or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Activism and News › Duggars are NOT Quiverfull!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Duggars are NOT Quiverfull! - Page 2

post #21 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwithboys View Post

Disclaimer:  I am a huge Duggar fan and think it's awesome how loving and close they all are and I have no issues with the number of children they have because they actually are able to take care of them, both financially and spiritually.

 

However, every time this topic comes up I can't help but wonder if Michelle truly practices "natural" nursing.  By that I mean, does she nurse ASAP after birth, does she co-sleep, does she pacify at the breast, does she BW, does she bathe with her babies, does she cuddle naked with them?  I had major struggles with ds1 and got AF back at 5 mos but had fewer issues with ds2 and didn't get it til 11mos.  It took 3-4mos for me to "discover" AP with ds1 but was super-crunchy with ds2 from the get-go.  If Michelle has BF issues to begin with, and then compounds them by doing any type of scheduled feedings (or hands her baby off to a "buddy" throughout the day), it's no wonder she bleeds again so soon.

 

And IMNSHO, scheduling (or in any other way interfering with) BF could be viewed as interfering with God's plan just as much as BC.  So then I might go so far as to say that they wouldn't really be allowing as many babies as God wanted to give them; instead, they were artificially creating an environment where more babies would come than if truly natural BF practices were used.

 

It just really sounds to me like she has so many problems nursing that her period comes back sooner than it might otherwise.  I bet if she had smoother sailing at the breast and was able to go to toddlerhood, she would only have a baby every 3 years.



 

I was tandem nursing number 2 and 3........I got my period back at 6-8 weeks, like with my other two births.  Co-sleeping with them both.  No pacifiers. Some of use get their fertility back real quick.  She does mention she had troubles and I can see that might cause them to come back early, however those things you listed above does not apply to all.  

post #22 of 63

Michelle nurses when her baby is hungry as far as I can tell. Even it it's in the middle of a crowded public place. Granted she pulls out that bib thing so she can do it modestly.

post #23 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwithboys View Post

However, every time this topic comes up I can't help but wonder if Michelle truly practices "natural" nursing.  By that I mean, does she nurse ASAP after birth, does she co-sleep, does she pacify at the breast, does she BW, does she bathe with her babies, does she cuddle naked with them?  I had major struggles with ds1 and got AF back at 5 mos but had fewer issues with ds2 and didn't get it til 11mos.  It took 3-4mos for me to "discover" AP with ds1 but was super-crunchy with ds2 from the get-go.  If Michelle has BF issues to begin with, and then compounds them by doing any type of scheduled feedings (or hands her baby off to a "buddy" throughout the day), it's no wonder she bleeds again so soon
Not really. I did all that with both my kids. Got my period at 4 WEEKS with the first one, 12 weeks with the second one.

And you know, considering the rates of breastfeeding in North America, her going to 6 months is pretty damn good.
post #24 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwithboys View Post

However, every time this topic comes up I can't help but wonder if Michelle truly practices "natural" nursing.  By that I mean, does she nurse ASAP after birth, does she co-sleep, does she pacify at the breast, does she BW, does she bathe with her babies, does she cuddle naked with them?

I'm pretty sure that since she puts her babies directly to her breast that she is a natural nurser (and we know this to be ue since she has been shown nursing on the show on several occasions). The things you mentioned above, while wonderful for mom and baby, are certainly not criteria to determine if one is nursing the proper way.
post #25 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwithboys View Post

Disclaimer:  I am a huge Duggar fan and think it's awesome how loving and close they all are and I have no issues with the number of children they have because they actually are able to take care of them, both financially and spiritually.

 

However, every time this topic comes up I can't help but wonder if Michelle truly practices "natural" nursing.  By that I mean, does she nurse ASAP after birth, does she co-sleep, does she pacify at the breast, does she BW, does she bathe with her babies, does she cuddle naked with them?  I had major struggles with ds1 and got AF back at 5 mos but had fewer issues with ds2 and didn't get it til 11mos.  It took 3-4mos for me to "discover" AP with ds1 but was super-crunchy with ds2 from the get-go.  If Michelle has BF issues to begin with, and then compounds them by doing any type of scheduled feedings (or hands her baby off to a "buddy" throughout the day), it's no wonder she bleeds again so soon.

 

And IMNSHO, scheduling (or in any other way interfering with) BF could be viewed as interfering with God's plan just as much as BC.  So then I might go so far as to say that they wouldn't really be allowing as many babies as God wanted to give them; instead, they were artificially creating an environment where more babies would come than if truly natural BF practices were used.

