|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Apr 29, 2010 22:18:31 GMT -5
"My disrespect for Michelle Duggar has nothing to do with her choice to have a large family, and everything to do with her shrugging off the responsibilities of actual motherhood onto her daughters without their consent and publicly presenting this as an ideal family model."
I wanted to post to second this.
Here's the problem with the Duggar family on TV. Someone said earlier in the thread that women can't be leaders in patriarchy, so we couldn't simultaneously blame Michelle for promoting patriarchy, and also for her leading other families into untenable living situations. Obviously, the arguement seems to be, she can't be part of a patriarchal movement and be a female leader. Therefore, she's not responsible for damage done by her example.
That's not exactly the case here. While I agree that patriarchal society doesn't let a wife/mother/woman "lead," it sure as hell sets up certain women as "examples" and Michelle Duggar is a prime example. These examples are used as a bludgeoning tool for wives and daughters (and sometimes whole families) who are not being 'proper.' That is what she is doing.
Maybe she isn't the leader of her home, but she is complicit (perhaps due to coersion, either religious or spousal) in this travesty of a TV program. Her actions there are directly harming her own female children, by requiring them to take on the burdens of motherhood and childcare and homemaking, sometimes even before they reach puberty. Even worse, the girls are taught that this is something they should ASPIRE to, and be glad to be able to 'help.'
Her actions by promoting this familial image of prosperity and harmony are also directly harming young women in other families who are aspiring to reach Duggar-levels of God's will. These girls (and it is always the girls) through no fault of their own, will be expected to reach or surpass the 'grace' and 'joy' shown on this program.
I hate to be so blunt, but this is child abuse. Those poor girls have never had, and never will have, a childhood. There will always be something missing from their lives that can never be replaced. A child should never have to shoulder that much responsibility.
She should be held accountable for abuses committed in the efforts people make to be like her. She is willing to be made an example of, and so she does hold responsibility towards people who are harmed by her position.
|
|
hrd
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by hrd on Apr 29, 2010 22:44:36 GMT -5
On the other hand, perhaps I should start a diatribe on how miserable my mother was and how I suffered in my childhood because of my mother's choices to follow a feminist way of living which (in her case) included leaving me in daycare 10 hours a day and pawning me off on friends on the weekends. Now don't tell me there are not movies, TV shows, public figures that romanticize that lifestyle and leave out all the bad things that happen to kids when they are raised that way. But the truth is (and those of us that are mothers should know this) we all do our best. I never ever resented my mother for making the choices she made. She did the best she could given the childhood that she had. I hope my kids will show me as much grace. I hope my kids (and myself) are smart enough to figure out when someone is malicious or when someone is just doing their best. I don't think Michelle Duggar is malicious in her behavior. I just don't see how condemning Michelle Duggar is helping her girls or her. Are you women just so far removed from your experience with abusive men/patriarchy that you don't remember how difficult it is to think outside that box/see another way/get out? If you are really concerned about the patriarchal movement and those in it do something productive. Ask one of the girls over for the day and spend time with them. Take one on vacation or to see a show. Befriend the weary mom. Help her clean her kitchen. Take her a meal, just because. Offer to babysit so she can grocery shop alone. Give her a gift when she has her 7th child. Be a listening (non-judging) ear. And then you may be the one that shows her that those outside of her "movement" can be happy too. Because of all this Duggar talk I am tempted to take them up on their invite to visit them in Arkansas just so I can report back. First of all, please do visit and report back, you know we all want to hear! Second of all, I think that acknowledging your mother failed you in certain ways is perfectly legitimate. If you suffered in childhood, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging your suffering. It doesn't mean you hate your mom, or that you don't appreciate what she did right for you. Thirdly, as a mother, I don't always try my best. Sometimes I just suck at being a mom. Most of the time I do try, and I sometimes when I do, I still fail. Lastly, I really don't think the analogy t your mother's parenting style sticks. I work full-time in an industry that attracts very driven people. I can tell you that the model of putting career first at the price of a family, even for MEN is no longer the dominant model for women of my generation (I am 35). I am speaking anecdotely ere, so feel free to disagree anyone with a different experience, but among folks at my level, those in the generation before us who sacrificed raising their children (or having marriages or lives outside of work) in order to get ahead are nearly universally pitied. I don't know one single working parent my age who believes it is either desirable or acceptable to leave a child in the care of others all day every day, essentially outsourcing motherhood. Sometimes these values clash with those women in the generation immediately before me, however, as those women had to deal with sexism in the workplace so much that they don't see why we aren't willing to sacrifice as they did. In addition, I just don't see a role model in the Michelle Duggar aspect that is being held up a mothering model in the same way who leaves her kids at daycare for 10 hours a day etc.. Again, correct me if I am wrong. I am not that into TV, so maybe I am missing something.
