Quoting Quiverfull: Loves Having Cameras Around?

Quoting Quiverfull: Loves Having Cameras Around? January 11, 2014

Michelle Duggar from Radar Online – Michelle Duggar’s Trials and Tribulations Win Her an Award: #5 Most Fascinating Person in Arkansas

“The fact that there’s 19 children that God has blessed us with is unique, very unique,” Michelle said in the award video posted on the Duggar family blog.

While she refused to say if she was expecting another child, Michelle said that she loves having cameras film their lives.

“We have enjoyed getting to open up our home and our life to share with those around the world.”

Comments open below

Comment policy

 

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders and ask our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull honestly and thoughtfully.

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich

Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce

 

"Those are the first parts to be ignored by so many christians."

Everything Christmas is Demonic But so ..."
"When I was going through the worst of my miscarriage odyssey, a reaction from a ..."

Infertility Caused by Sin?
"The (not so) big reveal.Even if something does promote Family Togetherness, if it doesn't accredit ..."

Everything Christmas is Demonic But so ..."
"The brilliance of it all is, with double standards, you never have to be held ..."

Everything Christmas is Demonic But so ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Astrin Ymris

    Why do I feel that the Duggars may decide to turn to Rescue Adoption to reach that magic number 20 (and to keep ratings high enough to keep cameras around)?

  • Nea

    She’s not “sharing,” she’s SELLING her fertility and her children’s childhoods for material rewards such as a custom-built home, cold cash, and attention. I wonder if she’d be as fond of those cameras if they didn’t come with paychecks, perks, and popularity.

  • persephone

    Nothing but fame and money whores. All it will take is one of the kids to do a tell all book. I wonder how many millions they’ve saved up for that day. What will hurt is when they’re no longer in the public eye; that will kill them.

  • Madame

    Very true.

  • Nea

    A disrupted or questionable adoption would be very bad for the Duggar ratings.

  • Independent Thinker

    Everything with this family seems to center around external validation combined with isolation from everyday society. That combination will be devastating to their children at some point.

  • Nea

    I do wonder how Josh is doing in DC, now that the cameras are off, he’s not in isolation, the tea party star is tarnished by the furlough, and the campaigning his folks did in Virginia failed egregiously. They stumped for someone who got wiped out by an embarrassing margin (and, frankly, an embarrassing opponent). He’s living the difference between reality show and reality.

  • tulips

    I’d like to agree but I think reality is still on the horizon for him. There were too many wealthy and powerful people with a vested interest in maintaining the façade. They made up an “Executive Director” type job for him basically out of whole cloth…in what universe does a young man with no education or qualifications or experience go from failing to manage a small town used car dealership on his parent’s property to an executive position at a lucrative DC office? His own cluelessness makes him very dangerous imo.

  • Independent Thinker

    I know I said this before but Josh’s career in DC hinges on two things. The first is the ability to raise money for conservative causes and the second is he needs to bring young conservatives into the ideology of the far right. When I mean raise money I mean consistently bring in millions of dollars for conservative organizations. He will not accomplish either and will go running back to Arkansas or Florida. I wouldn’t rule out him moving into the lovely travel trailer on Anna’s parent’s property.

  • tulips

    I suspect his position hinges mostly on avoiding or minimizing the public failure that was on his immediate horizon. TPTB have a vested interest in this lifestyle being perceived as counter cultural ~BUT WISE AND DESIRABLE~ and this will be a tough sell if he and his family are filmed in the unglamorous and unattractive reality of minimum wage jobs + large family + no social safety net. The real message of Josh Duggar doesn’t serve the interests of the interested. No, not at all. The chump change it takes to cover their collective asses on that by giving him a fake job and a pretty home pales in comparison to what they bring in perpetuating the ideal.

  • Independent Thinker

    As my husband calls it “selling the dream”.

  • Nea

    True, unfortunately.

  • If they use all their children for the TV income, it would mean that they should actually be saving the majority of the money as a trust fund for the children, who actually took part in “earning” the money, methinks Do they give a reasonable part of that money to sons and daughters who reach the age of majority?

