Utterly Meaningless

Better them than me. That’s all I have to say.

I read the whole conversation, and have to say that I definitely agree with the basic argument of her post, though I’ve never gone so far as to buy into the man-hating aspect of feminism that is brought up some in the comments. Do you realize who the author is? It took me a while to remember. Or maybe I’m the only one who didn’t know that Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff has a blog.

I had forgotten that.

I love Cheryl’s blog and this piece that you linked to is precisely why.
Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Hadn’t thought about it really. I agree that personal attacks on the woman are tasteless and uncalled for. However, I do not think that criticizing the family or the beliefs they espouse is out-of-bounds, seeing as they have a TV show and a prominent website and likely have them to try to spread said beliefs.

Frankly, I agree that with many of the commentors that bringing that many kids into the world is pretty irresponsible. Most of the big families I know got that way through adoption, not constant mating.

Anyway, I’ll bet most of the people who attack the mother’s looks or whatever are really pissed off by their beliefs but aren’t articulate enough to say why.

Guilty as charged–I’m sure I’ve referred unkindly to the size of the Duggars’ family in the past (though not with the particular slur blogged about here), and may well do so again.

But I’m an equal opportunity offender. I am opposed to all belief systems, be they fundamentalist Hindu, fundamentalist Muslim, Conservative Mennonite or garden-variety Quiverfull crazy, that value women only as baby-making machines. I am horrified by families that raise their daughters to think of themselves as Little Uteruses that Could with helpmeet hands attached. I shudder at the thought of what these church members would do to my rights and my family’s rights, given the chance. I will go down to my grave making fun of them.

And the Duggars do a pretty darn good job of setting themselves up as a target, with their media visibility, involvement in local creepy-fundie politics and willingness to seek out “donations” to keep their brood in trips to Disney World. If you can’t stand the heat, get out from in front of the TV camera.

Something new at edge.org that gave me something new to think about re: the Duggars and their critics —

Psychology prof and morality-emotions researcher Jonathan Haidt describes the secular liberal morality as “contractual” — individual choice as long as you 1) care for others, and 2) are fair and just.

Religious conservatives accept these two and then add three “beehive” virtues, which imo sound eerily like the swarm of stings that drove Cheryl out of that beehive years ago: in-group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.

So I’m thinking the opinions of Mrs. Duggar reflect these two different moral codes, conflicting even as each feels completely right to everyone who belong in each society. Maybe our real trouble comes in not understanding that we’re not all living by the same morality, and probably not really in the same society.

The only comment I can come up with is this–I’ll have as many kids as I please. Period. Having a large family doesn’t come from “constant mating”.

Bonnie
proud mom to 10 wonderful individuals…and counting

OK…I have a few more comments about the actual link now that I am not pissed off about the “constant mating” bit.

I, too, wonder why having babies, being a SAHM, and happily washing my husband’s dirty socks is not considered a choice. I used to have a much different life. I drove trucks, buses, etc. for the US Army for 4 years. I was already a mom when I went through basic training and my 2nd child was born in an Air Force hospital in Alaska. I exercised my freedom of choice to leave that career. No one made me, my religion did not mandate it, nor did I feel like my husband influenced me one way or another. In fact, I have recently discussed entering the National Guard since the age ceiling went from 35 to 42. My husband says it’s up to me. Not like I need his permission…

It’s just like everything else…a lot of feminists don’t really mean “choice”–they mean “if you like raising children you must be brainwashed”. A lot of gays and lesbians don’t really mean “accept my diversity”–they mean “you have to accept me announcing my intimate bedroom practices to the world and if you have lots of babies it must mean you hate me”. A good deal of folks who fight for “religious freedom” mean “MY religion”.

It’s all self-serving and shows no real interest in CHOICE at all.

In fact, I have recently discussed entering the National Guard…

Are you nuts?! Bush is still in office for another 16 months. That gives him plenty of time to start another war or two. Where do you think he’s going to get the cannon fodder for his glorious victories?