|
|
|
Post by marie83 on May 2, 2010 0:14:47 GMT -5
I haven't posted before, but I have lurked for a while. I did not grow up in fundamentalism or a large family, but I have two disabled siblings. As a result, I spent much of my childhood putting others first and taking on responsibilities and worries not common to children my age (or adults my age, for that matter).
One organization geared towards siblings of disabled children (http://www.youngcarers.net/) has a statement of rights posted. I thought that it was very relevant to this discussion and that you may find it interesting. I think it is particularly useful because it emphasizes the needs of the child helper in relation to the need that the young helper is meeting within the family.
Everyone has rights and young carers say: “We have the right:
To be children as well as carers. To schools and colleges that give us the help we need to get an education. To fun, friends and time off from caring. To family life with well-supported parents. To practical help and support so that we don’t have to do all of the caring in our homes. To a safe environment and protection from harm, including any harm that caring activities could cause us. To services that value our different backgrounds, cultures, religions, races and sexualities. To be listened to and supported by the people who support our parents and siblings. To an assessment of what we need as individuals, without any assumptions being made about us. To be listened to and involved when people make decisions which affect our lives. To information about the health problems that we see our family members experiencing. To advocacy and complaints procedures which we can understand and which work. To stop taking on caring roles when we wish to. To move on and become independent adults."
|
|
|
Post by amyrose on May 3, 2010 14:52:22 GMT -5
So I came home from work early feeling steamrolled by allergies and my tv landed on TLC and The Duggars came on....
It's a train wreck I can't look away from. So many things disgust me, I don't know where to begin.
First episode showed them at ATI convention. A person at the convention who organized them speaking and running seminars tells us they are role models for loving and accepting children. (But believe them when they insist that they are not QF. Sure.)
On that one, we see Mom enjoying the convention while the older girls are chasing and corralling the little kids. Mother of the Year material. Sure.
We see Jim Bob explaining about the 240 hot dogs he brought to grill lunch every day for the whole family. An entire week eating hot dogs for lunch. These people's diet is horrifying. When do these children get fresh fruits and veggies? Ever? Nothing but processed cheap crappy food.
Then we see Michelle explaining that this place is a great opportunity for the older kids to meet their spouses. These kids are of the age that they should be enjoying the end of high school and going to college and establishing careers--but they are, instead, contemplating finding a spouse...
There was also a bit about the financial seminars that supposedly allowed the family to live debt-free. I believe in reality that financial plan is called "TLC". But they claim it is this guy's plan that did it and are pushing it on other people. Hypocrites.
And, help me out, why do all the grown women in these circles speak in unnaturally high-pitched soft baby voices? It is not the only place that I've noticed this. Is it supposed to be feminine? Or submissive? Or both? Or just one more way that they make themselves insignificant and invisible?
Second episode--a trip to the roller rink for one of the boys' b-day.
This one ticked me off more. Michelle tells us all about how she enjoyed sports and physical activity as a kid growing up. She loved to rollerskate and her parents let her go at least once a week. Most of her kids haven't been enough to know how to skate. I'm sure they are not allowed except on controlled family outings like the one shown--they might meet other kids, hear evil music--or (probably the worst of all) have fun. Michelle tells us that she even competed on a speed skating team. Yet her daughters don't even get to go to school let alone take part in competitive sports. How does she explain that these things that she clearly has fond memories of are so awful that they have to be off limits to her kids?
