Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Chrissy on September 05, 2009, 10:40:34 PM
-
Somebody needs to hand the Duggers some condoms :laugh:
http://blog.al.com/entertainment-press-register/2009/09/michelle_duggar_pregant_again.html
-
Seeing as how they are more than capable of supporting their brood and seem to teach their offspring the same sort of values I have no problem with it.
-
Probably more kids than I'd like to have (gotta start adopting at some point imho). However, they can afford them and they raise them well, so I have no problem with their choice. The legions of people who hate them irrationally will be along shortly. :rolleyes:
-
I don't hate them. I do wonder if each child is receiving the amount of attention one needs from their parents in order to be a emotionally developed person though.
-
We note with some surprise that having more than three kids is about all it takes to get your own TV show right now. Am I the only one who's more fascinated by this fact, than by the fact that some people reproduce more than other people?
And is it acceptable to switch from the editorial we to the first person in the same paragraph? :)
-
I don't hate them. I do wonder if each child is receiving the amount of attention one needs from their parents in order to be a emotionally developed person though.
To the best of my knowledge the older children help to take care of the younger ones. That said I think they passed silly a few children back. But the children show no signs of any sort of neglect so I have no reason to think they're bad people.
-
We note with some surprise that having more than three kids is about all it takes to get your own TV show right now.
Technically, the number cut-off seems to be "12".
Do I think this is the best way to raise children? No.
Do I think these people should have their children taken away? No. There are plenty of 'nuclear' families who are worse than this.
On the other hand:
How healthy it is for your children to make your life a reality TV show?
-
Technically, the number cut-off seems to be "12".
Do I think this is the best way to raise children? No.
Do I think these people should have their children taken away? No. There are plenty of 'nuclear' families who are worse than this.
On the other hand:
How healthy it is for your children to make your life a reality TV show?
I wonder about that last point myself.
On the first point, google John and Kate Plus 8.
-
Eight is still a lot, a lot of kids.
-
Eight is still a lot, a lot of kids.
Meh. I doubt it's that many, in the long view. For modern Americans, yes, but we tend to have small families.
-
Meh. I doubt it's that many, in the long view. For modern Americans, yes, but we tend to have small families.
According to this book (http://tinyurl.com/ny2r7b), around the 18th century the average Philadelphia household had 5.2 people in it. A working-class woman was expected to give birth to 4-5 children throughout her lifetime, but of course not all of them survived.
-
1. Not my cup of tea.
2. Not any of my business.
-
I don't hate them. Does anyone know what they do for a living, or are they just supported by their reality show? There is also the issue of each child getting the attention they should be having. There's no way with that many children that they can give each one the attention they should be having. If the older ones are taking care of the younger ones, is that fair? The adults shouldn't expect their older children to be parents when they didn't have the children.
No, the children aren't abused, yes they are able to support them, but I still don't think it's good for the children to have that many siblings.
-
Except for my siblings, I'd have been an only child.
-
They own commercial real estate. One of their ventures is a strip of warehouse buildings, and some of their others include land that has cell phone towers on it.
They are a bit creepy and uninteresting. Wife watches the show from time to time.
Under Obamacare, I heard that a Death Panel will make them give back some of the kids...
:laugh:
-
I don't hate them, but I wonder when her uterus will just plain fall out... :O
-
I don't hate them, but I wonder when her uterus will just plain fall out... :O
Dunno, but when that happens someone could get a hot air balloon out of it... =D
-
I don't hate them, but I wonder when her uterus will just plain fall out...
I just wonder how he can get the job done anymore...I mean, getting a couple extra stitches after the birth can only do so much.
-
There is also the issue of each child getting the attention they should be having. There's no way with that many children that they can give each one the attention they should be having. If the older ones are taking care of the younger ones, is that fair? The adults shouldn't expect their older children to be parents when they didn't have the children.
Some Romanian immigrants I used to know would find this to be a pretty good laugh, as double-digit broods of children seemed pretty typical for them. I think one family had 12 children and another had 18. They seemed very well-adjusted and happy to me. I don't think I've ever encountered the idea that helping to raise a younger sibling was "unfair," or that it is equivalent to their being parents. I thought it was usually considered very good training for future parents.
I fear such comments are only the typical reaction of the modern Westerner, as we have come to view the two-child family as the norm. I'm not saying 19 children has ever been the usual number, but plenty of people would find 19 to be much more reasonable than 2 or 3.
I have one sibling, FWIW. My parents both have five siblings, but the younger generation just had one or two kids a piece.
-
And is it acceptable to switch from the editorial we to the first person in the same paragraph? :)
Strictly speaking (wearing my editorial hat): No. It allows your schizophrenia to show through. It's better to be either "I" or "we" consistently, at least for the duration of a two-sentence paragraph.
-
It allows your schizophrenia to show through.
Oh, I hate it when that happens. =(
-
Hey, more power to 'em. The Duggers are just doing the job that this American won't do.
Keep the kids off my lawn and there will be no trouble.
-
Every time I see them I want to say "Hey lady, it's a uterus, not a clown car."
-
I fear such comments are only the typical reaction of the modern Westerner, as we have come to view the two-child family as the norm. I'm not saying 19 children has ever been the usual number, but plenty of people would find 19 to be much more reasonable than 2 or 3.
I think everyone you talk to has some number they can't imagine. At this point, my parents get gasps from some people when they find out that they raised 4 children!
I was the oldest of of the four, and I was expected to pull my weight around the house in the form of chores and helping out with my younger siblings. It only made sense that I should he out with things like meals and sibling's homework. I think this dynamic had the effect of building a stronger family, as everyone (kids included) had a part in the running of the household, rather than the dynamic I see today where many parents are essentially servants for their children. Hell, I can't remember the last time I saw a teenager mowing a lawn.
Another interesting thing about the US in the past few years is how the family has gotten considerably smaller while the size of the typical house has grown. Now you will see a dynamic where family members all retreat to their respective rooms in the evening to watch enjoy their own TVs, Computers etc. There is less and less sharing of spaces and devices. Kids sharing rooms (as I did) is now looked on as something odd, or something only poor families do.
The Duggars certainly have more children than my wife and I would attempt, but they aren't placing a burden on the welfare system, unlike many families with far fewer children. It doesn't sound like their kids are getting into any trouble either.
-
I just wonder how he can get the job done anymore...I mean, getting a couple extra stitches after the birth can only do so much.
The vagina and uterus are basically large muscular organs, meaning if the muscles are kept well toned they will retain their size properly. There are exercises for this.
-
The vagina and uterus are basically large muscular organs, meaning if the muscles are kept well toned they will retain their size properly. There are exercises for this.
There are no exercises for the uterus and vagina, per se. You might be thinking of a Kegel for the pelvic floor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegel_exercise
-
There are no exercises for the uterus and vagina, per se. You might be thinking of a Kegel for the pelvic floor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegel_exercise
Yes, you're correct, I was a tad off there.
-
There are no exercises for the uterus and vagina, per se. You might be thinking of a Kegel for the pelvic floor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegel_exercise
Do they make videos with awful music for these?
Apparently, my wife is convinced that exercise isn't useful unless accompanied by Glenn Frey, <insert random French rap group here> or worse.
-
Every time I see them I want to say "Hey lady, it's a uterus, not a clown car."
I guess if they were using fertility treatments, I could see where you're coming from.
If not, then they're just letting nature take its course, right? How would that be any kind of mistreatment of the uterus? Isn't that just treating the uterus like a uterus?
