Does Being Pro-Choice Mean I Have To Support Michelle Duggar?

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Era Might' date='30 May 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1275237209' post='2120698']
"Their mother's children"? Where I come from we call those brothers and sisters.
[/quote]

Still a parent's job.

Edited May 30, 2010 by ThePenciledOne

[Winchester]

Have smaller families resulted in a stronger society?

[Cherie]

The person who wrote that article [b]epitomizes[/b] the current attitude of society toward families.

Of course she feels that way about the Duggars - she COMPLETELY misses the point, and truly does not [i]understand[/i] the perspective of a family who considers traditional family values of utmost importance, including openness to life. She can't wrap her mind around the values of the Duggar family - she [i]can't[/i].

You can't argue with a person like that - they are on a completely different plane.

Are the children happy? Do the older girls resent helping with the younger children? Do they seem to be well-balanced, healthy children? And like Winchester pointed out, have smaller families resulted in a stronger society?

Yes, there are many terrible parents out there, but in my opinion the Duggars certainly don't fall into that category. Any child of a large family can tell you that the older children help with the younger children -- and guess what? Many of them LIKE TO DO IT!!! (SHOCK of all SHOCKS!) It's part of the natural rhythm, and it's how the older children can learn responsibility. It's just the way it WORKS in a large family! But of course it seems "strange" and "cruel" and "irresponsible" to our current society of birth control and one (or possibly two) token children.

[fides quarens intellectum]

Back in the day, this was normal. Well, i won't say 19 kids was normal, but the fact that daughters were helping mom take care of the other kiddos in a large family was normal. Growing up giving of yourself to others is not necessarily a bad thing.

That said, I'm personally torn: my mom was the only girl out of 8 kids in an immigrant family. Yes, she had to help out her mother at a very early age, and, yes, she was prevented from getting a higher degree because she was expected to stay and help out with the family instead of using her college scholarships. Do i think that majorly smells of elderberries? Yes. Do I think she was deprived? You'd have to ask her. I do know my mother is one of the most generous people I've ever known, always thinking of others first.

Anyway, what I find more disturbing is that this family is all part of a television show. Normally, I would say that how many kids this family has, and what roles they play, is their business, not mine. However, by continually appearing on television, they are inviting public criticism - unfortunately, it is going to happen because they are on TV. I find it very sad that the kids are having to grow up on television (the article mentions that the name of the show has changed with the last few kids' entry into the world, so I guess this has been on for a few years?). To me, that is much more disturbing than the fact that some of the daughters are helping out in the family.

[Era Might]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='30 May 2010 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1275250098' post='2120762']
Still a parent's job.
[/quote]
Family is not a "job."

Every parent relies on help to raise their children. Unfortunately, modern families usually have to rely on institutions (the school system, daycare, after-school programs, etc.), rather than being able to rely on family and community.

When parents send their children to an institution every day, the workers at the institution are doing a "job." Young people in a large family helping their brothers and sisters is not a "job." Now, of course, parents can act manipulatively within the family relationships, as in Catherine's example above. But we live in an institutionalized society where we increasingly don't have to worry about the danger of manipulative family relationships...because institutions replace family and community.

To me, the real scandal in society is not the elder Duggar children helping with their brothers and sisters. The real scandal is that we send our children to institutions like schools every day...and we don't even question the nature of institutions; we unquestioningly accept the assumption that institutions do what they claim to do (and we certainly don't analyze the hidden effects of institutions).

What is truly out of whack in modern society: teens in a large family helping with their brothers and sisters, or small families that have to rely on institutions to help raise their children?

Edited May 30, 2010 by Era Might

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Era Might' date='30 May 2010 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1275258465' post='2120815']
Family is not a "job."

Every parent relies on help to raise their children. Unfortunately, modern families usually have to rely on institutions (the school system, daycare, after-school programs, etc.), rather than being able to rely on family.

When parents send their children to an institution every day, the people at the institution are doing a "job." Young people in a large family helping their brothers and sisters is not a "job." Now, of course, parents can act manipulatively within the family relationships, as in Catherine's example above. But we live in an institutionalized society where we increasingly don't have to worry about the danger of manipulative family relationships...because institutions replace family and community.

To me, the real scandal in society is not the elder Duggar children helping their brothers and sisters. The real scandal is that we send our children to institutions like schools every day...and we don't even question the nature of institutions; [b]we unquestioningly accept the assumption that institutions are a suitable environment for young people.[/b]

What is truly out of whack in modern society: teens in a large family helping with their brothers and sisters, or small families that have to rely on institutions to help raise their children?
[/quote]

Excuse me for my terminology.

