Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Edwards Endorsement | Re: Fear the Reefer »

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Welfare: OK If You’re Christian!

posted by on May 14 at 16:41 PM

Just in time to exploit that all-important Mother’s Day angle, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar—the publicity-seeking right-wing Arkansas Christian couple whose giant family inspired the “Vagina: It’s Not a Clown Car” poster—have announced they’re having their 18th kid. If the Duggars were black, of course—or immigrants, or Muslims, or lesbians—such profligate breeding would be roundly condemned as lousy family planning, a strain on society, and a bad, neglectful home environment for the kids. But because they’re good, all-American evangelical nut jobs, the national press treats every new baby Michelle squeezes out as a God-sanctioned miracle worthy of lavish, slobbering praise. The Discovery Channel has even given them their own TV show and web site (on its “Discovery Health” page, ironically), currently headlined “The Duggars’ Big Announcement: Baby #18!”

Check out this fawning piece from the Today Show (which also reported—uncritically—the Duggars’ unfounded theory that the eeevil birth control pill caused Michelle’s first miscarriage):

Michelle and Jim Bob decided to pray for as many children as God would give them. Within a year, Michelle was pregnant with the first of their two sets of twins.

Their large number of offspring has meant other large numbers for the Duggars. Michelle has been pregnant for 135 months of her life, with an average of 18 months between births. The family estimates it has used 90,000 diapers and launders 200 loads of clothes each month in a row of industrial-size washers and dryers.

Most importantly, there is a unique dedication to serve the greater good of the home and family.
An older child will take on the responsibility of a younger sibling throughout the day. The children help prepare meals and keep to a steady home-schooling schedule. Group studies include materials from Advanced Training Institute International, a Bible-based education program for families.

To celebrate the latest addition to the Duggar clan, the TODAY Show planned their own surprise for Michelle by sending her children out to either shop or make new gifts for their busy mother.

The main gifts, picked by all the kids, included a ring Michelle saw and liked in a used jewelry store two weeks ago, as well as a pearl necklace and matching earrings. The older girls, Jana, Jill, Jessa and Jinger, picked out an outfit for their mom designed for “in-between” stages of pregnancy.[…]

“They thought they’d give their a mom surprise,” Jim Bob said. “But she gave them a surprise.”

Memo to the Today Show’s producers: Somehow I doubt that kids savvy enough to buy their mom a dress for the next time she’s in those pesky in between stages” of pregnancy—hell, kids savvy enough to look around and count—are too fucking surprised that the human incubator they call Mom is knocked up again.

Many of the stories on the Duggars have focused on their supposed frugality, noting admiringly that they live “debt free.” From an old CBS News story on Michelle Duggar, titled “What a Mother!: A Young Mom With 14 Kids Knows the Meaning of Family”:

Duggar is like any mom — multiplied several times over.

Michelle Duggar, 37, and her husband, former state Rep. Jim Bob Duggar, have 14 kids. All of their names start with the letter “J,” and number 15 is due this month.

“I’m either expecting or nursing,” Michelle Duggar says with a laugh. “We actually didn’t set out to have a large number of children. I don’t think that was our intention when we were first married. But I think we realized children are a gift.”

The Duggars are a very religious, Southern Baptist family.

[…] Michelle Duggar homeschools all 14 children. Sometimes, they study as a group or on their own. They use workbooks, computers and each other to study.

[…]That may be hard to do in the modest house of only 2,400 square feet.

Dad and the two oldest boys are building a 7,000-square-foot house. The Duggar dream house will have bathrooms galore, a commercial kitchen and one heck of a laundry room.

“We’ll have four washers and eight dryers,” says Jim Bob Duggar. “Yes, a laundromat.”

How do they afford it? Jim Bob Duggar made some smart investments, and they’re pretty frugal. The Duggars shop in bulk, basketfuls at a time.

“We spend about $1,500 a month on food,” say Jim Bob.

When they do splurge, they go in style — the family bus. But the bus has a couple of extra seats.

“I would like more,” says Michelle Duggar.

Jim Bob Duggar says he has something very special planned for Mother’s Day. Michelle says if that means he’s cooking, she’ll have quite a mess to clean up when he’s done.

Another example from the Dallas Morning News, printed shortly after Baby No. 16:

Inquiring minds want to know: How do they make it work? The answer: It’s all about faith, finances and family. It’s a system developed over their two decades together, and still evolving today.

The Houston Chronicle, which stuck the story about the Duggars’ 18th lil’ miracle in its “Bizarre News” section , does note that the Duggar patriarch “has not been specific when asked how he supports such a big family” but adds that Jim Bob’s mysterious accounting system “blends finance and religion.”

And, they fail to mention, donations. No family of 20 could get by on a single income—something any reporter who’s ever collected a paycheck ought to be able to surmise. In truth, the Duggars subsist on food donations from Sysco; supplement their bank accounts with contributions from other evangelical Christians and their church; and built their 7,000-square-foot “dream house” with donated supplies and decked it out with appliances donated by the Discovery Channel. Once it was built, the Discovery Channel sent the whole family on a trip to Disneyland. They also reportedly pay the Duggars for their participation. That’s not frugality—it’s welfare. The more babies Michelle Duggar has, the more free stuff she and her family get. The Republicans had a name for that… if only I could remember what it was.

The really sick thing about the Duggars’ whole setup is that they actually believe that God wants women to be pregnant all the time (to the extent that Michelle reportedly stops breast feeding as soon as possible after each birth, the better to ensure a quick pregnancy)—an unnatural setup that renders Michelle Duggar routinely incapacitated, makes her permanently dependent on her husband (would you hire a non-college-educated housewife who hasn’t worked since she got married at 17?), and puts her at serious risk of early death and other health problems later in life. But Michelle, of course, doesn’t matter. Her job is to keep pumping out the precious little babies—to keep the family’s quiver full. Her value is functional, not intrinsic.

RSS icon Comments

1

I really, really hate this family.

Posted by Jason Josephes | May 14, 2008 4:49 PM
2

The word you're looking for is: charity. I think this lifestyle is ridiculous, but the gifts are from private individuals and institutions, and are provided voluntarily. Welfare is mandatory wealth redistribution, enforced by the government. They're not the same thing.

Posted by joykiller | May 14, 2008 4:52 PM
3

My grandmother has 12 children and died at 59. It really does take a lot out of you.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | May 14, 2008 4:53 PM
4

she must have an enormous vagina. like throwning a hot dog down a hall way

Posted by Jymmi | May 14, 2008 4:56 PM
5

Disgusting.

Posted by laterite | May 14, 2008 4:58 PM
6

JINGER???

Christ...

Posted by Robin Sparkles | May 14, 2008 4:58 PM
7

I hadn't head that she stops breast feeding on purpose so that she can get pregnant. For some reason I think that's even more insane than having 18 kids (maybe because breast feeding is, you know, good for babies?).

Posted by Julie | May 14, 2008 4:58 PM
8

Even though I mostly agree with your take on this story, I still find that I want to argue with you just because of your overbearing, shrill sanctimoniousness.

Posted by Just Sayin' | May 14, 2008 5:01 PM
9

I'm not thrilled about the Quiver Full group but if this lady wants to pop out 50 babies and die young, who cares?
As long as she minds her own business I'm not too worried about her.
She seems happy and if people choose to give her donations that is hardly welfare and none of my business!
Not too many sane people are going to follow her crazy ideas anyway!


Posted by mj | May 14, 2008 5:03 PM
10

What #2 and #8 said.

And yes, I would hire her.

Posted by w7ngman | May 14, 2008 5:16 PM
11

Word to #2. Just to reiterate: contrary to what ECB does her best to imply, private parties voluntarily choosing to incentivize this behavior is not the moral equivilent of the government forcing me to incentivize it. I'm glad to see that ECB recognizes that welfare payments do incentivize the behavior that earns them, though.

Posted by David Wright | May 14, 2008 5:19 PM
12

Here I was all ready to agree with you for once.

Yet, always, always, you have to start in with the bullshit. Of course they deserve to be paid for their participation in a TV show! They make money for the Discovery Channel and they deserve good compensation. It's not welfare. It's not even charity.

And the donations from the church and the Republicans are charity. One is an entitlement that you can count on. The other is mostly a symbolic gesture. It's not going to see that 18th kid all the way to adulthood. Welfare is an entitlement that makes sure people who need it eat every day, not just Christmas and Thanksgiving. That's why government assistance does what churches never will.

And why do you have to kick at stay at home moms who lack profit-oriented job skills? Raising children is a valuable and important skill. Don't insult her for that.

How come you attack women so often? Not all women subscribe to your narrowly-defined brand of feminism.

These people are fanatics for having 18 freaking kids, and yes, if she were black this would be totally different. But you're no less a fanatic than they are, Erica.

Posted by elenchos | May 14, 2008 5:20 PM
13

This is rich, finally Erica's narrow-minded feminism reveals itself for what it truly is: misogyny.

Stand up and take a bow, Bukowski would be so proud of you toots.

Now iron my shirt.

Posted by I'm a Nuclear Bomb | May 14, 2008 5:30 PM
14

I hope you mean, Elanchos, that if she were black the reaction would be different.

But I agree with ECB 100% on this one. Charity? I don't think so. These people holding their own biological children hostage.

"Subsidize us or we'll eat the smallest ones."

Posted by Dan Savage | May 14, 2008 5:32 PM
15

These people are disgusting because they are indulging themselves, like any people who produce too many offspring.
There are too many humans on this planet. Time for many of them to die off.

Posted by isabelita | May 14, 2008 5:33 PM
16

@14

Yes, that's what I mean. The media would not blithely paint a rosy portrait of a large black family.

I don't see where you're getting that they're holding anyone hostage, except perhaps blackmailing conservative Christian friends. After all, if their church pals don't step in, doubtless they will require welfare and foodstamps, and that wouldn't be good news for quiver full nuts.

Posted by elenchos | May 14, 2008 5:39 PM
17

And Dan, you agree 100% with this attack on stay at home parents: "would you hire a non-college-educated housewife who hasn’t worked since she got married at 17?"

Posted by elenchos | May 14, 2008 5:41 PM
18

I hate these people. And I'm boycotting Discovery Health and the Learning Channel for running these puppy-litter "heartwarming" shows. I wish they'd go back to the good ol' obesity clinic series and "The Man Whose Arms Exploded" - oh and "It's Not Easy Being Wolf Boy" that was a good one too...

Posted by The Man Who Turned to Stone | May 14, 2008 5:47 PM
19

If you're so upset about it, stop teaching evolution to evangelical kids. Apparently at some point they got the message.

Posted by Mr. Joshua | May 14, 2008 6:03 PM
20

So, then, they got a tax "rebate" of $1200 plus $300 for each kid which means ... we subsidized them for $6800 for "tax relief".

Not counting the deduction for dependents.

OMFG.

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 14, 2008 6:03 PM
21

Just today, after seeing the highest risk pregnancy I've seen so far, we were talking at the hospital about why people gets pregnant, what a child is worth, and wherther is good to risk death in order to give birth. I have quite a particular view of motherhood, I know, but I still haven't found someone having children for unselfish reasons. Those women (those having 20 children, those having their first at 52 via IVF, those getting pregnant so their husband would not leave, those having their seventh c-section, those accepting all the children god would send, those trying to have a boy for their husbands after eight girls)those are having children for themselves. This woman does not value her 18 children separately, she only collects them, they are not individuals. They serve as numbers. Not breastfeeding so she can get pregnant again totally proves it. She is not thinking what would be of those children if she dies at delivery nr. 18th from massive blood loss, which is quite possible as her uterus is bigger than my appartment. I wish her obstetrician luck.
This said, I do know there are, specially in third world countries like mine, women having a dozen children and awful pregnancies and bloody illegal abortions, just because they do not have education or health insurance, or any means to avoid it.

Posted by tinydoc(isanobstetrician) | May 14, 2008 6:16 PM
22
would you hire a non-college-educated housewife who hasn’t worked since she got married at 17?

The woman obviously has childcare and teaching skills by now. Where do you think working mothers leave their children all day?

Posted by poltroon | May 14, 2008 6:37 PM
23

yes, attack people that beneifit from charity and welfare not welfare itself as an institution. face it, you only support wealth redistriibution for people you like based on some esoteric standard. you're being hypocritical and advocating theft at the same time

Posted by Bellevue Ave | May 14, 2008 6:40 PM
24

@22 Unfortunately having children, even 17, is no guarantee that either parent as any childcare or teaching skills.

Posted by mikeblanco | May 14, 2008 6:43 PM
25

I think this man and woman clearly have some kind of mental illness. But you know, it's not really affecting me, so I don't really care.

Posted by Andy | May 14, 2008 6:55 PM
26

Just once, I'd like to see one of you Slog staffers admit when you're wrong.

Is this family gross? Of course. Are their decisions deplorable? Yup.

But they are NOT on welfare. They receive charitable gifts from private organizations and churches, and compensation for their "work" for the Discovery Channel.

Several people have pointed this out. Why don't you all DO THE RIGHT THING and admit that that part of this diatribe was WRONG?

Just once!

It ain't gonna happen.

Posted by just once | May 14, 2008 6:57 PM
27

elenchos, come on. You're taking that comment out of context, and you know it.

Erica's point was that Michelle Duggar's constantly-pregnant state "makes her permanently dependent on her husband". The part in parenthesis--"(would you hire a non-college-educated housewife who hasn’t worked since she got married at 17?)"--is hardly an "attack on stay at home parents", as you say. Why do you think women left their homes en masse in the 1970s & 80s to get educated and start careers? Because no one would hire them otherwise! And that must have sucked when many of them discovered their white knights couldn't be depended on to take care of them and the kids.

It's really nice that you say "Raising children is a valuable and important skill", but our societies don't really reflect that belief. Fact is, if all you've ever been is a housewife and you need work, you're most likely going to get stuck with a menial job.

History has shown that the pattern this family exemplifies in such a weirdly exaggerated way, the pattern that's being celebrated by these media outlets, is too strict to be healthy for women, children, or most husbands -- but hey, it's great for the Christian church! So it's no surprise the church and it's supporters would want that pattern, er, reproduced.

Posted by Irena | May 14, 2008 7:10 PM
28

I liked the Slog Post. You can barely call these "charities" the equivalant of standing in front of an abortion clinic with the picketers screaming "We want you to have 18 babies and WE'LL EVEN PAY YOU FOR IT!!!" As a woman, it's a no-brainer that we should be able to complain about what happens in the field of birthing babies and getting pregnant, etc. And I don't like the idea of religion telling women to kill themselves in order to populate a world that does NOT need any more people in it.

Posted by Iconcur | May 14, 2008 7:27 PM
29

So we don't defend this version of a non-traditional family?

Posted by el | May 14, 2008 7:30 PM
30

So some of you actually "hate" these weirdos? Why? They are freaks of nature but so what? I'm pretty sure their 18 kids aren't going to take food out of the mouths of your 1.3 or whatever the maximum limit is here in Pugetdopeland. Jesus, I'm as far left as they come and you whiny assed abrasive haters make me want to cash out my pension and buy a barn and have weekend snake handlin JAYSUSSS IS MY SAVIOR UH revivals. Christ. ECB apparently wants a bleak and desolate sci-fi future world free of children where robotic adult morons recycle their own urine in Dune-like Fremen suits and eat petroleum soaked cardboard with special GI systems now adapted to digest garbage.

I swear to God you people make these nuts seem sympathetic and that, my friends, is an amazing feat of bullshit.

I can Evinrudes idling in Kuwaiti ports right now.

Posted by Bob | May 14, 2008 7:34 PM
31

@20 strikes at the reason why this is so offensive to me...this family is SUBSIDIZED by the childless (or more-responsibly-breeding) taxpayers who don't get the 18 precious little deductions every April 15.

As a good (childless) liberal, I'm all for subsidizing others' offspring through the tax code, public schools, Head Start, etc. to ensure an educated future generation to serve my nascent geriatric medical needs, discovering new antibiotics to replace the ones to which our microbes have evolved resistance, etc. But wait! they're all home-schoolers learning that our ancestors walked the earth with dinosaurs and that evolution is a demonic secular humanist plot...not to mention the unaccounted-for cost to the planet of raising this litter. Or was the church donating carbon offsets, too?

Posted by emma's bee | May 14, 2008 7:35 PM
32

You know, another headline for this Slog post could be "Every child deserves 1/18th of a mother and a father."

Posted by David | May 14, 2008 7:47 PM
33

The Duggars aren't the only people who have a TV show capitalizing on their celebrity family. The Tori Spelling show comes to mind.

Posted by poltroon | May 14, 2008 8:23 PM
34

el @29,

A heterosexual, Christian, nuclear, mom-at-home family with 18 kids is not "non-traditional". It is hyper-traditional.

Posted by Irena | May 14, 2008 8:28 PM
35

@27

There's a lot to criticize in this family. Well, mostly the problem is the way the media has celebrated them, because huge families are rare enough that it isn't worth while to go out of your way to pick on them.

But a woman or man whose entire experience consists of child rearing has done nothing wrong. It is extremely anti-feminist to hit her for lacking job skills. Well, of course it is typical of second wave feminists to put down stay at home moms, but where do these career women think their daycare providers got their job skills? Real feminists are not stuck in second wave thinking.

When you say "Fact is, if all you've ever been is a housewife and you need work, you're most likely going to get stuck with a menial job" you ignore millions of women who chose to first spend 20 years being parents, then going either getting experience in the workforce or getting an education and then going to work. Millions of women have been successful as moms and later as workers, and second wave feminism has no appreciation for that. They think women who join the workforce at 45 or 50 are failures, and that's bullshit.

I'm fine with saying 18 kids is insane, but ECB veers far afield and, typical of her narrow template for what is acceptable for a woman to do, attacks any woman who has experiences different from her own.

Posted by elenchos | May 14, 2008 8:37 PM
36

@2 and 23 I've never thought of welfare as "mandatory wealth redistribution". What does that mean? I thought welfare was a sort of umbrella term for government assistance. Did I miss something?

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | May 14, 2008 9:08 PM
37

elenchos... I guess I just think about, what happens if the husband dies (and they don't have adequate life insurance). Honestly, what is she going to do? No one's saying that a woman can't go back to school and get a non-menial job after 20 years of being a housewife, it's just that the likelihood of this happening (for her) seems pretty small.

I wouldn't hire a woman who hadn't ever worked and had done nothing but be a housewife since the age of 17. But, of course, I would hire someone who was a housewife from 17-37 and then got a degree.

Posted by Julie | May 14, 2008 9:10 PM
38

@37

Irena is saying housewives will be "stuck" in menial jobs. Having wasted their lives on the couch eating bon bons and watching The View while their children raised themselves, they are incapable of being promoted from an entry-level job.

Not that you would even give them an entry level job, seeing as childcare is such a brainless, effortless waste of time.

Women are the worst when it comes to this. Three-fourths of feminism consists of getting women to stop being so vicious to each other. Men take care of men, you know. It's how they got all the power for themselves.

Posted by elenchos | May 14, 2008 9:16 PM
39

hmmm. 18 kids ~18 months apart. Even with twins, I'd bet 4 of those 'kids' are over 18.

Posted by amazonmidwife | May 14, 2008 9:21 PM
40

But Tori Spelling is famous because of her mediocre acting and famous father. Her show is cute and tolerable to me, because it humanizes a person who has been in the public eye for most of her life.


The Duggars are famous because Michelle keeps getting pregnant. That's not a talent, or a skill, or even luck. That is a calculated and foolish decision. Many women could physically have 18-20 children. Most don't choose to do that because it's economically irresponsible to intentionally bring children into this world that you know cannot provide for without assistance.

Two of my great aunts had 11 children. They each raised them without welfare in single income homes, surviving on their husband's income and investments. They didn't receive charity, and one was financially stable enough that she actually adopted a daughter after having 10 biological children. Having large amounts of children is not a problem- having them and expecting others to support them is a problem.

Posted by Sara | May 14, 2008 9:33 PM
41

Fuck Jesus

Posted by OR Matt | May 14, 2008 9:35 PM
42

Without more babies(workforce of the future), who is going to pay for all the lavish social programs you lefties want for everyone?

Posted by CA | May 14, 2008 9:36 PM
43

@all the stay at home mom advocates ...

And I don't like the idea of "stay at home mom" simply because society just doesn't garantee that stability anymore.

It's almost an inevitabl anymore (50/50 and rising) that mom is going to be on her own, then guess what ... honey moon is over and stay at home mom now has to become working mom.

The notion of feminism is moot when you have to pay the bills and sustain two households ... The End

Posted by OR Matt | May 14, 2008 9:40 PM
44

Julie,
Fortunately for them, stay at home moms who want jobs won't necessarily be at your mercy. There's this term WHAM (work at home moms) I've been noticing more and more. Stay at home moms run their own businesses.

Posted by poltroon | May 14, 2008 9:42 PM
45

all that breastfeeding virtually guarantees she won't get breast cancer, so there's at least that health benefit. are they looking to get into the guinnes world book of records? i guess so. and she and her husband won't be raising all those kids--that's the job of the oldest siblings, dontchaknow?

Posted by ellarosa | May 14, 2008 9:43 PM
46

@42

The Mexican immigrants we lefties let freely work in the US will pay for them, darling. Free trade has to include allowing labor to cross borders as easily as capital, or else it isn't free trade at all.

Posted by elenchos | May 14, 2008 9:44 PM
47

@42 The LEFTIES pay for all the lavish social programs the breeders are utilizing!!

The whole notion of the welfare state, the skilled middle class and upper middle class are taxed quite disproportionately to support these people. The coasts support the tax burden and debt of the nation, And yet we bitch about our taxes the least.

while states like Texas have one of the greatest higher education centers of the nation by mooching HARD off pork and barrel funds.

It's extemely fucking hypocritical, but because they are republicans its ok.

Posted by OR Matt | May 14, 2008 9:46 PM
48

@36, welfare is the government taking money from one set of people (taxpayers) and giving it to another (welfare recipients). That's the redistribution part; it's mandatory because you don't have a choice of whether or not to pay federal income tax. I phrased it that way to distinguish it from non-mandatory wealth distribution -- private charity, which is what the Duggars receive.

@46, aren't most uneducated immigrants a net drain on the federal coffers, at least initially? Sure, they may contribute via Social Security taxes, but what about the welfare -- monetary and otherwise -- they receive?

Re: the tax deduction argument, every single child and young adult is (or was) a tax deduction. So it's not clear to me how this benefits the Duggars disproportionately: each child receives the same tax benefit that any other child, in any other family, would receive.

Posted by joykiller | May 14, 2008 9:55 PM
49

@48

Yes, they are a drain on everything. Parasites. Well, either that, or Lou Dobbs is a knob. You decide.

Posted by elenchos | May 14, 2008 10:03 PM
50

elenchos @35,

You are either misunderstanding Erica's post, or setting up a straw man (woman?) in order to attack her. Actually, I think you're doing both.

Nowhere did Erica "hit" anyone "for lacking job skills". She made that point about no one hiring a housewife to indicate that the hyper-traditional family Michelle Duggar belongs to has put her at a disadvantage. The main point being that it's disingenuous for these media outlets to pretend to celebrate her when what they are actually celebrating is the patriarchal Christian tradition, which keeps women economically enslaved to men (and men enslaved to more powerful men).

You go on to say, "of course it is typical of second wave feminists to put down stay at home moms". This is a false generalization. Where did you get your feminist education from, popular magazines? Most second-wave feminists WERE stay at home moms! They held consciousness-raising sessions at their kitchen tables, not in boardrooms.

As for "Real feminists are not stuck in second wave thinking", any third-wave feminist would take issue with your assumption that there is such a thing as a "real feminist". All feminisms share in common the aim of undermining patriarchy. Other than that, there is nothing essential to us all.

And that includes gender--hey, lots of men are feminists. Maybe you're one yourself! In which case I wonder, what exactly IS your problem with ECB? Because it can't be that she's "anti-feminist". Anyone with a feminist education can see that she's a very strong feminist, with strong opinions. But surely you wouldn't have a problem with that, would you? Because even though she occasionally rubs me the wrong way, and I occasionally disagree with her, I still respect her. I respect her opinion, and I respect her right to have her own public voice. My question is, why don't you?

Posted by Irena | May 14, 2008 10:03 PM
51

"Free trade has to include allowing labor to cross borders as easily as capital, or else it isn't free trade at all."

That seems to be working real well in Euroland, what with all those torched cars and problems in the immigrant suburbs of Paris and every other major European city.

Posted by CA | May 14, 2008 10:03 PM
52

@48 Without granting amnesty or acknowledging the existence of illegal immigrants, they fly below the radar of social programs they would be otherwise eligable for.

They have become literal slave labor for our country ... we are addicted and can't really run without.

The cynic in me believes that I would rather we did NOTHING AT ALL until we gradually started to enforce the laws on the books. ie prosecuting the people hiring ilegals. Still, with the coming recession ... I'm not exactly sure that would be the best idea.

Posted by OR Matt | May 14, 2008 10:07 PM
53

I am not a knob! We should carry a fetus for 9 months and spend 18 years rearing and educating the child rather than give a job to full grown adult Mexican immigrant. Those immigrants DRAIN RESOURCES AT FIRST! Why can't you see????????

Posted by elenchos | May 14, 2008 10:10 PM
54

elenchos #38

"Women are the worst when it comes to this. Three-fourths of feminism consists of getting women to stop being so vicious to each other. Men take care of men, you know. It's how they got all the power for themselves."

Ah, I see. Now I see where you're coming from, elenchos. Women and men are different: women are "vicious", and "men take care of men" (right...).

Why don't you stop being so hypocritical and come right out with it? You are sexist. You believe that men are inherently superior to women; that women are inferior. Just admit it! Don't hide behind accusations against Erica of "anti-feminism"! YOU ARE SEXIST.

At least have the guts to admit it, you fool.

Posted by Irena | May 14, 2008 10:15 PM
55

Irena, I see the wounded faux-feminist screeching has started so maybe this is a waste of time.

My main problem with ECB is that she wouldn't know a verifiable fact if bit her. If she simply separated what is true from what is made up she'd be halfway there.

My other problem with her is that she takes these unfounded digs at other women for absurd reasons. I read exactly what she said and it's clear that the only kind of mother who would pass the ECB test is a working mother, whether they had 1 baby or 18. I have a problem with you saying moms entering the workforce are "stuck" in entry level jobs. The facts contradict what you said. They are not stuck; they move up. No thanks to "feminists" who think they know what's best for other women. No thanks to Julie who wouldn't even consider hiring them.

So that's why I don't respect her. And the way you talk about other women doesn't deserve much respect either.

Posted by elenchos | May 14, 2008 10:19 PM
56

elenchos, you're an idiot.

I'm going to bed. 'Night Slog!

Posted by Irena | May 14, 2008 10:22 PM
57

@12,

It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact.


And to all of you who claim that ECB is a hypocrite on welfare -- she's pointing out the wingnuts' hypocrisy. Right wingers attack welfare mothers for being dependent on society, for popping out babies to get more money. These people are doing exactly the same thing. Who gives a fuck if this is coming from charitable donations? They are dependent on society. They contribute nothing valuable to it; they only take from it. This flies directly into the face of anti-welfare rhetoric. I also guarantee you that the average Republican doesn't want single black mothers getting money from charity either.

Posted by keshmeshi | May 14, 2008 10:39 PM
58

and im pointing out her hypocrisy from the perspective someone who both dislikes the incentives that welfare creates and the people who want to selectively implement government programs. where does ECB actually stand? does she think these people deserve welfare, tax breaks, etc etc or does she think that these people deserve welfare as does everyone in similar situations?

and keshmeshi, stop making guarantees that you have know way of ever finding out or proving (average republican, me being treated unfairly and bellyaching). it's a poor rhetorical tool.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | May 14, 2008 11:01 PM
59

@ 34 (Irena)

I don't see that holding to an "intension" behind the concept "traditional family" gets us anywhere, which was my point. Any intension or content rendering a family "traditional" has about two centuries (at the very, very most) of legitimacy. The argument against "traditional family" (i.e., Every child deserves...) seems to me to be saying that the notion of "family" or "child-raising" has intension that far exceeds howsoever our given historical context has decided to define it.

The "spirit" of family seems to be a non-threatening environment where children are cared for in a way that does the least amount of damage to their psychology. If the contention is over ideology alone than you have built up an argument that rejects all family structures. By sheer biological necessity, we are all captive to our respective parent's ideologies, and by sheer biological process, we all GROW UP and move out of our family's homes. The expectation seems to be that a viable family unit is one that promotes maturation with the least possible enduring psychological damage (and thus the reduced risk of their inflicting damage upon the heathens and otherwise degenerate).

If the best argument against this family is "it's based on a false ideology and I don't want to see my money endorsing it via tax dollars" then nothing is to prevent that same argument from being launched back to a family unit whose structure is slightly more contemporary or non-traditional (which, I think, is a greater portion of the population these days than families consisting solely of father-mother-biological child/ren).

but alas, all the sloggers have gone to bed, and I shall be left with my musings alone.

Posted by el | May 15, 2008 12:18 AM
60

@ myself. I probably should have put "extension" in the place of "intension" in the first two usages. Pardon me and my piss-poor employment of such divine philosophy.

Posted by el | May 15, 2008 12:21 AM
61

These people are incredibly creepy. The quiverfull philosophy is one of the more terrifying anti-woman Christian movements out there.

They also use ATI Homeschooling Materials which deny the realities of science for an anti-rational, conservative agenda.

This family is the media-friendly face of a terrifying group. Even if we ignore the implicit and explicit anti-feminism of their message (see: The Way Home: Beyond Feminism Back to Reality), there's nothing environmentally friendly about 2 people producing 20 children.

Posted by Dawgson | May 15, 2008 8:00 AM
62

I personally respect everyone's right to live their life the way the want, as long as they mind their own business and cause no harm to others.
But a family like this causes harm, even if it is passive harm.
They set a bad example. If even a few people out there see them as the perfect family and follow suit, we end up with an a math equation leading to an exponentially larger population.
They are bad for the environment. Sure maybe one family with 18 kids doesn't make much impact overall, but again, if others follow their example...well, the last thing the rest of need to worry about is whether or not we are using plastic shopping bags.
They are potentially passively harming the children. What if their provider is no longer able to provide for them? Yes, the donations will probably come flooding in, but I already cannot imagine that these kids are going to college. Not that a college education is necessary, but it sure does help. And these kids may very well know little about the real world since they are home-schooled. Additionally, how is it fair to use the older ones as built in babysitters?
I'm sure plenty of people could argue these points, they are just my own opinion on why this family deserves criticism. They've got it all wrong. 200 years ago, women bore 18 children because half of them didn't live to be adults, and another half after that died young from illness or accident. Now that we have a much higher survival rate, they've essentially got about 14 kids too many.
Finally - has anyone considered that they are conspiring to to take over the world with their brood of many? :D

Posted by Bella | May 15, 2008 8:21 AM
63

Hey #20 - if it makes you feel any better the Duggars are probably paying AMT, rather than regular, tax rates because of their "excessive" deductions (i.e. they have so many kids they end up paying AMT, and not getting to take those child deductions).

I find the most interesting part how the Duggars portray themselves as debt free and self-sufficient, when they are not. Whether it's charity of "pseudo-welfare" doesn't matter. What matters is the Duggars never, ever admit that their lifestyle is not supported merely by the hard work and efforts of their family "unit" (i.e. the kids don't work on the farm), but by the generosity of others.

I see no reason for them not to admit that, since charity is part of Christianity (and most religions), except to perpetuate the idea that they're something they're not.

Posted by jcricket | May 15, 2008 9:21 AM
64

I don’t see how it’s controversial that I wouldn’t hire someone who’s not qualified for a job. Someone with a high school education and zero years of experience in the working world is not qualified for many jobs that are more than entry level. That is a fact, not my opinion.

If I were a hiring manager for one of these jobs (the jobs I hire for required at least a college degree, so whether I would actually hire a someone like this is irrelevant), a 40-year-old (whether man or woman) who had been a stay at home parent all of their adult life would be preferred over an 18 year old with the same education/work experience (none) because of maturity level and experience running a household. But, that doesn’t change the fact that, more than likely, this individual would not be qualified for many non-entry-level jobs.

Ironic that we’re having this discussion, since a friend of mine just told me a story about a woman he knows who was a stay-at-home mom, in a quite well-to-do family, whose husband died and had a bunch of debts she didn’t know about because he was in charge of the finances. Within a year she had sold their home and was bagging groceries.

Posted by Julie | May 15, 2008 9:31 AM
65

Kudos for the Discovery channel for making entertainment of watching people make babies ...

oh wait.

Posted by OR Matt | May 15, 2008 9:37 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).