She isn’t raising them. Her other kids are raising them. As soon as they get past the baby stage she hands them over to a “buddy” or older child to watch. Her poor girls do all the laundry and cook all the crappy food (tater tot casserole, anyone? :rolleyes: ) she decides they should be fed.
That has nothing to do with liberalism. That’s just the truth. That’s also not much parenting.
Heh - did anyone else notice the little rebel in the middle? He’s totally parting his hair on the opposite side to all the other males. He’s going to be trouble, that one. 
Nope, not true at all. The rest of the family helps, of course, and the younger kids do get a “buddy” to handle the small shit young kids are always coming up with, stuff that needs the attention of someone a little older but not necessarily a parent(Hell, I do this myself with my kids and I only have 2.), but both parents spend time with all the kids each and every day (unless their TV specials are totally fabricated which I admit is a possibility, albeit an unlikely one).
Nothing to do with liberalism? Don’t make me laugh. If this was an unwed crack whore with 17 screaming brats from 17 different fathers, liberals would be falling all over themselves to explain how “compassionate” we needed to be, how terrible her “plight” is, how much it was “society’s fault” and just how much money those of us with jobs should be required to contribute to keep her from suffering the consequences of her own poor choices. The media would crank up the calliope and the circus would roll into town for a good long stay. Instead, the Dugger’s are loving, wholesome, dedicated Christian parents, so of course they must be crucified upon the alter of proper liberal correctness because all of those are qualities that rip at the very fabric of liberal America’s “You need us to take care of you” manifesto, and thus must be opposed at every turn.
What a horror it must be to own the local buffet restaurant when JimBob and ofJimBob show up with the brood on kids eat free night.
I think their home is tax free as it’s classified as a church. Affectionately known as The Church of the Holy Basement. I also would guess that TLC gives the family lots of freebies.
I was raised in a French-Canadian Catholic environment in which two grandparents were from families of 12 kids and my mother ended up with 145 first cousins. Holidays are loud and confusing and a ton of fun, even if sometimes I forget which second-cousin or great-aunt is which. As far as I’m concerned, if your finances and your physiology can handle the burden, why not have a big family, if it’s what you want?
I think it’s a little weird that the Duggars seem so robotic, and that their attitude about more kids is “if God sends 'em, we’ll take 'em”, instead of actually thinking about whether they WANT more. But I can’t really get on their case about having a big family.
They’re still weird, though. Watching them on TV makes me think I’m watching a report about a cult that increases its numbers through breeding instead of recruiting. And what’s with the J names? Wouldn’t it be great if she names the next one Patricia or something, just to throw us off? Based on the past, though, I’d bet on something like Jeleanor, or Jelizabeth, or Janthony.
Yup, it is totally impossible for someone to genuinely be concerned about the kids’ quality of life. Either you support the Duggars wholeheartedly, or you are a hypocrite carrying a political grudge against them for their Christianity. :rolleyes:
It is so funny that you use this example, because Thursday I heard an interview with a woman who had seven kids living in a trailer with no electricity, plus she was pregnant with twins, and how CPS came to tell her she had to move to a shelter. She was relating how horrible it was for her, and she was upset because she couldn’t bring all her things with her, blah, blah, and I all I could think was, “You stupid bint, why don’t you try keeping your legs shut before you start complaining?”
But you know, I think she was religious, so I probably just hate both families because I’m an atheist.
I keep getting this image of a little girl holding onto her teddy bear, slowly opening the door to her parents room, and saying “Daddy, pweese stop boning Mommy, our house is too full.” I bet the kids in that house learn about the birds and the bees plenty early.
Do you think Jim Bob gives the wife a day or two off after the birth? I guess if he happens to get a boner that day it’s God telling him that he hasn’t made nearly enough babies, and to fire up the ol’ baby maker …er wife.
Really? I think that’s a load of dog’s bollocks. I’m pretty damned liberal, but I still think it’s abhorrent to bring children into the world that you can’t care for properly. It is possible to argue that there should be a social safety net and stil condemn irresponsibility. It is possible to argue that there should be a social safety net and stil condemn irresponsibility.
Oh, you think it’s anti-Christian persecution? Only if you allow a fallacy of composition.
The Duggars depend to some degree on donations to support them beyond their income. It’s not compelled, but morally there’s little difference.
Oh, poor them, their derided for their Christianity. Bullshit - they’re derided for living in the seventeenth century and conspiring to keep their children there, too. This is a minority behaviour engaged in by a relatively tiny fringe group of christians.
Ok, fine then. Why are you concerned for these kids’ quality of life? Large families are not the norm in 21st century America, but they are not unknown and historically they were a lot more common than they are now. The only complaints I’ve seen are that “the parents can’t give each child the proper amount of attention”, which I don’t agree with and I’ve never seen any of the kids complain about, “The other kids are expected to help raise their siblings”, which I think is a good thing, promoting responsibility and family unity, and “They belong to a fundamentalist Christian sect and I think their beliefs are weird”. So, tell me what exactly about their “quality of life” is lacking, cuz I don’t see anything.
