Why stop at 14?

July 2, 2005 3:03 PM

Serious Breeders.The Duggars' slogan: "Always pregnant"
posted by growabrain (146 comments total)

Their hompage links to this site, which is seriously fucking weird.

Creepy people.
posted by interrobang at 3:14 PM on July 2, 2005

I have a question - we have a lot of really smart people on MeFi, can anyone run through the stats on how many generations it will be until almost EVERYONE in the United States is related to them? Just assuming each of their 18 children has, on average, three or four of their own? (and assuming there's none of that Arkansas type of sibling love going on)
posted by joedharma at 3:18 PM on July 2, 2005

ya know, i'm not a xtian, i'm not a republican, i'm not conservative, and i only had two kids, i really have nothing in common with these folks.

But is making fun of folks that live a different life style the best we can do here..?

Feels a bit like the school yard bully approach to "best of the web", eh? But, we are in the 4th of July holiday period, and this sure feels like the american way to treat people!

Plus, this link has been floating around the web for a while now...
posted by HuronBob at 3:20 PM on July 2, 2005

But is making fun of folks that live a different life style the best we can do here..?

Well, I wouldn't say so, no. But it manages to be both fun and also worthwhile. People who, in an overpopulated world, breed like rabbits, are irresponsible dimwits. People who breed like rabbits and then basically brag about it on the web are disgusting, creepy, profoundly annoying weirdos who richly deserve to be mocked.
posted by Decani at 3:32 PM on July 2, 2005

I suppose, if you're a really good, saintly person Huron, you don't make fun of anyone under any circumstances.

Regarding the Duggar's, from what I've seen they are certainly christian religious fanatics, part of the group of extremists who have taken control of our country.

As such, they are certainly an excellent subject for discussion, analysis and hopefully lots of good sarcastic commentary
posted by joedharma at 3:32 PM on July 2, 2005

Decani, your response was better then mine......
posted by joedharma at 3:33 PM on July 2, 2005

Are we making fun of them? I'm busy picking my jaw up from the floor, they sure have been busy. Very very busy. I'm impressed.
posted by dabitch at 3:34 PM on July 2, 2005

Yeah, Huron - however - anyone who names their kids, "Joshua, Jana, John-David, Jill, Jessa, Jinger, Joseph, Josiah, Joy-Anna, Jedidiah, Jeremiah, Jason and James," deserves a little good-natured ribbing.

And...joedharma...I don't want to piss in your cornflakes, but we're already ALL related, cous.
Unless you're some sort of extra-terrestrial, ambulant silicon-based moon monster. In which case, I don't even want to talk to you. Freak.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 3:35 PM on July 2, 2005

I agree with HuronBob.
posted by mcwetboy at 3:37 PM on July 2, 2005

OT: I went to school with a family of brothers named Mathew, Mark, Luke and Earl. I dunno, it just made us laugh at the time.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:40 PM on July 2, 2005

Bob_Balrot don't break MY balls dude. I meant in a second-cousin-or-better sort of way.....
posted by joedharma at 3:41 PM on July 2, 2005

Waitasec. "Jinger"?

(I went to school with families of 22 kids, 15 kids and several in the dozen range, so I am both unimpressed and repulsed.)
posted by aaronetc at 3:41 PM on July 2, 2005

Baby_Balrog writes "anyone who names their kids, 'Joshua, Jana, John-David, Jill, Jessa, Jinger, Joseph, Josiah, Joy-Anna, Jedidiah, Jeremiah, Jason and James,' deserves a little good-natured ribbing."

They're gonna run out of J names pretty soon.

As for the link, meh. Both Jim Bob and Michele look exhausted in that last picture... but then I guess that if I had 14 kids I'd be exhausted too!
posted by clevershark at 3:42 PM on July 2, 2005

For reference: MeFi post about a documentary on the Duggar family.
posted by deanc at 3:48 PM on July 2, 2005

People who, in an overpopulated world, breed like rabbits, are irresponsible dimwits.

This is not always true.

My wife and I have no children. We don't plan to have any children. The world is overpopulated, even if our section of it is not.

However, it's just as wrong for some people to have two kids as it is for some others to have ten kids. What I mean to say: it's not the size of the family, but the family's impact on their environment.

I've been around large families all my life. I grew up in the Mormon Church; several of the families in our congregation had six or more children. All my life, I've had friends who grew up in large families. We've just begun hanging out with one of my wife's co-workers, a woman who is the oldest of twelve chldren.

I am descended from a family in which large numbers of children are the norm. My grandfather had nine siblings. His daughter — my aunt — had nine children. Her children have given her fifty grandchildren, and she's not even seventy years old.

The thing of it is, these large families don't live like you and I do. (I'm not saying all families live as I'm about to describe, just that these families do.) They live simply. They are not consumers in any modern sense of the word. They farm, raising produce and livestock for themselves. They provide for themselves. They work hard and they play hard, and they live apart from the world. (They're not Amish, but many of them are similar.)

Yeah, it's something that's easy to make fun of, especially if it's outside of your experience. But it's just as wrong for you to condemn these people for their actions as it would be for them to condemn you for [fill in the blank].

I don't want a big family for myself, but I don't begrudge others for choosing one.
posted by jdroth at 3:54 PM on July 2, 2005

One of the subtlely sexist aspects of these pictures is that the boys dress in normal clothing while all the girls wear outfits that declare "I am not part of normal society." Which sort of makes sense, given their views of family-- the men are supposed to go out in the world and work, blending in with society, while the women stay home in their isolated, self-contained community. Any movement outside that self-contained sphere can only be done as long as the woman's outward appearance declares that she belongs "somewhere else." The pictures at the white house and elsehere in washington bear this out.
posted by deanc at 3:56 PM on July 2, 2005

A lot of people who cite overpopulation as a reason not to have kids don't realize that the world population is going to cap out at around 11 billion (if I recall), and go down steadily from there, and while it's still possible to say short-term overpulation is a critical issue, they're still basing major life decisions on casual data.

That said, these people are creepy, of course.
posted by abcde at 3:58 PM on July 2, 2005

How you do even go out when you're a group of 17?

Seriously. The logistics alone must be a nightmare.
posted by clevershark at 3:59 PM on July 2, 2005

This guy isn't a farmer--he's a real estate agent and former Arkansas state representative. And that representative's job probably took up a tremendous amount of time, much more than you'd guess. It certainly wasn't "living simply" to run for public office when having such a large family.
posted by raysmj at 4:01 PM on July 2, 2005

You're all creepy.
posted by sneakums at 4:04 PM on July 2, 2005

One of the subtlely sexist aspects of these pictures is that the boys dress in normal clothing while all the girls wear outfits that declare "I am not part of normal society."

In what way is a dress "an outfit that declares I am not part of normal society"? The girls all seem to be wearing standard conservative dresses, the likes of which I see every day.

I'm not trying to come down on the side of conservatism or overpopulation or anything like that, and I understand this family is not "living simply", but it seems to me most of the commenters so far are imposing their own moral values on this family, and I'd be willing to wager the commenters get pretty pissed when their own lifestyle choices are judged.

