How 'bout them Duggars?

[Hetta]

They also, as the link I posted shows, use all of the language and concepts of quiverful.

 

[South Bound]

They have "19 Kids And Counting"

And...?

Having a lot of children does not mean one is part of the quiverful movement or a follower of Bill Gothard.

Honestly, this is almost as stupid as the post where somebody said the Duggars are "crazy" because they eat off paper plates.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

And...?

Having a lot of children does not mean one is part of the quiverful movement or a follower of Bill Gothard.

Honestly, this is almost as stupid as the post where somebody said the Duggars are "crazy" because they eat off paper plates.

Okay, let me explain this again.

1) They have said they are specifically not part of the quiverful movement.
2) I believe them.
3) They have "19 Kids And Counting"
4) They ascribe to the same beliefs, even though they are not part of the movement.

I may not call myself a vegetarian, but still only eat vegetables.

Hope that helps.

(ETA - the paper plate thing is really not all that crazy. My wife and I have considered it. )

 

[LinkH]

There isn't really a career without a degree. Not one in which a person can continue to be promoted, to grow as a person and an employee, and to obtain the kind of pecuniary advancement as is possible with a degree. It's naïve to imagine that a kid graduating with a high school degree can ever earn as much as a kid graduating with a college degree. There are statistics that quite clearly spell out what the difference is in income over a person's lifetime when they have a degree.

There are a lot of decent-paying fields that don't require a degree. Many of them require some sort of vocational training. Electricians, plumbers, and carpenters can earn more than school teachers. Not everyone is cut out to sell real estate, but some people excel at it. There are computer roles that one can get by studying Microsoft or other companies' materials and earning certifications.

If one wants to work for a corporation as a research scientist or an engineer, yes one needs a degree.

You don't have to have a degree to run your own business. Some courses at a business school are very helpful, but the first two years worth of liberal arts study don't usually contribute much toward running most small businesses.

Statistically, I'm sure you can find some evidence that college grads earn more in general. I wonder to what extent that applies to generation Y, especially recent grads who have found it difficult to find a decent job with a degree.

As far as the topic of the thread goes, I don't have a problem with women jumping straight into the role of mother and opting for stay-at-home wives and mothers. That's there choice. I believe people should put family above career anyway, and if both husband and wife want a stay-at-home wife or stay-at-home mother situation, that's fine. Some women look down their noses at other women who go the SAHM route and don't go to college, and I think that is a very bad trend. I also think it's poor governing for the government to try to push a social agenda where all women get degrees and work when there is such a crisis with family in this country and children lacking parental care. It's gotten to the point where more women get degrees than men, which isn't good for mate-selection issues.

 

[Hetta]

It's gotten to the point where more women get degrees than men, which isn't good for mate-selection issues.

Because a man can't handle having a partner who is smarter than he is? What petty individuals they would have to be.

Nobody here has looked down their noses at SAHMs, and there is a quite opposite trend actually where SAHMs look down their noses at career moms. What women need to do is support each other, regardless of their choice. It's just as silly and petty as judging a woman who didn't breast feed, or a woman who didn't have a natural birth, or whatever other little petty categories we want to place each other into. I don't see the point and I don't care about any of it.

I care that both genders get equal opportunities - that a girl gets the same opportunities as her brother.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

There are a lot of decent-paying fields that don't require a degree. Many of them require some sort of vocational training. Electricians, plumbers, and carpenters can earn more than school teachers. Not everyone is cut out to sell real estate, but some people excel at it. There are computer roles that one can get by studying Microsoft or other companies' materials and earning certifications.

The above quote totally renders the following a moot point.

It's gotten to the point where more women get degrees than men, which isn't good for mate-selection issues.

If the idea here (for you or others) is for the man to be a primary bread-winner, it wouldn't matter a hill of beans if women have more degrees than men, if men have vocational or tech training that lands them the better job.

And, seriously, "mate-selection issues"??? How Darwinian of you...

 

[annafullofgrace]

I don't understand the idea of someone saying "we don't ascribe to _____ ideology", then conducting a lifestyle that models that same ideology, the refusal of some to say "yes, they might be that way, even though they don't specifically say so".

If I say "I am not a vegetarian", but all I eat is vegetables...

The Duggars may not be part of the "quiverfull" movement, or be aligned with Gothard, but if one adopts the ways of a particular group's ideology...

how are they adopting the groups ideology? They say, they are simple applying the bible to their lives.

It may not be fair to call them "Gothardites" if they aren't affiliated, but to recognize similar behavior is another matter.

examples? And if those are examples are biblical, how does that matter? Maybe they're just coincidence. Submissive wife for instance. They get a lot of negative comments for that. It is biblical and they live it, but not in the way the naysayers state. My husband is head of our home and I am submissive, but that doesn't mean he's my boss. Media and naysayers distort it.

 

[annafullofgrace]

Because a man can't handle having a partner who is smarter than he is? What petty individuals they would have to be.

