Log in

View Full Version : oh dear lord...another one



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Dottie Rebel
05-10-2008, 07:59 PM
^^^Pretty much exactly what I was sitting here trying to figure out how to say.

Definitely a great post and something I hope people will try to understand. This is often an issue here.

AlexxaHex
05-10-2008, 08:26 PM
Color me evil, but I'm curious in a circus-side-show kind of way now. I was horrified at first, but now I want to see them go for 20.

*runs to check guinness book of world records...

Ah, here we go:
Most prolific mother ever
The greatest officially recorded number of children born to one mother is 69, to the wife of Feodor Vassilyev (b. 1707–c.1782), a peasant from Shuya, Russia. In 27 confinements (pregnancies) she gave birth to 16 pairs of twins, seven sets of triplets and four sets of quadruplets.

The Duggar's have a long way to go, but that was over 300 hundred years ago.

Dude - what's saddest to me is that she's like the MEGAMOM pushing out 69 kids and they print her husband's name. They don't even name her. How's that for recognition?


Good god some of you are touchy as fuck. Calm the hell down. It isn't all about you.

I know! It's like everyone's taking it so personally.

My feeling is that people are going to have as little or as many kids as they desire to. There's no use passing judgement or legislation on fucking and breeding. I don't think I have the energy or resources to ever be like Michelle Duggar, nor would I want to push 18 kids out of me but I do appreciate that I am able to fuck and reproduce (or not) as I want to. I wouldn't want to put restrictions on anyone else either way.
When you start saying there should be rules about not having a certain number of kids, you have these inhumanely disgusting situations like the ones going on in China.

Aubreyyy
05-10-2008, 09:26 PM
not relevant

Lilah29
05-11-2008, 12:04 AM
It will be interesting when about 2 (statistically) of those kids realize they're gay... :)

VegasPrincess
05-11-2008, 12:41 AM
Honestly, I grew up with several friends who had large famlies (like eight to ten kids) and when I would call their houses in high school to ask if they were home, they didn't even know. One woman and one man CAN NOT monitor 18 children 24 hours a day.

Another problem that nobody has addressed is that also in these families, the older siblings end up falling into the role of parent to the younger children. Or permanant babysitter.

It just isn't right, I'm sorry....

Aubreyyy
05-11-2008, 12:44 AM
I just personally think there is a difference in personally not agreeing with something someone does and claiming that they shouldn't be able to do something/shouldn't do something that they truly wish is the right thing to do.

I personally wouldn't have 18 kids, but I'm not going to say that someone else can't. They clearly can afford the kids, they are all happy and healthy, so what is the issue?

VegasPrincess
05-11-2008, 12:46 AM
^^^^

I don't know these kids, but I would doubt they are getting the attention they need to thrive. It's just my opinion....I'm not saying the practice of having 18 children should be come illegal or anything, I just don't think it's the most responsible choice to make.

winterrose
05-11-2008, 02:12 AM
she is a braver woman than me to have 18 kids.

they all seem happy and healthy, and the parents are stable. Congrats to her on her new child.

scarlett_vancouver
05-11-2008, 03:14 AM
I have no friends that were only children, and I wouldn't date an only child in a million years. Mainly because I've never met an only child who didn't think that his shit smelled like rosewater. I always find only children to be rude, irresponsible, immature, and self-centered.


Wow, wtf?


I don't judge you because you're child-free, or because you're non-Christian, or whatever. And yet you judge the Duggars (and, presumably, people like them) on the basis of some liberal femi-Nazi bullshit that has no basis in reality. The judgmentalism and vitriol in this thread is truly sickening. I thought SW was a place where we could be FREE from judgmental, narrow-minded behavior that we all have to go through on a daily basis. I guess I was wrong.

You FAIL


The fact you use the term "feminazi" (snicker) really tells me all I need to know. Good luck to you.

No kidding, eh


The reasons for supporting abortion at the same time as believing that humans shouldn't be bringing large numbers of children onto the planet are different. Abortion can be more fully said to be between a woman and her own body, on balance. Bringing huge numbers of kids onto an already overburdened planet is a social issue that others have some legitimate business to be concerned about.

Bingo.

Lilah29
05-11-2008, 03:15 AM
I just personally think there is a difference in personally not agreeing with something someone does and claiming that they shouldn't be able to do something/shouldn't do something that they truly wish is the right thing to do.

I personally wouldn't have 18 kids, but I'm not going to say that someone else can't. They clearly can afford the kids, they are all happy and healthy, so what is the issue?

Well, no one here is arguing that they "shouldn't be able to" so your point is moot. I think at most what anyone is arguing is that there should be some social stigma against it (the same way that if you do anything else that's social irresponsible but not illegal you might get some negativity, but you're still able to do it. Big deal). "So what is the issue?" Really? Have read this thread? You're arguing against things that haven't been said, and ignoring what has been said.

It doesn't really matter though. If humans don't put some control on their use of resources and destroying the planet, the earth is going to start writing pink slips for us regardless.

Lexi
05-11-2008, 08:34 PM
Dude. Put a cork in it.

NekkoStarz
05-11-2008, 09:08 PM
I think it's funny how b'cos they're Christians (& abide by their religion fully rather than half-assed as most) everyone assumes they're scary, brain-washing, crazy, cult-ish, socially irresponsible, etc etc. WTF!?!?! Leave them alone! They're GOOD people who have the mental/emotional/financial stability to raise all these children.

And, IMO, by the looks of all their shows they're doing better than 90% of the people out there. Also, IMO, for all of you who are getting upset & bitchy about them not adopting... WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO CLEAN UP OTHER PEOPLES IRRESPONSIBILITIES!?!?!?! Or what if they felt they couldn't love a child as their own if they adopted? --> My exbf was adopted and his parents told him growing up how they really "can't love him fully, don't except him all the way"... So, you never know.

I do say everyone just needs to shutup about the Duggars & their decisions! Just let them do them & you do you. Let them be happy.....

On a lighter note......... :) Did you notice on the Today Show that some of the kids looked shocked when they announced they were pregnant again!? Hehe, I swear some of their eyes popped out a lil....

Peanut_Butter
05-11-2008, 09:13 PM
^^^^

I don't know these kids, but I would doubt they are getting the attention they need to thrive. It's just my opinion....I'm not saying the practice of having 18 children should be come illegal or anything, I just don't think it's the most responsible choice to make.


