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 3

post #41 of 63

I think of quiverfull as just a generic term for Christians who don't want to use birth control. I have friends who only use NFP, I think of them as quiverful.  But, yeah, Quiverfull as a named kind of movement, I can see why they'd reject the term.  On the other hand, I get the feeling with the Duggars its more than just about being open to God giving them children.  I don't know why I feel that way, but I feel like they are trying to have as many children as they possibly can for a number of reasons.

 

I went 10 months with no period with my first baby, a baby who nursed quite frequently. I didn't start ovulating until after a year, however.  My second baby went longer between nursings, and I got my period back at 4 months, but I felt like I was ovulating the month before that.  So I don't think that exclusive breastfeeding means you won't get pregnant, but honestly, I did not have the libido after my second pregnancy, so the sex wasn't there.  I've had sex fewer times in the last 2 years than they have children.  I guess they must really like sex and make it a priority in their lives.

post #42 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.


Bathing and nude cuddling are required now for natural nursing?  Really?  Seems every time I turn around, more requirements are being added.  I know bathing and skin to skin can help with fussy babies who won't nurse, but seriously, how are they requirements?  How are you somehow not really nursing right if you aren't nude and bathing together?

 

In any case, I did do all that with all three kids.  And with my first, my period did stay away for an entire year exactly - lovely present for me on my kid's first birthday gloomy.gif.  But then with my second, I got it back at seven freaking weeks, and I was tandem nursing... omg.  Then with my third, not tandem nursing that time, so just one baby on the boob constantly, and again, back right around seven weeks.  

 

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.



Lochia stopped a little before two weeks for me.  With my second, which was the first time I got my period back early, I thought it probably was a strange late return of lochia (plus a bit of cramping) since I'd heard that could happen.  Then when it happened again four weeks later just the same I was all, really really late return of lochia?  Right?  Because it couldn't possibly be a period already... then four weeks later I was all darn it, because there was absolutely no denying it that time, and thank goodness we'd been using condoms and not relying on breastfeeding.  

post #43 of 63
Thread Starter 

WOW!  I haven't logged on in a while so I'm really surprised to see so many posts! I'm mostly with Annettemarie . . . 

post #44 of 63
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post

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.



Agree. I heard somewhere that being "Quiverful" is TRYING to have as many children as possible so you could raise them as Conservative Christians and basically take over the world. Yikes. Who WOULD want to be associated with that, really?

post #45 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by akichan View Post

Agree. I heard somewhere that being "Quiverful" is TRYING to have as many children as possible so you could raise them as Conservative Christians and basically take over the world. Yikes. Who WOULD want to be associated with that, really?



Well, the Duggars seem there (actively trying to have as many children as possible) to me.  JMO.

 

post #46 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.

 

Do you mean "ecological breastfeeding"?  I have never read that "bathing with your baby" is necessary for ecological breastfeeding/LAM.
 

 

post #47 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugalmum View Post

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.



Quiverful enough for what?

 

post #48 of 63

If my dh and I had sex without b/c everytime I ovulated, we would have had many kids- I am VERY fertile. I am also ALWAYS in the mood when I am ovulating. That may be the case for Michelle- it may not be actively trying to have many kids as possible, but simply following biology. That is the way we are made. (It's also why my dh had a V, also known as the best present he ever gave me, LOL) If Michelle was not as fertile, I don't believe she would have taken measures to get PG. She is simply following the biological nature of her body without any interference at all.

post #49 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

If my dh and I had sex without b/c everytime I ovulated, we would have had many kids- I am VERY fertile. I am also ALWAYS in the mood when I am ovulating. That may be the case for Michelle- it may not be actively trying to have many kids as possible, but simply following biology. That is the way we are made. (It's also why my dh had a V, also known as the best present he ever gave me, LOL) If Michelle was not as fertile, I don't believe she would have taken measures to get PG. She is simply following the biological nature of her body without any interference at all.


