Random Michelle Duggar question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C9BL, no one is criticizing your lifestyle, we are criticizing the Duggars' lifestyle. But if you think the Duggar girls are being raised to be financially independent, you have been sniffing something other than "stinky diapers."

This. They are bright and capable and hardworking but have been raised to be barefoot and pregnant and dependent and submissive. It is a crime, a form of child abuse IMO to deny your children the opportunity to pursue careers, financial independence and options other than the ones you might want for them.

I have never watched the show, so I honestly don't know how this works: do the parents forbid their grown children to attend college or work outside the home? If so, how is that enforced? Or is it just that they raise their boys to value being businessmen more than college-educated, and their girls to value being mothers more than any other profession?

Or is it a belief that homeschooling itself precludes higher education or advanced careers?

Many of the comments collapse various opinions into one, generic anti-Duggar one, so it is hard to pull apart the actual facts of their upbringing from the outrage at said upbringing. I would like to hear exactly how the older children are being held back by their parents, though.

--C9BL again

PS. I'm sorry if I was ranting and raving a bit...I'm taking a medication right now that makes me kind of extra crazy, with a capital C. Even though I know that, objectively, I still start to unravel sometimes.

Look, if you're qualified to homeschool your kids and you choose to do so, that's your own business. From what I can tell on the show, the kids receive a special online religious education, finish formal education at age 16, and then the girls turn around to teach the younger kids their lessons and take care of the household. The two oldest boys somehow have businesses, although the Duggars have made clear that they do not financially support them, it is unclear how they earned enough to purchase/start the business. The problem is that the girls were never presented with some sort of choice- and I can think of many that would be acceptable in Duggar culture- church youth leader, daycare teacher, nurse, etc. and were never given an opportunity to strike out on their own. They were too busy at home taking care of the younger children and running the homeschool.

[Anonymous]

The birth rate in the US is now below replacement, at 1.9. For white women, the birth rate is approximately the same in the US as it is in Communist China, which has had the horrible One Child policy for two generations now (1.6). In the entire developed world, the birth rate is below replacement. In some places, this happened in a single generation. This means that there are far too many old people, and not enough young people to care for them. This demographic disaster is compounded in the Asian world by tens of millions of missing girls.

These human-created problems have never been seen in all of human history: too many old people, too few young people, and a gender imbalance. Overpopulation is NOT a problem. Demographic imbalance IS a problem. The few people still having children in the Western world are the only hope we have for a stable, economically successful future.

Have you noticed how much we are destroying the planet? I, for one, think it is a good thing that we aren't breeding enough for "replacement".

[Anonymous]

I also think it is wrong to train kids into household servants. You got to let them grow up. This is the standard in our time and to deviate from it is criminal.
A girl growing up in rural Turkey might be in a Duggar-daughter situation, but even there the families do what they can to catch up to modern society. Duggars are raising a clan of beduins.

[Anonymous]

Like throwing a hot dog down a hallway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The birth rate in the US is now below replacement, at 1.9. For white women, the birth rate is approximately the same in the US as it is in Communist China, which has had the horrible One Child policy for two generations now (1.6). In the entire developed world, the birth rate is below replacement. In some places, this happened in a single generation. This means that there are far too many old people, and not enough young people to care for them. This demographic disaster is compounded in the Asian world by tens of millions of missing girls.

These human-created problems have never been seen in all of human history: too many old people, too few young people, and a gender imbalance. Overpopulation is NOT a problem. Demographic imbalance IS a problem. The few people still having children in the Western world are the only hope we have for a stable, economically successful future.

Have you noticed how much we are destroying the planet? I, for one, think it is a good thing that we aren't breeding enough for "replacement".

C9BL, your claim that the birth rate in the US is below replacement is a bald faced lie. The birth rate is almost twice the death rate. The death rate only exceeds the birth rate in a few counties. Please stop with your incessant lying. Overpopulation IS a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think it is wrong to train kids into household servants. You got to let them grow up. This is the standard in our time and to deviate from it is criminal.
A girl growing up in rural Turkey might be in a Duggar-daughter situation, but even there the families do what they can to catch up to modern society. Duggars are raising a clan of beduins.

