Only three? How you doing.
I’ve known a lot of people from large families. There were a lot of irish catholic, italian catholic, and orthodox jewish families in the parts of jersey where I grew up. My high school boyfried was 6 of 9. I had a good friend who was 4 of 12. A business associate of my Dad’s (who is hisidic) just had, a year or two ago, his 14th child. I got that impression because that is just how big families work. Everyone pitches in.
Look, if your parents had more than 6 kids and raised you all without help then I withdraw and will eat my hat (if I had a hat). I’ve never seen anyone asign a formal system before, but that is how it works in general, and how it has worked through most of human history.
Nothing I’ve read on this family has shown me evidence that these people aren’t parenting thier children. Having help with the grunt work doesn’t make you any less of a parent. Parenting in mental and emotional. As evidenced by the fact that my mother is my mother. My parents raised me, and you ARE knocking working parents to say other wise.
Let’s say Mom is at work 9 hours. Junior is only awake for, say 13 hours. There’s my mom and her 4 hours right there. Obviously, whomever was watching me during the day was, mathematically, my primary caregiver. Does that mean she didn’t parent me? And how can this logic apply to my family, and not other working mothers?
I’m trying to say that there is a difference between “primary caregiver” and “parent”. Primary caregiver diapers the bottom. Parent shapes the person that baby will be. Either you can parent without being a primary caregiver, or you can’t. And if you can’t (which is how I interpreted your comments), then the only way to be a parent is to be the primary caregiver, which means being a stay-at-home parent.
In large families, and in working families, there’s no “primary caregiver”. There’s just two parents, and whatever help they can scrape up.
Why does it make a difference? If you know you’ll have to keep both parents employed to pay your bills, why is it okay to have a baby knowing you’ll need daycare. Why is it only wrong for people with large families to need help?
See, I don’t think anyone has a “right” to free time. If my job didn’t pay enough to make ends meet, I’d best be getting a second job. No one is going to take care of me because I have a right to my leisure time. I think teaching children (especially once they hit thier teens) that leisure time is an entitlement is a dangerous thing.
About the mall thing- I was trying to be funny- I just meant that some teens would probably benefit from having some responsibility at home. There are tons of teens who are out there doing usefull (or at least, non-offensive) things with thier free time. But the ones who are thowing stuff at my car? Yeah, them I wish their mothers put them to work. Or tied them to the front porch or something.
(Joke, that was a joke)
Well we’ll have to agree to disagree about what constitutes pitching in. Big families are not the norm in my area, so clearly you’ve got more first hand experience on the ways that they work. Also, my parents took in several family members over the years when they fell on hard times. They also helped raise some of my cousins when their parents dropped them off for a weekend and forgot to come back for them or send any cash for five years. Things were tight at times and we all helped out. It’s not like I’m anti digging in and helping out family members.
.
Sure, but just because that’s the way that things have been done in the past doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Now, no child can have the ideal, but in my opinion the situation that we were discussing is way less than ideal. As I said before, reaching the neglectful level. In my opinion once you’ve reached the point where you’re handing off kids to other folks you’re at a point where no more people should be added into the mix. Now according to another poster, the Duggers are not at the point of passing their kids out. If they aren’t, then this opinion doesn’t apply to them.
Well if you want to read it as an insult then so be it. Both of my parents worked when I was growing up. They were and are still good parents. But when I was very young (0-3) my caregiver was the one that I was attached to. When a child is very young, the person that is going to be dealing with a large amount of the emotional and mental stuff is going to be the person that’s there the most. That’s the primary caregiver. That’s the person that’s going to have a large part in molding the child.
Depends on a lot of factors. I’m sure she parented you while she was there. Good working parents parent their child while they are there. They obviously love and care for them. But if you were a young child during the time that she and your father only saw you for a few hours a day, then there were times you were parented by other people. I’d be willing to bet that there were crucial times that something was needed, that was provided by your grandmother or nanny. Did your parents make up for it in the little time they had with you during those years? Most likely. One quality hour is worth more than four useless hours, but a good caregiver makes sure that there aren’t very many useless hours.
