Defending the Duggars?

I totally agree with you. I watched the show a few times out of curiosity and looked at their website. I think they’re a nice family.
Once I saw the mother disciplining one of the younger children, and she did it in such a loving and non-shaming way that it was so dear to witness their interaction. And the kid got it, he understood. I think she’s a gifted mother.

We live in a very cynical time, I think. I think people are drawn to them because they don’t seem cynical at all.

To me, having 19 kids is kind of like buying an SUV — yeah, you can afford it, and it’s your choice to do what’s right for you, but is it really the responsible thing to do in the grander scheme of things?

My great-grandmother had 12 siblings that lived to adulthood. She was part French Acadian and part Mikmaq, so basically a token Catholic family. Due to her family size, they grew up with considerably less material wealth, which meant all the kids didn’t move that far from home, and just sort of settled in the surrounding town to raise a family.

Fast forward 3 generations, and you have me, growing up in a 2,700 population town and being related to nearly 4/7 of the population. It had lots of upsides like a real, true feeling a kinship. And honestly there’s weren’t many downsides, except that dating someone from around town was a bit of a gamble (so I pick boyfriends from other provinces).

While I agree that bashing the Duggars isn’t helpful, I also have to agree with ErinM above.

But I’m going to have to disagree here:

I doubt anyone would ever want our government instituting some law about how many kids a family should be allowed to have.

Not ever? When overpopulation really becomes a problem, I think limiting the number of offspring will be seen as a much more preferable way of population control than famine or war.

This planet is overpopulated already. People all over the world are starving to death. These people aren’t helping.

@Alz: you’re going to have to explain that assertion.

I agree with Erin, but would add that if people don’t recognize limiting family size as an important personal decision, then they threaten everyone with facing the likelihood that governments will ultimately be forced to impose limits on family size.

I still think they’re crazy, and I wonder about growing up without the amount of attention I feel each child deserves from their mother, but I realize this is MY issue and stems from what I believe constitutes a healthy mother-child relationship. I also concede I have no idea what number of offspring is too many under my theory, 4? 5? 6? I don’t know.
Anyway, I do worry for her health and what could potentially happen if she gets preggo again.
She had complications that led to this last baby being premature…I’d really hate to see something awful happen.

I will be interested to see how these kids evolve into adults. I wonder if any of them are gay or doubters of their religion and I think about what it might be like for them to grow up in such an environment.

Let’s be realistic. You CANNOT give that many kids the sort of 1-on-1 emotional attention that a child deserves. It doesn’t matter how hard the parents try to be loving and devoted — there are still only 24 hours in a day.

Forget the “Quality, not quantity” motto; kids require BOTH. These kids are being raised in an orphanage. Sure, it’s a stable, loving orphanage, but it’s one where every kid will nonetheless be emotionally neglected. They have caretakers, not parents.

Take it from one of seven children. My parents did the best they could, but keeping us clothed and fed took most of their time. When you have 19 kids, there’s no way in h*** that the children are all getting personal attention.

There are two issues here:

1. Should having that many children be allowed: Absolutely. I’m pro-choice and that has to include the choice to reproduce like crazed rabbits. Numbers should not be the issue. The issue is how well taken care of those children are. If a child is being neglected or abused, they need to be taken away, be they an only child or 24th out of 32. Otherwise, leave’em be.

2. Is it a good idea to have that many children: Personally, I don’t think so, but that doesn’t mean I’m right. In Jerusalem Orthodox Jewish families looked exactly like the Duggars in terms of numbers (though they were poorer) and though I found it astonishing, the fact is I’ve rarely seen kids so well-behaved, so mature and so loving with younger siblings.

My issue with the Duggars and all fundamentalists is that they are instilling their children (particularly their girls) with a brand of religion that makes females into subservient baby factories. I find such values repugnant (they probably find mine repugnant too). But again, the actual numbers aren’t the issue.

Those arguments aren’t going to silence anyone. It’s still unhealhy for the mother, it’s wrong to force children to care for their siblings, and we do have an overpopulation problem. It’s naive to think that laws regarding family size would never be warranted, because of dumbshit fundamentalists like these. Usually societies will reduce the number of children per family voluntarily, but with religion you can have whole societies going against their interests.

