Dutc777

I have no idea how much an episode the duggar  family actually makes. It could be $500 per person an episode or $1000 per person  an episode. Or  it could be like jon/ kate where they make/ made $10000-$15000 each per episode.

JFG

The Duggars aren't nearly as irritating to me as Jon and Kate. I've never seen the show (probably the only one in America who hasn't), and now I purposely won't watch it, ever.

Whatever happened to OctoMom? I thought she was supposed to get a show too.

Oct 6, 2009 -- 9:03PM, JoanTreese wrote:

Meanwhile while the Duggar's are about to become grandparents, Michelle is pregnant with Child #20!! Oy vey.  I don't care how much money they have, debt free, etc.,  2 parents CANNOT parent that many children effectively which is why the older children become the "parents" to the younger ones! Other then Michelle breast feeding each new arrival, most of the care it left to others.

which is what they did during the turn of the century when having large families was normal.  10-15 kids wasn't a big deal, the older took care of the younger.   I don't see anything bad about having the older help out with the younger.   Kids should have responsability aroung the house.    That's just my opinion.

Apr 16, 2009 -- 4:02PM, Emilyjane2004 wrote:

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.

I can't give a standing ovation, but still... *applauds*

I agree- great post!

One of my favorite Bishop Spong quotes: "I resent anyone who defines a woman , in the name of the Christian God, primarily in terms of her reproductive functions."