Wow!! Duggar news :)

[Aelwydd]

Wow! That's extremely uncharitable!:glare:

 

No, it's the impression I'm given based on their own language about keeping hold of their "children's hearts."

 

I'm the product a conservative, evangelical upbringing. That language, referring to "keeping one's heart," is code for "ensuring no deviation of mind or emotion from the truth as laid before you." It means to remain firmly entrenched in one's belief.

 

That's why I believe their effort is more geared toward ensuring orthodox thinking and belief, than towards nurturing and fostering any emotional bond.

[CAMom]

I dislike "purpose" being used as verb. I think i dislike that more than "task" used as a verb.

 

:001_huh:

 

OK...How about "I intentionally spend one on one time with each of my kids on a regular basis. However, they have access to me anytime they want or need my attention."

 

Is that better?;)

[Mothersweets]

I like the Duggars and wish them the best.

[TXMary2]

I've watched many, if not most, of their shows. I'm trying very hard to recall a single case where Michelle snuggled any of her kids (I don't count holding a baby and feeding it or toting it around as snuggling).

 

Please correct me, because I'd prefer to be wrong in this.

 

But, if I'm not, you seriously dismiss a total lack of affection as being equivalent to just some, and as being better than the case with "as much snuggle time as a only child?"

 

See, I see a huge range between those two end points. I don't think it's healthy for a child to grow up not having a Mommy to hold, snuggle, or show warm affection. I think it's sad, actually.

 

Because you haven't seen it on tv, it must not happen? Most of the shows these days center on outings they go on. I see both Jim Bob and Michelle hug or put an arm around kids fairly frequently on the show. Somehow, I don't think watching Michelle curl up on the couch with a kid makes for an exciting tv show. What we see on tv is very limited and in no way is enough to judge this family in any manner.

 

I am happy for them and what they do or anyone else does, is none of my business.

[Moxie]

I've watched many, if not most, of their shows. I'm trying very hard to recall a single case where Michelle snuggled any of her kids (I don't count holding a baby and feeding it or toting it around as snuggling).

 

Please correct me, because I'd prefer to be wrong in this.

 

But, if I'm not, you seriously dismiss a total lack of affection as being equivalent to just some, and as being better than the case with "as much snuggle time as a only child?"

 

See, I see a huge range between those two end points. I don't think it's healthy for a child to grow up not having a Mommy to hold, snuggle, or show warm affection. I think it's sad, actually.

 

How many shows have the Duggars had? Less then 100, I assume. So, you have seen what is equal to a few select weeks in their life and you think you've seen all they have to offer? Do you really think Michelle never hugs her children just because you haven't seen it on the show?? And why are you watching a show about a family you seem to dislike so much?

[Aelwydd]

Which has WhAT to do with anything? I responded to a comment about "when we drop below the replacement rate" to point out that we have already.

 

I said NOTHING to do with consumption of resources, etc. So why did you mention this?

 

Because the issue with population has everything to do with resources?

 

The more resources we consume per person, the smaller our population should be. The more economical we are, and the less we consume, then that allows for more people without a greater impact on our soil, water, fisheries, etc.

 

I thought the connection is rather obvious.

[Joanne]

Maybe that is what she has done with the last few. But, that isn't what their website said before. I think they are more careful now about what they say than they used to be. And trying to breastfeed as long as she can while trying to get pregnant is not the same as nursing on demand. I'm not placing any judgment on them, I'm only saying that it isn't the same as letting nature take its course.

 

 

:iagree: I followed them from their first special, and on their first website that hosted links to terribly punitive sites. They did use pacifiers, spaced nursing, and other interventions that hastened fertility. They've chosen to sanitize their brand Duggar from identifying markers of the QF movement, but their history is still their history.

[Aelwydd]

How many shows have the Duggars had? Less then 100, I assume. So, you have seen what is equal to a few select weeks in their life and you think you've seen all they have to offer? Do you really think Michelle never hugs her children just because you haven't seen it on the show?? And why are you watching a show about a family you seem to dislike so much?

 

 

Why so defensive?

 

I think it's odd that they can make a 100 shows, and not have a single instance of Michelle snuggling, hugging, or kissing a child. She's got 19--she has plenty of choices there. ;)

 

Why I watch the show has no bearing on the discussion. It's relevant to nothing. I watch it, therefore, I'm going to comment on it. Is this a problem?

[Joanne]

I am happy for them and what they do or anyone else does, is none of my business.

 

I agree with the first part of your post, calling into question being able to accurately assume based on reality t.v.

 

However, they have deliberately allowed and crafted "brand Duggar" and making their lives the public's business is inherent in that choice. They are intentional celebrities, not unwilling.

