I forgot to mention that nutters will sometimes homeschool their kids in violation of the law. I remember a sociology professor of mine telling me about one of his BILs who’d joined some kind of weird cult and they were homeschooling the kids, even though neither of the parents had a college degree and that was a state requirement for them to do so.
From http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/laws/blAR.htm
More specifically http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/articles/083198.htm
I didn’t see where they outlined the accreditation required.
Do you have a cite for this ever happening? Getting someone like this educated about birth control or help pay to get her tubes tied would I think be the goal of any liberal in a case like this.
I think Michelle Duggar is well aware of birth control. However, their religious beliefs prohibit their use. If a Jehovah’s Witness refuses a blood transfusion, are you going to force it on them simply because you believe differently?
It’s a bit like watching a car wreck, I’ll admit, but unless one of the kids grows up and writes a Mommie Dearest-type expose I’ll assume they know what they’re doing and the kids are fine. Imagine…with so many kids, how the heck are you every going to know who broke the lamp?
I was a bit perplexed at the assumption that the majority of the kids would be going to college, as, well, most of them are female and the mom had no pursuits beyond getting married, pregnant, and trained in the art of unhealthy food making. The boys may go to college, but the girls are more likely to be continuing the broodmare tradition.
Why do the Duggars bother me? Well, most of it has to do with the fact that they’re breaking some major taboos that I apparently am not alone in having.
- Having kids that are not spaced apart by more than a year. If ovulatory hormones are suppressed during breastfeeding, this lady isn’t letting her kids breastfeed past four months, as that appears to be the month when she gets pregnant with the next kid. (I was under the impression that introducing solid foods shouldn’t start until at least five months of age on average.)
- The buddy system of childcare. It’s perfectly fine for an older child to occasionally be the caretaker of a younger sibling, but to have a permanent assignment to a younger sibling as their primary helper is not fair to either of the children involved.
- If they weren’t involved in such heavy activity, their arteries would have hardened and all the kids would be obese with the lack of good nutrition found in the foods that Michelle and Co. prepare. I know there’s lots of kids and you need to budget, but maybe a fresh vegetable would be helpful every now and then.
- Their homeschooling method clearly is not going to work that well unless the kids are disciplined enough to be able to do self-study and get access to books other than whatever they were using during that one special that showcased the “high quality homeschooling” they received.
- The social life is insular to the point where they are having their only real social outlet (church) in someone’s house. It just seems a little bit too close to the whole “compound system” that some breakaway Mormons have been using, and child brides/spousal abuse/etc. just squicks me out. I cannot imagine being raised in a household where my goals in life are to keep house and keep pregnant.
From my point of view, being so sheltered that you haven’t been introduced to differing viewpoints by the time you hit puberty is just sad and may set you up for a lot of fear and indignation at the world around you.
My mom was one of 12, and my dad was one of 11. I have well over 100 first cousins.
What it meant for me was that I didn’t know my grandparents, really. I got to spend a few afternoons with my paternal grandmother, one-on-one, but that’s it. I never got to forge any sort of special relationship with any of them, and both of my parents were toward the young end of their families, so my grandparents were quite elderly and remote.
I see other people’s relationships with their grandparents and I’m pretty envious. I’ve never had any elderly people as a significant part of my life.
I read elsewhere that the Duggars employ “the Pearl Method” for raising children, as described in the book To Train Up a Child by Michael and Debi Pearl. Here’s a link to a website where they had permission to reprint parts of it.
:eek:
Well, their methods sound, er, effective, at any rate. Good Lord. The whole “teaching your kids not to touch things” bit gave me a chill.
And this seems like healthy behavior to you?
Have a look here: http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1155.asp
Do you support parent that shun medical treatment because “God will save them, if it’s his plan”? Cite: http://justprayno.org/the_medicine_of_god_s_word.htm
IMO having 17 kids is irresponsible, scientifically, economically, and morally (in that the kids get 1/17th of the attention that they would otherwise). This isn’t the dark ages, where people had as many kids as they could because so few of them were able to survive.
Michelle Duggar has become a baby factory, this is clear. She has been pregnant for 10.5 years of her life. She’s what, 40? She lives to make babies. Jim Bob lives to impregnate her. Who in the hell thinks that this is normal behavior?
If this sort of activity is deemed appropriate, I guess it would be fine for every person on the planet to do so, after all, it is God’s word right? Go forth and multiply, it seems o have caught on in India and China.
I found no mention of mega-fucking in the bible, should I have bought the John Holmes version?
