I guess most of what I've seen concerning her is the media celebrating her and her huge family. I don't feel like insulting her, but I wonder why media outlets such as Discovery Channel are so willing and ready to celebrate these huge families without asking the (seemingly obvious) questions concerning the impact of these families on the environment. It just kind of seems irresponsible to me. But perhaps in their worldview God will miraculously stop environmental degradation at the last minute and save us.

Incidentally, my understanding of the quiverfull movement was that it was much more agenda-driven than just accepting all these children as a gift from God. If you look at some of the scriptures it comes from, it looks like it's more about dominating the world with your religion by giving birth to more believers rather than proselytizing. It's also packaged with some pretty hard-core anti-feminist beliefs about the role of women in the family and society. I don't feel like making fun of her or insulting her; I just view her as a victim and feel sorry for her.

I thought the Clown car comment was pretty funny. 18 kids is a ridicules number and the matching dated clothing reinforces the crazyness. Should we make fun of people that choose to live way outside the mainstream? Probable not but Misogyny? I don't think so. The Vagina reference was not at all used to lessen her humanity for being a Woman. There are all sorts of jokes about men and their parts . I could make humerus comment about the fathers Testicals and nobody for a minute would think it put down or belittled Men.

I've seen the clown car macro. Personally, I think it's hilarious. I don't exactly have a lot of respect for Michelle Duggar, and that's because I feel that by having so many children that take up valuable resources (no, not welfare, I mean space, and air, and food, and everything we share on this planet), she's disrespecting me and everyone else on earth. Also because I think that their methods border on child abuse. (They can't give all their children attention, so they make the older ones raise the younger ones for them.) It's not misogyny because I feel the same way about Jim Duggar. The available joke just happens to lie with Michelle.

I agree 100% that no woman should be ridiculed for the choices she makes.

But the Quiverfull movement isn't just about not "denying gifts from God." It's about having as many children as you can to out-breed non-Christians. And that's scary.

Carver and Louise: disagreeing with or criticizing someone's lifestyle or beliefs is fine, especially when they choose to be public about it. Speculating on the size of his or her genitalia is not ok. It's taking the easy way out by making fun of the person instead of analyzing what's upsetting about their views.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not I agree with a person's religious, social, cultural, etc. views...even if those views would denigrate me as unsavory because my lifestyle choices or my ethnic or cultural backgruond.

In either case, my choice is pretty clear-cut: To address people's beliefs, but never to mock the people themselves.

My philosophy is directly opposite to Quiverfull/the Duggars. I'm seriously debating with myself whether or not I should even give birth to one child, much less five or fifteen or twenty. I'm dismayed at the poverty and resource-using that large families necessarily inflict on the environment (in the U.S. as well as in my country of origin, where large families live five or six to a room and there's limited food and water and energy for the whole country).

But to joke about this woman's vagina is not addressing the philosophy behind her lifestyle choice. It's an ad hominem attack, a low blow, and an intellectual cop-out.

Also, I agree that it's misogynistic, but perhaps for a different reason: I hear a lot of male friends of mine exalt the "tight pussy" and the virginal vagina for their presumed pleasure-quotient (disregarding the fact that for some women, the tighter the fit, the more painful vaginal intercourse is). I've seen vaginas denigrated for being "too loose" even though that's the way they naturally are for some women--whether virgins or mothers who gave birth vaginally. I think playing off of this cultural ideal to the point of mocking a vagina as "too loose" is bordering on misogynistic, and hateful of women's bodies that don't fit that ideal.

Sorry if this was a rant, but I feel very strongly about mockery. I hate it.

Unbelievable. There are too many things to address, but one thing in particular stood out.

"The available joke"? Do you realize what you're saying? I don't like either the man or the woman, but it's easier to make the woman into a joke. How is that not problematic?

It's not a pleasant fact, but it's unavoidable. When men bear children, then the clown car joke will work for Jim Duggar.

The joke isn't based on misogyny, it's based on biology.

Personally, I don't think it's nice to make jokes and/or speculate on people's bodies, but if it's their choice (I don't mean in the way that people say being overweight is a choice, I mean the popping-out-18-babies kind of choice) they need to suck it up. I've had people tell me that it's a shame that my boobs will stay small (because I don't plan on having kids.) Because, you know, that's really a great reason to reproduce. But it's technically true, and it's my own doing, so while it's disrespectful and I may cuss them out, I don't call them misogynists. It works both ways.

