Hetero 17 Isn’t Enough
posted by on August 3 at 14:43 PM
Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar—fundamentalists Christians who live in Arkansas and started having babies when Michelle was 21—just added child number 17 (Jennifer, whose name, like all the other Duggar children, starts with a “J” for “Jesus”) to their family, and say they have no plans of stopping. Michelle has now been pregnant approximately 11 of her 40 years. As for why she wants to have still more babies—specifically, girl babies— Michelle told the Associated Press: “we love the ruffles and lace.”
Of course, the real reason Michelle and Jim Bob want more babies is that they’re devotees of Quiverfull, a fundamentalist Christian movement whose members believe in “letting God plan your family.” They believe, in other words, that women are merely empty vessels to be filled, and that compulsory pregnancy (in the words of one (male) Quiverfull member, “Who’s going to do that (go without sex)?”) is the duty of the woman toward her male master/husband. Not surprisingly, they also believe that birth control causes abortion; that women should stay at home and educate their children while the family patriarch provides; that corporal punishment is the only way to keep a large litter of kids in line; and that no matter how many children you have, “the Lord will provide” for them. Also not surprisingly, most of the members of this movement are middle- to upper-middle-class and white; the Quiverfull web site says not one word about what less well-to-do women should do with 12 kids and no job. In all cases, the Quiverfull believers believe, the Lord will provide.
The following passage is excerpted from a book called The Patriarch’s Path on the Quiverfull web site:
Sometimes I think about Susanna Wesley….they were in an incredible amount of debt, she had a very unhelpful husband and she was ill much of her life. I wonder, if she would have had the option to use birth control, would John and Charles Wesley have ever been born? (They were some of her younger children). I tend to think that she would have been quiver minded, but we’ll never know, because thankfully, she did not have the option or the same social pressure that so many ladies have today. Suzanna herself, was the 24th of 24 children! Who would have blamed her mother if she had said, “surely God knows we have enough children, one little simple surgery can cure this!”
Who, indeed. The more you read about the Quiverfull movement, the more you realize that it’s less about having kids (although blatantly racist talk about the “declining white European race” is certainly not uncommon) than about controlling women by taking away their choices. Once you’ve given up hopes for an education and career in favor of that sixth, or seventh, or 17th kid, it’s awfully hard to think about leaving the financial security of the husband/patriarch who “provides” for you.
Uck.
I just died laughing reading that poster at work. I wonder how many of the kids will be gay? I am sure there are three lesbians and 2 gay boys at least.
Imagine if you combined the birthing philosophy with polygamy?
Its also funny: states like Arkansas elect hardcore republicans who bemoan the "welfare state," of course, with visions of impoverished black folks dancing in their heads. But what happens here when Daddy is struck by lightning? Who provides then? Not to mention that ignorance breeds ignorance: there's no fucking way that any of these kids are going to college, since homeschooled by fundamentalist simpletons = no scholarships, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that they don't have 17 college funds set up.
Idiocracy in motion! Better start breeding some smart ones, blue states!
So, the racism is of secondary importance to the sexism? Somehow I think Charles might see things different. And Dan, of course, would see it as being all about the homophobic Jesus freaks who hate gay parents. Hey, if we were to throw you guys into some kind of a psychic blender and mix you all up, I wonder if the resulting frankenliberal would be capable of perceiving a world beyond its own identity politics bullshit?
Probably not, but it's an interesting idea.
You know what that is? Child abuse. Yeah I said it.
Quackfull
Frankenliberal is actually pretty nice, bought me a drink once.
I can't imagine how it's possible to keep 17 kids in line without corporal punishment. It's also somewhat surprising that the Quiverfulls are mostly middle class or wealthy. How do people that ignorant make money?
You can be sure that this is about controlling those daughters as well. One woman can't raise 17 children. As soon as those girls are old enough to walk and talk, they're drafted into being surrogate mothers to their younger siblings.
I'd also like to point out that she is fucking ugly. Nice moo moo. Bitch. Yeah I said it.
We've got lots of old curtains, and not enough bodies to make dresses for.
Also, people with families to feed are easier to keep in line at work, because they're less likely to quit or act subordinate, lest they lose their income and put their kids at risk.
