or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

16 children - Page 6

post #101 of 1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie
Oh, I can see where that would be annoying. I really don't think that was the point though.
No I don't either.

I just wanted to clarify.
post #102 of 1903
I'm another "on the fence" mama. On one hand it is great that the children are learning responsibility and how to pitch in and help the family. Cooking, cleaning, parenting, and nurturing are valuable skills that most people don't learn until they are older, these kids are learning these skills early. On the other hand, it seems like they are missing out on having the care-free childhood that most children have. I don't think it is good for a teenager to be expected to completely raise their siblings. BUT, just because there are 16 of them doesn't make the parents BAD parents. I know bad parents with one child, I know bad parents with 14 children, the number of kids you have doesn't directly relate to the kind of parent you are.

I'm not sure how I feel about them. I don't think they are awesome parents but I don't think that they are awful parents either.
post #103 of 1903
I don't think that it's the fact that they have 16 children that makes them bad parents. I think it's the parenting choices that they have made that makes them bad parents...now if I could remember where I read about their parenting style it would really back up my point. But just from what I've read on this thread: ezzo style training of babies, enforced gender division of labour of the kids, and older children being responsible for an inordinate amount of child-rearing. To me, that is enough information to be judgemental with.
post #104 of 1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelBee
Sometimes people push judgments on us for being quiverful based on their own ignorance or misunderstandings about the topic.

You know, having the opinion that quiverful people are irresponsible and selfish doesn't mean you're ignorant or that you lack understanding.
post #105 of 1903
Perhaps they are good parents to babies, but we really don't know how they are at parenting the older children because they *don't* parent the older children.

I think there's a large gap between careless children and these children. In between these extremes lies a happy balance.

I don't think it's appropriate for older children to do all the parenting of a younger sibling. I have a large family and my older ones frequently watch over the younger ones. Heck, I'm presently a full time student and I have two labs. I have my older children holding down the fort because the labs are scheduled to run over the time the elementary aged kids get home from school.

I do not, however, hand anyone over to an older sibling when they're any age because *I'm* the *parent.*

There are people I know, some on this board, who were from large families and had lazy ignorant parents dump their younger siblings on them. These people are pretty hostile to large families because they associate this behavior with large families. I am very sensitive to this issue.

I have big issues with the patriarchal division of labor and the downright freakishness imposed almost exclusively on the girls in this family. The boys could pass for normal but the girls have that "Children of the Corn" sort of odd look.

When do these girls get to read? When do they go out with friends? Do they have dreams of going to college?

I just don't get a good vibe off these people, just bad fundie vibes.

Sorry.

Debra Baker
post #106 of 1903
Thread Starter 
The thing that bothers me the most is their "J-O-Y" concept. Jesus first, others second, yourself last. I'm not particularly religious so the first does not apply, but I'm of the concept that you can not care for others if you do not care for yourself.
post #107 of 1903
I don't get making others other oriented by imposing your will on them.

DB
post #108 of 1903
I agree Debra.

The part that gets me is the immense responsibility put on these young people which they did not get to choose. Becoming a parent means that you put someone else's needs before your own. But generally you get to choose whether you will become a parent or not. The kids in that family always have to put someone else's needs in front of their own. As much as I agree with family and community responsibilities, I have a problem with that.

ETA: cross posted with 2 pps!
post #109 of 1903
Free Jinger!!!
post #110 of 1903
I was once a member of the religious/homeschooling organization that the Duggars belong to. I have nothing personally against them, as I understand the dogma from which they are coming. Let's just say that I have bigger concerns about the future of these children than how long they were nursed, and if they had too many responsibilities too young.
post #111 of 1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by my~hearts~light
You know, having the opinion that quiverful people are irresponsible and selfish doesn't mean you're ignorant or that you lack understanding.
To me it does.

You can say you disagree, but to say that it is selfish or irresponsible for ME to do...you have NO WAY of knowing if that it true.
post #112 of 1903
Now, what really worries ME (in addition to all the obvious concerns already raised, of course) is what about this mama? Can you imagine what it does to your body to bear 16 children in as many years? I've seen research about child spacing suggesting that subsequent children born too closely spaced might be more at risk of low birth weight, low iron reserves, and other issues, and that mamas are at risk of nutritional deficiencies, dental problems, and other health problems. Now, there are plenty of mamas who've had babies close together and mama and baby have been just fine, but unrelenting pregnancy and birth for 16 years seems like it would wreak havoc on a mama's body. That worries me.

It's hard for me to make reasonable judgements otherwise about these people, because I have my automatic knee-jerk reaction. These are people with very different priorities from mine-- fundamentalist, evangelical Christians who idolize the patriarchal family and believe that training a child's will is essential to lead that child away from the possiblity of eternal damnation-- this is so utterly foreign to me that I can't even begin to make an unbiased assessment of the rights and wrongs in it. I live in another reality, it seems.

So I will refrain from venturing further opinions.

But I gotta say-- hey, I like tater tots. They're one of my personal junk-food weaknesses. Yeah, they're garbage, but I like them. And that tater tot casserole STILL sounds disgusting to me.
post #113 of 1903
to the tune of jngle bells:

J O Y, J O Y, this is what it means: Jesus first, and yourself last, and others in between!

That's a basic principle of Christianity. That you put others feelings and wishes before your own. Nothing screwy about that.
post #114 of 1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Persephone
to the tune of jngle bells:

J O Y, J O Y, this is what it means: Jesus first, and yourself last, and others in between!

That's a basic principle of Christianity. That you put others feelings and wishes before your own. Nothing screwy about that.
Amen!
post #115 of 1903
Quote from Sarah, "Let's just say that I have bigger concerns about the future of these children than how long they were nursed, and if they had too many responsibilities too young."

I think it would be worthwhile for you to elaborate.

DaryLLL, make the tshirts and I will wear one.

db
post #116 of 1903
Debra, your box if full.
post #117 of 1903
I know this is naughty, but does anyone else see the name, Jinger, and cannot help but to have the children's song play in their heads....

John, Jacob, Jingerheimer Schmidt.

That's my name, too.

Whenever I go out...

The people always shout...

There goes John-Jacob-Jingerheimer-Schmidt, LaLaLaLaLaLaLa....
post #118 of 1903
John Jacob Jingerheimer Duggar.
post #119 of 1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelBee
To me it does.

You can say you disagree, but to say that it is selfish or irresponsible for ME to do...you have NO WAY of knowing if that it true.
Well, if she can back up her assertion that quiverfull families are damaging with environmental, health, psychological, and other sorts of data, I'd say she's got an informed opinion-- not one borne out of idle ignorance.

I personally don't care whether folks have fifteen kids or none at all, but I do understand the objection to this family. It does seem that they are pursuing a rather narrow baby-popping-contest-in-the-name-of-holiness at the expense of raising the kids they've already got.
post #120 of 1903
My box is presently empty.

db
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Television