TLC’s ‘19 Kids and Counting’: For a Taste of Real Freedom, Check Out the 19 Duggar Kids
by Charlie RichardsIn prepping a children’s program where I’d be recording all the Duggars from TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting, I read a lot about this family on the Internet.
Boy was that unhelpful.
I wanted to make sure I got their characters right while scripting the dialogue for an episode of Life at the Pond. And even though well over a million people watch this show weekly, the Internet was fraught with misinformation. I’ll spare you the gory details, a quick Google of “Duggars” will provide a couple hundred thousand results and you can get a bowl of popcorn and make a day of it.
But there was one common theme, sometimes from quasi reputable sites, that permeated the Internet: The Duggar children are captives in their own home.
Before traveling to Arkansas to record, I’d only spoken on the phone with Jim Bob Duggar, the father of all 19. I watched the TLC program, and that was my only exposure to the children. They seemed pretty well behaved, which explains why I wanted to use them in this episode in the first place.
Jim Bob was kind enough to invite my entire family into his home. We ended up spending parts of three days there, and I can tell you first hand, this is no ordinary family.
You won’t find a television in their giant living room. The Internet is greatly restricted. The girls’ room (9 of 10 sleep in one room – the only exception is temporary, newborn Josie) didn’t have Hanna Montana or boy band or vampire posters or anything like it.
Lady Gaga did not make the cut.
The most prevalent thing on the walls of the Duggar house are family pictures and scripture. So, yes, you could say quite accurately popular culture was shielded by the walls literally built by the Duggar family.
Funny thing is, people tend to assume a child not immersed in popular culture is a child missing from reality. In some cases, that is true. Not the Duggars.
My wife and I spent considerable time talking to the three teenage girls, Jill, Jessa and Jinger. They are sharp, fun and informed. They know what’s going on out there. But it isn’t at all a part of their every day life. And, to the shock and dismay of so many, they’re okay with that.
While, admittedly, I admire the Duggars for much of what they do, I didn’t expect what I saw in these three girls. The world has yet to beat them into submission. They don’t watch the Disney Channel, so they’ve yet to learn that adults are buffoons and parents are embarrassing. They don’t listen to the local rock station, so they’ve yet do discover life is supposed to be one promiscuous event followed by another. They don’t attend public school, so they’ve yet to learn teenage girls are required to be filled with angst and riddled with insecurities.
As we spoke to the three of them, one word kept jumping out at me: Freedom. These girls were experiencing freedom teenagers rarely taste. Completely free to be themselves. The exact opposite of the words so often used by media folk to describe the 19 kids.
While many times teenagers can’t wait to get away from adults, these three were anxious to engage in conversation. And they were delightful. All of the Duggars were.
And here’s another thing that springs from the Duggar house throughout the day: Humor. The TLC show captures some of that, but I was surprised by the amount of laughter and joking in that home.
Again, it goes back to freedom. While the left reflexively assumes it’s a world of “don’t do that” leading to a house of misery, reality is quite the opposite.
As the Duggar family proves.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
141 Comments
"but I was surprised by the amount of laughter and joking in that home."
Not me. The left has a loony notion that people who go to church, read the Bible, and actually have family values are total bores. It's not true, but the left can't be bothered to stop using this straw man.
Great article for a Sunday morning. Thanks!
While I personally think 19 is a -little- too much, the Duggars are a very stable family, especially if you compare them to, say, Octomom or the Gosselins. They raise their kids without exposing the easy dangers of obnoxious pop culture that make children so vulnerable.
Is it no surprise that a bitchy left-wing gossip site like Gawker hates the Duggars?
Left unsaid – one would think with 19 children pandemonium would reign supreme but the parents must exert a quiet discipline not seen in 2 children households.
They don't look like captives to me. They look very happy which is what the left doesn't want you to know.
Those kids will probably grow up to be more functional than most people. Actually, they probably already are.
How very cool. The peer pressure in society today is intense, especially for kids …from what you wear to what you do to how you think and feel. I had to stay on top of it with my kids and debunk so much of the PR, Lies & BS they'd come home with on a daily basis. The hardest was my son …11 years younger than my others. He was told that you can't trust your parents, to not befriend your parents, that parents were basically bad. So, I had him start challenging us on our views …he did and learned we were not "out to lunch" and that he was not only being taught revisionist history, but given false data by his teachers and being dumbed down.
Just another reason I love this family. I actually watch their show to improve me will to be a strong parent insted of a pushover. They are totally inspiring. If more people had their values so many of our country's problems would evaporate.
While I can't imagine having a litter of kids like the Duggars, I fully support anyone who wants to have a large family and is capable of caring for them without having financial assistance. What the Duggars want to do is their business, and the kids all seem like they function very well. Good for them.
I don't disagree with anything in this article, but I still don't understand why anyone thinks having this many kids is actually good for them. I don't doubt that they are great and they love each other, but two examples from my own life give me a different perspective on this sort of thing.
First, my mom is the oldest of six kids. From a very young age she started having to take care of her siblings. She never got to be a kid herself. And I'm not talking about watching TV as they lived in another country, on a farm with no running water. TV was not even on the horizon for them and computers didn't exist. Although she loves her sister and brothers, she apparently did not think this many kids was a good idea, because I'm an only child. Each one of her siblings has 2 kids.
Second, there is a family with 10 kids living just a couple of doors down from my house. I was really impressed with how well behaved and disciplined the kids seemed. Time, however, started to paint a very different picture of these kids. I started hearing bad words and objectionable dialogue from other kids (including mine) and when we asked who told them they always pointed to one of the 10. Another day I saw the youngest 3 wondering barefoot on the street as we do not have sidewalks. The youngest one was about 2 at the time.
There just isn't enough time in a day to give each child individual attention, which, in my opinion is important.
I was raised in a family of 28 kids (17 of them were adopted and many of those have physical and mental handicaps) and can not begin to tell you what a formative and wonderful experience it was for me. Chaos was tamped down because we were all expected to work with and for each other. Dad wasn't checked out and sports obsessed (Mom wouldn't let him be even if he wanted to) but lead by example.
