I am curious about the Perm Count
The Duggar's had their 17th kid.Their website is down, I am assuming because there are a ton of other sickly fascinated people besides myself trying to get on there and figure out WTF is going on in Michelle's and Jim Bob's heads/bed.
Anyway, the Chronicle listed some "fun facts" about the family, e.g. they have gone through 90,000 diapers and Michelle has been pregnant for 10.6 of her 40 years. As mentioned above, I am curious about how many perms the family has gotten.
Labels: enjoy the blog, nonsense
posted by Courtenay at 8/03/2007
16 Comments:
I know a few really large families
and I have to say they are about
the happiest, loving group of folks
I've ever encountered.
We stopped at three and to be honest, I wish we would have had
about four more.
But 17? Yikes, that's alot of
yoots!
yeah i was just talking to my coworker about it and he said if he had to choose between 17 kids and no kids, he'd choose 17. but that's only now that he has two of his own.
i can tell you though that i would NOT want 17 of me. see grief-giving blogs aimed at my mom... poor thing!
excuse my french, but fuk that shyt.
it's always the men who want more kids.
my husband says he wanted us to have 15 or 20.
after one i wanted my body back, so we had another one quickly so i could feel good and non hormonal again.
i know so many women who have 3 or 4 and are just haggard. there's no bike riding or racing let alone skipping around the block. and the laundry and the dishes! my head hurts thinking about it.
amen to women like lauren.
now, if you want to ADOPT 17 kids, more power to you.
but who the fuck in their right mind thinks they have a right to drop 17 new people on the planet these days? HELLO people. Makes me sick.
Perms make me sick too.
Totally agree with t.marie!
This is the most disgusting display of selfishness possible -- the amount of waste this family is producing is abhorrent besides their consumption. If they really want that many kids there is no (good, non-selfish) reason why at least half of them couldn't be adopted if not most of them.
The show on them is equally disgusting, not even mentioning the damage such large families wreck on our environment.
mb
agreed. 90,000 diapers is a very bad thing for the environment. I was wondering if she is so used to giving birth that she made dinner for them all that night! There is something new to be said about the family van, i mean bus! And did you see? they are all home schooled. YIKES!
I personally don't want a family that big but if other people do rock on. I'm in no position to tell them what's good...for them, me or the damn environment.
In fact instead of bitching at them I think I'd rather pick out 17 couples that I know should never procreate even once and begin to encourage them to use protection plus.
Wow! Lots of strong feelings here! As a mother of 5, and hoping for more, I can speak to a couple of things. . .
--yes, I think we are a happy bunch!
--I do want more--and far from being haggard, I have a reputation of being pretty cool (my knee high leather boots do it really).
--I don't know much about this family since we don't have TV and I only have dial-up and hate wasting time on big downloads--but my own family does pretty well with water and electricity conservation ( we use about 120 kwh/month or $20).
--selfishness!? Maybe some would say having lots of money, lots of tmie to spend on yourself and your own petty personal goals is more selfish than striving to bring a few more happy souls into existance. These parents probably take their responsibility very seriously. And nothing helps one learn the value of generosity more than a bunch of siblings!
My own take--please don't think that all homeschoolers perm their hair! And, I bet her older kids are making dinner for the next 6 weeks.
BTW I have been pregnant and/or lactating for 12+ years straight, and have mentrated about 12 times--I Love it--very hormonally stable when I'm not cycling (menstral that is--hahaha) every darned month!
allison-
the selfishness refers to the fact that those who choose to have very large families prefer have many little clones of themselves over the many perfectly wonderful but family-less children in dire need of homes. it is, indeed, a beautiful thing to create a child with someone you love, and to see bits and pieces of yourselves reflected in their attributes, but, like it or not, that is the very definition of narcissism. And that's selfish (and keep in mind there are very levels in which this word can have negative connotations, not all necessarily the most negative).
of course your example of the single wealthy self-serving person is a kind of selfishness as well, but that's not the only alternative.
bravo for your minimal water and electricity usage but did you ever take a look at how many garbage cans you fill up each week? i'm guessing with that minimal water consumption you are not using cloth diapers...and are you using bottled water for drinking when although you may recycle those bottles that doesn't mean they are actually being recycled (most get put on a barge to china to be incinerated) when you have perfectly good drinking water on tap and most people in the world don't even have that.
but it's all about you ("[you] love it") and not one's duty to be a responsible global citizen, creating/taking only what you need in relation to the world around you...see: selfishness.
mb
When they had their 16th (yeesh!) kid, SF Gate's Mark Morford wrote a dually hilarious and terrifying article profiling the family... the captions on the photos are my favorite part.
