8 Simple Rules for dating a Duggar Daughter

[severus68]

I never figured this would be an issue for you. Interesting. Good to know you support our faith so much that you object to other Christians efforts to evangelize. I guess the answer to this is to evangelize the duggars. I would note that politically they are a huge asset to our pro life cause. From josh to the constant posts on social media to speeches. Would that more Catholics lived the faith as loud as the duggars!

I do not hate the Duggars, but I have no interest in enpoweing them and their screwed up views.

Being snarky are you? Did you not see that my objection was to them finding it necessary to convert Catholics - we are not really Christians to them?

Their being pro-life does not make them saints.I would have more respect for them if they practised some abstinence and did not subject their last two babies to such suffering. They have some acquaintances also with 19 children, a few their biological children, the rest, adopted, all with special needs. That family, I have great admiration for.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Hoosier Daddy, I will ask you straight out because you have not addressed this critique of the Duggars as far as I can tell.

Do you believe your daughters are under your authority until they get married? Not just when they are teenage minors, but when they are past the age of majority like Jessa (21) and Jill (23)? Do you expect your daughters to live at home until they marry? Do you believe that when your daughters get married, that they must be under the authority of a husband? Do you believe your daughters hearts belong to you? Do you expect your daughters to only date men you pre-approve of? Do you expect your ADULT daughters to CC you on all texts they send their boyfriends? Do you expect a prospective suitor to ask your permission (not your blessing, your permission, with the understanding that if you say no, that’s that) to propose to your daughter? This is what the Duggars believe.

Jim Bob has stated multiple times that when his daughters get married, he will be “giving them away” and “handing them off” to their husbands. Now, I suppose you can argue that he is just talking figuratively, but this is NOT Catholic doctrine. “Giving a daughter away” is NOT part of the traditional Catholic marriage rite. Catholics do NOT believe that a woman must always be under the authority of a man.

I’m not going to go quite as far as some others and call the Duggars “abusive” or a “cult”, I’m just pointing out that not everything they believe is what Catholics believe. Many others have stated the same. I agree that not everyone needs to go to college, and I have no problem with being pro-life, being providentialist (though IMHO the way the Duggars have tried to maximize their number of offspring by measures such as weaning babies early isn’t really providentialist), homeschooling, saving kisses for marriage, or even kids staying home until marriage if that is their choice (this is actually the case for many secular families these days too just because rents are so high in many places).

Like masondoggy, I myself initially liked and respected the Duggars for the most part even though I disagree with many of their beliefs (such as young-earth creationism). However, what I found appropriate when the children, both boys and girls were minor children, I do not find quite as appropriate when dealing with ADULT women. Even the “8 simple rules” I don’t think are that onerous for young teenagers. I simply do NOT find them appropriate for twenty-something adults. If you believe they ARE appropriate, then I guess we’re at an impasse here. But this is what I personally find disturbing about the list.

 

[aloe]

When I learned about their lack of respect for their youngest family members (babies via “blanket training” and other harsh methods) they lost my respect.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Hoosier Daddy, I will ask you straight out because you have not addressed this critique of the Duggars as far as I can tell.

Do you believe your daughters are under your authority until they get married? Not just when they are teenage minors, but when they are past the age of majority like Jessa (21) and Jill (23)? Do you expect your daughters to live at home until they marry? Do you believe that when your daughters get married, that they must be under the authority of a husband? Do you believe your daughters hearts belong to you? Do you expect your daughters to only date men you pre-approve of? Do you expect your ADULT daughters to CC you on all texts they send their boyfriends? Do you expect a prospective suitor to ask your permission (not your blessing, your permission, with the understanding that if you say no, that’s that) to propose to your daughter? This is what the Duggars believe.

…

Like masondoggy, I myself initially liked and respected the Duggars for the most part even though I disagree with many of their beliefs (such as young-earth creationism). However, what I found appropriate when the children, both boys and girls were minor children, I do not find quite as appropriate when dealing with ADULT women. Even the “8 simple rules” I don’t think are that onerous for young teenagers. I simply do NOT find them appropriate for twenty-something adults. If you believe they ARE appropriate, then I guess we’re at an impasse here. But this is what I personally find disturbing about the list.

I’m not sure it matters what I believe but I will answer your questions anyway.