Was it occasionally difficult? Yes. Did we all end up happily ever after? No. But all of us were better off for having been a member of that family and you can't get a better record than that.
P.S. The worst kids on my block are two objectionable little blighters with a couple of helicopter parents. It is probably a function of the size of their family…/sarc.
I don't have a problem with the kids being kept away from cultural influences that have made their peers promiscuous, shallow, self-centered brats.
I DO however, have a problem with having so many kids that it is physically impossible to care for them yourself. When you have to have your children care for your children (and I'm not saying kids can't help out with their siblings–I mean practically the full burden of raising them), you've got too many. I mean, does each kid have an alloted time slot for one-on-one time with each parent? How can the parents attend to the emotional and physical needs of each child? My guess is they can't. I call that irresponsible.
While I personally think 19 is a -little- too much, the Duggars are a very stable family, especially if you compare them to, say, Octomom or the Gosselins. They raise their kids without exposing the easy dangers of obnoxious pop culture that make children so vulnerable and actually take responsibility for all 19 of them.
Is it any surprise that a snippy left-wing gossip site like Gawker hates them so?
"How can the parents attend to the emotional and physical needs of each child?"
Maybe by teaching their children to become a little less physically and emotionally needy? Seriously though, I find only children to be almost as appalling and if I were interested in over-generalizations about their mental health I might suggest that having two parents hover over their wee chick to tell them what a unique little snowflake it is might also be irresponsible.
Oh I don't know, it sounds to me like they're able to care for each other. Read literature describing large families at any period of time and you have stories of the eldest children caring for the younger ones when the parents are engaged with other things.
They look and sound fine…but the concept of wanting to have 19 kids is a bit strange if I'm honest.
In your mom's generation and those before it, helping the family was part of the "kid" job description. Both my parents came from large broods, and the kids were required to help support and care for the family.
Of course some kids will thrive in that role, and others will find it stultifying. But that doesn't mean it's all good or all bad.
I admire the Duggars, also. Though I would sooner pull out all my hair than be a mom of such a big brood, I love the freedom our country allows for such unique lifestyles.
True. I have a single chick, but I'm no helicopter parent. My husband and I expect her to function independently. In many ways, she's a typical 12-year-old; however, she has a strong sense of self and no desire to sacrifice it to the latest fads. So far, so good, in our opinion!
I like the Duggars. Their show is the only non-chef reality show I'll watch. I've always thought that if we all had even 1/4th of Michelle Duggar's patience, the world would be a better place. It's easy to see that they all love and care about one another and if that's supposed to be weird, then I'd rather be weird.
Another good thing about the Duggars: they're debt free, and have been long before their shows started.
:0) I'm not really trying to pick any fights but large families are not too terribly different than families of any other size and have their good and bad points just as smaller families do.
I guess my point is that if two loving and engaged (you're right, not helicopter-y) parents teach their kids about honest work, self-sufficiency and familial love then I don't much care if they have 1 or 21 kids.
I understood that and wanted to underscore your point that a generalization is bound to be inaccurate.
I have no objections to the Duggars– it's their life and they seem uniquely suited to the task of such a large family and devote all their energy to the job. And I think most of the criticisms come from people who are projecting their own experiences and biases on the Duggars. I came from a family of four and my parents seemed overwhelmed. But my husband's cousin has 10 kids who are wonderfully adjusted, awesome kids. The main thing when it comes to child-rearing is know thyself. I only had two because I knew I could give them the attention they needed without feeling overwhelmed myself. There is no template for every family and very few people could do what the Duggars are doing (someone mentioned Kate Gosselin and Octomom as comparisons) but they do appear to do a good job and I bet the Duggar children stand a better chance of being well-adjusted, contributing members of society than any child with the misfortune of being born to most shallow, celebrity types we see these days.
I would never expose my family to be in a reality show. Just how I feel. I don't feel ill will or admiration for the Duggers. I just wouldn't do it.
What I think is dysfunctional is this process where our children are *expected* to resent a new baby in the house because it takes something away from them.
Why don't we emphasize the wonderful aspect of having yet *another* primary relationship?
Instead of two people to love us, we've got three… or four… or five. How is that less instead of more?
But I'm old enough to remember when "he's an only child" was a common way to explain the obvious reason why someone was a complete brat.
"So, yes, you could say quite accurately popular culture was shielded by the walls literally built by the Duggar family."
With the possible exception of the cable TV show they're STARRING in. …or is the "shield" so good that the kids think every family has a TLC Camera Crew following them around all the time?
"As we spoke to the three of them, one word kept jumping out at me: Freedom. These girls were experiencing freedom teenagers rarely taste. Completely free to be themselves. The exact opposite of the words so often used by media folk to describe the 19 kids."
So REAL freedom is freedom from choice. Hm. Well, Marx would be beaming, at least…
That's the winner. I don't care if they have 50 kids, they are taken care of and that's all that matters. But these reality show are there for the sole reason of exploitation. Large families, "Little" Families, Celebrity famlies and any kind of Wife swapping is only there to suck life away life.
I'd like to respond to your comment about having so many kids that you cannot take care of them YOURSELF. I was one of 5. Part of being in any family (and this is a key ingredient in most families today) is a sense of shared responsibility – that you have something to contribute to the furtherance of your clan. Taking care or comforting or even disciplining of younger siblings by older siblings is part of that. As are having chores without the expectation of monitary reward – you do it to keep the household up. You live in the house, it needs to be maintained to keep it going. Should all the burden of that fall to the parents as well? I think the Duggers learn the necessities in life that lots of kids miss. How to work as a unit. How to do what is necessary and power thru times that are not exactly perfect. To pull ones own weight. To be comforting. To be honest. To be needed and reliable. Most kids today are treated like precious jewels only taken from the curio from time to time for polishing and admiration. They get to be adults and expect the world to treat them similarly. The duggers have their own city! Their own cooperative. Good for them. Prayers for their struggling premee.
I first starting watching the Duggars when they had ONLY 14 kids.
