NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyone besides me ever watch the Duggar family "18 and Counting?" If so, I wondered what you thought of them and the show, and particularly, about the latest show with the eldest Duggar getting married? See www.duggarfamily.com

I think they're clearly mentally ill.

I think they're clearly mentally ill.
I do wonder about Mrs. Duggar's mental state--I keep wondering if she has to stay pregnant to be so cheery. I figure the kids are just indoctrinated.

I do wonder about Mrs. Duggar's mental state--I keep wondering if she has to stay pregnant to be so cheery. I figure the kids are just indoctrinated.

Well let's see, she's been pregnant what - 15 times now? If I remember correctly, there were three sets of twins.

If you figure the average pregnancy lasts 9 months, and she's been pregnant fifteen times, that means that she has been pregnant for 135 months, or 11yr 3mo.

This woman has been pregnant for over a decade.

Having that many children is pretty irresponsible because you're basically forcing the kids to raise themselves, with the result being that the parents aren't going to be able to devote the time and attention to their upbringing that they really should given that they have the money to raise 18 children in the first place. They're using their kids as an attention ploy at the expense of the children, and that's pretty bad in my book...if they were having this many kids and turned down these shows out of concern for their family, I'd have a different opinion but this is nothing more than attention-whoring at its most irresponsible and damaging.

Having that many children is pretty irresponsible because you're basically forcing the kids to raise themselves, with the result being that the parents aren't going to be able to devote the time and attention to their upbringing that they really should given that they have the money to raise 18 children in the first place. They're using their kids as an attention ploy at the expense of the children, and that's pretty bad in my book...if they were having this many kids and turned down these shows out of concern for their family, I'd have a different opinion but this is nothing more than attention-whoring at its most irresponsible and damaging.
They pride themselves on their "buddy system"--the older kids assist with the younger kids. That way, everyone has someone looking after them. The eldest one just got released from this system by marrying and in the marriage vows, he and his wife vowed to take have whatever kids came their way; i.e., no birth control. Surprisingly, his parents actually practiced birth control before throwing it away. In any event, I guess that means another Duggar show or something but there seem to be quite a few families like that in their religious/social circle which is quite restricted.

Michelle is mentally CRAZY!!!

Michelle is mentally CRAZY!!!

Physically crazy too, apparently.

Physically crazy too, apparently.
Yup!!! lol!:eek:

It's only controversial because they're wealthy and white. It's not uncommon for Mexican families around me to have 7-10 kids, and sometimes 12-14. No one would ever complain about that for cultural reasons, and because they're usually poor, and traditionally, having many kids is a sort of life insurance for the poorest of the poor. Having many, many kids can be the only thing keeping you alive, if you're from a slum. Wealthy people don't need to have a dozen kids to survive, so unless they're very religious, you almost never see it.

It's only controversial because they're wealthy and white. It's not uncommon for Mexican families around me to have 7-10 kids, and sometimes 12-14. No one would ever complain about that for cultural reasons, and because they're usually poor, and traditionally, having many kids is a sort of life insurance for the poorest of the poor. Having many, many kids can be the only thing keeping you alive, if you're from a slum. Wealthy people don't need to have a dozen kids to survive, so unless they're very religious, you almost never see it.

That's one of those situations where there really isn't a choice. While additional children mean more mouths to feed, they also mean that much more money, marriage partners and potential labor which for a very poor family could mean the difference between poverty and starvation. It's not at all optimal, but it's a necessity. The downsides are taken in stride because there really isn't any other option.

I mean, my grandparents came from the same situation. Immigrants needed many children out of necessity, especially in the coal mining regions where a lot of us Poles settled. It was bad for the kids, but needed to be done. However, when that's not a necessity, it's just plain irresponsible; one of the most important things you can do is raise your children with the love and attention they deserve, and I strongly feel that's not the case in this household. They do care about and love their children, I don't doubt that, but by having so many of them they subvert that care to a desire for attention and that's utterly wrong. The Bible might say "be fruitful and multiply", but it doesn't say to do so at the expense of the children you already have. Even Jesus came from a small family...a basically nuclear family at that.

I can't understand why her husband is still so eager to get it on. At this point, it's got to be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway.

I mean, my grandparents came from the same situation. Immigrants needed many children out of necessity, especially in the coal mining regions where a lot of us Poles settled. It was bad for the kids, but needed to be done. However, when that's not a necessity, it's just plain irresponsible; one of the most important things you can do is raise your children with the love and attention they deserve, and I strongly feel that's not the case in this household. They do care about and love their children, I don't doubt that, but by having so many of them they subvert that care to a desire for attention and that's utterly wrong. The Bible might say "be fruitful and multiply", but it doesn't say to do so at the expense of the children you already have. Even Jesus came from a small family...a basically nuclear family at that.