First of all, Each older child is responsible for a younger child. So basicially, an older kid is raising one younger kid. They call it a buuddy system. Of course, there's no way 1 mother could parent all 18 kids, so can't blame her for doing it that way. However....the kids didnt ask for this. They dont have a choice. They are losing their own childhoods by being required to parent a child they didnt choose to have. Not fair t the kids at all.

Second of all. She has a schedule of "mommy time" planned in advance for each kid. They each get their own one on one time with mommy each week, depending on when it's scheduled in. Good for her for trying. But fucked up that a kid cant spend time with their mother unless it's penciled in as heir time for her. A schedule can't cover those times when a kid jus need to be with their mom. I cant tell you how many times I had a bad day or whatever happened and I craved mommy time and needed to just be with her when I was a kid. Those kids dont have that luxery. They have to wait in line until it's their time for mom. Not fair.

I feel bad for these kids. Yearh..they seem happy. But i thin it's only because they do not know any different. They arent exposed to anything on the outside The parents control everythign these kids get to see and do. They dont even go to school. They really have no idea what exists in the outside world.
I fear for them when they go off to start their own lives I fear once they hit the real world they are gunna be in for a rude awakining. Life in the real world is nothign like life inside their little compound.

Sophia_Ashley
05-11-2008, 09:46 PM
Dude. Put a cork in it.

This could be used in like 40 context ways in this thread }:D

High_Heel_Lover
05-11-2008, 09:53 PM
Said it once and will say it again, still have not broken my grandmother's record, but she will, she will!

gma had 19 and adopted 3.

I have seen parents who have 1 kid and screwed that one up bad! and seen them have one and have a wonderful child, Goes the other way too.

I don't really care how many she has or doesn't have, the world is ending soon anyway.

Lysondra
05-11-2008, 09:54 PM
Really no matter HOW they were raising their children, someone would have something to say about it.

High_Heel_Lover
05-11-2008, 09:56 PM
Indeed Lysondra.

Hatshepsut
05-11-2008, 10:20 PM
First of all, Each older child is responsible for a younger child. So basicially, an older kid is raising one younger kid. They call it a buuddy system. Of course, there's no way 1 mother could parent all 18 kids, so can't blame her for doing it that way. However....the kids didnt ask for this. They dont have a choice. They are losing their own childhoods by being required to parent a child they didnt choose to have. Not fair t the kids at all.
Yep, I had to be a parent from an early age because my mom was mentally unstable and was either exhausted, pregnant, or wallowing in self pity. Because of that, I did not have a normal childhood and consider myself somewhat developmentally arrested even today. My parents had all those kids, and I paid for their idealisms. I didn't have a choice. This is why I am so wary about having kids. I already was stuck with someone else's work once, and I'm afraid that I'll end up marrying a bum who decides after the kid is born that he doesn't like daddy responsibility, leaving me with the bigger load. I swore to myself that it would never, EVER happen again.


Second of all. She has a schedule of "mommy time" planned in advance for each kid. They each get their own one on one time with mommy each week, depending on when it's scheduled in. Good for her for trying. But fucked up that a kid cant spend time with their mother unless it's penciled in as heir time for her. A schedule can't cover those times when a kid jus need to be with their mom. I cant tell you how many times I had a bad day or whatever happened and I craved mommy time and needed to just be with her when I was a kid. Those kids dont have that luxery. They have to wait in line until it's their time for mom. Not fair.Growing up, individual attention was in short supply. You are absolutely right about needing to be there for the kid when s/he needs it. I could only get attention when it was convenient for my parents, and even then, I was lectured on how I should be grateful for what I had and that I would catch hell if I embarrassed them. For example, I started self-mutilating myself at age 13 because I was depressed. Instead of asking what was wrong and listening, my father told me that I'd better cover them up so people wouldn't start asking him questions. The whole public image and opinion things was of utmost importance to him (I'm sure that Jim Bob has lots at stake as well in his little scheme to revert us back a century), and we kids were instrumental in his ego food. Kids will suffer if you selfishly expect them to keep up appearances while neglecting their needs. By the way, that kind of comforting mommy time isn't a luxury, it's an entitlement. Kids should have that attention by default.


I feel bad for these kids. Yearh..they seem happy. But i thin it's only because they do not know any different. They arent exposed to anything on the outside The parents control everythign these kids get to see and do. They dont even go to school. They really have no idea what exists in the outside world.
I fear for them when they go off to start their own lives I fear once they hit the real world they are gunna be in for a rude awakining. Life in the real world is nothign like life inside their little compound.Ignorance is absolutely bliss. The Duggars are quite a bit more efficient than my parents in the aspect that they homeschool and keep within the church community. I too wonder how they will be in the real world where Jesus isn't such a huge priority. My parents sent me to public school and wondered where I learned that their behavior was controlling and sometimes abusive, as well as many other things. I'm sure that I would have been quite a bit more malleable if I had been kept cloistered and ignorant.


Abortion can be more fully said to be between a woman and her own body, on balance. Bringing huge numbers of kids onto an already overburdened planet is a social issue that others have some legitimate business to be concerned about.
Not only that, but innocent people are involved when people decide to have kids. This means that having kids is not a completely personal decision like abortion is. If someone decides to have children for selfish reasons such as public appearances, the kid will suffer. Children deserve to be born to people who will love and accept them and are willing to dedicate their lives to them. Yes, the Duggars do a much better job at parenting than many, but their motives for having kids are still selfish and the kids may very well be paying for their parents' idealisms.


Morgan, your deeply religious upbringing completely explains your complete lack of logic, as you contradict yourself more than the Bible. Seriously, you remind me of this one Muslim woman on Oprah who claimed that Islam had a bad rap of oppressing women. She claimed that she was a completely free and liberated woman, but as she talked, she said that she always asked her husband's permission, that he wouldn't let her wear certain clothes, she couldn't teach men, etc. Her words and her rationales were in two completely different worlds, much like yours.

