or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

16 children - Page 3

post #41 of 1903
didn't see the show, but scoped through the site some...mmmm, can i join you ladies on that fence??? on the one hand, i love the idea of structure, peace and cooperation that they seem to laud....but there also seems to be some undertones of ....i'm not sure what....that kinda give me creepies...maybe just that NO ONE i know functions that smoothly, like it is a bit unrealistic and a whole lot contrived and probably forced in ways I wouldn't particularly support?
post #42 of 1903
If they follow Gothard and Ezzo, let me assure you, those children are being abused.

If the children aren't given parental attention and, conversely, the older children are given too much responsibility, that's up for debate. These people are eager to splash themselves on the tv, so they are fair game for commentary.

She is her children's "buddy" for two years, wth? And this does not mean she nurses for two years. That gives her two children to buddy and 14 others who aren't given much parental attention.

These people appear cyclically. I think this is the third or fourth go around here on Mothering. I am familiar with this brand of fundamentalism and it scares me to death.

Debra Baker
post #43 of 1903
Okay, so I don't agree with their parenting philosophy (Ezzo most likely), or their religiousness, but they still parent better than many small families I know. They have no debts, they're just business-savvy. I've watched a few shows about them, and they don't watch tv, except for occasional videos. She said that each child is "her buddy, until they are weaned", but she didn't say for how long that is n the shows I've seen. However, I'm guessing that once solid foods are introduced or the baby starts sleeping longer at night (which probably happens very early if they follow Ezzo parenting), she's one of those people (like me) who is immediately fertile again. My 3 year old self-weaned at the same time I got pregnant with #3 (don't know which actually occured first though!!) So while I don't agree with everything they do, I wouldn't judge them to be "bad" parents, just very very different from what I do.
And what's up with that tater tot casserole?!? Blech!! She says she makes it (or rather, has her daughters make it : ) because it's her husband's favourite.

- Krista
post #44 of 1903
On the first show about them (on Discovery Health), I'm almost certain that she said that she weans at 6 months (in order to be able to get pregnant again); I also thought that the babies were passed to their buddies when they weaned, although I'm a little less certain about this.

As for the whole "let's not judge" issue...I think this is true in principle, but when someone puts their family on TV multiple times for many reality TV shows and puts out a website to promote their family and philosophies, then I think they are in some sense inviting us to judge. Why is it wrong to form opinions about what you see on TV or read about? I think reality shows like this are "advertising" in much the same way that commercials are advertising--and, honestly, I think we have the right (and perhaps even the obligation?) to judge what we are being "sold" by the media.
post #45 of 1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCVeg
On the first show about them (on Discovery Health), I'm almost certain that she said that she weans at 6 months (in order to be able to get pregnant again).
Weird, that seems to go against their whole "god's gifts" mantra. It would seem if they let nature take its course and they didn't force wean, then maybe they wouldn't get PG so often.
post #46 of 1903
Exactly my point. If she nursed naturally instead of following a religious extremist like Ezzo or Gothard, she would most likely have children spaced much further apart, giving her a chance to actually follow through with the actual *parenting* process.

No, circumvent all the natural mechanisms in place to win some sort of odd contest to grind out the most babies in a lifetime (and there are conservative circles where this is actually a contest and the Duggars are the all-stars in these circles.

db
post #47 of 1903
I will say that at least they are not on welfare and expecting other people to foot their bills. They are self-sufficient.

Even though I do not agree with all they do and I would never have that many kids, I can give them that much credit.

But Debra, you bring up some really vaild points.
post #48 of 1903
Wow, that is offensive. Who cares if they are self sufficient or on welfare? I have more respect for most families I know on welfare than I do for these people. Money or self sufficiency is so not an issue for me.
post #49 of 1903
Wow have times changed in the past 100 years or so or what? It was very common in "the old days" for families to have 12+ kids. Just researching my own family tree, just about every single generation had over 10 kids each. My grandfather was one of 14. It was only in my dad's generation did people stop having a bunch of kids. Birth control? The difference I think is back then, you just had kids because that's what women did. Nowdays, if you have 5 kids people say "wow". They are way to religious for my taste, but to each his own
post #50 of 1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa
Wow, that is offensive. Who cares if they are self sufficient or on welfare? I have more respect for most families I know on welfare than I do for these people. Money or self sufficiency is so not an issue for me.
It was not meant to be offensive. What I meant was that some people on other boards I have been reading have stated that they must be on foodstamps and why do they have more children than they can afford, etc. Before someone said that here, I wanted to make that point. They are self sufficient. It is also no one's business how many kids they have if they are the ones footing the bill.