[amey311]

:001_huh:

 

OK...How about "I intentionally spend one on one time with each of my kids on a regular basis. However, they have access to me anytime they want or need my attention."

 

Is that better?;)

 

The verb usage of "purpose" to me reads as "plan to." "I purpose to spend time with my children." For some reason, though, it seems.... not firm. Like "i plan to spend time with them one on one, but it doesn't always happen."

 

Is this from some particular program? Like the ATI or Bill Gothard stuff they use? It just reads as forced language used by some program.

[sassenach]

Not so, as has been pointed out by others also (see quotes below)....

 

 

 

 

 

Some have said they don't care about population growth &/or seem to think they have no impact on it. I find that sadly short-sighted & feel sorry for our future generations. They will have some severe problems to deal with because of our selfishness & our inability to plan for the future.

 

And, yes, I lump the Duggars into that category of those (along w/ many others on Earth) being unwilling to help the future because they are focusing on satisifying their own needs now (regardless of the future impact/ripple effect), continuing to grow an already large family....

 

But surely you enlightened folks know that there are plenty of people having more than their share of kids! Therefore, if you really cared about over-population you would have chosen not to have any. I don't think you care as much as you say you do.

[LuvingLife]

I am very excited for her, and was very shocked to hear she is going to have another one! I mean, she is 45 and a lot of problems are more likely to occur because of her age, not to mention the probelms she had with Josie and everything. Good family, don't get some of their "religious" beliefs, but they are very good just the same.

 

Praying for her to have a safe pregnancy.:001_smile:

[Mrs Mungo]

How on earth can you tell how often they breastfeed based on watching the show?

 

It's something their general parenting style seems to indicate. Like I said, you are free to disagree, but you absolutely will not change my mind about it.

 

Did you read the article linked? Are you saying she was lying in that interview, where she specifically says she gets her period back at 6 weeks even if she doesn't use pacifiers or supplement? I know someone like this, it does happen.

I don't think she's lying, I think the article doesn't tell the full story. Several different statements have been made. With as many kids as they have, all of the statements could be true and still conflict. She's conceived 19 times in 23 years. That is unlikely for someone who doesn't nurse at all. Again, I'm not judging their choices, I just don't think they are simply following nature.

 

eta: My mom will tell you that her period returned 8 weeks after birth and she was breastfeeding. But, she absolutely was supplementing with bottles and rice cereal and used pacifiers. She doesn't think that matters. Science says it does. She's not lying, she's sharing her experience as she sees it.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Mrs Mungo]

:iagree: I followed them from their first special, and on their first website that hosted links to terribly punitive sites. They did use pacifiers, spaced nursing, and other interventions that hastened fertility. They've chosen to sanitize their brand Duggar from identifying markers of the QF movement, but their history is still their history.

 

Agreed.

[Holly IN]

Quiverful is a broad general term. Those that are quiverful believe exactly as you stated you believe. How does quiverful NOT describe you?

 

btw, though I believe the patriarchial movement is dangerous, I believe only those that take quiverful to the extreme are.

 

According to some QF families I am not QF due to the fact I have 3 live children here and we can't have any more due to our mistake which we did correct. Got ectopic preg as a result and was dying on the hospital bed before rushed to OR on emergency status. Believe me I have talked to them and they tell me that I can't be QF since hubby and I do not have a patriarchial relationship. Both of us work full time jobs and homeschool. Our marriage is 100% on each part. So much more to say but I have been told such a thing by other QF. There is a family that I know and she said I am QF even though I can't literally have any more kids. It is the mindset of hubby and I view on children. However we are not patrarchial. (thank goodness!!)

[mommaduck]

It's something their general parenting style seems to indicate. Like I said, you are free to disagree, but you absolutely will not change my mind about it.

 

I don't think she's lying, I think the article doesn't tell the full story. Several different statements have been made. With as many kids as they have, all of the statements could be true and still conflict. She's conceived 19 times in 23 years. That is unlikely for someone who doesn't nurse at all. Again, I'm not judging their choices, I just don't think they are simply following nature.

My SIL (also with eight kids) did after her second pregnancy, but that doesn't mean she did with the rest. Seems odd that it would be that way after EVERY pregnancy.

[CAMom]

The verb usage of "purpose" to me reads as "plan to." "I purpose to spend time with my children." For some reason, though, it seems.... not firm. Like "i plan to spend time with them one on one, but it doesn't always happen."

 

Well, that's not what it means to me. To me it means "to do something intentionally." It doesn't mean to plan but not follow through. So, that's the way I used it.

 

Is this from some particular program? Like the ATI or Bill Gothard stuff they use? It just reads as forced language used by some program.