There can be a difference, but primary caregivers often end up in the parenting role. If you’re with a child 9 out of the 13 hours he or she is awake, then this is going to happen naturally. We couldn’t just set up a robot to feed and change baby every few hours and go on about our day. The child wouldn’t thrive. The things and people that the child is exposed to during the day shape his brain and his personality.
Well there’s always someone who has the most “face time” with the kid, whether related to the family or not.
Yes, that’s exactly what I said. I don’t like to see situations where a child is left raising a child. If a family is making sure that all the kids get free time to play, and plenty of bonding time with the parents then fine.
If you know that you won’t be able to spend any/very little time with your child and you go and have one anway, knowing that the situation is not likely to change then that’s wrong imo. Whether youv’e got one child or ten. If your child goes from daycare, to school, to practice, to daycare and falls asleep exhausted after getting home from dinner, then that’s not a good setup. If you’re a working parent and you’ve set aside a good chunk of quality fime for your child then you’re on the right track. The more the better. Sometimes plans have to change, and since you can’t undo a birth, then you’ll need to go with the flow. To set up such a situation from the beginning isn’t okay.
Time for relaxation is a very valuable thing, and keeps us healthy. Parents need to make sure that their children have some down time. Children also need to learn to make their own decisions about how valuable their leisure time is to them. If they’d like to live above their means and run themselves into the ground, then that’s their choice to make. This would also be when you take the time to explain the value of education. Now obviously, you can’t always get R&R and taking a more cushy job isn’t always an option.
Oh, everyone above the age of about four benefits from having some sort of responsibility. I just prefer more traditional chores ex: clean your room and do the dishes or watch your brothers until we get home and take over vs. here’s a kid to raise for about 10 hours a day, good luck.
Huh? The Duggar mother is a stay-at-home mother who schools all the children herself, I’m sure she’s not separated from any of them for ten hours at a time.
When, exactly did it become acceptable to judge someone else’s family based on number of children, or division of labour within the family?
Who the hell are you people to decide they ‘must’ be overlooking something if they have 16 kids? Home schooled? College? Who changes who’s diapers? What groceries they consume?
I would remind you all that there is a mighty stack of evil dysfunction out there in small, affluent, more ‘average’ style families. School shootings for instance. But they fit the same pattern as yours so you don’t presume to judge them.
Judgemental people make me want to puke.
I don’t know how Mr. Dugger can really get into making any more kids. I mean, at this point, it’s probably a bit like throwing a hot dog down a hallway if you know what I mean…
I’m not a fan of large families. It seems irresponsible to me. But if everyone is properly taken care of, who am I to complain? I feel bad that the kids aren’t going to public school. There’s more to be learned than just the lessons, like how to exist and interact in the outside world. But since each kid has 15 friends (with more coming) it’s not like their isolated from social contact.
I have a feeling that each kid gets ONE gift at christmas. And I bet they actually get their moneys worth out of baby and childrens clothing. That last kid must hate having to wear clothes that have been used by all the older sibs.
I remember a David Lean documentary about a family with 19 kids. The oldest was 19 and there were no twins. The wife had spent more time in life pregnant than not pregnant. The dad would buy a whole live cow down at the cattle auction and pay a butcher to slaughter and prepare it. The family would wipe out whole shelves at the grocery store, filling four shopping carts to the brim. I just can’t imagine living sith so little privacy.
Just joining the thread to say I do think there is something wrong with raising girls to consider no path other than becoming housewives. There is always the possibility that they will need to earn a living. Even in the most conservative Christian context, the girl may marry and have a few kids, then the husband dies or becomes disabled. The woman will be expected to support the family. It’s best that this not come as a complete shock to her.
Which I’m sure will fall on the floor one unsupecting moment in the near future.
Mom (aka Baby Maker Duggan) is educating all 16 children herself? All children presumably at different levels of education and possibly at least one or two of whom might–just might–have more intensive needs?
Yes, I may be questioning the parents’ motivations, abilities, funding, etc., but no one in this thread is lifting a finger toward stopping them from procreating. That said, this family (and Dad’s bible-banging religiosity) has a cultish feel to it. They seem enmeshed, isolated, backward. Because of their gender, the girls are precluded from higher education and many careers. Given the indoctrination, it appears they are being bred to become breeders.
