around the baby, making a loud noise and scaring the beejeesus out of the baby until it realizes that it will probably get hit by aforementioned wooden spoon and so will stay put. Out of, you know, fear of being hit by a wooden spoon.

  63. And it’s been said before – there is an ENTIRE WORLD of difference between criticizing their choice and having the opinion that they should not be legally allowed to make that choice. “I hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” and all.
    That’s the difference between feminists and the opposite. Feminists believe that it’s Michelle Duggar’s right to have 30 or 40 children, but don’t have to agree with her that it’s a good thing for the world or anyone else or even for Michelle herself. Michelle Duggar’s type would rather remove the choice NOT to have 30 children from everyone else.

  64. You know, I have some sympathy for Michelle. I think she is typical of many girls raised in a patriarchal culture, nice girls who want to be wives and moms and don’t really understand the long term consequences of handing over your autonomy to another human being. I don’t think she set out to be a star on America’s Freakiest Families. More than likely, she and Jim Bob was influenced by quiverfull types, and being used to obedience, she didn’t rebel. And after several kids (some twins), with no career…what were her options?

    The only truly helpful thing a feminist could for her or her daughters would be to set up an education fund available to every Duggar girl at age 18 so she could go to (real, not some fake unaccredited fundie) college, if she wanted to. Given that she would probably have to separate entirely from her family if they opposed it, it’s hard to say how many would actually go.

  65. If you’re a journalist anywhere near their Arkansas compound, you’ll get a mass e-mail after every little blessing arrives.

    Oh BOY.

    Anyone remember the Dionne Quintuplets? Sounds like daddy Dionne, who is now regarded as an abusive father for unabashedly pimping his children.

    I guess people must see this as different? I don’t.

  66. Exactly Maja. Michelle and Jim-Bob Duggar’s reproductive decisions are affecting not only them, but the daughters who become responsible for the new babies. They are making reproductive decisions for their daughters! Mom has a baby, then passes it on to an older daughter for her to raise.
    This. is. abuse.

  68. You know, I can’t help wondering how the Duggar’s children would feel if they read this kinds of critiques.

    (A) They’re not actually allowed to leave the grounds of the family farm alone, so the chances of them reading these critiques is probably pretty low. I have a feeling that there’s not a whole lot of freestyle internet surfing allowed, if any internet contact is allowed at all.

    (B) It’s true, the 11-year-old who is responsible for all of the laundry for all 19 family members would probably say that she didn’t mind it and that everything she does is in service to the Lord. Because if she didn’t, she would be punished.

    As I said above, the number of kids you choose to have is your business. It’s the whole “let’s completely isolate them from society so they have no choice but to continue to slave for us until they marry a stranger!” thing that I have a problem with. Even the Amish let the kids roam off and interact with non-Amish people once in a while, plus they have a very strong community where the children can interact with people outside of their nuclear families.

    And while the Amish have large families, their average family size is 7 children, not 17 with more on the way.

    Again, when your family life is more restrictive than it would be if you were Amish, I think there’s a problem here.

  69. Why do I see these posts about the Duggar family popping up on this site? They live different than most of us, but they’re proud and happy and they’re not violating any laws. None of this is perverted or immoral. So…leave them the fuck alone.

    Some of you people leave me wonderstruck. So, It’s okay to defend an alternate lifestyle as long as it’s a female diesel mechanic wanting to marry another woman and adopt a baby. But if a traditional married couple has over 6 or 8 or 10 kids, whoa, then it’s an issue. Good Gawd…

  70. “Jinger” could be a mangling of “Jinjur,” Frank Baum’s girl revolutionary, who was supposed to be a satirical caricature of feminism. Jinjur conquered the Emerald City and put the women in charge, with men relegated to doing housework and minding children.
    I rather like the “audacious” Jinjur and I suspect Baum did too, despite the questionable goals of her revolution, her enforcement of beauty standards in her army of women and the ignominious collapse of her regime (“And it is said that the women were so tired eating of their husbands’ cooking that they all hailed the conquest of Jinjur with Joy”) at the end of The Marvellous Land of Oz, since Jinjur has some good lines:

    “How dare you sit in my throne?” demanded the Scarecrow, sternly eyeing the intruder. “Don’t you know you are guilty of treason, and that there is a law against treason?”