Absolutely!  3.75 years ago (when I was just shy of 40) DH and I decided that we'd let God determine our family size (a year after #4 was born).  We don't "try" to get pregnant, but we don't try not to.  I have been bed-sharing (with 2 children and a husband) and tandem nursing (on cue) for the past 3 years and we just found out that we are expecting the THIRD baby since that decision was made.  (Did I mention that I'm almost 44 and that I have been nursing at least 2 children for the past 3 years????)  Obviously, we're all different.  In August of 2007 we made that decision.  Next baby was born in May of '08.  Next baby in February of '10.  This one is due in March of 2012.  If we had made that decision years ago - at the ages Michelle and Jim Bob did, I have no reason to believe we wouldn't have been similarly blessed with such a large tribe.  (Well, except that Michelle is infinitely more patient and God-focused than I am...who knows how I would have held up...or if I would have relied on God much sooner than I did to help me through the challenges unique to life with a passle of Littles.)

 

Also, I would not call myself "Quiverfull" because that "camp" frequently has a lot of patriarchal stuff with it that I don't necessarily buy.  And I do know that *some* "Quiverfull" types DO try to have as many babies as possible - but that is not true for most.  For most that I'm aware of (and for DH and I), the idea is that if God is truly in control of your life - if you have submitted all areas to Him -  it makes sense to respect His design for your family size.  That is, we don't try to manipulate our family size either through birth control, Natural Family Planning *OR* through actively seeking to increase fertility (either by early weaning or by medical means, etc...) - we trust that God knows what He's doing (and that He meant it when He said children are a blessing). 
 

 

post #50 of 63


I'm sorry, I can't get this below the quote.

 

I use NFP (for personal, not religious, reasons).  I've been married over 20 years.  I have one child, by choice.  I will only have one child, again, by my choice.   NFP most definitely does not equal quiverful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viola View Post

 I have friends who only use NFP, I think of them as quiverful.

post #51 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post


I'm sorry, I can't get this below the quote.

 

I use NFP (for personal, not religious, reasons).  I've been married over 20 years.  I have one child, by choice.  I will only have one child, again, by my choice.   NFP most definitely does not equal quiverful.

yeahthat.gif

NFP is birth control, and an effective one too when it's used properly. Quiverfull couples won't use NFP because they don't consider it leaving pregnancy up to God.
 

 

post #52 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwithboys View Post

 

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 never really had any issues nursing, did natural nursing as you call it (I always just called it nursing love.gif) and still my babies are almost exactly 2 yrs apart. AF appeared at about 9ish months. My bff also did all the above and her AF didn't come back til 14ish months but her babies are closer together than mine! I'm not disagreeing with your point but I think 3 yrs is a bit much.  Even in tribal cultures where BF is the only form of BC, most of their children are about 2 years apart. 
 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post

Here's the problem:

There is no credo that one must sign to be quiverfull.  A person who rejects birthcontrol on the basis of their Christian faith is "quiverfull".  But they may not be Quiverfull with a capital Q, depending on what that means to them.  There is no Quiverfull organization to which a person applies for membership.

 

Originally, the term simply meant viewing children as blessings, and not using contraception.  In that sense, the Duggar's certainly are "quiverfull".  So am I.  They have 19, I have 3.

 

Like them, in many contexts I refer not to use that term because other people have taken it and made something it is not.  When people point fingers and say "You are Quiverfull, you horrible person", they have taken that term and put under it a whole laundry list of stuff--prairie muffin, hypocrite, ultra patriarchal, abusive, anti-education, etc, etc, etc.  It is no longer a descriptor of a single belief (rejection of birth control) but an umbrella used to describe a whole mess of beliefs that have nothing to do with birth control.  The Quiverful book, and sites like No Longer Quivering have contributed to this change.