It's my understanding that the Duggars aren't financially self-sufficient - they've exploited a legal loophole to declare their family a religious organization, and they depend on welfare. (Getting welfare because you've fallen on hard times is one thing - deliberately setting out to make yourself avoidably dependent on it is quite another.) If I'm remembering past coverage correctly, Michelle Duggar had educational opportunities that she does not intend her daughters to have. And they've made pretty clear that the younger children are essentially "raised" by the older ones - a baby every year for eighteen years means no time or energy for parent/child bonding. And the Duggars are more than willing to make their family into a media circus and cash cow (they don't do all those interviews for free). My only problem with the criticism of them is that less is leveled at the husband, who is equally responsible for the situation. But deliberately setting out to have children that you don't want in their own right, can't afford, and don't intend to take parental care of - that gets no respect from me.

@ louise:

Penis: Not Machine Gun. That took me all of five seconds to come up with. It's nowhere near a stretch. Why, then, do people jump straight to, and latch onto, the female version?

katemoore:

Problem is, that has nothing to do with the kids. I'm sure that despite the large number of children, Jim Duggar probably hasn't ejaculated more than the average man.

This post is really interesting. I think I agree, even though I have seen the Macro and laughed at the time. This is why I love feministing, there are always more thoughtful people posting/commenting here and making me think about things I would otherwise let slide under the radar.

However, while I agree that the joke make about Michelle Duggar is vulgur and ultimately misogynistic, I don't think that means we also have to refrain from criticizing her. I don't buy the argument that it is Michelle's choice to have that many children. In the Quiverful movement and family, choices is strictly limited. There is only ONE true and righteous way to live, which takes away all possibility of choice. As far as I can tell and have read, there isn't so much as a choice of clothing for anyone in that family.

And OF COURSE her beliefs are up for the public to debate. We should so honestly and with as much intellectual reason as possible, but just because they are religious does not mean they get a free pass from public opinion. Feministing is always calling people out for the crazy things they believe, like right-wingers total lack of belief in woman's autonomy. If the Quiverful movement holds that same belief, they deserve to be called on it, especially when the movement also focuses on influencing society. Those 17 kids were born with the intention of building an army for God, an idea that should always be met with a healthy does of skepticism (if not fear) in my mind.

I don't understand this. This kind of family just doesn't make sense to me. In the pictures it looks like the girls are always wearing dresses, yikes! There is no choice of clothing for sure in this family.

Rachel_in_WY-As someone who puts the Earth first and foremost I am wondering too if this family has thought about the Earth and the impact they have on it. There house is gigantic by the way, looks excessive to me. In regards to the media celebrating her...would they celebrate me as a single person who does not want to ever have children because of concerns of overpopulation and putting the Earth first? I also have other similar views as well with ya. It is packed with hard core anti-feminist views for sure.

I think you're missing my point.

All of these children were conceived through sexual intercourse. There are two people involved in this kind of sexual intercourse.

The joke portrays the kids as all Michelle's fault - more specifically, as all her vagina's fault.

So one could conceivably say it's all Jim's fault too, just as incorrectly. But that hasn't seemed to have caught on, does it?

I don't see the joke as assigning blame at all. It was observational humor based on the absurd situation of having 18 children. The clown car reference works so well cause the whole family's wearing those matching cheesy outfits. The joke uses the maternal aspect for humor dynamics. The joke here has an edge, but I don't see it as a put down of Women.

Katemoore: I think you're missing mine.

Jim Duggar ejaculated.

Michelle Duggar gave birth.

Ejaculation does not, in itself, lead to kids. Giving birth does. So your suggestion doesn't work.

As I said before, the available joke lies with Michelle. It's short, funny, and it triggers a highly amusing mental image. I think you're reading a tad too far into it.

I completely agree what these people say about this women is so misogynist and they should be ashamed of themselves. She's raising good kids, which is more than what I can say for my sisters. I can't stand people who say that the whole "vagina: it's not a clown care" skit was funny but if something like that was said about one of our sister feminists we'd be in arms. We should stand for every woman's right. whether we agree or not. The point of the matter is that Michelle Duggar is happy and if she's happy than so am I.