Large families are not creepy. People with them are not dimwits. (Well, no more creepy and no greater dimwits than the average population, that is.)
posted by jdroth at 4:06 PM on July 2, 2005

Clevershark - I saw them on a TLC program, they have a van similar to the kind rental car companies use for pick-ups at airports. I counted (seriously, backed it up on TiVo and counted) 18 seats plus driver and front passenger. Once Ms. Duggar has child 18 this October?, their van will be filled to capacity.
posted by joedharma at 4:11 PM on July 2, 2005

His name is "Jim Bob". Heh.

His kids names are Joshua, Jana, John-David, Jill, Jessa, Jinger, Joseph, Josiah, Joy-Annah, Jedidiah, Jeremiah, Jason, James.....

Maybe they'll stop at 14 simply because they've run out of "J's".
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 4:11 PM on July 2, 2005

jdroth: The dresses with frills, combined with the long hair, scream "fundamentalist pentecostal" for anyone who grew up around these types. The outfits not normal, everyday street wear for people of that age, by any means. The parents are setting the girls apart from the rest of society (as is their right--so please don't say I said otherwise). They're living a lifestyle that is distinct from the mainstream in more ways than their family size, and their kids are along for the ride, like it or not.
posted by raysmj at 4:16 PM on July 2, 2005

Someone needs to tell those people that it's not a contest... and that if it were they would have won it already.
posted by clevershark at 4:21 PM on July 2, 2005

The dresses reflect the sewing ability in the family, is all.
posted by konolia at 4:26 PM on July 2, 2005

I live in the same town as these folks. So when they announced they were expecting yet another little spud it was one of the first stories on the local news stations. I really wish they would decide Springdale was too sinful and move away or something.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 4:26 PM on July 2, 2005

People like these make me want to puke. Then run and grab a shotgun.

Seriously, in this modern era where your offspring have a better than 90% chance of surviving to an age where they can make their own offspring, it seems to me that such excessive proliferation is extremely selfish.

Maybe I'm being irrational - if they can afford to raise the kids, though, I can't really complain too much.

/at least they aren't all morbidly obese
posted by PurplePorpoise at 4:29 PM on July 2, 2005

From Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography: "Josiah, my father, married young, and carried his wife with three children into New England, about 1682 . . . By the same wife he had four children more born there, and by a second wife ten more, in all seventeen; of which I remember thirteen sitting at one time at his table . . ."

Damn freak.
posted by LarryC at 4:32 PM on July 2, 2005

Wow, Jim Bob's head seems to have shrunk quite a bit between 1988 and 1990.
posted by greatgefilte at 4:39 PM on July 2, 2005

They're gonna run out of J names pretty soon.

Nonsense. There's still Jocasta, Jordan, Jove, Jeremy, Jerry, Jane, Julia, Juliet, Jarno, Juan-Pablo, and Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shabadoo.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:40 PM on July 2, 2005

> Their hompage links to this site, which is seriously fucking weird.

Well, now it's been linked to on metafilter, so that's OK.
posted by jfuller at 4:42 PM on July 2, 2005

> There's still Jocasta, Jordan, Jove, Jeremy, Jerry, Jane, Julia, Juliet, Jarno,
> Juan-Pablo, and Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shabadoo.

Not to mention joedharma, jdroth and jfuller. And raysmj, I mean jmsyar.
posted by jfuller at 4:45 PM on July 2, 2005

Anti-abortion, yet none of those spawn are adopted.
posted by Kickstart70 at 4:45 PM on July 2, 2005

Firstly, sorry for the doublepost. I did 4 checks for Duggars, the URL, and more, and got zero. Oops
2. The subject of the discussion should be 'Seperation of state & church' - This guy has opinions that are too crazy to be held by a politician.
3. Correction: The headline should be: Why stop at 15?
4. To answer the question, 'How they manage?', read the FAQ, "Our daily routine begins with personal hygiene"...
5. They must really like doing it
6. People who blog today, (me included) have no life
posted by growabrain at 4:46 PM on July 2, 2005

raysmj: "The outfits not normal, everyday street wear for people of that age, by any means. They're living a lifestyle that is distinct from the mainstream in more ways than their family size, and their kids are along for the ride, like it or not."

A lifestyle distinct from the mainstream?

Who the fuck are you? The mainstream fashion police?

If I live in a tree a dress in squirrel-skin jockstraps, who the hell are you to say I'm not ok? People should be able to dress however the want, and if it screams "fundamentalist pentecostal (whatever the hell that's supposed to be)" it's only because YOU have STEREOTYPES that YOU need to deal with.

My parents let me collect lichen and wear a hat that I made out of a work glove! I'd say that set me apart from the mainstream. My dad made me wear my boyscout uniform to school on Mondays. Outside of the mainstream! Oh noes!

Guess what? I survived! If you want to turn your kids into sheep and dress them in GapKids and buy them toys from GapKidsRUs Toy Store for Sheepkids then, by all means, go ahead. But don't get all accusatory just because someone dresses their kids differently from yours.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 4:49 PM on July 2, 2005

For god's sake, woman! It's a vagina, not a clown car!
posted by kafziel at 4:52 PM on July 2, 2005

But is making fun of folks that live a different life style the best we can do here..?

Well, I wouldn't say so, no. But it manages to be both fun and also worthwhile.

Plus, it boosts our own fragile sense of self-worth.
posted by jonmc at 4:57 PM on July 2, 2005

All of that conservative religious crap on their site makes me want to puke.
posted by mike3k at 4:57 PM on July 2, 2005

Wow, mike3k, what a brave statement. You are an inspiration to freedom loving people everywhere.
posted by jonmc at 5:01 PM on July 2, 2005

Does he sniff her underwear and she gets pregnant? I think they both need to be fixed.
posted by phrostine at 5:07 PM on July 2, 2005

Baby_Balrog: You don't have to scream at me!!!! This is not "Crossfire," already. Holy shit. I was calling this by its true name. These folks aren't mainstream, and are probably proud of it. Go to a beach and tell me if most everyone is wearing suits that date back to turn-of-the-century standards of modesty. And if you're living in a tree, no, you're not mainstream. The same was true for the longest time of tattoos and piercings such either--they weren't mainstream-- and the people who wore them would proudly would call themselves "alternative." Alternative from what? The mainstream. I happen to think fundamentalist pentecostal people are more alternative than anything I've heard called "alternative," although I still wouldn't adopt that sort of fashion, or wish that anyone in my family would. But that's just me.
posted by raysmj at 5:20 PM on July 2, 2005

Ooooh, I feel sorry for the mother. Can you imagine carrying and delivering that many children? Yikes. It makes me tired just thinking about it.
posted by madokachan at 5:22 PM on July 2, 2005

Are we making fun of them? I'm busy picking my jaw up from the floor, they sure have been busy. Very very busy. I'm impressed.

This is why couples capable of reproduction need cable tv for those boring nights.
posted by jperkins at 5:23 PM on July 2, 2005

There was a family I knew in grade school who had fourteen kids, the people up the street had six kids. They could afford to take of them. Thus, it's their business, not ours. Reproductive freedom goes both ways.
posted by jonmc at 5:26 PM on July 2, 2005

It's good to know that these people regularly enjoy unprotected sex.

