19 Kids and Counting

[ToeInTheWater]

All the problems you mention for arranged marriages happen in love marriages just as often if not more often, since the majority if marriages now are not arranged, and domestic violence and divorce are on the rise. Marriage is just plain hard no matter how it comes about. It’s not an easy thing to navigate. That’s a big part if why many couples never marry and choose to live together and have children together instead. Marriage is tough. It’s bit easy, no matter how we go about it. Fairy tales don’t exist. A faithful Catholic family doesn’t live the same lifestyle that the Duggars do, but that doesn’t mean that it is wrong for them. Many ways faithful Catholics live are looked down upon by society as well. Are we wrong for abiding by our faith and morals?

Again, I’m not saying arranged marriages are MORE problematic than love marriages, just that I disagree with people (not necessarily you) who assume they are automatically LESS problematic. As for “domestic violence” being on the rise, is it? Or is it more that victims, both male and female, are much more prepared to (1) recognize for themselves that they are in an abusive situation and (2) tell other people about it?

I also would never state that arranged marriages are “wrong” for anyone. I certainly wouldn’t say that to my friends and acquaintances who are in them. However, I don’t believe in total moral relativism either. I could easily use the same rhetoric you use to defend the Duggars to defend, say, a Pakistani family that promises an 8 year old girl in marriage to a 40 year old man and say “a faithful Catholic family doesn’t live the same lifestyle they do, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong for them”.

I also know some people think the whole idea of marriage being happy is a modern invention, and that people in unhappy, even abusive marriages should stick it out and offer their sufferings to God above, or even that if a woman winds up dead, that must be God’s will, and that surely she’s in heaven now, having lived out her purgatory on Earth. I’ve seen such rhetoric from so-called “traditional” Catholics who mention St. Monica, St. Rita, etc, as evidence that a woman should NEVER leave her husband. I find it hard to blithely say that just because I strongly disagree with such rhetoric, “that doesn’t mean it’s wrong for them”.

 

[masondoggy]

I’m sorry your life is so hectic with four kids. But I’ll tell you, I have never run into that problem with my eight. I really don’t think the number of kids in a family is the deciding factor when it comes down to the interactions between parents and kids. Many moms of two mention the same issue of not having time to talk to or be with each of the kids. Lots of parents with 6+ kids don’t have that trouble. Lifestyle is a big deciding factor.

Based on my own experience in life, I think this has a lot to do with the parents personalities. Some parents are better at maintaining a personal relationship with each of their kids than others. I actually think Jim Bob and Michelle do that part very well even though they do have so many kids. But overall I don’t think it really has much to do with the # of kids, but more with the parents personality.

 

[petitfleur]

I’m sorry your life is so hectic with four kids. But I’ll tell you, I have never run into that problem with my eight. I really don’t think the number of kids in a family is the deciding factor when it comes down to the interactions between parents and kids. Many moms of two mention the same issue of not having time to talk to or be with each of the kids. Lots of parents with 6+ kids don’t have that trouble. Lifestyle is a big deciding factor.

I don’t think its a deciding factor. I guess my point was that quiverfull is about a woman’s only purpose is to get married and to have as many children as possible. They are critical of women having careers, and supporting themselves. Women should be able to choose to have 18 kids or not marry at all and have a career. Not everybody has the same gifts and talents. I really wish I could of been like some women I know who feel a great sense of pride in keeping their home. I just don’t. I really tried to fit that mold. I really thought I was supposed to stay at home forever. I wanted to want to. It really didn’t work out. I don’t think it makes me any less than someone who has eight kids.
I feel that arranged marriages are very dehumanizing. I think of how sacred all human life is, and the same as how sacred marriage is supposed to be. It seem to me that arranged marriages go against that. Perhaps the problem with marriages is more to do with people not considering the spiritual Union part of marriage when entering into it.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I feel that arranged marriages are very dehumanizing. I think of how sacred all human life is, and the same as how sacred marriage is supposed to be. It seem to me that arranged marriages go against that. Perhaps the problem with marriages is more to do with people not considering the spiritual Union part of marriage when entering into it.

I don’t know if I’d go as far as “dehumanizing” and I don’t think it’s “wrong” per se, but the philosophies behind some cases of arranged marriage do strike me as quite utilitarian, and there is a strong undercurrent of women as property to be traded, whether they’re sold off in marriage or sold to a brothel.

