Duggars are NOT Quiverfull! - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 63 Old 06-15-2011, 12:09 PM - Thread Starter
 
akichan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm reading the new Duggar's book, "A Love that Multiplies", and in it they state that they are NOT Quiverfull.  They cite Wikipedia as the source of that common misconception.  

 

Interesting, I think it is here on MDC in a forum that I first learned that they were.  I know that Wikipedia is not completely reliable, but I believed it because it seemed to fit!  I'm glad they cleared that up!


Akie, single mom to M (02/18/06), E (08/04/07) and Z (06/22/09)
akichan is offline  
#2 of 63 Old 06-15-2011, 12:27 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The only part of quiverfull that they aren't is Evangelical Christian, they're Baptist. As for everything else? Well if the shoe fits...


malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#3 of 63 Old 06-15-2011, 12:49 PM
 
kmeyrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post

The only part of quiverfull that they aren't is Evangelical Christian, they're Baptist. As for everything else? Well if the shoe fits...

 

Well, Evangelical Christian is an umbrella term and many Baptists fall under it. They're not different denominations.
 

 

CariOfOz likes this.
kmeyrick is offline  
#4 of 63 Old 06-15-2011, 12:50 PM
 
kmeyrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

They might mean they are not members of a church or organization that is quiverfull, but they do seem to fit the definition I've always heard- that you allow as many children as God sends your way with no interference.

kmeyrick is offline  
#5 of 63 Old 06-15-2011, 01:17 PM
 
HollyBearsMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: nomans land
Posts: 6,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by kmeyrick View Post

They might mean they are not members of a church or organization that is quiverfull, but they do seem to fit the definition I've always heard- that you allow as many children as God sends your way with no interference.



But I thought they did interfere?  Doesn't she (the mother) wean her babes early to bring on her cycle so that she can get pregnant again right away?  If it was God's will continuing nursing wouldn't interfere, correct? 


Pardon me while I puke.gif

HollyBearsMom is offline  
#6 of 63 Old 06-15-2011, 01:37 PM
 
kmeyrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by HollyBearsMom View Post





But I thought they did interfere?  Doesn't she (the mother) wean her babes early to bring on her cycle so that she can get pregnant again right away?  If it was God's will continuing nursing wouldn't interfere, correct? 


I don't know. I don't watch the show, and I've heard some say they do wean early, others say they don't.

 

kmeyrick is offline  
#7 of 63 Old 06-15-2011, 05:22 PM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HollyBearsMom View Post

But I thought they did interfere?  Doesn't she (the mother) wean her babes early to bring on her cycle so that she can get pregnant again right away?  If it was God's will continuing nursing wouldn't interfere, correct? 


I feel like I read years ago that I read that she weans before six months to retain fertility. 

 


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
#8 of 63 Old 06-15-2011, 05:39 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by kmeyrick View Post




I don't know. I don't watch the show, and I've heard some say they do wean early, others say they don't.

 

What I've heard her say is that she usually knows she's pregnant because the one currently on the breast can no longer get enough.
 

 

HannahW likes this.

malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#9 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 05:51 AM
 
cappuccinosmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

cappuccinosmom is offline  
#10 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 07:25 AM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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". 



This is not true.  Catholics are expected to not use birth control because it interferes with God's will.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#11 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 07:55 AM
 
cappuccinosmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm not sure how that makes what I wrote "not true".


Catholics are Christian, as far as I know.  And there are "quiverfull" Catholics, who have a slightly different take on the issue than the nfp-only catholics.

 

And that very fact clarifies my point that "quiverfull" does not mean "uber patriarchal reformationist evangelical Vision-Forum-type Christian". It means "no birth control because of my religious beliefs".

Arduinna and HannahW like this.
cappuccinosmom is offline  
#12 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 08:01 AM
 
mar123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

 

 

mar123 is offline  
#13 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 10:02 AM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post

 

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.

 

 

I thought the original defition was not simply viewing children as blessings, but as gifts from G-d.  As such, you take what G-d decides to give naturally.  That would mean no children for people who are infertile, but weaning to have children (in my opionion) is also going outside of G-d's plan.

 

As for her knowing she is pregnant because of the child weaning--- I read on wikipedia they are, on average, 18 months apart.  I've also read that she weans before 6 months.  You would expect the kids to be under 15 months apart if she was weaning after becoming pregnant but still weaning by 6 months.  I don't know, just what I've read.


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
#14 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 11:16 AM
 
cappuccinosmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Ok, I'm not sure why we're spliting hairs here, but: 1. You got me. I should have expanded and expounded. In my brain "blessings" includes similar phrases like "Gifts from God". And yes, deliberately ttc would be just the other side of the coin as tta pregnancy. Thusly, why I only have 3 children even though I would like gazillions more.

 

2. I'll take Michelle's word over Wikipedia or internet gossip, any day. Here is an interview with her, very specifically about breastfeeding: http://www.babygooroo.com/index.php/2009/03/30/after-18-children-breastfeeding-for-michelle-duggar-continues-to-be-a-learning-experience/ whi E It explains her position on breastfeeding and the question of timing. Even if she did wean at an early 5 or 6 months on purpose, she gets her cycle back at 6 weeks.

 

I don't know who started the "weaning early to get pregnant more often" thing, but I think it was likely a bit of malicious gossip, rather than a well-intentioned mistake. If there is an actual quote that can be traced back to Michelle herself, proving she's a liar, I'd be happy to see it and might change my mind.