 

It just really sounds to me like she has so many problems nursing that her period comes back sooner than it might otherwise.  I bet if she had smoother sailing at the breast and was able to go to toddlerhood, she would only have a baby every 3 years.


Ok, seriously. Like a few PPs I tandem, cosleep, no pacis, wear baby, nurse on demand, etc... and get my fertility back VERY quickly so this whole "ur doin it rong" attitude is just over the top...

 

post #26 of 63

All women's bodies are different though. Each of my 3 children nursed differently. With no. 1, I breastfed and pumped- I went back to work and had to pump for his bottles. I did this for a year. I started him on solids at 4 months and from everything I read, expected AF to return then. It didn't. I was waking at night to pump so he could have enough BM. He never had one drop of formula. AF returned at 9 months.

 

No. didn't like switiching from breast to bottle and she prefered the bottle. She had formula from 10-12 months. AF returned at 9 months.

 

I was a SAHM with baby number three. She never took a bottle at all and nursed on demand for 24 months. She was much later in eating solids, the only one who didn't sleep through the night early on, and woke at night to nurse until around 18 months. AF returned at 9 months.

 

So even though all of my nursing experiences were different, AF returned at the exact same time for all three.

Michelle Duggar could be the same. I am sure many of her experiences were different. And I highly doubt she weans at 6 weeks. Her nursing her second youngest was shown on TV many times (under a blanket, but still).

post #27 of 63

what does bathing with your babies have to do with nursing?  Did I not nurse my kid right because I rarely ever bathed with her?  I mean, she's still nursing past her second birthday... but we didn't start routinely bathing together til she could be in a shower with me.  Is it pointless to bathe with a formula fed baby?  where does bathing factor into correctly nursing?

post #28 of 63
According to their first book-- although if one is unwilling to accept the Duggars' own words that they aren't Quiverfull, than I expect one also would assume they were lying about this as well- up until a few babies ago, she breastfed despite being in excruciating pain (she described nursing with tears running down her face) and even so, her fertility returned around 6 months, at which point her supply would dip and she would get pregnant again. I used to believe the internet rumor about weaning purposely to get pregnant as well, but since I'm assuming telling the truth is just as much a part of their moral code as women not wearing pants, I'll take her word on it.

As far as the Quiverfull thing, I think there is Quiverfull-- a movement that started back in the 80s and tends to be very Calvinist by nature (I think the big leaders right now are the Phillips family that run Vision Forum) and quiverfull-- a general openness to children which seems to be ahttp://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1317751/duggars-are-not-quiverfull/20 bit less strident (for example, I've met mothers who identify as quiverfull who might use NFP to space children in the case of poor health of the mother). While the Duggars have an association with Vision Forum and were the main speaker at "The Baby Conference," they seem to be huge followers of Bill Gothard/Advanced Training Institute which, as far as I can tell, does not teach qiuverfull as necessary. So I wonder if they were disassociating themselves with Quiverfull as a movement, because they seem to make it a salvation issue, while still believing in the tenets for themselves personally.

I would consider myself as having quiverfull leanings, although after almost dying with the twins my husband decided to take permanent measures so we wouldn't have more children, but I would not consider myself at all to be part of the Quiverfull movement.

That's all probably clear as mud, LOL!
post #29 of 63
Ok I have been laid up at home for a week and started catching up on this show. Is this for real? I did a search and it appears to be legit but I am amazed . How did I miss this first go around?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
post #30 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earthiemama View Post

Ok I have been laid up at home for a week and started catching up on this show. Is this for real? I did a search and it appears to be legit but I am amazed . How did I miss this first go around?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is what for real? The Duggars?
post #31 of 63

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by treeoflife3 View Post
what does bathing with your babies have to do with nursing?  Did I not nurse my kid right because I rarely ever bathed with her?  I mean, she's still nursing past her second birthday... but we didn't start routinely bathing together til she could be in a shower with me.  Is it pointless to bathe with a formula fed baby?  where does bathing factor into correctly nursing?