/wait, is that not what we're talking about?
posted by haqspan at 5:26 PM on July 2, 2005

For the record, the only exception I would make to the "leave well enough alone" rule is whether he got seriously involved in politics again, or at a level that affected society at any significant level. When you enter politics--or try to say, change the curriculum in schools to fit your ideas about creation science--your way of life is totally fair game.
posted by raysmj at 5:31 PM on July 2, 2005

When you enter politics--or try to say, change the curriculum in schools to fit your ideas about creation science--your way of life is totally fair game.

So, then Republicans were justified in going after Bill Clinton for getting a knob shine?
posted by jonmc at 5:33 PM on July 2, 2005

I agree fully with jdroth. Overpopulation may be an issue in some areas, and I'm as concerned about sustainability as anybody, but you know, birth rates are actually falling in most western countries, and people are what make society run, not just resource sinks. And not only that, the "creepy" comments are ill-founded. I've known a number of people from large families -- even dated a few women from families of 8 and 12. And other than being able to do an incredible amount with a typical middle class income and having more fun than a lot of families I've known, they didn't seem different than anyone else.

(but all the same, I can't stop laughing at kafziel's comment.)
posted by weston at 5:40 PM on July 2, 2005

Call me crazy, but I bookmarked the Recipe Page for future reference... some the recipes look kinda good .
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:42 PM on July 2, 2005 [1 favorite]

Creepy people.

Ahhhh.... xenophobia! Alive in the self-righteous secularists as well as the self-righteous religious right!
posted by namespan at 5:46 PM on July 2, 2005

The FAQ states that the 13 year old does lunch, and the 14 year old does dinner.... I guess the oldest boy gets out of cooking for 17 by being male?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:52 PM on July 2, 2005 [1 favorite]

For those postulating that they stop at 14, Michelle Duggar is currently pregnant with #16.
posted by Oriole Adams at 5:53 PM on July 2, 2005

jonmc: If Bill was out promoting oral sex and orgies in the schools, yes, it would've been worth of consideration. What I'm talking about, more specifically, is attempting to force your unreasonable and unreasoned beliefs on everyone else--and the way you present yourself and live your life is then fair game.
posted by raysmj at 5:54 PM on July 2, 2005

As it was, rates of teen pregnancy declined dramatically under Clinton. For the record.
posted by raysmj at 5:55 PM on July 2, 2005

That's incredible. I wish them the best, even if I find them to be more weird then the Addams Family as they also recall Monthy Python to my mind.

That said..there would be a couple questions , primarily for the mother (but to the father too)...I wonder if they ever tought that additional pregnancy all carry some risks for the mother life..while she's certainly an unusually strong woman, isn't it the time to stop breeding ? Who would take care of that glorious bunch of childrens if the mother doesn't survive the next pregnancy ?

Ok they're very organized, very "close" family..but their mother is still their mother...I wonder if the childrens (the oldest) told them "stop fucking breeding for God shake I want you to survive "

On preview: Oriole: #16 ? Christ.
posted by elpapacito at 5:56 PM on July 2, 2005

What I'm talking about, more specifically, is attempting to force your unreasonable and unreasoned beliefs on everyone else--and the way you present yourself and live your life is then fair game.

But, for the most part, people arent bitching about his agenda, merely cracking jokes (some funny, admittedly) about the fact that he has a lot of kids, which like I said, is ultimate him and his wife's business, not ours.

And I voted for Slick Willie twice myself, just for the record, and I'd do it again.
posted by jonmc at 5:59 PM on July 2, 2005

I saw a one-hour show on this family on A & E, I think it was, back in December. It was fascinating. It's certainly not my choice (my husband and I chose to be childless) and I'd be happier if more families had one or two kids at maximum. It's a darned crowded planet, damn it, and getting more so by the day.

But I was impressed by the fact that they are raising all those children without any assistance in a society with an awful lot of people who think they're owed money just for being born. (Why yes, I've handled lots of rental applications this month from people proud to be on social assistance and who've never, ever held a job.)

I was also impressed by the amount of organisation and hard work it takes to run that household. Crikey, I can't even remember to pick up milk on the way home or get the laundry done before I run out of clean shirts.
posted by Savannah at 6:02 PM on July 2, 2005

Tracking the mother's face through the different pictures worried me a little, but I suppose someone can do such a thing and be fully autonomous. Aside from inexplicably skipping the name Jennifer, this is how many old farm families used to be.

The funny thing about it is that Darwin would be so proud! (Ok, not Darwin, but the selfish gene demon, or whatever.)
posted by ontic at 6:08 PM on July 2, 2005

madokachan Can you imagine carrying and delivering that many children?

After the 6th or 7th one, I suspect that she just squirts them out with about the same effort as a typical morning bowel movement.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 6:09 PM on July 2, 2005

From the details of the FAQ, it sounds like their family is more like a little corporation or factory than the average Mom-Dad-and-2.5-kids setup. That said, I have to echo what Secret life of gravy opined in the last thread about these folks:

My point is these kids seem to get very little time to themselves-- little down time or unprogrammed time. They have a schedule on the wall that shows what everyone is supposed to be doing every 15 minutes. Family life for them seems more like boot camp.

Plus, think of the numbers: two parents, 15+ kids, and 24 hours in the day -- there's only so much individual attention you can give to each child with those constraints in place. I wonder how those kids will end up.
posted by greatgefilte at 6:10 PM on July 2, 2005

I think Wholesome Wear swimsuits might be my secret fetish finally revealed.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:11 PM on July 2, 2005

This will get me in trouble.

With the population of the world what it is, you are entitled to reproduce yourself and your spouse.
What in God's name makes you think your genetic material is so damn good you can suck up enough of the earth's resources to take care of 8 couples' kids? Do you think 7 other couples have no right to reproduce because you're so special?
Did I limit myself to two kids because I thought it was the right thing to do? Yes. So I practice what I preach. Bad mouth me for having opinions if you want to, but don't bad mouth me for not practicing what I preach, I do.

This is just selfish, greedy, wrong, and (forgive my humble opinion) not Christian.
posted by deep_cover at 6:14 PM on July 2, 2005

There's no shortage of people in the world who probably shouldn't breed. I'd be a long, long time working my way down that list before I got to these folks. I probably disagree with 99% of the things they believe in, but the fact is they take care of themselves and each other. Why not focus your contempt on the millions upon millions who don't?
posted by George_Spiggott at 6:17 PM on July 2, 2005

What in God's name makes you think your genetic material is so damn good you can suck up enough of the earth's resources to take care of 8 couples' kids?

See my earlier comment. Yes, it takes a certain amount of resources just to survive, but people ain't just resource sinks, and large families tend to do more with the same amount that other people do.
posted by weston at 6:23 PM on July 2, 2005

.....vagina not a clown car". -----

Kafziel wins in my book. And owes me a keyboard cleaning.
posted by notreally at 6:52 PM on July 2, 2005

Man, DramBuie is really sticky.
posted by notreally at 6:54 PM on July 2, 2005

These people's values clash with my own. Grr.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:01 PM on July 2, 2005

As long as I'm not having to pay for the upbringing of their kids via welfare, more power to them!
posted by mrbill at 7:35 PM on July 2, 2005

Both my mom and dad come from families of 10 children each. Their points of view are telling, I think. Mom was the second oldest of 10 and remembers a lifetime of changing diapers, washing diapers (this was the pre-Pampers era), always having a baby crying or always having to be quiet because a baby was sleeping. My dad was the youngest of 10 a remembers always having someone to play ball with, and having his older sisters spoil him and his older brothers buying him ice cream when they went out.