Or are they using fertility drugs? Not that such drugs are necessarily wrong, either.
-
I guess if they were using fertility treatments, I could see where you're coming from.
If not, then they're just letting nature take its course, right? How would that be any kind of mistreatment of the uterus? Isn't that just treating the uterus like a uterus?
Or are they using fertility drugs? Not that such drugs are necessarily wrong, either.
He
Wants
To
Say
It
Because
its
Funny.
-
I've known several people that came from Very Large (IE 10+ kids) families. Each one has been well adjusted and just as "normal" as anyone else. One of my co-workers had 15 siblings growing up. As mentioned, in these large families generally the older kids help care for the younger ones and none of the children are starved for attention.
I see no problem with very large families. And frankly, unless you're interested in Uterus Control / government-mandated family-sizes, it's none of anyone else's business how many children a couple have, so long as they can afford to care for them, and there is no neglect/abuse/etc.
-
If I had been shackled with the childcare of my parents other kids when I was in my mid-late teens, I would have been far from enthused. Another poster mentioned it and I agree. The old children are not parents. They did not choose to be parents. And I can't speak for them, but for me, I would have been VERY opposed to the idea of having to act as a parent in my teens just because my parents wanted to keep having kids but couldn't do the job themselves.
-
More provincialism from the two-to-three kids is normal culture, that can't see outside of their own experience.
Where is it written that older siblings should never be expected to care for younger? I favor individualism as much as any Lockean American Tea Party extremist, but let's not go crazy. Being fifteen or eighteen does not grant an automatic right to live in your own world and have no responsibilities.
-
Being fifteen or eighteen does not grant an automatic right to live in your own world and have no responsibilities.
Why does it seem to me that the word "responsibility" has been stretched a lot lately?
-
I believe large families were a throwback to days when infant mortality was high, and the cheap labor of multiple children was more of a blessing than bane.
My maternal grandfather came from a litter of 10. That's a goodly amount of farmhands right there.
-
2-3 IS normal, when you look at the history of humanity. Large families were the result of the relatively recent agricultural revolution, where sedentary farmers were able to produce a lot of surplus food, but needed large amounts of labor to do it. Prior to then, when most humans were hunter/gatherers, human families were typically fairly small as there wasn't enough food around to have a lot of extra children. Large families are again starting to go by the wayside as a result of longer life expectancies and the decrease in labor needed to produce food.
-
If I had been shackled with the childcare of my parents other kids when I was in my mid-late teens, I would have been far from enthused. Another poster mentioned it and I agree. The old children are not parents. They did not choose to be parents. And I can't speak for them, but for me, I would have been VERY opposed to the idea of having to act as a parent in my teens just because my parents wanted to keep having kids but couldn't do the job themselves.
Exactly. Call me odd or something, but I figure it's the job of the parents to, you know, actually be parents. Not the older siblings. Like you, I would've been less than amused about the idea of it. Wonder if any of the older kids will rebel and declare themselves childfree because of it?
-
Exactly. Call me odd or something, but I figure it's the job of the parents to, you know, actually be parents. Not the older siblings. Like you, I would've been less than amused about the idea of it. Wonder if any of the older kids will rebel and declare themselves childfree because of it?
They'd be going against their parents wishes and the religious beliefs they have been taught since birth...not likely. Though I say that would be interesting.
-
They'd be going against their parents wishes and the religious beliefs they have been taught since birth...not likely. Though I say that would be interesting.
Why not? Happens often that kids rebel against the religious, political or other social beliefs of their parents. I lurk on the childfree groups at Livejournal, and there's no lack of people there who just decided to go against "family tradition" so to speak of having a litter of kids, often because they had to be extra-parents for their younger siblings, which instilled what is sometimes pure hate of every human being under the age of 18. Just sayin'...
-
Oh, the oppression! Wolverines!!
-
From what I gather from my conversations with previously referenced persons that grew up in large families, helping out with the other kids (emphasis on "helping out," the older kids don't take over the parenting) is just the way it is; that is, not a negative thing, but just how life was.
I've never heard any of them express contempt for the fact that they helped out, on the contrary most seemed to enjoy their family situation. I'm sure there are those who feel poorly about their situation, but I would guess that on average those that grow up in big families just don't have the attitudes Ragnar and Viking are imagining they'd have in similar situations due to the fact that that's what they were used to.
Of course there will be those that decide not to have children, etc., but children rebel against their parents' ways all the time regardless of the specifics of the family structure.
-
Oh, the oppression! Wolverines!!
Remember, nobody is being oppressed.
There is no oppression.
By choosing to be born and live in Society you implicitly accept all of its regulations, requirements, registration and licensing rules, etc. etc. Society is Sacred. Remember, Society can impose any kind of rule on you and - since you willingly disobeyed Society - she can impose any kind of punishment on you she wants. After all, you can't have freedom without responsibility.
Furthermore, parents - and parental figures - should be morally allowed to impose any kind of duties whatever on any children before the magical age of 18, to impose physical punishment (spanking, for example). Parental consent is to be required for any serious activity on behalf of the young people in question. Remember, perfect obedience to parents is one of the responsibilities of childhood, just as perfect obedience to Mother Society is one of the responsibilities of adulthood.
By choosing to rail against the Sacred Edicts of Mother Society or against the Holy Traditional Family, you are simply proving yourself Immature and Individualistic. Submit now, citizen, and life will be made much easier for you!
-
Wow, I had a little bit of satire all worked up, but MicroBalrog just blew it all away. I can't match that kind of silliness.
-
edited since i may have had my head up till i find out one way or the other if those who quoted me could change their posts i think mb deserves that
-
your railing against society and fealty to ones parents will gain cred immensely once you leave home till then? perhaps not so much
Agreed.
-
your railing against society and fealty to ones parents will gain cred immensely once you leave home till then? perhaps not so much
1. I rail against neither.
2. Ad hominem.
-
Guys, I think MB's post was tongue-in-cheek. ;)
-
in that case i apologise wouldn't be the first time i missede something shoot lower for me mb
-
your railing against society and fealty to ones parents will gain cred immensely once you leave home till then? perhaps not so much
ZING!
That'll leave a mark.
-
I'm not sure he's being serious folks, though
I wouldn't be surprised either. I've been surprised in the past.
There I think that sounds better.
-
Obviously, my post is parody.
If one can parody the "we are being oppressed" sentiment, then I can parody the inverse.
If you can laugh at the wookie suit guys, I can laugh at the tie-wearers.
-
That's quite a lot of kids.
One more and they'll have equaled my paternal grandparents.
Of course, the difference is, this family seems to be able to support their progeny.
-
Well, the kids can take a pass on getting a big inheritance from the parents, 1/19th share.
I have 4 aunts and 7 uncles from my dads side, yep, for those who kept score 12 kids, and no, they were not Mormon or Catholic.
-
Well, since they can afford their large family, more power to them.
Most kids form super-sized families I have know have been good folks.
As far as the 1/19 share of an inheritance, my reaction is, "Meh."
I figure that if my folks blow every penny, but leave enough to plant them in the ground, they'll be doing well. I hope they enjoy all the money they worked hard for and feel like I am owed not one red cent.
-
What exactly is the point of having so many kids?
Oh. They (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family) are members of a cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull). Should have known.
Putting your family on a reality show is not a sign of good mental health.
