When Did 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson Say Men Should Marry Girls At 16 So They 'Pick Your Ducks?'

It seems likely. Reality shows are often based around shock value.

I’m sorry, but that makes it even more creepy. You’re saying people should parent their spouses? How is someone ready to be a parent if they themselves still need that level of parenting?

I never said the current system was perfect, or even that it was preferable to what came before it. It is, however, the current system, and people would be wise to take it into consideration.

It shouldn’t be distasteful. Frankly, I’m not even sure what makes this statement humorous. Where’s the joke?

I don’t mean parenting. What I mean is that people at age 15 or 16 still are developing mentally and will see a marriage as permanent and will adopt values and habits of each other, were people in their 20’s-30’s are set in their ways and more likely to see a marriage as disposable.

By the way I didn’t say any of this. I am just speculating on his reasoning when he says " They will pluck your ducks"

The current system is broken and needs to be changed. The break up of the family is responsible for the nations woes. If the family stayed together under the old system then maybe we should take it into consideration.

People who marry young are now statistically more likely to divorce.

How does unwise = distasteful.

We agreed that there was nothing against Church teaching, and your comments were driven towards it not being prudent in todays culture.

But none of that equaled anything distasteful.

I find it distasteful to suggest that it’s a good idea to keep women helpless by encouraging them to drop out of high school (or I guess take high school classes while pregnant, which also sounds like a bad idea), even if the statement is a joke. That is purely my opinion, but it’s part of why I, personally, don’t find the statement funny.

The other part is that I have no idea where the humor is supposed to come from. What’s the joke here? I honestly don’t get it.

He certainly didn’t say it was his intent to keep women helpless, and I apologize if I gave that impression. The fact remains that there is very little one can do without a high school diploma these days. The woman who marries at 16 will necessarily be very dependent on her husband. In Mary’s time, this made sense, because women weren’t expected to provide for themselves anyway. Now they are, and that means there aren’t as many resources for a young mother if something goes wrong. If something goes wrong, she will be rather helpless compared to the single young woman with at least a high school diploma. Even if she made the choice completely on her own, and was not forced or pressured in any way (which seems unlikely, given what I’ve read of the whole “Christian Patriarchy” crowd), her decision has still cut her off from a lot of options, and has made her comparatively helpless.

I’m going to give up the point about it being funny, because I don’t see the joke at all. People can laugh if they want, sure. Likewise, I can question whether the “joke” is problematic.

Being a full-time homemaker is not a bad idea. If you think dropping out of school is a bad idea, ok. Why put, “to be a full-time homemaker”? The idea that being a full-time homemaker is a bad idea, is a bad idea that has gotten us where we are today.

Sorry, you’re right. There’s definitely nothing wrong with being a full-time homemaker. I just think that it’s a bad idea to cut oneself off from other options in case something goes wrong. It’s better to get skills and some level of education first.

Would you pluck a duck? Maybe he’s saying people tend to get a little more :shrug: “uppity” with age and more higher learning. Which I don’t believe he really is against higher learning for women. I know at least one of his daughter-in-laws went to college, but I doubt she plucks ducks. Could be wrong though. So, there is the humor, he’s got a wife that is not grossed out by plucking ducks and a lot of men can’t get their wife to cook a decent meal.

I guess that makes sense. I’m not sure. I may not have a very good grasp of humor in the first place. I’m probably not his target audience. :stuck_out_tongue:

You probably have to be a redneck to get it. Lol. I wouldn’t want my daughter to get married at 16 either, I was 27 before I got married. I would hope if she chooses to get married she can find someone sooner than I did. As someone else pointed out, being older makes it harder to have a big family, or maybe even one. I’m blessed to have two with me I just don’t like when I hear someone say they don’t want their daughter to be dependant on a man. I’d rather say find a man that is dependable. Of course like you said earlier, you never know what life brings.

Pick=choose.:smiley:

I would go with sprig. :smiley:

That brought back so many good memories of my Aunt Mary’s farm in Co Mayo (Ireland)

I spent most of my summers there, as they could always use extra help on a dairy farm.

They had chickens and ducks as well as dairy cows. I remember plucking those fowl with my Aunt Mary and having some great conversations.

I don’t think that she ever finished high school either, but she was a second mom to MY mother and did a great job of raising 7 kids herself.

And she probably had a much happier life than if she had spend it working in some office in Dublin. I know that WE were happier for it.

source please.

cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad323.pdf

See page five for a table. I admit that it’s old data (1995), but I can’t find any evidence that rates have gotten better for the under-18 bracket in recent years. In 1995, 67% of women married before age 18 divorced within 20 years, compared to 41% of those who married between the ages of 20 and 24.

cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf

See page eight of this more recent report (2012) for a chart comparing the probability that a marriage will remain intact for 20 years with the educational level of the spouses. Women with more education are more likely to stay with their husbands.

Found both reports on the CDC website.

I dont know about that, I remember talking to alot of older people and alot of the men had married much younger girls, usually the girls were around 15-17, and the guys would be around 16-21, and nearly all of them had great marriages and were still together after 50 years.

My grand parents were like this, My grandfather was 19 when he married my grandmother, who was, I believe 14, and they had the best marriage anyone could want, they died years ago, but were married for over 60 years!!! Strangely though, in todays world, my grandfather would be viewed as a criminal!! Truly strange times we live in.

This was a different generation though, but still, if you look back thru history, it was generally common to girl be married by the age of 18 (up until very recent times), and this went on for 1000s of years, its only today that many people look down upon this…it does make one wonder why this is, especially since thru out history, its been commonplace?

Seems to me, like some group or groups want to influence how the public feels about various topics.??

It’s not because it’s inherently wrong, it’s because it’s a bad idea today. A fourteen-year-old girl today is probably not equipped to deal with life as an adult. There are many things she still has to learn to be able to take care of herself and her children, even just for running a household. If her family has farmland, or her husband has a very good job, maybe it will work. If not, she’s going to have a very hard time providing for her family. And if anything happens to her husband, she will not have the resources to provide for herself. It worked out alright in the 1900’s because society was built for it. Now it isn’t. It now tends to be a bad idea.

I already posted the statistics from the CDC. Women who marry before the age of 18, or who do not have a basic education, are more likely to divorce than those who wait. I don’t have anything against those who married young fifty years ago, but I don’t think we should encourage the sixteen-year-olds of today to get married now. The vast majority are not ready.

It is strange that today a 16 yr old is basically still a kid, but in decades past, they became adults much earlier on. I think that says something about modern society, but its not a good thing. There are many 18 yr olds that could not survive in the world without help from their parents though, kind of like kids take much longer to grow up today for some reason? Maybe because they are so sheltered from reality and any kind of negativity?

I don’t think people in centuries past needed 20 years of education in order to find a good job to support a family. Nowadays you’re legally required to go to school until you turn sixteen anyway, and as I said before, it’s almost impossible to get a job that pays more than minimum wage unless you have at least a high school diploma or GED. Higher-paying jobs require college, and a lot of times you have to take unpaid internships before you can even get a job. And even when you have all of that, the competition is still fierce, because there are so many unemployed young adults who are also trying to get that same job.

While it may well be that children’s mental growth is slowed down from what it used to be, I think it also takes more to become a truly independant adult under the current system (unless you have special circumstances, like a family business or farmland).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.