Also, people with families to feed are easier to keep in line at work, because they're less likely to quit or act insubordinate, lest they lose their income and put their kids at risk.
By now those precious babies must just slip right out while she's making dinner, landing in a sweet flannel lined basket next to the stove. She just keeps on cooking, I imagine, trying to come up with another "J" name -- Hmm. Jehosabrat?
That night she'll float gently to sleep having received yet another life-affirming dose of His Majesty's wonder-sperm.
God is Great.
Fuck, I just don't care about fundamentalist white Christians pumping out smiley freaky kids and how these people in ugly clothes choose to live their bizarre lives. I just don't fucking care at all. It's Friday and all I want is a goddamn Chocolate Malt from Burger Master.
Looks like mommy dearest is turning all her girls into "mini-me"s, complete with perm and permanent sunday school garb.
(on second thought, maybe it's actually BETTER that they don't attend public school.)
@8 - so you're arguing they're having more children so they'll have more children to care for more children? But only with respect to the females? That doesn't make any sense. Why can't one just attribute it to an absurd religious belief?
And as for Gomez @11 - no corporate entity that I've heard of is directly or indirectly encouraging these folks to have 7.6*10^13 kids in the slightest. Again, why can't one just attribute it to an absurd religious belief?
I start to see where Judah @8 is coming from, seeing these comments.
Goddammit.
Is there some way to have un-babies, to balance this shit out?
I'm willing to accept the two or three hundred thousand dollars or so I'll be paid for each one.
er, make that Judah @4
My dad has something like 15 siblings. I'm sure glad I don't associate with that half of the family anymore.
And back in South Dakota, having that many cousins made dating really awkward.
"Wait, hold on, we have to compare family trees. Oh, crap, we're related. Ok, nice meeting you. Bye."
Maybe it's not some vast conspiracy to keep women down and maybe it's just some chick who likes to have babies? She doesn't look unhappy.
Why does everyone here put birthing down so hard anyway.
Birth isn't a political movement invented by men to keep women down. It's just how people make more people. Chill the fuck out.
The Fundamentalist Mormons do combine the birthing philosophy with polygamy. (Make no mistake - this is not your average Mormon, but the fundamentalists who mostly live on the north side of the Grand Canyon.) Anyhow, i'm reading "Under The Banner Of Heaven" right now - it's about fundamentalist Mormons. They are so incestuous that they marry their own kin and often women give birth to 'blobs of protoplasm' and then of course, are blamed for it as in 'God did not bless you with a child' instead of 'you got fucked by your Dad. No wonder you didn't have a healthy baby'
More fun-facts -
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22183968-2,00.html
Dad was an Arkansas State Rep from 1999-2002.
They have a Joy-Anna and a Johannah! (vomit) There's a Jinger! (puke)
There's a set of twins - John and "David". In the link, this is two lines below the claim that all the kids' names begin with a "J". Maybe "David" is adopted and the same age as "John", so they told him he is a twin. In the family portrait, there doesn't seem to be a matching set of second oldest sons (though white people ALL look the same to me anyway).
@20: Do we really need more people?
I don't know about you, but I don't look around at the problems in the world today and think, "Fuck, you know what would solve this? More people."
I would imagine after 17 kids hittin' that is pretty much like throwing a hotdog down a hallway. And I'm not talking about the hallway in your average house either. I'm talking the hallway of a very large highschool.
(((((( e c h o ))))))
@24 - Nah, I'm sure she does her kegels.
I mean jegels. With a "j". Like Jesus.
24 - Distribution and overuse of resources is the problem not number of people. Plus why is it up to her to solve the worlds problems? Why should you put down her life choices while I assume you would ask her to be tolerant of yours?
Oops, sorry 24. That was directed at 23
Haven't the Mars Hill Church folks said that one of their goals is to flip Seattle back to being a conservative area by outbreeding the liberals?
