Simply repulsive. Yet, somehow not surprising for this bunch.

I think a lot of this comes down to values. By selecting Michelle Duggar as Conservative Woman of the Year, the CPAC was likely indicating that it approved of many of the same values of Mrs. Duggar, which could be a number of different things. To me, one of the biggest ideologies that is espoused by Michelle and her family is the attempt to align what they say and do with their religious beliefs. This definitely explains their choice to continue having children (albeit a LOT), despite societal commentary. Too many children? Who are we to make that call? The Duggars are also a highly visible and easily recognizable family (their own doing, perhaps). Maybe that’s why Michelle was chosen over matriarchs of another family of similar size (I don’t think color has anything to do with it). The most difficult part of this article, Danielle, is that it’s polarizing and passes a lot of judgement. To me, it seems to presuppose that women should value higher education and getting “out of the kitchen” over staying at home and raising a family. Women wrestle with this question (and the guilt that often comes along with it) all the time–many times on this very blog. So Michelle’s older children care for her younger children. What about parents who hire nannies to care for their children? Are they better or worse parents? And who are we to make that sort of judgement anyway? Again, ultimately this comes down to values, but I think we can all agree on a few basic principles here: parenting is tough, regardless of the size of one’s family, and none of us have a perfect formula for getting it “right”; women have the power to influence in tremendous ways–both in and out of the home. Maybe Michele Bachmann or Kristi Noem will be chosen next year.

IF she cared for her children it would be one thing, but she doesn’t. She pops it out and assigns it to one of it’s older siblings. That’s not being a mother, that’s being a walking uterus.