I don't think it has to do with a woman being smarter. My husband would be the first to admit that I know more than him in certain areas and I would say the same for him. I think it becomes a matter when a man doesn't feel respected. Men are designed to lead and be protectors of their families. When a woman makes him feel as if he is not needed....he loses his purpose. I've seen it happen many times, but I've also seen many women with careers who still respect their husband, even if they are the 'breadwinner'. It can work, I believe, if both the man and the woman are working for each other's good and realizes each other's needs. Mean need to feel respect and women need emotion.

Nobody here has looked down their noses at SAHMs, and there is a quite opposite trend actually where SAHMs look down their noses at career moms. What women need to do is support each other, regardless of their choice. It's just as silly and petty as judging a woman who didn't breast feed, or a woman who didn't have a natural birth, or whatever other little petty categories we want to place each other into. I don't see the point and I don't care about any of it.

I think I can say, for the first time, that I actually agree with you. I despise mommy wars. However, I do not agree that there are more sahm looking down in working mothers tho. I think it's the same. Just this week at the pediatricians office, the nurse asked my daughter what she wanted to be when she grew up and if she wanted to do what mommy does. She didn't know I was a sahm. When my daughter told her that mommy was a sahm and a homeschooling mom, nurse immediately degraded me-in front of my child. ( I had a polite response.). As if it is so low that she felt she need not encourage my child. Granted, my daughter is 9 and I am sure she will change her mind a million times of what she wants to be. My point is that, I have not met many working moms who think what I do is okay or worthy. A few friends, but not many.

I care that both genders get equal opportunities - that a girl gets the same opportunities as her brother.

Yes, but each daughter should choose what she wants to do. The Duggars make sure their children are exposed to many different skills, so they always have something they can do. Our family does the same, granted my oldest is only 11, but we plan to continue that, so they will have a wide variety of skills and hopefully they can utilize them in whichever oath they choose.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Submissive wife for instance. <snip> My husband is head of our home and I am submissive, but that doesn't mean he's my boss. Media and naysayers distort it.

Glad you brought this up, because here's a perfect example. This is an issue that caught significant attention and interest due to the work of John Piper and Wayne Grudem. They are significant proponents of the "complementarian" model of marriage, and they rely on scriptural interpretation and personal anecdotes to support their position.

Now - you've said nothing about Piper or Grudem. Does that mean that your marriage is not complementarian? Media and naysayers distort nothing.

 

[LinkH]

They also, as the link I posted shows, use all of the language and concepts of quiverful.

The author's evidence for them being quiverful is the fact that they hold to certain Biblical beliefs and beliefs that Christians have held to since the first century.

A Duggar girl stands in front of TV to keep the boys from seeing something that might invoke lust. How is this exclusively 'quiverful'? Maybe from the eyes of a liberal secular feminist whose only exposure to Christianity was through the quiverful movement, it might seem that way. But all Christians have in their Bible that Jesus said if a man looks after a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

They believe in traditional roles in the relationship between wife and husband. So do countless evangelicals who are not of the quiverful movement. So do Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches, historically. Ephesians 5, Colossians 3 I Peter 3 are in all their Bibles.

They stopped using hormonal birth control pills when they realize abortion/miscarriage was a risk. I'm not part of the quiverful movement and that's one of the reasons my wife and I haven't used hormonal birth control methods. Many other evangelicals feel the same way. The church has been against abortion since the first century.

She talks about Roman Catholic couples who didn't want children living as platonic. That doesn't sound like the norm to me. Maybe there some medieval monk or priest, repressed because he'd sworn off sex or just lacking understanding of scripture or marriage who recommended such a thing. But I don't think that's what the RCC has recommended since reducing family size has become a prominent desire in the culture after the move to cities during the industrial revolution. They recommend skipping certain days when a woman is fertile. The RCC seems to have become more marriage friendly and family friendly after the Reformation, as opposed to considering marriage so far beneath celibacy. Their teachers were primarily celibate.

The Bible teaches husband and wife not to defraud one another of 'due benevolence', another problem the blogger you referred us to has a problem with. This isn't just a 'quiverful' idea. It's a Biblical idea.

So far, the main uniquely quiverful ideas the Duggars hold to are the idea that a Christian couple should have as many children as possible. Culturally, they home school and home church, which they say quiverful people do. But I've known many home church/ house church people in real life and on the Internet who aren't into quiverful. Plenty of home school families aren't either.

Does a Christian family who holds to Biblical and historical values on marriage and family who believes in having as many kids as possible automatically become 'quiverful' after child number 6? They don't consider themselves a part of that movement. They may hear people in the movement and disagree with specific ideas. or not consider themselves a part of it because they aren't part of certain organizations. From the viewpoint of a feminist blogger with a secular world view, the Duggars and quiverful movement may be all one and the same. But for the Duggars, the differences may seem more pronounced.

If holding to historical Biblical beliefs on marriage and believing in large families and no birth control make one quiverful, I don't have a problem with someone being quiverful. I may not agree that birth control is necessarily wrong, but I respect the conscience of a couple who does.

And Ms. Duggar seems enthusiastic about having babies. It doesn't seem to me to be something Jim Bob is forcing on her. They could both be very enthusiastic about making babies. That seems to be the case.