While I personally don't desire to have that many children, it doesn't seem that odd to me. Both of my grandparents came from huge families when that was an asset not a burden. The opinions about the Duggars out there on the world wide web can be downright mean and evil. A lot of people accuse them of milking the welfare system. Of course, that couldn't be less true. They live completely debt-free and even built their current house themselves. Both the parents and kids wear thrift store clothes. Of course, there is a lot of criticism about their impact on the environment. Honestly, you get the sense that a lot of people would love to swoop down there and sterilize Ma & Pa Duggar. Honestly, the stuff out there is really, really bad. We live in a time when anything goes except for anything traditional or old-fashioned.
Very good points. Can you imagine having over 6 babies in diapers to contend with? I bet the first few years at Dugger central were also trying – even though they did not have 6 at once. Unless you are grounded, know yourself and are steely that job would leave most shooing away bats in the belfry.
Choice meaning they could watch porn on the net? That would be a choice. Are parents being Marxists when they refuse that or any other choice a parent makes for children?
Is there any value that you see in children being allowed to be themselves instead of what society proscribes for them?
Oh my gosh no. My mom had four kids in five years and had at least three in diapers at one time. I thought she was nuts. I had an almost 4-year gap between my kids and thought it worked out great. Each of my kids had a few years to be the baby and I didn't have to stay up half-the-night with more than one kid. I also can't imagine not getting a full night's for so many years. My son kept me up for almost 3 years. Can you imagine that being the story for 20+ years? Ugh.
But it's not for me to judge the Duggars. They don't seem like drive-by parents. Besides, you know the left hates them because they're "breeders" to such a high degree. But they didn't have so many kids with the intention of having a reality show (unlike the Octomom) and seem like they've put their priorities in the right place when it comes to the kids' education and overall upbringing. I wonder how many people who hate this family can say the same thing? I'd be willing to bet a lot of the dislike stems from the fact that they're not doing as good a job with a lot fewer kids.
Liberals hate them because they believe in God and have decent values. If liberal parents had this many kids, half the girls would be have abortions, after their "mistakes" were made, per Obama, they would be "cool" kids on drugs and alcohol and unable to get jobs after they dropped out of school. The girls would be allowed to dress like hookers and the boys would have no respect for work, parents, and would look down on women. They would have vampires plastered all over their walls and loud rock music would be blaring from their rooms all day and night. Pray to God, no liberal parents ever decide to have this many kids. It would be a nightmare. This huge family works so well because God is the head of this family. It wouldn't work without great family values. I find them absolutely wonderful..
Exactly. That's what's happening here. Exploitation. I'm sure they're getting paid for it, right?
Wonder why home schooling is growing so fast? Take a look at our government indoctrination schools. They teach our kids a bunch of clap-trap so they will accept it when they become voters. There is no God, praise homosexuals, be politically correct, global warming, embrace illegals, bigger government is the answer to everything. They don't have time for the three RRRs any more. They are too busy turning out idiots that can't speak, write or form a cognizant thought. The government is their god.
A Home School Family… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM6uqj0_jQc
Home School Info… http://usataxpayer.org/?0056126499
Oh – make me laugh. I cannot imagine that 20 year story either. Hats off to those who can AND who get out with their sanity.
Their children are definitely not an afterthought. I think you are right on with your theory of why folks are mad at them.
It must have made the shooter guy this past week go over the edge. Or is it global warming? That is the report today. Sigh.
Well said. I agree!
We have a lot in common with the Duggars. We only have six children (#7 due in October) and are debt-free except for our mortgage. My husband and I both grew up in low-income families, so we know how to live on less. Seventy-five percent of our children's clothes are hand-me-downs or from the thrift-store. We buy used cars for cash.
We teach our children to obey and be respectful, yet we laugh a lot, have fun together, and go on vacations. We tell our children each of them is a gift to our family and we all look forward to the new baby coming. I think we do a good job balancing chores and fun. We teach that "If a man does does not work, a man does not eat." Common sense, don't you think?
We believe the Bible: "Children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward." And God is not a liar. If I don't believe children are gifts, then I need to change my perspective to God's. If I am not ready to receive God's gifts, then I better get myself ready!
We have a lot in common with the Duggars. We only have six children (#7 due in October) and are debt-free except for our mortgage. My husband and I both grew up in low-income families, so we know how to live on less. Seventy-five percent of our children's clothes are hand-me-downs or from the thrift-store. We buy used cars for cash.
We teach our children to obey and be respectful, yet we laugh a lot, have fun together, and go on vacations. We tell our children each of them is a gift to our family and we all look forward to the new baby coming. I think we do a good job balancing chores and fun. We teach that "If a man does does not work, a man does not eat." Common sense, don't you think?
We believe the Bible: "Children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward." And God is not a liar. If I don't believe children are gifts, then I need to change my perspective to God's. If I am not ready to receive God's gifts, then I better get myself ready!
I've watched the Duggars before the baby was born. I kept thinking to myself, hey they want alot of kids and they did. Homeschooled them and everything. More power to them.
I find it egregious for people to complain about the number of children born into this family when there are thousands of Welfare Queens out there having a GREAT many children with different fathers all for the sake of getting another welfare check…and no one bats an eye, especially among the women who are doing that. At least there is only ONE father in the Duggar family. Any man who complains about the Duggars should be asked why they arent as virile! Even better, any man who spreads his seed and then complains about there being too many kids in the world should be asked why he cant be man enough to be like Mr. Duggar.
Ok maybe you could clarify then….
Exactly how does having a TV crew follow me around filming me equate to my having to to watch every single episode of Manswers so that I can get the very useful information that the fastest way to become inebriated on alcohol is to absorb it through your rectum…. cause quite frankly the point of that analogy eludes me. Seems to me the two things have no relation to each other.
Secondly how does not having a TV in the house amount to a Freedom from Choice. To me that sounds like liberal sublogic. I am not free because someone else does not pay to provide me with cable. How about Mr. Duggar can raise his kids as he sees fit so long as there is no physical abuse it ain't none of our business. And if you want cable, of free rent or government cheese or a grant to put a crusifix in urine on a Broadway stage instead you pay for it.
But hey it doesn't matter cause there's no point right!