1. I don’t believe that the way you probably mean it but we all have to obey the commandments and that includes honoring our parents. That does not stop at age 18. I certainly expect my 21 year old child (man or woman) to be under the respect of my and my wife’s authority especially if living at home.
2. I expect my children (sons or daughters) to live at home as long as they wish and as long as they would like that protection and relationship with my wife and I.
3. Spiritual headship of the husband is certainly a Catholic principle. Do I tell my wife what to do? no. Do I lead? yes. There are many threads on this issue on these boards.
4. I certainly hope they sons and daughters have the relationship with me that would mean that they would only want to date men I approve of. In the recent wedding show on TLC the daughter says something like " I want to marry him if he is a good man, and dad, you say he is a good man." I can see nothing wrong with my daughter saying the same thing to me.
5. I do not expect my daughters to CC me in on adult texts. I think that is over the top. Does that mean that the Duggars are somehow evil pagans? no.
6. I expect to be asked my permission/blessing (not sure why you would split hairs on the difference) This is America, and my daughter certainly and sadly has the freedom to go down to the courthouse and marry whomever she wishes. (Even another woman) in many cases. So I would think most parents who are Catholics have some sort of feeling about this. If I said no to some punk loser who wanted to marry my daughter and wrote a silly reggae song about it. I would expect my children would listen to me.
7. Ever single wedding I have ever attended. (and that is a lot) people, especially fathers, have used the phrase “give her away” I have never heard “handed her off”.
   This was present in even the most athiestic weddings I have seen.
   Don’t you think it is unfair to judge Jim Bob for saying the same thing?

You are missing two major points here. It does not matter what I personally believe or how I live the faith we share. That is not the issue at all. The issue is why we attack someone for living their faith, a basic faith we share by the way, differently than you or I might? Why is it that unless they are apparently a Catholic family who thinks as you do that they are somehow less. Why is it that in the culture we now live in, with the TV that is on, do we turn on ourselves (Christians) and Attack? The Duggars have done more to promote christian values and pro life causes than you or I will have done. They have a unique platform that we do not. And yes, their doctrine is flawed. But it frankly is one of the most wholesome shows on TV. When my children watch it, they do not see the Christian Patriarch movement, or how the Duggars have some different theology than them, they see an example of a large family that loves each other, behaves well, respects the parents, and grows up in the proper order.

The second point you are missing is that the Duggars do not live in some fear fenced barb wired community. The adult children are free to do as they wish. TV crews follow them everywhere. I don’t see Jim Bob as the control freak some are describing. A control freak would not let editors have the last say in content of the show.

Do I think the are extreme in their beliefs. Sure. But there are faithful heaven bound Catholics that believe some very similar things.

Ultimately I think there is a lot of hypocrisy on this thread. A more extreme and abusive show might be the shows about the Amish. That is more cultlike than this. So would a show about a Jewish family who wanted their children to be doctors, or a athletic family pushing their child to excel at sports. You want to see brainwashing? Try Olympic interviews with parents of Olympians.

I remember a few years ago there was a show about 5 men discerning the priesthood. That had some troubling aspects to it. I will think about what it was called and post later.

 

[Xantippe]

Hoosier Daddy, I will ask you straight out because you have not addressed this critique of the Duggars as far as I can tell.

Do you believe your daughters are under your authority until they get married? Not just when they are teenage minors, but when they are past the age of majority like Jessa (21) and Jill (23)?

Yes. That is very problematic for so many reasons, but here are a few:

**1. It means that marrying is the only escape route from parental control, which means that some young women will marry mainly with an eye to getting out from under their parents.

1. It stunts young women’s maturation process if they are never responsible for making any major decisions on their own. It is a very sad thing when a woman like that loses her husband via divorce or death of her husband (and the latter is actuarily speaking, very likely). They are quite childlike and helpless. No matter how good or wise the father or the husband were, in the normal course of events, a father or a husband won’t be around for the entirety of a woman’s life. Given that, it behooves us to raise daughters who are capable of making good decisions on their own and who won’t crumble with no one around to tell her what to do. And it’s never too early to start giving children age-appropriate amounts of freedom to make decisions. **

Do you expect your daughters to live at home until they marry?