Someone upthread wondered how they whole family could go out - a close friend of mine in high school was one of nine children, and (unlike my small family) she had never been out to dinner at a restaurant with the whole family, nor to a movie, as A) they wouldn't all fit in the car (they didn't have a bus like the Duggars) and B) her parents couldn't afford to take everyone out.
posted by Oriole Adams at 7:39 PM on July 2, 2005

OT: I went to school with a family of brothers named Mathew, Mark, Luke and Earl. I dunno, it just made us laugh at the time.

Thanks for the bellylaugh elwoodwiles.
posted by nickyskye at 7:49 PM on July 2, 2005

This is just selfish, greedy, wrong, and (forgive my humble opinion) not Christian.

And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. (Gen. 9:7)
posted by Hal Mumkin at 7:57 PM on July 2, 2005

he has a lot of kids, which like I said, is ultimate him and his wife's business, not ours

It doesn't mean they're not dingbats, and it doesn't make them immune from ridicule -- especially not harmless ridicule that's vanishingly unlikely to ever come to their attention. If the family doesn't like it, they're free to get metafilter accounts and say something nasty about us, or send us unpleasant emails, or ask us to stop because it hurts their feelings.

It's not like people here are actually organizing to stop them from having more kids or to take their kids away, or to otherwise keep their rights limited because they have different preferences from most people, or to force them to live in accordance with our own tastes.

If the Duggans were willing to return the favor to the local queers, evolutionists, atheists, and so on, I might change my mind and think they were harmless kooks, or were being set upon by cruel mockers. But somehow I suspect they're not. And, yes, your own weird practices and beliefs become a proper subject of ridicule when you've gone out of your way to get them enacted into law. I can't find much on Jim-Bob's voting record in the legislature except for his support of a bill requiring teachers in public schools to stop whenever a "theory" appears in a textbook, inform the students that it is a theory, and lead the students in making a marginal note to that effect, which seems indicative of being a general fuckwit.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:59 PM on July 2, 2005

jonmc: But the Clinton thing were further than jokes, of course. He had, in some people's minds, to be brought down for adultery--and, honestly, to be kept out of office in the first place. Still, everyone--including his best friends in the world, probably--has told a Clinton joke or two, at least privately. He put himself out there when he ran for president, and I'm sure he can take it. But he never outright flaunted his adultery in public when president.

The only thing doing Bill harm at the moment is age and past eating practices, and maybe a stressful schedule. (I don't know about the latter. But I was told that he still stopped at the Doe's Eat Place franchise in Little Rock for his dose of food, fat and fun not long after the surgery. One has to enjoy life, however, and the Doe's fat is indeed fun in once-in-a-blue-moon doses.)
posted by raysmj at 8:13 PM on July 2, 2005

They will never grow lonely in old age. More than most people here can say, from the sounds of it.
posted by stbalbach at 8:34 PM on July 2, 2005

Quoth the Duggars': "We serve an extraordinary GOD who delights in demonstrating His great power!"

He sounds like a psycho. And so does Jim Bob.

And interrobang, yeah, my niece will never make the Olympics if they make her wear that crap.

And kudos to deep_cover. Me, I figure that my two nieces -- each with roughly 1/4 of my genes -- is enough hereditary blessing for this accused planet.

However: AHEM. People have a right a look "distinct from the mainstream", even if they don't do it with facial piercings and tattoos like all the other "non-conformists".

And in closing, go ROU_Xenophobe. Let's take note of THAT "theory".
posted by davy at 8:38 PM on July 2, 2005

There was a family I knew in grade school who had fourteen kids, the people up the street had six kids. They could afford to take of them. Thus, it's their business, not ours.

Sure it's their business, but once they post their "success" on the web, it's everybody's business, too. If you want to keep the fruit of your loins private (so to speak) then you don't post it on the web with a FAQ section. When you do something like that, you have to expect a certain amount of snickering.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:50 PM on July 2, 2005

From the FAQ

Our current home is about 2400 square feet. It has 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 2 washers & 3 dryers. Every morning there is a long line outside each bathroom. Our new home will have 7000 square feet with a big dorm room for the boys and another for the girls. It will have a 2000 square foot living room (which will be great for our home church meetings), a commercial kitchen similar to that of a restaurant with a dining hall, a big pantry, a play room, a master bedroom, a guest bedroom, a sewing room, an office, a laundry mat with 4 washers, 8 dryers and 10 bathrooms, all of which sits on 20 acres. To God be the Glory!

Holy shit! Three bedroom/ two bath for all those people!!
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:54 PM on July 2, 2005

Our current home is about 2400 square feet.
This kind of crowding is how Klaus Kinski ended up fucking his sister (or so he claimed, anyway).

Just sayin'. They better get a move on with that dorm.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:07 PM on July 2, 2005

With the population of the world what it is...

Aren't they Americans? I mean, if they were Sri Lankan or Chinese, I might understand the whole "overpopulation" argument, but it's not exactly like the USA is running out of space anytime soon. Frankly, a country the size of yours and only 300 million people in it is downright wasteful.

As an aside, I can't believe that a family of almost 20 lives in a 3 bedroom house... especially when the parents have to have a separate bedroom (how else are they supposed to get to work making the next bundle of joy?).
posted by clevershark at 9:11 PM on July 2, 2005

I'm with the comments about the girls being set apart--the same thing happens in other non-Christian religions. The men and boys walk around dressed just like other males; the women are set apart, big time. I don't say it as a criticism but it's obvious that the females follow a different set of rules from those followed by the males.
posted by etaoin at 9:34 PM on July 2, 2005

Anyone ever read the book The Color of Water?

I come from 7. Mom and Dad did it totally without assistance.
posted by oflinkey at 9:44 PM on July 2, 2005

When they get that new house rolling, they should charge the public admission to watch the daily routine in action!

I'd pay for a ticket.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 10:20 PM on July 2, 2005

Very funny, strangeleft
posted by growabrain at 10:58 PM on July 2, 2005

Yeah, as others have intimated, "overpopulation" is a local, not a global issue. Western Europe and Japan not having kids (which is what is happening) does nothing to help sub-saharan Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia. Quite the reverse, actually. Too few children is as much a social problem as too many. And right now in the USA we're near the sweet spot of "just right".

If you are concerned about overpopulation, look to Africa or the Mid-East where the average woman pops out 7 or 8 kids. Don't worry about the USA where we're reproducing at below replacement levels (less than 2.1 kids per woman) even with folks like the Duggans.

As long as they can take care of the kids, good for them. If they can't take care of the kids, then I have a serious problem with it.
posted by Justinian at 11:11 PM on July 2, 2005

With people breeding at that rate, I might actually see Social Security when I retire...