Being single and sans kids myself, I give props to whoever has them, and while I think subjecting your family to the glare of cameras day in and out to not exactly be the pinnacle of parenting, I'd say any kid would be better off being a Duggar than a Goselin or God forbid, one of the Octo-spawn. I do wonder a little at how home schooled kids adjust to college or even the workplace without a little of the callouses earned facing down peer pressure/mean kids that most of us encountered in some form, though. A little real-world toughening in childhood is a help rather than a hindrance down the line, IMHO.
I find that funny coming from you. Weren't you bitching and whining about kids not wanting to do whatever it is that their parents wanted to do, and said "tough, I pay the bills" or some such nonsense? Well, the same thing applies here. At the end of the day, Mr. Duggar is the one footing the bill for all these kids. It's his house, therefore they follow his rules. From what the blog post author said, these kids don't seem to mind that. Now yes, we can question the wisdom of putting one's family on TV for everyone to see, but with that considered, these kids still seem well adjusted despite living their lives out on cable television.
As for this "freedom from choice" nonsense…so just exactly what should they be choosing between? Raising one's kids without the garbage ones sees on Disney and Nickelodeon (and other channels like MTV, VH1, E! and ABC Family) seems to be the way to go. And to reiterate my original point, they can "choose" between gutter pop culture and, say the Bible when they move out and start fending for themselves.
" without a little of the callouses earned facing down peer pressure/mean kids that most of us encountered in some form, though. A little real-world toughening in childhood is a help rather than a hindrance down the line, "
WOW! If that were true we'd be graduating scores of well-adjusted kids every year! And not a one would be on drugs or drinking. Public high schools wouldn't be the cess pools they are!
see for example:
How safe is your school? : Stevenson High School, Lincolnshire, Illinois : a case study in failure
Author: David Springmeyer
I don't understand why they have had 19 children. But, that being said they are doing what more people should do; they are allowing their children to be children. This is how those of us who grew up in the fifties and early sixties grew up, and we were much better off. Even when I was 18 years old I was more interested in cars and having a good time then girls. Most of us made up for lost time once we got in the Army, but by then it was appropriate; our minds we ready to cope with adult concepts. One of the saddest things to me is to see four and five year old little girls dressed like adults and being taught to act like adults.
These kids will probably all turn out to be productive happy people.
I'd risk saying that while public schools certainly have their failures (as do fancy private schools) it's just as over the top to declare everyone in public school a depraved, drug addicted sociopath. I'm going to to go out on a limb and say that America does, in fact graduate scores of well adjusted kids every year. Maybe even thousands of them. It's just the failures that get all the press.
Living in the State of Arkansas, I've met the Duggars on several occasions and i can say without hesitation that the family is who they are on and off their show, Jim and Michelle are gracious, friendly, and above all compassionate, The children are well mannered, intelligent and fun-loving, the little guys are heck on wheels with a six-gun, the young ladies are well poised, intelligent and above all outspoken with their opinions .
and the kicker is , even in their home town where they do receive hateful remarks, etc. they pray for their detractors
I doubt The Obama's do the same
Well, I take exception with that. My husband and I are both only children and there was no helicopter parenting going on, trust me. We are quite self-sufficient. That's not to say that some only children are experiencing that, but I think it's happening in more recent times because almost all the parents I know at my children's school are helicopter parents. And then it doesn't matter how many children they have – 1, 2 or 3 or more.
For Kindergarten, the parents can drop the kids off in the kindergarten playground. Then they can leave. But most don't. They hang out until the kids file in. And that happens on the 1st day of school until the last day of school. Not to sound cold because I love my children, but I kiss them, hug them, tell them to behave and have a nice day. Then I'm gone. Well, now my kids are older and dropped off differently, but even in Kindergarten I didn't hang around unless I was talking to another parent.
Now that they are both full time (one until 2 the other until 3) and I'm working from home and my mom now has a break from helping we enjoy things like walking so we lose weight.
Don't be so quick to paint all people the same way.
SQT, good stuff. I agree. Know yourself. I knew that 3 would be too many for me and we have 2. We're good to go. They are handful enough!
Every family needs to decide for themselves. As long as they can afford it, it's no bother to me.
I had mine 17 months apart, but not by choice. I wanted 3 years. That second one was an early Oops! LOL! She's precious as can be (of course I'm biased! ;-D). I actually liked it. My kids were both pretty decent sleepers once we got passed the night feedings so I didn't have that problem. I was pretty strict about bed time. Plus, they were potty trained almost one after the other. So for me it worked out. But like you say – know thyself and what you can handle.
Yeah, I think MovieBob missed another point! Surprise, surprise.
Your post wins I think. I think you have really hit on it.
That's what I say – if you can afford them, feel free. But if you can't, then don't have that many.
"…and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32
I used to live in Colombia. There is a province there where very large families are the norm. Is it the water? People there often ask. We met one of these families when they move to another part of the country. They were delightful people. They had seventeen children and — at that time — more than 60 grandchildren. We met the entire family one evening when they had a gathering in a very large salon in the parents' home.
"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward." Psalm 127:3
If God loves for us to have families and children, makes you wonder where the opposing philosophy comes from. The purveyors of that philosophy have been working to indoctrinate us in it for decades, even generations!
I know a few people who practice a religion that they call Luciferianism. They are some of the wealthiest people in the world. They are using their vast wealth to push an agenda of population control, including even coerced abortions, child "licensing", etc. This tells us where they get their inspiration from. It ain't God!
Refreshing. Congrats on being dept free. Not a small ting for your sized family. Blessings and prayers for your family and your impending birth.
I'd venture to say that the majority that do graduate as well-adjusted kids did it inspite of their school. I guess I just don't understand an attitude that thinks that the way to prepare kids for the future is to subject them to " callouses earned facing down peer pressure/mean kids" and "real-world toughening ". My successful children are thankful that isn't my idea of childraising.
The only people who have a problem with this are the leftist eco-nuts who think people having more than 2 kids are contributing to the destruction of the planet through overpopulation – just like that eco-terrorist at the Discovery channel. Unlike most people who have this many kids (*cough* illegal immigrants *cough*) they can actually support them all without handouts from the government (aka you and me). I say more power to them. I hope to have a large family of my own as well.