Man, I wish I was successful in training my kids to be household servants. I've tried!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The birth rate in the US is now below replacement, at 1.9. For white women, the birth rate is approximately the same in the US as it is in Communist China, which has had the horrible One Child policy for two generations now (1.6). In the entire developed world, the birth rate is below replacement. In some places, this happened in a single generation. This means that there are far too many old people, and not enough young people to care for them. This demographic disaster is compounded in the Asian world by tens of millions of missing girls.

These human-created problems have never been seen in all of human history: too many old people, too few young people, and a gender imbalance. Overpopulation is NOT a problem. Demographic imbalance IS a problem. The few people still having children in the Western world are the only hope we have for a stable, economically successful future.

Have you noticed how much we are destroying the planet? I, for one, think it is a good thing that we aren't breeding enough for "replacement".

C9BL, your claim that the birth rate in the US is below replacement is a bald faced lie. The birth rate is almost twice the death rate. The death rate only exceeds the birth rate in a few counties. Please stop with your incessant lying. Overpopulation IS a problem.

+1
Overpopulation is a huge, long term problem, with irreversible consequences for humans and the environment.
By your logic, we should keep increasing the population by the trillions to care for the currently young, soon to be old -- a never ending cycle.
Age demographic imbalance would only be a problem for one generation of older people. Yes, it would suck to be them, but things would be so much better in the long run.

[Anonymous]

I am a mom that is open to life and so far I have 5 children. When I read the TTC or infertility forum I realize how blessed I am and it encourages me not to take my own fertility for granted.

This is a very judgemental thread. If they were lesbians that adopted 20 transgendered kids and were raising them as atheists they would get a standing ovation.

Oh the irony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a mom that is open to life and so far I have 5 children. When I read the TTC or infertility forum I realize how blessed I am and it encourages me not to take my own fertility for granted.

This is a very judgemental thread. If they were lesbians that adopted 20 transgendered kids and were raising them as atheists they would get a standing ovation.

Oh the irony

Every so often there's a Duggar-related thread on DCUM. For the most part, the judgement isn't about the size of the family. It is more about the choices they make in how they raise their children (minimal education, girls submissive) and the sense that the parents are having the children but not doing the actual work of raising them instead leaving that to their older daughters.

Yes, in larger families everyone chips in. I'd contend that in the Duggar famiily those girls are doing far more than "chipping in". They aren't taking turns babysitting their siblings, they are raising them. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The birth rate in the US is now below replacement, at 1.9. For white women, the birth rate is approximately the same in the US as it is in Communist China, which has had the horrible One Child policy for two generations now (1.6). In the entire developed world, the birth rate is below replacement. In some places, this happened in a single generation. This means that there are far too many old people, and not enough young people to care for them. This demographic disaster is compounded in the Asian world by tens of millions of missing girls.

These human-created problems have never been seen in all of human history: too many old people, too few young people, and a gender imbalance. Overpopulation is NOT a problem. Demographic imbalance IS a problem. The few people still having children in the Western world are the only hope we have for a stable, economically successful future.

Have you noticed how much we are destroying the planet? I, for one, think it is a good thing that we aren't breeding enough for "replacement".

C9BL, your claim that the birth rate in the US is below replacement is a bald faced lie. The birth rate is almost twice the death rate. The death rate only exceeds the birth rate in a few counties. Please stop with your incessant lying. Overpopulation IS a problem.

+1
Overpopulation is a huge, long term problem, with irreversible consequences for humans and the environment.
By your logic, we should keep increasing the population by the trillions to care for the currently young, soon to be old -- a never ending cycle.
Age demographic imbalance would only be a problem for one generation of older people. Yes, it would suck to be them, but things would be so much better in the long run.

I am not lying.

Overpopulation is somehow still a trendy, green term, but it has no substance, and this has been acknowledged by demographers are researchers all over the world. Here is a brief summary of the fact that the US is below replacement:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/12/us-births-decline/1880231/

The demographic imbalances in place today will not be solved, rectified, or reversed in a generation. They are profound, and will alter the future of humankind. These imbalances compound.

Population decline only leads to economic and social collapse, throughout human history. Read the last line of the article. I know overpopulation is drilled into our heads, but this requires critical thinking. Read What to Expect When No One is Expecting, or watch the documentary Demographic Winter, or read Unnatural Selection. These demographic concerns are very real.

--C9BL

[Anonymous]

C9BL, your view is really overly simplistic. Let's take a look at the amount of resources an American uses as compared to someone in the third world. The amount of pressure we (in developed nations) are putting on the Earth's natural resources are HUGE.