Add in the parents and there's a complete softball game to be had, including an umpire.
I don't think ALL people have children to see little pieces of themselves. That's a common argument by the "adopt the ones already alive" camp but to me it's pretty weak because quantifying that would be next to impossible.
Additionally a large percentage of births are "accidents". How can you say that the intentions of having children are the narcissistic thoughts of "We can see ourselves" when the intent to have one in the first place isn't even there in many cases?
As a parallel would you say that big anything should be restricted? For each additional hire/member of any given group or company (Peace Corp/ United Way/ Green Peace/Planned Parenthood/ Microsoft/ etc.) doesn't that just increase (economically) the harm and stress that "family" places on the Earth?
I think a better connotative definition of selfishness and narcissism would be the telling of other people how to lead their lives. i.e. how many kids they should have: see China.
All I can hope for is that no matter big or small that each individual takes it upon him/her self (within the path they choose) to be stewards (to any extent they can find time for) to this life/world.
And it's not my place to designate the setting of their own lives through which they do so.
:-)
17 accidents????
Wow! Didn't 20/20 have a show last year about how Eurpoe is suffering from lack of babies?! Those Duggars will come in handy to help pay our Soc. Security!
I don't see anything wrong with the 17th child....
With Bush in office and the after affects when he is gone, I am sure we will have plenty of vacancies on this planet made daily for happy couples to get their excessive groove on.....
We keep breaking Darwin's rules, that is why you see bridges falling for no reason on the nightly news...
T Marie said:
"but who the fuck in their right mind thinks they have a right to drop 17 new people on the planet these days? HELLO people. Makes me sick."
Anonymous said...
Totally agree with t.marie!
This is the most disgusting display of selfishness possible -- the amount of waste this family is producing is abhorrent besides their consumption. If they really want that many kids there is no (good, non-selfish) reason why at least half of them couldn't be adopted if not most of them.
The show on them is equally disgusting, not even mentioning the damage such large families wreck on our environment.
mb
Anonymous said:
And did you see? they are all home schooled. YIKES!
Are you fucking kidding me?
Who the hell gave you the right to determine what is good and appropriate for EVERYONE ELSE?
What happened to "A woman's right to choose"? Or is that just if she wants an abortion? Hypocrites!
You ever TRY to adopt? Cost me my first marriage due to the fact the fucking government puts you through more hoops than a hula factory has...she couldn't get pregnant and we gave up on adopting
then she lost her mind.
How the hell you know one of those
17 kids won't grow up to discover a
cure for cancer or make diapers decompose faster? Am I to understand that because they are homeschooled they will amount to nothing?
I think I would be more concerned about 12 to 20 MILLION illegals fucking up the enviroment than a family of 17!
Even so, this state has more people
than ever before and the air and water is cleaner than it has been in 30 years, so I think you're full of shit on that one.
You want to talk about selfish?
Selfish is some asshole telling you
how many kids you can or can't have
just because some other asshole told them that's how it should be.
Kinda like the Chineese government.
Selfish is some woman throwing her
baby away because she doesn't want
it.
Me? I believe there is still this thing called FREEDOM. If I want 30
kids and the wife is in agreement,
I still have the RIGHT to do so.
If you want to abort every kid you
concieve, as much as I destest it,
that's your right.
Finally, what does Bush have to do
with a bridge falling down? Did he design it when he was younger?
What with everything that's wrong in the world being his fault it's amazing he hasn't been shot. Oh yeah, that would make Cheny the prez. Ha!
Post a Comment
<< Home