    “The throne belongs to whoever is able to take it,” answered Jinjur, as she slowly ate another caramel. “I have taken it, as you see; so just now I am the Queen, and all who oppose me are guilty of treason, and must be punished by the law you have just mentioned.

    Maybe this little Jinger may also revolt, but with more success.

  71. Remember the reason that women used to have seventeen babies was because a sizeable percentage wouldn’t reach adulthood, due to disease, accidents, and wars.

    If the Quiverfull people really believed that “it’s in God’s Will”, they’d give up going to doctors.

  72. You train the baby to stay on a blanket by offering it something tempting. Then when the kid starts crawling off of the blanket to get the item, you hit it with a wooden spoon. Well, to be fair, you’re supposed to hit the floor around the baby, making a loud noise and scaring the beejeesus out of the baby until it realizes that it will probably get hit by aforementioned wooden spoon and so will stay put. Out of, you know, fear of being hit by a wooden spoon.

    Good god that is depressing. I grew up in a household where I was taught to FEAR! my mother and kept in control with that fear, and it was miserable as fuck. It came to a point where I had flat out panic attacks around her, fearing I was dying and feeling like she was hunting me — quite literally, I feared my life around her.

    I don’t spend much time around her anymore.

    Those children are being trained from INFANCY to sit down, stay still and shut up. This is NOT a good thing to teach a child. I spent most of my childhood hiding in a corner keeping quiet to myself so as not to disturb the adults (and possibly bring on a wooden spoon banging all around me, y’know) and now I look back on myself as a child and what I see is dead. I was dead. I had no spirit, no self.

    This is abuse.

  73. You know, I have some sympathy for Michelle. I think she is typical of many girls raised in a patriarchal culture, nice girls who want to be wives and moms and don’t really understand the long term consequences of handing over your autonomy to another human being. I don’t think she set out to be a star on America’s Freakiest Families. More than likely, she and Jim Bob was influenced by quiverfull types, and being used to obedience, she didn’t rebel. And after several kids (some twins), with no career…what were her options?

    Actually, Michelle had a fairly normal, non-fundamentalist upbringing. She was even a cheerleader. But after she had a miscarriage which she blamed on the pill, she decided to listen to JimBob and get into the whole quiverfull thing.

    She had a choice to do this. Her daughters aren’t going to have that same choice.

  74. “can anyone link me to where they said that about college education? I’d just like to direct others to it as well.”

    The clip at least used to be on YouTube. I’ll see if I can’t either dig it up or find a transcript.

  75. I think the main issue (at least for me) with the Duggars is not the fact that Michelle has managed to be pregnant for 10 + years (honestly, I almost admire her physical fortitude – I barely lasted 9 months before I was whimpering “Get it out of me!”) but their extreme Christian fundamentalist attitudes.

    I find it very problematic that such a scary, oppressive, cult-like world view is being mainstreamed by TLC, a channel I otherwise kind of like watching. Also, the fact that Jim Bob and Michelle have decided to whore their kids out to be gawped at by all of us slack-jawed yokels also disturbs me. What do you think would happen to little Jinger if she said she didn’t want to play nice in front of the cameras anymore? I certainly wouldn’t make my daughter perform for TV like that.

  76. (Oh, and meant to add – my mother was the second youngest in a family of 13 surviving children, 20 pregnancies, so maybe I have a bias.)

  77. Like their parents, I suppose. Who think that educating women is worthless.

    They educate their daughters right alongside their sons. I don’t know what makes you think they don’t educate their daughters.

  79. Patriarch Jim Bob has already said that they’re saving for the boys’ college educations, but not the girls’. The interviewer who asked about the girls’ college educations got stared at like they’d grown a second head, out of which sprouted seven horns and on which were written many blasphemies.

    Okay, trailer park- the girls are getting an education now, as children. But why is it okay for Jim Bob to save up for the SONS to attend college and not the daughters? That’s the problem alot of people here are seeing, myself included.

    I cannot think of one family I know that is making the distinction as to “who gets the degree and who doesn’t” based on gender. That’s why the outrage over these lunatics- not that they are having a gazillion kids, but that they are separating their children into 2 distinct classes within their own family.