Young people may view it as a job though, as in caring for their brothers and sisters, not trying to be selfish or pessimistic but society has not shown me any real evidence to not be.

What is whack, is that we have to talk of small/large families at all. I think, families are just families and it is up to them how they want to raise their children no matter what another's opinion is. Parents can still send their children to public schools and yet give their children enough of a backbone not to drown in the sea of conformity/relativism.


The bolded statement I find interesting that you mention that. Because in all honesty that can apply to plenty of other places in our society that we just blindly assume and generalize and accept.

Otherwise, I find this whole debate more or less silly.

[Era Might]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='30 May 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1275259098' post='2120827']I think, families are just families and it is up to them how they want to raise their children no matter what another's opinion is.[/quote]
Yes, it is up to each family how to raise their children. But how we raise our children has an impact on society. When you start building institutions to help raise everyone's children...then that becomes a matter for social criticism. I would not criticize an individual family for sending their children to a schooling institution, even if I disagree with them (that is their business, and really, families don't have much of a choice in modern society). But I would criticize the proliferation of schooling institutions for what it says about our society.

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='30 May 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1275259098' post='2120827']Parents can still send their children to public schools and yet give their children enough of a backbone not to drown in the sea of conformity/relativism.[/quote]
Regardless of how particular children are affected...my point is that the parents who send their children to an institution every day are relying on help to raise their children. All parents rely on help...whether that help comes from family/community, or from institutions. My main point is that the real scandal in society is that we overwhelmingly rely on institutions rather than on family/community. And a big part of why we rely on institutions is because of how we view family/community in modern society (our view is an historical anomaly).

[quote]The bolded statement I find interesting that you mention that. Because in all honesty that can apply to plenty of other places in our society that we just blindly assume and generalize and accept.[/quote]
Yes, I agree. There is a whole lot in modern society that we blindly accept, and we would do well to open our eyes and start questioning those things.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Era Might

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Era--I can understand your concerns about sending children to school, especially a public school. And, I can see the benefits of homeschooling. I was often bored in school, and, in many subjects, could easily have completed a year's coursework in half the time (or less). This would have given me more time to do other things, or study more subjects.

However, what I REALLY needed was a private tutor who was NOT my mother. Without going into details, my family was severely dysfunctional, and spending all day, every day with my mother would have done me emotional harm. I was lucky enough to live in a town with excellent public schools, and, for me, at least, going to school provided me a way to see that not everyone's family was like mine, and to be better able to put my family in perspective. In elementary school, there were special programs for gifted children that helped my boredom and made me feel less "different." And, later on, in high school, I took classes at the local junior college that were not available at my high school.

My experience growing up was unfortunately not unique (at least my parents were not physically abusive, unlike the parents of some of my friends). For me, at least, going to public school was the better option versus being homeschooled by my mother. On the other hand, many young people who are homeschooled like it a lot, and I'm very glad that homeschooling is becoming more accepted both by society in general, and by the state. But, particularly since I am not a parent, I don't feel competent to have an opinion on what is best for any individual child, and there may be situations where homeschooling is not the better alternative.

Edited May 30, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Era Might]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='30 May 2010 - 07:45 PM' timestamp='1275263118' post='2120859']
Era--I can understand your concerns about sending children to school, especially a public school. And, I can see the benefits of homeschooling. I was often bored in school, and, in many subjects, could easily have completed a year's coursework in half the time (or less). This would have given me more time to do other things, or study more subjects.

However, what I REALLY needed was a private tutor who was NOT my mother. Without going into details, my family was severely dysfunctional, and spending all day, every day with my mother would have done me emotional harm. I was lucky enough to live in a town with excellent public schools, and, for me, at least, going to school provided me a way to see that not everyone's family was like mine, and to be better able to put my family in perspective. In elementary school, there were special programs for gifted children that helped my boredom and made me feel less "different." And, later on, in high school, I took classes at the local junior college that were not available at my high school.

My experience growing up was unfortunately not unique (at least my parents were not physically abusive, unlike the parents of some of my friends). For me, at least, going to public school was the better option versus being homeschooled by my mother. On the other hand, many young people who are homeschooled like it a lot, and I'm very glad that homeschooling is becoming more accepted both by society in general, and by the state. But, particularly since I am not a parent, I don't feel competent to have an opinion on what is best for any individual child, and there may be situations where homeschooling is not the better alternative.
[/quote]
I don't want to hijack this thread to be about schooling. I only brought it up to point out that every parent relies on help to raise their kids...the Duggars aren't the only ones; it's just that the Duggars are so "abnormal" today in a modern society where it's "normal" to rely on institutions rather than to rely on family/community. I think things like tutors could be very helpful in an environment based on freedom and leisure in learning; but we have no such environment in our modern schools.