BTW, I also don’t like the whole “this is how people did it for generations” argument, that kind of “appeal to antiquity” doesn’t by itself prove the practice is a good one. People have been selling their kids to brothels and other forms of slavery for generations as well.
Unfortunately, in many such cultures (I am thinking of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc) the only real alternative to getting married for a woman is indeed prostitution, because they are not given any educational opportunities or marketable job skills.

Of course, in practice, many couples from such “traditional” cultures do indeed fall in love anyway, and it’s also true that many marriages that are technically “arranged” actually aren’t, much as some grooms still ask a father “permission” to marry his daughter.

And I also think it’s somewhat of an over-simplification to divide marriages into “love” and “arranged” matches. Some people marry for money/security, to get an unpaid maid, for a parenting partner, or for other reasons that are more for convenience than love, but still choose their own matches. Some “settle” for partners they feel some affection for, but never went through a “romantic” period with. This is especially true for isolated areas in which the pool of potential marriage partners isn’t that big and remaining single isn’t socially acceptable, again, especially for women stuck in the position of either being dependent on parents or a husband.

I suppose that’s what bothers me about the Duggars in general. Not that they chose to be providential about how many children they have (though some would argue that by focusing so much on maximizing the number of offspring, in one episode they even see a fertility specialist, they aren’t REALLY being providential either). It’s that the children (not just the girls) seem very dependent and sheltered.

I also wonder what would happen if any of those kids were to experience same-sex attraction; it’s certainly statistically possible. I suspect that if it was a girl, she would meekly let herself be married off even with these attractions, and such a marriage would most likely be considered null if submitted to a Catholic tribunal.

 

[robwar]

Many of the criticism I see hurled towards the Duggars are very similar to the ones hurled at my grandparents, parents, my own, and just about every other large family I’ve ever met. It’s always people saying that they fear for our kids’ well being, education, work load, etc. that’s probably why I get so fed up with it. People look at my house and see 8 kids under 15 and think it must be horrible for them. How do they get attention? How do they feed them? How do they get school work done? The older kids change diapers?!? How awful! And tons worse things go on. My grandmother had 16 kids in 19 years so for me, my house is empty. Add on my husband gone 75% of the time and it’s obvious to most that I must be either neglectful or abusive. Neither is true. So what if Michelle Duggar spanks her kids at times. So what if her kids need to help with caring for each other. If someone has only 1-5 kids they are not going to need to live the way those of us with 6+ live. And me with my 8 will not need to do things the way my grandmother did with 16. Her kids seem fine to me. None are in legal trouble. None are neglected, starving or beaten up. They are all happy and healthy so something must be going right. Maybe in material ways they will not be as successful as other families. Maybe they will not have a few different degrees or whatever. But not everyone measured success in worldly ways. If things were not going well for them spiritually or emotionally, as often as they are in the public eye, it would be known and held up as proof of how bad it is to have a family that size. They are living counter culturally, no doubt about that. But so should we as Catholics. They aren’t Catholic so we can’t really compare them to our religious standards, but as Christians they are doing fine. So what if others live differently than the secular would says they should.

I agree reality TV isn’t real. Too much scripting and editing is done for it to be real. But just as the truth about other reality stars and famous people of various entertainment/political/sport/whatever field’s life and behavior is common knowledge, this family would as well if they could dig up any garbage.

I don’t think anyone on this thread was criticizing the large family. They are part of the quiver full movement which is a patriarchy fundamentalist sub group. They follow Bill Gothard and IBLP and ATI and if you are not familiar with what this man teaches I would suggest go to recoverygrace.org for more info. You again don’t know what goes on when the cameras are off and there has been a lot of abuse in these sorts of families.

 

[robwar]

Except for Josie who was very very premature, i rarely if ever, see Michelle raising her kids.

she passes it off in the buddy system. It’s one thing to be a helpful big sibling, it is another to saddle responsibility on older siblings. I did have an older sister that is 12 years ahead of me and my brother (15 years) and we have a great relationship with her, she helped my mom but she also went to school and college and had a life. Big age gap siblings do have a different kind of relationship but that isn’t what is going on here.

 

[petitfleur]

I guess I should say in American culture. India has so many problems on how women are treated it seems to be getting worse even though there are fewer women than men. I recently read a series of horrific stories about it. It does seem like the only option is to be married. By utilitarian do you mean that the women are sacrificed for the greater good of the family? It seems so. I believe some arranged marriages can turn into loving relationships.

Something creepy yet funny about the Duggars and fertility. They keep a calandar of Michelle's cycle out in the open. I am seriouse. The whole family knows her cycle, and when she's fertle. They purposely time thier um....married time around it.