It might be a good idea to keep this in historical perspective. After all, we take safe, reliable birth control for granted. Just a few generations ago, this many pregnancies was not unusual for any sexually active couple. The difference is that about half the babies died before they were old enough to walk. My own grandmother (born 1890) had at least 10 children that I’m aware of, but only five made it to adulthood.

I’ve never held or used any of those arguments against the Drugars. Mine is the simple ‘we don’t have enough resources to maintain that kind of population growth’.

We need to slow down growth, not speed it up.

The fact that they are christian or financially independent should not matter at all. They have 19 kids, unless you have no idea the state of the world right now then I have already made my case. On the other hand, if you are a clueless human, just doing your own thing no matter what (like the Duggars) then it’s time to pick up a book that’s worth something and maybe use a condom until you’ve versed yourself in large-scale problems at hand. Winning the game of evolution? Evolution is based more on the species level rather than the individual, people like this are putting an end to our species. They are making it so that another species wins the game of evolution, and I’m not Okay with that at all.

Some of those kids are going to reject their parent’s values with a vengeance. So we’ll probably get 5 or 6 atheists/agnostics out of the deal.

In approximately 5 years 9 of those nineteen children will be 20 and over and probably responsible working adults in our society. I doubt that in that same time they will replace the nine with nine more babies. Thus the family will be reduced to a much more manageable size.

That said, I have a son-in-law who was one of seventeen children. I met his mother last year and she is attractive and healthy in her 80’s. I picture Michelle Duggar as being the same way at that age.

As far as the high risk, most pre-eclampsia cases happen in younger, not older mothers. This one was probably set off by a case of gallstones with inflammation, nothing to do with the pregnancy. Michelle’s OB doctor a year ago stated that Michelle was very healthy with no damage to her reproductive organs and appeared to be admirably suited to multiple pregnancies. Recent news has told us that women use/lose 90% of their eggs by the time they are 30 and by the time they are 40 they have something like 5% left. If that is true, Michelle will probably not have many if any more pregnancies.

This is a rare family for our day and age, they not only have a humongous number of kids, they support them, keep them clean and healthy, educate them and bring them up to be responsible citizens. Good for them and let them live their lives without condemnation!

The mom has had 4 C-Sections? Is that…. alright?

More than half the kids are still under the age where they can go off and get into trouble on their own, so I’ll reserve judgement on that. Those I’ve never seen or heard of the show, so I really know nothing about ANY of the kids.

Has there been any research into what this number of siblings could do to one of the individual children?

Yeah, they have the RIGHT to do it, I suppose. But don’t we have laws against things like wearing seat belts, no texting/calling while driving, no drinking or smoking until a certain age, no adult material until a certain age, no drugs of certain kinds… We have many laws in this country that prevent people from doing whatever they want, and there’s reason for that. It helps the greater good, and it also stops individuals who are just…. dumb, from doing dumb things.

As I see it, what this family is doing is dumb. My biggest criticism wasn’t listed, but maybe someone has said it. It’s that there are plenty of kids without homes already on this planet. Why aren’t they adopting?

I also disagree with your statement, ” They’re not desperately trying to hog the spotlight. (Really. I mean that. Despite their level of publicity, the Duggars don’t strike me as media-whores in the same way that Jon and Kate do.)” Uh, okay. But, they DO have a reality TV show. It’s been on for four years. Additionally, they had Discovery Health there to record the C-section of child #15.

Also, what’s with naming all your kids with “J” names? That seems… questionable to me.

Why do they want to have so many kids? (Maybe this is answered in the TV show or in the article, but until I read that, I have to assume a bad reason).

I just don’t like this. Again, I can’t stress enough, I haven’t seen the show. But I made sure to do a LITTLE research before commenting, and what I’ve gathered was negative enough that I thought I’d record my comments this early in my learning.