It offends me that some people seem to think that they are entitled to everyone else paying for their existence. My husband works hard to support us and I have done the same. I am not talking about a temporary thing. I am talking about people who have no intention of ever supporting their own children, but think it is okay for everyone else to do so.

BTW, what is wrong with being self sufficient and not relying on the govt. for your existence, except in cases of something happening that you have no control over? Or in cases like in other countries where you can stay home with your child for a few years?

Like I stated on another thread, I have had to rely on the "system" a time or two. We had foodstamps and medicaid for awhile when my husband got injured on the job and was off for a couple of months. I would ask for help again, if needed. But, I do not believe that it should be a way of life for people. Do I think our US Govt should help out for awhile so a parent can stay home with a small infant like in other countries? Yes. Do I think that it should go on for years and years? No.

I have a different point of view, that is all.
post #51 of 1903
Though on the tv show on the weekend, considering all the "thanks to..." in the credits, I don't know if you can consider them self sufficient - they seem to have gotten a lot of handouts from companies for the new house.
post #52 of 1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishmommy
Though on the tv show on the weekend, considering all the "thanks to..." in the credits, I don't know if you can consider them self sufficient - they seem to have gotten a lot of handouts from companies for the new house.

Well, maybe so. I do not know for sure. But, heck, people on those reality shows get freebies and so do people who have multiples a lot of times. (the McCoys and Dilleys)

I know one thing. I would love to have that pantry and laundry room. LOL
post #53 of 1903
When you consider the donations to this family, they could teach most welfare moms how to efficiently sponge.

She has people giving her kids violin lessons, homeschool lessons, people have donated toward their 7,000 sq.ft. house (I have eight kids and we're in a 2000 sq.ft. house, I cannot imagine what 7,000 sq.ft. house looks like.)

I cannot imagine even the quintiscential welfare queen has the number of helping hands the Duggar parents have.

No, I'm not comparing them to people on assistance. Most people on assistance lead difficult lives.

DB
post #54 of 1903
I only watched the first episode of this "saga" when they spoke about building there house isn't the Husband along with being a Real Estate agent the "leader" of their church? And wasn't the home also supposed to serve as their "church" for their community? If this is the case they are getting help from the gov't by bypassing many taxes due to their exempt religious status..... Just something to think on
post #55 of 1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by DebraBaker
When you consider the donations to this family, they could teach most welfare moms how to efficiently sponge.

She has people giving her kids violin lessons, homeschool lessons, people have donated toward their 7,000 sq.ft. house (I have eight kids and we're in a 2000 sq.ft. house, I cannot imagine what 7,000 sq.ft. house looks like.)

I cannot imagine even the quintiscential welfare queen has the number of helping hands the Duggar parents have.

No, I'm not comparing them to people on assistance. Most people on assistance lead difficult lives.

DB

You know, you have a point. I did not think of it that way. I know that my MIL certainly did not have all of that help, although her older ones did help with the younger ones, etc. My husband is the youngest of 12.
post #56 of 1903
Tatertots and other artery stopping food.........In Amish and Mennonite communities there are a lot of foods that are considered artery stopping yet they are not dieing early deaths of heart attacks. They are constantly on the move. This is why they are not having the issues they walk more. This family doesn’t watch TV, I bet they are on the move a lot more than the average family.

One thing that keeps on bothering me on and off, not in just this post………..But the notion of “what childhood is or should be”. A long carefree child hood really hasn’t been reality for anyone until starting about hundred (maybe two in some areas). This notion of childhood is also associated with wealth and some people see (even myself at times) as being affluent enough to afford the privilege. I don’t always think it is beneficial to have a carefree childhood existence. Not saying I agree completely with the Dugger’s methods but I cannot disagree with them making all their kids responsible for the family functioning/survival. I think children having family responsibilities and learning them at young ages are more anthropologically correct than the carefree existence.