@23 - Actually, yes we might need more people - not in developing nations, mind you, but in the developed world, where birth rates are often below replacement level, which will have unforunate economic effects in the long term. Which isn't to say we should all be like Mrs. Human Pez Dispenser here, but it may well help for us to have a society that made it easier and more rewarding to raise kids.
come on nick, what are you talking about? these are middle to upper class folks. home schooled kids not getting scholarships? have you ever met one? they might not be socially adjusted, but they are usually fairly bright. and i'd more than bet this guy has a life-insurance policy to match his quiver. this family is a poster family for a reason.
child abuse? you've got to be kidding me. where is the abuse?
which brings me to another matter. while there is certainly sexism at play in some/many situations like this, part of a woman's choice is that you let her choose. it's silly to talk about choice and then define what the only correct option is.
personally, i do not want to inflict that many children on anyone, nor do i think acting in that way is beneficial to society.
@28 - I'm totally outing myself here, but as a ex-MarsHiller who is neither a fan nor a hater you have that wrong.
Their goal has nothing to do with politics at all. It's purely about spreading the faith. In fact, most members I knew didn't vote at all in federal elections. They have no right wing agenda and don't preach about voting at all.
Politically speaking all I know about the head pastor is that he subscribes to Mother Jones and is a pretty well informed guy.
Still, the growth by babies and land ownership schtick sounded scary and takeover-ish which is one of the many reasons I bounced.
Per tsm: Please read The March Morons, classic Kornbluth story, in which the distant future is occupied by billions of sub-par barely functional idiots and about 2 million super-intelligent folks who keep the world from collapsing into total chaos.
@30 - "woman's choice is that you let her choose."
You are so right on this one.
@26: Why is it up to any of us to solve the world's problems?
Because we live here?
@32 - sounds like that really funny (opening 5 min anyway) Mike Judge movie.
so, Ryan, is it true that the wives of Mars Hill do not work and their role is to stay home and have babies?
@34 - So every life choice you have made revolves around solving the worlds problems? Wow, how many Nobel Peace Prizes have you been nominated for? Forget Bill Richardson, I'm not voting for you in the primary.
@24
Maybe she has a snake bite it before he works her. Or maybe he jacks off and shoves it in before he cums. Maybe he jacks off in a cup every day and pours it down her twat. Maybe. We'll never know. But I'm sure having fun coming up with these thoughts.
@29 - I disagree with your developed vs undeveloped nation argument. Immigrants from undeveloped nations fill the holes that developed nations brought on by low birth rates. The problem that Americans and Europeans can agree on is that they are being "invaded" be Mexicans and Africans respectively. Over time I suppose all the problems brought on by a large (poor, illegal) immigrant population might work itself out over time if the educated rich have fewer children and the children of immigrants become the educated rich.
That's probably wayyy to much for this post though. BTW, that woman is nuts! I'd like a big family, but "big" tops out at six.
@36 - No. Lol. Not at all. Though it is encouraged by the culture there for mothers (specially of young children) to stay home.
my childhood across the street neighbors had 17 kids, all born in the late '50s - early '70s...the last two came out retarded. so they stopped. They were good folks, but so desperately poor because of the kids...none starved to death, but only a couple graduated high school. And they were always dirty...so very, very dirty. And as far as I know, the kids were not a mandate from God. In fact, no one really knew why they had so many kids, the father worked for the state (a wonder that none starved!). Really, how do you FEED 17 kids, the family didn't farm...eep.
@37: By no means have all my decisions revolved exclusively around saving the world. But I do try not to fuck it up worse than it is. And I feel comfortable saying that multiplying your family's carbon footprint by eight and a half over one generation falls into the category of "fucking it up worse."
While as free Americans, I respect their right to bear as many children as they can afford to raise, I do not believe that makes it the right or moral choice. Using religion as a justification for adding more and more people to the world is a cop out. Global population explosion is an issue that is going to lead to more strife, famine, and conflict over natural resources than we can imagine. Just because we are a developed nation with a population that isn't exploding like China or India, doesn't mean we don't have to take the matter seriously. There are 50,000,000 more people in the United States than when I was born thirty five years ago, and I shudder to think about our responsibility to provide social security, health care, housing, and civic infrastructure for those millions (myself included) and the millions more to come in the next thirty five years. I don't think anyone can seriously look around and say (to quote Ah-Poo from the Simpsons), "I've noticed that this country is dangerously under-populated". I strongly believe that we have a ethical obligation to have no more than one child per person (or less), and advocate adopting some of the many thousands of children that need a family instead of creating yet another human for the world to support. Thanks for listening to my two cents.
no need to worry: as is usually the case with ignorant fundy parents, more than half those kids will rebel from their freaky-ass upbringing by growing up to be hardcore liberals. ask any of the many ex-mormon kids living in seattle.