My arguments against the Duggars include not any of the above listed, but the following:
1) They have limited the options for the girls, particularly.
2) That kind of childbearing is unhealthy, and it’s okay if it’s Michelle’s choice to do that to herself, but what about the kids? Once you have pre-eclampsia, you have a greater chance of having it again, and the Duggars have said that they WILL go ahead and shoot for #20. So if Michelle wants to wreck her body, okay, but what about baby 20? And baby Josie? Is that okay with them?
3) Don’t kid yourself into thinking they are fully supporting themselves. People who use their insurance company will pay the price for the cost of preemie care. Just because you have insurance doesn’t mean your paying everything on your own. If you were, you wouldn’t need insurance.
4) It’s too much work for the older kids. If you really watch the show, Michelle doesn’t do much actual parenting. She walks around with the baby until it’s no longer breastfeeding, and then she hands it off to one of her other kids. When the older kids are gone, Michelle and Jim Bob get a little crazy.
5) TLC glosses over the horrors of Bill Gothard and closely associated Vision Forum. What is shown on tv is hardly reality.
6) There is no way Michelle is going to be able to look after so many kids PLUS Josie once Josie gets home. Micropreemie care doesn’t end at the end of the hospital stay. Josie is going to require a TON of attention and she will need quiet. And what about those other tiny kids who need their mother, who IS, like it or not, getting older and will not have as much energy to chase after toddlers.

If you want to have a bunch of kids, that’s your right.

Read some Free Jinger forums before commenting on the Duggars. 🙂

oh, yeah, and the “desperately trying to hog the spotlight” line. Um, really? So then, I guess their filming of a preemie’s birth and crowding everyone into her hospital room was not hogging the spotlight? (So many visitors, especially children, is not normally allowed in the NICU, btw.)

I think we are simply used to seeing them, and therefore take their spotlight loving for granted. Watch JB. He loves to be the center of attention.

You’re absolutely right, Hemant. They are good citizens and obviously trying to teach their children those values as well. They have every right to choose to have as many children as they can reasonably care for. They should also be allowed to practice whatever religion and religious traditions they choose.

My only concern is with the statement that the older children “don’t seem to mind” not having any individuality or independence and that it is a requirement to spend their childhood rearing their siblings instead of discovering who they want to be and what they want to do. They are forced into doing what their parents do without any alternatives, particularly since young women and girls are not given much opportunity for educational advancement. When this sort of lifestyle is all you know, because you are mostly cut off from the outside world, and indoctrinated into believing that this is the will of God, of course you “don’t mind”. What other choice do you have?

There is a reason Quiverful families (as well as Mormons and other Christian fundamentalists) choose to isolate their families and communities using homeschooling and the mantra of self-sufficiency. I imagine that curious, intelligent young girls having the freedom to interact with and learn from women that have had other opportunities could be rather disruptive to their project of indoctrination.

Ultimately I don’t think atheists, skeptics or humanists should support any movement (even through implied consent or “live and let live”) that intentionally closes off freedom of inquiry and investigation in this way as a means of perpetuating their own religious dogma. Nor do I think we should be supporting a religious sect that came about as a response to feminism within the church, but that’s another argument entirely.

Laura,
Thanks for pointing out so many issues that didn’t even occur to me. Very educational, and insightful
TGM

While I am personally appalled at this, as Hemant said, those of us that support the choice of the woman with her own reproductive decisions need to let this be. The positive arguments show that the Duggars are trying to make this work without too much of a drain on any public system or service.

My only concern is how much quality time is each child getting? The pure logic of individual time spent is something that each child needs with their parents. If they are doing this, then Richard Duggar needs to write a book on how to manage time, because he’s a frickin’ genius. But as a father, I don’t think this is the case.

The quiverful movement is certainly a small portion of the Christian community and has its share of critics there. I think the biggest problem that I see with the Duggars is that the young women seem to be left with few skills that translate to anything outside of what they already know. Yes, people do leave the quiverful movement (I have a dear friend who had 8 children before determining that she no longer wanted to continue that path — it was a tough one for her to leave), but it generally requires being outside of that circle of influence, and as things are now, it would be difficult for any of them to leave that mindset.