(BTW - Wife and I are looking at adopting. As we have some definite genetic depth charges in both our backgrounds, we don't think it would be responsible to have children au natural.)
posted by Samizdata at 11:14 PM on July 2, 2005

Wow. I don't even have that many pairs of shoes.

If I had that many dogs, there is no way I could properly take care of them, train them, exercise them, clean up after them, etc. I wonder if children are easier, or harder. I suppose the older children must become "mini-me"s in some parenting aspects, and maybe that's a great character builder, or maybe it's an unfairly truncated childhood - or both.

At any rate, what I find odd is the rationale: boiled down, "It's God's will". Because if you use the birth control pill, you might get pregnant and miscarry, which is the same as an abortion. However, there are other options. The rhythm method, condoms, and non-penetration sex, would all cut the whole baby thing back drastically, so it's pretty clear that this is what they want for it's own sake - to be something like an old testament "tribe" in the modern world, I guess.
posted by taz at 11:37 PM on July 2, 2005

Also, here comes a completely unfair supposition, but I do wonder: If hippies, lefties, commies, and racially and religiously "other" groups were reproducing in a similar fashion, would the Duggars feel equally sanguine about it all being God's plan?
posted by taz at 11:50 PM on July 2, 2005

One of the subtlely sexist aspects of these pictures is that the boys dress in normal clothing

The boys are wearing bow ties. That is terribly far from normal.

---

It looks like a family that's filled with love and happiness.

Our society could do with a helluva lot more of that.

I can't see how what they are doing hurts me or my property... nor how it would hurt raymjs or his property. Ergo, let 'em pop 'em out by the dozen: no skin off our asses.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:10 AM on July 3, 2005

I'm up late for editing, and going to bed, but . . . What are you talking about?
posted by raysmj at 1:13 AM on July 3, 2005

I don't think i'ts weird that they have that many kids at all but I do think is weird is that they're making such a big freaking deal out of it like they're the only people who've ever had that many kids and it's only possible because of their Xtreme Faith!! I know lots of people from big families that don't make a big deal of it. Heck, my friend is one of 11 kids and her Mom worked full time.
posted by fshgrl at 1:15 AM on July 3, 2005

I think this guy is just trying to generate his own support base of voters, by personally making them all. Jim Bob for Prezdet 2028.

My parents now live in a house where a family of 12 became a family of 20 after one of the parent's brother and sister-in-law died in an accident so the surviving couple adopted the orphaned kids. It was a former ski lodge that the Dad converted into a seven bedroom three bath place. (Yes, my retirement age parents are a little weird for not moving into, say, a two bedroom condo, but it's a great place to go for a snowy Christmas vacation.) I knew a couple of the kids while we were in high school (when my family lived in a normal house down in town). Laura was a year or so older, and wore those pentecostal style dresses, but seemed pretty normal within my small-town high school context. Buddy was my age, an ace on the basketball court, but got teased for his greasy hair. There was a recent article about the parents in my small-town newspaper. As the Dad said, with 10 girls and only three bathrooms (one of them with double-sinks), the boys just had to wait their turn. Maybe Buddy didn't have the patience to wait and get a shower at home, but it seems like he could have washed his hair in the shower at school.

The Mom said the kids really were cheaper by the dozen, and you'd get a great deal when you bought a hundred pounds of potatoes or a whole cow at a time. The Dad said that he and the Mom had been blessed to be married for 63 years now. He also said the family relied on the bible, played a lot of games, spent time camping out in the woods, and never had time for TV.

If you look back a few generations, most American farm families were like this, and most Americans lived on farms. From the time they were married until they hit menopause or died (maybe in childbirth), women were generally pregnant or recovering from a pregnancy. My grandfather, born in 1901, was the youngest of a dozen or so. Convenient, reliable birth control is a (swell) modern invention, as is our idea of a "normal" two- or three-child family, which has become so ingrained within just a few generations that we think the Duggars are freaks. They're just living in the (18)'90s.
posted by surlycat at 1:21 AM on July 3, 2005

The population explosion of northern European immigrants which hit North America in the 19th Century was the most extreme in written human history.

What is possible - locally - is not "normal". It merely is.

__________

I'm struck by the fact that so few here on Metafilter have bothered to look at the ideological underpinnings of the Dugger phenomenon. Such families look happy and healthy......

But, look to how they depict their political opponents.
posted by troutfishing at 1:46 AM on July 3, 2005

Yeah, troutfishing, I agree, these people are religious fanatics filled with evangelical ardor.

Clearly they believe that God told them to breed like rodents. (Personally, I don't think indiscriminate sexual reproduction is OK).

It's naive to think of the Duggars and their children as passive people minding their own business. Take a look at the link on their site to the "wholesome" swimsuits for women (apparently men don't need modest swimsuits). They are essentially dresses that good Christian females should be swimming in! They look like they might be worse then Victorian swimsuits.

These people have an agenda; it's to roll back our civilization to before the Enlightenment.

Unfortunately, a lot of liberals want to apply some sort of principal of cultural relativism to fanatics like these.

I don't think the concept of tolerance that was developed during the Enlightenment and embodied in our country was EVER intended to imply or suggest that every fanatical viewpoint was good, or desirable.

I think that the Ben Franklins and Voltaires of that time would today rail against the religious right and the outlook of backward people like the Duggars.
posted by joedharma at 3:10 AM on July 3, 2005

joesharma, what does tolerance mean then, exactly?

What do you plan on doing about them anyhow? Pass a law against it? Make them behave?
posted by Snyder at 3:19 AM on July 3, 2005

backward people like the Duggars

What exactly about them is "backward"? They're raising tons of children without begging for help from others or the state/federal governments.

I'd rather have people like this as my neighbors than some of the people I've had as neighbors in the past. Sure, they homeschool. They make their own clothes. So what? I'm sure they're a nice, friendly, polite bunch. If they're happy, who are you to want to take that away from them?
posted by mrbill at 3:28 AM on July 3, 2005

If they're happy, who are you to want to take that away from them?

Exactly. You may not like them, hell, there are plenty of people I don't like, but it don't matter none to me in the long run.

I know I don't want to see the current crop of busybodies who run the show being replaced by a different flavor of busybodies. I figure that someday I'd be a target (if a no-account small-fry one at that,) to both. I'd rather have people stay put of each others way, then trying to figure out how to make everyone fall in line.
posted by Snyder at 3:37 AM on July 3, 2005

Secret Life of Gravy's comment rings true with me as well:

My point is these kids seem to get very little time to themselves-- little down time or unprogrammed time. They have a schedule on the wall that shows what everyone is supposed to be doing every 15 minutes. Family life for them seems more like boot camp.

I knew a family when I was growing up that had something like 18 kids. Including three complete sets of twins.

Yes, they were Mormon.

But even though they lived in a decidedly suburban environment, almost every square inch of their landscaping was edible; Strawberries, blackberries, raspberries (I remember these the best), lots of tomatoes, beans, squashes, broccoli, and lots more. And it was gorgeous. They ate well, they played and worked hard. They ate freshly baked wholegrain wheat bread by the ton. They went through honey in 5 gallon jerrycans. It was intense, but well rounded.