**1. So much for the convent.

It’s interesting that in the Catholic tradition, there are many stories of young women and young men who enter religious life over the loud protests of their parents. We have traditionally embraced the idea that women do not need parental consent to become nuns. And there’s a quote (from the desert fathers or some similar early source?) where a man is told that if your father lies in the doorway to keep you from leaving for religious life or the priesthood, step right over him.

Catholics ought not to embrace this particular vision of daughters moving seamlessly between parental and husbandly authority, because it is not our tradition.

1. On a purely personal note, I had 2 years of solo apartment living between college and when I met my husband, and those were very formative years. It was lonely and I was scared from time to time, but it gave me confidence that I could manage on my own, and I didn’t need a man to survive purely economically. That meant that when I did meet my future husband, I was able to be much more altruistic about the relationship, much more engaged with the relational side of it. I had my freedom and I was supporting myself, but I wanted love and companionship and (eventually) a family.
2. For both sexes, having to do everything at home for oneself (rather than sharing jobs with others) is very educational, and makes one more appreciative when one finds somebody to share the work with. Thus, instead of “Wow, my wife sure can’t cook like mom,” a new husband who had lived by himself might think, “Wow! I don’t have to get all of my meals myself. Sweet!” The second husband is going to be way more fun to be a newlywed with.**

Do you believe that when your daughters get married, that they must be under the authority of a husband?

**And a 19-year-old one to boot. I can’t imagine encouraging a “strong” view of male headship with a 22-year-old daughter who was marrying a 19-year-old guy. Unless we had totally screwed up, she would have at least three years more wisdom and know-how than her new husband. **

Do you believe your daughters hearts belong to you? Do you expect your daughters to only date men you pre-approve of? Do you expect your ADULT daughters to CC you on all texts they send their boyfriends? Do you expect a prospective suitor to ask your permission (not your blessing, your permission, with the understanding that if you say no, that’s that) to propose to your daughter? This is what the Duggars believe.

**!!! **

Jim Bob has stated multiple times that when his daughters get married, he will be “giving them away” and “handing them off” to their husbands. Now, I suppose you can argue that he is just talking figuratively, but this is NOT Catholic doctrine. “Giving a daughter away” is NOT part of the traditional Catholic marriage rite. Catholics do NOT believe that a woman must always be under the authority of a man.

**Yes.

For one thing, it would be pretty awkward for the Catholic daughter of an atheist father to expect him to do all the Duggar stuff for her.
**

Like masondoggy, I myself initially liked and respected the Duggars for the most part even though I disagree with many of their beliefs (such as young-earth creationism). However, what I found appropriate when the children, both boys and girls were minor children, I do not find quite as appropriate when dealing with ADULT women. Even the “8 simple rules” I don’t think are that onerous for young teenagers. I simply do NOT find them appropriate for twenty-something adults. If you believe they ARE appropriate, then I guess we’re at an impasse here. But this is what I personally find disturbing about the list.

Yes to the inappropriateness of this level of control for adult daughters.

 

[Xantippe]

In the recent wedding show on TLC the daughter says something like " I want to marry him if he is a good man, and dad, you say he is a good man." I can see nothing wrong with my daughter saying the same thing to me.

**I do. I hope that our kids will have been brought up well enough that they can tell the difference themselves.

If a young woman can’t figure out who is a good man and who isn’t by herself with minimal outside (name removed by moderator)ut, she isn’t old enough to get married.**

1. I expect to be asked my permission/blessing (not sure why you would split hairs on the difference) This is America, and my daughter certainly and sadly has the freedom to go down to the courthouse and marry whomever she wishes. (Even another woman) in many cases. So I would think most parents who are Catholics have some sort of feeling about this. If I said no to some punk loser who wanted to marry my daughter and wrote a silly reggae song about it. I would expect my children would listen to me.

**Having experienced rejection from Catholic in-laws who are reasonably good people, but not at all prepared for the idea that their little boy (a PHD at the time) was going to get married without asking them to help pick out the bride, I would not expect my children to listen to me. The in-laws eventually came around, but it was a pretty clear demonstration of the non-infallibility of parents (especially when one of the in-laws stopped talking to us for nearly a decade after we got married). A lot of people on CAF have stories like that, not to mention stories of problems with inappropriate relationships with parents and in-laws.