Another thing about having kids: Times have changed. I've talked to people (baby boomers and older) who did have tons of kids, but even many of them have stated that it's not like it was back then and having tons of kids isn't so good nowadays. Education is becoming more and more necessary as well as more and more expensive. Healthcare and insurance are jokes. It's harder to make it today, and kids cost something like 100K each to riase, EACH. Face it, it's a whole different world than it was 50 years ago. Even though the Duggars are supporting themselves, they're putting their kids at a disadvantage by not preparing them for the real world. I'm not saying that you should conform, but you do have to consider how you are affecting the survival of your kids. For example, if you decide that your kid shouldn't have to learn how to read, you are likely subjecting your kid to a lifetime of menial labor and poverty because the real world is much different than radical idealisms. If you raise your kids in a little fundie Christian utopia that they can't stay in forever, you may be likewise affecting their lives.

beauty21queen
05-11-2008, 10:30 PM
My grandmother had 16 kids :P My great grandmother had 20 :D

Dottie Rebel
05-11-2008, 10:30 PM
I think it's funny how b'cos they're Christians (& abide by their religion fully rather than half-assed as most) everyone assumes they're scary, brain-washing, crazy, cult-ish, socially irresponsible, etc etc. WTF!?!?! Leave them alone! They're GOOD people who have the mental/emotional/financial stability to raise all these children.


First off, how do you know how "good" they are? Do you know them?

As for abiding by their religion "fully"--that concept is more open to interpretation than anything I can think of. The KKK believed that they were living their religion fully. As do Islamic terrorists. You'd be amazed at some of the ideas that folks can wrench out of obscure passages of ancient manuscripts.

Paintbaby
05-11-2008, 10:56 PM
http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2006/11/14/i-name-the-patriarchy-part-i-the-truth-about-full-quiver-women/

Let's hear what a former "Full Quiver" woman has to say about her experiences. The comments section has a few more of these women, who got the hell out, chime in too.

Perry
05-11-2008, 11:26 PM
^^ That is scary. I'm also concerned how Jim Duggar gets all his money. He's lost his past 2 runs at an office and when asked how he affords that giant house and family his only answer is something about a religeouse finacial seminar...

Why has no one called Dateline?

ViolaStrings
05-11-2008, 11:46 PM
OMG this thread has gotten so lame. Unsubscribed.

Morgan_TX
05-13-2008, 11:46 AM
Morgan, your deeply religious upbringing completely explains your complete lack of logic, as you contradict yourself more than the Bible. Seriously, you remind me of this one Muslim woman on Oprah who claimed that Islam had a bad rap of oppressing women. She claimed that she was a completely free and liberated woman, but as she talked, she said that she always asked her husband's permission, that he wouldn't let her wear certain clothes, she couldn't teach men, etc. Her words and her rationales were in two completely different worlds, much like yours.

I wasn't raised in a deeply religious family. I was raised Methodist, which is very liberal. As an adult, I spent a good amount of time in ultra-conservative Christian churches.

To be honest, what bothers me the most about this has nothing at all to do with the religious context, but with the feminist one. I do honestly believe that feminism is a blight on America, and that it has utterly destroyed millions of women and millions of families.

For one good example of this, here's an article by Kay Ebeling:


From the "My Turn" column, Nov. 19, 1990, p. 9:

"The Failure of Feminism" by Kay Ebeling

The other day I had the world's fastest blind date. A Yuppie from Eureka
penciled me in for 50 minutes on a Friday and met me at a watering hole in
the rural northern California town of Arcata. He breezed in, threw his
jammed daily planner on the table and shot questions at me, watching my
reactions as if it were a job interview. He eyed how much I drank. Then
he breezed out to his next appointment. He had given us 50 minutes to
size each other up and see if there was any chance for romance. His exit
was so fast that as we left he let the door slam back in my face. It was
an interesting slam.

Most of our 50-minute conversation had covered the changing state of
male-female relationships. My blind date was 40 years old, from the
Experimental Generation. He is "actively pursuing new ways for men and
women to interact now that old traditions no longer exist." That's a real
quote. He really did say that, when I asked him what he liked to do.
This was a man who'd read Ms. Magazine and believed every word of it.
He'd been single for 16 years but had lived with a few women during that
time. He was off that evening for a ski weekend, meeting someone who was
paying her own way for the trip.

I too am from the Experimental Generation, but I couldn't even pay for my
own drink. To me, feminism has backfired against women. In 1973 I left
what could have been a perfectly good marriage, taking with me a child in
diapers, a 10-year-old Plymouth and Volume 1, Number One of Ms. Magazine.
I was convinced I could make it on my own. In the last 15 years my ex has
married or lived with a succession of women. As he gets older, his women
stay in their 20s. Meanwhile, I've stayed unattached. He drives a BMW.
I ride buses.

Today I see feminism as the Great Experiment That Failed, and women in my
generation, its perpetrators, are the casualties. Many of us, myself
included, are saddled with raising children alone. The resulting poverty
makes us experts at cornmeal recipes and ways to find free recreation on
weekends. At the same time, single men from our generation amass fortunes
in CDs and real-estate ventures so they can breeze off on ski weekends.
Feminism freed men, not women. Now men are spared the nuisance of a wife
and family to support. After childbirth, if his wife's waist doesn't
return to 20 inches, the husband can go out and get a more petite woman.
It's far more difficult for the wife, now tied down with a baby, to find a
new man. My blind date that Friday waved goodbye as he drove off in his
RV. I walked home and paid the sitter with laundry quarters.

The main message of feminism was: woman, you don't need a man; remember,
those of you around 40, the phrase: "A woman without a man is like a fish
without a bicycle"? That joke circulated through "consciousness raising"
groups across the country in the '70s. It was a philsophy that made
divorce and cohabitation casual and routine. Feminism made women
disposable. So today a lot of females are around 40 and single with a
couple of kids to raise on their own. Child-support payments might pay
for a few pairs of shoes, but in general, feminism gave men all the
financial and personal advantages over women.

What's worse, we asked for it. Many women decided: you don't need a
family structure to raise your children. We packed them off to day-care
centers where they could get their nurturing from professionals. Then we
put on our suits and ties, packed our briefcases and took off on this
Great Experiment, convinced that there was no difference between ourselves
and the guys in the other offices.

How wrong we were. Because, like it or not, women have babies. It's this
biological thing that's just there, these organs we're born with. The
truth is, a woman can't live the true feminist life unless she denies her
child-bearing biology. She has to live on the pill, or have her tubes
tied at an early age. Then she can keep up with the guys with an
uninterrupted career and then, when she's 30, she'll be paying her own way
on ski weekends too.