 

[Hetta]

A Duggar girl stands in front of TV to keep the boys from seeing something that might invoke lust. How is this exclusively 'quiverful'? Maybe from the eyes of a liberal secular feminist whose only exposure to Christianity was through the quiverful movement, it might seem that way. But all Christians have in their Bible that Jesus said if a man looks after a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Why is it a female's job to stop males from lusting? I thought that females were supposed to follow, not lead? Why isn't the male turning off the tv so that he won't lust? To my knowledge, we are to each of us, individually - in fear and trembling - seek our own salvation. I don't seek my husband's for him, he doesn't seek mine for me. Why is a girl seeking for her brother's salvation.

Nice bit about the 'liberal secular feminist'. I suppose that's me. That's fine, that's what I'm slowly becoming anyway- the secular part of it. I'm definitely already a liberal feminist - and proud of it.

 

[Hetta]

I don't think it has to do with a woman being smarter. My husband would be the first to admit that I know more than him in certain areas and I would say the same for him. I think it becomes a matter when a man doesn't feel respected. Men are designed to lead and be protectors of their families. When a woman makes him feel as if he is not needed....he loses his purpose. I've seen it happen many times, but I've also seen many women with careers who still respect their husband, even if they are the 'breadwinner'. It can work, I believe, if both the man and the woman are working for each other's good and realizes each other's needs. Mean need to feel respect and women need emotion.

Men must be very weak creatures if their very purpose is shaken because their wife has more qualifications.

And you're wrong about men and women. I very much need respect, and my husband very much needs affection. We all need both to function. Perhaps it would be okay for your husband to be "emotional" to you (whatever that means) but treat you disrespectfully. It's not okay for me. Men and women aren't cookie cutter creatures where all men x, and all women y.

 

[Hetta]

I think I can say, for the first time, that I actually agree with you. I despise mommy wars. However, I do not agree that there are more sahm looking down in working mothers tho. I think it's the same. Just this week at the pediatricians office, the nurse asked my daughter what she wanted to be when she grew up and if she wanted to do what mommy does. She didn't know I was a sahm. When my daughter told her that mommy was a sahm and a homeschooling mom, nurse immediately degraded me-in front of my child. ( I had a polite response.). As if it is so low that she felt she need not encourage my child. Granted, my daughter is 9 and I am sure she will change her mind a million times of what she wants to be. My point is that, I have not met many working moms who think what I do is okay or worthy. A few friends, but not many.

I didn't say "more" SAHM looking down at working moms, just that it happens. I find it all a waste of time - and nobody should degrade you to your children.

 

[annafullofgrace]

I know very little about them, we live accordingly to Ephesians 5. What's your point? Are we going to be attacked for following them as well?

Glad you brought this up, because here's a perfect example. This is an issue that caught significant attention and interest due to the work of John Piper and Wayne Grudem. They are significant proponents of the "complementarian" model of marriage, and they rely on scriptural interpretation and personal anecdotes to support their position.

Now - you've said nothing about Piper or Grudem. Does that mean that your marriage is not complementarian? Media and naysayers distort nothing.

 

[annafullofgrace]

Again, I respectfully disagree. And I never said women don't need respect. You twisted my words, again. I never said anything in regards to how men feel if their woman has more qualifications.

It is pointless to have a conversation with you. My husband has never treated me respectfully and again you are making this personal. I am not. My marriage, nor yours should be entered into this dialogue.

I will no longer be responding to you. It's a waste of my time. At this point, it's better to agree to disagree.

Men must be very weak creatures if their very purpose is shaken because their wife has more qualifications.

And you're wrong about men and women. I very much need respect, and my husband very much needs affection. We all need both to function. Perhaps it would be okay for your husband to be "emotional" to you (whatever that means) but treat you disrespectfully. It's not okay for me. Men and women aren't cookie cutter creatures where all men x, and all women y.

 

[Hetta]

LOL. Whatever. I'm simply responding to what I read. Most people don't get bent out of shape by such discussions.

 

[Hetta]

I know very little about them, we live accordingly to Ephesians 5. What's your point? Are we going to be attacked for following them as well?

Having a different opinion is not an attack. That word is the most over-used word on these forums.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I know very little about them, we live accordingly to Ephesians 5. What's your point?

That is my point. Shall I say you are not complementarian because you know very little about them?

Are we going to be attacked for following them as well?

Where have I attacked anyone?
Btw, my wife and I also live according to Ephesians 5 and are Egalitarian. Shall we be attacked now?

 

[annafullofgrace]

I've stated more than once that I am not interested in a dialogue when it becomes personal. I'm not bent out of shape. You are adding your own words again.

LOL. Whatever. I'm simply responding to what I read. Most people don't get bent out of shape by such discussions.

 

[annafullofgrace]

I'm not indicating you are attacking anyone. It's just a general statement since the duggars are attacked for those reasons. Just because something has similarities doesn't mean it's the same.

That is my point. Shall I say you are not complementarian because you know very little about them?

Where have I attacked anyone?
Btw, my wife and I also live according to Ephesians 5 and are Egalitarian. Shall we be attacked now?