Of course I'm biased, like everyone else, but I'd prefer that parents keen on having large families are 1) smart and 2) not members of cults. The Duggar parents are questionable on criterion 1 (evangelicals tend to be morons, but I don't know enough about the Duggars in particular to know for sure), and fail criterion 2.
-
tyme, I'd ask you explain why you think the Quiverfolk are a cult, but given the bigotry you display, why bother?
Obviously, my post is parody. If one can parody the "we are being oppressed" sentiment, then I can parody the inverse. If you can laugh at the wookie suit guys, I can laugh at the tie-wearers.
If your post made any sense at all, you only succeeded in making sport of those heroes of the revolution who are ready to overthrow the dastardly rule of Mommy and Daddy.
Why does it seem to me that the word "responsibility" has been stretched a lot lately?
I think it's "opression" or "abuse" that are getting stretched. Since you're so sex-positive, I hope you're not taking a child-negative position. Are you?
-
What exactly is the point of having so many kids?
Oh. They (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family) are members of a cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull). Should have known.
Putting your family on a reality show is not a sign of good mental health.
Of course I'm biased, like everyone else, but I'd prefer that parents keen on having large families are 1) smart and 2) not members of cults. The Duggar parents are questionable on criterion 1 (evangelicals tend to be morons, but I don't know enough about the Duggars in particular to know for sure), and fail criterion 2.
Care to explain how their beliefs fit the definition of a cult?
-
Cult: n. 1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
Encouraging people (in God's name) to have as many children as they're biologically capable of is extreme. Most evangelical christian churches have charismatic leaders, but in any case asserting that the group's central directive comes from God is the ultimate in authoritarianism. I think the burden is on you to explain why this Quiverfull nonsense is NOT a cult.
-
Exactly which charismatic leader are they following again?
-
It looks like the Duggars (Jim Bob and Michelle) have become charismatic leaders of sorts for the movement. How they got started, I don't know, and it seems unlikely that I could figure it out now that they've had 20 years to apply historical revisionism to their early motivations.
-
So you're saying the Duggars have set themselves up as a leader of the cult, and that the other members have to follow them?
-
You know that historians of religion avoid using the word 'cult', right?
-
Micro, there's not much point in making rational criticism of such anti-religious mania. Just be glad that someone made not one, but two posts more ridiculous than your rant against the Parental Tyranny.
But hey, at least we've found a lifestyle choice we can criticize without being accused of hate speech. Poor Duggars. They should have just listened to Planned Parenthood; murdered those kids in the womb. At least that wouldn't offend anybody.
-
If you have an idea, and it becomes known, and other people choose to join in, and you form a voluntary association to discuss it, how exactly is that a "cult"?
By that definition APS is a cult and fistful is Our Charismatic Scapegoat.
Deciding to not use contraception and trusting in God (or nature) to control your fertility is hardly "extreme" as far as beliefs, religious or not, go.
-
You would be sorely mistaken if you took me for a great fan of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
But I recognize that - unlike what some would have us believe - Evangelicals are probably, overall, a positive influence on modern politics, and furthermore, that calling certain groups of people 'cults' because you disagree with their beliefs is... not informative.
-
Cult: n. 1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
Encouraging people (in God's name) to have as many children as they're biologically capable of is extreme.
Uh, your link supports neither the definition copypasta'd(1) nor your synopsis(2).
Are you reading some other link you have yet to share or just writing what you wished the link said?
Notes:
(1) Not seeing any authoritarian leader type in the wiki. And even if one were to concede the Duggars are now somehow leaders of this, I do not see any mechanism for them to assert authority on others that share their beliefs.
(2) I read nothing about maximizing offspring, which would require affirmative action. On the contrary, they simply do nothing to prevent pregnancy. Furthermore, the link provided explicitly states they do not use the rhythm method, which has some facility for increasing the odds of pregnancy. In any case, truly maximize one's offspring in this age would require the use of fertility drugs, which are mentioned in the wiki as something to be avoided.
To put a finer point on it, I suspect the initial cult claim was an example of "talking out yer backside" and the later posts as "covering yer backside."
-
fistful is Our Charismatic Scapegoat.
That much I agree with.
It may be helpful to keep in mind that, until fairly recently, most Christian denominations did not look kindly on birth control. Or so I am told. It's a little bit troublesome to pin the cult label on a group, when their main distinctive is observing a more traditonal doctrinal position.
For the record, and without getting into detail, my wife and I are nowhere near the Quiverful point of view.
-
I think there's only one post, and one poster, who went so far as to describe the Duggars as "cultists".
I'm not saying I agree with that point of view, just that it's a somewhat lonely opinion in this particular thread.
-
Then there's the issue of a forum administrator claiming that evangelicals tend to be morons. Yikes. While I know any number of evangelicals who give that impression, still...
-
I'd think any poster (let alone a mod/admin) calling people of any religious persuasion insulting names would be grounds for corrective action. Perhaps our friend tyme would care to apologize to all the forumites he's just slandered. Or are Christians now part of the "groups it's ok to call names on APS" club?
-
Ok. So we have a couple that is having a bunch of babies.
They're not using drugs to do it.
They're not on the public dole to support the kids.
The kids seem fairly well adjusted.
And members of THIS forum are making a fuss?
What the hell: did DU infiltrate while I wasn't looking?
I've seen such arguments and accusations thrown on some of the pagan boards. For the record, the one I used to mod banned a poster for starting up on these people.
When (and if) they become a drag on society, THEN y'all can start critisizing. S'long's they're taking care of their own business, we should keep our noses out!
-
Uh oh, I've been outed as an anti-cult cultist!
I'd think any poster (let alone a mod/admin) calling people of any religious persuasion insulting names
Evangelical fundamentalists, which is the large subset of evangelicals to which I was referring, are not morons. I'm sorry if that was taken by anyone as a personal insult, and I was not intending to demean anyone's intelligence. I was trying to condense to a word the conflict between science and their advocacy of certain parts of their belief system, and it doesn't condense well to one word. I have it on good authority that evangelicals are "probably, overall, a positive influence on modern politics."
(1) Not seeing any authoritarian leader type in the wiki. And even if one were to concede the Duggars are now somehow leaders of this, I do not see any mechanism for them to assert authority on others that share their beliefs.
First of all, the husbands and/or fathers seem to be the real authoritarians in this cult. And I'm sure they all have reasonably charismatic leaders of their local churches.
The Duggars have thier own reality TV show, which promises to be little more than an advertisement for the Quiverfull movement. They self-identify as Quiverfull adherents. They don't have to assert authority over anyone. They're walking examples of the prosperity possible under their *gag* wonderful lifestyle. Like Tom Cruise for Scientology.
(2) I read nothing about maximizing offspring, which would require affirmative action. On the contrary, they simply do nothing to prevent pregnancy. Furthermore, the link provided explicitly states they do not use the rhythm method, which has some facility for increasing the odds of pregnancy. In any case, truly maximizing one's offspring in this age would require the use of fertility drugs, which are mentioned in the wiki as something to be avoided.
Wow, that's a pretty nice twisting of concepts. They go further than doing nothing to prevent pregnancy. They have sex.
They're not maximizing offspring because they don't resort to heroic scientific methods that may or may not increase the average number of births per woman. Of course! The fact that the women are still baby factories means nothing. Of course you're right, it's not technically maximized if fertility drugs and artificial insemination could increase the average birth rate by even .1 children per woman per lifetime. It's not clear to me that they would increase it. Fertility drugs increase multiple pregnancies which increase complications which increase chances of future infertility, and artificial insemination often doesn't work even with fertility drugs... thought I don't know statistics, perhaps the success rate is better than attempting to conceive naturally these days? Those are still heroic scientific methods, and they could easily be rejected by cult doctrine for that reason alone.
