The Duggar Family

[Trista]

The whole thing with skirts and dresses, at least to me, is about "emphasizing traditional gender roles" and there are a lot of people who subscribe to that theory-there have been several episodes of Wife Swap where one of the families was skirts-only for the females. When the rules change happened, the wife who went there said that the girls would be wearing pants, and they adamently refused. After you do something for so long, it sort of becomes you, I suppose.

When I was younger and I wore skirts/dresses, I always had to wear either bike shorts or bloomers (if it was a longer dress) in order to maintain modesty. That's the way it was (I doubt it was with bloomers though) for most people when I was growing up and in the church. Nowadays, the really rowdy girls just end up wearing pants, or they're told that they can't play around and go tumbling in the Narthex.

[Wind Dancer]

IMO "really rowdy girls:" could be translated to mean girls who are active and engage in athletic activities.

So what's the point of making them wear two complete layers of clothing?

To remind them that they can't just be themselves but must always be thinking about the burden of "being modest" because of what someone else--like complerte strangers--might think.

The Duggars may "love" their children but they are are handicapping the girls--keeping them from being actual individuals--in every possible way.

In the 21st century this is very sad--and not something to be admired.


(Btw--having been brought up in such an environment I can tell you that all the hoopla about "modesty" for girls and women is actually based on NOT being "occasions of sin" for men.

Apparently the more "religious" some men are the more their thoughts turn to sex. Witness Jimbob and his 18 and counting children--as proof of his apparent infantile inability to control himself. )

[libgirl2]

Interestingly enough, there was a rerun today that addresses your question.

While they usually assume traditional roles, they had a reversal day a few years ago where the girls were taught to change a tire, check the oil and so forth. The boys were taught to cook a dinner and do laundry. Michelle said that the girls have expressed that, for the most part they would like to be married and be "homemakers" but in life we don't know what will happen and they still need to be prepared should they have to support themselves.

The girls got one up on me as I can't do any of those things! I think its being realistic in the sense that every so often people have to do things they don't normally do.

[maude~flanders]

First of all, the girls wearing skirts is part of their religious beliefs. We don't question Muslim women wearing scarves, orthodox Jewish men wearing the black hats, or other religious attire. I am completely against any religious belief being bashed. It doesn't hurt the girls and they wear pants under their skirts to do sporting activities. They are not oppressed because they wear skirts.

Second, I have been around plenty of Christian girls who wear only skirts and I can tell you that they are very happy with it. They get to feel like a princess while their more "modern" counter-parts don't. Little girls like to feel like a princess.

[Duckyface]

IMO "really rowdy girls:" could be translated to mean girls who are active and engage in athletic activities.

So what's the point of making them wear two complete layers of clothing?

To remind them that they can't just be themselves but must always be thinking about the burden of "being modest" because of what someone else--like complerte strangers--might think.

The Duggars may "love" their children but they are are handicapping the girls--keeping them from being actual individuals--in every possible way.

In the 21st century this is very sad--and not something to be admired.


(Btw--having been brought up in such an environment I can tell you that all the hoopla about "modesty" for girls and women is actually based on NOT being "occasions of sin" for men.

Apparently the more "religious" some men are the more their thoughts turn to sex. Witness Jimbob and his 18 and counting children--as proof of his apparent infantile inability to control himself. )

"
I don't see why married loving couples need to "control themselves" when it comes to sex, unless they don't want any more children, which Jim Bob and Michelle obviously are willing to have. Has there been any indication on the show that they don't want any more children or that either of the couple is unhappy with the amount of sex in the marriage?

[libgirl2]

"
I don't see why married loving couples need to "control themselves" when it comes to sex, unless they don't want any more children, which Jim Bob and Michelle obviously are willing to have. Has there been any indication on the show that they don't want any more children or that either of the couple is unhappy with the amount of sex in the marriage?

And if they were to use birth control one wouldn't tell them NOT to have sex!

[lilymax]

I caught a few minutes of an episode with Michelle looking for her vow renewal dress on "Say Yes to the Dress". I have to admit I was a little bit disgusted by this. Kate Gosselin also got a vow renewal gown on a tie-in show and the repetition is just weird.

I had to ask myself why? why get an expensive and lovely wedding gown if you are only going to have them tear it up and have to cover parts of the gown so you remain "modest"? Why not make your own or buy one somewhere that is already modest? She just looked weird in those gowns with the way they covered her top part up, she looked like a mummy encased in all that white.

Nevermind the grand spectacle of all those kids in that wedding salon. Why was it necessary to take all of those children to a place like this one to look for a gown? What help can they really be? Seems it was just done so people could gawk at how the huge family goes to the fancy dress place. More of TLC and their crap viewing.

Ugh. It was such a turnoff for me I had to go do something else and didn't finish watching it. It's just hugely excessive to me.

[libgirl2]

I caught a few minutes of an episode with Michelle looking for her vow renewal dress on "Say Yes to the Dress". I have to admit I was a little bit disgusted by this. Kate Gosselin also got a vow renewal gown on a tie-in show and the repetition is just weird.

I had to ask myself why? why get an expensive and lovely wedding gown if you are only going to have them tear it up and have to cover parts of the gown so you remain "modest"? Why not make your own or buy one somewhere that is already modest? She just looked weird in those gowns with the way they covered her top part up, she looked like a mummy encased in all that white.

Nevermind the grand spectacle of all those kids in that wedding salon. Why was it necessary to take all of those children to a place like this one to look for a gown? What help can they really be? Seems it was just done so people could gawk at how the huge family goes to the fancy dress place. More of TLC and their crap viewing.

Ugh. It was such a turnoff for me I had to go do something else and didn't finish watching it. It's just hugely excessive to me.

Because its TLC! And at least this couple is going to stay married, unlike you know who, who renewed their vows for a free vacation etc....

[Trista]

Yes, at least we have a couple who truly loves each other. They've been married one year less than my parents! I truly think that if TLC had let Michelle go to a regular bridal salon, or one that specialized in modest dresses, she would have found something better. I know a lot of times people get alterations done-they may get modesty panels added if they don't want the corset-laced back showing any skin, they may add a little cap sleeve if they want, or they may remove straps. It's about getting the dress perfect for each person, although in a case like Michelle's it's truly harder, and that's where they went wrong. I honestly think that more bridal salons should have modest dresses because not only will they be able to tap into the LDS/more conservative Christian market (good for the bottom line), but there are lots of people who want more options than a low-cut and/or strapless dress-they want something a little higher in the neckline, and with a little bit of a sleeve.

[tears.and.rain]

Thanks for answering my question!!

I think that as long as they girls are taught they can be anything they want to be (you know, within reason) and are taught that they are just as capable of sustaining a successful career as any of the boys, then I don't have a problem with it. If they can participate in the same sports as the boys, I don't see a problem with it, even if their religious beliefs say they need to wear shorts underneath.

Now, do I agree with their religious beliefs in those terms? No, not really. But my main thing, I guess is that I hope their being taught the same equality that most girls are being taught today.