That said, I hesitate to make judgments on how many children a person “should” have. My own family is a bit larger than acceptable (we have 4 children), and I know how cutting it is to see your choices disparaged by people who simply don’t know you or your circumstances.

Jeff P,

This story also reminds me a bit of this old comedy skit (about Catholics) by Monty Python

I quote “every sperm is sacred” when my mother mentions she was one of thirteen children in a Catholic family. It’s a good job the vast majority of Catholics don’t pay attention to the Pope, or in many countries there would be plenty of large families.

I don’t know what is more of a concern, the fact that they have 19 children or that all the children play string instruments.

I can picture it now, Jim Bob saying to Michelle: “Ok we’ve got 20, it’s time to start on the woodwinds.” [rimshot \]

I know this won’t leave me too popular, but I think couple child limits may become necessary at some point. Our populations are already ballooning, even without the Quiverfulls.
I don’t LIKE the idea, not one bit, but it may be a necessary sacrifice.

They have every right to have as many chldren as they choose. My dad’s parents had 15 children though a little more spaced out than the Duggars are (30 year age difference between the oldest and youngest). However that doesn’t mean I think they SHOULD have that many children. I absolutely don’t think they should and this comes from being so close to a very large family. In particular I think it’s crazy for her to consider having another child! Once you’ve had preeclampsia once (as my sister in law did but her son was born only 2 weeks early) you are at high risk of it happening again.

My biggest issue with the Duggars is that they make the Quiverfull lifestyle look so nice and normal, when its anything but a prison for women.

For a look into the life of Quiverfull women, check out:
http://nolongerquivering.come whole blog is facinating, read Vyckies Story, and any of the series.

Also interesting:
http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/01/29/people-magazine-duggars-wont-rule-out-having-baby-20/

It also bugs me that they are raising 19 (and counting) kids IGNORANT of science- they all think evolution is a lie, even the little ones! There was a whole episode on their trip to the creation “museum”.
And of course, raising ANYONE to think that women are baby machines and men are ultimate rulers is just sick and outdated, but they have every right to do it.

** The rich want no limits to population growth and you must ignore the consequences

By 2000 US population had grown in 50 years from 152 million people to 282 million. By 2050 it will grow to an estimated 420 million.

The odd paternalist pregnancy inducing xian monster and compliant wifey are an atypical anecdote and therefore unimportant. (In fact diverting attention to “outrageous” outliers focuses anger in the wrong place.) What matters is overall population growth which Americans don’t understand or welcome in the name of some false and perverse idea of an infinitely open “frontier.”

Why the growth? First, there is uncontrolled immigration. Most of it illegal. Second, new immigrants keep pro-natalist habits derived from societies which have high infant mortality rates, unopposed RC propaganda, and laws against birth control and abortion.

Unfortunately, the US will not control population growth — agribusiness wants more ignorant and poor people to do our chicken plucking on the midnight shift. Corporate real estate wants more home building . . . and the elites want more consumption . . . otherwise the hyper-rich will see their wealth stop growing.

But, of course, the dying middle class will disappear as wages continue constant, prices rise, productivity rises, and “surplus” wealth will concentrate even more. (And the masses will scream against their own interests by opposing increased taxation of the wealthy. Pwnd fools.)

Unchecked population growth leads to scarcities and increased prices. It will continue to erode democratic freedoms.

Life in the Empire is already disgusting — USA, USA, Numb-ba one! Dumber One! And you’re gonna love the military xian theocracy we’ll become as the US fulfills its destiny as a land of mostly the have-mores and the have-nothings.

Don’t think so? Try reading Marvin Harris, Cannibals and Kings.

If you are young and smart . . . get out of the US now. Australia and New Zealand, even Canada beckon.

the anti_supernaturalist

Quiverfulls don’t bother me at all – especially in that, with 19 kids, it’s unlikely that they’ll be able to rein in all of their information input.

Worried about overpopulation?

Have you considered suicide?

-Call Dr. Jack Kevorkian

Seriously, Polly? Offing yourself (or murdering anyone, for that matter) is vastly different from using birth control.

Otherwise, some very insightful posts from all sides of the issue.