BTW, questioning this lifestyle isn’t inappropriate. The state–and by extension, we the people–has interest in the welfare of all children. Closer scrutiny isn’t a bad thing and I see a few red flags here. I also find it hard to believe that dad is financing the whole brood, plus building his 7,000 sq ft steel-framed house, without any debt, without any help or government support. Yes, he claims otherwise, still…
When did judging people become acceptable? It never went out of style, old bean. 
If you read above, the objections go beyond mere quantity. I’d restate some of the arguments–even expand on them–but puking is not allowed in this thread.
(Your last comment was a whoosh, no?)
Here’s a bit more information, culled from a television documentary the Duggans were on.
Jim Bob and Mom belong to the Full Quiver movement, a group that believes people should “receive” as many children as God blesses them with. The women refer to themselves as, um, Prairie Muffins. Here are a few of the more interesting tenets from the Prairie Muffin credo:
"Prairie Muffins recognize that there is a real battle in which they are on the front lines: the battle of the seed of the woman against the seed of the serpent
Prairie Muffins place their husbands’ needs and desires above other obligations, arranging their schedules and responsibilities so that they do not neglect the one who provides for and protects them and their children.
Prairie Muffins are fiercely submissive to God and to their husbands.
Prairie Muffins try to maintain a peaceful environment for their families by keeping their voices quiet and their tones gentle as much as possible.
Key words in doctine: “Intensely accommodating, ferociously acquiescent, and brutally compliant.”
Any questions?
What’re you, nuts? Two people have managed to raise 16 kids, are independantly wealthy enough to do so without state assistace, seem to be doing quite well at it and are organised enough that the kids aren’t neglected.
More power to them and I wish there were people that could be that responsible with a family of 4.
Although someone should tell that woman that it’s a uterus, not a clown car :).
Prairie Muffins?
I find it darkly humorous (in a depressing way) that they would give themselves a name that sounds like a euphemism for buffalo shit.
It seems like the Full Quiver movement would be better off adopting unwanted children than creating more on it’s own. If this family had 16 foster children instead of it’s own litter I don’t think there would be as much uproar.
It’s the blanket training that bothers me. This consists of putting the baby on a blanket and training it to stay there and be quiet. Nice parenting.
Am I the only one who noticed an odd trait in the eyes of some of the children? It seems that at least two of the boys each have an eye that is smaller than the other, and that maybe one or more of the girls has the same problem. (Also, the little boy in the second row on the right hand side of the 2004 picture looks like he might have a lazy eye.) Here is their photo page, start with the 1998 photo. It seems to be very noticeable in the 2004 portrait. Maybe it’s just a weird trick of the lighting though?
Didn’t notice the eye thing but, I think it’s possible she’s hiding at least 2 more babies in her hair. 
I’ll clarify. I am an atheist and I think that the proliferation of fundamentalist religion is a detriment to mankind. I also recognize that freethinkers such as myself don’t breed nearly as much as the Jim Bobs of the world. Thus, humanity is doomed. I could elaborate on this further but that might take me into BBQ pit territory.
Yeah, I’m with you. I don’t really see a problem here. If the children are happy and healthy, what’s wrong with them raising their children according to their beliefs? Who are we to say their beliefs are wrong? They probably think all of you are raising your children in weird ways, too. But just because raising a child in a very strict Christian environment isn’t for me, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It’s only natural for parents to try to instill their own values in their children.
More children could probably stand to learn lessons about being thrifty, i.e. “We can only afford one Christmas gift for each of you.” Doesn’t that send a better lesson to children than buying them whatever they want and running up huge credit card bills doing so, because you can’t afford to pay for it up front? As for hand-me-downs, yes, I’m sure they get every penny’s worth. I also suspect (the web article mentioned a sewing room) that they make many of their own clothes. Nothing wrong with that either. It wouldn’t surprise me to find that these children place much more value in their relationships with one another than they do in material possessions.
Actually it’s kind of amusing on the flip side, in my googling for pics of the Duggar brood one of the hits was the Strormfront site comnmenting on baby # 15 , where the members were just tickled pink that Momma was making so many little white babies.
And some of the Stormfront ladies are just aching to get back in baby making action