I disagree. The womans only place is to feed her husband/significant other.
If he demands food, give it to him.
If he wnats his balls licked. do it you fucking digrace.
Sammiches are the staple of a relationship, so give him one to make it work.

Sex on demand is needed. make sure you do it well and NOT tense up.

The author of this should realise that a joke is a joke and that this sort of response only encourages trolls.

I totally agree that sexist and demeaning comments about Michelle Duggar herself should not be tolerated. However, Michelle Duggar has allowed herself to become the most visible face (along with husband Jim) of an anti-woman, anti-choice movement, and I will definitely continue to comment on THAT.

Let's not forget that the quiverfull movement is a fundamentalist religious movement that believes women's role is to submit to male authority and reproduce as much as possible, and a major goal of adherents to this movements is to reproduce as much as possible to spread their ideology through their offspring.

The Duggar family absolutely disgusts me. Those poor kids.

I don't care one bit if they aren't on welfare. Bravo. Congratulations. Could that be because they leech of "donations" and make the younger kids wear the older kids' clothes? (nice dresses by the way...barf).

The fact that she is choosing to bring this many children into the world when many, many children need loving homes is sick- not that I'd wish that lifestyle imposed onto any adopted children, either.

Obviously as a pro-choice woman, I have to defend that this includes having children as well as not having them. However, what about common sense? What about ethical responsibility of raising your children by giving them adequate attention and love? What about the incredible amount of resources wasted by just one family?

Making your older children raise your younger ones robs them of childhood, and I feel it's unethical. This family is also completely against choice and reproductive responsibility. They are raising their daughters to be breeding sows, and their sons to think that that's all women are. All so they can spread the word of Jeebus.

Oh, and also women who miscarry are murderers, apparently.
Directly from THEIR website (which I won't link to, just google "duggar" and it comes up):
Jim Bob & Michelle Duggar married July 21st, 1984. At that time, they chose to use the birth control pill. They thought, “We don’t want children right now. We can’t afford them. We want children in our timing, when we’re ready.” Four years later they decided to have their first child. Then, Michelle went back on the pill, but she conceived and had a miscarriage. At that point they talked with a Christian medical doctor and read the fine print in the contraceptives package. They found that while taking the pill you can get pregnant and then miscarry. They were grieved! They were Christians! They were pro-life! They realized that their selfish actions had taken the life of their child. They prayed and asked God to forgive them, and to teach them to love children like He loves children.

No, I'm sorry, you know how the dialogue about Michelle is shot through with misogyny? Because turning it around and saying Jim Bob is masturbation impaired isn't funny. Because if I were to take Star Jones, a woman known to have had an abortion or two, and put a picture of her up in a hospital gown with the subtitle "Vagina: Not a Meat Grinder," everyone would get that that's misogynistic. Criticizing a woman's breasts? Misogynist. Why should your breasts, vagina, ass, or any other part of your body fit some external norm? Why does your body become fair game because you could have chosen, at some point, to fit the norm? Go ahead and call the Duggars a horde of locusts, but mocking her body, their clothes, even her choice to have so many children, is decidedly patriarchal. What bearing do our aesthetics have on anyone else?

AnnaArcturus--
Probably the most sensible comment I've seen all day.

Yeah, the criticism of Michelle Duggar's vagina has been brutal. It's like dudes don't realize that vaginas don't stop 'working' due to having kids. Most of the 'jokes' I've heard have amounted to: "why does her husband keep having sex with her, she's got to have a horribly stretched-out vagina." Dual-purpose organ, dudes. The 'clown car' joke? Doesn't really do it for me, humor-wise.

And in fact, the 'stretched-out vagina' criticism is the same one I've seen leveled at sex workers by stupid misogynist trolls. People like this do not appreciate vaginas, nor do they appreciate female autonomy. If a woman has sex with multiple men? Bad. If she has babies? Bad. If she has sex with them, good.

Assholes.

Oh, and 'yeshmastah' and 'getmelunch'--fuck off and die, you stupid trolls.

May a humble n00b offer an opinion on the clown car joke? My take on it has always been this: what happens with clown cars? A seemingly endless parade of funny-looking people pour out of a tiny space. What happens with a woman who gives birth to 18 children? A seemingly endless parade of funny-looking little people comes out of a tiny space. I've never really interpreted it so much as a comment on the state of her vagina, so much as a roundabout way of saying (as most people say about clown cars) "dear God, when do they stop?"