To paraphrase Hobbes, school–and life–can be nasty and brutish. I have no doubt you're a great parent, and I certainly don't mean to imply you sent them off to school expecting them to be brutalized. But no matter how great the school, kids will occasionally revert to being troglodytes. And learning to deal with that has been part of growing up since the first cave kid stood up to a bully and was better for it. When did we start thinking that there was a way to breed this out of the childhood experience?
hmm, I can't help but agree! I'm happy my mom always gave me choices, I came out completely normal
I can imagine I will get many thumbs down, but I'm going to express my dislike of the Duggars. It's their lives, so I don't care about what they do and how they do it, but I myself would never lead a life like that (or subject my children to it). My mother is a pretty staunch conservative, to say the least (and I am one myself, so before you decide to give me a thumbs down because I don't like this family, I'm making the knowledge known.)
My main problem with the Republican party is the emphasis on Christianity. Frankly, we're non-practicing Orthodox Christians, and I enjoy my life that way. I don't act like a "good" person because I want to please anyone, but because that's the way I ought to behave, for a better humanity. I believe that any extremity is a dangerous one, regardless if either side sees it good. We're neither atheists, or pious Christians, but my family as a whole is filled with some of the most ethical and moral people you'd meet.
I have a problem with your argument. So, I listen to a bunch of classic rock, grunge, and indie rock. According to you, I should be promiscuous, largely atheist, and an all-around bad person. I went to public school, so I should be filled with insecurities and angst. I won't deny this; I am not angsty, but I definitely find more things in this world repulsive than I do beautiful. I watched the Disney Channel and Nickolodean as a child and I still do, and I watch Jersey Shore because it's wonderfully trashy, so I should come out as someone who hates adults, finds parents embarrassing, and definitely promotes having unsolicited sex with people I'm not in a committed relationship with. Except, newsflash! I read a new book every week, I'm maintaining a 4.0 GPA with a major in Biochemistry, I have a healthy relationship with my family and friends (which involves fighting from time to time, but that is what healthy is…not seemingly perfect!), I think I'm pretty, and boys don't give me self-worth, and I believe in the importance of choice.
Had my mom ever raised me as the Duggar parents do, I would be extremely hateful towards her. I would never be able to experience things on my own. Perhaps it's because my mother managed to gain asylum from the former USSR, where she first hand saw what a lack of choice resulted in. I, at my 19 years of age, am allowed to drink my with family and close friends and cousins. I recently came back from a trip to Europe, where my sister and I drank whenever my mom allowed us at a festive wedding. I have never had the urge to binge drink at parties, or smoke weed, do ecstasy at stupid raves, or snort cocaine.
I'm the result of just good parenting; my mom raised me with morals, but didn't shield me from the outside world. In this long winded response, here is my point: if you raise your children well, the pressures from the "outside/real" world don't matter. keeping them from the dangers outside is silly and foolish.
go ahead, give me a thumbs down. there's a difference between me, the duggar kids, and weirdo american kids who are whiny, obnoxious and destined to fail in the real world…i understand moderation (and the chance of wearing pants, though I'm a girl.)
Manswers is a very good argument for why one might think twice about letting their children watch TV.
Think of the Man Show but without the Piety of Jimmie Kimmel.
As to the discussion those were the two "points" so I gave my argument. The problem becomes that the "notion" of Freedom is somehow denigrated when parents exercise their rights to censure what their children are exposed to is dangerous. Same people who use the extreme case of the Duggars will use the same argument when a parent decides their seven year old should not be subjected to an exdplanation of "homosexuality" in school. When I grew up we would not even disucss sex at all with a prepubescent child.
The point of this article is not to state that everyone must raise their children as the Duggars but to state that the Duggars can live their lives that way without being accused of child abuse. If one dissapproves of the Duggars being allowed to do this then where does this end. If someone wants to run pornographic cartoons such as Heavy Metal at 9:00 am Saturday is a parent unfairly depriving their child of choice if they block that channel. Should we assume that anyone concerned that showing pornography to five year olds might harm their developement is misguided because we have one example of someone exposed to pornography at the age of five who did not become a basket case. I would not live as the Duggars either but that does not mean their is something wrong with them. This is the point of this article.
"Everyone is for Everyone Else, repeated 50 times a night from the hours of 2 through 3" Aldous Huxley Brave New World. Orwell had the state using sexual repression to control the populace. Huxley used Hedonism. Both positions however has the state destroying the ties of the family unit so that one would only have love for the state.
It's rarely all good or all bad. I didn't mean to imply that it was. I also don't know the Duggers and I have never watched this show. In general, however, I wouldn't in a million years trade the close bonds I have with my two kids for a bigger family. I just don't think our relationships would be this strong if I added a few more kids to the mix. I have a pretty big extended family, and except for one of my mom's brothers who just decided that every bad thing that happened to him is someone else's fault, we are very close. All but one of them have left the farm life, though.
Wait. Your kids REVERT to being troglodytes? Ah… yours is a civilized house indeed!
OK. Godda go. Kids dragging each other by the hair back to their caves. I think their rough plan is to beat each other with the bambam sticks.
Yeah. Not joking.
I agree–it has to be tough for parents to have close relationships with each one of a large brood. I have one real sibling and 9 step-siblings. Though we didn't live together, there was still competition for our parents' and step-parents' attention, some of it rather bitter. And when the sibs started marrying and having babies, things got more complicated, but better, because now we kids put the grandkids first. Overall, I wouldn't change anything because my mom and dad found happiness after divorce, and for that I'm grateful.