  And yes if there was a same sex attraction a daughter would either meekly marry, or stay home and take care of her parents until old age and probably her siblings kids. One of the boys was sent off to ALERT which is a camp for boys. He must of not fit the mold somehow.

I know way more about the Duggar’s, quiverfull, and Bill Gothard than I care to. I have met people who escaped that lifestyle. They do use the word escaped, most are completely disowned.
If anyone ever watched children by the dozen one of the families featured was the Jeub family. The two of the red daughters escaped. One has a blog I think is well written. She talks a lot about the abuse behind the scenes cynthiajeub.com.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I don’t think anyone on this thread was criticizing the large family. They are part of the quiver full movement which is a patriarchy fundamentalist sub group. They follow Bill Gothard and IBLP and ATI and if you are not familiar with what this man teaches I would suggest go to recoverygrace.org for more info. You again don’t know what goes on when the cameras are off and there has been a lot of abuse in these sorts of families.

I think it’s uncharitable to insinuate that the Duggars are actually abusive “when the cameras are off”. Maybe you weren’t meaning to do that but that’s the vibe I get.

However, I certainly don’t think they’re above criticism. I think some Catholics defend the Duggars out of an “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” defensiveness, as many of the secular attacks on the Duggars are very nasty and show a general anti-Christian, anti-religion mindset. And so they feel obligated to defend them or take a moral relativist position about their practices.

The problem I have is, what if one of the girls/women have a husband who leaves them, or becomes disabled and unable to support her, or even dies? Unfortunately, that IS a possibility.

 

[robwar]

All the problems you mention for arranged marriages happen in love marriages just as often if not more often, since the majority if marriages now are not arranged, and domestic violence and divorce are on the rise. Marriage is just plain hard no matter how it comes about. It’s not an easy thing to navigate. That’s a big part if why many couples never marry and choose to live together and have children together instead. Marriage is tough. It’s bit easy, no matter how we go about it. Fairy tales don’t exist. A faithful Catholic family doesn’t live the same lifestyle that the Duggars do, but that doesn’t mean that it is wrong for them. Many ways faithful Catholics live are looked down upon by society as well. Are we wrong for abiding by our faith and morals?

There is a lot of domestic violence in these sorts of families because the woman (and children) are to always submit to the man. That set up lead to a lot of abuse. I would suggest you read a very very tough book “I fired God”. It is one woman’s account of being raised in this sort of family system and the abuse documented in it is horrific. I am thankful that for the sacrament of marriage to be valid, it must be a free and unhindered choice of both the man and the woman. That’s not what is going on with the Duggars.

 

[robwar]

I think it’s uncharitable to insinuate that the Duggars are actually abusive “when the cameras are off”. Maybe you weren’t meaning to do that but that’s the vibe I get.

However, I certainly don’t think they’re above criticism. I think some Catholics defend the Duggars out of an “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” defensiveness, as many of the secular attacks on the Duggars are very nasty and show a general anti-Christian, anti-religion mindset. And so they feel obligated to defend them or take a moral relativist position about their practices.

The problem I have is, what if one of the girls/women have a husband who leaves them, or becomes disabled and unable to support her, or even dies? Unfortunately, that IS a possibility.

They do promote the Pearls and the Pearls do promote domestic abuse in order to break a rebellious spirit. Michelle has been asked about her views on corporal punishment and she spent 20 minutes wiggling out of the question.

 

[robwar]

I guess I should say in American culture. India has so many problems on how women are treated it seems to be getting worse even though there are fewer women than men. I recently read a series of horrific stories about it. It does seem like the only option is to be married. By utilitarian do you mean that the women are sacrificed for the greater good of the family? It seems so. I believe some arranged marriages can turn into loving relationships.

Something creepy yet funny about the Duggars and fertility. They keep a calandar of Michelle's cycle out in the open. I am seriouse. The whole family knows her cycle, and when she's fertle. They purposely time thier um....married time around it.

  And yes if there was a same sex attraction a daughter would either meekly marry, or stay home and take care of her parents until old age and probably her siblings kids. One of the boys was sent off to ALERT which is a camp for boys. He must of not fit the mold somehow.

I know way more about the Duggar’s, quiverfull, and Bill Gothard than I care to. I have met people who escaped that lifestyle. They do use the word escaped, most are completely disowned.
If anyone ever watched children by the dozen one of the families featured was the Jeub family. The two of the red daughters escaped. One has a blog I think is well written. She talks a lot about the abuse behind the scenes cynthiajeub.com.

thanks for mentioning the Jeub family because I think they are friends of the Duggars. What is even stranger is that they follow Bill Gothard (who never married) who promotes an Orthodox OT rules of when and when not to have sex which is pretty restrictive. I am not sure why they are so set on a 20th child. They did have two miscarriages and the last one was premature. Going to see some fertility specialist for the 20th is a bit much. Michelle doesn’t need to be in competition with her daughters and daughter-in-law.