 

Michelle wrote in the book, and elsewhere, that her fertility returns early, and she has to quit nursing due to issues the pregnancies cause with breastfeeding (severe pain and supply issues, iirc).  I'm pretty sure that doesn't constitute "weaning early to get pregnant sooner".  Because bc is ubiquitous in this culture, it seems hard for people to imagine that a couple could have 19 children without interfering with nature.  The Duggar's are unique in their high level of fertility now, but wouldn't have been so 200 years ago.  What sets them apart from highly fertile families back then is that all 19 of their children have survived pregnancy and birth and infancy and early childhood.  Yet and still, Susannah Wesley (mother of Charles and John, writers of hymns and evangelical revivalists way back when) raised a similar number of children, and was a child of an equally large family.  So it happened.


AMEN AND AMEN! Esp not liking to use that term to describe my beliefs about childbearing.  In many ways, I believe that people have taken the wonderful blessing and joy of the quiverful movement and made it either something ugly, abusive and negligent OR the proponents of quiverful have turned it into a dogma.  You HAVE to be quiverful type thing.  If we are turning the bearing of children and acceptance of God's will in having them or not into dogma, into WHO I am, into WHAT and HOW I believe, I are am NOT accepting God's will because I am merely making my children and my fertility into an idol to worship, which, no matter how well-meaning, is unacceptable to God.

 

I used to use the term quiverful to describe myself, though I no longer do so unless I am talking to someone who understands what I mean.  Once I saw that movie that came out a few years ago, I stopped though.  There was the lady from NLQ, I believe in it, another woman who ran a homeschool publishing co with her DH and a lady who had 8 children and a patriarical family.  The woman with the hs co seemed to be very sweet and loving.  The woman with the 8 children honestly scared me.  She was like what I call a femi-nazi.  You know those feminist type women who would rather die than give up feminism, who are angry, who are determined to be as unfeminine as possible?  Those are femi-nazis.  This woman seemed like that about having children.  She was on a mission to change the world into quivering (pun intended) families and there wasn't love and gentleness portrayed about her, though that might admittedly have been editing of the film.  After that, I stopped referring to myself as quiverful.  I also don't refer to myself according to the denominational terms.  What's the point?  We are called to unity and quite honestly, it can and does just become another idol.  

I think we should all applaud Michelle Duggar for standing up to the criticism of the world about following God's plan and call on her life; about living a life with children and joy; for having well spoken, well behaved children in a world that doesn't even use common terms of respect like Mrs. or even Miss anymore; for standing before the gossiping hordes of people who talk about her and her choices and what they believe is the silliness of it and refusing to back down, to cower and be afraid of all that.  Honestly, I admire her and JimBob too.  I admire the children they have raised with life skills and attitudes of honor and dignity in the face of criticism. I admire the fact that they are not refusing more children because of Baby Josie and all those issues.

 

post #53 of 63


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandimn6217 View Post
 The woman with the 8 children honestly scared me.  She was like what I call a femi-nazi.  You know those feminist type women who would rather die than give up feminism, who are angry, who are determined to be as unfeminine as possible?  Those are femi-nazis.  


oh, i thought it was those feminists who rounded up all the men-folk and sent them to Auschwitz...

 

eyesroll.gif

post #54 of 63

ROTFLMAO.gif

post #55 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

Evangelical Christians and Baptists are not the same thing. There are many demoninations of the Christian faith. Evangelicals and Baptists are two separate demoninations. And not all Christians practice a specific demonination. Growing up I attended "First Christian Church". That was it. Just Christian.

 

 


Most Baptist are Evangelicals but not all Evangelicals are Baptist.  Evangelical is a broader umbrella protestants gather under.  For example my inlaws are baptist who are Evangelicals.  They attend a lutheran church (well lutheran light) because it is more evangelical than their baptist church but they still consider themselves baptist.

 

Just like all millinialists are protestants but not all protestants are millinialists.  

 

post #56 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?


nothing.  