(And for the record, I don’t “support the Duggers wholeheartedly”, personally, I think they’re nuts (not crazy, psycho nuts but “You have 17 kids? That’s nuts!”), but I also don’t see anything wrong with their family and am baffled why so many people seem to feel the need to criticize them so vehemently.)
I’m sure that the kids get the best education mommy can provide, to 17 kids, while constantly pregnant, and trying to keep up with the logistics of maintaining a small army.
dnooman, from post #40.
She must not be doing THAT bad a job.
Look, it’s not for everyone. I would like to see a Duggars: 25 Years Later special and see how the kids are doing.
What I would like to know does Mrs. Duggar ever say no to her husband? Or is that against their teachings?
But Larry, what I really want to know is if it’s possible to think that there should be a social safety net and still condemn irresponsibility. 
To the wider point, they are caring for their kids properly, so why do you care? Do you have any evidence of neglect or abuse?
Orly? From this thread:
I have no idea what made me think that their might be some element of anti-Christian bias here. What a crazy thought. :rolleyes:
I disagree strongly, STRONGLY, with this thought, in fact I find it morally reprehensible and abhorrent. Donations are given freely, by individuals, for whatever reason they chose, to whatever cause they want. Being compelled to surrender your money for something that someone else thinks is a good idea is theft, pure and simple.
When you are done lynching the Duggers are you going to go after the Amish next? Isn’t that their choice? So what?
Again, so what? Gay sex is a minority behavior engaged in by a relatively tiny fringe group of humans. Is that a reason to ban or condemn it? In this country at least, we protect the rights of people to believe and worship how they chose.
Weirddave please don’t mis-characterize my statement as being anti-Christian. I think that the “Full quiver” idea is on the fringe of rationality, but I said nothing about Christianity in general.
For the reasons I stated above. I understand you do not agree with at least some of them. Reasonable people can disagree. But just because our definitions of good parenting differ is no reason to automatically assume I’m a bigoted hypocrite. I do agree with you that they are treating their children within the law, and a damn site better than some parents I know of. That doesn’t mean I can’t criticize them. I also agree that taxes are different from voluntary contributions, and I don’t really have a beef with the Duggars for taking donations.
FWIW, when I see households with say three or more kids under ten, I see a lot of chaos. I extrapolate that, and add in that there are only so many hours in a day, and regardless of how boundless your love may be, you do not have boundless time. I see the anger my mother still carries over being made into de facto mother of her younger siblings, and she only had six. My husband and I struggle to invest in our daughter at levels we think appropriate, and she is an only child. And I’ve seen what happens when people are denied secular education and indoctrinated into literal allegiance to a book written by people entirely ignorant of science and humanism. (And yes, that is indeed an objection to their brand of Christianity, but by no means to Christians in general.)
Oh, and yeah, I think what the Amish do to their kids sucks, too.
The blanket training they use also freaks me out. Blanket training means putting a baby on a blanket, using a stick to hit all around the edge of it as a threat to baby not to come off the blanket, or it will get the stick. Michelle herself preaches about the value of blanket training.
If you’ve got the time and money and can put up with the racket more power to ya.
No two people in the world have enough time to parent and properly educate 17+ children in a way that will result in those children being well-rounded, functional and self-fulfilled adults. It’s just physically impossible.
It’s really the homeschooling that clinches it. If they weren’t isolated on their compound, they would have a chance of meeting mentors or allies or role models who could co-parent them and provide them with new perspectives. I know a few people from large families who are “just fine”, but almost invariably they were taken under the wing of another adult, or they were sent away to school or circus camp, which became a second home. They always had “extra” in some way, to make up for the fact that home had so little to go around.
I think the reason people think that it is “their business” even when they are not being directly affected by it is because, in general, we tend to think of other people’s children as still marginally our responsibility. If you saw a toddler who didn’t belong to you running out in front of a moving car, you would run to save that child, right? To the extent that many people would put their own lives in harm’s way for the stranger’s child.
In the same vein, we think that the Dugger’s kids’ well-being is our business, what with the whole, “it takes a village” mentality. And many people feel that it’s just not possible to adequately raise 17 children, and the Dugger’s are showing deliberate negligence towards their current children by being willing to have so many more. That’s why people protest so much about something that’s not really part of their lives. <Helen Lovejoy> Won’t somebody please think of the children??? </helen lovejoy>
Also, people keep saying that having a ton of kids is historically normal. Now, I agree that that is the case, but wasn’t it traditionally more like 8-10, not almost twice that number? Hasn’t 18 kids always been considered a lot?
Gestalt.
I admit to being uninformed about homeschooling, but don’t the parents have to have some sort of lesson plans? Doesn’t anyone check to see if the kids are actually getting any kind of education? If the mom is homeschooling she would have to be teaching grades 1-12 every day! How on earth does she have time to teach 12 or so kids and take care of toddlers and a baby? I read that the oldest got his GED and is in community college, but will the girls get the same chance?
I really do feel sorry for the kids. I don’t see how it is possible for them to get any individual attention from their parents.
You mean like this? 
SCL, it all depends upon the state. In some states you can only homeschool the kids if you have a college degree, in other states there’s no such requirement. I know that in TN, there are no tests that kids are required to take.