 

[Evania]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

I’m sorry your life is so hectic with four kids. But I’ll tell you, I have never run into that problem with my eight. I really don’t think the number of kids in a family is the deciding factor when it comes down to the interactions between parents and kids. Many moms of two mention the same issue of not having time to talk to or be with each of the kids. Lots of parents with 6+ kids don’t have that trouble. Lifestyle is a big deciding factor.

I agree.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I guess I should say in American culture. India has so many problems on how women are treated it seems to be getting worse even though there are fewer women than men. I recently read a series of horrific stories about it. It does seem like the only option is to be married. By utilitarian do you mean that the women are sacrificed for the greater good of the family? It seems so. I believe some arranged marriages can turn into loving relationships. .

By “utilitarian” I wasn’t just talking about the families involved, but I meant that in arranged marriages, spouses often see each other as means to an end. The woman provides the man with sex, housework, and the promise of heirs, and in exchange the man gives her security, both financially and psychologically. It is very much a quid pro quo arrangement, as opposed to mutual self-sacrifice. Not that all arranged marriages are like this, but many are, and I think there is a risk of objectification, especially in cultures where there is a general tendency to see women as objects to be used for the benefit of others, not inherently valuable in themselves. (And yes, I realize some “love” marriages are like this too, but I doubt most people would consider it ideal.)

Now, I must say that I do have a bias here, in that I know of a horror story about a teenage girl who grew up in the US and had a boyfriend, being sent back to her “home country” and forced to marry a total stranger. She eventually escaped and moved back to the US, and apparently the marriage ended in divorce or annulment. I think most “Westerners” would see her as an abuse, even a rape victim. But per her family, she’s the one who’s in the wrong, who wasn’t being a good wife/daughter.

Now, certainly this was closer to “forced” marriage than “arranged”, and I don’t think Jim Bob and Michelle are literally forcing their children into their marriages, but then again, they are so sheltered, I really wonder if they really are equipped with enough knowledge to make a meaningful choice.

I also find the whole idea that young people need to be chaperoned 24/7 in order to ensure chastity, to be insulting in a way, as if they are so lust-filled that they will inevitably sin if left alone even for a few minutes. “Reality couples” in general seem to have a very poor success rate, and though one could argue this is because most of them are immoral heathens anyway (such as the Kardiashians), I’m sure having cameras in their faces ALL the time, knowing anything they say or do could wind up on national TV, doesn’t help. But in a way, isn’t that merely the logical conclusion to the idea of a courtship being conducted “in public” with chaperones?

It’s also the case that, as has been mentioned on CAF many times in the context of NFP, temptations to sexual sin hardly disappear upon marriage. Married people are still tempted to commit adultery, watch porn, masturbate, etc. So if the only way kids are taught to handle sinful temptations is “never be alone with each other”, well how are they really going to learn self-control?

 

[Evania]

I’m puzzled by a few things…

1. Why is Ben living with the Duggar’s before marriage?
2. Does he have a job?
3. Will they both continue to live with the Duggar’s after they get married this Sat?

I remember reading their book awhile back. In it, they state that they told their oldest son Josh that he needed to have his life in order before he decided to get married, because once that happened, he wasn’t going to be living with them anymore.
If this isn’t the case with Ben, why are they pushing this marriage so hard?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

They do promote the Pearls and the Pearls do promote domestic abuse in order to break a rebellious spirit. Michelle has been asked about her views on corporal punishment and she spent 20 minutes wiggling out of the question.

But corporal punishment does NOT always equate to abuse. I assume the Pearls are a more extreme version of James Dobson’s approach, who as I recall advocated using a “switch” on a disobedient daughter. Well, as I recall even a poster on CAF has posted advocating the Dobson approach, I’d find it very uncharitable to assume she is an abuser.

Certainly, the “quiverfull” lifestyle likely puts women and children at a higher risk of abuse, but I think it’s going too far to assume ALL such families are abusive. Just as I’d be going too far to say ALL Indian families are abusive and enable the rape of their daughters, just because I know of one case in which a family did.

