Originally Posted By jonvn "****From feminist Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, a former ardent Quiverfull adherent, birth-mother of eleven children, and former editor of Gentle Spirit Magazine, argues that the Quiverfull movement is one "in which women and children are routinely and systematically subordinated and subjugated by the men in their lives - fathers, husbands, older sons, sons, pastors, elders, leaders - as a matter of biblical principle."[31] Seelhoff charges that Quiverful adherents "never talk about the victims of the movement, other than to distance themselves, to explain how it is that the victims are aberrations," and do not talk about "the way the lives of so many, many women in that movement have been all but destroyed - women with 5, 7, 9, 11 or more children".***" I just read this again, and noticed how this so very much parallels Priests and their rape victims. Children are subjugated, their lives ruined, and it's all called aberrations. The victims are never talked about, and it's all kind of ignored because of faith and biblical principle. All the same things. Just change a couple names of the players.
Originally Posted By wonderingalice "It's a birth canal, not a clown car." *LOL* Sorry kids... I'm just now catching up (to page three of this thread)... And that cracked me up.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 <<<If God wanted you to have a massive pile of children, she'd have given your uterus a hydraulic pump and a revolving door. Stop it now.>>> That was pretty dang funny too!
Originally Posted By DlandJB And how nice of them to basically say anyone who's been on birth control and had a miscarriage is a sinner. Jerks.>>> I read their web site and I don't see them judging anyone but themselves. Yet a fair number of people are standing in line to judge them. There are a lot of assumptions going on simply because they are overtly religious people. Three cheers for post #215, RT said it well. My biggest gripe with the Duggars is that they run their kids through a day that starts at 8 a.m. and doesn't end until 10 p.m. and that is too late for the little ones, who should be getting to bed earlier. I don't care what these people do. They are no threat to me or to anyone else. I don't understand why people get so worked up over them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>My biggest gripe with the Duggars is...<< Ah, ah, ah -- no judging anyone for anything. That, apparently, is the new golden rule of WE based on this thread. I shall watch with great interest to see how well that plays out in other threads.
Originally Posted By wendebird >>The kids all have to dress alike. The boys haircuts are indentical. The girls all have long hair and always have to wear dresses. Their names all begin with "J". Not much individuality there. It just seems kind of Stepford-ish to me.<< I'm still reading through this thread & enjoying everyone's perspective on this family. I just visited the Duggar's web site & didn't notice them all dressing alike? <a href="http://www.duggarfamily.com/photos1.html" target="_blank">http://www.duggarfamily.com/ph otos1.html</a> For the family photos I noticed they did, but heck, my family does that too. Both my girls have long hair also. While I don't require my girls to wear dresses, I'm pretty sure it's very common with many religions to do so. My girls have a friend who wears nothing but dresses unless she's playing tennis or softball. I can think of several families that do the same initial for all the kids. (Heck, My Aunt did it in the 70's with all 5 of her kids) While it's not for me, I don't think it's "weird" Personally, just the thought of that many kids gives me shivers. I know I could never do it & give them each the time & attention & patience they deserve, so I have 2 kids. However, I do know many families who have 10+ kids & they homeschool also. I've never seen happier, well adjusted kids than these kids. And super manners too boot. These moms have what I lack, patience. Also, by looking at their pictures, they've been out in "the world" more than my kids have. Disneyland, Grand Canyon, Yosemite, NYC, etc. The one thing that stands out to me is the media attention. However, they're not the only family to attract media attention. <a href="http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/about_my_family.html" target="_blank">http://noimpactman.typepad.com /blog/2007/02/about_my_family.html</a> I notice there's a link that there's going to be a book & movie made of his experiment. I'm sure there are others too. They're different, so they get attention.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Yet a fair number of people are standing in line to judge them." Yes. For good reason. What is this idea that we can't find something that someone does to be wrong? Is nothing wrong? Is moral relativism so pronounced now that we can't as a people figure out what is good and what is bad? "They are no threat to me or to anyone else." They are damaging children, for the most part. Beyond that, I don't care, either.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip It is interesting to note how all of the overpopulation arguments died on the vine after my post #194.
Originally Posted By jonvn The world is not overpopulated. We have enough resources to feed everyone. When it does become overpopulated, nature will take its course, and people will not be able to survive. As long as we are able to sustain the number of people on the planet, it's fine. Just don't try to drive in LA anymore.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 I think overpopulation was the argument of the night crew around here RT - give it time.
Originally Posted By Ursula Ahem, speaking for the night crew, I guess I am one of them and I disagree with Road Trip. There are too many people in Los Angeles as it is. Most of the people that I know are from someplace else and those people are coming from somewhere. Case in point: One small town of middle California, Santa Maria. Well, it used to be a small town, that is. It is now so overfull with people escaping Los Angeles for proper housing that the quaint small town is now to the point where they are taking down open fields (that used to grow food for everyone) and is now being used for housing. I don't have fancy stastics and I don't need them as I can SEE what is happening. And it is becoming such that there are no large open rural areas between Los Angeles and this small town. It is like a plague of people. Come for a visit and I will show you the overcrowding and overpopulation. I am not for government regulation of how many children any one can have, but please, 17 is way too many. Common sense has to make a play at some time. Sure, they can afford 17 kids now. What about their kids and their kids?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan To those who think that some of us are being too judgemental, do you believe it is a healthy attitude to look upon a married couple using birth control as 'selfishness' and a miscarriage as some sort of punishment from God for using the pill? Guess what -- it's a trick question. Because to answer it, you have to make a judgement call. So, y'all are just as judgemental as anyone else. Pot, meet kettle.
Originally Posted By jonvn People use "Judgemental" when it is something they disagree with being said. People use their judgement all the time, and are judgemental. This is how we live.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<To those who think that some of us are being too judgemental, do you believe it is a healthy attitude to look upon a married couple using birth control as 'selfishness' and a miscarriage as some sort of punishment from God for using the pill?>> To judge it as a healthy or unhealthy attitude is irrelevant. For them it is a religious belief. As we've discussed here a million times, religious beliefs are what they are. A person accepts them or they do not. Would I accept those particular beliefs? No, I would not. That is as far as I can go with it though. It is not for me to determine whether those views are healthy or not. As long as what they are doing is legal, it is between their God and them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>To judge it as a healthy or unhealthy attitude is irrelevant<< Now you're being judgemental about the question I posed? How dare you.
Originally Posted By jonvn Just because something is not illegal does not mean you should do them without concern. And just because something is a "religious belief" does not mean it should not be held up to the light of examination. There are all kinds of religious beliefs in the world that are simply abhorrent. I don't think giving these concepts a pass just because it's labeled as religion is any sort of good idea at all. The entire idea of Christianity came about because Jesus questioned the behavior and religious beliefs of the people at the time. So did the Protestant Reformation. Without questioning religious beliefs, we'd still be sacrificing our children to the ancient god Baal.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It is not for me to determine whether those views are healthy or not.<< It is in this instance because I am asking you for your opinion. And I feel that with their hunger for media attention, the Duggars invite people to have an opinion about them as well.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Without questioning religious beliefs, we'd still be sacrificing our children to the ancient god Baal.>> No, that would not pass the legality test I mentioned... Was Baal Tom Hanks or Meg Ryan or someone else? I seem to forget.
