Thank you for the article, Doctor. I've been thinking about it for a couple of days now. I do think that it expresses some legitimate concerns, but there's also a fair amount of information that I disagree with.
As a quick note, I want to say that I don't have any large amount of reliable information on the Duggars. Most of what I'm writing is from my limited experience or just a reply to the article.
First of all, I want to pout out that I would have concerns about the Duggars even if they were your ordinary family plus seventeen extra children. For one thing, there is no way any two parents can give nineteen children the individual attention and time they need. It’s just not feasibly possible.
This seems like a rather bold statement. I was very curious as to what
would be an acceptable number of children. How many constitutes too many? 5? 6? 12? Where exactly is this line drawn? Is it better to have as few children as possible so that they (seemingly) get more time, care, and love?
There is a great deal of editing that goes into making TV, and one thing that gets edited out are the Duggars’ religious beliefs and their beliefs about child rearing. There is much, much more going on here than you see on TV.
The same thing is true of any other television show or any other people on television. Also, the Duggars have survived having a show for quite a while now, and yet their lives are intact. In my opinion, that's a fairly strong indicator that their lifestyle/beliefs are solidly based.
The Duggar childern are homeschooled in part in order to shelter them from bad influences, i.e. from other kids and teachers who hold different beliefs or live different sorts of lives. The Duggar kids don’t have friends who aren’t pre-approved by their parents. In fact, the Duggar kids aren’t even involved in church activities – their family participates in a “home church” where they and several other like-minded families get together on Sunday mornings and worship together.
I'm quite willing to admit that this could have some merit to it. On the other hand, it may not. I don't know enough about them to decide either way. My family has had some experience with similar beliefs*, mainly the isolationism and the non-involvement with a church (The families I met did not attend a home church at all, they held a Bible lesson and worship service by themselves). The phrase "like-minded" also brought back memories.o.O Generally, I'm annoyed with the viewpoint that anything but homeschooling is wrong/evil/tainted, or that the only way to protect ourselves is by isolating ourselves from the entire world. I do, however, think that there is also merit to "sheltering" children. (you could imagine a "staking the tree" analogy here, if you would like)
Furthermore, even the older Duggar children are not allowed to go anywhere without having an “accountability partner,” i.e. another sibling, to keep tabs on them. When one of the older boys volunteered at the local fire department, one of his sisters always went with him to keep an eye on him and make sure he didn’t get in trouble.
I have next to no experience with this practice, so I don't have much to add here. My opinion would vary a lot depending on what exactly "not allowed to go anywhere" means. Can they never leave the house without a sibling to go with them?
Not surprisingly, the Duggars’ computers have internet access limited to about seventy “approved” websites. To get unlimited internet access, the children – even the older ones – have to get a password from their mother and then have another sibling sitting by them watching the screen as they surf the web to make sure they stay out of trouble. The main reason for this is likely to keep the children from viewing internet pornography, but it also helps ensure that they don’t get subversive information or other viewpoints.
I don't see any issue with this. It's not unreasonable, it's not pointless, and it's not much of an inconvenience. Having unlimited internet access is not essential to life. "It also helps ensure that they don’t get subversive information or other viewpoints" looks like an unfounded opinion from the writer. Basically, Libby Anne appears to be claiming that the policy is in place to prevent the Duggar children from having exposure to the outside world. Is there any real basis for this, and if this is really the motive, why not just never give your children internet access or computer access?
If you think Michelle is the one raising all of those kids, think again. Those older daughters, some of them already adults, are the ones who are actually doing the majority of the cooking, cleaning, and childcare. They are, in effect, raising their younger siblings.
In my opinion, this should be a natural part of living in a family and growing up. It's a great way to learn responsibility and how to contribute to life in a family. There should not be any issue with this.
The Duggars have this thing called the “buddy system.” When each new child is born, that child is assigned to one of the older children. In this way, the older children are responsible for dressing, feeding, and even educating the younger children. Michelle had this to say about the buddy system:
This house would not work if we didn’t have the buddy system. The older children mentor the younger ones. They help them with their little phonics lessons and games during the day, help them practice their music lessons. They will play with them or help them pick out the color of their outfit that they want to wear that day, and just all of those types of things.
I’m all for siblings helping each other and playing together, but this goes way further than this. This is siblings raising each other. And as we’ll see, this means a lot of sacrifice for the older siblings doing the raising.
Again, great life experience and a great way to make a family run more smoothly. My family has a more informal variation of this. There should not be an issue with this.
Though they have not directly admitted it, there is a lot to indicate that the Duggars follow Michael and Debi Pearl’s discipline methods. This means they require absolute obedience from their children and see even bad attitudes as signs of disobedience.
I haven't hear of these methods before. I'm not convinced that the Duggars do follow these methods. As a side note, should we be aiming for 90% obedience? "Bad attitudes" could mean a few different things, I think. If we're talking about having an off day or emotions like sadness, that is not disobedience. If we're talking about other bad attitudes that make an individual and everyone around them miserable, with no legitimate reason, then yes, there is a problem.
If you are just beginning to institute training on an already rebellious child, who runs from discipline and is too incoherent to listen, then use whatever force is necessary to bring him to bay. If you have to sit on him to spank him then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally. Accept no conditions for surrender. No compromise. You are to rule over him as a benevolent sovereign. Your word is final. (To Train Up A Child, page 49)
This sounded harsh to me, but I'd have to read the whole book. This is not directly from the Duggars, though. I have no idea if they actually ascribe to this.
