Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

Post Reply
Page 1 of 8  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Duggers and the Quiverful Movement
9 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2009 - 1:51PM #1
Posts: 2,006

Hi everyone. A few days ago the Duggers found out that they were going to be grandparents. As most people already know, they are the famous TLC family that has 18 children.  All of their kids are home-schooled.  What are your thoughts on this movement? Is it healthy? Does anyone here come from a large family or has been home-schooled?

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2009 - 2:06PM #2
Posts: 9,144

Apr 16, 2009 -- 1:51PM, GRobit625 wrote:

Hi everyone.


 A few days ago the Duggers found out that they were going to be grandparents. As most people already know, they are the famous TLC family that has 18 children. 

Don't they have t.v.?

 All of their kids are home-schooled.  What are your thoughts on this movement?

Couldn't care less, one way or another.  Walk your own DharmaPath.

 Is it healthy?

Seems to induce a high fertility level.

Does anyone here come from a large family or has been home-schooled?

No and No.  I went through 9 yrs. of Parochial school --- and that's purgatory enough.

As for family --- one SiL is hell enough.

The Path
To Moon
Doesn't Go

So Walk
Your own
And Be

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2009 - 2:49PM #3
Posts: 2,317

I have friends who have 6 kids.  They are RC but she hates the church.  She believes the requirement to have as many kids as possible (the true reason behind the rules against birth control and abortion) is cruel and simply driven by the male need to be seen as "manly" and, incidently, a constant source of income for the church.  They barely got by financially.  One of the children is mentally challenged.  A thoughtful doctor finally took care of the problem and she had no more. 

I guess the Quiverful people are welcome to have as many children as possible.  If they can't support a large family - financially, emotionally or otherwise - they become a burden to society.  When the woman suffers from the constant strain of pregnancy she becomes a victim. 

There is something behind the movement which I suspect has little to do with what is advertised and lots to do with juvenile male "needs".

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2009 - 3:46PM #4
Posts: 1,223

I find any that any movement that bans birth control is just a method to put women "in their place". I am suspicious of those who homeschool- it seems like they want to have total control of their children. Let's face it, once you send your kid off to kindergarten you are required to let go of some of the control. Seems like those who homeschool have a problem with this. They'll tell you public schools are full of sex, drugs and violence. Gimme a break. I went to 12 years of public school and never did any of that. Public schools also teach the "Evil Evolution" and they take issue with this too.

Those faiths who are anti-birth control speak of being "open to life" and "God's plan". They also state the same case for anti-euthanasia- nobody should "interfere" with "God's Plan."  Yet Quiverfulls and strict Roman Catholics will seek medical care. Well, if it's all up to God, why even go to the doctor? Why get any medical treatment at all? If you have some fatal disease, it must be "God's Plan". Why interfere?

"The centrality of our mission is to love each other. That means caring for our neighbors. And it does not mean bickering about fine points of doctrine."- ++KJS

"We are to be Christ's hands and feet and heart and mind and we cannot do that if we assume God's role of judgment. The judge's job is filled. God alone is judge! Those who would be Saviors of the Church and the people in it are also reminded that the Savior's job has been filled. Jesus Christ filled it once for all. "- Bishop Rodney Michel
Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2009 - 4:02PM #5
Posts: 67

I do not think that this kind of philosophy is healthy for anyone.

Nevermind the burden on society issue (though it is a real concern). What I find disturbing is the misogynous undertones of it all. Just because a woman can conceive, that doesn't make her a good mother - nor does it mean that being pregnant that many times is not a burden to her body. Women's bodies only come with so much. Pregnancy is extrememly draining on our calcium reserves (um, bones) as well as other vitamin and mineral balances in our bodies. To be constantly pregnant (or very close to it) the entirety of our adult lives is detrimental, ultimately, to our own survival.

The thought that a woman is useless unless her uterus is full has been extraordinarily damaging to women throughout time. Just look at the Bible to see story after story of women whose value is determined by her inability to bear children. Rachel allows her own husband to have sex with a servant so that she can have a child to her credit. Can you imagine giving your spouse permission to sleep with another person? How demeaning to poor Rachel! Sarah does the same thing for Abraham, and the resulting rivalry between her son and the child her slave bore him is still raging in our world.  A woman who does not conceive can be "set aside" by her husband, or else he has permission to sleep with whomever he chooses while still keeping her hanging on.

Then consider Mary, whose entire cult is determined by her uterus and the fact that she was somehow a "virgin" when she got pregnant. This whole mythology is based on the ideology that women should have babies and babies and babies, not Heaven forbid she ever have a rewarding sexual relationship with her husband. Mind you, none of that stuff is actually Biblical, but that is beyond the point.