  80. Like hell it is. It’s a fundamental cornerstone of the whole religious quiverfll horseshit that they openly espouse.

    Nope. They believe that everyone is inherently sinful, not just women. I’ve never heard the Duggars say that women, and only women, are inherently sinful. (Yes, Christianity is patriarchal, but I’m not about to condemn ALL Christian parents as bad parents.)

    All the freaking out about the Duggars from the left just makes us look like a bunch of intolerant a-holes. They aren’t hurting anyone, and they’re not a threat to the feminist movement. Most of America (including myself) considers them freaks, not idols.

    This woman having another wanted, loved baby shouldn’t be an issue for pro-choicers. It is her choice to have 17 kids and raise them according to her own, First Amendment-protected religious beliefs. Putting her down for her unconventional reproductive choices (clown car?) is hypocrisy.

  81. I’m sorry, trailer park; that came out alot harsher than meant. “Lunatics” was a very cheap shot.

  82. Trailer Park – they homeschool their children together. That doesn’t mean they’re teaching the girls the same things as the boys. And they are on record saying they don’t believe girls should go to college.

    I LOVE big families. I am the oldest of a big Irish family and I loved it. I had responsibility, yes, but I was never asked to act as a surrogate parent to my baby siblings. The workload the Duggars place on their kids is abuse (as Sarah MC already pointed out). So is bringing up children to believe their gender reduces their worth as human beings.

    I’m not advocating taking the kids off them or whatever. And I know there are plenty of poor kids out there who are far worse off. But that does not change the fact that they are neglecting and abusing their kids. And their media-whoring makes them fair game to point this out.

  83. Here it says that two of the daughters aspire to be nurses or midwives, and Michelle obviously supports them in that aspiration.

    But I’m sure she’ll just tell them to pray about it, and keep them locked up so they don’t get any of that pesky “education” stuff that’s for boys only, right? Because all religious people are lunatics and have no right to believe what they believe. And if it’s a woman who believes it, she is obviously being manipulated and controlled by a man and is only pretending, wishing she could get away, too weak and abused, her reproductive organs and freedoms forcibly signed over to her husband (because what woman would choose to have that many children on her own free will, without the pressure, influence, and flat-out demand from a man? None, I tell you! None would!), to plot her escape…

    No way Michelle might actually really love children and really actually believe that they are a blessing from whatever god it is that she believes in. That’s just crazy talk.

  84. Can anyone tell me why the mother and daughters refuse to get haircuts? Is it somewhere in the Bible?

    I heard Michelle Duggar in an interview once explain that the weird bangs and short side hair on the girls was to frame their countenance… this is to draw the attention to their face versus their body. That’s also why the dresses have that bib piece on the front (not sure of the term for that.)

    One serious illness, and they won’t be “debt-free”–and they have umpteen more chance of that happening than the rest of us. I had some fairly high medical bills with just routine rough-housing accidents–and they live on a FARM, forgodsake.

    My guess is that with all those kids… their ratio of family members:family income qualifies them for state-funded medical care for the children plus mom while she’s pregnant and for labor/delivery. I don’t think they worry about medical issues for this reason.

    Likewise, when they get to college age… they’ll probably qualify for lots of financial aid.

  86. Who’s said she doesn’t love children and believe they are a blessing to her?
    Who’s said that all religious people are lunatics who have no right to believe what they believe?

  87. They aren’t hurting anyone, and they’re not a threat to the feminist movement.

    Unless Jim Bob gets elected to Congress like he keeps trying to. Then his creepy Quiverfull ideals (which I consider creepy only in that they wish to, through pro-forced pregnancy agendas, force this way of life on us all) will be a danger to feminism and will hurt others.

    Again, it’s not the amount of children, it’s the scary fundamentalism and the mainstreaming of such done by the Discovery Health Channel and TLC. I seriously doubt if the Duggars were fundamentalist Muslims with 17 children they’d be able to live of getting on TV like they do.

  88. “Unless Jim Bob gets elected to Congress like he keeps trying to.”

    Hadn’t heard about that- yikes!!!

  90. I seriously doubt if the Duggars were fundamentalist Muslims with 17 children they’d be able to live of getting on TV like they do.

    Or if they were inner city black people. I’d love to hear the commentary then.