  • Saraquill

    I see this and I think of an former classmate who loved with this show, but denounced a similar show featuring a large family as “making money off their children’s backs.”

  • Nea

    … wut? Why the difference, because the Robinsons nominally have a job beyond selling themselves while the Duggars, to be blunt, don’t?

  • Saraquill

    I think the “discipline with love, not punish out of anger” thing was big with her, and how the kids put up a well behaved front. Also Bible.

  • Astrin Ymris

    They can always scream “Reactive Attachment Disorder! Not our fault!” in that eventuality. Why not? It kept Laura and and Alan Shatto from a murder investigation after their 3-year-old newly adopted son Max Alan Shatto died under peculiar circumstances.

    Our better yet, adopt a profoundly physically and mentally disabled child from an Eastern European orphanage. If the poor kid’s basically immobile and nonverbal, there’s not much s/he CAN do to cause the Duggars the kind of grief that leads to disruption.

    It’ll be perfect, feelgood TV. And they’ll be no need to worry about tell-all memoirs being written 15 years later if they pursue that option.

  • persephone

    My guess is that the kids will get nice weddings, subsidized by the production company, maybe a down payment on a home, but unless the kids keep appearing in front of the cameras, they won’t get anything else.

  • Catherine

    I can’t help but wonder how his poor wife is holding up in DC.

  • Lauren Borrero

    This is why I don’t like the Duggar’s. I have no problem with them having that many kids what so ever what I do have a problem with is that reality show and using their kids as props.

  • Lauren Borrero

    This is why I don’t like them.

  • Nea

    Too many non-QF people watching, too many seculars ready to run to the internet and dig up inconvenient facts. They don’t dare buy a baby; it will be all over the papers if the adoption isn’t spotless. Ditto if they try to dump the kid later.

  • Nea

    I’m betting that she loves being out from under the Duggar fame thumb. They’ve already got a tv, and they don’t have a billion kids.

  • Astrin Ymris

    I’m not talking about buying a baby, but of Special Needs adoption. So far, almost all the major news outlets take a worshipful view of the “saints” who adopt disabled kids from foreign countries.

    I agree that Discovery Health is probably more aware of the risks and problems than the Duggars themselves are, but if the ratings start tanking anyway, they may feel that it’s worth the gamble. There ARE countries with clean programs, like Serbia,

    Though whether a country which practiced ethical adoption would approve the Duggars is another question. “Seventeen other kids still living at home? Blanket training? Courtship? Reality TV show primary source of income? Nyet!”

  • I was asking if the parents keep money for the children, not the network.

  • Madame

    “So far, almost all the major news outlets take a worshipful view of the “saints” who adopt disabled kids from foreign countries.”

    My cousin and his wife adopted a little girl with cerebral palsy from China. (My cousin’s wife is from chinese descent). They didn’t do so to be written in the book of saints, but because they wanted to have a family.

    Many disabled children in poorer countries end up in orphanages and if they can make it to a country with better health care and are adopted by parents who can afford expensive treatments and therapies, their chances of living a fulfilled life integrated in society are a lot higher.

    I admire people whose heart is so big that they choose to adopt an unwanted child and pour their resources into giving her the best life they can.

    Of course, if someone does it for fame, then I feel a bit different about it.

  • persephone

    Again, my guess is no, they don’t. I don’t know if there’s a law in Arkansas that requires parents to set aside their children’s earnings for the children’s benefit, but I doubt it. Most states have laws that children’s earnings are not theirs to control, or they don’t have a law on the books to that effect, so the assumption is that anything the child earns while under the age of 18 belongs to the parents, in the same way that the parents are responsible for the child until the child turns 18.

    California has specific laws related to entertainment earnings as the result of children, such as Jackie Cooper and Gary Coleman having nothing when they reach adulthood. I think the division of the earnings was 50/50, as in 50% set aside for the child, while the rest could be used by the parents. Since even that was abused, I believe that the child gets 100% now, the money having to be put in a trust account. Don’t quote me as IANAL.