Officially advocating the rhythm method would give women an excuse for not having sex when they're probably not fertile. I suspect that's why it's not advocated. The Quiverfull cult also emphasizes patriarchy. Or maybe they don't advocate the rhythm method because they're so drunk on the kool-aid that they can't read a calendar. I have no idea which.
It may be helpful to keep in mind that, until fairly recently, most Christian denominations did not look kindly on birth control.
But hey, at least we've found a lifestyle choice we can criticize without being accused of hate speech. Poor Duggars. They should have just listened to Planned Parenthood; murdered those kids in the womb.
In mainstream Christian denominations, people violate that prohibition all the time. Not so in the extremist cult denominations. The women can't violate it without being kicked out, and often in multi-generational cults like this, that means giving up the only social support network they've ever known.
It doesn't look like a lifestyle choice. It looks like coercion.
They should listen to Planned Parenthood, but not about abortion. Believe it or not, PP offers a lot of information in addition to their pamphlets on "how to cheaply hire a licensed hitman to kill your child."
You're so concerned about the parents rights. That's fine to a degree, but shouldn't you be just as concerned about kids who are being raised to believe that their purpose in life is to be baby factories? This is not Saudi Arabia. That crap shouldn't fly, and it shouldn't be permitted in the name of parents' rights.
-
Permitted?
Are you implying these people should be somehow 'prohibited' from having more children?
How do you propose we deal with this?
If you suggest this is probably not the best way to raise a family, I'm with you all the way. I begin to be concerned when the words 'permitted' and 'allowed' are being heard.
-
What exactly is the point of having so many kids?
Oh. They (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family) are members of a cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull). Should have known.
Putting your family on a reality show is not a sign of good mental health.
Of course I'm biased, like everyone else, but I'd prefer that parents keen on having large families are 1) smart and 2) not members of cults. The Duggar parents are questionable on criterion 1 (evangelicals tend to be morons, but I don't know enough about the Duggars in particular to know for sure), and fail criterion 2.
Wonder how quick a moderator would step on me if I made the same inferences about Muslims :rolleyes:
-
Officially advocating the rhythm method would give women an excuse for not having sex when they're probably not fertile. I suspect that's why it's not advocated.
As someone with firsthand experience with timing-based birth control, I strongly suspect so as well. I would advise any males to think carefully about the possible social ramifications of such methods. I wouldn't quite put it as harshly as "giving them an excuse not to have sex" but I think there are some rather strong psychological effects introduced when the woman knows that she cannot get pregnant. The resulting vicious cycle of never having sex when she's fertile and then never having sex when she's not fertile either can indeed be very effective birth control, but without many of the advantages of bachelorhood.
Also, the "rhythm method" technically refers to crude calendar-based methods that are ineffective (depending on your definition of effective). Methods of timing-based birth control that use physiological symptoms to determine actual ovulation with a substantial degree of accuracy are known as fertility awareness methods (FAM).
-
Stand: I never made such inferences about Christians in general. This is an extreme subset of Christians who have some very outside-the-mainstream beliefs. These subsets are practically nonexistent in Christianity in Europe. It's a pathology quite specific to the U.S. To wit:
As Quiverfull author Rachel Scott writes in her 2004 movement book, "Birthing God's Mighty Warriors," "Children are our ammunition in the spiritual realm to whip the enemy! These special arrows were handcrafted by the warrior himself and were carefully fashioned to achieve the purpose of annihilating the enemy."
Quiverfull advocates Rick and Jan Hess, authors of 1990's "A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ," envision the worldly gains such a method could bring, if more Christians began producing "full quivers" of "arrows for the war": control of both houses of Congress, the "reclamation" of sinful cities like San Francisco and massive boycotts of companies that do not comply with conservative Christian mores. "If the body of Christ had been reproducing as we were designed to do," the Hesses write, "we would not be in the mess we are today." Nancy Campbell, author of another movement book from 2003 called "Be Fruitful and Multiply," exhorts Christian women to do just that with promises of spiritual glory. "Oh what a vision," she writes, "to invade the earth with mighty sons and daughters who have been trained and prepared for God's divine purposes."
from http://www.newsweek.com/id/189763
These people can do whatever they want with their own bodies and believe whatever they want, but they are intent on destroying (through a multi-generational out-breeding plan) the heathens.
More importantly, they are USING THEIR CHILDREN AS WEAPONS. They are not bringing them into the world, trying to educate them the best they can, and respecting their kids' choices, dreams... daughters' dreams of careers. Nope. They are weapons, and their daughters will be indoctrinated to want nothing more in life than to produce the next generation of warriors, who will be similarly indoctrinated.
-
indoctrinated
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
but they are intent on destroying (through a multi-generational out-breeding plan) the heathens.
Was there a point you had with this? I must be missing the obvious outrageous element that springs out at you. Is it that they are raising (excuse me, "indoctrinating") their own children according to the principles they feel are important rather than daycaring them, then public schooling them, then colleging them, all the while "respecting their choices" the whole time, and basically instead allowing contemporary western culture to indoctrinate their children with its own values, most of which involve buying lots of coca-cola and selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors?
Who says they are not educating their children the best they can? You? Because I didn't really get that.
Who said it's bad if their daughters don't want careers? Why should they? Because you think they should? Have some kids and indoctrinate them to want careers. It's all the rage. Careers suck.
They have a stated mission to further their beliefs through bringing children into the world that are raised (indoctrinated) to share their beliefs. This doesn't bother me in principle, and it's not a new force in the world. If they weren't doing it, someone else would be raising full stables of muslims, scientologists, hindus, or whatever. Muslims are big on moving into fresh breeding grounds and popping out puppies far out of proportion to the native enlightened populations. Catholocism has been a vocal supporter of the "outbreed them" stategy for centuries, continuing today.
I don't know what these people's beliefs are, but if I had kids, they would learn that communism is bad, that one should be responsible for their own actions, that one shouldn't eat yellow snow, and that Steely Dan is the best band in the world. I suppose I'm just one of those old fashioned sick bastards that would dare um, what was it called before? raise children. That's a job for the State nowadays.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
-
First of all, the husbands and/or fathers seem to be the real authoritarians in this cult. And I'm sure they all have reasonably charismatic leaders of their local churches.
Well, if that is the way you're going to argue, you're going to have to use a word other than "cult" to describe it, because the definition you quoted does not resemble what you wrote.
Wow, that's a pretty nice twisting of concepts. They go further than doing nothing to prevent pregnancy. They have sex.
The horror...
Uh, yeah. Adults have been doing that for a long time. Maybe you missed that bit in your education?
Or is the idea of procreative sex scandalous to you?
Neo-Pruitatheism: "The pervasive fear that someone, somewhere is having fun sex." Neo-prudery is even more hardcore than the old bluehaired bluenoses: even (especially) sex inside marriage is to be discouraged.
I can see how some might fear or envy the readily apparent fact that "the boots are a-knockin'" at a high rate in fundie households. The scary fundies might not believe in Darwin & evolution, but their adaptations are much more Darwin-friendly than the average atheist, against whom they have a roughly 3:1 advantage in birth rate (atheist birth rate being well below replacement rate).