  91. Because all religious people are lunatics and have no right to believe what they believe. And if it’s a woman who believes it, she is obviously being manipulated and controlled by a man and is only pretending, wishing she could get away, too weak and abused, her reproductive organs and freedoms forcibly signed over to her husband (because what woman would choose to have that many children on her own free will, without the pressure, influence, and flat-out demand from a man?

    Yes, that’s exactly what everyone here is saying. Did you even read my post? Because my entire point is that it’s genuinely difficult to look at someone who is making choices that you yourself would never make and not be judgmental and leap to conclusions about what would be the better way for them to live their lives.

    I’m sure it’s possible that Michelle Duggar is content with her choices. It just seems more likely that something is amiss in that compound.

  92. No doubt- if they were Muslim or non-white, people would be snarking all over the place. They wouldn’t be on tv, for sure.

    Okay, I personally feel that having 17 kids is a BAD thing. That said, I understand that’s my personal opinion, nothing more. I don’t feel that it’s something that should be legislated in any way at this time. I’m sure duggars think my cat-loving, child-free, contracepting ways are criminal.

    I don’t like some of the comments aimed at Michelle Duggar- she may very well be happy and love being preggers and giving birth. Some ppl have easy pregnancies and she seems like one of them.

    That said, they’re interested in making sure (white) people live as they do- they want to prevent women from getting an education, go to college, and have reproductive options. JB isn’t interested in letting women like me live the way I want- so I feel that it’s fair game to be critical of the way they treat their children, the blanket training (dear god), the fact that he wants to be a senator, etc- I do think it’s unfair to single them out for the number of kids they have.

  93. I’m sure it’s possible that Michelle Duggar is content with her choices. It just seems more likely that something is amiss in that compound.

    I wonder if Michelle is content with selling her family as a sideshow attraction? I wonder if she even realizes that’s what she has done?

    These people are seriously manipulating the media in order to turn a buck (Or at least Jim Bob is. Like you, I wonder about how much agency Michelle really has). I’m glad at least you sit back and reflect on whether or not this should even be a topic for media discussion, becouse the MSM seems incapable of turning their eyes away from the quiverfull trainwreck, let alone ponder such things as if this is a healthy environment for human beings to live in, or scrutinize the snake oil they peddle in the form of their “seminars”. Have you read the thing on their website about the seminars? They are truly over the rainbow. They essentially get people to pay them money so they can turn around and tell them, “leave it all up to God”. Yup. THAT’S the great debt-free living plan they market. And of course, it works for THEM, because they’ve leveraged their God-given “oopsies” into a tidy little enterprise.

    As much as they are obviously charletans, it does bother me when people start in with the misogyny. It seems like about the only comments I see attached to the Duggar articles on news websites surround how streched out, saggy, or “used up” Michelle must be. I mean, talk about the obvious strain of such a living arangement, or their scary religion, or Billy Bob’s slimy political ambitions, or even- gasp!- the speciousness of their seminars, not Michelle’s saggy boobies.

    But babies come from down there. Giggle Giggle.

    The show must go on!

  94. JB isn’t interested in letting women like me live the way I want- so I feel that it’s fair game to be critical of the way they treat their children, the blanket training (dear god), the fact that he wants to be a senator, etc- I do think it’s unfair to single them out for the number of kids they have.

    The ecological footprint of so many children is a fair argument, but other arguments against the number of children per se do appear to be more simply prejudice, I agree.

    The way that they choose to organise having so many children, the extreme gender role training and isolation for the children etc, are hard to entangle from the number of children though. If they didn’t have such a mountain if housework to get through every day, the daughters especially would have some more personal freedom instead of being tied down to skivvy-work.

  95. The ecological footprint of so many children is a fair argument, but other arguments against the number of children per se do appear to be more simply prejudice, I agree.

    I dunno…no one would say that about someone who adopted 17 kids.

    But, I guess those kids were already in existence and not created anew, so that’s a bad analogy. Never mind.

  96. Actually, Michelle had a fairly normal, non-fundamentalist upbringing.

    Yes, but as we all know, that doesn’t mean she wasn’t taught about her place in the patriarchy. Plenty of non-fundie women absorb the lessons about second class status quite easily.

    Honestly, I can’t really speculate about a stranger’s upbringing/psychology…I was mostly trying to posit a scenario that made her choices more understandable. In that I have some sympathy for her as a person, but none for the ideals of full-quivering/fundamentalism.