I am the youngest of 8 kids, so I am not anti-big family. But let's not kid ourselves that having lots of babies is doing something great for the planet. It's not.

[Anonymous]

The Duggars and their ilk also believe that dinosaurs and homo sapiens co-existed, and that the earth is only 10,000 years old. Doesn't surprise me that they think humans are a dying breed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a mom that is open to life and so far I have 5 children. When I read the TTC or infertility forum I realize how blessed I am and it encourages me not to take my own fertility for granted.

This is a very judgemental thread. If they were lesbians that adopted 20 transgendered kids and were raising them as atheists they would get a standing ovation.

Oh the irony

Of course I would give a standing ovation. I applaud anyone who adopts children.

Not to derail, but I am the daughter in a family of 12 kids and C9BL you are just kidding yourself if you truly feel the kids get all the love and attention they need. While some of us did not need much of our mother's [emotional] attention others did and there was no way my mother had enough energy and patience to go around to all of us. Her primary focus was always whoever the baby of the family was at the time. I could go on and on with reasons why not one of my siblings had more than 2 kids when we planned our families (and a few chose to have none!) I would not raise my kids the way I was raised. And believe me I know my mother loves me and as an adult I can see why she was the way she was when we were kids because I would have lost my shit as well if I had 12 kids under my wing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C9BL, no one is criticizing your lifestyle, we are criticizing the Duggars' lifestyle. But if you think the Duggar girls are being raised to be financially independent, you have been sniffing something other than "stinky diapers."

This. They are bright and capable and hardworking but have been raised to be barefoot and pregnant and dependent and submissive. It is a crime, a form of child abuse IMO to deny your children the opportunity to pursue careers, financial independence and options other than the ones you might want for them.

I have never watched the show, so I honestly don't know how this works: do the parents forbid their grown children to attend college or work outside the home If so, how is that enforced? Or is it just that they raise their boys to value being businessmen more than college-educated, and their girls to value being mothers more than any other profession?

Or is it a belief that homeschooling itself precludes higher education or advanced careers?

Many of the comments collapse various opinions into one, generic anti-Duggar one, so it is hard to pull apart the actual facts of their upbringing from the outrage at said upbringing. I would like to hear exactly how the older children are being held back by their parents, though.

--C9BL again

PS. I'm sorry if I was ranting and raving a bit...I'm taking a medication right now that makes me kind of extra crazy, with a capital C. Even though I know that, objectively, I still start to unravel sometimes.

Look, if you're qualified to homeschool your kids and you choose to do so, that's your own business. From what I can tell on the show, the kids receive a special online religious education, finish formal education at age 16, and then the girls turn around to teach the younger kids their lessons and take care of the household. The two oldest boys somehow have businesses, although the Duggars have made clear that they do not financially support them, it is unclear how they earned enough to purchase/start the business. The problem is that the girls were never presented with some sort of choice- and I can think of many that would be acceptable in Duggar culture- church youth leader, daycare teacher, nurse, etc. and were never given an opportunity to strike out on their own. They were too busy at home taking care of the younger children and running the homeschool.

Michelle and Jim Bob were invited to appear on the Oprah show. During the taping, Oprah offered the two eldest daughters (Jana and Jill) full scholarships to become certified nurse midwives (their dream at the time). Jim Bob turned her down on their behalf, and refused to allow that segment to be aired.

The kids have no resources of their own or support for pursuing a higher education. The very idea is demonized. Even the elder girls, now in their 20s and years after "graduating", have no outside job experience, no money of their own, no bank account, no credit, no car in their own name, no assets of their own*, not even the clothes on their back belong to them (the family dresses out of a communal closet). Their social circle is limited to the tightly-constricted circle of like-minded Gothardites.

*Unless you count the cell phones they have so Daddy can keep tabs on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a mom that is open to life and so far I have 5 children. When I read the TTC or infertility forum I realize how blessed I am and it encourages me not to take my own fertility for granted.

This is a very judgemental thread. If they were lesbians that adopted 20 transgendered kids and were raising them as atheists they would get a standing ovation.

Oh the irony

So you think it's backwards? Those who crank out a large number of kids deserve a standing ovation, while those who become parents to kids who would otherwise not have families deserve....what now? Derision? Gotcha. You're right- this is a very judgmental thread.