16 children - Page 5

[PrettyBird]

Originally Posted by tammrat

I saw that special. They have 17 now. When #16 was 8 months old, she got pregnant again.

Are you sure? She had her 16th this fall. So the youngest would be just 5 months old.

[PrettyBird]

double post

[LIZnCHAD]

I've read some stuff about this family on here before and I definitely agree with Annettemarie et al. I also remember something about a strict gender division of labour, with girls fulfilling certain tasks and boys others. Does anyone else remember this?

In the shows I've seen, the girls do the majority of the housework. I believe Jill is in charge of the meals (or at least lunch) and Jessa? or maybe Jinger is in charge of the laundry. The other kids help out by cleaning up their own mess, but they are in charge. (read: responsible for making sure it gets done) None of the boys from what I've seen are in charge of anything except for Joshua and John David who are the oldest boys. They spent most of their time helping build the new house. John David's twin however was not (a girl...sorry, don't remember her name) So yes they have very traditional roles of boys do this, girls do this. Oh, just remembered - from the first show I saw one of the boys is in charge of cleaning the boys bathroom.

[AngelBee]

Originally Posted by sharksmum

I also remember something about a strict gender division of labour, with girls fulfilling certain tasks and boys others. Does anyone else remember this?

It is this way in many homes no days. You just do not hear about it as often.

[Alana]

Maybe the girls actually like cooking and stuff? The whole family did pitch in to fold clothes...even the boys. And the girls had their own drills to help with home building...they also helped lay the radiant heat down too.

Also, as to the stuff that may or may not have been donated. That is also a great cheap way for those companies to advertise their products, and get more business. Its like Extreme Home Makeover...that show is like one big huge commercial.

[annettemarie]

AngelBee, I think it's great that you take your kids to work with you. I'm just going to take it on faith that you're listening to their cues and not forcing them to stay on a blanket or punishing them for straying off it. Personally, I don't get it, but I can't imagine my kids staying on a blanket for a half-hour unless their was velcro, staples, or super glue involved.

[LotusBirthMama]

As far as the whole "care free childhood"....my kids are 8 and almost 3. They are very much allowed to be children, but they also are expected to contribute to the household in which they live. My son is responsible for quite a bit. He cleans, he cooks, he does laundry, he spends time caring for his sister. He has animals that he is solely responsible for. My daughter is expected to clean up her messes, to help me do household tasks, ect. All of it is within their ability levels.

My son has friends and cousins his age. I am consistantly amazed at the general lack of responsibility these kids have. Heaven forbid DS's best friend is asked to do something. Its all out war!

I would much rather have my kids be responsible and have expectations placed on them then just skip thru childhood without a care... At what magic age should we start teaching them to take care of their home and family?

[annettemarie]

I'm confused as to where anyone said that children should have no responsibilities.

[AngelBee]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

AngelBee, I think it's great that you take your kids to work with you. I'm just going to take it on faith that you're listening to their cues and not forcing them to stay on a blanket or punishing them for straying off it. Personally, I don't get it, but I can't imagine my kids staying on a blanket for a half-hour unless their was velcro, staples, or super glue involved.

I do listen to their cues. I even breastfeed while instructing

[LotusBirthMama]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

I'm confused as to where anyone said that children should have no responsibilities.

I didn't say anyone said that...I was just sharing why I felt it wasn't neccesarily 'bad" that the Dugger children did a lot of work and had a lot of responsibility...sorry to confuse you.

[Evan&Anna's_Mom]

I cannot imagine being able to adequately parent so many children in a way that I would deem "acceptable", let alone ideal. And their website has lots of clues to suggest that they aren't AP or GD oriented at all. Even if they are doing blanket time without physical punishment involved (which I doubt based on other comments), it would still be non-AP to force a small child to stay away from mom for so long a time, wouldn't it?

I think what bothers me about the whole scenario is the isolation that would seem to come with their way of life. They home school and home church. The kids spend so much time taking care of other kids, it would seem difficult for them to have friends outside of the family. Who would know if these children were being abused or neglected? None of them are old enough yet, but are they being prepared to move beyond the family? And if so, how? Will they go to college?