    However, I would like to point out that the extreme difficulty she would face if she tried to leave..in supporting 17 kids, alone, without any career skills–is a pretty good illustration of why feminists get uneasy about a woman who devotes all her time and energy to raising children, and nothing else. She is at Jim Bob’s mercy, the way women have historically been at the mercy of men who supported them, and that puts her at a distinct disadvantage should all not be harmonious in their lives. Unless of course she simply walks away from her kids too. Not many women would be willing to. Her extreme lifestyle is certainly her choice, but it’s not easy to watch a woman put herself in such a tenuous, dependent situation. The costs, should it fail, are very high for her, much higher than for him.

    And watching she and Jim Bob teach that path to their children doesn’t make it better.

  97. They aren’t hurting anyone

    Other than their girls, who are being taught that they’re inferior to their brothers on account of being female.

  98. Did I miss the conclusive debunking of the idea that the earth has a limited capacity for human life? Because I don’t have to favor legal repercussions to reserve the right to call packing as many humans onto the earth as possible a moral problem.

  99. This woman having another wanted, loved baby shouldn’t be an issue for pro-choicers. It is her choice to have 17 kids and raise them according to her own, First Amendment-protected religious beliefs. Putting her down for her unconventional reproductive choices (clown car?) is hypocrisy.

    Did you miss the part where they went on television to show off their family? These aren’t random people down the street. These are people who accepted money from the Discovery Channel to feature them on a television show.

    Again, once you make yourself a public figure, you open yourself up to criticism. Period. If you’re going to argue that they shouldn’t be criticized, I hope I never hear you complaining about anyone who appears on “Survivor” or “Big Brother” or “The Flavor of Love,” because that would make you, yes, a hypocrite.

  101. “All I can do is hope that they realize how unnecessary & selfish it is to have kids in the double digits in this day and age.”

    You could say the same about buying an SUV, but both statements would be overstepping your business.

    My mother was 1 of 9 children. I’m sure glad my grandparents did not stop at 3. 🙂
    All of which grew up to be happy and successful and I can not see how the world would be any better without them.

  102. Again, once you make yourself a public figure, you open yourself up to criticism. Period.

    Barack Obama certainly opens himself up to criticism by running for President, but I doubt we would excuse ignorant, half-assed or racist criticism because He Asked For It.

    I’m sure it’s possible that Michelle Duggar is content with her choices.

    There you go again.

    On the ‘ecological footprint’ argument, if you’re growing your own, you’re adding people (consumers, carbon-users) to the planet. The only truly ecologically-friendly way to become a parent is to adopt.

  103. On the ‘ecological footprint’ argument, if you’re growing your own, you’re adding people (consumers, carbon-users) to the planet. The only truly ecologically-friendly way to become a parent is to adopt.

    If you’re growing one of your own, you are not adding people if one takes a long view. If you are in a partnership and growing two of your own, same thing. More than “replacement”, and you’re absolutely right.

  104. On the ‘ecological footprint’ argument, if you’re growing your own, you’re adding people (consumers, carbon-users) to the planet. The only truly ecologically-friendly way to become a parent is to adopt.

    I don’t believe in deriding reproduction as selfish–it strikes me as a practice that pretty generally becomes sexist even if it didn’t start out that way–but isn’t this like saying that someone with a small fuel-efficient car can’t criticize someone with a Hummer? One child will leave less of an ecological footprint than seventeen.

  105. trailer park wrote:

    That’s a pretty out-there statement.

    How so? We do know that they are teaching their girls, at the very least, that boys are superior (patriarchal family, mass breeding, college education plans, etc.) . The only assumption that could validate the hierarchy of this family, especially considering their religious devotion, is that somehow males are naturally morally superior.

  106. (I also have this problem when talking to an acquaintance who is obsessed with becoming a stay at home mom.)

    Hmmm, I wish you’d elaborate.

    I couldn’t wait to be a stay-at-home Mom, was adamant about it, did it for 10 years, and am glad I did it.

    Why does your friend’s “obsess(ion)” bug you?

    I’m curious, not looking to pick a fight.

  107. I’m sure it’s possible that Michelle Duggar is content with her choices.

    There you go again.

    Oh, I’m well aware. But it’s a little hard to avoid when responding to a comment that’s talking about only her.