The reality of feminism is a lot of frenzied and overworked women dropping
kids off at day-care centers. If the child is sick, they just send along
some children's Tylenol and then rush off to underpaid jobs that they
don't even like. Two of my working-mother friends told me they were
mopping floors and folding laundry after midnight last week. They live on
five hours of sleep, and it shows in their faces. And they've got
husbands! I'm not advocating that women retrogress to the brainless
housewives of the '50s who spent afternoons baking macaroni sculptures and
keeping Betty Crocker files. Post-World War II women were the first to be
left with a lot of free time, and they weren't too creative in filling it.
Perhaps feminism was a reaction to that Brainless Betty, and in that
respect, feminism has served a purpose.

Women should get their educations so they can be brainy in the way they
raise their children. Women can start small businesses, do consulting,
write freelance out of the home. But women don't belong in 12-hour-a-day
executive office positions, and I can't figure out today what ever made us
think we would want to be there in the first place. As long as that
biology is there, women can't compete equally with men. A ratio cannot be
made using disproportionate parts. Women and men are not equal, we're
different. The economy might even improve if women came home, opening up
jobs for unemployed men, who could then support a wife a children, the way
it was, pre-feminism.

Sometimes on Saturday nights I'll get dressed up and go out club-hopping or
to the theater, but the sight of all those other women my age, dressed a
little too young, made up to hide encroaching wrinkles, looking hopefully
into the drowds, usually depresses me. I end up coming home, to spend my
Saturday night with my daughter asleep in her room nearby. At least the
NBC Saturday-night lineup is geared demographically to women at home alone.

******************************************
A single mother of a 2-year-old[!] daughter and a freelance writer[!],
Ebeling lives in Humboldt County, Calif.



Why is it that the prosperity of newly divorced WOMEN decreases by about 20%, whereas the prosperity of newly divorced MEN increases by about 50%? I believe that feminism has made women disposable.

Am I bitter? You bet your ass I'm bitter. I'm bitter because at no time in my life was I happier and more fulfilled than during the years I spent raising my children and being a helpmeet to my husband. I'm bitter because he was able to throw away me and the children, leaving us with NOTHING except a house (that belonged to MY family) and a lot of debts. He works for the state and is $850 behind on his child support, and he's only ordered to pay $250 a month (when he makes about $2,800). I'm bitter because, as far as I can tell, feminism has done NOTHING positive for me.

I WANT to raise children. I would LOVE to adopt, or to have more children, or both! And yet I can barely afford to raise the three children I have now. I can't afford that because I've been thrown away like so many other now-useless wives because of the underlying message of feminism. Feminism loudly proclaims that women can do anything they want to, but the subtext of this message is that women should be expected to be independent and completely self-sufficient. Rather than giving women the freedom to work outside the home, feminism made it mandatory for women to work outside the home. Wages are far lower than they were before women entered the workforce in droves, and that is in part because there are more jobs, and because two-income families are the "norm", which has helped to drive inflation. Additionally, no-fault divorce has made it easy to trade your wife in on a newer model, which increases the chances that a woman will end up being a single mother.

I will freely admit that this is my own personal bias, but as a woman, I can honestly say that feminism has done NOTHING positive for me.

ViolaStrings
05-13-2008, 12:01 PM
I agree with some of Morgan's points. Feminism backfired in a lot of respects. It made it easier for men to walk away from their families. Divorce was no longer taboo. A few women demanded to be able to take care of themselves, and some men ran with it and absolved themselves of their obligations. They screwed it up for all of us! But having control over my body and being able to vote and get an education is pretty cool.

(can't stop looking at this trainwreck)

Morgan_TX
05-13-2008, 12:08 PM
Okay, so I apologize. I reacted emotionally to my own situation.

It does make me sad, though... I didn't like my ex-husband and didn't even get along with him, but I liked the lifestyle that I was able to lead with him (i.e., being a SAHM).

Now I'm on the verge (like, less than two weeks away) of marrying a man that I love dearly, but who will in all likelihood never be able to support me and let me return home with my children. HE was raised in this modern, feminist world, and he always assumed that he would marry the modern "career woman", so he would only have to earn enough to cover his share of things. So he got a virtually useless degree and works in a retail store, and I'm stuck waiting and waiting until I can save up enough money to take a year or two off work to have another baby, since I know I'm never going to be able to return to the lifestyle that I miss so much.

Sorry.

britt244
05-13-2008, 12:16 PM
Do you have ANY idea what you're really talking about? See, I spent three YEARS in the conservative Christian culture. I can show you pictures of ME in ankle-length cape dresses with headcoverings, and you know what? I miss it.

i find it very.. interesting.. that you "miss" that sort of lifestyle yet are a stripper. those two lifestyles just don't go together.


I don't really care how many she has or doesn't have, the world is ending soon anyway.

urm.. ok :O great logic.


she is a braver woman than me to have 18 kids.

they all seem happy and healthy, and the parents are stable. Congrats to her on her new child.


I feel bad for these kids. Yearh..they seem happy. But i thin it's only because they do not know any different. They arent exposed to anything on the outside The parents control everythign these kids get to see and do. They dont even go to school. They really have no idea what exists in the outside world.

i was gonna say it but PB beat me to it. they're "happy," sure. they don't know that anything different is really out there. they've been raised to think their lifestyle is the "right" one. ignorance is bliss...


i also agree with the fact that theyre building an army. there are 18 kids. how many girls? betcha they all pop out a ton of babies, too. and the guys will find women to brainwash into leading that lifestyle as well. i'm thinking cult...

AudreyLeigh
05-13-2008, 12:21 PM
OK, lets see. They have 18 children - if those 18 children all go to have 18 children thats 324 grandkids. If those grandkids each have 18 children thats 5,832 great grandchildren this woman will have. Those great grandchildren each have 18 children thats 104,976 great-great grandchildren.

Thats a hell of a family reunion!

Morgan_TX
05-13-2008, 12:23 PM
i find it very.. interesting.. that you "miss" that sort of lifestyle yet are a stripper. those two lifestyles just don't go together.