This isn't a family that I want to emulate. They are, of course, free to make their own choices and I'm sure there are advantages and disadvantages to the choices I make and the ones that they have. Not the way I want to live my life and not the way I want to raise my children.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama

I didn't say anyone said that...I was just sharing why I felt it wasn't neccesarily 'bad" that the Dugger children did a lot of work and had a lot of responsibility...sorry to confuse you.

I think there's a world of possibilities between "raising your siblings and being responsible for a bunch of other people before you reach legal majority" and "runs carelessly through the house making messes while being waiting on hand and foot."

And I do think being asked to raise children that aren't your own with no compensation crosses the line.

[AngelBee]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

And I do think being asked to raise children that aren't your own with no compensation crosses the line.

Raising or assisting?

My son is responsible to assist his sister in buckling her seatbelt and then buckling himself in. That doesn't mean he is raising her.

I also expect that if my older two children prepare a snack for themselves, they ask there siblings if they would like one.

My children assist in folding the households clothes, not just their own.

My children do "buddy up" and assist their sibling while I hommeschool the other child.

They do not get paid. They are learning about serving others and contributing to a household. They are learning about responsibility and self discipline.

They do not get paid for there contributions.

[Sharlla]

It was very common in "the old days" for families to have 12+ kids.

And in the olden days the mortality rate for children were through the roof, sure Ma may have had 15 kids, but how many of them made it past the age of 5?

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by AngelBee

Raising or assisting?

My son is responsible to assist his sister in buckling her seatbelt and then buckling himself in. That doesn't mean he is raising her.

I also expect that if my older two children prepare a snack for themselves, they ask there siblings if they would like one.

My children assist in folding the households clothes, not just their own.

My children do "buddy up" and assist their sibling while I hommeschool the other child.

They do not get paid. They are learning about serving others and contributing to a household. They are learning about responsibility and self discipline.

They do not get paid for there contributions.

Raising. If you look at the site and the other sources, the older children are, for all intents and purposes, raising the younger ones.

My children, even at the tender ages of 2, 4, and 7 have chores. Theyr'e expected to help because it's part of being in a family, and they don't get paid for it.

If, however, I asked them to do something that was traditionally my responsibility (I don't know, like put away my clothes or balance my checkbook ) I wouldn't expect them to do it without some sort of compensation.

[AngelBee]

Originally Posted by Sharlla

And in the olden days the mortality rate for children were through the roof, sure Ma may have had 15 kids, but how many of them made it past the age of 5?

I honestly don't understand why this is really relevant.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by AngelBee

I honestly don't understand why this is really relevant.

Because comparing modern day times to the "olden days" is not the cut and dry comparison some people make it out to be. It is fallacious to say that families in the olden days had 12 plus kids, because many of those children died early, as did their mothers.

[mommy2evan05]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

AngelBee, I think it's great that you take your kids to work with you. I'm just going to take it on faith that you're listening to their cues and not forcing them to stay on a blanket or punishing them for straying off it. Personally, I don't get it, but I can't imagine my kids staying on a blanket for a half-hour unless their was velcro, staples, or super glue involved.

LMBO!!!!

[AngelBee]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

Because comparing modern day times to the "olden days" is not the cut and dry comparison some people make it out to be. It is fallacious to say that families in the olden days had 12 plus kids, because many of those children died early, as did their mothers.

What irritates me sometimes though, is that that agrument it used as a explanation for why large families are not necessary now days.

We are quiverful. Whether God brings us the four we currently have or 20, we are content.

Sometimes people push judgements on us for being quiverful based on their own ignorance or misunderstandings about the topic. This agrument has been used agianst us before. I just wanted to clarify the relevance before I made farther comments.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by AngelBee

What irritates me sometimes though, is that that agrument it used as a explanation for why large families are not necessary now days.

Oh, I can see where that would be annoying. I really don't think that was the point though.