I would hope that my kids would listen, but I wouldn’t expect it. And I hope I would restrain myself from slamming their intended, but focus on encouraging marriage prep and a good personal finance course during the engagement.

**

You are missing two major points here. It does not matter what I personally believe or how I live the faith we share. That is not the issue at all. The issue is why we attack someone for living their faith, a basic faith we share by the way, differently than you or I might?

What is being attacked is the “unique features” that are not part of our shared faith and which give Christians a bad name.

Ultimately I think there is a lot of hypocrisy on this thread. A more extreme and abusive show might be the shows about the Amish. That is more cultlike than this. So would a show about a Jewish family who wanted their children to be doctors, or a athletic family pushing their child to excel at sports. You want to see brainwashing? Try Olympic interviews with parents of Olympians.

**Yes, but the thread was about “8 simple rules for dating a Duggar daughter.” Hence, we our discussing our differences with the Duggar courtship system and how it is distinct from our Catholic values.
**
I remember a few years ago there was a show about 5 men discerning the priesthood. That had some troubling aspects to it. I will think about what it was called and post later.

Reality TV is evil. No arguments.

 

[masondoggy]

I’m not sure it matters what I believe but I will answer your questions anyway.

1. I don’t believe that the way you probably mean it but we all have to obey the commandments and that includes honoring our parents. That does not stop at age 18. I certainly expect my 21 year old child (man or woman) to be under the respect of my and my wife’s authority especially if living at home.
2. I expect my children (sons or daughters) to live at home as long as they wish and as long as they would like that protection and relationship with my wife and I.
3. Spiritual headship of the husband is certainly a Catholic principle. Do I tell my wife what to do? no. Do I lead? yes. There are many threads on this issue on these boards.
4. I certainly hope they sons and daughters have the relationship with me that would mean that they would only want to date men I approve of. In the recent wedding show on TLC the daughter says something like " I want to marry him if he is a good man, and dad, you say he is a good man." I can see nothing wrong with my daughter saying the same thing to me.
5. I do not expect my daughters to CC me in on adult texts. I think that is over the top. Does that mean that the Duggars are somehow evil pagans? no.
6. I expect to be asked my permission/blessing (not sure why you would split hairs on the difference) This is America, and my daughter certainly and sadly has the freedom to go down to the courthouse and marry whomever she wishes. (Even another woman) in many cases. So I would think most parents who are Catholics have some sort of feeling about this. If I said no to some punk loser who wanted to marry my daughter and wrote a silly reggae song about it. I would expect my children would listen to me.
7. Ever single wedding I have ever attended. (and that is a lot) people, especially fathers, have used the phrase “give her away” I have never heard “handed her off”.
   This was present in even the most athiestic weddings I have seen.
   Don’t you think it is unfair to judge Jim Bob for saying the same thing?

You are missing two major points here. It does not matter what I personally believe or how I live the faith we share. That is not the issue at all. The issue is why we attack someone for living their faith, a basic faith we share by the way, differently than you or I might? Why is it that unless they are apparently a Catholic family who thinks as you do that they are somehow less. Why is it that in the culture we now live in, with the TV that is on, do we turn on ourselves (Christians) and Attack? The Duggars have done more to promote christian values and pro life causes than you or I will have done. They have a unique platform that we do not. And yes, their doctrine is flawed. But it frankly is one of the most wholesome shows on TV. When my children watch it, they do not see the Christian Patriarch movement, or how the Duggars have some different theology than them, they see an example of a large family that loves each other, behaves well, respects the parents, and grows up in the proper order.

The second point you are missing is that the Duggars do not live in some fear fenced barb wired community. The adult children are free to do as they wish. TV crews follow them everywhere. I don’t see Jim Bob as the control freak some are describing. A control freak would not let editors have the last say in content of the show.

Do I think the are extreme in their beliefs. Sure. But there are faithful heaven bound Catholics that believe some very similar things.

Ultimately I think there is a lot of hypocrisy on this thread. A more extreme and abusive show might be the shows about the Amish. That is more cultlike than this. So would a show about a Jewish family who wanted their children to be doctors, or a athletic family pushing their child to excel at sports. You want to see brainwashing? Try Olympic interviews with parents of Olympians.