The house was - from the outside - total chaos. My friend was the youngest of the family, so by the time we were in 1st grade, a whole segment of his siblings had already gone to college, gotten married, and had kids. He was an uncle while I was still collecting cousins in my family.

But what they had that was different than the Duggar's family was free choice and free will, better food, better personal choices, and seemingly much less oppression. They chose what they wore, they chose what they wanted to study and specialize in, they chose what musical instruments they wanted to play.

Also by comparison, the Duggars eat bad grade-school cafeteria food - lots of frozen, canned and heavily processed food loaded with preservatives, salts, fats and sugars, with a distinct lack of fresh foods. They practically eat like they're living out of a bomb shelter. Tater tot casserole? Eww!

Watching the documentary on the Duggar's, I can only intuit that not all is well. I got the impression that some, many or all of the kids were underdeveloped socially, undereducated, overworked, and underplayed. They seem stifled and constricted and woefully unchildlike.

And while it would be easy for us Philistines to imagine all sorts of sinister or unsavory scenarios, if I choose to honestly listen to my intuition and extrapolate, something seems like it is definitely not what it seems in the Duggar household.

And I think that something along these lines is what's really causing people to react so strongly to them. There's possibly something decidedly off-kilter going on - and it's not necessarily just fundamentalist religion or overpopulation.
posted by loquacious at 3:39 AM on July 3, 2005 [1 favorite]

There's possibly something decidedly off-kilter going on - and it's not necessarily just fundamentalist religion or overpopulation.

That may be true, but for my part, I'm responding to the people who specifically make references to those things. I do agree one can be wierded out by this nonwithstanding those factors, but I don't believe I've seen anyone do so.
posted by Snyder at 4:14 AM on July 3, 2005

what does tolerance mean then, exactly?

That you don't forcibly prevent them from having a zillion kids. Not that you refrain from remarking about it, or, necessarily, refrain from pointing out that they're dingbats. Just that the state doesn't reach in and actually stop them from indulging their weird preferences.

What exactly about them is "backward"?

Can't speak for all of them, but Jim-Bob's desire to force anti-evolutionary claptrap into school curricula seems 100% certified crazy ass-backwards to me.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:16 AM on July 3, 2005

Pick that up, would you, Deidre? Put it with the others.
posted by flabdablet at 4:54 AM on July 3, 2005

I'm sorry but overpopulation is not at local issue. It IS a global issue with localized effects, and every ressource sink in the world is responsible for its effects.
The reason being of course that the world is global. Resources are today distributed with an unprecedented efficiency in the history of mankind. Wether this particular family is a significantly larger resource drain than other family units I don't know (and I don't care).
Even though it probably is true that the worlds food production is sufficient to sustain the current consumption and that much more latent capability is there, and that there still is a horrific amount of people dieing from malnutrition, it doesn't nullify my point. Many factors contribute to starvation one of the biggest being political. But this problem due to political issues wouldn't arise were the starvation problem not latently there to begin with, i.e the local 'buffer' of food is too slim.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the areas today were there are problems with starvation have them due to the local situation having fallen below a certain threshold of order. The solution that historically has been found to famine has been migration, which - due to the worlds general overpopulation of the fertile areas - no longer can be done without 'problems'.
posted by Catfry at 5:19 AM on July 3, 2005

I don't know any women who would choose to have 16 children. In general the more career and lifestyle options women have the less children they choose to have. Everybody is different. Maybe Jim Bob managed to find himself someone who really does want to breed continually but I'm skeptical. Patriarchy creeps me out. Christian patriarchy creeps me out even more.Of course, it's none of my business.
posted by rdr at 5:23 AM on July 3, 2005

anyone else notice these kids are home-schooled? you would think the mom would like a little "quiet" time and clear the house once a day. although, after reading the Prairie Muffins manifesto, I can see why they think keeping the kids close is important:

Prairie Muffins protect the innocence of their children, until such a time their children are mature enough to be exposed to potentially-harmful cultural influences.

how can they gain maturity when they are cooped up in their house all day, caring for younger siblings? how will these children fare in the real world? then again, Bob Jones isn't exactly the real world either.
posted by killy willy at 6:45 AM on July 3, 2005

In Arizona, at least, the vehicle such a family rides in is called, in some circles, a "BMW". It stands for Big Mormon Wagon. They were Mormons.

My grandmother had 16 brothers and sisters. My great-grandmother died at 83 (I remember her). I guess it didn't do her any harm, and the annual family reunion was a blast! Of course, this was no fundy family out to force everyone else to live their way.

I can't help but think that kids being raised this way can never realize any true potential they may have. They grow up with limited exposure to the world and limited time and a lack of solitude to think about what they do experience.

Could someone please explain to me how this is not, in effect, just another form of child abuse?
posted by Goofyy at 7:11 AM on July 3, 2005

The more Americans there are, especially Americans who can afford to build a frigging hostel to stow their dozen and a half personal progeny, the more misery there is in Africa and Asia. The US gobbles up enough resources already.
posted by davy at 7:49 AM on July 3, 2005

Sorry, breeding like rabbits is irresponsible. Overpopulation is a global problem. These people are part of the problem.

I wonder how much he could get for the whole lot if he sold them scientific experiments though?
posted by fenriq at 8:55 AM on July 3, 2005

Sorry, breeding like rabbits is irresponsible. Overpopulation is a global problem. These people are part of the problem.

Overpopulation isn't the problem. Refrigeration and medical care are the problem. :)
posted by bugmuncher at 9:18 AM on July 3, 2005

I can't quote statistics on this, but my understanding was that breastfeeding was sufficiently contraceptive to make this level of fecundity impossible. As such, this is not God's will.

Wasn't possessing an inordinate number of cats finally recognized as a mental disorder? ('Cause that's what this is making me think of.)
posted by Aknaton at 11:20 AM on July 3, 2005

Aknaton: not impossible, but less likely. It's certainly less effective than the pill, for example. It's somewhere around 75% effective, if I remember right. But there can be health risks to both mother and fetus associated with being pregnant and nursing at the same time. Not to mention what it must do to your body to keep having another child every year and not let your hormone levels get back to normal, nor let your body fully recover. Reading this made all of my bones hurt. Ouch.
posted by fossil_human at 12:06 PM on July 3, 2005

I've also seen the documentary. There were a few aspects of this family that I could admire.

1. They have no debt. The new bikes they purchased were paid for in cash, providing a new bike for each child for Christmas. The new house is being built with funds they have and with their own labor.
2. They love their kids and the life they have chosen.
3. They are friends with like-minded families. (Everyong needs a friend.)

There are also many things that creeped me out.
1. Everyone has a buddy. They baby's buddy is Mom. The older buddy takes care of the younger buddy. Apparently, Dad doesn't have a buddy.
2. The boys wear black socks. The girls wear only white socks. I'm sure that makes doing the laundry easy, but it struck me as odd.
3. Mom and the girls wear the same thing and you can not tell her maternity dress from her regular dress.
4. The restrictions which will be placed on the kids when they start dating ensures the kids will only be introduced to others from those above mentioned like-minded families and they will only be allowed out in supervised groups.