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 3, 2010 16:10:51 GMT -5
And, help me out, why do all the grown women in these circles speak in unnaturally high-pitched soft baby voices? It is not the only place that I've noticed this. Is it supposed to be feminine? Or submissive? Or both? Or just one more way that they make themselves insignificant and invisible? Good question, amyrose ~ It does seem that a significant percentage of QF moms have baby soft voices ~ me included. I've always had a quiet, squeaky voice ~ even when I was a baby, my mother nicknamed me "Mouse" ~ and all my girls (actually, my boys too) have the same high-pitched tone. So ~ it's not something that I practiced after becoming QF. It's actually a frequently asked question ~ I get lots of comments and questions about my soft voice. "You always sound so calm," they tell me. Someone in the blogosphere wrote that I have a voice "that could split teak" but also complained that I don't speak up and he could hardly hear me on the Interfaith Voices radio interview. When I first talked on the phone with my agent, he said, "I didn't expect you to sound so much like Michelle Duggar ~ is that a Quiverfull voice?" LOL Maybe something about having a "high-pitched baby soft" voice predisposes women to be attracted to QF? We should do a study.
|
|
|
Post by amyrose on May 3, 2010 17:40:58 GMT -5
It's not just QF, Vyckie. I noticed that lots of moms talked like this at the Christian school I worked at. More often than not, they were the ones in Charismatic/Pentecostal congregations that were emphasizing "traditional gender roles". And a co-worker of my mother's had a conversion to one of those congregations and gradually began speaking higher, softer and slower.
I don't doubt that some women are born with naturally higher and/or softer voices. My mother can't project her voice to save her life. But I also wonder if there isn't a learned behavior there, as well. After all, speaking louder and lower is a mark of being more assertive. And maybe the expectation is so subtle that no one notices?
Or maybe men who espouse these ideals are attracted to women who naturally have softer/higher voices because they seem less assertive?
I don't know. Someone does need to study the phenomenon.
|
|
anne2
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by anne2 on May 3, 2010 22:01:10 GMT -5
Can anyone here explain exactly what care Michelle Duggar does give her children and what work she actually does in the house? I don't have access to watching them on television and this thread has peaked my curiosity.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 3, 2010 22:32:53 GMT -5
Curious and given the heads up here, I watched the ATI convention episode today. Boy, did I want to smack Michelle around! The girls did EVERYTHING. Packing, organizing, making sure everyone and everything was where it needed to be at all times. Michelle? Pregnant (of course). Visited with her friends, slept in the house while her older daughters got the other kids ready.
And the activities for the kids? The boys got to do fun cadet 'boy scout' type activities while the girls babysat and practiced in the orchestra for a later performance at the conference. No down time at all for the girls. The two year old girl has a lot of pacifiers because she's crabby and I kept thinking that of course she's crabby, she's no longer the baby when she is still a real baby and she's been relegated to just another one of the kids now, without much contact from mommy. I'd be pissed off too. Poor little thing.
The more I see of this family the more I hate them.
As for the voice thing, I've noticed it also. There are some women (like Vicki, apparently) who are just born that way but I think many more adopt it as a lifestyle choice, a way of fitting in and taking on the desired role. Michelle always sounds like she is talking to a five year old no matter who she is speaking to and it really grates. I want to scream at her, 'own your voice, woman!' When you speak from lower in your diaphragm there is a more centeredness that takes place in your psyche, it affects how you feel much more than just how you sound to others. That high baby voice coming out of your throat is much less empowering and self-directed. You don't have to have a loud or deep voice, just pull it down further from your diaphragm and it really makes a difference in how you feel.
And that's what I think of whenever I hear the Michelle's of the world speak - condescending while at the same time powerless.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on May 3, 2010 23:17:03 GMT -5
Can anyone here explain exactly what care Michelle Duggar does give her children and what work she actually does in the house? I don't have access to watching them on television and this thread has peaked my curiosity. IMO, quantity. Not much else. Definitely before "quality", but then I'm one of those uppity wimmin.