@43 - huh? China's population isn't exploding; it's stabilizing, as are the populations of many other nations in the world. The world's overall fertility rate is in a prolonged period of decline. The "Soylent Green" type scenarios are starting to look a little overblown.
Right on Chris @ 43! It has always mystified me what inspires people to propigate. And while i have debated this with many friends, i see it as fully narcissistic to bear a child and have swallowed a godawful amount of birth control pills over the years to prevent this from happening to me.
Do you want a child? Visit an orphanage. The orphanages of this country are one of our many dirty little secrets.
Personally, i find the thought of a mini-me terrifying and fortunately i married a man who feels the same way.
mr poe why are you being so gross today?
vaginas are meant to have babies and still have sex afterward. one can fit a lot into a vagina that's not awash in pregnancy hormones and have it return to normal size, and with the hormones in pregnancy, there's extra stretch all over so bones, cervixes and what not can spread open, and then return to place.
the cervix part is what grosses the shit out of me, as i'm pretty cool with stretchy vags, but thinking of a hole a little bigger than this "O" letting 17 babies out makes me die a little. Thos don't really go back to their original size.
and don't say "twat" unless you've, like, licked one, pleeeeeeeeeese. ick.
Chris @43, you beat me to it. Well said on all counts.
give the moo a break... she just knows that babies like pussy so she's giving all the babies she can a chance to experience it. i still can't let this one go......
Where are the proofreaders when you need them? I counted the offspring in the photo and came up with 14 chirren - are the other three out in the fields picking cotton with which to fashion their LDS undergarments? Also, if one bore 17 kids to full term, one would have been pregnant 12.75 years. This is one of those items where you ask yourself: "Does this situation have any direct impact on my life?" (you know sort of like the gay marriage thing) and then you judge not, Judy.
ACK! Their family is bigger and whiter than the photo!
No, I'm arguing that those girls are going to be taught from a very early age that their only role in life is to be obedient wives and mothers. That attitude is rampant among fundamentalists of this stripe.
@26,
I hate constantly repeating myself, but there isn't remotely enough resources to provide a decent life to all 6.5 billion of us. Check out this resource calculator. Even with a Spartan lifestyle, it would still take more resources than this planet has to support everyone. In other words, the only way overpopulation is not a problem is if the overwhelming majority of people stay desperately poor.
"quimful" is more like it. and you get into a baby groove, i suppose, after awhile. your figure "what the fuck my life's never goiing to be about anything else" long about, say, the fifth one, so you figure you'll just go for the record--or something. and yes, life has a way of turning a certain percentage of little fundy children into homos, lesbos and democrats, so there is some justice.
well the truth --
You all need a double malted peanut butter double chocolate malt from Burger Master.
Best tasting stuff on the planet.
Come from a family of twelve kids - three sets of twins - best possible life in the world. All worked hard on a giant farm, lots of money for everything, castle like home, cars, animals, clothes, allowances, primo sophisticated cooking, all went to the best colleges, all have great politics and no real problems, Mom and Dad were super.... and all the relatives esp. grannies and grand dads.
Some of these posts are from constipated, dimwitted shit heads ...elitist and stupid to the core. And very small minded, the rubes and simpletons have all moved to Seattle and post a lot on Slog it appears.
Hicksville mentalities to the max.
You don't like kids... don't produce any. Simple.
Two gay men, the guy twins, and two lesbians ... and no problem there either.
You true Fuckheads with all the insults and silly high school type comments. Need to get off the hill and try to broaden you horizons a few days a year.
Essex-very happy that you had such a wonderful childhood but doubt that's what life is like for most extra-large families.
Agreed with keshmeshi @52....doubting that these girls are being taught they can do whatever they want with their lives. Maybe I'm wrong.
well essex, it sounds like you've had a great life. you do realize that large families don't generally work out that way for most people, right? in the world of today it is increasingly difficult to support vast numbers of kids.
anyway, it's not just the having kids that is the issue, its the culture of subjugation towards women that is really disturbing. devaluing women as people, reducing them to mere vessels of procreation, that is gross and dehumanizing.
also, studies have indicated that with larger broods of kids, the younger ones tend towards homosexuality. awkward.