These things bother me much more than the sheer number of kids this family is churning out. The regimented lifestyle doesn't allow the kids to decide if they want to continue this life as adults. I seriously wonder what will happen if/when the kids go off to college or moves out of the family home. Just how many will realize they don't want to live this way? Just how welcome will they be then?
posted by onhazier at 12:14 PM on July 3, 2005

Groucho: So, you got any kids?
Female Contestant: Yes, Groucho, I have eleven children.
Groucho: Eleven?! Did you say eleven kids?
Female Contestant: Well, I love my husband.
Groucho: Lady, I love my cigar but I take it out of my mouth once in a while.

(from the Straight Dope)
posted by grouse at 12:21 PM on July 3, 2005

3. Mom and the girls wear the same thing and you can not tell her maternity dress from her regular dress.

Er... Her maternity dress is her regular dress.
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:28 PM on July 3, 2005

I can't quote statistics on this, but my understanding was that breastfeeding was sufficiently contraceptive to make this level of fecundity impossible

You CAN indeed get pregnant while breastfeeding; I got pregnant with my second while nursing my first. I continued to breastfeed for awhile but by that time my first baby was on solids so I eventually transitioned him to regular milk. I then proceeded to get pregnant while nursing number two-only a couple of months after number two was born. She quit nursing when three months old-my best guess is that the flavor changed. ;-)

Oh, and by the way, I was using "protection" the whole time. Some of us are just plain uberfertile.

After number three (the number of kids we wanted originally) my hubby got the big snip; otherwise I suppose we would be outproducing the Duggars.
posted by konolia at 12:56 PM on July 3, 2005

I wonder if she put's out?
posted by Balisong at 1:03 PM on July 3, 2005

A: I can't quote statistics on this, but my understanding was that breastfeeding was sufficiently contraceptive to make this level of fecundity impossible

k: You CAN indeed get pregnant while breastfeeding

I really, really should have said "extremely improbable". I didn't mean to suggest that getting pregnant while breastfeeding was that remarkable... once. It's the 15 times that makes me more ready to suppose that they're avoiding breastfeeding (as it might interfere with staying permanently pregnant).
posted by Aknaton at 1:04 PM on July 3, 2005

I read that she used to make all the clothing for her children. All matching, of course.
I wonder how the kids feel about that.
Don't they ever want to break away and wear a Kenny G. T-shirt or something?
I say we try to recruit one of the older kids to get a MeFi account.
Bwahaha!! What am I saying, they're probably not allowed near computers.
posted by Balisong at 1:09 PM on July 3, 2005

you know, he's just building his own constituency, one at a time. jebus.
posted by Busithoth at 1:57 PM on July 3, 2005

what does tolerance mean then, exactly?

That you don't forcibly prevent them from having a zillion kids. Not that you refrain from remarking about it, or, necessarily, refrain from pointing out that they're dingbats. Just that the state doesn't reach in and actually stop them from indulging their weird preferences.

Thank you ROU_Xenophobe.

For some reason, a large chuck on liberals just don't get this.
posted by joedharma at 3:19 PM on July 3, 2005

joedharma: A large chunk of liberals are out there forcibly preventing people from having children? I missed the news article about that one. I did notice, however, back a few posts ago that pointing out that they're non-mainstream means you think they're doing you dire harm to your property or personhood or whatever.

In great numbers, I'd consider this sort of behavior a social problem--not just the children, but the way of life and children combined, the forcing of the life on children, etc. But I still wouldn't want the government to resort to forcing one from having children. The parents, meanwhile, can also believe whatever nutty stuff they want to believe, but they also must expect to be consistently challenged, and they expect to be fought tooth and nail if they try to have their views about science reflected in legislation.

In any case, to what are you referring? All people of all sorts of varying beliefs engage in book banning and so forth. Is that what you're talking about?
posted by raysmj at 3:33 PM on July 3, 2005

raysmj - ummm, no. That's not it at all.

The lesson for here for some liberals (not for you, I think you already know this) is that tolerance doesn't mean that you ever can or should stop fighting fanaticism. The day we stop fighting them, is the day the these right wing whackos like the Duggars become our overlords.

Tolerance in this context just means that the state doesn't reach in and actually stop them from indulging their weird preferences.
posted by joedharma at 4:08 PM on July 3, 2005

A lot of people who cite overpopulation as a reason not to have kids don't realize that the world population is going to cap out at around 11 billion (if I recall), and go down steadily from there, and while it's still possible to say short-term overpulation is a critical issue, they're still basing major life decisions on casual data.

6 billion people is not sustainable. 11 billion is a ecological disaster on the order of the dinosaur extinction. This is selfish beyond belief. Sure, they support themselves, but don't people have a responsibility to the planet? There are far better things to do with excess income.

Further, consider what it would be like to actually be one of these children. You get no attention from the parents. You're forced to wear identical clothing, and discouraged from developing an individual identity (notice the naming). You'd live in complete social isolation and powerlessness. It's a step away from being a cult. God forbid your father happens to be one of the abusive ones.

You'd grow up almost completely ignorant of the world. Look at the content of their studies from the FAQ: the older children help their buddies with their studies in phonics, math, violin & piano... the older children start their music & individual studies- math, English, spelling & typing...Wisdom Booklet group studies - science, history, law, medicine. I think "Wisdom Booklet" says it all.

Suppose you were gay, or didn't believe in god. I doubt it would be such a "loving" family then.
posted by cytherea at 4:22 PM on July 3, 2005

Ok, here's something weird I was thinking about last night- this family has 15 (16+ soon) children because they've decided not to use birth control. Would every regularly sexual active woman have this many children, without birth control? Is that a stupid question?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:27 PM on July 3, 2005 [1 favorite]

Suppose you were gay, or didn't believe in god. I doubt it would be such a "loving" family then.

I think that's one of the best comments that's been made here cytherea.

I would just add or believed in God, but didn't share their religious beliefs.

Using a very conservative figure of 6%, at least one of their children could very well be gay. So that's no so hypothetical.
posted by joedharma at 4:54 PM on July 3, 2005

"Wisdom Booklets" are actually unit studies from a particular curriculum. My pastor and his wife used them-and as far as I know still do-while homeschooling their children. Three of which got scholarships to college (so far) with two of them already graduated.
posted by konolia at 5:36 PM on July 3, 2005

And people are wondering why America is becoming more religious/conservative over time. Short answer: they breed more.

We have one kid. She keeps us busy enough that contemplating a number two gives us serious pause. I can't even imagine sixteen.
posted by jscalzi at 6:41 PM on July 3, 2005

ThePinkSuperhero: provided there were no outstanding fertility issues, the woman was young enough, and the husband didn't have to travel a lot, yes. Of course in the old days, men went off to war or died, and lots of women died in childbirth or had their babies die from various nasty diseases, so they didn't always end up with this many.

Nowadays the sky's pretty much the limit, provided all your equipment works. Thankfully, most women don't feel the need to redline their uteruses (uteri?) to see how many they can pop out in a lifetime....