I personally am a “live-and-let-live” type who is, also, peeved about the tax thing. Thanks for the discussion, Hemant.

I find the thought of someone expecting me to have few or no children to fulfill my environmental/intellectual/fill-in-the-blank duty no more appealing than the thought of someone expecting me to pump out as many babies as possible to fulfill my religious/traditional family duty. 19 children is an extreme example that few are striving to emulate, though plenty of the criticisms aimed at large families are legitimate and thought-provoking. What bothers me is the frequent generalization that mothers of many children are stupid. Also, the availability of birth control, which is in so many ways an opportunity for the independence of women (which I personally take advantage of), should nevertheless not be an obligation.

I read Kathryn Joyce’s Quiverfull book, and I find the entire strange and uncomfortable. However, if I do not want someone telling me how many kids to have, then I can’t tell everyone else how many they can have. Meanwhile, while I am finding many interesting comments here, I have a few issues.

There are so many orphaned babies (look at Haiti, guys) in the world, if the Duggars want 19 babies- fine! Let them have a few biologically and adopt the rest. Take care of the amazing babies we already have before we start making more. Give homes to those who don’t have them, help reduce overpopulation- I don’t care how new birth control is, it’s available to nearly everyone these days, use it. It’s practically unheard of these days to have so many babies- why else would they make a TV show about it?

First off, transinternational adoption is fraught with race and class issues, and adoption in general, while often times a great thing, is not an easy choice to be lightly entered into. For one thing, there are not very many babies for adoption- and most people want babies- and telling someone who wants a baby they can have a foster teen- and most of the adoptable kids kids out there are older, and in foster care- is not going to appreciate that. People want flesh-and-blood babies, and that’s not something that can be overcome easily.

Don’t kid yourself into thinking they are fully supporting themselves. People who use their insurance company will pay the price for the cost of preemie care. Just because you have insurance doesn’t mean your paying everything on your own. If you were, you wouldn’t need insurance.

Laura, I like your post, and your blog too, but what? I am a healthy young person (for now) and would have much cheaper insurance if my insurance company got rid of the smokers, the parents, the cancer-havers, and if we just shot the people over 35- but she is just as entitled to use her insurance as I am. And premies can be born to Quiverfull mothers as well as first time mothers. We can’t let the insurance companies pit us against each other- they are the evil, not people who dare to get sick.

Great comment Hemant, I agree it isn’t
the best of family situations, and even sadder that it is promoted by a religious view, but you are correct in pointing that this is a personal choice and a person cannot fight against the Duggars choices without jepordizing their own.

Haven’t the Duggars followed a six month breatfeeding limit in order to make her become pregnant more often? Breastfeeding for at least a wear would have reduced Mrs Duggars fertility to a extent. Nursing longer and tandem nursing an older child would have reduced fertility even more.

Evolution is smarter than we are. A tandem nursing nursing mother in a hunter gatherer society will have reduced fertility. That’s selection’s way of saying she should invest her efforts in her healthy offspring. Hormones interpret a nursing cutoff at six months as a dead baby. Better have another one if you’re well-fed.

Overpopulation much? In just a few generations, the family will have hundreds of descendants. How is that not irresponsible? Every single problem in the world can be traced to overpopulation, including lack of resources and environmental problems.

the only issue is #19 was born with serious birth weight issues, and it’s VERY likely #20 will either have birth weight issues or Down’s. I’d almost say that it was God’s way of telling them to stop, had I not been agnostic… While they DO have the right to do whatever, the potential children also have a right to the quality of a birth-defect-free life if possible

Despite what you say, this is totally arrogant and self-centered. “We’ll do what we want and the hell with the environment, the planet, and the better life we could have provided with fewer children.”

If they had adopted 16 or 17 if these children that would be a different, praiseworthy thing. But they didn’t.

You can say a lot of good things about this family, they’re raising their kids in a stable, committed relationship, they discipline them in loving fashion, they’re all well provided for, yada yada yada, but personally I think the question of overpopulation is the most pressing.