Do you think it's a parent's responsibility to micromanage each child's psychological development? It's fine if you do, but that's a very white middle-class outlook, and it's good to remember that there are large numbers of people who would look at you like you were an alien if you suggested it to them. How much attention do you think a child needs to feel loved by its parents? Do you measure it in hours per week, or in resources dedicated to each, or something else? Just curious.

My only knowledge of the Duggars comes from an article I read about them long before they had a t.v. show, which I haven't seen, so I'm not concerned with them in particular. The problem with families of that size, to me, isn't one of logistics or management theory or quality, but of more practical things like environmental impact and so on.

Do you think it's a parent's responsibility to micromanage each child's psychological development? It's fine if you do, but that's a very white middle-class outlook

Oh, please. There are people of every culture, creed and SEC that feel the need to "make" their children into whatever vision they have. They may have different visions, or different strategies, but they exist everywhere.

Do you think it's a parent's responsibility to micromanage each child's psychological development? It's fine if you do, but that's a very white middle-class outlook, and it's good to remember that there are large numbers of people who would look at you like you were an alien if you suggested it to them. How much attention do you think a child needs to feel loved by its parents? Do you measure it in hours per week, or in resources dedicated to each, or something else? Just curious.

Micromanage? Absolutely not. However, being there for your kids and being able to give them some solid, individual attention is important; it's tough to set absolutes, but I do believe making other children responsible for raising them even though you're financially capable of doing so yourself is not right. The most important aspect of wealth is being able to give your kids those opportunities, and if instead you do nothing but crank out babies for attention, that's not right.

Oh, please. There are people of every culture, creed and SEC that feel the need to "make" their children into whatever vision they have. They may have different visions, or different strategies, but they exist everywhere.

There are important differences between groups, even if there are similarites among groups, which I don't dispute. Most of our psychological norms come from white, middle and upper-middle class culture. You can probably guess what the market data says about who, demographically, the consumers of psychological services and literature regarding parenting and psychology are.

Micromanage? Absolutely not. However, being there for your kids and being able to give them some solid, individual attention is important; it's tough to set absolutes, but I do believe making other children responsible for raising them even though you're financially capable of doing so yourself is not right. The most important aspect of wealth is being able to give your kids those opportunities, and if instead you do nothing but crank out babies for attention, that's not right.

Doing it for attention is certainly wrong. I don't think anyone's going to disagree with that. The hard part, as usual, is drawing the line. How many is too many, how involved should you be, etc.. Those kinds of questions are the important ones. It's not easy to tell a person who can afford to have several kids that they shouldn't, even if it's easier than convincing someone in a slum of the same thing.

I can't understand why her husband is still so eager to get it on. At this point, it's got to be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway.

You women really need to stop perpetuating the myth that the vagina gets all stretched out and 'loose' with too-much-sex/preganancy or whatever. Trust me. I've had kids, and enjoy fisting, and I can still clench my vag in a most pleasing manner :P

You women really need to stop perpetuating the myth that the vagina gets all stretched out and 'loose' with too-much-sex/preganancy or whatever. Trust me. I've had kids, and enjoy fisting, and I can still clench my vag in a most pleasing manner :P

[NSG cliche]

Pics or it didn't happen

[/NSG cliche]

Micromanage? Absolutely not. However, being there for your kids and being able to give them some solid, individual attention is important; it's tough to set absolutes, but I do believe making other children responsible for raising them even though you're financially capable of doing so yourself is not right. The most important aspect of wealth is being able to give your kids those opportunities, and if instead you do nothing but crank out babies for attention, that's not right.

So, how many kids should people limit it to, or how much time should be devoted to each child? It seems to me that even if both parents work, theoretically they could have 16 hrs per day total to devote to kids, even with 16, that's 1 hour each per day, and you have to figure by then half will be old enough to manage themselves, and help out (not raise, but looking after your siblings isn't by any stretch raising them).

That said, it probably takes very dedicated and loving parents to take care of so many children.

You women really need to stop perpetuating the myth that the vagina gets all stretched out and 'loose' with too-much-sex/preganancy or whatever. Trust me. I've had kids, and enjoy fisting, and I can still clench my vag in a most pleasing manner :P

18 babies, Sin. Not two. 18. Fist =/= HUGE BABY HEAD!

That said, it probably takes very dedicated and loving parents to take care of so many children.