The article may share a point that their way of life isn't wrong, but I would say it goes as far as starting to demonize (which is too strong a word, but any other is escaping my mind at this point) parents who don't restrict children from "pop culture". My one annoyance with your counter-argument (but not with you, because I don't fight people, but their ideologies…and I must say, thank you for a very well-thought out, intelligent reply, without name-calling and so-forth) is the mentioning of the proverbial "slippery slope". There are certain things that are grotesque, offensive, and it may be hard to avoid through normal means. I dislike hypothetical examples where people say, "then you suggest SO AND SO!" No, I never even hinted towards that. There are certain things that are not age appropriate. In many of my ethics/values philosophy class, we've thoroughly discussed pornography and if it should be considered free speech and if parents should restrict their children from it. I would say that arguing that showing pornography to your child (who in your post is 5 years old) is quite different from watching Wizards of Waverly Place or iCarly, or letting them listen to Katy Perry.
If you raise your children correctly, without going to any extreme, they end up rejecting the silliness that society is trying to push on them. this is my problem with both the right and the left. to each, parenting is always dependent on other influences. why not you, the parent? why does it have to be media or television? since when do we have to rely on others to be moral to raise moral children! if everyone took these steps, there wouldn't be sheltered children or those who have seen too much. sorry, but i've seen everyone from all walks of life, and my life has been far from easy (no, I'm not some rich white kid from suburbia dying under new angst), but had I had an uber-atheist/liberal parent, I'd be dependent on the government and susceptible to peer pressure. Had I have an uber-christian/conservative mother, I wouldn't know the life I have now.
The worst kids on my block are the 10 I mentioned earlier, but I don't necessarily think that it's because there is 10 of them. Their mother is one of those helicopter parents you mentioned and at least one of the kids is in detention on a daily basis.
I was an only child and I also think that I'm better off for having had that experience. I don't think the size of the family really matters when it comes to instilling values, responsibility and strong work ethic. I had to become resourceful and independent, because I did not have siblings to pick up my slack when I couldn't. I really don't mean to take anything away from you or your family, because I think it's a blessing that there was someone to take in kids that no one else wanted. My younger daughter's best friend is autistic, so I know first hand how challenging it can get. I do think however, that in a large family like that you really miss out on the closeness that a smaller family can experience. In my mom's family the three older siblings had a parent-child relationship with the three younger ones and that just never felt right.
Great comments. Why is it the Duggars get beat up for having a bunch of cheerful kids with God and values, and the Octomom cranks out eight on purpose with no dad around and gets a free house and free help with the kids? Don't answer; I know why.
As for care and attention, DH is #6 of eight kids and he's told me that, like the Duggars, the older kids were partnered up with the younger kids as far as day-to-day keep-an-eye-on stuff; but he never lacked for individual attention, particularly from his dad. And that kind of upbringing produced a pretty great guy, if I may be so biased.
When Catholic couples abstained from using birth control it wasn't uncommon for see large families. In my hometown there was family of twenty.
Lack of "exposure to the real world" is a canard bandied about by the educator movement against homeschooling which is without merit. If the goal is to create an environment where the adult is as strong and "well adjusted" as possible, does it make sense to allow the child to be intentionally tormented and emotionally injured by peers? Or does it make more sense to shield the child from these events, to the greatest extent possible, bringing them up with a healthy respect for themselves and their beliefs until they are thrust into the world? I say the latter.
Well I do agree with you there on all points, but the problem is I keep getting a negative rating no matter what I say, so I really can't continue this conversation.
I saw an episode of the show after Josie was born. There was one scene at the hospital when all 18 kids were there and Mom came out in a wheel chair. I was struck by how reserved the little kids were with her. Not the toddlers. You'd expect toddlers to be scared of the environment and seeing their mother in such an unfamiliar setting. My two-year-old screamed hysterically the first time I came home with a perm, so you never know how a toddler will react.
But these kids acted like they barely knew who she was. Not a single kid made any move towards her. She never made any move to have any of them come near her. She never put her arms out to greet any of them. They all just stood there and looked at her. It was very bizarre.
They may be a very well adjusted and well behaved family, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of affection there.
"I do wonder a little at how home schooled kids adjust to college or even the workplace without a little of the callouses earned facing down peer pressure/mean kids that most of us encountered in some form, though."
Sorry this made me laugh as a home schooled kid for most of my pre-high school education. When you are part of a big family, I am including my cousins and close family friends in my big family since I was the oldest of 4, peer pressure and mean kids are the ones that live with you they just have to apologize and you see their punishment when they get caught. And as for adjusted… I'll admit I was fairly innocent when I started high school, but I also didn't have the body image issues that many of my classmates had and I went to college and have joined the work force and really don't have much a problem standing up for myself or others for that matter.
The word litter is used for animals, not people. To use it in such a way is profoundly disrespectful.
I love the Duggars! It's amazing how much they are ridiculed because they love each other and their kids. The fact that their kids are well-behaved and adorable is considered evidence that their parents MUST be doing something wrong. Isn't it funny with all those kids, not one of them has ADD or needs heavy duty medication for simply being a kid.
Have you ever noticed that the people who complain that the Duggars couldn't possibly be spending "quality" time with their children are the same parents that: their kid has been in daycare since it was 6-weeks old; they complain that daycare is only 12 hours a day when it should be 15; they rage at school holidays because they now have to find something to do with the kids; and are so "overwhelmed" by their 1-2 ill-mannered brats that they never have time to clean their house or cook a meal (unless they hire a nanny or maid) and they furiously complain how wrong it is for the Duggars to have their older children help the younger ones. All of which leads me to believe the Duggars are simply a Rorschach test.
In a family this large, when the older siblings help raise the younger siblings, the older siblings learn object lessons in how to raise and care for their own families when they have them. So would it be better for them to join in their same-age peer group activities outside the family than to share in some of the support of their family? Hardly. One of the root causes of America's problems is that the young adults in our country have a large sense of entitlement to revel in irresponsibility.
That the older home-schooled Duggar children see reality instead of the fantasy that Government Schools have entitled their respective students in can only result in more responsible adults from the Duggar family than those who are created by Government Schools. They're GOVERNMENT schools…why would we ever think that the government can do something as important as raising our children and teaching them responsibility? Can anyone find either a Republican or a Democrat in Washington DC taking any kind of responsibility?
Yet, I bet your parents STILL set ethical boundaries for you despite your exposure to pop culture.
My parents did the same when I was growing up. Through their words and deeds, they drilled into me that there were consequences for every "harmless" action glamorized in movies, TV, and music.
