The official Duggar family discussion thread!

[chriscree]

I am not sure if this was true in all markets but right smack dab in the middle of "The Very Duggar Wedding" was a commercial for the Plan B birth control. Wholly Cow what were they thinking puttin that in there.

[frugalstafar]

I was shocked that commercial made it in there, probably good the Duggars don't watch a lot of tv I am sure that would not have sat well with them. It was really sweet of Josh to sing to her,and so nice they didn't go over the top with the wedding like so many people do. I have friends that are doing their daughters wedding right now and its costing them 20k- they have no money but its so important to them they are willing to do whatever it takes. So I imagine in a few years when they go through credit counseling for the third time it will be well worth it for messing up the economy some more.

[greenrays]

Originally Posted by vanessamarie You aren't acting as an equal or believe you are if you think you must serve a man and that is your life goal. Its fine to stay at home, but don't think you are less than your husband! When I volunteered for victim services to many women were brought up that way. It is scary. They 9/10 women who didn't have any idea they could work, let their so make all the choices and thought that was the way life was too be.

I think you should re-word how you state things. You seem so against being a sahm.

I don't know any sahm that thinks they must serve their man, I know I certainly don't. I want us BOTH to be happy--- I would like to maybe have dinner ready when he gets home but since I haven't cooked in almost 3 weeks--that's not happening

[nurseannette]

Just wondering if you all heard Anna's dad during the interview with him,
stating basically that the wedding is more or less a "transfer of authority"
from himself to Joshua.
SO if a girl doesn't marry, she will always be under the authority of her
father?
Don't get me wrong, I have a very strong faith.

[lovingfreestuff]

I had a really big problem with the wedding episode. I am not a huge fan of this family anyways, but the whole "transfer of authority" talk disgusted me. It is like she is now his piece of property instead of her fathers. We have come such a long way from that and it really upset me. And it was in their vows too...ugh:( It was also sad to see that he couldn't take more time in Florida to plan his wedding because his mother needed the girls back to take care of the little ones. That is not their job and if they wanted to be away to help their brother plan his wedding they should have been able to do it without having to rush home to be the caregivers for babies that aren't theirs. See how hectic the house was without them there? I know people love this family, but they went too far with the transfer of authority speech. It took me back to the times when women had no rights and were nothing but a piece of property. UGH!

[Dengineer]

As much as some may not like it, there are still some people out there who subscribe to the notion that the man is the head of the household. That in no way means that the woman is considered property.

I think this whole "women as property" issue was and continues to be overblown by feminists (the fierce and in your face ones, not the friendly and non-judgemental ones) as a means to further their agenda. Throughout history women have in fact been able to own property in their own right and were not considered the property of their husbands at least in Western countries. The fact that women were considered the RESPONSIBILITY of their husbands does not mean that they were the actual property of their husbands.

[derketchup]

Originally Posted by Dengineer As much as some may not like it, there are still some people out there who subscribe to the notion that the man is the head of the household. That in no way means that the woman is considered property. I think this whole "women as property" issue was and continues to be overblown by feminists (the fierce and in your face ones, not the friendly and non-judgemental ones) as a means to further their agenda. Throughout history women have in fact been able to own property in their own right and were not considered the property of their husbands at least in Western countries. The fact that women were considered the RESPONSIBILITY of their husbands does not mean that they were the actual property of their husbands.

Wow, I couldn't agree less!

The fact that a woman can't be "responsible" for herself puts her in the same category as children. So when do women grow up? When are they able to decide for themselves what they want to do? :shrug7:

Let's not rewrite history so that men feel better about contributing to female oppression for the past, oh, few thousand years.

[Dengineer]

Originally Posted by derketchup Wow, I couldn't agree less! The fact that a woman can't be "responsible" for herself puts her in the same category as children. So when do women grow up? When are they able to decide for themselves what they want to do? :shrug7: Let's not rewrite history so that men feel better about contributing to female oppression for the past, oh, few thousand years.

Yes, and let's not attempt to impose our modern morality and viewpoints on the past few thousand years. Are you even aware of history at all? Do you not realize that the world hasn't always been as civilized as the world you and I are fortunate enough to live in? Believe me, there have been far worse atrocities committed against women throughout history than being under the care and protection of a husband or father!

[lovemy2girls]

I think of my dh as the head of our household. Even when I was working 2 jobs (and he was only working 1) before we had children, I still thought that. Now that I am a sahm, he is the sole provider for our family. It was a decision we made together. He didn't tell me I was quitting my job. We knew early on that we wanted our children to be raised by us. We didnt' want to dump that responsibility on someone we didnt' know, or even our family. It hasn't been without its struggles. He quite a job to start his new career and took a pretty hefty paycut. That was a year ago and he is now making more than he was, when he isn't laid off. It would have been easy for me to go find a full or part time job, and leave raising our kids to someone else. My point is, I depend on him fully to support our family. He takes great pride in it. He doesn't put me down because I dont' work outside the home. Does it make me any less of a person because I depend on him to support me? I dont' think so.

[momof2inohio]

I dont think of my DH as our head of household. We share everything equally. He works FT, I work 2 days a week. We share the household duties, cooking, etc...