I became a stripper when my ex-husband left me. I had a six-year resume gap, no income, and couldn't get a job anywhere. I STILL miss the life I used to have, but I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that this is my new life and there's nothing I can do to change that.

I started dancing out of necessity. I quite literally HAD no other options. I keep dancing because the necessity is still there, and because it does have its good points.

But if I had the choice of stripping or returning to the conservative Christian community/lifestyle? I'd be back in that cape dress in three seconds flat.

britt244
05-13-2008, 12:24 PM
forgive me for not looking it up or reading to find it in this thread, but how old is the oldest child? oldest girl?

also, something to think about.. all that glitters isn't gold. just because they look like a happy, well managed family does not mean that it is true. some people have the best covers...some of the most abused women look like they have the perfect relationship or some homes dealing with a lot of mental, emotional, or physical issues seem like houses with a perfect white picket fence and 2.5 beautiful children, etc.

AudreyLeigh
05-13-2008, 12:25 PM
Joshua Dugger, 20
March 3, 1988

Jana Dugger, 18
January 12, 1990

Names, Ages, B-days

AudreyLeigh
05-13-2008, 12:26 PM
also, something to think about.. all that glitters isn't gold. just because they look like a happy, well managed family does not mean that it is true. some people have the best covers...some of the most abused women look like they have the perfect relationship or some homes dealing with a lot of mental, emotional, or physical issues seem like houses with a perfect white picket fence and 2.5 beautiful children, etc.

So true.

britt244
05-13-2008, 12:26 PM
^ thanks. just curious bc im waiting to see when one of THEM has a baby.

Morgan_TX
05-13-2008, 12:28 PM
^ thanks. just curious bc im waiting to see when one of THEM has a baby.

Boys in that culture generally marry between the ages of about 23 and 28 (give or take). They are expected to have learned a trade and saved some money before considering marriage.

Girls generally marry between 18 and 21, although it varies by family. Families that are more well-off financially will be more likely to keep their daughters at home longer. (One doctor I know with eight kids has said that he won't even consider husbands for his daughters until they're 21.)

So I'd give it about 2-4 years...

Dottie Rebel
05-13-2008, 03:15 PM
Now I'm on the verge (like, less than two weeks away) of marrying a man that I love dearly, but who will in all likelihood never be able to support me and let me return home with my children. HE was raised in this modern, feminist world, and he always assumed that he would marry the modern "career woman", so he would only have to earn enough to cover his share of things. So he got a virtually useless degree and works in a retail store, and I'm stuck waiting and waiting until I can save up enough money to take a year or two off work to have another baby, since I know I'm never going to be able to return to the lifestyle that I miss so much.

It sounds like you resent this man for being egalitarian, meeting you as an equal partner, and having no archaic, preconceived expectations for your relationship.

I don't mind paying my own way in the world. But it seems the price that comes along with the old-fashioned way is a price I am NOT willing to pay.

Morgan_TX
05-13-2008, 03:37 PM
It sounds like you resent this man for being egalitarian, meeting you as an equal partner, and having no archaic, preconceived expectations for your relationship.

I don't mind paying my own way in the world. But it seems the price that comes along with the old-fashioned way is a price I am NOT willing to pay.

Perhaps his expectations aren't archaic, but they ARE preconceived. He ASSUMED that all women wanted the feminist ideal: the career, the independence, etc. And that's not what I want. That's not what I've EVER wanted.

I wrote a lot more to this, but then I thought better of it. The truth is that it's just very depressing to me. When I look at this world that I live in and this life that I lead, I know that I'm going to be stuck here for the rest of my life, and it makes me cry every time. I miss my children. I miss being there for them. I miss my house. I used to be able to keep it clean with almost no effort, and now I'm struggling just to keep it barely under control. I miss my own damn cooking. I never have the time or the energy to actually COOK, and I used to make homemade EVERYTHING. I miss being able to read and learn new things. I miss being able to start a side business. I miss it, and yet I know that I'll never have that again.

THAT is the part of the feminist message that I wish more feminists would understand. If feminism is about freedom, then it should BE about freedom for all women to choose their own path. Your path does not lead to the traditional housewife role, and that's fine. But my path DOES lead me there, at least in my heart, and I'll never be able to have it.


“Right-wing women have surveyed the world: they find it a dangerous place. They see that work subjects them to more danger from more men; it increases the risk of sexual exploitation. They see that creativity and originality in their kind are ridiculed; they see women thrown out of the circle of male civilization for having ideas, plans, visions, ambitions. They see that traditional marriage means selling to one man, not hundreds; the better deal. They see that the streets are cold and that the women on them are tired, sick and bruised…They see no way to make their bodies authentically their own and to survive in the world of men… Right wing women are not wrong…Their desperation is quiet; they hide their bruises of body and heart; they dress carefully and have good manners; they suffer, they love God, they follow the rules. …They use sex and babies to stay valuable because they need a home, food, clothing. They use the traditional intelligence of the female—animal, not human; they do what they have to do to survive.”
–Andrea Dworkin in Right-Wing Women

britt244
05-13-2008, 03:39 PM
Perhaps his expectations aren't archaic, but they ARE preconceived. He ASSUMED that all women wanted the feminist ideal: the career, the independence, etc. And that's not what I want. That's not what I've EVER wanted.

i have a question about this, though. are you sure he's assuming that's what all women want? it sounds more to me like that's what HE wants in a partner. which is absolutely ok. but it doesn't mean he assumes YOU want it. just like if the situation were reversed, and a guy wants a woman who will stay at home with the kids and be a housewife. that's just what he's looking for in his wife, not what he thinks any woman wants. same goes for swingers, polygamous relationships, etc. i think everyone knows that _____ isn't what everyone wants.

noelle
05-13-2008, 03:48 PM
If feminism is about freedom, then it should BE about freedom for all women to choose their own path.


Feminism IS about freedom! You are greatly misunderstanding feminism if you think all feminists say that being a housewife and a mother is not as good as being a career woman. I am a feminist and I think being a homemaker is wonderful (and hard!) work. Feminism is about choice.

I don't know what feminist writings you've read, but the fact that you quote Andrea Dworkin shows me you might have a very skewed idea of what feminism is. Dworkin is a notorious anti-sex feminist that very, very few feminist women and men agree with. Personally, I think she is insane.