HannahW likes this.
cappuccinosmom is offline  
#15 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 11:59 AM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 32,562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post





This is not true.  Catholics are expected to not use birth control because it interferes with God's will.


I don't see how what you wrote is in conflict with cappuccinosmoms post. 

 

swede likes this.
Arduinna is offline  
#16 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 12:04 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post

I'm not sure how that makes what I wrote "not true".


Catholics are Christian, as far as I know.  And there are "quiverfull" Catholics, who have a slightly different take on the issue than the nfp-only catholics.

 

And that very fact clarifies my point that "quiverfull" does not mean "uber patriarchal reformationist evangelical Vision-Forum-type Christian". It means "no birth control because of my religious beliefs".


 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post




I don't see how what you wrote is in conflict with cappuccinosmoms post. 

 



I guess because I see Quiverfull as being a movement, with its adherents specifically trying to have as many babies as possible, whereas the whole of Catholicism is supposed to eschew birth control except in the form of natural family planning.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#17 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 12:16 PM
 
kmeyrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Well, that seems to be what Cappucinosmom was saying. For some being quiverfull means not using birth control, while for others it means having as many children as you possibly can.

kmeyrick is offline  
#18 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 12:19 PM
 
kmeyrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'd like to add, though, that many people who consider themselves quiverfull also hold other beliefs, which is why sites like No Longer Quivering are necessary.

kmeyrick is offline  
#19 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 12:34 PM
 
cappuccinosmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I guess because I see Quiverfull as being a movement, with its adherents specifically trying to have as many babies as possible, whereas the whole of Catholicism is supposed to eschew birth control except in the form of natural family planning. 

 

 

This is what I'm trying to point out.  Quiverfull is not a monolithic movement.  I know Catholics who are very intentional about having gazillions of babies.  And others who are very conciencious about NFP use in order to avoid pregnancy.  Neither would be QF.  But my sister and her husband, who are Catholic, would be.  Because they neither try nor avoid, but are of the "take them as they come, God gives them, we welcome them" mindset.  I also know people who avoid birthcontrol for faith reasons, and are thus "quiverfull" by that definition, but who look nothing like the nasty negative stereotype that seems to come along with viewing Quiverfull as a movement of people who believe all the same things about everything.  Which is why I avoid using the term for myself, unless I know the person I'm talking with understands this. I do not know a single couple who is trying to have "as many babies as possible" on purpose.  I know a lot, like me, who because of this view would consider a large family a very good thing.  But also like me, the root of the belief is that God is the Creator and it's within his realm of authority to give or not give children.  Again, that's why I only have three.  If I was trying to have "as many as possible", there are all sorts of avenues I might pursue, which I choose not to, from simple charting to serious fertility treatments.  One might accurately say that FLDS are trying to have as many kids as possible, and that they have a vested eternal interest in having 50 kids (neccessitating multiple wives) but the doctrinal basis for that is not even close to the QF belief.  

 

Anytime anyone takes any belief and makes it a system, there is the potential for abuse.  And that is why NLQ exists.  But the experiences of those individuals do not represent (by a long shot, IMO) the majority of people whose faith leads them to reject birth control.  Many of the abusers featured in their articles are not strictly QF, the Charity group and the Pearls, for instance.  I know both allow for NFP and non-abortifacient methods.

Fruitful4Him and moonshoes like this.
cappuccinosmom is offline  
#20 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 01:45 PM
 
blessedwithboys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

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.


Bring back the old MDC
blessedwithboys is offline  
#21 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 02:21 PM
 
Marsupialmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis MO
Posts: 9,495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.  

Marsupialmom is offline  
#22 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 02:27 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.


malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#23 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 02:29 PM
 
Irishmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In the bat cave with heartmama
Posts: 45,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

swede likes this.
Irishmommy is offline  
#24 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 02:40 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,656
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
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.
moonshoes and swede like this.
TCMoulton is offline  
#25 of 63 Old 06-16-2011, 08:48 PM
 
elisheva's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BC
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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...

 


"So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world." - Jack Layton
 
 
 
   

elisheva is offline  
#26 of 63 Old 06-17-2011, 09:22 AM
 
mar123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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).

mar123 is offline  
#27 of 63 Old 06-17-2011, 10:04 AM
 
treeoflife3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: tennessee/kentucky
Posts: 1,513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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?

moonshoes and swede like this.
treeoflife3 is offline  
#28 of 63 Old 06-17-2011, 10:46 AM
 
annettemarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the Restricted Section
Posts: 41,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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!

Flowers, fairies, gardens, and rainbows-- Seasons of Joy: 10 weeks of crafts, handwork, painting, coloring, circle time, fairy tales, and more!
Check out the blog for family fun, homeschooling, books, simple living, and 6 fabulous children, including twin toddlers

annettemarie is offline  
#29 of 63 Old 06-17-2011, 11:06 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
Earthiemama is offline  
#30 of 63 Old 06-17-2011, 11:12 AM
 
annettemarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the Restricted Section
Posts: 41,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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?

Flowers, fairies, gardens, and rainbows-- Seasons of Joy: 10 weeks of crafts, handwork, painting, coloring, circle time, fairy tales, and more!
Check out the blog for family fun, homeschooling, books, simple living, and 6 fabulous children, including twin toddlers

annettemarie is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off