My point is not to advocate homeschooling. I disagree with the aim of all modern "schooling." I don't believe that people need to be treated like robots that are programmed with arbitrarily chosen "information." I think learning should be a life-long act of leisure, not a program that people are boxed into.

I don't think the alternative to schooling is to keep children at home. I think the alternative is to have a society that young people can take meaningful part in. Learning is part of growing up, but schooling is part of our society's infantilization of young people.

The author of the article we are discussing in this thread assumes that going to college, working part-time, and dating are meaningful experiences for teens. I question that assumption vis a vis the majority of young people today. Here is an excerpt from a book written in the 1950s that explores what was, even then, a society which made it practically impossible for young people to grow up into meaningful lives:

[quote]In every day's newspaper there are stories about the two subjects that I have brought together in this book, the disgrace of the Organized System of semimonopolies, government, advertisers, etc., and the disaffection of the growing generation. Both are newsworthily scandalous, and for several years now both kinds of stories have come thicker and faster. It is strange that the obvious connections between them are not played up in the newspapers; nor, in the rush of books on the follies, venality, and stifling conformity of the Organization, has there been a book on Youth Problems in the Organized System.

Those of the disaffected youth who are articulate, however, for instance, the Beat or Angry young men, are quite clear about the connection: their main topic is the system with which they refuse to co-operate. They will explain that the good jobs are frauds and sells, that it is intolerable to have one's style of life dictated by Personnel, that a man is a fool to work to pay installments on a useless refrigerator for his wife, that the movies, TV, and Book of the Month Club are beneath contempt, and the Luce publications [Life magazine, Time magazine, Fortune magazine] make you sick to the stomach; and they will describe with accuracy the cynicism and one-upping of the typical junior executive. They consider it the part of reason and honor to wash their hands of all of it.

...The question is why the grownups do not, more soberly, draw the same connections as the youth. Or, since no doubt many people are quite clear about the connection that the structure of society that has become increasingly dominant in our country is disastrous to the growth of excellence and manliness, why don't more people speak up and say so, and initiate a change?....

This brings me to another proposition about growing up, and perhaps the main theme of this book. Growth, like any ongoing function, requires adequate objects in the environment to meet the needs and capacities of the growing child, boy, youth, and young man, until he can better choose and make his own environment. It is not a psychological question of poor influences and bad attitudes, but an objective question of real opportunities for worth-while experience....

...

In our society, bright lively children, with the potentiality for knowledge, noble ideals, honest effort, and some kind of worth-while achievement, are transformed into useless and cynical bipeds, or decent young men trapped or early resigned, whether in or out of the organized system. My purpose is a simple one: to show how it is desperately hard these days for an average child to grow up to be a man, for our present organized system of society does not want men. They are not safe. They do not suit.

--Paul Goodman, "Growing Up Absurd"[/quote]

Edited May 31, 2010 by Era Might

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Era Might' date='30 May 2010 - 07:05 PM' timestamp='1275264355' post='2120864']
I don't want to hijack this thread to be about schooling. I only brought it up to point out that every parent relies on help to raise their kids...the Duggars aren't the only ones; it's just that the Duggars are so "abnormal" today in a modern society where it's "normal" to rely on institutions rather than to rely on family/community. I think things like tutors could be very helpful in an environment based on freedom and leisure in learning; but we have no such environment in our modern schools.

My point is not to advocate homeschooling. I disagree with the aim of all modern "schooling." I don't believe that people need to be treated like robots that are programmed with arbitrarily chosen "information." I think learning should be a life-long act of leisure, not a program that people are boxed into.

I don't think the alternative to schooling is to keep children at home. I think the alternative is to have a society that young people can take meaningful part in. Learning is part of growing up, but schooling is part of our society's infantilization of young people.

The author of the article we are discussing in this thread assumes that going to college, working part-time, and dating are meaningful experiences for teens. I question that assumption vis a vis the majority of young people today. Here is an excerpt from a book written in the 1950s that explores what was, even then, a society which made it practically impossible for young people to grow up into meaningful lives:

[/quote]

Gotcha. And, I really like your quote. I'm someone who has never truly "fit in" with either the schooling system or corporate America. I admit that part of the reason I haven't "fit in" was that, along the way, I deliberately made some choices not to "fit in," because to do so was too much of a compromise of who I was. However, I have paid the price for those choices.

