The Josh we don't want to hear about

[mike]

Very sad - now, a few years later, younger brother Joseph Duggar is arrested on similar charges.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg03x4z580o

[barnhart]

That is terrible. One is a coincidence but two is a pattern. There must be something desperately wrong in the culture these men were raised in.

[JohnH]

That is terrible. One is a coincidence but two is a pattern. There must be something desperately wrong in the culture these men were raised in.

I think we could narrow it down to it's a family problem. Lots of people who are raised in homeschooling, etc. don't turn out this way, so I don't think it's a valid statement to criticise the culture on that front.

[mike]

That is terrible. One is a coincidence but two is a pattern. There must be something desperately wrong in the culture these men were raised in.

I think we could narrow it down to it's a family problem. Lots of people who are raised in homeschooling, etc. don't turn out this way, so I don't think it's a valid statement to criticise the culture on that front.

I tend to agree with John here. Maybe by "the culture" barnhart is referring to something other than homeschooling, but I know many homeschooling families (we also homeschooled for years), and I think it is unfair to look at that culture as a unique source for these kinds of crimes.

[barnhart]

Culture is a broad term that certainly includes family but may also include wider spheres.

[barnhart]

I decided to think about this for a while before posting but this touches on ideas that have been forming in my mind for a long time. The cultural aspects that I suspect contribute to Dugger family problems center around a concept I think of as patriarchy, when the thinking, passions and goals of men are placed above women and children. When women and children are viewed as support to help men achieve their dreams, they become vulnerable. I've seen this in families in real life and the number of abuse cases they produced is unfortunately more than zero. I've seen girls doing all the housework while their brothers slack about like little kings.

Of course there is scripture to support this, Eve was created to be a "helpmeet" and children are described arrows in the hand of a warrior in the Psalms, but is the best interpretation of these scriptures, and how does this align with the example of Jesus who famously validated women more than the surrounding society and the with the teaching and example of the early church where women served vital functions and were appointed by the church for service.

Everything I have said so far would likely be supported by a modern feminist but is it the best approach to swing the pendulum all the way to patriarchy to avoid feminism? This reminds me of the impulse to flee modernism by embracing fundamentalism which brings its own set of problems.

I was raised in a culture where women and men performed different tasks mostly but women were far from silent followers and children were allowed to have goals and interests of their own. One protection from patriarchy that was built in was the conviction we serve God best by serving together. This serves as a natural limit on the vision of individual men to dominate that isn't always in place in the patriarchal family structure.

[Ernie]

I decided to think about this for a while before posting but this touches on ideas that have been forming in my mind for a long time. The cultural aspects that I suspect contribute to Dugger family problems center around a concept I think of as patriarchy, when the thinking, passions and goals of men are placed above women and children. When women and children are viewed as support to help men achieve their dreams, they become vulnerable. I've seen this in families in real life and the number of abuse cases they produced is unfortunately more than zero. I've seen girls doing all the housework while their brothers slack about like little kings.

Of course there is scripture to support this, Eve was created to be a "helpmeet" and children are described arrows in the hand of a warrior in the Psalms, but is the best interpretation of these scriptures, and how does this align with the example of Jesus who famously validated women more than the surrounding society and the with the teaching and example of the early church where women served vital functions and were appointed by the church for service.

Everything I have said so far would likely be supported by a modern feminist but is it the best approach to swing the pendulum all the way to patriarchy to avoid feminism? This reminds me of the impulse to flee modernism by embracing fundamentalism which brings its own set of problems.

I was raised in a culture where women and men performed different tasks mostly but women were far from silent followers and children were allowed to have goals and interests of their own. One protection from patriarchy that was built in was the conviction we serve God best by serving together. This serves as a natural limit on the vision of individual men to dominate that isn't always in place in the patriarchal family structure.

This is a very worthwhile post!

In addition to what you wrote, I think harm is often done to children who are raised as celebrities, as public role models, or as public influencers. They can view themselves as something special or that they deserve things that others don't. I think it messes with the normal innocent development of children.

[Neto]

This phrase "help meet" deserves careful study, even scrutiny. I think that there has been a tendency to interpret it as something closer to 'servant' than what can be supported from a Biblical study of the word itself, God's created order, and the safeguards throughout the OT, and OF COURSE (as Barnhart has pointed out already) the teaching and example of Jesus.

I am not a Hebrew scholar, but from what I've read, the phrase has an element of meaning which we might define as 'oppositeness'. We do not need to stuff everyone into strictly defined boxes to see that women and men are different in feeling and outlook. Women have a role of being a 'balance' for their husbands. This 'oppositeness' is also present in the sense of the created design of a face to face relationship between a husband and wife. Not to degrade those who are not married, but marriage brings (or, SHOULD bring) about a completeness that is, I believe, a part of God's design in creation.

[JohnH]

I would say "patriarchy" probably has very little to do with it, and being raised to be on a reality-TV show (and the kind of thinking that goes into that) probably has a great deal to do with it. "Patriarchy" was simply a prop to give them a reason to be on TV at all. Overall, if you look into the personal life history of child TV stars, abuse seems to be quite rampant, regardless of patriarchy, feminism, or anything else.

Whilst I don't personally subscribe to the "patriarchy" views, I have not noticed it is particularly correlated with some kind of higher incidence of abuse. I have noticed that most people I knew who grew up in such a setting are quite liberal / progressive now, including in some cases the parents themselves.

[mike]

I think harm is often done to children who are raised as celebrities or as public role models. They can view themselves as something special or that they deserve things that others don't. I think it messes with the normal innocent development of children.

Yes, most definitely. Around 20-25 ago I was at a concert where a well-known family singing group was performing, and they were doing introductions. The children were pretty young, and when one of the girls was introduced, she piped up, "I'm the cute one!" Her mom looked embarrassed. I thought to myself then that this was a very unhealthy thing to do to children, and time has I think shown some of the problems of this.

I don't have a problem with families singing together, even singing on a stage for a group necessarily, but I think there are huge potential pitfalls. Having your family on a national TV show is like all of this to the 100th power. Problems.