Perry
05-13-2008, 04:11 PM
I wrote a lot more to this, but then I thought better of it. The truth is that it's just very depressing to me. When I look at this world that I live in and this life that I lead, I know that I'm going to be stuck here for the rest of my life, and it makes me cry every time. I miss my children. I miss being there for them. I miss my house. I used to be able to keep it clean with almost no effort, and now I'm struggling just to keep it barely under control. I miss my own damn cooking. I never have the time or the energy to actually COOK, and I used to make homemade EVERYTHING. I miss being able to read and learn new things. I miss being able to start a side business. I miss it, and yet I know that I'll never have that again.


[/i]

Morgan, I know you've taken this thread very personally, and I'm starting to understand why. Your posts, among others, have made me realize that the Duggars are from a different culture, which I didn't really consider untill now. It's not one that I'm personally attracted to, or comfortable with - and nor do I have to be because every woman in America has the right to choose their own life style. Femists gave us the right to leave abusive husbands, vote, own property, and be treated as first class citizens. I would even say we are more valuble to men now because of those rights, and the freedom to leave an unhappy marriage or relationship.

However, it seems like you're living a life style you don't want. You don't haveto marry your boyfriend if you won't be happy. I don't know your situation or relationship, but there is nothing wrong if you decided to wait for a guy that shared your beleifs and wanted the same life style you do.

Luxurious1
05-13-2008, 04:15 PM
overpopulationnnnn.

Morgan_TX
05-13-2008, 04:28 PM
Feminism IS about freedom! You are greatly misunderstanding feminism if you think all feminists say that being a housewife and a mother is not as good as being a career woman. I am a feminist and I think being a homemaker is wonderful (and hard!) work. Feminism is about choice.

I don't know what feminist writings you've read, but the fact that you quote Andrea Dworkin shows me you might have a very skewed idea of what feminism is. Dworkin is a notorious anti-sex feminist that very, very few feminist women and men agree with. Personally, I think she is insane.

My view on feminism comes from the fact that I feel feminism has FORCED me into a role that I don't want. By making me, in essence, "disposable", I am FORCED to be a career woman, because I feel that feminism is at least partially responsible with the "disposable wife" culture that we live in. In Texas, where I live, "alimony" is virtually unheard of. Even in cases where alimony is granted, it is CAPPED at three years from the date of divorce. Basically, the state says, "You've got three years to get a new job or a new husband." When you've been out of the workforce for awhile, it's impossible to get a job that will pay a living wage in under three years, and in so many cases, the woman staying at home to raise the kids was a JOINT decision between husband and wife, but then the husband realizes he can ditch his wife with no real penalties, and the next thing you know, we have a situation like the one we're in now.

I'm not a big Dworkin fan, but I do think she has a very good point here: "Right-wing women have surveyed the world: they find it a dangerous place. ... They see that traditional marriage means selling to one man, not hundreds; the better deal. They see that the streets are cold and that the women on them are tired, sick and bruised…They see no way to make their bodies authentically their own and to survive in the world of men… ... They use the traditional intelligence of the female—animal, not human; they do what they have to do to survive."

Personally, I couldn't stand my ex-husband. There was NO love between us. But I knew that without him, I'd be on my own. I knew that despite the fact that we didn't love each other, it was far better to be in a loveless marriage where I had protection and provision than to be on the streets (as I am now) and on my own.

Maybe it's just cold feet. Maybe I need to call off this wedding. But I think about spending the rest of my life like this: always working, never having time to relax, never having a spare dime, and farming out my children to daycares and schools because I can't ever be with them... The more I think about it, the more I cry. I WANT that life, and I can't have it.

Let's face it--guys got the easy end of the deal. It used to be that you had to marry a woman before you could fuck her, and no woman would marry you unless you had good "prospects". You had to prove to your woman that you could care for her, and a marriage contract meant that you had to provide your financial support to her AND to any children that might result from the marriage. In many Muslim countries, this is still the case. If a man divorces his wife, he is required to continue paying spousal support unless/until she remarries. But in the U.S., all it takes is one day in court, and you can skip out on your wife, your kids, and all of your obligations. That sounds to me like a pretty sweet deal. You get all the joys of having a wife, until she gets too annoying or irritating, and then you just throw her away and start shopping for a new one.

I just don't think that's a good thing for women. I think it makes us disposable.

I have another quote from a very conservative Christian minister, so please forgive the context, but let me explain. Bro. Denny Kenatson says that Adam's curse--the curse of man--was to work for his food. Eve's curse was to bear and raise children. He says that you can't trade curses, so women who are insistent on working and being career women are now taking on TWO curses instead of one: the curse of working, AND the curse of raising children.

Put in a more secular context, he's saying that bearing and raising children is a full-time job. When you're a career woman, you're working a full-time job for your employer and then also trying to work a full-time job raising your children, and I do agree. Women are being worked to death. Whether they're single or not, they still do the lion's share of the housework and childcare. And now they're expected to do all of this AND build a successful career.

I think what I'm so ticked off about is the Supermom concept. The "Happy Housewife" from the 60's has long since disappeared, but she's been replaced by the "Supermom", and as a result, women are getting sick and dying from things that used to never affect women. Rates of alcoholism in women have increased exponentially since the beginning of the feminist movement, and women who work full-time have rates almost double that of full-time homemakers. Heart disease, hypertension, and high cholesterol are markedly higher in women who work, as opposed to women who do not. Even "women's" diseases like endometriosis and fibromyalgia are higher in working women than in homemakers. It's probably no coincidence that all of these diseases can be greatly affected by stress.

Women are EXPECTED to kill themselves, because for how far we've come, we haven't come far at all. Example: If somebody walks into my house and it's a mess, they won't look at my fiance and say, "This place is filthy!" No, they'll say that to me. Despite how far we've supposedly come, how my house is kept is still a direct reflection on ME. If my kids go to school with stains on their clothes, the teachers won't tell my fiance about it--they'll tell ME. Because it's MY fault that their clothes aren't clean because I'm the woman. Nobody ever looks at the man when the house is messy or the kids are dirty--they look at the woman. And I've had this happen DESPITE location, marital status, or my employment status. None of this matters.

So I'm expected to keep house BETTER than my mother did in the 1970's, but let's add to that the fact that my employer expects me to work 60 hours a week like all his single male employees and likes to give me the "this job will give you what you put into it" speech.