And, as a child, I had the insatiable curiosity that you still see in me as an adult. (As a kid, I even read the encyclopedia for fun.) So, I suspect that, with a little guidance, and access to people/resources that could answer my questions, I would have been self-motivated enough to learn on my own everything I learned in the educational system (and probably a lot more).

[Cherie]

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' date='30 May 2010 - 05:48 PM' timestamp='1275256127' post='2120791']
Anyway, what I find more disturbing is that this family is all part of a television show. Normally, I would say that how many kids this family has, and what roles they play, is their business, not mine. However, by continually appearing on television, they are inviting public criticism - unfortunately, it is going to happen because they are on TV. I find it very sad that the kids are having to grow up on television (the article mentions that the name of the show has changed with the last few kids' entry into the world, so I guess this has been on for a few years?). To me, that is much more disturbing than the fact that some of the daughters are helping out in the family.
[/quote]

One thing that is admirable about the Duggars is that they would only do the television show if their faith would not be edited out in any way. Their faith is a HUUUUGE part of their lives, and they wouldn't even think of doing it if that couldn't be shown. (Before bed or before dinner, the dad will pull out a Bible and say, "Now let's take a lesson from Scripture..." and read it. Honestly, that was an inspiration to me, and something I hope to do with my own children!)

Another interesting thing is that Jim Bob (the dad) said they spend less time MAKING TV than most Americans spend WATCHING TV! So although they are public, it's not a "Kate Plus 8" situation. They honestly are on TV because they believe God wants them to spread the message of openness to life. They really prayed about it and discerned it before they agreed to take it on. I think that shows they're coming from a COMPLETELY different (and faith-filled) perspective on it than most other families would.

[Cherie]

One thing I will also mention, since it seems applicable, is that I know Jim Bob said that if his daughters wanted to go to college, he would certainly support them. So it's not a situation like, "barefoot and pregnant or nothing!" as some people might think it is.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Era Might' date='30 May 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1275259826' post='2120838']
Yes, it is up to each family how to raise their children. But how we raise our children has an impact on society. When you start building institutions to help raise everyone's children...then that becomes a matter for social criticism. I would not criticize an individual family for sending their children to a schooling institution, even if I disagree with them (that is their business, and really, families don't have much of a choice in modern society). But I would criticize the proliferation of schooling institutions for what it says about our society.
[/quote]

Very true and that is what makes the human race so dynamic, how a family raises their child for better or worse. And as to your attitude toward the schooling institutions, then become a teacher, because some of them have the hardest job teaching the desensitized youth thanks to our awful culture. I have had a few really great teachers, and I would love to be able to teach college eventually has an English Professor, but the thing is that we need to fix the mentality toward teaching and maybe help out the teachers as well.

[quote]
Regardless of how particular children are affected...my point is that the parents who send their children to an institution every day are relying on help to raise their children. All parents rely on help...whether that help comes from family/community, or from institutions. My main point is that the real scandal in society is that we overwhelmingly rely on institutions rather than on family/community. And a big part of why we rely on institutions is because of how we view family/community in modern society (our view is an historical anomaly).
[/quote]

Another thing to point out that it is not the schools job to raise children, it is their job to teach them, yet thanks to society we have assigned schools a task in babysitting them. So, yes I agree with you on that point, and it is based upon the parents failure that their children turn out the way they do, which is a mix of internal and external issues that are all unique and innumerable.

Edited May 31, 2010 by ThePenciledOne

[Semper Catholic]

For all those kids who went to public school, we could always tell when a homeschooler started coming to class, always.

Adjustment issues to say the least.

[Luigi]

Anyway, what I find more disturbing is that this family is all part of a television show. Normally, I would say that how many kids this family has, and what roles they play, is their business, not mine. However, by continually appearing on television, they are inviting public criticism - unfortunately, it is going to happen because they are on TV. I find it very sad that the kids are having to grow up on television (the article mentions that the name of the show has changed with the last few kids' entry into the world, so I guess this has been on for a few years?). To me, that is much more disturbing than the fact that some of the daughters are helping out in the family.
[/quote]

I agree - my question is whether the Duggars really are just taking children as they come from God, or are they having additional children to maintain their ratings? If this were a baseball game, having another child would be a home run - it's what the fans want. I don't know one way or another - I haven't watched television in a long time, so I've never seen the show, but vested interests always make me wonder.