* I could shoot someone for a minor offense. However, unlike in the movies, I knew I'd wind up in prison.
* I could have sex with multiple women. However, unlike a James Bond flick, at least one of those girls would wind up pregnant and I not my parents would have to take care of the kid.
* I could be a drug addled slacker like Cheech and Chong, but I'd have to move out of my parents' house. (My parents made it clear that drug addicts and welfare recipients were losers in society.)
And so on.
I should point out that my mother like my late father is a DEMOCRAT. However, she grew up in an era were even Democrats valued ethical standards and viewed Christianity as a badge of honor not something to be ashamed of.
That's what's missing in many kids' lives. Parents are so desperate to be kids' friends that they don't provide any authority or discipline at all.
Yet, I bet your parents STILL set ethical boundaries for you despite your exposure to pop culture.
My parents did the same when I was growing up. Through their words and deeds, they drilled into me that there were consequences for every "harmless" action glamorized in movies, TV, and music.
* I could shoot someone for a minor offense. However, unlike in the movies, I knew I'd wind up in prison.
* I could have sex with multiple women. However, unlike a James Bond flick, at least one of those girls would wind up pregnant and I not my parents would have to take care of the kid.
* I could be a drug addled slacker like Cheech and Chong, but I'd have to move out of my parents' house. (My parents made it clear that drug addicts and welfare recipients were losers in society.)
And so on.
I should point out that my mother like my late father is a DEMOCRAT. However, she grew up in an era were even Democrats valued ethical standards and viewed Christianity as a badge of honor not something to be ashamed of.
That's what's missing in many kids' lives. Parents are so desperate to be kids' friends that they don't provide any authority or discipline at all.
Wow, not a single critical comment of these folks. The diversity of the Breitbart audience is stunning – could you folks just rename the site, "News Spun so Fundamentalist Christians will like it" .com? Lol.
I agree wholeheartedly with limiting TV and supervising a child's use of the internet. However, I don't think it's at all advantageous to be teaching them that it's absolutely true that there is a man in the sky who constantly watches the and is grading their every action in a lifelong contest of trying to get to some paradise. It may be your faith, but it ain't a fact or provable. Moreover, if they are teaching them Glenn Beck's twisted version of history (a la the proven fraud, David Barton) or that "Creationism" or "ID" is in any way an alternate explanation of the development of life on earth, they are lying to them.
You see, one doesn't imply the other. I can actually be a good parent, and keep the corrupting influences of pop culture away from my child without cramming Christian fundamentalism down her throat. I can even play and listen to rock music with my daughter and not have her turn out like Lindsay Lohan (my daughter is her age and kind of looks like her but couldn't be more different). She knows to be good because it makes the world a better place and that it's a matter of personal conscience as to whether one decides to be a good person or not – rather than waiting for some reward from a "god" that hides from us completely.
As for the 'proof in the pudding', let's wait until a few of these kids go away to college or otherwise leave their protected den of fiction. We'll see how well they can cope with the real world – a world in which their "god" won't actually do anything to help them or billions of other people suffering every day. I can just see it now, "My Daddy said all of you were heathens and are going to burn in hell. How come you are so nice?" What a joke, setting these religious freaks up as role models. Although I do think they have a great idea in one way. Why don't more fundamentalist Christians just go set up their own closed communities, like the Amish? Nobody bothers them – and they don't constantly preach about how much better they are than everyone else or that if we don't follow their beliefs our country will collapse. I know you evangos don't get it, but when you claim your way is the only way, it is defacto supremacist and exclusionary, and just because you think you are right, it doesn't make it any less ugly.
Finally, know this. Your numbers are not growing – you are just getting louder and more organized and aggressive. Don't think you have a majority – the independent voters in this country aren't about to put another evangelical in the White House – not after George Bush. Fyi, the more you bleat in public about your beliefs, the less we want to hear from you. Atheism has doubled in the past 10 yrs in this country, and having an evango POTUS had a lot to do with it. Atheism is the fastest growing 'faith grouping' in the country. At current growth rates, we'll be the majority in 30-40 yrs. Enjoy your faux ascendancy while it lasts, cuz the illusion will crumble soon enough.
I have learned all those things you talk about, and I'm an only child. A large nuclear family is not the only place to learn those attributes. I also had to learn independence, self reliance and resourcefullness – which can also be learned in a large family I would imagine. I don't think you can equate learning those lessons with being from a large family. If the values and good parenting aren't there to beging with, it can be disasterous from any size family.
I don't know what that says about me, but I have no clue what 'Manswers' is. This is the first time I'm hearing this title. But then again, I haven't heard of Jon and Kate + 8 until Jon was gone. And I do have a TV.
Let's see now. You started out with this statement:
"Wow, not a single critical comment of these folks. The diversity of the Breitbart audience is stunning – could you folks just rename the site, "News Spun so Fundamentalist Christians will like it" .com? Lol."
After seeing this, I can only say that the lack of two brain cells to rub together among the libtards who troll this site is, well, quite predictable. Seems you were in such a hurry to spout your anti-Christian screed that you…didn't bother to read the posts made prior to your own. If you had, you just might have avoided making such a fool of yourself in public.
Of course, among the more rabid atheist crowd, such "shark jumping" is unfortunately all too common.
Actually, a more accurate definition of litter is a large number of offspring born to the same parents, usually mammals, though there are exceptions. So, while the word litter may not be the most accurate word to use in this situation, it isn't exactly incorrect.
Are you familiar with the physical concept of nonlocality. This is the notion that once two atomic particles become entanged that what effects one will affect the other no matter how far away it is. Learnard Susskind states that this is more than an idea but an accepted theory of physics.
It is also true that at the big bang all matter and energy was once entangled.
It is possible given the length of time for the Universe to evolve an intelligence and if this occurs the being will have infulense over all matter and energy. It is also a well known mantra of physics that anything that can happen no matter how unlikely will evetually happen. It is also true given the nature of the space time contimuun that this energy would be able to effect all time as well as space
Sorry but Quantum physics disagrees with you. There is a man in the sky, and the depths of space and the inside of black holes and in the matter flung out by stars.