(YMMV and if she has C-sections, it, naturally, renders the joke meaningless.)

I agree with 5thcellar, I don't think the joke is about her vagina itself.
It's more the fact that it's person after person after person after person.

Louise commented at August 28, 2008 5:38 PM: "Also because I think that their methods border on child abuse. (They can't give all their children attention, so they make the older ones raise the younger ones for them.) It's not misogyny because I feel the same way about Jim Duggar."

Very good point! When people have a child they already can't raise and go on welfare, that "drains" each involved taxpayer only an extremely tiny bit. When people have a child they already can't raise and order one of their older kids to raise him or her, that drains this older kid's time and energy a lot. People who accuse welfare recipients much more than certain other parents of "making someone else raise your kids" got the math all wrong.

wintermute commented at August 28, 2008 6:03 PM: "Given that another plank of the Quiverful manifesto is that women have no rights of their own and must do as their husbands command"

At the same time, I doubt this couple observes that custom of Quiverfull culture. I can't find the quote, but I remember a few years ago reading an article in which Jim Duggar said it was up to Michelle Duggar to decide whether to have more kids or not.

"(Getting welfare because you've fallen on hard times is one thing - deliberately setting out to make yourself avoidably dependent on it is quite another.)"

Yeah, there's a difference between using welfare as a safety net and using it as a hammock.

Consider the effects on other welfare recipients who did fall on hard times. How much does seeing someone use welfare as a hammock harden voters' hearts against candidates and referenda in favor of welfare, and put the safety net at risk?

There's also the division of resources thing, between the times "make the pie larger" can apply. How much smaller are the slices available for people who fell on hard times, when people who impoverished themselves on purpose take some of the pie?

GrowingViolet commented at August 28, 2008 8:57 PM: "My only problem with the criticism of them is that less is leveled at the husband, who is equally responsible for the situation."

Exactly! When you have the option in the first place, choosing to not choose for yourself whether or not to wear a condom is still making a choice.

I respect their choice to have any sort of family they want, but I can't help thinking the Duggers are a little crazy. I'd be worried if more people chose this sort of lifestyle,since 2 people creating 18 more is horendous population growth, but ultimately there really isn't enough of these type of families to make much of an impact on population growth in the US. I don't see this becoming a trend.

They provide their kids with nutrious food, decent housing, clean clothes, and an education, which is more than a lot of parents with less children manage. I admit I'm weirdly fascinated by how a twenty person family manages to do anything.

"By no means is her body, or her personal beliefs, subject to public judgement."

I strongly disagree. She has made her personal beliefs and her reproductive function very much a public matter--has actively pursued as much public exposure for them as possible. If she hadn't done so, it'd be a different story...but she very much has.

Why are some people acting like they should get a medal? They didn't ADOPT these kids. These aren't awesome humanitarians who went around saving kids or anything. They brought these kids into the world. We shouldn't congratulate them on feeding them and providing an education to them. That's basic!
And as far as that "education" goes, they are homeschooled. The majority of homeschooled students are fundamentalist Christian. I am not bashing home schooling, as every parent has to decide what's right for their own child, I just feel in this case it is even further isolation from "the world" that they don't want their kids to be in.
Here's a random sample of a lesson from the IATA site they linked to, once again on THEIR family website:
http://iblp.org/iblp/discipleship/journeytotheheart/

OK, I just can't help but add this: I don't see how the clown car comment (which I thought was kind of funny) is suggesting her vagina is all huge. Isn't the point of a clown car that it's really small and then all these clowns start piling out of it one after another? I haven't been paying attention enough to have heard any of the other comments about her, but the clown car one seems pretty innocuous.

PamelaVee commented at August 31, 2008 11:08 AM: "Why are some people acting like they should get a medal? They didn't ADOPT these kids. These aren't awesome humanitarians who went around saving kids or anything. They brought these kids into the world. We shouldn't congratulate them on feeding them and providing an education to them. That's basic!"

Very good point. Does this situation remind anyone else of one of Chris Rock's routines?

from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/chris-rock-turning-political-correctness-on-its-head-470108.html :
"...They'll say something like: 'Yeah, well I take care of my kids.' You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker. 'I ain't never been to jail.' Whaddya want? A cookie? You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!..."