These kids are all being raised in a home where it is taught that having 19 kids is just fine and dandy. What happens when each of THEM has 19 more kids? And each of THOSE kids does the same? Obviously, it’s unlikely that every child will have 19 kids just like their parents, but they are being groomed to believe that an excessive number of children is not just ok, but encouraged by their god. It IS likely that at least SOME of them will also have a large family, and that mindset will be passed along to future generations.

Coupled with the inordinate amount of waste (diapers, food packaging, etc etc) that these huge numbers of people are going to create, what they’re doing IS irresponsible. Maybe not against the law, maybe not immoral, but they aren’t doing our planet any favors.

I don’t think I’ve heard anyone advocating that laws should be passed against the Duggars. We can respect their legal right to have an unlimited number of children, but I see no reason on earth why we should defend it or act like the choices the Duggars make are fine and dandy.

I believe it is perfectly acceptable to criticize the Duggars, and criticize them strongly. Their reproductive choices are irresponsible and could very well lead to the the death of Michelle and/or any future offspring, but they will not stop having children as long as they are physically able. Their homeschooling is limited and factually incorrect. Their parenting is harsh, misogynistic, and isolating. Their political beliefs are extreme and the movement they are part of is essentially breeding an army of God’s warriors with the ultimate goal of taking over the United States government.

Should we not speak up and criticize that? What is seen on television is a watered-down version of their lives and their beliefs. It’s all very “family-friendly” and “wholesome,” but viewers do not see any of what’s lurking under the surface.

Why aren’t they adopting?

Let them have a few biologically and adopt the rest.

The Duggars are followers of Bill Gothard, who discourages adoption:

“Adopted children are affected by the sins of their natural parents, and these sins are usually very severe.”

Once I saw the mother disciplining one of the younger children, and she did it in such a loving and non-shaming way that it was so dear to witness their interaction. And the kid got it, he understood. I think she’s a gifted mother.

Appearances can be very deceiving! You should know that people in this lifestyle do not discipline their children in a loving, non-shaming way. The discipline that you will not see on television takes place behind closed doors and involves ritualized corporal punishment administered with implements. And that’s just once they reach a certain age. They use “blanet training” for babies in order to instill obedience in infancy. The Duggars will not talk about such matters on camera. They refer vaguely to “training” and “correction,” but please be aware that there is a quite a bit that viewers do not see.

The overpopulation argument is almost entirely without merit. There is no difference in resource use between 19 children from one family and 19 children from 19 different families. I’m sure we could find 19 couples who have chosen not to have children.

I’m glad to see CatBallou supports cap-and-trade for children.

Utter garbage! Reproduction shouldn’t be a right; it should be a privilege. Most of the world’s current problems are the result of serious overpopulation, in other words, of people having too many goddamn kids! On top of that, it is usually largely uneducated, unintelligent and very religious (therefore close minded and ignorant) people who have the most children in this day and age. It’s like inverse evolution. I am surprised that a group of atheists would buy into this ridiculous and religiously based notion that we have a right to breed like rabbits.

I am alarmed and disturbed by the many assertions that the Duggars have a right to reproduce as they want. No such right exists, nor should any such right be conferred on anyone. The Duggars pose a direct threat to the human race by promoting their defiant excesses as an exercise in both social and religious freedom.

In reality, the Duggars are criminals. They tax our collective resources, which are desperately limited, and they are reducing the genetic diversity of our species, which limits our adaptability and our chances for survival.

Like any other criminals, the Duggars need to be punished. Forced sterilization of the Duggar parents, as well as all of their children, is both fair and just. Such punishment mitigates the damage they have caused and preserves the rights (and lives) of others.

My only issue is that the Duggars also romanticize women as subservient, and I am not okay with that in any form. Have as many kids as you want, but please let them know they are all equal. This not only shows the nation that women as subservient can work, but it also creates more people who think this is necessary and right.

It just grates on me a bit to think that she is doing just as well as I am, even though I feel like I am making the better choice. I will fully admit this is cognitive dissonance, but knowing that doesn’t make it any easer. That’s probably the #1 reason I say some crappy things about them sometimes. Which is very sad.