You know, pregnancy does take a toll on your body; I have to wonder, has she shortened her lifespan at all? Contributed to her own future osteoporosis or obesity? And what if the next pregnancy is the one that pushes her over the edge; a placenta previa hemmorhage, a blood clot, gestational diabetes, a heart attack...it's not something to take lightly.
posted by emjaybee at 6:47 PM on July 3, 2005

Say whatever you want about the Duggars. Mrs. Duggar makes all of their clothes (with the exception of the suit jackets I suppose). That's pretty darned cool.
posted by geekhorde at 7:11 PM on July 3, 2005

Hands up those couples who have decided to not have children. How many's that... eight, nine, ten... so, we're seeing basically what, a dozen couples who are not having children, so the Duggars are good to go with up to twenty-four kids without affecting the population growth rate. We cancel one another out.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:26 PM on July 3, 2005

Whole lotta judgement on the childbearing, instead of on the guy's influence in the political arena.

One should think, however, that he must surely represent his citizenry, because surely such radical behaviour would otherwise alienate them.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:29 PM on July 3, 2005

If I had that many dogs, there is no way I could properly take care of them, train them, exercise them, clean up after them, etc. I wonder if children are easier, or harder.
Well, you can't lock children in the laundry when you go out at night. I mean, you can, but you have to be careful not to get caught.

By the way taz, you know what they call people who use the rhythm method of contraception, don't you?
posted by dg at 8:20 PM on July 3, 2005

Catholic?
posted by dame at 8:23 PM on July 3, 2005

Parents.
posted by dg at 8:46 PM on July 3, 2005

All the religious talk aside, I am impressed with their ability to run such a tight ship. Though, just because they make it sound as if every day is perfect doesn't necessarily mean there aren't days that are absolute hell.

I find the excessive Bible quoting a bit off-putting. I mean, my mom is a very devout Catholic and I can have long conversations with her where she doesn't quote the Bible. She'll comment on praying or being helped by God, but never that "the Bible says X, therefore I do Y."

Also, this picture made me think of a Wheaties box.
posted by ddf at 9:32 PM on July 3, 2005

To the people who are saying that this is selfish and socially irresponsible of them, that they're contributing to overpopulation and whatever...

Isn't one family having 16 children really negligible when compared to 6 billion? I mean, given all the factors at play all over the world, it would seem to me that they are probably cancelled out somewhere along the line and have absolutely no impact whatsoever on overpopulation.

Using figures from the CIA World Factbook, which I have cooked in my own way which I shall not bother to explain as it has no scientific or mathematical merit and I'm way too tired, if roughly 11 million women here each had 16 children, it would amount to roughly the child-bearing female population of China each having 1 child. Given that the average in this country is 2 kids/woman it's impossible for anywhere near that number to be reproducing at that rate.

Ergo, it's far more damaging for the world for any single Chinese to reproduce at all than it is for the relative handful of families like these to multiply at their rate.

/2am logic
posted by Hal Mumkin at 12:19 AM on July 4, 2005

That you don't forcibly prevent them from having a zillion kids. Not that you refrain from remarking about it, or, necessarily, refrain from pointing out that they're dingbats. Just that the state doesn't reach in and actually stop them from indulging their weird preferences.

You don't forcibly prevent them gay people from having a zillion kids having sex. Not that you refrain from remarking about it, or, necessarily, refrain from pointing out that they're dingbats huge fags. Just that the state doesn't reach in and actually stop them from indulging their weird preferences.
posted by namespan at 2:05 AM on July 4, 2005

Oh, did you all read her 'advice to mothers'... I feel so sorry for the poor woman. They have money to raise 15 kids and buy a new ten-bathroom house (!), but don't hire *paid* domestic help? Why? It's un-christian?

I also feel sorry for the kids. Yeah yeah 'lifestyle choice', but still, not one the kids made. Those children are going to be active members of a bigger society one day, not just their family. I can only hope the kids will be comfortable with their parents' choices in ten years' time. (Not least the choice of putting all their pictures and family history online like some exhibit of godly obedience. Yuck).

- Wholesomewear: the American version of the hijab?
posted by funambulist at 2:39 AM on July 4, 2005

namespan: yes, exactly. That's what tolerance of a group means: not that everyone loves them or respects them or cherishes their diversity, but just that there aren't laws against them.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:37 AM on July 4, 2005

They could afford to take of them. Thus, it's their business, not ours. Reproductive freedom goes both ways.

Jonmc, you are smarter than that. The cost of human beings is not limited to the cost of nappys and new school clothes. All of society and humanity bear the cost of every human being born. The food that people eat isn't unlimited. The natural resources needed to feed, cloth and shelter them is not unlimited. Even in economic terms, the impact more people have on health care, insurance, etc, etc is not limited to the people who had the children (at least not in the US).
posted by terrapin at 5:39 AM on July 4, 2005

Aren't they Americans? I mean, if they were Sri Lankan or Chinese, I might understand the whole "overpopulation" argument, but it's not exactly like the USA is running out of space anytime soon.

*jaw drops. head shakes*

I can't even begin to find words to discuss this viewpoint.
posted by terrapin at 5:48 AM on July 4, 2005

I can not imagine how someone so privileged as to have access to MeFi, and all the associated global resource consequences such access implies -- ranging from unequalled petrochemical use in his everyday life, to the ownership of slavery-provided tantalum in his electronics -- could dare sit in judgement of someone who chooses to have a few extra kids.

Pot, kettle, black. And perhaps a bit of an asshole to boot.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:18 AM on July 4, 2005

FFF:

(1) They have the same access to mefi that we do, and the associated resource consequences, but also have a zillion kids. So the pot is noting that the kettle is blacker.
(2) It seemed obvious to me that most of the hectoring was because they're a band of fundy wackos who have a zillion kids, with accent on the fundy wacko. I don't think most of us would particularly mind if a local collective of dope-smoking granola hippie peaceniks had 9 kids (though 16?), but I guess you have to read for subtext for that. It's not just the zillion kids, it's having the zillion kids for the gluh-hory of Juh-hay-zuss that makes them an obvious target for ridicule.
(3) Nobody's sitting in judgement over anyone. You can easily tell this because none of us are judges. None of us have any legal authority to order that family to do anything. All we can do is make catty comments, in a place where they don't have to listen to us. It's completely harmless to them. It would be rude to be nasty to them in a place they might hear it, or in a place or way where it might harm them, but that ain't the case here.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:47 AM on July 4, 2005

No one is sitting in judgement because they aren't judges?

Don't eat the brown acid, ROU. It messes you up.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:45 PM on July 4, 2005

You can't sit in judgment without any power over them. The only seat you can sit in is the seat of calling them names, or the seat of having a bad opinion of them.

Calling what's been going on in this thread "sitting in judgment" is ridiculous hyperbole. My pointing that out was astonishingly clumsy.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:29 PM on July 4, 2005

someone who chooses to have a few extra kids

Laughing out loud. Great comment. This is ironic, right?

a bit of an asshole to boot.

Another good comment. The Duggar's other supporters would certainly approve of that language. Check it out, the white supremacists love and idolize the Duggars. And with good reason. From the Stormfront site: Mrs. Duggar is a hero for our race! Heil!

http://www.stormfront.org/archive/t-126066The_Duggar_family.html
posted by joedharma at 11:15 PM on July 4, 2005

I'm glad I read their site, because now I have a recipe for Tater Tot casserole.
posted by Sassenach at 11:45 AM on July 5, 2005