Pretty funny when you think about it: in the competition to determine the Darwinian survival of the fittest, the fittest do not believe in the very competition they are bound to win.
They're not maximizing offspring because they don't resort to heroic scientific methods that may or may not increase the average number of births per woman. Of course!
Dude, lack of prevention != maximization.
They are having sex, but not using any of the common methods of contraception. You consider this "have[ing] as many children as they're biologically capable of." My point was that this is an incorrect understanding. Not minimizing an event is not equivalent to maximizing an event. Minimization and maximization, in this context, both require artifice. Minimization would require the use of condoms, birth prevention meds, and the like. Maximization would require birth promotion meds, explicit timing/diagnostics, etc. None of this is "heroic" by any stretch of the imagination.
You're so concerned about the parents rights. That's fine to a degree, but shouldn't you be just as concerned about kids who are being raised to believe that their purpose in life is to be baby factories? This is not Saudi Arabia. That crap shouldn't fly, and it shouldn't be permitted in the name of parents' rights.
Yeah, there oughta be a law forcing scary Christians to abort their kids if they are so gauche as to breed above replacement rate.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
MP: TMoL was a scream. My favorite was the organ donation crew.
-
evangelicals tend to be morons
Has he retracted that yet? If not, I'm not sure why anyone's taking him seriously.
Oh. They (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family) are members of a cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull). Should have known.
Reliance on Wikipedia is bad enough, but when it doesn't even support your point of view? Interesting.
-
Now, I am not known to be in favor of monogamy, or the traditional family, or Christianity. And the concept of "children as ammunition" is indeed creepy as hell to me. And frankly, if the children of the Duggars grew up to become high-earning porn stars and strippers and video game designers, I'd laugh horribly at their outrage.
That said, however:
There is no single model on how to 'correctly' raise a family. I prefer – as I have explained on this thread several times – families with one or two children because I think that children deserve parental attention and mothers and fathers need to be available to grant it. However, in my view, none of the different models (unless actual child abuse is involved) should be illegal, or 'shunned'.
The idea of militant atheism – WHAT? YOU DARE TO BELIEVE THERE MIGHT BE A GOD AND OBJECTIVE MORALITY? WHY YOU HEATHEN DON'T YOU KNOW ABOUT THE INQUISITION AND GALILEO AND YOU HATE WOMEN – one where you condemn people as fools for believing in different concepts than you do is entirely foreign to me. The idea that people are somehow made less competent and intelligent than me because they have weird beliefs is distasteful. Its final result (though I am sure tyme does not personally intend on this) is anti-cult legislation like France and Germany already have, to suppress not just religious groups like Scientologists, but 'evil Evangelicals'.
My disagreement with the sexual habits of the Duggars is not as much a moral condemnation – I am, in fact, sex-positive enough to realize sex habits are not a questin of morality – but rather a pragmatic one, based on my belief that this is not the best way to raise children who will be free citizens in a Republic.
Reasonably, if I am to support homosexual marriages, open relationships, polygamy, swinging and strippers running for office (all of this I have supported previously on this forum), and reproductive choice, there is no escape from supporting the reproductive choice of the Duggars, even as I suggest it to be an inferior manner of raising one's children.
Consider a gun analogy: I support people's right to bear arms. I would like gun laws to go away. I may not subscribe to the notion that a 10.5” .22LR rifle mounted in a wheelbarrow is an adequate sniper weapon, but I would never dream of opposing your right to utilize that as your means of home defense. I would say it is a bad gun, and it might get you horribly killed - but because I support your right bear arms, even guns other the ones that make sense, there would be a natural limit to the moral indignation I express based on my tolerance and acceptance of your individual liberty.
-
Has he retracted that yet? If not, I'm not sure why anyone's taking him seriously.
Quote from: tyme on September 06, 2009, 09:36:25 PM
evangelicals tend to be morons
Reliance on Wikipedia is bad enough, but when it doesn't even support your point of view? Interesting.
No he hasn't retracted it yet. The most he gave was a "you must have misunderstood me" type answer. Though I'm not really sure how he expects us to believe "evangelicals tend to be morons" can be "misunderstood" to mean anything other than what is plainly written. And yes, if you or I had said that about someone else here, we would be facing corrective action.
-
Just to let you all know - I ain't going near this one with a 10ft...
-
Just to answer the original post, though, I can indeed say "Birth Control." Birth Control, Birth Control, Birth Control. Happy? :P
-
That's typing it, not saying it.
-
Well, I have neither microphone nor webcam, so just take my word for it. I say it whenever, well, you know. Pastor said if we just say it, it will keep us from having babies God doesn't want us to have. Actually, I just say it myself. We don't let women talk, in our
cult church, I mean church.
-
Just to answer the original post, though, I can indeed say "Birth Control." Birth Control, Birth Control, Birth Control. Happy? :P
COOL! =D
Not meaning to start any arguments with this thread - everybody has an opinion and they're entitled to it. To agree that others can disagree with us means we are adults. Like I said, I have nothing personal against that family. I just don't think they can give all the kids individual attention and that's a shame that some will get lost in the shuffle. I'm sure they'll grow up fine, but it's still nice to have one on one with mom and dad at times.
-
how many of the folk less than enamoured of the duggers have kids?
-
Not meaning to start any arguments with this thread
You must be new here. :lol:
-
If I had been shackled with the childcare of my parents other kids when I was in my mid-late teens, I would have been far from enthused. Another poster mentioned it and I agree. The old children are not parents. They did not choose to be parents. And I can't speak for them, but for me, I would have been VERY opposed to the idea of having to act as a parent in my teens just because my parents wanted to keep having kids but couldn't do the job themselves.
Did your parents expect you to do any non-child-rearing house chores? Would you have considered those chores to be an unfair imposition on your time, too? Or is it only chores related to helping your siblings that are unfair and unreasonable?
-
Did your parents expect you to do any non-child-rearing house chores? Would you have considered those chores to be an unfair imposition on your time, too? Or is it only chores related to helping your siblings that are unfair and unreasonable?
So, since the parents can impose SOME chores, does this mean it's okay to impose any kind of work whatever?
-
Help, help, I'm bein' oppressed!
-
So, since the parents can impose SOME chores, does this mean it's okay to impose any kind of work whatever?
I think children can and should be expected to help out around the house, and that isn't an imposition on the child to expect him to pitch in. Chores are chores, and I don't see that it makes any difference whether a child is expected to help prepare dinner vs helping a younger sibling out with her homework vs doing some housecleaning vs helping to change a baby's diaper vs mowing the yard vs babysitting for a bit while the parents do other useful stuff.
Ragnar's remark strikes me as being entirely self-centered, petulant, and based in a mindset that believes kids should get to be free-loaders at their parents' expense. I figured I'd give Ragnar the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not how he meant the remark to be taken. So I asked for some clarification. Does he think it's wrong for parents to expect a child to give any sort of help around the house, or is it only help with siblings that he has a problem with?
-
So, would it be reasonable to ask of a six-year-old to do dishes? All the time?
What about asking an eight-year-old to clean toilets? Fix roofs? No?
P.S. Any kind of child (until they hit a certain age) is by definition a 'freeloader' on the family. He or she does not put as much work and stress and resources as the parents do, and it costs the parents massive amounts of money and work and stress to raise the child - unless the child is working full-time in the field and helping support the family, which is something I think we don't want to return to.
Yes, the proper role of children is to be supported by their parents until they reach adulthood.