I remember a few years ago there was a show about 5 men discerning the priesthood. That had some troubling aspects to it. I will think about what it was called and post later.

Wait, wait, wait a minute. Nobody here has insinuated or accused the Duggars of being evil or bad people. Not even close. As for myself, I think they are great people who have severely been MISLED. I feel concern for them. But I have no bad feelings towards them.

And maybe this discussion appears as an attack, but I don’t think that’s the intention of anybody here. The Duggars have deliberately put their entire lives out in the open and that opens their family up to public scrutiny. There’s a difference between having concern for what somebody is doing and attacking. I think the ones attacking are those in the secular comments sections that are harping on this family for having so many kids and gasp! teaching them about Jesus.

I think there’s a difference.

And fwiw, I do have the same concerns about the Amish. But I think the Duggars and those who are involved in the Gothard movement are in the same category as the amish. They keep their families isolated from the world, give them a very basic education that prevents them from surviving in the world, and makes it VERY hard, if not impossible, to choose to live in the outside world on their own. And I have read that in the Gothard movement, when somebody leaves, they ARE shunned just as in the amish community.

They are all cults, imo, and their practices are concerning to me because they cause real harm to their members.

 

[masondoggy]

I don’t think one needs a college education to be successful at life, but it’s hard to imagine what the quality would be of a person’s entire degree was online. I am back at school now and cannot imagine taking my philosophy class online. I think the classroom expierence is important. Not for all classes but I would want my kids to expierence it. The same way I want my kids to expierence a job outside the home where they interact and have a boss, and customers of all types. I want them to have a bank account and pay a bill or two, and know how to stay in budget. 18 months seem like they are missing so much. I don’t think any of them have completed a program.

Yes.

There’s a lot of talk about online courses as being the cure to everything, but the truth is that when you’re just starting a subject or weak in a subject, online courses are usually not the way to go–weak students need a lot of hand-holding. A lot of people start online courses and then fizzle out because it doesn’t have the structure and urgency of an in-person class. I believe that online classes can work for strong, highly-motivated students, but not for a lot of other people.

articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/06/local/la-me-online-remedial-20130706

I don’t think online college is necessarily bad as long as it’s an accredited, legitimate program that will lead to a degree that will lead to a job. I’ve taken a lot of online classes for my nursing program (they’re leaning toward online classes for any class that doesn’t involve clinical or lab time). If they’re done right, they can be much better than being in class because they can be flexible and I can go back if I missed something unlike an in-class lecture.

But my understanding about their homeschool program and College Plus program is that they are very substandard education-wise and will not give these kids a degree that they can use in the outside world.

And yes, college isn’t always necessary. There are other options. It seems that the boys have the freedom to pursue those options more than the girls. They’re even allowed to go out and start their own business.

 

[Xantippe]

And fwiw, I do have the same concerns about the Amish. But I think the Duggars and those who are involved in the Gothard movement are in the same category as the amish. They keep their families isolated from the world, give them a very basic education that prevents them from surviving in the world, and makes it VERY hard, if not impossible, to choose to live in the outside world on their own. And I have read that in the Gothard movement, when somebody leaves, they ARE shunned just as in the amish community.

Yes.

There are 8 Duggar children age 18-26.

And yet apparently, none of those college-age and older children wanted to go to a four-year away-from-home college. Patrick Henry caters to exactly this clientele, and yet none of them have gone (please correct me if I’m wrong).

Given that currently, around 2/3 of US high school graduates at least start college, that’s interesting, especially considering how many of them lack the advantages provided by having an intact home, vibrant religious faith and a very healthy family income.

I’m not saying that all of the Duggar kids would have to go to away-from-home college for me to be happy, but how about just one college graduate out of the bunch? The current US average is around 30% of over-25-year-olds have bachelors degrees. What are the odds that none of the older Duggar kids could benefit from an in-residence 4-year-degree?

 

[casslean]

Have I misunderstood my catechism with respect to parental authority? I’m still a catechumen and still learning, so please bear with me here, but what even HoosierDaddy describes does not seem like what the catechism teaches on children and parental authority.