    I’ve also got very little doubt that Jim Bob is pleased as punch with his situation.

  108. Hmmm, I wish you’d elaborate.

    I couldn’t wait to be a stay-at-home Mom, was adamant about it, did it for 10 years, and am glad I did it.

    Why does your friend’s “obsess(ion)” bug you?

    Oh, it’s the waxing lyrical about how great being a SAHM will be in all times and circumstances, how the moment cannot come soon enough, and won’t it be wonderful? When she tries to get me to agree that “oh, yes, it will be lovely!” that I get really frustrated. Because it’s not a choice I’m planning to make for myself, I have a hard time with giving it the glowing aura she’s got around it. (I also have some pretty serious misgivings about her choice to abandon career development options in favor of food service and retail because nothing else is flexible enough for her plans.)

  109. My mother was 1 of 9 children. I’m sure glad my grandparents did not stop at 3. 🙂

    You’re letting emotion & your own personal experience color your view of this; it reminds me of when pro-lifers exclaim, “So you think the world would be better off if I’d been aborted?!” or “What if your mom aborted you?”

  111. Actually, Michelle had a fairly normal, non-fundamentalist upbringing.

    Yes, but as we all know, that doesn’t mean she wasn’t taught about her place in the patriarchy. Plenty of non-fundie women absorb the lessons about second class status quite easily.

    Well, there’s absorbing the lesson that you’re a second-class citizen, and then there’s going around the bend and bearing your own army of white Christian children for God. Most women, even hard-core fundamentalists, don’t do that sort of thing; they usually talk about being “open” to more children, but the Duggars have said that Michelle weans the youngest at 6 months and hands it off to one of her already-overburdened daughters so that she can work on getting pregnant again. While JimBob tells the media piously that the decision to have another one is up to her. Which I don’t believe for a second — as long as she keeps having babies, he gets his name in the papers and on TV.

  112. I can’t remember which poster said the Duggars weren’t hurting anyone, but this is a response to that person.

    Are you aware that Jim Bob has been trying to get elected to the senate? He already served as a rep in the Arkansas state house. He is a politician. I’m going to bet the kind of legislation he supports hurts the part of the population that has vaginas.

    But even if Jim Bob never ran for office, he is still hurting people by the way he raises his children. When his sons grow up and start working in the real world I wonder if they’ll promote the women in their businesses or have fair hiring practices. I wonder how they’ll treat women who act differently than their sisters.

  113. Barack Obama certainly opens himself up to criticism by running for President, but I doubt we would excuse ignorant, half-assed or racist criticism because He Asked For It.

    No, we wouldn’t. But that doesn’t mean that the people who have those criticisms need to shut up and not voice them at all because, OMG, maybe Obama will read them on line and his feelings will get hurt!

    Seriously, myth, you think it’s completely normal and above criticism to keep your children so restricted that they’re not even allowed to attend church with other families, much less attend school with other children? It’s really just another choice and who are we to judge if their children grow up with absolutely no way to operate outside of that household?

    If that’s the case, we need to stop criticizing the polygamists who throw teenage boys out of their homes so they won’t compete for wives with the older men. After all, that’s their choice, and we have freedom of religion, so who are we to judge?

    Again, I’m not particularly concerned with the number of children they have. If they had two children that they were raising the exact same way, I’d still be concerned, especially if they were going on television to talk about how wonderful their family was and how Jesus says this is how all families should operate.

  114. If they had two children that they were raising the exact same way, I’d still be concerned, especially if they were going on television to talk about how wonderful their family was and how Jesus says this is how all families should operate.

    I think it’s the going on TV part that annoys me the most, in that it gives Jim Bob name recognition when he tries to run for Congress again in order to try his best to force his fundamentalist way of life on us all.

  115. the Duggars have said that Michelle weans the youngest at 6 months and hands it off to one of her already-overburdened daughters so that she can work on getting pregnant again. While JimBob tells the media piously that the decision to have another one is up to her. Which I don’t believe for a second — as long as she keeps having babies, he gets his name in the papers and on TV.

    And neither do we see him deciding to use a condom. It’s not like she gets pregnant all by herself.

  117. You know, here’s a problem I have with alll this:

    If the Duggars were, say, Muslim, a great number of our very own fundos would jump on them, naturally (this was mentioned way, way up the thread).