@47
Today? Today is different - how?
Today is different because there are far more people living in poverty than there were even 20 years ago. If you doubt that, check out a book called 'Planet of Slums'. I, too, come from a large family (eight brothers and sisters) and loved my childhood because of my brothers and sisters (although we weren't living in a castlelike home like Essex - we were very poor and my parents were nearly insane with trying to support us). So much as i loved growing up in a large family i still don't see how anyone can justify having a child intentionally now. I see it as purely and totally self-indulgent. If you want to raise a child, adopt or become a mentor but why on earth would anyone choose to have a child? Especially when the planet is in crisis.
@50
This picture's a few years old. She had her 17th this week. There are pictures at all the major news sites. She also had a couple of sets of twins, which explains why she was pregnant 11 and not 12+ years.
I can't imaging having half - hell, a quarter - that many kids.
@45 - After some research, I stand partially corrected. The population growth rate for China (0.606%) is lower than that of the US (0.894%), but because their poulation is more than quadruple that of the US, they add 8 million people per year to the world versus our 2.7 million. Both nations are left in the dust by India (1.606%) which adds over 18 million people each year. My main point is not which country is gaining and which is losing people, but rather that we humans are expanding our numbers to fill the earth at an unsustainable pace. With a global rate of increase currently at 1.167%, and a human population of 6.6 billion people, we are adding 77 million people per year. Even if we lower the rate of increase, because the number rises exponentially we are still in a big, steaming bowl of trouble.
Every nation, every politician, every person has an obligation to keep this world habitable for those who will follow when we are gone. If we continue to breed like a virus until we consume this worlds resources beyond sustainability, we will have proven poor stewards of our home, and lousy parents to future generations.
Some of you guys (forgive me, I don't remember whom) have been saying that we have no right to question their childrearing habits, and it's their choice and whatnot. And while I agree with you on theory, we have to remember that the father (Jim Bob... yeah, I know) was a state representative in Congress a few years ago. As an ultraconservative Christianist, I will bet anything that he is pro-life, anti-gay, and even anti-birth control. So what it all boils down to is, if he can grandstand on what gays and single women are doing with their own bodies, and lobbying to keep gays from adopting, then why can't we cast aspersions on his lifestyle and sexual choices?
Oh btw, how do you think they pay for all those kids? They live off of donations from supermarkets, their church, their house was almost completely donated, and they pay almost no property taxes. Our taxes are funding their reactionary lifestyle, we should just admit it.
You don't like kids... don't produce any. Simple.
I don't like 'em. I don't have 'em. Just doing my part to offset these fundy freaks.
The more kids you have, the more of the younger ones will be gay. You have to figure that about 5 of these buggers will follow their parents, the rest will rebel in ways mild to extreme, and about 1/3 will be gay (unfortunately only 2 or 3 of them will he happily adjusted homos, the rest will spread their misery far and wide) .
Maybe it's because I'm a big ol' homo, but just the term "quiverfull" makes my testicles feel all squishy and sad.
i think what surprises me the most about this truly frightening story is that it took 17 kids to come with the idea of using "jennifer" ...
@58
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!1!one!
You know Dan, for someone who's fairly liberal and live and let live (or supposedly so), this looks remarkably like prejudice.
If some people want to be breeders, so be it. Is that a crime? Should it be?
If a woman and a man desire to have hordes of offspring, why shouldn't they? Why should people not be free to pursue their own ends without prejudice and disdain?
Sometimes you disappoint me...
Anyways....
qigfmxyoz eysf stgq onxhr tvkemhri bfqtlz uxqpcb
qigfmxyoz eysf stgq onxhr tvkemhri bfqtlz uxqpcb
qigfmxyoz eysf stgq onxhr tvkemhri bfqtlz uxqpcb
Her uterus is going to fall out. She will be walking outside and out if will pop right under a big maple tree. Then what does she do with it? Just leave it there? She'll have to wear diapers soon too cause all those kids weaken bladder muscles. Good thing she doesn't get out much.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).