But the more important issue here is not the chores. The more difficult issue is that small children require emotional support and attention. Other children, even older ones, are not mature enough to provide this attention in an individual manner as parents do, that's why they're called 'children'. This is the real burden, not the washing of 18 pairs of pants or the preparing of 18 meals.
-
So, would it be reasonable to ask of a six-year-old to do dishes? All the time?
What about asking an eight-year-old to clean toilets? Fix roofs? No?
Are you trying to set up a straw man? I don't hink anyone said that ANY chore was acceptable. In my experience with the dynamic of very large families, (my dad came from a family of 10 kids, and I grew up going to catholic school) older children were generally given chores appropriate to their age and maturity.
-
but the older kids are adults.... or they are in your world when its convenient to your goals. i spent quite a bit of time caring for my siblings more so than most of my friends in my case it "was a japanese thing" that my haole friends thought was weird. heck my lil bro lived with me on and off into his late 30's. wasn't that big a deal in many ways an honor i did the kitchen floors in my house all the time for almost a decade cleaned a toilet or 2 never fantasized that was abuse
-
So, would it be reasonable to ask of a six-year-old to do dishes? All the time?
Yes. Of course. You honestly have a problem with that? Edited to add; I don't know what age would be appropriate for kids to do dishes all the time. Six may be too young, given all the sharp things in the kitchen. Still, you'd have to explain how it would damage a child to have chores.
And, yeah, having your 15-year-old change diapers is exactly the same as having an eight-year-old fix the roof. ???
-
i had my 3 year old working the handle on a hydraulic log splitter. she was pretty proud about being a big help. understood that was what kept us warm in winter. i did get to listen to some mouth about it but strangely enough it was usually from the childless. the one lady with kids who got mouthy visits her son on weekends at the prison in powhatan.
-
But the more important issue here is not the chores. The more difficult issue is that small children require emotional support and attention. Other children, even older ones, are not mature enough to provide this attention in an individual manner as parents do, that's why they're called 'children'. This is the real burden, not the washing of 18 pairs of pants or the preparing of 18 meals.
This is exactly why older kids help out with chores. When they do the dishes, help with meals, wash the clothes, or even babysit younger siblings from time to time, the older children are giving their parents the opportunity to do the heavy lifting of parenting. This, of course, includes emotional support and attention.
-
It's not about doing some chores. It's about the amount and extent that would have to be involved with a household that is roughly 3-5 times larger than normal families. Taking out the trash, mowing the lawn, and that sort of thing is one thing. Being responsible for multiple other humans day and night because the parents are too busy dealing with others is something different entirely. And chores are something I honestly expect from younger children. Once a teen reaches high school, I expect them to be focusing on doing their homework, getting a part time job, learning to pay their own bills, thinking about college, and perhaps doing sports or the arts. This stage in life is where I expect people to start breaking away from the immediate family group and start thinking about their own lives, and maybe their own families. Not become even more immersed in the lives of others. How many part time jobs do you think the older Duggars have? How many sports or arts programs do you think they are involved in? How much time do you think they spend with their own friends, or having study groups at the houses of school mates?
In a family of say 5, the oldest has enough time to do a few things around the house, help the parents with the youngest on occasion when necessary, and still have time to start molding their own life. I don't see this as practical with a family of nearly 20. And I think the eldest are getting shortchanged in terms of building the start of their own lives because of it.
If I ever have kids, and one of them is 17, while another is still a young child, I expect the 17 year old to be too busy working and getting good grades to help me with the other child I chose to have. If I had 19 kids, and I needed the eldest to help babysit 4 or 5 young children some weekday evening, an entirely appropriate response from said eldest would be "I can't. I have basketball practice and then work." Something tells me the eldest Duggars don't take part in too many sports, extracurricular academics, or jobs. And that's a shame.
-
but the older kids are adults.... or they are in your world when its convenient to your goals. i spent quite a bit of time caring for my siblings more so than most of my friends in my case it "was a japanese thing" that my haole friends thought was weird. heck my lil bro lived with me on and off into his late 30's. wasn't that big a deal in many ways an honor i did the kitchen floors in my house all the time for almost a decade cleaned a toilet or 2 never fantasized that was abuse
I did all three of those chores as a child. Nothing wrong with it if under the proper supervision that what I've seen of the Duggar's causes me to believe is no less thorough than that my parents gave me (and they only had four of us)
Now deciding to take Grandma off life support? Killing a man to defend home/hearth? Working out national legal policy regarding early term abortion? Yeah, that's maybe too much to ask of a child.
-
I would not mix three year olds and log splitters. She may not be in any danger, but could put you in some. Granted you should keep your hands out of the way anyhow. Still.
-
So, would it be reasonable to ask of a six-year-old to do dishes? All the time?
No. Six-year-olds can't be trusted not to break the various dishes you have (by accident), may not be tall enough to reach the place where you store those dishes.
What about asking an eight-year-old to clean toilets?
I did, at about that age.
Fix roofs?
Nope. You want talented folk working on the roof, otherwise you may be left with a bigger hole than what you started with.
And FTR, having hired help to wash dishes/sweep floors/etc is not too common in the US. Either the kids or parents (or both) do it.
-
I would not mix three year olds and log splitters. She may not be in any danger, but could put you in some. Granted you should keep your hands out of the way anyhow. Still.
I think if she's just pulling the handle under supervision it'd not be a big deal.
-
I would not mix three year olds and log splitters. She may not be in any danger, but could put you in some. Granted you should keep your hands out of the way anyhow. Still.
congratulations! you sir have split some wood! and are the first one to correctly assess the risks. i hada make real sure she didn't get a finger off me. thankfully splitter moves slow and i wasn't trying to set a speed record. i won't wear gloves doing that kinda stuff rather get splinter than give a finger up.
if this kid didn't look like me i'd think she was someone elses. shes disturbingly calm and mature. her sister on the other hand would think it was cool to see how close she could come to "getting me"
-
now the time she followed me up a ladder to a third story roof on the other hand was scary. she had a good reason though she needed me to take her to go potty
-
How many part time jobs do you think the older Duggars have? How many sports or arts programs do you think they are involved in? How much time do you think they spend with their own friends, or having study groups at the houses of school mates?
Some darned good questions. I'm not intimately familiar with the Duggars, so does anyone else know these details?
In a family of say 5, the oldest has enough time to do a few things around the house, help the parents with the youngest on occasion when necessary, and still have time to start molding their own life. I don't see this as practical with a family of nearly 20. And I think the eldest are getting shortchanged in terms of building the start of their own lives because of it.
I don't see it being a problem. With a family of 20 kids there are more younguns to be looked after, but then again there are proportionately more older sibs to help out. I think it'd even out.
The question is, can the Duggar family make it work? I've seen lots of supposition from people who can't imagine it working out, but no actual evidence that it's been a problem fpr them.
If I ever have kids, and one of them is 17, while another is still a young child, I expect the 17 year old to be too busy working and getting good grades to help me with the other child I chose to have. If I had 19 kids, and I needed the eldest to help babysit 4 or 5 young children some weekday evening, an entirely appropriate response from said eldest would be "I can't. I have basketball practice and then work." Something tells me the eldest Duggars don't take part in too many sports, extracurricular academics, or jobs. And that's a shame.
That's an excellent example of "time management", a skill teenagers need to learn and practice before they get to college and move on to the real world.
Try telling your boss or a prof "I can't, I don't have time". Come back and tell me how well that worked out for you.