The duties of children

2217 As long as a child lives at home with his parents, the child should obey his parents in all that they ask of him when it is for his good or that of the family. "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord."22 Children should also obey the reasonable directions of their teachers and all to whom their parents have entrusted them. But if a child is convinced in conscience that it would be morally wrong to obey a particular order, he must not do so.
As they grow up, children should continue to respect their parents. They should anticipate their wishes, willingly seek their advice, and accept their just admonitions. Obedience toward parents ceases with the emancipation of the children; not so respect, which is always owed to them. This respect has its roots in the fear of God, one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The duties of parents

2230 When they become adults, children have the right and duty to choose their profession and state of life. They should assume their new responsibilities within a trusting relationship with their parents, willingly asking and receiving their advice and counsel. Parents should be careful not to exert pressure on their children either in the choice of a profession or in that of a spouse. This necessary restraint does not prevent them - quite the contrary from giving their children judicious advice, particularly when they are planning to start a family.

I cannot see how preventing children who continue to live at home from attaining an education or life experience can be considered “for their own good” or even for the good of the family (not to mention the catch-22 that it prevents them from being able to leave and be emancipated from their parents). That is what the Duggars are doing - it doesn’t seem even close to being Catholic in principle or teaching.

Further, as children grow into adults, parents are to respect a child’s choice in their profession and choice of spouse. If, as HoosierDaddy suggests, he expects his daughter to listen when he vetoes her choice of the punk reggae loser, is that not exerting undue pressure? It is certainly different than hoping she would listen when he advises her against it.

This is an important issue for me. My parents disagree with my decision to join the Catholic Church. I was, for part of this journey, living under their roof although I was over the age of majority. I don’t feel their disagreement was based in what was for my good, so I continued on my current path. I have to ask myself though - what if one of the Duggar children (one of the girls, especially) felt called to the Catholic Church. Would the extreme level of control exerted by the parents be acceptable to Catholics then?

 

[masondoggy]

Yes.

There are 8 Duggar children age 18-26.

And yet apparently, none of those college-age and older children wanted to go to a four-year away-from-home college. Patrick Henry caters to exactly this clientele, and yet none of them have gone (please correct me if I’m wrong).

Given that currently, around 2/3 of US high school graduates at least start college, that’s interesting, especially considering how many of them lack the advantages provided by having an intact home, vibrant religious faith and a very healthy family income.

I’m not saying that all of the Duggar kids would have to go to away-from-home college for me to be happy, but how about just one college graduate out of the bunch? The current US average is around 30% of over-25-year-olds have bachelors degrees. What are the odds that none of the older Duggar kids could benefit from an in-residence 4-year-degree?

And yet Jim Bob and Michelle BOTH graduated from a traditional college. They had a lot of advantages that they’re kids will never have that has made it possible for them to support such a large family. They have real college degrees, both of them got their real estate licenses and ran several businesses before they ever began having kids. By the time that first baby came, they were already financially established and capable of living debt free.

Their kids won’t have any of that. They’re married off with substandard education, they’re taught that they can’t do anything to prevent having babies so they will start coming one right after another before these couples even have a chance to get established. I know how hard that is because DH and I lived it. We married very young and were dirt poor when our babies started coming along. But we had one advantage that helped us get by: DH was a master auto technician and was able to make a living with his skill and eventually work up into management. We live comfortably now thanks to the skills he ALREADY had when we got married.

I think it’s unfair the position that they put their adult children in. A position that they themselves were never in. But yet they expect that these couples will somehow be able to support a family of 16+++ kids.

Yea, they may get by but poverty is in their future. Well, unless they share the TLC nest egg with these couples. But still, is that nest egg going to support 19 children and their supersized families well into the future?

 

[Xantippe]

Have I misunderstood my catechism with respect to parental authority? I’m still a catechumen and still learning, so please bear with me here, but what even HoosierDaddy describes does not seem like what the catechism teaches on children and parental authority.

I cannot see how preventing children who continue to live at home from attaining an education or life experience can be considered “for their own good” or even for the good of the family (not to mention the catch-22 that it prevents them from being able to leave and be emancipated from their parents). That is what the Duggars are doing - it doesn’t seem even close to being Catholic in principle or teaching.

Further, as children grow into adults, parents are to respect a child’s choice in their profession and choice of spouse. If, as HoosierDaddy suggests, he expects his daughter to listen when he vetoes her choice of the punk reggae loser, is that not exerting undue pressure? It is certainly different than hoping she would listen when he advises her against it.