All fine and good for you, but you have forgotten your own post to which I was replying. Your comment about parents having the care for every need each child has or it is somehow bordering on neglect.
I am very happy for you that you have learned independence, resourcefulness and self reliance. Kudos to your parents.
True, I saw on some left-wing website where they referred to Mrs. Duggar as a "b*tch in heat." I highly doubt they would say that about an illegal with 10 anchor babies.
Glennd1 wrote
"Atheism has doubled in the past 10 yrs in this country, and having an evango POTUS had a lot to do with it. Atheism is the fastest growing 'faith grouping' in the country. At current growth rates, we'll be the majority in 30-40 yrs. Enjoy your faux ascendancy while it lasts, cuz the illusion will crumble soon enough."
Two flaws with your argument.
First, don't confuse the growing numbers of Americans of "No religion" with atheism. I do know people who are part of an organized religion who still believe in some Higher Power or deity of some kind.
Second, consciously or not, atheists tend to view kids as a drain on Earth's resources. Hence, a rise in atheism leads to a drop in a country's population as atheists have fewer and fewer babies. Any European country demonstrates this trend. (Ironically, Europe is seeing a surge in Islamic immigrants who have LOTS of kids which means that the continent will be religious again albeit Islamic in a couple of generations.)
This is why like socialism atheism fails wherever it is tried.
Nonlocality does not prove the existence of God, nice try though. The single true fact is that there little in the natural world that provides any support for the idea of the existence of anything supernatural – including God. Btw, even if your pathetic reduction held any water, it certainly doesn't support the Christian model of God, but hey, keep thrashing away. Watch more Glenn Beck and Wallbuilders and Christians who say they can prove that Christ was resurrected – but know this. It is you who is perverting truth.
I can only refer to you as a BeckTard.
1. The numbers are for belief in no God, not agnostic. Agnostic numbers are larger. Evangos only make up about 20% of population, despite their constant agitation.
2. Atheism does not in any way requre a belief in population as a drain on resources.
This is the classic, simpering conservative thinking that passes for reason. I happen to be a pro-life, atheist and a libertarian – a real one, not a "LiBeckitarian". Many atheists aren't socialists and one does not necessarily lead to the other – that is the red-baiting lie of hucksters like Beck. Fyi, many religious folks are also progressives, so really, pull your head out of Beck's rectum for like a month, read some other sources for information than conservative rags like this and actually try to understand something for yourself rather than regurgitating idiotic thoughts like the one's you spewed above.
Of course, i'm not a liberal or a troll. I'm active on this site because I look for alternative news sources am weary of conservative/republican/neocongelical's destroying this country only slightly slower than the progressives. I make up my own mind and have my own thoughts – imagine that, can you? I'm a libertarian, "The Party of Principle" and our positions policies are 100% consistent with Natural Law. As for my missing a comment or two, clearly almost all of the responses were positive, making my point true but my statement slightly inaccurate. Sorry about that, you must be so proud that you caught this little detail. However, you I note you don't address any of the points in my comment.
You know a liberal's on the ropes when he can only respond with name calling.
Know this: not all atheists and agnostics are bigoted jackasses like you.
You do not get to count me as your friend, fool. So your "growing numbers" gloat might not help you quite as much as you think.
This little tidbit was amusing:
Atheism has doubled in the past 10 yrs in this country, and having an evango POTUS had a lot to do with it.
So you're saying most people really aren't atheists, they are merely childishly spiteful folks who cling to it to diss people they hate. Which does explain why a lot of you act quite… religious. Why they're so hostile to a deity they shouldn't care about since he doesn't exist to them. Why they get so shrill and frothy towards people who think that deity might exist… can't have opposing views threaten your faith, eh?
Where did I state that nonlocality proves the existence of God.
Everything I mentioned in this scenario is well accepted by mordern physics. The burden of proof is on you to prove it wrong.,
So exactly in what way does nonlocality not prove the existence of God. Are you challenging nonlocality. If so what is your take on the expirements showing quantum entanglement. It's OK to challenge current physics by the way. I for one think MOND might be a theory with promise despite the fact that it is currently thought to be not acceptable to the mainstream physics community. What is your take on Modified Newtoniam Dynamics.
why have so many kids? the answer is as easy as it is age old. those kids will provide their own safety net for each other as they all fight for their place in the world. the older ones will in part raise the younger as well, actually providing a fuller understanding of human nature while lessening some of the burden on these parents. and when these parents need it, these kids will take care of them, removing the burden of the aged and infirm off of society. if i could, i would also have a large family but i'll have to be satisfied with my own two beautiful kids. sadly all of this once common sense and common knowledge has been elbowed out of american culture via the junk social science and corruption of our impressionable youth by the leftist academic elites.
As to your second point. If God does come into spontaneous existence and then becomes eternal by virtue of being the whole of the four dimensional contract of spacetime then Christianity would exist only becuase this being willed it to Therefore the Christians would by virtue of their existence have a religious belief system approved by God.
Hee! See? This is why I know I'm not fit to have kids…more power to ya!
Me neither. I am (happily after a period of adjustment) raising someone else's children. Sometimes you have to just roll with it. I am no Mrs. Dugger.
I think you missed my point, but because you and all these overly-uptight conservatives believe in restricting what i can watch,you get higher points. pathetic pathetic pathetic. i have no source of news without bias.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. THIS DESERVES CAPS BECAUSE EVERYONE HERE IS SO STUCK UP AND IDIOTIC. Ugh, I'm tired with stuffy conservatives and loose liberals with no real train of thought. you're amazing.
look who's talking. the majority of you "good natured" people just respond with calling individuals "liberal trolls" when they don't agree with your rabid, christian beliefs. i'm a normal person, i don't act like a good person because I'm afraid of God's judgement, I don't behave well becuase I've been restricted. I'm a good person because I grew up knowing whats right and wrong, and witnessing everything int he world. Sorry hyperactive Christians can only see their way of life as right; its far from it.
I have not seen so many white people in one place at one time in a long time.
And I bet they all speak English.
It's nice to see.
You must be logged in to post a comment.