This is why I say that it's killing women.

Morgan_TX
05-13-2008, 04:32 PM
Morgan, I know you've taken this thread very personally, and I'm starting to understand why. Your posts, among others, have made me realize that the Duggars are from a different culture, which I didn't really consider untill now. It's not one that I'm personally attracted to, or comfortable with - and nor do I have to be because every woman in America has the right to choose their own life style. Femists gave us the right to leave abusive husbands, vote, own property, and be treated as first class citizens. I would even say we are more valuble to men now because of those rights, and the freedom to leave an unhappy marriage or relationship.

However, it seems like you're living a life style you don't want. You don't haveto marry your boyfriend if you won't be happy. I don't know your situation or relationship, but there is nothing wrong if you decided to wait for a guy that shared your beleifs and wanted the same life style you do.

This is the problem. We have the "freedom" to leave an unhappy marriage or relationship. And then what? And then we have the "freedom" to choose between starvation for ourselves and our kids or working ourselves to death?

That's not freedom.

ETA: You see, throughout this thread, I've watched a couple of women say things like, "Once these ladies get out and see that there's a whole other world out there, they'll realize how bad they have it." That's not the case. In fact, these women DO know about the world outside of their church. You (figuratively) look at these women and think, "Poor women! Having to cook and clean and have babies and obey their husbands all the time!" They, on the other hand, look at you and think, "Poor women! They don't have a man to take care of them and protect them and provide for them! They have to go out and toil away because nobody will take care of them."

You look at these women and think, "They're treated like slaves. They work so hard for no pay and do what their husbands say." They look at you and say, "They're treated like slaves. Look how many hours they have to work--going to work and then coming home to raise children and do housework."

In reality, it's a trade-off. They (for the most part) have some measure of security, but they trade their independence for it. You, on the other hand, have independence, but you don't have the measure of protection that they do from their husbands. Ultimately, which do you prefer? Independence or security? Because you can't have both.

Midori Kiss
05-13-2008, 06:14 PM
Holy crap...OWW. Debt free and 18 kids? More power to em... I do like the idea of big familes since i'm a only child, but DAMN.. i was thinking my limit is UNDER 5!

Starfire
05-13-2008, 06:37 PM
I was going to say a whole bunch of stuff but...I think it is sad in this day and age some women still think they NEED a man to support them. Seriously. Dance-save and invest your money. Get a degree that will translate to an in demand job with a good income. I know for a fact that many jobs in the health care field pay competitively and are in demand right now. Some of these jobs, like an RN for example, you can get the degree for at a community college, which doesn't cost that much.
The day that I think I NEED to have a man around to help me will be a sad day indeed. I don't have any kids, so my perspective is different, but I know for a fact that if my boyfriend left me tomorrow, I could make it in the big world all by myself without a man to "take care of me".

Starfire
05-13-2008, 06:39 PM
I know this is really off topic- morgantx, I"m curious, when your husband left you, why didn't the members of your community step in to help you? Maybe I missed some details in your earlier posts, but if the conservative christian community is so supportive to stay at home moms, they should have offered assistance when your husband left you and maybe helped you meet another mate?

Paintbaby
05-13-2008, 06:42 PM
Holleeeee shit--there sure are a lot of warped views about what feminism really is here. Y'all need to google "feminism 101" and start there. Feminism is about choice. I have yet to meet a feminist who judged another woman's free (FREE being the operative word here, and I hardly consider the Duggar girls lots in life to be FREE choices) as wrong. Maybe check out these great blogs while you're at it--Feministing, Pandagon, and Feministe.

Oh, and feminism hasn't hurt women one damned bit--the patriarchy is what hurts us. Not feminism. For chrissakes.

Just go read. Learn.

Morgan_TX
05-13-2008, 06:57 PM
^^^Then you're telling me that the judgmental and vitriolic posts by women on this VERY THREAD in no way represent the feminist movement? That women should be allowed and encouraged to LIVE THEIR LIVES THE WAY THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO?

Your own quotes don't seem to explain that. In fact, it sounds to me that a lot of the "feminists" on this thread seem to think that the Duggars should NOT be allowed to determine their own reproductive or religious ideals.


This is so stupid of them.(imo) How in the world do they afford all these kids?If they want a huge family,there are plenty of kids out there that need to be adopted.What makes the Duggers think that their genes are so special that they need to repopulate the world?


FUCK! how socially irresponsible. yeah i said it.


Honestly, I think there's a social impact that's not just about what *I* want to do, even though people behave as though having huge families affects only them. Each child (especially in the west) has an enormous impact on the environment that we all have to live in. Maybe in the west we won't get to the point of regulating reproduction, but I think there should at least be more social stigma about this kind of behavior.



I think that huge biological families here are not responsible no matter how they are cared for.


They are scary and socially irresponsible. But they believe they are entitled because of thier religion.


It's creepy how sheltered they seemed. They're going to be god smacked by the real world some day.


The whole point of their religion "quiverfull" is to create an army for God. Any woman who tries not to is destroying the temple. I looked this up today when I heard about them, and that shit is crazy...


Y'all DO realize that the Duggars, and the crazy right-wing religious fundamentalist freaks like them who are also part of the "quiverfull" movement, are breeding like rabbits to make little warriors for "God's Army", right? And that these folks and others of their ilk have no compunction whatsoever in working hard to limit the reproductive freedoms of women in your country, right? That means, no abortion, no birth control, no nothin'. To these folks, wimminz are made for birthin' babies and obeying husbands. That would be fine and dandy if that is what they wanted for themselves, but they want it for EVERY woman. Including every woman on this board.



Oh, and daddy Jimbob has said that it is the BOYS who will be going to college, not the girls. What do you think their lot in life will be? And do you think, that by actively having their opportunities limited, that there lives will be something they actually get to shape themselves? Highly doubtful.



So, this isn't just some harmless, jolly little family who just happens to love kids. These are dangerous assholes, pandering to the media, and they really, really hate woman who have sexual freedoms. And they are raising those lovely, innocent children to think just like they do.


Um, yeah, but no. As I said, I don't give a sideways goddamn about how many kids anyone wants to have, or what their religious affiliation is, UNTIL they try to do harm to others. In this case, re: the reproductive freedoms of women.



