Duggar family values??

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Duggar family values??

Post #1

Post by DanieltheDragon »

http://gawker.com/five-women-sue-duggar ... 1738185507

yet another link to sex abuse and the Quiverfull movement.

Question for debate is there systemic sexual abuse in the Quiverfull movement?
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
Haven
Guru
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
Location: Tremonton, Utah
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 52 times
Contact:

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #2

Post by Haven »

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]

Yes.


Because one-word answers aren't allowed here, I'll expand a bit. The Quiverfull movement reduces women and children to the status of property and men to the status of demigods. This allows men to justify subjugating, abusing, and raping women and children, who are seen as their property.

It's disgusting on every level.
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥

User avatar
Peds nurse
Site Supporter
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:27 am

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #3

Post by Peds nurse »

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]

I am not really sure about the Quiverfull movement, but I am definitely not a fan of the Duggars belief system.

They spend so much time keeping careful watch over what their children can and can't do, that it actually becomes the world against them. Jesus didn't stick with the religious, He hung out with the outcasts, the sick, and the lame. He didn't teach His disciples to hide in the world, but to minister to it!

One thing is for certain, it isn't Christians against the world, it is Christians impacting the world....

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #4

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Hayven]

I don’t know much about the Quiverfull movement either, but the Duggar’s do not identify with that movement. Also, I am not a fan of the Duggar’s – nor am I a critic of theirs. I’m ambivalent. I never watched their show or followed their life, so I don’t really know much about them. But I would suggest this comment;
The Quiverfull movement reduces women and children to the status of property and men to the status of demigods. This allows men to justify subjugating, abusing, and raping women and children, who are seen as their property.
is obviously opinion based and I have a feeling those who are Quiverfulls would not see their movement in that way. Similar misleading comments have been made about the Catholic Church, which I am a member. The Church has been accused of being patriarchal, misogynistic, and oppressive. There are good and bad people in all sorts of organizations that may or may not have anything to do with what the organization stands for. I guess my point is, I don’t see the Catholic Church as misogynistic even though women cannot be priests. One does not equal the other. If you do not get that – then you don’t get it and nothing I can say will probably have much effect on your pre conceived notions.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1450
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #5

Post by 2ndRateMind »

RightReason wrote: The Church has been accused of being patriarchal, misogynistic, and oppressive... I don’t see the Catholic Church as misogynistic even though women cannot be priests...If you do not get that – then you don’t get it and nothing I can say will probably have much effect on your pre conceived notions.
If you can't see why an organisation that excludes women from it's hierarchy of power, for no other reason than their sex, however talented and however suited to the vocation they might be, might accurately be considered by said women as patriarchal, misogynistic and oppressive, then I suggest you just drop your own preconceptions, get your dictionary out, and apply some empathy to the definitions you will find therein.

Best wishes, 2RM.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #6

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 5 by 2ndRateMind]
If you can't see why an organisation that excludes women from it's hierarchy of power, for no other reason than their sex, however talented and however suited to the vocation they might be, might accurately be considered by said women as patriarchal, misogynistic and oppressive, then I suggest you just drop your own preconceptions, get your dictionary out, and apply some empathy to the definitions you will find therein.
Hmmmmm . . . Can a sister ever be a brother? Can a grandmother be an uncle? We have different roles. Brothers are not more important than sisters. Aunts are not better than uncles. Priests are not better than lay people. Do you think they are? So, as a woman why would I think someone telling me I cannot be a grandfather someday feel oppressive? Misogynist? Like I said, if you don’t get that, then there isn’t much to say. You will always see something like the Church as oppressive because in my opinion your worldview shapes your opinion and in my opinion prevents understanding.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #7

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: Hmmmmm . . . Can a sister ever be a brother? Can a grandmother be an uncle? We have different roles. Brothers are not more important than sisters. Aunts are not better than uncles. Priests are not better than lay people. Do you think they are? So, as a woman why would I think someone telling me I cannot be a grandfather someday feel oppressive? Misogynist? Like I said, if you don’t get that, then there isn’t much to say. You will always see something like the Church as oppressive because in my opinion your worldview shapes your opinion and in my opinion prevents understanding.
It's quite amazing that you automatically associate priesthood with gender specific nouns like "brother," why would you do that? Swap those nouns out for non-gender specific profession and see how that sounds:

Can a woman ever be a doctor? Can a woman be an bus diver? We have different roles. Men are not more important than women. Women are not better than men. Doctors are not better than lay people. Do you think they are? So, as a woman why would I think someone telling me I cannot be a scientist someday feel oppressive? Misogynist? Frankly, because that's exactly how it sounds.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #8

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Bust Nak]

It's quite amazing that you automatically associate priesthood with gender specific nouns like "brother," why would you do that?
Because Jesus was male. A priest is supposed to be acting in persona christe. In order to be ‘in the personhood of Christ’ one would need to share Christ’s personhood – which is male.

What is amazing is when people automatically equate something with being “sexist� because it doesn’t fit their understanding. 2ndRateMind used words like skill and talent and power to describe the priesthood. To me that shows very little understanding regarding the priesthood. The priesthood isn’t about power. Also, a calling to the priesthood is not based on some skill set. So, claiming women are just as skilled makes no sense, like your attempt at comparing being a priest to being a scientist. You fail to understand Church teaching or the Church’s reasons for her teachings. You apply your worldview to fit quite frankly something that many of us view as other worldly.

imhereforyou
Scholar
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:02 pm

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #9

Post by imhereforyou »

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]

I don't know anyone personally in that movement (that I'm aware of let's say) but I don't think the name or association of any movement makes it more or less likely to have issues within it.
In other words, SURE, there are probably a lot of this and other issues within this movement. But are there more of these issues in it simply because of what it is?
No idea
It does strike me as a sick group without social conscious though if that counts for anything

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #10

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: Because Jesus was male. A priest is supposed to be acting in persona christe. In order to be ‘in the personhood of Christ’ one would need to share Christ’s personhood – which is male.
As opposed to "because Jesus was a human. A priest is supposed to be acting in persona christe. In order to be ‘in the personhood of Christ’ one would need to share Christ’s personhood – which is a human of either gender?" That same reasoning can be tweaked to be inclusive, you prefer your version simply because that's what the Bible taught.
What is amazing is when people automatically equate something with being “sexist� because it doesn’t fit their understanding. 2ndRateMind used words like skill and talent and power to describe the priesthood. To me that shows very little understanding regarding the priesthood. The priesthood isn’t about power. Also, a calling to the priesthood is not based on some skill set. So, claiming women are just as skilled makes no sense, like your attempt at comparing being a priest to being a scientist. You fail to understand Church teaching or the Church’s reasons for her teachings. You apply your worldview to fit quite frankly something that many of us view as other worldly.
All I am hearing is, Church teaching is sexist and we are fine with it because sexism isn't inherently wrong, it's fine to be sexist in this case.

Post Reply