 

 

 

post #57 of 63

I did the natural nursing, bathed with my babies, co sleeping, nursing on demand. I birthed my last three at home and they stayed with me at ALL times. I'm pregnant with baby number 6 in about 6 1/2 years. I breastfed ON DEMAND! Heck! My babies didn't lose any weight after being born (I'm told most lose up to %10 of their weight the first 24hrs after being born) and gained a 1lb a week for the first three months. I would wake my babies up to feed if they slept longer than 4 hours. My AFalways returned 2 months after giving birth. I only bled for 2 weeks after giving birth. I DESPERATELY tried to breastfeed for as long as possible. I wanted to do it for at least a year and I've been close (10 months) but about 3 months after getting pregnant my milk supply dries up for me. 

 

It can and does happen where the breastfeeding alone doesn't keep AF away. My babies got only breast milk . Nipples weren't sore had the nurse come out to make sure they were nursing properly. My body just seems to be extremely fertile. 

post #58 of 63
I know this is a few years old but she has stated in interviews that she starts to give rice cereal at 6 weeks. THAT IS WEANING!!!
post #59 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwithboys View Post

...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?...  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...

 

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'm up too early and randomly reading this old post, but I'll be pleased if someone ends up addressing my question anyway.  It does deviate from focusing on the Duggars, but I believe we're not supposed to lift quotes from one thread and put them in another, right?

 

So:  does BF/AP of infants really work this way for everyone, or for most mothers?

 

With my youngest, I did everything blessedwithboys recommends in the 1st part of her post and none of the things that she suggests hasten the return of one's menstrual cycle.*  Yet, my regular cycle returned within a few months, just like it had with my older twins, who were in the NICU for 4 months and whom I couldn't hold much during that time and was never able to BF.  

 

I did BF/AP because it seemed instinctive, not because I'd researched it beforehand or hoped for a specific side-effect.  But I did hear from my midwife that breastfeeding should postpone the need for birth control (or NFP in our case, as we're Catholic).  I was disappointed that it didn't work that way, for me.  Is that really so unusual?

 

______________________

*Unless she strictly means that letting anyone - including husband/dad - ever hold/bond with the baby defeats BF/AP; but surely she doesn't mean that?  I assumed blessedwithboys is talking about regularly having someone else carry/care for a baby for significant stretches between nursing, so she can get things done without wearing the baby.

post #60 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post


I'm sorry, I can't get this below the quote.

 

I use NFP (for personal, not religious, reasons).  I've been married over 20 years.  I have one child, by choice.  I will only have one child, again, by my choice.   NFP most definitely does not equal quiverful.

 

Oh wow, so this is almost 2 years old, but I never read this response.  To clarify, I know certain Christians who are open to God giving as many children as He wills, but they practice NFP.  NFP doesn't circumvent the will of God as active contraception would, because the possibility is always there--I'm not speaking scientifically.  I know it is possible to have unprotected sex and just not get pregnant because of when you are ovulating and all that.  Now I could argue that since birth control isn't 100% effective, and since God is omnipotent, you are always open to the possibility of God giving your children when you perform a certain type of sex act even if you use contraception.  I've known people who have gotten pregnant while taking oral contraceptives, and even a few weeks after the depo provera shot.  However, I think the idea is that philosophically, your willingness is not compromised by NFP, at least in some religious circles. 

So I know people who I think of as quiverful who do practice NFP, but I know plenty of people who practice NFP who are not quiverful. That's what I was trying to say here. But since quiverful does seem like actively trying to conceive as many children as you can, then my friends would probably not fit.


If I practiced NFP, I would still have to use a barrier method during certain times of the month, because I only want to have sex when I'm ovulating, and I've gotten pregnant having sex 3 days before ovulation, which isn't that unusual. But I know someone who practiced NFP and got pregnant with ovulation that occurred 7 days after intercourse.  That had never happened to her before, but since I wouldn't want to get pregnant at all, and my desire tracks with my fertility, I have never wanted to do straight NFP.  So I don't know if you can be quiverful if you actively decide not to have sex when you want it because pregnancy might result.  I don't know that much about it.  My original thought was just that most people use the term to mean they are open to the possibility of God's will.

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!