I *think* the point from the earlier poster regarding bathing with baby is that there are certain practices, commonly grouped under "ecological breastfeeding" that generally result in a later return of AF and babies naturally spaced several years apart.  Some people argue that if you are going to simply accept how many children "G-d wants" you to have, you should go with what your body biologically would do.  It is not a matter of nursing your kid "right" or "wrong".  For me, it's kind of like when you say the term "how long did you exclusively breastfeed?" and some people mean only breastmilk, others mean no formula, others mean breastmilk & water...  One isn't better or worse, they're just different and it helps if you have some idea what people are talking about, kwim.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie View Post

According to their first book-- although if one is unwilling to accept the Duggars' own words that they aren't Quiverfull, than I expect one also would assume they were lying about this as well- up until a few babies ago, she breastfed despite being in excruciating pain (she described nursing with tears running down her face) and even so, her fertility returned around 6 months, at which point her supply would dip and she would get pregnant again. I used to believe the internet rumor about weaning purposely to get pregnant as well, but since I'm assuming telling the truth is just as much a part of their moral code as women not wearing pants, I'll take her word on it.
 


Thanks for the info.  I was obviously misinformed.  It's not a big thing in my life, so I didn't go looking for additional information. 

 

I do agree with a previous poster, though, that in our society even nursing for "only" 6 months is something to be proud of! 

 

post #32 of 63

okay, but what does bathing have to do with it?  is it because you are skin to skin (which would be the 'cuddling naked' bit she mentioned) or is it because then even while being washed, baby can nurse (which would be the 'pacifying at the breast' bit that was mentioned.)  or does actually being in soap and water together actually have anything to do with nursing?  I'm not getting how bathing with your baby has anything at all to do with nursing.  My baby was bathed in a baby tub and she never desired to nurse while she was being bathed and we had plenty of skin on skin contact outside of her actually being washed... but because we didn't bathe together does that mean I didn't nurse 'naturally?'  what does bathing WITH your baby have to do with nursing at all?

post #33 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by treeoflife3 View Post

okay, but what does bathing have to do with it?  is it because you are skin to skin (which would be the 'cuddling naked' bit she mentioned) or is it because then even while being washed, baby can nurse (which would be the 'pacifying at the breast' bit that was mentioned.)  or does actually being in soap and water together actually have anything to do with nursing?  I'm not getting how bathing with your baby has anything at all to do with nursing.  My baby was bathed in a baby tub and she never desired to nurse while she was being bathed and we had plenty of skin on skin contact outside of her actually being washed... but because we didn't bathe together does that mean I didn't nurse 'naturally?'  what does bathing WITH your baby have to do with nursing at all?


It has noting to do with it. It's not even one of the steps in the ecological breastfeeding book.
post #34 of 63

How can you tell if you have your "period" at 4-6 weeks post partum?  I still had lochia at six weeks.

post #35 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleplum View Post

How can you tell if you have your "period" at 4-6 weeks post partum?  I still had lochia at six weeks.


I didn't have my "period" at 4 weeks. I had my period at 4 weeks. No quotes needed. And it was because my lochia had stopped the week before, and when I started bleeding again (my period), I spoke with my midwife. And because at 8 weeks pp I got a period. And 12 weeks. And 16 weeks. See where this is going?

Yes, I'm still bitter I didn't get months of period free living. lol.gif
post #36 of 63

Sorry, I put period in quotes because I didn't know that you knew for a fact that you had ovulated.  I primarily have anovulatory cycles, so I have very few periods per year (only one last year, in fact).  And since I'm not currently TTC, I would have no idea if my next bleed is a period or an anovulatory bleed.  So, when I refer to my own times of bleeding, I use quotes around period. 

 

Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding!

 

(And now I'm jealous that you only had three weeks of lochia.)

post #37 of 63

I'm still trying to figure out why it matters if they are quiverfull or not in the long run anyway?

post #38 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleplum View Post


(And now I'm jealous that you only had three weeks of lochia.)



Me, too...but I still think I got the best of that one. My shortest period-free post-partum time was four months...and I went...hmm...18 months? with dd2. (It was only a few months ago, and I've already forgotten, but it was about 18.) I think I can take the trade-off of 5-8 weeks of lochia!

post #39 of 63

I remember michelle saying they decided to be open to as many children as god wished to give them... in my book that is quiverful enough, even if not "official."  There's no official membership card for being quiverful.  They may just not want to be identified with the movement, who knows?  I am open to as many children as god will give me but I don't fit into the quiverful mold.  If there were an extreme reason I would use BC but it would have to be a VERY serious issue.

post #40 of 63

My guess is that the Duggars, like many of us, do not want to be locked into a box.  Particularly a box that has taken on a very negative and even creepy connotation in the last several years, due to rampant stereotyping.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism and News
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Activism and News › Duggars are NOT Quiverfull!