 

Not that I know of. I'm about as far away from Gothard as you can get.;)

[mommaduck]

According to some QF families I am not QF due to the fact I have 3 live children here and we can't have any more due to our mistake which we did correct. Got ectopic preg as a result and was dying on the hospital bed before rushed to OR on emergency status. Believe me I have talked to them and they tell me that I can't be QF since hubby and I do not have a patriarchial relationship. Both of us work full time jobs and homeschool. Our marriage is 100% on each part. So much more to say but I have been told such a thing by other QF. There is a family that I know and she said I am QF even though I can't literally have any more kids. It is the mindset of hubby and I view on children. However we are not patrarchial. (thank goodness!!)

Ah, this falls to the "how do we define". I agree on the last part. I'm a patriarchial dropout :D

[Jennifer3141]

Agreed.

 

I've never actually watched the show - their parenting choices are so in opposition to mine. I would never willingly do anything that would endanger EBF or co-sleeping. And I don't understand the entire idea of having an older child "mentor" the baby. I want to parent my babies!!! Yuck!

 

But my friend I and do get a good laugh out of people who see us exit her vehicle with our 5 kids between us. Yes. Yes, we are just like the Duggars. :glare::glare:

 

I'm sure there are wonderful things about a large family. But I'm happy with my hand-on parenting style.

[zaichiki]

 

Is that b/c one would then have the information without the benefit of the brainwashing that went with it?

[mommaduck]

Is that b/c one would then have the information without the benefit of the brainwashing that went with it?

Yes.

[Plucky]

I think God is sovereign and he has a purpose for this baby ...

 

You are right. I tend to be judgmental about anyone having 20 kids, but I agree with you.

[I.Dup.]

I think you can only participate in the over-population angle if you have no kids. If you birthed any kids, world over-population obviously didn't matter that much to you. I don't think you get to say 2 is ok, but 20 isn't. The world isn't being over populated by bunches of people having 20 kids, it's happening 1, 2, 3 at a time.

 

I really don't get the vitriol that gets directed towards these people. Yes, I think it's weird that they have this many kids. I also think it's weird that they do the TV show thing. Those are definitely not choices I would make. But seriously, in a world where we hear stories of abuse every. single. day. how can you people pick this family apart? You find their beliefs cultish? Is that really all you have? So what.

 

As for the health choices thing, people make health decisions every single day that go against the tide. Cancer patients choose alternative routes. People choose chiropractic instead of mainstream. They take garlic instead of antibiotics. In the childbearing realm they do in vitro, they choose to vbac, they use a midwife, or have a home birth. They also choose to have another child after suffering a stillbirth, a miscarriage, a child with a birth defect (me!) or any number of bad outcomes, yes, including pre eclamsia.

 

So while the Duggar's are a little strange in my book, I can't see any reason to conjure up the disgust and hate that other people seem to feel about them. Other than having almost 20 (seemingly well-provided for) children, there is nothing they are doing that is outside the norm of what most of us do.

 

Well said. I DO like and respect the Duggars, and wish to have half of the tolerance the Michelle Duggar has. That does not mean I am hoping to have 20 children, though (!)

 

I enjoy their show, their family has been an encouragement to me, and I wish them all the best!

 

I also agree with Martha's post, FWIW. This overpopulation thing is ridiculous and just a way for radical environmentalists to spew hatred and disgust toward those who do not agree with them.

[Pretty in Pink]

I wish them nothing but the best but I believe they are taking foolish risks with her health. Had I experienced her last pregnancy I certainly would have stopped having babies, whether that had been my first or my 19th child. I absolutly believe that parenting the children that I have now is more important than cranking out babies, if I have to choose between the two.

[Jennifer3141]

 

I agree. Their statement of 'weekly' talks is so pitifully sad, from a child's point.

I can't imagine waiting for individual time, once a week(their words), to spend with my parents.

 

I remember reading their website years ago. She actually said they weaned early so she could get pregnant again. I remember discussions here about how they removed stuff from their site. Off topic, but I also remember some of her lunch/dinner recipes made me gag from the amount of cr@ppy food items she used.

 

WEEKLY talks??! I think that is horrendous. Way to parent there! :glare:

 

And I had a friend who loved the show when it first came out and she read me some of the recipes. I gagged. I remember something had HFCS and Spam... Ye gads. :lol::lol:

[amey311]

Well, that's not what it means to me. To me it means "to do something intentionally." It doesn't mean to plan but not follow through. So, that's the way I used it.

 

 

 

Not that I know of. I'm about as far away from Gothard as you can get.;)

 

Fair enough. I hadn't seen it used as a verb until I was browsing their site as a result of this thread (Michelle and Jim Bob purpose a once a week dinner or lunch date, they purpose to do Bible study every morning, michelle purposed to lower her voice when speaking in the house, etc). It ended up grating on my nerves because there were acceptable verbs already.