    However, I’m willing to bet my right butt cheek that plenty of people on left, meanwhile, would dig up every excuse in the book for such Muslim family, particularly for the wife (or wives).

    Now, besides all that, I currently live in the Arabian Gulf – which means that I get confronted with “weird” lifestyle choices every day. Rich Saudi families with four wives and face-veils, the whole shebang.

    And the more I think about my surroundings, the more I realize that BOTH impulses are true – the impulse to judge, and the impulse to reserve judgment. It’s human nature we’re talking about here.

    Aaaaand, for all of the time I spend trash-talking the left, I do think the left’s impulses are more refined when it comes to these things though.

  118. One of the main things that is most disturbing, as several others have mentioned, is the whole “quiverfull” movement’s philosophy and aims. The idea that children are “gifts from god” isn’t harmful in and of itself, but the extreme and dare I say backward philosophies and practices stemming from it, especially regarding women, are.

    These posts by a former quiverfull adherent and mother of 11 children sum it up pretty well:

    http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2006/11/14/i-name-the-patriarchy-part-i-the-truth-about-full-quiver-women/
    http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2006/11/29/i-name-the-patriarchsi-name-and-blame-the-patriarchs-part-2-fallacies-about-the-full-quiver-movement/

    The Duggars are the poster family for this movement.

  119. I’m jumping in late, so maybe this has already been mentioned. But what drives me crazy about the Duggars and similar “quiverfull” types is the blatant hypocrisy of their stance on birth control and family planning. My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that they see birth control as going against “God’s Plan.” But it’s blatantly hypocritical to reject birth control as “unnatural” and then take advantage of modern western medicine in order to have that many kids. If she wants to forego birth control and have as many kids as possible that is her choice to make (although it raises all the other moral issues people raised- overpopulation, using the kids as free labor etc.) The woman must be getting some damn good prenatal care. I’m not a doctor and I’ve never been pregnant- but it’s not easy on your body. Without western medicine she probably wouldn’t have survived having that many kids. Yet using western medicine to prevent yourself from having children is unnatural. Maybe I’m judgemental for saying so, but that’s hypocritical bullshit. (they’re creepy for a lot of other reasons as well, as others have pointed out already- that aspect of it just really gets to me for some reason)

  120. If you’re growing one of your own, you are not adding people if one takes a long view.

    Huh? You have a baby, you just increased the population of the planet by one. The fact that people are also dying doesn’t change that.

    It’s really just another choice and who are we to judge if their children grow up with absolutely no way to operate outside of that household?

    If you can point to where I’ve ever said that, I will bake you a pie. “They were on TV!” is not an excuse to make sexist commentary that funnily only applies to Michelle Duggar, is all.

  121. But it’s blatantly hypocritical to reject birth control as “unnatural” and then take advantage of modern western medicine in order to have that many kids. … Without western medicine she probably wouldn’t have survived having that many kids. Yet using western medicine to prevent yourself from having children is unnatural.

    Exactly. And when you add in the intent to prevent other women from using birth control, there’s a whole new level to be disturbed by.

  122. And neither do we see him deciding to use a condom. It’s not like she gets pregnant all by herself.

    Right. Which is why I don’t believe him for a second when he says it’s totally up to her to have that many kids.

    You know, here’s a problem I have with alll this:

    If the Duggars were, say, Muslim, a great number of our very own fundos would jump on them, naturally (this was mentioned way, way up the thread).

    However, I’m willing to bet my right butt cheek that plenty of people on left, meanwhile, would dig up every excuse in the book for such Muslim family, particularly for the wife (or wives).

    You sound like a winger, to be honest. Why do you think people on the left would dig up “every excuse in the book” for Muslims? For that matter, *who* do you think is going to do that?

    AFAIK, Muslims in the US don’t have any sort of Quiverfull analogue, so they’re not going to be trying to present themselves as the ideal and force everyone else to comply with it via political action. And certainly, they’re not going to be advertising it to the world if they do because the majority here is suspicious of them. Inasmuch as they value having lots of kids, it makes them no different than any other religious group that values having lots of kids. Like, say, Mormons, Catholics and Hasidic Jews.

    Now, personally, I think that’s fucked up, but I don’t have much respect for religion. But cautioning against judging Muslims more harshly for the same things that Christians get a pass on is not looking for excuses. It’s asking for consistency.