The Duggars and those of the Quiverfull movement, are actively working to limit the reproductive freedoms of women in your country. (You might want to check out Jimbob's political record. ) And that is not okay. And I hardly consider these people Christians. True Christians don't judge or try to do harm to others. Jesus is embarrassed by these people. Like I said, I have no problem with how anyone wants to live, so long as they aren't trying to decide that for the rest of us.



I suggest YOU do YOUR homework.



The fact you use the term "feminazi" (snicker) really tells me all I need to know. Good luck to you.


Could the anger aimed at the Duggar's be because the idea of such an enormous family is thought to be morally repugnant to many people today?



The Earth is 24,859 miles in circumference. It's not getting any bigger. There are 6.7 billion humans currently living on earth. 100 years ago the population was 1.7 billion. 200 years ago it was 980 million.



Eventually, if we keep up the population pace, some (or all) people are going to starve to death. Plain and simple. There are already food riots going on around the planet. Blame it on gas prices, war, socio-economic problems, global warming or whatever. The bottom line is too many people and not enough resources.



Of course, if we kill our planet by literally consuming it, no one will be left to point fingers at anyway.


Not really. It's an illogical post. Many times when people cry "hypocrisy!" it's because they have a very shallow understanding of the issues. The reasons for supporting abortion at the same time as believing that humans shouldn't be bringing large numbers of children onto the planet are different. Abortion can be more fully said to be between a woman and her own body, on balance. Bringing huge numbers of kids onto an already overburdened planet is a social issue that others have some legitimate business to be concerned about.



In fact, if you wanted to make the "issue" a population/environmental one, then it would be MOST consistent to be for bringing less children onto the planet, hence, pro-abortion, pro-smaller family per individual woman.


Well, no one here is arguing that they "shouldn't be able to" so your point is moot. I think at most what anyone is arguing is that there should be some social stigma against it (the same way that if you do anything else that's social irresponsible but not illegal you might get some negativity, but you're still able to do it. Big deal). "So what is the issue?" Really? Have read this thread? You're arguing against things that haven't been said, and ignoring what has been said.



It doesn't really matter though. If humans don't put some control on their use of resources and destroying the planet, the earth is going to start writing pink slips for us regardless.


First off, how do you know how "good" they are? Do you know them?



As for abiding by their religion "fully"--that concept is more open to interpretation than anything I can think of. The KKK believed that they were living their religion fully. As do Islamic terrorists. You'd be amazed at some of the ideas that folks can wrench out of obscure passages of ancient manuscripts.


i also agree with the fact that theyre building an army. there are 18 kids. how many girls? betcha they all pop out a ton of babies, too. and the guys will find women to brainwash into leading that lifestyle as well. i'm thinking cult...

Morgan_TX
05-13-2008, 07:06 PM
I know this is really off topic- morgantx, I"m curious, when your husband left you, why didn't the members of your community step in to help you? Maybe I missed some details in your earlier posts, but if the conservative christian community is so supportive to stay at home moms, they should have offered assistance when your husband left you and maybe helped you meet another mate?

Our problem was the move. We were conservative Christian in Arizona, but then (because my husband was an idiot about finances) we had to move to Texas. When we moved to Texas, he told me that I had to go back to work and put the kids back in public school, so when we moved to Texas, I didn't KNOW anybody in the conservative Christian community. I had to work Sundays, so I couldn't even go to church, and my ex stopped even pretending to be Christian at that time.

When he left, I was angry. I spent weeks in prayer, just praying that God would turn his heart back towards me. He didn't. Finally, my anger at my husband turned into anger towards God. At this point, I was receiving no financial support from my husband and I had my kids to think about. I tried working minimum wage jobs (since that was all I could get), but there was a waiting list for daycare assistance, and my daycare would've been $800 a month (while my income would've been $5.25/hr at 30 hours/wk, for about $630/month). I was angry at my ex and angry at God, so I said Fuck it and started dancing.

And Starfire, I think your perspective IS different because you don't have kids. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it is what it is. You can work as many or as few nights as you want. I can only work when I can find childcare. You can work nights and go to school during the days. I can't do that because I can't afford childcare.

My ex-husband fathered two sons with me, and then he just walked away. He only takes his visitation when he's not otherwise scheduled to work. He pays NO daycare or baby-sitting costs. He doesn't even pay his child support (meager as it is). He took out loans to pay his divorce attorney, while I didn't have the credit to do that. In short, he built a family with me--one that I assumed would last forever--and then he just walked away, leaving me holding the bag. And he can legally do that, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it except get out there and shake my ass.

virgoamm
05-13-2008, 07:19 PM
My ex-husband fathered two sons with me, and then he just walked away. He only takes his visitation when he's not otherwise scheduled to work. He pays NO daycare or baby-sitting costs. He doesn't even pay his child support (meager as it is). He took out loans to pay his divorce attorney, while I didn't have the credit to do that. In short, he built a family with me--one that I assumed would last forever--and then he just walked away, leaving me holding the bag. And he can legally do that, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it except get out there and shake my ass.


Don't you think that very reason right there might be why most of us love our independence? To know that no matter what, we have some kind of career or education to fall back on in case something exactly like that happens? Not saying that it's fair or right, but in the end all you can truly depend on is yourself. Sad as it may be-you never know what life will throw your way.

Morgan_TX
05-13-2008, 07:27 PM
^^^I know that now.

I want to add that my ex-husband was NEVER a conservative Christian. He played the role for awhile (I think to try to keep me in line), but never really WANTED to, so he didn't do it for very long. He wasn't raised in that culture and didn't like it, so what happened to me is NOT what normally happens to women who are fully in that culture.

I miss my babies. I miss my clean house. I miss all of the things I used to have. And maybe it's illogical, but I would go back to that in a heartbeat if I had the opportunity.

Instead, I'm stuck in this hell, working until I finally die. THIS--what I go through on a daily basis--this is hell to me. This is NOT what I've ever truly wanted, and yet I have no CHOICE.

Women aren't free. We never have been, and unless we completely disregard our biology through lifetime contraception, we never will be. But at least these women have some measure of security.

ETA: I need to get back on some happy pills or something. The more I think about this, the more depressed I become. I suppose in the end, it'll either be medication or suicide. I'm sorry.