And again, I hafta ask if we have any solid reason for believing the Duggar situation is "a shame" beyond the assumption that it must be.
-
HTG spells it out. If someone could give even some anecdotal evidence of the problems they've seen in large families, that would be one thing. Speculation is interesting, but may not correspond to reality.
congratulations! you sir have split some wood! and are the first one to correctly assess the risks. i hada make real sure she didn't get a finger off me. thankfully splitter moves slow and i wasn't trying to set a speed record.
Yes, I have split some wood. With hydraulics and with muscle.
Naturally, you know the kid. I don't. I'm not a parent anyhow. I got a little nervous last winter, when there was a twenty-one-year-old manning the switch. Maybe that's just me. =)
-
i don't think it was just you. that kinda gear can mess you up. we had one of those fast double acting splitters on a john deer . it took 2 fingers when 2 young guys tried to work too fast
-
but the older kids are adults.... or they are in your world when its convenient to your goals.
Then if they are adults, they should be entitled to tell me to shove it up my fat bum when I intrude on them.
Now again, I'm not saying it won't work.
And a .22LR pistol can stop a burglar, too. I still want a .45.
-
Some darned good questions. I'm not intimately familiar with the Duggars, so does anyone else know these details?
I don't see it being a problem. With a family of 20 kids there are more younguns to be looked after, but then again there are proportionately more older sibs to help out. I think it'd even out.
The question is, can the Duggar family make it work? I've seen lots of supposition from people who can't imagine it working out, but no actual evidence that it's been a problem fpr them.
That's an excellent example of "time management", a skill teenagers need to learn and practice before they get to college and move on to the real world.
Try telling your boss or a prof "I can't, I don't have time". Come back and tell me how well that worked out for you.
And again, I hafta ask if we have any solid reason for believing the Duggar situation is "a shame" beyond the assumption that it must be.
Time management does little to solve "Can you babysit from 330-730" and "I have work from 3-10". You can't manage your way out of direct conflicts. As one who partook in high school sports as well as jobs during high school, there are just times during the week where you simply have to be somewhere. If you have to be at the pregame practice from right after school on Friday until the game starts, can you time-manage your way into being able to babysit at 4pm that same day? Again, if it were a family of 5, I could see it working from time to time. But with a family of 20, you know they need someone to watch the handful of babies every day. One CAN time-manage their way through work and school and sports if they have to baby sit once a week or so. But what about every day? I just don't see it being even remotely realistic that the eldest are developing their own lives when there are 15 or so other children with wants and needs all the time. And yes, I do see that as a shame.
And Micro makes a great point, if the eldest are adult enough to take on the responsibility of rearing a family while the parents are busy with another van-load of kids; they are adult enough to decide that they don't want to do it and would rather work 25 hours a week or so when not in school or practicing for the school musical. All the responsibility and none of the privilege is a quick way to mess someone up.
I'll say it again, if I have kids, I'm going to have the number that I feel me and my wife can handle without burdening others. I see it as the same when some 20 year old has a kid, and then offloads it her own moms house or daycare while she works every day. If you can't handle the kid, don't have it. If you can only handle 2 kids with you and your wife, don't have 4. The moment you are required to burden someone else with your kids, is the moment you made a bad decision to have that many. I expect the 15-18 year range, basically high school, to be a time when the children are learning to start their own lives, not pick up the slack of mine. If my 17 year old son wanted to do the Army's split-op program and go to Basic before his senior year of HS, I would be all for it. And I wouldn't let my need of a permanent in-house babysitter to get in the way of that goal. I personally was in a musical program during and after high school that involved me touring the country all summer. If my daughter wanted to play trumpet for a drum and bugle corps during the summer of her senior year, I would not let my own child-rearing needs get in the way of that either. And if either of my older kids wanted to get a job(something I would strongly recommend), I would not have them cut their own hours to take care of my decision to have more kids. Like I said, the high school years to me are a time for a teenager to start thinking about their own lives and future. They need to learn what it's like to do their own thing, pay their own bills, manage their own time, choose their own responsibilities and live up to them, and live up to their own standards. My decision to have more kids than I and my wife can personally handle would definitely infringe on that. I see that as wrong. When my decision to have more kids means others have to deny their own goals to make up for me, I have unjustly burdened others.
And I make these projections because I was a high school student not too long ago, and I still know what it was like. School from 630-230 every weekday. Tennis from 3-530 Mon, Wed, Fri. Symphonic band practice Monday night from 6-8. Drumline practice from 6-9 Tuesday and Thursday and from 9am-5pm Saturday. And try to have Gamestop schedule me some hours every week. If someone came up to me and said "I decided to have more kids than I can handle, I need you to quit your stuff and do my job for me" I would have told them to pound sand.
-
Then if they are adults, they should be entitled to tell me to shove it up my fat bum when I intrude on them.
Now again, I'm not saying it won't work.
And a .22LR pistol can stop a burglar, too. I still want a .45.
they are entitled they are also entitled to be a part of their family. as far as i know they neither seek nor require endorsement from others
-
Their lack of caring about the opinions of others is very visible in the fact they made their life a reality TV show.
-
>a household that is roughly 3-5 times larger than normal families<
Can you do me a favor, and define "normal" here?
I'm going to guess that your assumption is that anything more than 4 children is "abnormal". With a corolation that "abnormal = doomed to fail".
That, unfortunately, isn't necessarily the case.
>How many part time jobs do you think the older Duggars have? How many sports or arts programs do you think they are involved in? How much time do you think they spend with their own friends, or having study groups at the houses of school mates?<
And that matters... how, exactly?
The final "proof" will be as the children actually enter the workforce, leaving behind family and college. If they can function without being a drag on society, then I'd say they turned out fine. Until we have such evidence, we're just playing a game of "what if?"...
-
Their lack of caring about the opinions of others is very visible in the fact they made their life a reality TV show.
How so?
Ragnar,
Have you given us any evidence that your concerns are valid? Maybe I missed something, but all I've seen is your imaginings about what you think must be going on. Some data, facts, anecdote would be helpful here.
-
>a household that is roughly 3-5 times larger than normal families<
Can you do me a favor, and define "normal" here?
I'm going to guess that your assumption is that anything more than 4 children is "abnormal". With a corolation that "abnormal = doomed to fail".
That, unfortunately, isn't necessarily the case.
>How many part time jobs do you think the older Duggars have? How many sports or arts programs do you think they are involved in? How much time do you think they spend with their own friends, or having study groups at the houses of school mates?<
And that matters... how, exactly?
The final "proof" will be as the children actually enter the workforce, leaving behind family and college. If they can function without being a drag on society, then I'd say they turned out fine. Until we have such evidence, we're just playing a game of "what if?"...
It matters because once a person is a few years away from moving out, going to college, and starting a career; they need to starting learning how to live their lives for themselves, and not for their parents.
-
How so?
By going out in a public medium - making television appearances, becoming an actor or a politician - you expose your life to public criticism. The Duggars are doing it to promote their religious views and lifestyle.
-
It matters because once a person is a few years away from moving out, going to college, and starting a career; they need to starting learning how to live their lives for themselves, and not for their parents.
You've got it backwards. Growing up is all about growing out of your own little self-centered world and learning to accomodate others.
You've got it backwards twice. Responsibility helps kids mature. It doesn't hold them back.
-
By going out in a public medium - making television appearances, becoming an actor or a politician - you expose your life to public criticism. The Duggars are doing it to promote their religious views and lifestyle.