  123. Can I take back referring to it as “western” medicine like I did upthread and refer to is as “modern medicine” instead? I realize in retrospect that sounds…..just weird and probably inaccurate to boot.

  124. If you can point to where I’ve ever said that, I will bake you a pie. “They were on TV!” is not an excuse to make sexist commentary that funnily only applies to Michelle Duggar, is all.

    And I made sexist comments that only apply to Michelle Duggar where, again? In fact, please show me where I criticized them solely on the number of children they have at any point in this thread.

    It was the notion that we shouldn’t be allowed to make any commentary about their choices even though they made those choices public and frequently publicize them that I was arguing against. It’s not like people on the left went out, found these people, and started writing stories about them. They had a TV show. They send out press releases. To then turn around and argue that their choices are completely private choices that can’t be criticized at all is insane.

  126. Anyone read this article?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15701301/site/newsweek/page/0/

    The last paragraph freaks me the hell out…

    Ken and Devon Carpenter. They live on 21 acres outside Nashville with their eight children, ages 1 to 15. The Carpenters are what some have described as “back-to-the-land” Christians, typical among the quiverfull community. They embrace home schooling, grow some of their own food and reject television in favor of evening family time spent singing or reading. Though Ken admits life isn’t always easy—last spring, all eight kids came down with chicken pox at once—he says the family became “exponentially happier” after relinquishing control of Devon’s womb to God. He’s counting on his eldest daughter, Peyton, 12, to carry on the tradition. She “will stay under my covering until I turn her over in marriage to a God-honoring young man,” he says. Hopefully, he adds, they too will reap a full quiver.

  127. To Miller at #26:

    1 Corinthians 11:14-15:
    Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,
    but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

    Therefore the Duggar women (girls? after all they probably don’t want to be called “women” what with all its power overtones) need to keep their hair long as a glorious covering; just as man covers woman.

    There are scads of web sites on it. Google “long hair” Christian headcovering.

  128. And I made sexist comments that only apply to Michelle Duggar where, again?

    I missed the part where you were the only commenter on the thread.

    I get that you were arguing “hey, they put themselves out there”. I was nothing that people seem to be seizing on any excuse (including They Asked For It) to make comments about, say, how tight Michelle Duggan’s vagina is. In other words, yes, this isn’t about trying to gotcha liberals because it’s a judgment on their personal life; but the other extreme isn’t so pretty either.

    last spring, all eight kids came down with chicken pox at once

    This is code for they’re wingnuts who don’t believe in vaccination, either.

  129. *tsk* zuzu, thought you’d know me better than that, by now.

    I actually do see a lot of leftists take an extremely shallow approach to Muslims and Islam. In fact, my Arab boyfriend used to perform experiments in the classroom with leftist professors (for obvious reasons, I leave them nameless) and students – saying the most outrageous things, and being petted on the head for it, because it was “obviously [his] culture and we’re cool with that.”

    I’ve actually had something similar happen to me on the job in relation to being Ukrainian, although the undertones were a whole lot more sinister. I believe I’ve mentioned my experiences on this website before – of course, you’re free to disbelieve me.

    Now, as I’ve already said, I think the left is much more refined and progressive when it comes to these things – but it’s not beyond reproach.

    Neither is religion beyond reproach, but then again, I do have a lot of respect for religion.

  130. You know, it appears to be their choice to have a large family.
    And quite frankly I would criticize any public figure who treated their children the way the Duggars do.
    They may be motivated by faith or service to the world or submission to God’s will or what have you but their execution is terrible.
    If an eleven year old girl is doing 300 loads of laundry a month (on top of watching siblings) when will she study?
    Is it okay that her significantly older brother just has to feed and play with the dog?
    If a child is home schooled, they must have opportunities for some social interaction. These kids don’t even get to go to church.
    How do these children learn empathy for the impoverished when Dad preaches about debt-free living as God’s gift to them?
    It makes me sad that these kids live this way. I don’t think Jim Bob and Michelle are malicious, bad people. Yet I am saddened that they are so certain of this path that they willfully advocate it. Politically, publicly, and personally.
    Some of the kids will grow up to be good people, but there will be limited parts of their upbringing to attribute it to.

Comments are currently closed.