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on May 4, 2010 7:55:19 GMT -5
About the "voice thing"...I have often heard that people who grew up listening to really LOUD rock music did damage to their ears and so, could not ascertain how loud or NOT loud they are speaking. Could it be? I don't know, but my son Jim, Vyckie's brother, grew up with loud music, and is himself soft-spoken. Wayne, my dh, is quite hard-of-hearing as a result of working in a noisy beef processing plant and speaks barely above a whisper. As a growly old lady who was (and probably still is) referred to as a "loud-mouth", outspoken, I do feel more in control of situations when I am loud. Hope that doesn't mean I am a control freak, but on the other hand, I don't want to be labeled as a wimp either. A pet peeve of mine is it seems in church all the hymns are written or played in such a high pitch that, although it is comfortable for men, or for women who have itty bitty high pitched sweet little bird voices...I can't sing along, even if I stand on my tip toes, and I LOVE to sing!
|
|
|
Post by rosa on May 4, 2010 9:02:02 GMT -5
Anne2, I only have intermittent access to cable TV, but I read the recaps and discussions at Televisions Without Pity and have for years, and watch the specials when I can. Michelle Duggar takes care of her current youngest child for the first six months, nursing on demand, etc. She has help - another child usually helps with nonbreastfeeding child care - but she is the primary person. Then at 6 months, or when the child self-weans (one self-weaned when Mrs. Duggar got pregnant again, for sure - I am not sure about the others) an older child is assigned to be the baby's "buddy" and becomes primarily responsible for them. After that point Mrs. Duggar seems to have a supervisory role, not a hands-on parenting one. She goes back to her public mommy role, being on TV and giving interviews and speaking at events, and the girls at home (the oldest are adults - I think the oldest unmarried daughter is almost 20) take care of the smaller children, including their schooling.
To me, in her public appearances Michelle Duggar often looks dissociated. But I'm not a psychiatrist and I've never met her in person.
|
|
hrd
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by hrd on May 4, 2010 11:10:45 GMT -5
Regarding small voices, I know that when I am suffering from a crisis of confidence, I tend to speak high and soft. I am not saying that everyone with a high, soft voice lacks confidence, but I know that is the case for me. Regarding the childbirth cycle of Michelle Duggar, I am so dang curious. I'd feel bad, if they didn' seem to invite this sort of inquiry by making a living out of making their lives public-- She weens her babies at 6 months on purpose? How is that God's plan? If she is nursing on demand, does that include at night? If so, is she a person who gets her period back even though she nurses around the clock? I have three kids, and my period never came back before a year-- I know that is not the case with all people, though. I just don't get how one purposeful manipulation of fertility is OK, but another is not. I also don't get how her poor uterus is still functioning. (forgive me, I have not watched the show either, so maybe it isn't !) My understanding is that a uterus needs to sort-of "re-establish" itself after a long period of no menstruation. When I wanted to get preggo the third time, I had not a had a period in a long time (BC pills), and the OB told me that it would be best to have a couple of periods to sort of "fluff up" the uterus. Can you tell I am not a doctor?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 4, 2010 12:12:16 GMT -5
From "The Art of Being Feminine" website: theartofbeingfeminine.blogspot.com/2009/06/tips-for-feminine-and-fascinating-woman.htmlHave him lean back into a comfortable chair or suggest he lie down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him. Arrange his pillow and offer to massage his neck and shoulders and take off his shoes. Don’t insist on this however. Turn on music if it's one of his pleasures. Speak in a soft, soothing, pleasant feminine voice. Allow him to relax-to unwind.Emphasis added. It's interesting that this website takes an article that's floating around the Internet, purporting to be an actual magazine article from the 1950s that modern readers can look at incredulously (which I have heard is actually a spoof!) and takes it absolutely seriously as good advice for women. I have nothing against being welcoming and doing nice things when my husband comes home (when I'm the one who gets home first-- otherwise I want him to welcome me!), but everything about this says "he is important; you are not. Your life should be all about him." I have no doubt that this high-pitched, soft tone is considered by women who follow this stuff, to be the quintessential "feminine" voice, and those who don't have it naturally, do their best to imitate it.
|
|
|
Post by asteli on May 4, 2010 20:06:03 GMT -5
Well, I do a bunch of that for my husband but that's because he's recovering from nearly dying and walking across the room is a pretty major achievement right now. He's also in a lot of pain from having to sleep in odd positions, so he gets a lot of massages from me. He did similar things for me after each baby.