As for the "blanket training" my entire family thought this sounded like a very clever idea (several of us read a book by the Duggars that touched on this practice). Either the author hadn't read much on the Duggars' way of doing this at all, she mistakenly misrepresented it, or she deliberately withheld information in an attempt to make it seem harsh and suppressive. I'm inclined to believe the last option.
In the book, Mrs. Duggar wrote that she first tried this a few minutes at a time, gradually increasing until the children could quietly play on the blankets with the toys she gave them for (I believe it was a half hour, but possibly more) at a time. During the training, they were rewarded after successfully playing independently and quietly. My mother has always required that (when my siblings and I were younger) we play quietly or read, in our own rooms, for about an hour every day after lunch. This provided her with valuable time to catch up on various things, clean, take a short nap, or correct school work. This "blanket training" seems very similar, except that it can be done other places than home, with younger children in a smaller space. Mrs. Duggar wrote that this came in handy a few times (baby showers, ect) when she could give her younger children snacks/toys on their blankets, and they would play by themselves for a short window of time without needing constant attention and interaction with a parent.
Overall, the whole "Authoritarian discipline" part sounds unfounded to me. There's no actual basis unless someone has some special insight into the Duggars' personal lives.
The Duggars are big fans of Bill Gothard and are enrolled in his Institutes for Basic Life Principles. Outside of the circle of his followers, Bill Gothard is frequently regarded as a cult leader. He teaches, for instance, that troll dolls delay labor, that cabbage patch dolls are possessed by demons, and that Christians today must follow Old Testament s**ual purity codes
Now we're getting into some more concrete information. This is concerning, but again, this isn't the Duggars' themselves, though we know that they at least have connections with Mr. Gothard, which could mean something.
Until 2002 Gothard ran a group home for delinquent children in Indianapolis, Indiana. Children were sent there by the juvenile justice system for years until the place was closed down under allegations of abuse, including Gothard’s notorious “prayer closets.” There has been a growing movement among young people raised on Gothard’s teachings to expose the abuse, physical, emotional, and spiritual, they suffered at the hand of Gothard and his multiple ministries, including orphanages in places like Russia.
Again, more concrete information that is concerning.
What bothers me most about the Duggars’ involvement with Gothard and IBLP is their use of his “re-education” camps (my term). When Josh Duggar was showing some signs of being “rebellious” years ago, they sent him to Gothard’s military boot camp for young men, the ALERT Academy. He returned much subdued.
The only experience I have here is this:
I have a friend who was
voluntarily considering to attend an ALERT camp. He was obviously interested and this was one of a couple things that he was considering doing in the future.
This is only limited personal experience, however. I don't know anything about Gothard.
The points about "Emotional Control" are also concerning. It appeared that the only detail they went into had to do with the Pearls, and I have no idea if the Duggars have any connection to them. Being taught that happiness is the only acceptable emotion, and that anger is a sin, and that one must constantly look happy is very disturbing and creepy, but I'm not convinced that the Duggars actually believe this. Striving to be joyful in everyday life, trying to bring happiness to people around you, is not a bad thing, however, as long as that's not being repeatedly forced in an attempt to hide other emotions and give the appearance of perfection.
Like many Americans, the Duggars teach their children to remain s**ually abstinent until marriage. But they go further, teaching that even kissing should wait until the wedding day.
There are many people who believe that kissing should wait until the wedding day. It is a founded, legitimate belief. "Giving away pieces of your heart" can be damaging. Impure thoughts are damaging.
Courtship and "A patriarchal family order" are different topics that have been discussed already.
The Duggar children are given no real chance to differentiate from their parents and to explore what they themselves believe and want from life. Instead, they are set off along a prescribed path and are quickly nudged back onto it if they so much as angle to toward the edge. Rather than forging their own paths, the Duggar children are expected to simply follow the path forged by their parents. No questions, no buts, no backtalk.
This is a serious issue, should it be true.
Have you noticed that all the Duggar girls share one room and all the Duggar boys share another? Michelle said that’s because that’s how the children wanted it – they didn’t want to be separated. That may well be true, but it’s worth noting that when you share your room with your eight sisters, some still toddlers or babies, it’s really hard to find a moment of privacy or a place for sharing secrets.
My goodness, what a horrendous brutality!
...
This is a legitimate concern of Libby Anne's? I agree that finding privacy could be difficult. That's not really a crucially important matter, though.
Most of this stuff doesn’t come across on the TV show, does it? On the TV show the Duggars try to portray themselves as just one big happy family following God’s commands – a witness to others. What you don’t see is that the Duggar children live lives in a fishbowl, carefully scripted lives from which no dissent or differentiation is allowed. Their lives are laid out for them, and growing up is not about exploration but rather fulfilling the expectations of their parents. Conformity is key and stepping out of line is not acceptable.
Again, should this be true, it's a serious issue. I'm guessing this is mainly the author's opinion from her personal experience in a large family. I haven't seen proof that the Duggars actually live like this, yet.
Overall, if the article has truth to it, there are several areas that merit concern.
Edit: If this continues as a debate, I might split it off and move it to the church.