Them being self sufficient and debt free is a life style they choose. They choose to do things without debt. Yes it does make it easier with the fathers job but in reality many of us Americans could learn something about living without until we have the money to pay cash. We all cannot afford to build a house or buy a car debt free but we can lower our overall debts. They don’t have credit cards, they are spend thrifty buying used and learning to repair things themselves. They are not materialistic as most, isn’t that something we talk about her at MDC? People being to materialistic and greedy?

Also, I was ovulating at four months after birth with all three of my children. None of my children got pacifiers or slept through the night. When I had #3 I was tandem nursing and when I got my period the doctor was actually worried because nursing 2 should have surely stopped my period……..So it is possible for some women to pop out babies like this even exclusively nursing. I don’t think they are but that is more of a reality check with our wordings and judgments.

I do hate there dicipline style but I cannot say they are all evil or all good.
post #57 of 1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmandasMom
Wow have times changed in the past 100 years or so or what? It was very common in "the old days" for families to have 12+ kids. Just researching my own family tree, just about every single generation had over 10 kids each. My grandfather was one of 14. It was only in my dad's generation did people stop having a bunch of kids. Birth control? The difference I think is back then, you just had kids because that's what women did. Nowdays, if you have 5 kids people say "wow". They are way to religious for my taste, but to each his own
Well, a lot of those kids also used to die from miscarriage, illness, or other complicating factors. That's one motivating factor as to why many families had so many children - the parents rightly assumed several were not going to make it to adulthood. The times have changed in the industrialized West - but in many, many nations throughout the world, women still have multiple children due to the same harsh conditions.
post #58 of 1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsupialmom
Tatertots and other artery stopping food.........In Amish and Mennonite communities there are a lot of foods that are considered artery stopping yet they are not dieing early deaths of heart attacks. They are constantly on the move. This is why they are not having the issues they walk more. This family doesn’t watch TV, I bet they are on the move a lot more than the average family.

One thing that keeps on bothering me on and off, not in just this post………..But the notion of “what childhood is or should be”. A long carefree child hood really hasn’t been reality for anyone until starting about hundred (maybe two in some areas). This notion of childhood is also associated with wealth and some people see (even myself at times) as being affluent enough to afford the privilege. I don’t always think it is beneficial to have a carefree childhood existence. Not saying I agree completely with the Dugger’s methods but I cannot disagree with them making all their kids responsible for the family functioning/survival. I think children having family responsibilities and learning them at young ages are more anthropologically correct than the carefree existence.

Them being self sufficient and debt free is a life style they choose. They choose to do things without debt. Yes it does make it easier with the fathers job but in reality many of us Americans could learn something about living without until we have the money to pay cash. We all cannot afford to build a house or buy a car debt free but we can lower our overall debts. They don’t have credit cards, they are spend thrifty buying used and learning to repair things themselves. They are not materialistic as most, isn’t that something we talk about her at MDC? People being to materialistic and greedy?

Also, I was ovulating at four months after birth with all three of my children. None of my children got pacifiers or slept through the night. When I had #3 I was tandem nursing and when I got my period the doctor was actually worried because nursing 2 should have surely stopped my period……..So it is possible for some women to pop out babies like this even exclusively nursing. I don’t think they are but that is more of a reality check with our wordings and judgments.

I do hate there dicipline style but I cannot say they are all evil or all good.


That is a great post.
post #59 of 1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsupialmom
Tatertots and other artery stopping food.........In Amish and Mennonite communities there are a lot of foods that are considered artery stopping yet they are not dieing early deaths of heart attacks. They are constantly on the move. This is why they are not having the issues they walk more. This family doesn’t watch TV, I bet they are on the move a lot more than the average family.
I was just joking. It's just a gross meal. I was surprised that I didn't see my mom's favorite meal on there - frito-lay casserole (can of chili, package of fritos).
post #60 of 1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingspaghettimama
I was just joking. It's just a gross meal. I was surprised that I didn't see my mom's favorite meal on there - frito-lay casserole (can of chili, package of fritos).
Does she put American "cheese" or Velveeta on top? If so, yum. I mean, yuck icky how could anyone eat that unhealthy stuff?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Television