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on May 5, 2010 18:36:08 GMT -5
Interesting that you mention soft, high voice with lack of confidence. I refer to myself as having lost my voice, and lots of women exiling have agreed with that discription.
I was a BAD QF wife from the get-go. I really was. I only lost my voice when I discovered the 5 years of dalliances my husband had embarked upon that threatened (and may yet) destroy our family.
In the 7 months since I caught him, I've literally and physically lost my voice 6 times now. ONE of those episodes was because I was sick. The rest of the time, I simply find myself waking up in a morning and once again I have no voice.
I didn't have a QF style voice before now. I was rather loud and obnoxious and had to learn how to not speak so abrasively and obnoxiously. Now, I'm still struggling to find that voice again.
I'm going to be okay though. Those programs Jane Doe says aren't real are holding us up and I'm back in school full-time. I did choose to keep the husband provided he can get help and recover as well. But, at this point, he's not actually contributing to our income much. He too is back in school and merely fills a small gap in our living expenses that I could fill with government assistance if he weren't here. In short, my financial stability is NOT dependent upon keeping him. I choose to keep him. I choose to believe that QF/P damaged him as much as it damaged me, that he is worth fighting for if he chooses to fight for himself, and that my children deserve my giving it everything to try and restore this family--given that their father is not abusive and is legitimately trying to recover from his messes.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on May 6, 2010 16:53:58 GMT -5
The voice thing is interesting. My husband is a bull in a china shop. Sometimes I call him "Action Man" because he just goes around doing stuff with no apparent plan or purpose. When he is in Action Man mode, he does not listen. I have to speak loudly, clearly and concisely to get his attention. I also have to use emphatic hand gestures. He actually likes it. He's asked me to be very direct. He likes me to help him think stuff out. We're a good combo because I'm an overly cautious plodder and he's Action Man. Together we're sort of normal. I can't imagine what would've happened if I were a soft-spoken woman. Wow. He'd roll right over me without even noticing. Not because he's mean or a bully or anything. It's just because he's Action Man. He gets caught up in his projects and activities and loses track of everything else. jo: Good luck to you and your husband. Sounds like there's a lot of love, but a lot to work through.
|
|
|
Post by freefromtyranny on May 7, 2010 7:41:37 GMT -5
I was constantly being told to be quieter, to not laugh so loud, to not speak in public but not in so many words. It was more like "Why were you laughing like that at church today?" "Ummm, because Suzie said something funny." "Well, everyone was looking at you." and "why did you say _____ when we were talking to the pastor?" "I thought it was relevant to the conversation." "Oh, well I think he was offended." Even though whatever I said was perfectly fine. It was insidious and far reaching like that. He never came right out and said "I want you to talk like Michelle Duggar." he just attacked everything I said in public. He criticized the way I eat so I stopped eating. He criticized the things I made so I stopped crafting in front of him. He criticized the way I cooked so I would stop when he walked in the room. And yes, he criticized the way I talked, everything about it. He didn't like how loud my voice is (it's naturally loud), he didn't like my laugh and he didn't like the words that came out of my mouth. So I stopped altogether for the most part and when we were in public I was very reserved and quiet. Just where he wanted me. Of course this backfired on me when I would talk to the kids in quiet tones so he would not find anything to criticize and then he accused me of being sneaky and conspiring with the children against him. Now we are free from him and we laugh really loud at funny movies and TV shows and we have a blast and no one is told they are too loud or embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 7, 2010 13:10:51 GMT -5
Good grief, Freedom, that's awful. It makes me wonder why he married you, if he didn't like you or anything about you. Except maybe the way you looked? He just wanted arm candy?