You can quote all the dangers of repeated pregnancies, but unless you can show Michelle Duggar is suffering ill effects, it’s not up to us to judge them. I’ve seen pregnant women smoking and drinking, I’ve read stories about babies locked in cars on a hot summer’s day, I’ve posted about a woman drunk for so long her baby literally starved to death.
Is there a lack of attention from the parents? Probably. But unless there’s signs of abuse or neglect, our notions of what may be right or wrong are moot. I don’t agree with what they’re doing, but I support their right to do it.
As far as parents refusing medical treatment for children on religious grounds, I am against that. Note I said a Jehovah’s Witness refusing a blood transfusion, not a JW parent refusing one for their child. In that case they are putting their child in danger. Show me proof the Duggars’ children are in danger, and I’ll support you calling DCF. But speculation on the long term effects on this type of child-rearing are just that, speculation.
From Down syndrome - Wikipedia
[quote=ivylass[Is there a lack of attention from the parents? Probably.[/quote]
Who ever said they had no right to do it? We seem to be agreeing that their practice is (on the whole) negative. 17 kids can not receive anywhere near the level of parental interaction that one should expect for a child. The level of schooling is an entirely separate matter. Yes, kid #1 got his GED. Ivy league schools are surely beating down his door.
Let’s not forget that every child that come out of this family is a member of a “freak” family. Forever. That is a fact.
I would think that ivylass would recognize such a difference immediately.
So where is the cutoff number? 3? 5? 10? 14?
Who gets to decide?
I think they are creepy in that glassy-eyed fundie way, but if they are self supporting and the kids are fed and clothed, let 'em be. There are a lot of ways to really mess up kids, this doesn’t look like the worst I’ve seen.
There is a lot of vitriol in this thread, which is interesting.
If they are getting a ton of donations, I wouldn’t call that “self-supporting.”
If more families did this, they wouldn’t get the donations, so they are getting donations, essentially, for being bizarre.
I have seen lots of people very critical when people have more kids than they can handle. And I have seen lots of people upset when other people have kids that they then dump on people who didn’t cause the pregnancies. It seems that the Duggars are doing both.
Their children are being forced into the role of parents without any choice in the matter.
Hmm. So if I have a 13 year old that I ask on occasion to babysit her younger siblings, does that qualify as being forced to do something? Am I dumping her siblings on her? How about when my kids have to do chores, or help their youngest brother get dressed? A form of oppression?
How about the indignity of not having a cool car, because we have to cart kids around? Not sure if my kids will survive that humiliation. We do hand me downs, too. Oh, the horror.
I get a property tax refund that I would not qualify for if I didn’t have kids. I also get income tax deductions for them. Is this wrong?
And on the birth of every single one of my kids, I have been inundated with meals and presents. Are these donations? Are all these people just doing it because they feel sorry for me? Or you know, maybe people just altruistically care about each other, see it as a form of congratulations. I know I do when I extend myself to others.
People send off donations to the bizarre all the time. I have no idea why.
But really, what is that magic number? How many is too many?
I think this family would be odd even if they only had 2 kids, truly.
Various articles seem to confirm they live on a healthy amount of freebies and donations- living debt free here just seems to mean no asks Jim Bob to pay them back for the shit they give him. It doesn’t seem a stretch that without the donations, they would be on welfare.
Someone also should tell Jim Bob the Bible says a lot of things that are not good ideas in 2007- selling your daughter into slavery, for example.
No. But from what I’m reading it’s not “on occasion.” It’s “here’s your responsibility, buddy.”
And the only way that works is that the kids aren’t getting out of the house to go to school.
What I see is a couple of middle aged people who can’t keep from getting their freak on, and who don’t need to because they can conscript their children into providing child care.
What happened to “personal responsibility”? Because if you’re making someone else do it, that doesn’t seem quite to fit the definition.
I think it’s the tremendous amount of resources being used to support a family of 19 that bothers me. Considering that most people here in the U.S. already use far more resources than they need, imagine how much electricity, gas, water, air conditioning, and food this family is using.
Much less than 17 singletons would take. By far.
Ok, “personal responsibility.” What about daycare? If I utilize daycare, I have someone else raising my kids.
You’re going to come back with forcing siblings to take care of each other, but that muddies your point.
If I am making someone else take care of my kids, even though I pay them, am I absolving myself of that personal responsibility?
If you’re using daycare, you aren’t making someone else take care of your kids. They’re offering to take care of your kids in exchange for money.
They can refuse to take care of your kids. They can say hell no to the kid-taking-care-of.