  • Nightshade

    They probably would say that the children are benefiting from the income generated by the show already and that’s enough.

  • Nea

    So far, almost all the major news outlets take a worshipful view of the “saints” who adopt disabled kids from foreign countries

    Yes, but the Duggars are a special case – as you say, their main source of income is famewhoring. Any reputable adoption agency, be it for a healthy or a special needs child, is going to wonder if they’re doing it specifically for ratings instead of “making a home” for the kid. If the adoption agency and the newspaper editors don’t wonder, then half their readership will, LOUDLY. And if they don’t use a reputable adoption agency, it’ll be all over the ‘net, and then the news, pretty shortly.

  • Astrin Ymris

    I have a lot of respect for many parents who adopt the kids with special needs from institutions, many of whom seem to be intelligent, sensible people who strive to help their adopted kids live the best life they can.

    That being said, conservative Christian parents CAN get so caught up in “rescue by adoption” of disabled kids that they become “child collectors”, adopting more special needs kids than they can nurture or provide for. I can’t remember if Kathryn Joyce goes much into this end of the “adoption gospel” in her book, but this is a problem, too.

    Well-intentioned parents with fantasies of “saving kids” adopt multiple unrelated kids with special needs in blind faith that “love is all you need” and traumatized kids will become well-behaved, affectionate kids in a few months, and “God will provide” any additional money needed.

    Sometimes it’ll work out okay. Other times… well as NeaDods pointed out, disruptions are all too common. 🙁

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    Another tragedy of conservative Christian parents adopting can be seen at many long term residential treatment facilities for kids, large numbers of foreign adopted children with RAD or other disabilities that the parents bring home and then realize they aren’t equipped to deal with an emotionally damaged or developmentally delayed child, so they turn them over to the state where the kids end up abandoned in long term care.

  • Catherine

    No, only 3 (or is it 4 now?), which is still an awful lot to handle. I hope she’s got some kind of support system out there.

  • Astrin Ymris

    NeaDods,

    I think you may be overly-optimistic about the general public’s knowledge about the ethical problems in adoption, because as far as I know, no agency has ever been held accountable for placing a child with parents who abused or even killed them. Ergo, all adoption agencies are “reputable” by definition.

    If you know differently, please share the URL! I could use some cheering up. {:-(

  • Astrin Ymris

    I find myself skeptical of the ease with which adoptees are diagnosed with “RAD”. I think many of these diagnoses come from professionals selling “Attachment Therapy”, based on checklists containing “symptoms” of RAD not found in the APA definition– as well as the scary prognosis that these kids will grow up to be sociopaths if not “cured” by being trauma-bonded to their adoptive parents.

    I’m not disputing that international adoptees exhibit a lot of intensely troubled– and troubling!– behavior problems which can overwhelm naive parents who believe that love and faith can fix everything. And when they discover it can’t… the poor kids can wind up in another institution like the one they were ostensibly “rescued” from, with additional psychological trauma from the failed placement, and the added burden of not being fluent enough in their new language to benefit from available counseling OR communicate clearly with their new caregivers.

    Tragedy is exactly the right word for it. 🙁

  • texcee

    There is an organization called “A Minor Consideration” that is run by former child stars who were damaged by their experiences or robbed by their parents. They are now watching the reality kids. Check it out.
    http://www.minorcon.org/

  • texcee

    I think it’s pretty obvious that the bloom is off the rose, so to speak, with the Duggars. Since Michelle’s no longer popping out a baby a year, the ratings have fallen off. The public is very fickle and when a freak show goes stale, it’s on to the next attraction. And when that money from TLC stops rolling in, things are going to get tense around the ol’ Duggar compound. It happened to Jon & Kate Plus Eight and look where they are now.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    Yeah, you have a point. Seriously doubt Michelle will do any of things Kate did to drum up more money while she could, like going on Dancing With the Stars.

  • Independent Thinker

    When the reality TV show disappears would not be surprised if the Duggars become regular speakers on the homeschooling circuit. I am sure the Teach Them Diligently Conferences will be tickled pink to have them as regular guest speakers. Swanson will also cozy up with them.