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on May 7, 2010 13:20:45 GMT -5
I was constantly being told to be quieter, to not laugh so loud, to not speak in public but not in so many words. It was more like "Why were you laughing like that at church today?" "Ummm, because Suzie said something funny." "Well, everyone was looking at you." and "why did you say _____ when we were talking to the pastor?" "I thought it was relevant to the conversation." "Oh, well I think he was offended." Even though whatever I said was perfectly fine. It was insidious and far reaching like that. He never came right out and said "I want you to talk like Michelle Duggar." he just attacked everything I said in public. He criticized the way I eat so I stopped eating. He criticized the things I made so I stopped crafting in front of him. He criticized the way I cooked so I would stop when he walked in the room. And yes, he criticized the way I talked, everything about it. He didn't like how loud my voice is (it's naturally loud), he didn't like my laugh and he didn't like the words that came out of my mouth. So I stopped altogether for the most part and when we were in public I was very reserved and quiet. Just where he wanted me. Of course this backfired on me when I would talk to the kids in quiet tones so he would not find anything to criticize and then he accused me of being sneaky and conspiring with the children against him. Now we are free from him and we laugh really loud at funny movies and TV shows and we have a blast and no one is told they are too loud or embarrassing. I'm sure you've already figured this out, but he's a jacka$$.
|
|
|
Post by freefromtyranny on May 7, 2010 22:11:31 GMT -5
Believe me, I have no regrets over leaving him. Unfortunately, it took a long time to figure out that *I* was not the problem. I have much sympathy for Michelle Duggar.
|
|
|
Post by corardens on May 9, 2010 7:11:20 GMT -5
free (((hugs))) You obviously recognize this now, but psychologist John Gottman states that there are four major emotional reactions that are destructive to a relationship: defensiveness, stonewalling, criticism, and contempt. Contempt being the worst, and there seems to be radioactive levels of it leveled at women in the QF movement.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on May 9, 2010 8:21:53 GMT -5
free (((hugs))) You obviously recognize this now, but psychologist John Gottman states that there are four major emotional reactions that are destructive to a relationship: defensiveness, stonewalling, criticism, and contempt. Contempt being the worst, and there seems to be radioactive levels of it leveled at women in the QF movement. Ooooh. I love the Gottmans. Action Man and I have their DVD work shop. We didn't watch the whole thing. But what we did watch was very informative and helpful. Contempt toward women isn't just in QF but in more mainstream fundie churches as well. But in QF/fundie-ism, it's a real fixation. I was just reading somewhere that born-agains have the highest divorce rate. I guess its no surprise. Contempt is sort of built into their whole man-woman relationship model.
|
|
|
Post by madame on May 13, 2010 8:23:47 GMT -5
I didn't know VF had a "mother of the year" award! I would have expected them to have a "parents of the year" or "family of the year" award, instead! Maybe it's one more way to emphasize that women belong at home and only receive praise for having a large family? And why must Patriarch JB go to the conference?
How do you all know the Duggar girls are not being paid for their labors? The TV show must pay very well. It's very possible that they are just as in it as their parents are, playing a role for the cameras, and amassing a fortune. I have only watched two episodes (that made it to German TV), and they seemed waaaay too staged to be real!
I feel sorry for the families that are emulating what may very possibly be a lie.
Sure, with 19 children, unless you have nannies, you are going to need the older children's assistance with the younger ones. Just don't assume the girls are necessarily forced into slavery. They may very well have a contract with Patriarch JB, who is paying them a good sum of money for keeping him (and his family) on TV.
What makes me angry is the way the parents are exposing their children to the whole nation and beyond, and that people really buy into the notion that the show portrays their real life.
Maybe I'm just a cynic.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on May 13, 2010 9:49:46 GMT -5
Madame, it's really doubtful the girls are getting paid. In the US we have laws about child actors, but they don't apply to children on reality TV with their parents, so these kids have no legal protections. We have the laws because there were so many cases of parents taking all the money from their underage actor children and leaving them young adults with no education, no money, and not started any transition into adult acting roles - which as far as we know is exactly what has happened with the older Duggar children, except the oldest son who has a business.
|
|
|
Post by madame on May 13, 2010 12:30:26 GMT -5
Rosa, But we can't be sure the girls are being held against their wishes, for the sake of the show or for the sake of some VF ideals. I just wanted to weigh in with a different perspective of what may be happening: They are all acting a part, giving TLC what they want, and pocketing the money. For all we know, there may be a team of professional cleaners who arrive at the house a few hours before the cameras and scrub it spotless. Relatives may be lined up to go down and be with the children while Ma and Patriarch Duggar are receiving awards. They may have some fun activities planned for after the conference. Who knows? Why assume the Duggars are heartless, irresponsible, child abusers?
|
|