I would say it's a plus, but not necessary. My uncle had eight, and by the time the eldest few were in their early teens they were raising the younger ones. My oldest cousin was as much a mother to her siblings as her mother was. Some people might be fine with that, and whatever, it's their family--but I personally don't think it's very fair to ask your children to raise... your children. They didn't get a say in your reproduction.

18 babies, Sin. Not two. 18. Fist =/= HUGE BABY HEAD!

Fair enough, but I still don't think it's a compelling argument for loose vag. If you can do it once (spit a baby out) you can do it 18 times. It's not like there's some magic number of kids you have where suddenly your vag just flops open permanently...

I would say it's a plus, but not necessary. My uncle had eight, and by the time the eldest few were in their early teens they were raising the younger ones. My oldest cousin was as much a mother to her siblings as her mother was. Some people might be fine with that, and whatever, it's their family--but I personally don't think it's very fair to ask your children to raise... your children. They didn't get a say in your reproduction.

replace "take care of" for do a decent job raising them, point taken though, shouldn't have played it fast and loose at the end there.

Unfrortunately, the duggars are too stiupid tpo use contraceptives or realize that we already suffer from overpopulation. Duggar Trivia: Wanna know WHY they stop using contraceptives? Because they somehow didn't realize that it causes a miscarriage!

Hmm... I wonder if Dr. Kevorkian is willing to expand into mercy spaying/neutering...

Does anyone besides me ever watch the Duggar family "18 and Counting?" If so, I wondered what you thought of them and the show, and particularly, about the latest show with the eldest Duggar getting married? See www.duggarfamily.com

Wow...I'd hate to see how loose the mother's vagina is now. It must be a slip n' slide at this point...

...why do I get the hunch this thread will devolve into grand canyon references, followed by a mod locking it?

*looks at the picture* You know, statistically, 2 or 3 of those kids are probably gay. *looks closer*

...why do I get the hunch this thread will devolve into grand canyon references, followed by a mod locking it?

Because, around here, things tend to get stretched to unbelievable proportions. The puns should have tighter quality control before being submitted. The average poster has the tendency to leave the quality control open so wide a semi truck could drive through.

Either that, or they just erode into oblivion.

These people are sick, I've said it before and I won't empower them (or most TV networks) by watching their show, or any 'reality' TV show.

Without ever seeing the show or knowing about the family...

I'm pretty sure their kids grow up to be more "normal" than families with only one kid - AFAIK kids aren't made of glass or are particularly in need of remote control device or two (aka. overcaring parents). ;)

As far as I'm concerned, the only rational objection one could have against huge families is overpopulation....Which is why they should be swiftly exterminated. :eek:


For that matter, I think Loose Vagina Syndrome is primarily a myth perpetuated by feminists who feel their empowerment is threatened by a woman who might like a more traditional role (culture wise). Also, from evolutionary point of view, families conceiving more than 3-4 children has probably been a norm for most of the time human has existed. So a woman staying 5-10 years of her life pregnant while still being more or less happy and having a functional vagina shouldn't surprise anyone.

physically crazy too, apparently.
funny!

It's only controversial because they're wealthy and white. It's not uncommon for Mexican families around me to have 7-10 kids, and sometimes 12-14. No one would ever complain about that for cultural reasons, and because they're usually poor, and traditionally, having many kids is a sort of life insurance for the poorest of the poor. Having many, many kids can be the only thing keeping you alive, if you're from a slum. Wealthy people don't need to have a dozen kids to survive, so unless they're very religious, you almost never see it.
I don't think that when they embarked upon this "any amount of kids" exodus they were wealthy. Looking at their site, the father Duggar was a legislator for a short time, and then they allegedly bought commercial propertes which they turned into warehouses and lease out. Now, I am sure they are wealthy thanks to the money from the show they are on, but they had to have the "kid gimmick" to attract the show. Thus, if it weren't for their good fortune in getting a show "gig" they could have been very, very poor in Arkansas, one of the poorest states in the USA, with 18 kids and counting.

Does anyone besides me ever watch the Duggar family "18 and Counting?" If so, I wondered what you thought of them and the show, and particularly, about the latest show with the eldest Duggar getting married? See www.duggarfamily.com
no i havent watched their show? why would anyone?

i dont think its good to encourage over-breeding.

I can't understand why her husband is still so eager to get it on. At this point, it's got to be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway.
YIKES! I assume it is his xtian duty? Be fruitful and multiply on command? He says he leaves the number of kids they have up to her, so considering they don't use birth control, I assume she times it so they do? Probably with Nielsen ratings. . . .