 

[robwar]

But corporal punishment does NOT always equate to abuse. I assume the Pearls are a more extreme version of James Dobson’s approach, who as I recall advocated using a “switch” on a disobedient daughter. Well, as I recall even a poster on CAF has posted advocating the Dobson approach, I’d find it very uncharitable to assume she is an abuser.

Certainly, the “quiverfull” lifestyle likely puts women and children at a higher risk of abuse, but I think it’s going too far to assume ALL such families are abusive. Just as I’d be going too far to say ALL Indian families are abusive and enable the rape of their daughters, just because I know of one case in which a family did.

I have concerns as a number of the blogs about them about what happens when the cameras are not on. I also think it is totally unhealthy to put yourself out there with their children to be raised this way. don’t we have enough problems with child movie stars being raised in front of everyone? To me that is a form of abuse. Children are not stage props. Even the Duck Dynasty brothers do not showcase their children in this manner and I’m not a fan of them either.

 

[robwar]

I’m puzzled by a few things…

1. Why is Ben living with the Duggar’s before marriage?
2. Does he have a job?
3. Will they both continue to live with the Duggar’s after they get married this Sat?

I remember reading their book awhile back. In it, they state that they told their oldest son Josh that he needed to have his life in order before he decided to get married, because once that happened, he wasn’t going to be living with them anymore.
If this isn’t the case with Ben, why are they pushing this marriage so hard?

The reasoning I read was that he lived a couple of hours away which made it hard to “court” and plan the wedding. he lives in a guest house on the land and had to give up his job to do so.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I have concerns as a number of the blogs about them about what happens when the cameras are not on. I also think it is totally unhealthy to put yourself out their with their children to be raised this way. don’t we have enough problems with child movie stars being raised in front of everyone? To me that is a form of abuse. Children are not stage props. Even the Duck Dynasty brothers do not showcase their children in this manner and I’m not a fan of them either.

I certainly agree that it’s problematic that the children are being raised in front of the cameras. Even adult “children” seem to have been affected badly by being used as “stage props” on reality TV, for example Dog the Bounty Hunter wound up estranged from both his son Duane Lee and his daughter Lyssa, neither of whom seemed that enthusiastic about being on TV when their show was on.

However, I don’t know if I’d call it “abuse”. Though perhaps I’m just in denial, since if I did think it was abuse, I’d feel obligated not to watch. And I actually don’t watch the TLC shows that regularly, but I do find the 19 Kids show to at least be “family-friendly” compared to a lot of other fare on TV at the same time.

 

[petitfleur]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

I agree.

Really? I said more than four kids would be too much to ME and you guys feel the need to swoop in, patronize me and tell me how much better you are. This was a response to being quiverfull.

The Pearls are nothing like Dobson. They tell women that if they are beaten by their husbands they are not submissive enough. They are specific about how to hit children. With plumbing line because it doesn't leave marks. They also withhold food as punishment. Thier book "To Train a Child" was pulled from Barnes and Nobel because it was linked to the death of a four year old who was disciplined to death. In more recent news the death of Lydia  Schatz was linked to thier methods. She died from extreme cruelty. Google it if you have a strong stomach. Debi Pearl brags about hitting other people's children. In a nutshell it's pretty awful.
 In case you get the impression I am saying large homeschooling families are bad here is a comparison. We have Ray Guarendi. Home schools, strong discipline, limits technology, he is very careful about what he exposes his kids to, he has those fundamentals in common. He also teaches real science and some of his kids went to college, he considers each kid as an individual. I remember his daughter who did not go worked at a preschool. though very strict on dating I remember his son was allowed to date as a teenager because the girl's family was friends of theirs and they knew they shared the same values. All these kids are given opportunities to chose what they want. They are not told from birth that you all you can do in life is marry and raise kids.

 

[Faith1960]

I don’t think its a deciding factor. I guess my point was that

quiverfull is about a woman’s only purpose is to get married and to have as many children as possible. They are critical of women having careers, and supporting themselves. Women should be able to choose to have 18 kids or not marry at all and have a career. Not everybody has the same gifts and talents. I really wish I could of been like some women I know who feel a great sense of pride in keeping their home. I just don’t. I really tried to fit that mold. I really thought I was supposed to stay at home forever. I wanted to want to. It really didn’t work out. I don’t think it makes me any less than someone who has eight kids.

   I feel that arranged marriages are very dehumanizing. I think of how sacred all human life is, and the same as how sacred marriage is supposed to be. It seem to me that arranged marriages go against that. Perhaps the problem with marriages is more to do with people not considering the spiritual Union part of marriage when entering into it.

Is it certain that they are a quiverfull family?