The Quiverful movement, like polygamous groups worldwide, tends to tell women that their value is determined solely by the productivity of their uteruses. The little girl who is pregnant with this grandchild is barely 20 years old and has already been married for some six months. Just how much education did she receive? How often was she rewarded for the productivity of her mind? Has she ever been told that she is capable of a career, or of contributing to the world with some other organ beyond her uterus?

Just as important: has she ever been permitted to experience living on her own and making her own way in the world, or has she always depended on a man to provide for her? Has she ever even held a job, so that she knows what she will have to do if her husband dies and leaves her with 18 children to feed? And does she know how little a woman with a home-schooled "diploma" makes in the workforce, that it is certainly insiufficient to feed, clothe, and house twenty individuals?

It's fairly clear that the entire scheme is not only the nacissistic fantasy of a man fulfilling his own juvenile desires, but a plot to put an end to the contributions of women and the valuing of a woman for her own self. It is unhealthy for the woman, unhealthy for the children she raises, and unhealthy for the men in her community.

Ultimately, it is patently anti-Christian. Jesus Our Lord was a feminist is the purest sense. He valued women as equal to men, and their contribution to the world extended so much beyond mere childbearing. He reached out to women at every opportunity, and they responded. They responded because Jesus saw them as people - not as slaves or indentured servants or as mobile incubators, but as people. They responded by being His only true followers when the going got really tough. When the big strong Disciples were hiding in the Upper Room after His Crucifixion, who was there at the Cross? And who risked their own necks to annoint His sacred body in the Tomb? WOMEN.

Any organization or "movement" that asserts anything different is denying the Message of Our Lord and Savior.
Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2009 - 4:45PM #6
Posts: 13

I went to high school (a private Christian school) with 3 sisters who were homeschooled through 8th grade and then enrolled in school.  They were some of my best friends and had no trouble assimilating to life in a real school.  Of course, who know what they would have been like if they had been homeschooled through high school?  I think homeschooling is fine as long as there are standards in place and the kids can pass all the regular standardized tests which would show they are coming away with what they should have gotten in a traditional school environment.  The only issue would be socialization and if those kids are equipped to live in the real world.  I suppose that's not an issue in this case since the young pregnant girl will likely be kept in the only world she's ever known.

As far as the issue of forbidding birth control and all that, it's my firm belief that anyone without a uterus should be forbidden from imposing restrictions on a person with a uterus.

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2009 - 10:08PM #7
Theophilus XX
Posts: 82

Apr 16, 2009 -- 7:23PM, BritLit37 wrote:

I've watched their show several times. If that's the life they choose, good for them. They are entirely self-sufficient, meaning they receive no government assistance, and debt-free. The kids are beautiful and well-spoken. Not only are the parents self-sufficient, but they have also set up their oldest kids in business and bought the oldest and his wife a home.

Clearly, the kids aren't suffering, they're not a drain on society, and they seem happy. So, I don't really see the need to pass some sort of judgment on them. It's certainly not the lifestyle I'd want but I'm sure they don't lose any sleep over that fact, LOL.

I agree.  The supposed goal of Feminism is to empower women to make choices with their lives and support of those choices.  Except for the choice to get married, stay home and raise children, that is the forbidden career choice. 

It always seems a bit hypocritical when the so called feminist leaders applaud a woman having 18 abortions as exercising her right to choose what to do with her own body and then turn around and denigrate and condemn a woman for choosing to stay home and raise children, even 18 children, as being a Quisling.  Anyone who even points out this hypocrisy gets immediately labeled a misogynist.

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2009 - 10:56PM #8
Posts: 4,517

18 children...that's 162 months pregnant?  Or nearly 14 years pregnant?

Well, I've known large families before, and they were great folk, but...there's just something in my gut that says that this is way out of proportion. 

How healthy is this?  For everyone involved?  I'm not so sure about this....Mrs. Mape is one of seven...times that by 2.5???

I dunno.....


...and the anti-feminist argument thing-ee is so 1970's...I think we are way beyond that as a society...least ways in my circles...

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2009 - 10:57PM #9
Posts: 2,317

I have no problem with this couple who seem to be capable of doing what they preach.  I have considerable concern for their followers who may be less educated, less financially well situated, less emotionally stable and too willing to be influenced to do what is not appropriate for them with potentially disastrous results.

And Theophilus's comment about feminists was inappropriate.

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2009 - 11:20PM #10
Posts: 67

Apr 16, 2009 -- 10:56PM, maplewood wrote:

...and the anti-feminist argument thing-ee is so 1970's...I think we are way beyond that as a society...least ways in my circles...


Really??? Let's ask the women in the Middle East forced to hide behind a chador. Or the ones in Africa whose clitorises have been removed with a razor blade.
Quick Reply
Page 1 of 8  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook