Another Duggar baby is on the way!

[nlloyd]

Thank you for clarifying your position. That makes sense. What I have found confusing in this rehashing of the debate (and still find confusing to some extent) is the fact that smaller discussions - around choice, the influence of parents on their children etc. - emerged within the context of a broader "live and let live" vs. "speak out against religious misogyny" debate, which seems subsequently to have been neglected.

When read within that context, your nuancing of the question of choice and your emphasis on the possibility of women leaving these communities, seemed to support the "live and let live" position as it was formulated in opposition to those who advocated the importance of criticising religious misogyny. Do you believe,then, that the religious misogyny of conservative religious communities is deleterious to young women and that people should speak out against it or do you believe that because young women have a choice about leaving and thus choose that path (submission to fathers/husbands etc.), that objections to religious misogyny are invalid?

[milanessa]

seemed to support the "live and let live" position as it was formulated in opposition to those who advocated the importance of criticising religious misogyny.

Are you talking about me? That's not at all what I posited.

[nlloyd]

Not you specifically, but rather the way in which the discussion evolved after your contribution.

The earlier part of the discussion had to do with whether "contempt" was an appropriate response to the Duggars. IIRC, you posited the "live and let live" philosophy at this point. Japanfan then asked

Do you put any limits on 'live and let live'? Are there any human practices or values that would cause you to draw the line? Any situations of racism, misogyny, exploitation, and injustice that you would give as exception to the rule?

You answered, you would, but that this was not one of them. Ziggy narrowed the issue down by asking whether you didn't feel contempt for their misogyny.

From that point on, I understood the discussion to be about the relative merits of a "live and let live" vs. a "'contempt' for religious misogyny" debate. So, while I don't see you as positing the initial "live and let live" argument specifically in opposition to the "contempt of religious misogyny" question (which emerged afterwards), I do see the terms of the discussion as having been established in the subsequent discussion. We were, at that point, not simply discussing a broad "live and let live" approach, but a narrower "desisting from expressing contempt for religious misogyny" question.

[Prancer]

Thank you for clarifying your position. That makes sense. What I have found confusing in this rehashing of the debate (and still find confusing to some extent) is the fact that smaller discussions - around choice, the influence of parents on their children etc. - emerged within the context of a broader "live and let live" vs. "speak out against religious misogyny" debate, which seems subsequently to have been neglected.

I wasn't making a larger argument, only addressing specific arguments that were being made.

When read within that context, your nuancing of the question of choice and your emphasis on the possibility of women leaving these communities, seemed to support the "live and let live" position as it was formulated in opposition to those who advocated the importance of criticising religious misogyny.

Again, I was not making a larger argument, but addressing specific arguments being made.

Do you believe,then, that the religious misogyny of conservative religious communities is deleterious to young women and that people should speak out against it or do you believe that because young women have a choice about leaving and thus choose that path (submission to fathers/husbands etc.), that objections to religious misogyny are invalid?

I think that either/or positions are nearly always oversimplifications.

So...

the religious misogyny of conservative religious communities is deleterious to young women

I think that conservative religious communities have a deleterious effect on both sexes and particularly on women. But I believe that for many people, religion serves needs that nothing else does, and that some of those people are willing to make that kind of compromise. Non-religious people often find this hard to understand, as they do not have those needs and do not understand those who do.

that people should speak out against it

Yes. And no. I think they should speak from a position that takes into account that women DO choose to live this way, voluntarily and knowingly. I think people need to allow for at least the possibility that this is true of the Duggar girls as well. There are reasons that some people find their way of life attractive--and I am not referring to self-hatred.

do you believe that because young women have a choice about leaving and thus choose that path (submission to fathers/husbands etc.), that objections to religious misogyny are invalid

I do not; misogyny is one of the reasons that leaving is so very hard (although certainly not the only one). I do think, however, that if people are going to argue about the importance of choices, they need to acknowledge that people often make choices that are not what others would see in their best interest. If you value choice itself, you must allow for choices that you do not approve of. Otherwise, you are limiting choices, which contradicts your initial position that choices are critically important--a position that is not shared by all and not just because of religion.

[MacMadame]

I do think, however, that if people are going to argue about the importance of choices, they need to acknowledge that people often make choices that are not what others would see in their best interest. If you value choice itself, you must allow for choices that you do not approve of. Otherwise, you are limiting choices, which contradicts your initial position that choices are critically important--a position that is not shared by all and not just because of religion.

But speaking out against something you think is wrong is not the same thing as saying people shouldn't be able to make that choice. I think mysogeny is wrong so when I see it I'm going to say so and say why. If the people who are choosing to live under msyogenic systems aren't convinced by my arguments, that's their choice. But my making those arguments doesn't take away their choices.

I see making arguments and making choices as two different things. I also didn't really see too many people here saying the Duggar girls should be taken out of their homes against their will. They did question how much of a choice they had made but they didn't say the answer to that was to force a different choice on them.

(I hope that made sense. I'm feeling rather fuzzy tonight.)

[Latte]

My first thought when I heard this was OMG NO!

[orbitz]

Jim Bob and Michelle are open to the idea of adoption.

The family

were moved by a visit to an orphanage in China on their recent trip there.

"The kids are definitely pushing towards wanting us to open our home up to another child or more," says Michelle. "They see how much we have been blessed with and how little so many children have and they want to share. We tell our children that would have to be something that is God's will for our family, and we will see if it is. Our children love children, and we all do."

[Skittl1321]

I cannot imagine an agency approving them. Their house has two bedrooms, for one.

[zaphyre14]

When did a private bedroom become a requirement for adopting a child?

[Skittl1321]

When did a private bedroom become a requirement for adopting a child?

When we looked at agencies, many of them required that. Every single one of them required the child have their own bed, and many of the Duggar children share beds, and some of the younger ones sleep in pack and plays, which, as temporary bedding, would not be allowed.

The Duggars could tell the agency that this child would get their own bed, but I would think a home inspection would make it appear that that is unlikely due to the living situation of the current children.

Since they have published a book that says they blanket train- I can't imagine a social worker approving them. Baiting a child to disobey you and then hitting them for it? No way is a child being placed in that. Based on the behavior of the young kids (nothing like what the old kids were like when they were at home) I'm guessing the girls don't train the way Michelle did when she still parented, so maybe it isn't a concern anymore.


I don't think they are serious though, because I believe they said the same thing years ago after the Latin America trip. Though maybe they'll need to adopt to stay relevant now that it looks like Michelle has started menopause. The Duggar girls seem to be decent mother's though, so they surely won't mind raising another one. And as much as I pity the lack of a real mother the Duggar children have, if they adopt a baby from China, especially a special needs one, it is still a much better life than what the child would have had in an orphanage.

The Duggars are at the high end of the age scale that most adoption agencies will place children with, and many have a maximum number of children in the house rule- usually 10. So unless the over 18s move out (are there enough of them?), that could rule out their ability to pass an inspection as well. Or possibly they don't count as children, but I think the Duggars are still over 10. It would depend what agency they use, as would the bedroom situation.

Maybe Josh and Anna will adopt. She seems to really care for her children, and is either spacing them out or is just less fertile than Michelle. They live in a very small house though, so I don't know how their home inspection would go- but they certainly seem to be better candidates.