This is an important issue for me. My parents disagree with my decision to join the Catholic Church. I was, for part of this journey, living under their roof although I was over the age of majority. I don’t feel their disagreement was based in what was for my good, so I continued on my current path. I have to ask myself though - what if one of the Duggar children (one of the girls, especially) felt called to the Catholic Church. Would the extreme level of control exerted by the parents be acceptable to Catholics then?

Those are all very good points. I especially like your point about the Catch-22.

The Duggar girls might do better, being famous and all, but girls in similar family systems without that advantage would have an awful time leaving the system, because it’s booby-trapped to keep them from being able to leave. They have no high school diploma, no college degree, no earning ability, etc. (And no, the average CPM does not attend a lot of homebirths. The average CPM is lucky to attend one a month.)

 

[Xantippe]

And yet Jim Bob and Michelle BOTH graduated from a traditional college. They had a lot of advantages that they’re kids will never have that has made it possible for them to support such a large family. They have real college degrees, both of them got their real estate licenses and ran several businesses before they ever began having kids. By the time that first baby came, they were already financially established and capable of living debt free.

Wow.

Their kids won’t have any of that. They’re married off with substandard education, they’re taught that they can’t do anything to prevent having babies so they will start coming one right after another before these couples even have a chance to get established. I know how hard that is because DH and I lived it. We married very young and were dirt poor when our babies started coming along. But we had one advantage that helped us get by: DH was a master auto technician and was able to make a living with his skill and eventually work up into management. We live comfortably now thanks to the skills he ALREADY had when we got married.

**Yes. It’s really important to have a little bit of a head start on life before starting to have kids. That was the traditional model back in the 19th century and before. **

I think it’s unfair the position that they put their adult children in. A position that they themselves were never in. But yet they expect that these couples will somehow be able to support a family of 16+++ kids.

Yea, they may get by but poverty is in their future. Well, unless they share the TLC nest egg with these couples. But still, is that nest egg going to support 19 children and their supersized families well into the future?

Yes. It’s either going to be extreme poverty or dependence, either on the Duggar parents or on public assistance.

 

[petitfleur]

I’ll probably start my own thread, but I mention it here because a lot of people don’t see behind the scenes or what can happen.

Being expected to put on a happy face at all times creates families that both look very, very good and are extremely emotionally damaging. And this is something that many of the parenting books that the Duggars endorse recommend. It’s a mentality where thought-crime runs rampant, and expressing an unapproved desire or wish is forbidden. But again, it does lead to putting on a happy, Christian front - even more so because showing dissatisfaction in front of non-Christians it considered tantamount to blasphemy. (I’m not kidding on that one - dissatisfaction or unhappiness is a sign that you’re unhappy with “God’s will”, and showing that in front of unbelievers might make them think that Christianity isn’t any better than their lives.)

I thought you were using Cynthia Jeub as an example. So sorry for your pain. Thank you for describing your abuse. I did not feel like getting into the psycological abuse part. I did t think I could describe it properly, and not sure i could give it justice. I admire you greatly for getting out and promise to remember you in my prayers.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Ultimately I think there is a lot of hypocrisy on this thread. A more extreme and abusive show might be the shows about the Amish. That is more cultlike than this. So would a show about a Jewish family who wanted their children to be doctors, or a athletic family pushing their child to excel at sports. You want to see brainwashing? Try Olympic interviews with parents of Olympians.

I brought up several groups that have issues with religious abuse. But I don’t think the Amish really apply. Before accepting a young adult as a full member of the community, they go through a rumspringa. They are free to do whatever they want with whomever they want for as long as they want. The community still allows them to live at home and be a part of the church. The Amish believe that someone cannot sincerely choose the church if they don’t know what the alternatives that they’re giving up are.

Interestingly, the Catholic faith has always had an emphasis on education and learning-hence the very well educated clergy and the long tradition of running well respected universities. So do most mainline Muslim groups. Heck, even in the Saudi Kingdom it is a family shame if the girls don’t go to college. Intellect is seen as a gift from Allah and exploring and growing It is a service to him.