That means they don't care what other people think? ??? Here I thought they did it to make money and be famous.
-
You've got it backwards. Growing up is all about growing out of your own little self-centered world and learning to accomodate others.
And also by learning that you have a value as a person and your accommodation to others is not infinite.
You've got it backwards twice. Responsibility helps kids mature. It doesn't hold them back.
Not all responsibility is equal in value.
-
That means they don't care what other people think? Huh? Here I thought they did it to make money and be famous.
I was being sarcastic. Of course if you go out and start a TV show about your life, you care what others think about your life. Or at least you should.
-
And also by learning that you have a value as a person and your accommodation to others is not infinite.
I would say this is absurd, but it got absurd a long time ago. If large families make infinite, or even inadvisable, demands on older siblings, then of course there is a problem. If the demands are inadvisable. Which no one shows any evidence for. They just assume the demand must be something more than is acceptable.
-
I have not assumed this. I have said it may happen. I see it happen with some of the families where I live [I live in a heavily-OJ neighborhood].
I have also not said that this constitutes child abuse as you attributed to me.
-
Ragnar,
You are making a lot of assumptions about the time required in helping our the parents. Who says that the eldest children are expected to be home every single night and not allowed to have any other activities. I know plenty of "abnormally large" families that have their high school age kids involved in such activities as sports, music, theater, church related stuff, and jobs. Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean that it isn't the case. They are expected to help out, schedule permitting. That might mean helping fold clothes, doing the dishes (usually with a dishwasher) before going to bed, walking the dog in the morning or before going to bed, setting the table for dinner, taking the trash out, or yard work on the weekend. Delegating these little things helps the whole household run a little more smoothly. These families could teach a lot of people something about time management. They nearly always have a master calendar for activities and chores to make sure everyone is accommodated.
One thing all of the families I have known of have in common is a spouse that does not have a career outside of the home. So ultimately, responsibilities fall to the parent that is always there, not one of the poor oppressed children. Having at least one parent available for the children virtually all the time is what makes these families units work, not your imagined version of indentured servitude for the eldest.
-
I have a bright idea. Maybe one of us should watch that show.
-
I have a bright idea. Maybe one of us should watch that show.
I don't have time. I'll have my son do it. :)
-
>It matters because once a person is a few years away from moving out, going to college, and starting a career; they need to starting learning how to live their lives for themselves, and not for their parents. <
And having a part-time job, or being in sports, or "involved in the arts", will do a better job of preparing someone for life than helping their younger siblings? Wow... what color is the sky in your world?
As far as "living lives for their parents", I've seen FAR more people involved in sports at their parents instance than I have kids being "indentured servants" and taking care of younger sibs. Odd thing: the ones taking care of younger sibs seem FAR better adjusted than Johnny Football Star...
-
I'm just waiting for this thread to take the inevitable veer into recipes. Recipes or Werewolves.
-
I find the idea that playing sports is more important (and better life prep) than occasionally babysitting to be terribly funny. The level of selfishness and baseless assumptions flying about in this thread is astonishing.
-
I have a bright idea. Maybe one of us should watch that show.
I volunteer you to do it.
-
I
have
watched
the
show.
They are a little on the exteme side of their religious beliefs for me, but they ain't hurtin' nobody.
-
Are the kids OK? Are they being oppressed?
-
Are the kids OK? Are they being oppressed?
Aren't all well cared for children being oppressed?
:angel:
-
I
have
watched
the
show.
They are a little on the exteme side of their religious beliefs for me, but they ain't hurtin' nobody.
I and Mrs. Dual have as well.
Definitely not the life for me, but they seem like genuinely happy and kind people. If you've ever ran into someone who was nice and helpful to the point it creeped you out, then realized they were the real deal, and the problem was you?
That's who they are.
My only real concern is other people who may decide to emulate the lifestyle, but do so with all their baggage brought along for the ride, and use it as a way to control and dominate their family. However, that would be just like using criminals to condemn all gun owners.
I believe that the reason the "Duggars" work so well is the Duggars themselves, not their faith or beliefs.
-
Aren't all well cared for children being oppressed?
:angel:
Yep. Just ask them. They'll tell you! :)
-
Aren't all well cared for children being oppressed?
:angel:
My kids in their early teens thought it was abuse that I did not buy them an Xbox. I offered them a quarter and a ride to the nearest pay phone so they could call Child Protective Services.
-
Wifey can't fathom why I'm kicking back against the idea of buying my son a handheld game console. I don't want him buried in that thing everywhere we go...
-
I
have
watched
the
show.
They are a little on the exteme side of their religious beliefs for me, but they ain't hurtin' nobody.
Well then, I believe it settles that, unless someone here has better knowledge of the situation than Jamis.
Note I have never said the words "child abuse" to refer to this situation. I said it was possible - possible! - for it to go bad and that it wasn't the best way. If it works for these people, oh well, more power to them.
-
Well then, I believe it settles that, unless someone here has better knowledge of the situation than Jamis.
Note I have never said the words "child abuse" to refer to this situation. I said it was possible - possible! - for it to go bad and that it wasn't the best way. If it works for these people, oh well, more power to them.
IMHO it ain't no different than another family raising their 1.5 kids to believe that Furries are people.
:laugh:
-
IMHO it ain't no different than another family raising their 1.5 kids to believe that Furries aren't people.
:laugh:
FTFY.
Chris
-
Note I have never said the words "child abuse" to refer to this situation.
I thought I already clarified that I was being facetious. If not, let this serve as clarification. I'm also glad you provided some second-hand anecdotal evidence to support your view of large families. I don't think you, or anyone on that side of the argument, had before. Or maybe I missed it.
-
now the time she followed me up a ladder to a third story roof on the other hand was scary. she had a good reason though she needed me to take her to go potty
Now that elicited both a laugh and a thrill of fear, thinking about my 3YO daughter. Both she & her 4YO brother are climbers of any and all objects and she still needs help with potty every once in a while.
Also, I did something similar to my grandpa. I wanted to help and climbed up a ladder leading to our roof at 18-24MO. He froze and our neighbor across the cornfield called my mom, who was at home, saying, "Your father in law is frozen in fear on top of the roof because your toddler is at the top rung of the ladder."
Wifey can't fathom why I'm kicking back against the idea of buying my son a handheld game console. I don't want him buried in that thing everywhere we go...
Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.
-
My kids can have the same hand held entertainment devices I used. They're called books.
-
Ahh.. Now I get it. Micro's perceptions are colored by the Haredim who riot over various minor things in his own A.O.
I just made the connection.
-
not telling anyone how to raise theres since juries definitely out on whether i have a clue. but i got my lil heathen a dsi she likes it but after the initial thrill shes balanced in her play. i think making them desire it above all things works kinda like sex and adolescent boys . makes em go hog wild. for her its just one part of her play spectrum. it is rationed . if she stays on it too long i take it for a while
-
not telling anyone how to raise theres since juries definitely out on whether i have a clue. but i got my lil heathen a dsi she likes it but after the initial thrill shes balanced in her play. i think making them desire it above all things works kinda like sex and adolescent boys . makes em go hog wild. for her its just one part of her play spectrum. it is rationed . if she stays on it too long i take it for a while
We did, too. It is kind of nice on long car trips and she doesn't seem to overuse it. Considering that I occasionally play video games, it isn't a surprise that I don't see them as problematic if done in moderation.