A lot of gays and lesbians don’t really mean “accept my diversity”–they mean “you have to accept me announcing my intimate bedroom practices to the world…

Did you not announce your “intimate bedroom practices” to the world above? Or were all 10 of your kids conceived in vitro or adopted? Why is it ok for you (or any heterosexual) to casually mention your spouse and your kids but a gay who does the EXACT SAME THING is throwing their “intimate bedroom practices” in your face?

Are you nuts?!

That’s a possibility. 😛 My point is I still have a CHOICE over my career even though I am mother to a large family.

Did you not announce your “intimate bedroom practices” to the world above?

No. I merely mentioned that I have a husband and children. I’m talking about the folks who parade around with their tongues down each others’ throats in public, or who wear “hers and hers” Camp Lickalotapuss T-shirts, or who assume I’m a homophobe just because I have 10 kids.

If anyone ever sees me walking around in public leading my husband around by the wang like a dog on a leash PLEASE remind me that it’s not appropriate. I promise not to be offended and I promise not to think you hate me because I’m heterosexual.

I think celibacy is more offensive and unnatural than all the consensual sexual relations going. I’d far rather hear about someone’s kinkiness than about their purity. But I’m just kooky that way.

Just a note: I didn’t mean the phrase ‘constant mating’ in a derogatory way at all. I just thought it would be more polite than saying “f***ing a lot” or “doing a lot of baby-making,” which at the time were the only other things coming to mind, heh.

By all means, have all the kids you want – you have the right. I’m just saying that if I wanted a large family, I’d prefer to adopt because it means we could give a home to kids who already exist.

Just a note: I didn’t mean the phrase ‘constant mating’ in a derogatory way at all.

I apologize for taking offence.

Sounds like speedwell might have liked the racier rendition.

Heh.

I, too, wonder why having babies, being a SAHM, and happily washing my husband’s dirty socks is not considered a choice.

No one made me, my religion did not mandate it, nor did I feel like my husband influenced me one way or another. In fact, I have recently discussed entering the National Guard since the age ceiling went from 35 to 42. My husband says it’s up to me. Not like I need his permission…

It sounds like it *was* your choice to be a SAHM, etc., just as your Army work was a choice for you in the past and National Guard may be a choice for you in the future. For some women, it’s their choice to be a SAHM from the get-go; others work even though they have kids. Many women I know spent time in the workforce before kids, spent some time (maybe only two years, maybe closer to twenty) home at least part-time with their kids, and gradually return to work once their kids get older. It also sounds like you love having a large family, and it was your choice (as much as such things can be chosen anyway) to do so. I know some moms who are happy with only one child, and some who have 5 or 6 and would welcome more.

But movements like Quiverful don’t allow for choice – they give one and only one path for women to follow, *and* they wrap this mandate up with eternal salvation, making it pretty high stakes to go another route.

A lot of feminists don’t really mean “choice”–they mean “if you like raising children you must be brainwashed”.

I’ve never met a real-life feminist who believed this – in fact, many of the feminists I know *are* raising children, being SAHMs, etc.

A lot of gays and lesbians don’t really mean “accept my diversity”–they mean “you have to accept me announcing my intimate bedroom practices to the world and if you have lots of babies it must mean you hate me”.

I’ve never met a real-life GBLT person who wanted to announce their bedroom practices to the world. The GBLT folks I know just want to live a normal quiet life in the suburbs with their families. I do think, though, that some of them are skittish about people who appear as if they may have fundamentalist Christian beliefs, because sometimes (NOT always) that goes hand-in-hand with very negative attitudes towards GBLT people. So if, say, you’re wearing a denim jumper and have a bunch of kids in tow, your average GBLT person is going to be more wary of you than they are of a mom who gives off the vibe of a subgroup that is more accepting of GBLT folks.

I think we all make judgments like this based on appearances, though ideally we will keep an open mind when we meet others and remember that few members of a given subgroup meet *all* the stereotypes of that group.

…ideally we will keep an open mind when we meet others and remember that few members of a given subgroup meet *all* the stereotypes of that group.

Exactly.