The kids on this show have no idea what the world is like. They have never made a single choice on their own. Under this system, you wouldn’t have the same smart, vibrant wife that you do. You wouldn’t be homeschooling. No one is ripping this family apart. What we are saying is that this is not a healthy way to find a spouse, nor is it what the Catholic church teaches.

Just because you see problems with “secular dating” doesn’t make this system any less flawed. Every idea needs to be judged on it’s own merits. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is only going to lead you away from Catholicism if that common-enemy “friend” is a heretic!

 

[masondoggy]

I think you’ll find there are some of us here who could tell horror stories. From my own life…there was never physical abuse. I mean, yes, I got spanked plenty, but that wasn’t abusive. What hurt was the emotional and spiritual climate.

It was being told when you talked about not wanting to marry that it was a sign of your rebellious heart.

It was suffering from depression and being told to put a smile on your face and stop sulking but never asking if anything was wrong or how you felt.

It was hearing that if you weren’t cheerful people would go to hell because they’d think badly of God and be forever turned away from Christianity.

It was being told over and over again how bad and sinful and generally worthless you were.

It was being spanked for crying and being told that you only cry because you’re manipulative and rebellious.

It was being told the minute you showed any anger or frustration, no matter how measured, that you were out of control.

It’s a parent discovering self-harm and screaming about how you’re dishonoring God and don’t you dare do that again, and never following up.

It was trying to approach problems and only being punished for being rude, but being denied when you asked how you should ask - or being punished after asking the way you were told to.

Those are what cause damage as surely as anything.

Wow, I’m so sorry you had to live through that.

I can only imagine the psychological and spiritual damage it would do.

 

[masondoggy]

I brought up several groups that have issues with religious abuse. But I don’t think the Amish really apply. Before accepting a young adult as a full member of the community, they go through a rumspringa. They are free to do whatever they want with whomever they want for as long as they want. The community still allows them to live at home and be a part of the church. The Amish believe that someone cannot sincerely choose the church if they don’t know what the alternatives that they’re giving up are.

I think that this varies among different Amish communities, though. But the problem is that they severely under-educate their children. Education stops at 8th grade so even if they decide by going through “rumspringa” that they don’t want to remain in the community, leaving still isn’t an option because they can’t survive in the outside world…unless they have help. So in the end, they’re left with no choice.

 

[Xantippe]

I No one is ripping this family apart. What we are saying is that this is not a healthy way to find a spouse, nor is it what the Catholic church teaches.

Yes. In this thread, there has mainly been primarily a critique of the system and the principles, rather than of the personalities. The system would still be a mistake, no matter who did it, because the system is fatally flawed.

Just because you see problems with “secular dating” doesn’t make this system any less flawed. Every idea needs to be judged on it’s own merits. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is only going to lead you away from Catholicism if that common-enemy “friend” is a heretic!

Yes.

It’s common to say that a heresy always has truth at its heart, but then sacrifices everything else to pushing that truth too far.

In the case of the quiverfull/patriarchal fundamentalist model, the truths are premarital chastity, respect for parents, and the good of having children, with many other important goods sacrificed to those two goods. Those three are all good things, but they are not the only good things. In fact, the New Testament strongly suggests that the latter two are not the very pinnacle of virtue (see Matthew 19:29 and 1 Corinthians 7:8, just for starters).

 

[Xantippe]

I think that this varies among different Amish communities, though. But the problem is that they severely under-educate their children. Education stops at 8th grade so even if they decide by going through “rumspringa” that they don’t want to remain in the community, leaving still isn’t an option because they can’t survive in the outside world…unless they have help. So in the end, they’re left with no choice.

Yes, I was noting that while watching the documentary Devil’s Playground.

On the one hand, the teens and young adults are free to enjoy their rumspringa and sex drugs and rock and roll, but it’s very difficult to get out and lead a normal middle class American life (even a normal middle class Evangelical life) with an 8th grade education.

The documentary showed one young woman who managed to make the jump from the Amish to something more like mainstream Evangelicalism, but it seemed like for most, the choice that rumspringa presents is between 1) a normal Amish life and 2) a very hardscrabble, minimal existence on the outside. But there is technically a choice, and it is part of their system.

 

[petitfleur]

I read a story where a girl managed to be able to take community college classes but it was so difficult for her she ended up dropping out. She felt she couldn’t meep up. (Talking about Amish) tough stuff.