 

I should add that by the time I was done writing that stuff in parentheses, I was switching it to "porpoise" in my head, and started thinking "see? i'm all distracted by this word. now i'm thinking of dolphins."

Edited November 8, 2011 by amey311

[hsmamainva]

I caught the announcement on the Today Show while making breakfast.

 

They asked her what she's doing to keep fit, since she's 45 now.

 

She said that she works out for an hour on the elliptical just about every day.

 

:001_huh:

 

If I had 20 kids, I wouldn't have time to take a shower or pee, let alone work out for an hour!!

 

Makes me wonder if she's raising the kids or if the siblings are. :glare:

[Aelwydd]

This overpopulation thing is ridiculous and just a way for radical environmentalists to spew hatred and disgust toward those who do not agree with them.

 

Ok, I'll remember this statement as food, energy, and every thing else continues to rise in cost, while fisheries continue to decline, soil continues to be depleted, and climate changes increase the numbers of places and area affected by drought and flooding.

 

I mean, you can continue to maintain the belief that there is no difference in the resources consumed between a planet with 7 billion, and one with 15 billion. Certainly, there's nothing stopping us all from reproducing without thought, but I don't think it's a particularly sustainable plan.

 

It's just simple math. Less food because of decreasing arable land and temperate climate, minus less resources to water and transport that food (and other things) equals increased competition, and hardship among greater numbers of people.

 

So, when hamburger goes up to $6 lb this winter, thanks to Texas' and OK's droughts, and the flooding throughout much of the east, along with huge increases in the cost of many other foods, what will you chalk that up to, if not the result of too much demand for a dwindling food supply (thanks to terrible climate conditions)?

[Moxie]

Ok, I'll remember this statement as food, energy, and every thing else continues to rise in cost, while fisheries continue to decline, soil continues to be depleted, and climate changes increase the numbers of places and area affected by drought and flooding.

 

I mean, you can continue to maintain the belief that there is no difference in the resources consumed between a planet with 7 billion, and one with 15 billion. Certainly, there's nothing stopping us all from reproducing without thought, but I don't think it's a particularly sustainable plan.

 

It's just simple math. Less food because of decreasing arable land and temperate climate, minus less resources to water and transport that food (and other things) equals increased competition, and hardship among greater numbers of people.

 

So, when hamburger goes up to $6 lb this winter, thanks to Texas' and OK's droughts, and the flooding throughout much of the east, along with huge increases in the cost of many other foods, what will you chalk that up to, if not the result of too much demand for a dwindling food supply (thanks to terrible climate conditions)?

 

The world would be a much better place without all these pesky people running around!!

[Holly IN]

So, when hamburger goes up to $6 lb this winter, thanks to Texas' and OK's droughts, and the flooding throughout much of the east, along with huge increases in the cost of many other foods, what will you chalk that up to, if not the result of too much demand for a dwindling food supply (thanks to terrible climate conditions)?

 

Actually the reason meat prices are going up is due to corn(grains) are now part of fueling up our cars. ;) It is not the people or overpopulation doing this. Corn is being used in everything so corn prices are going up. That is why we got rid of our chickens as we couldn't afford to feed them anymore. 7 years ago one big bag of feed was around $7.00. When we got rid of the chickens same bag of feed costs $45 a bag. When they started using corn for part of fuel combo the feed cost went up drastically.

 

I am tired of people blaming population for problems in this country.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Ok, I'll remember this statement as food, energy, and every thing else continues to rise in cost, while fisheries continue to decline, soil continues to be depleted, and climate changes increase the numbers of places and area affected by drought and flooding.

 

I mean, you can continue to maintain the belief that there is no difference in the resources consumed between a planet with 7 billion, and one with 15 billion. Certainly, there's nothing stopping us all from reproducing without thought, but I don't think it's a particularly sustainable plan.

 

It's just simple math. Less food because of decreasing arable land and temperate climate, minus less resources to water and transport that food (and other things) equals increased competition, and hardship among greater numbers of people.

 

So, when hamburger goes up to $6 lb this winter, thanks to Texas' and OK's droughts, and the flooding throughout much of the east, along with huge increases in the cost of many other foods, what will you chalk that up to, if not the result of too much demand for a dwindling food supply (thanks to terrible climate conditions)?

 

That is pretty dire.

 

Maybe we should start thinking about how to reduce the undesirable elements of our world's population? I'm thinking we probably can't save the earth with the concept of ZPG, no matter how evangelical we are in spreading the message. There's just not enough time. Most people are too selfish to stop having babies, anyway.

 

Yes, we should definitely go at this from another angle. How to start depleting people that are not essential to society? Such an approach would be much quicker and much more effective at preventing global disaster. Do you have any thoughts on how to get started with that? There must be millions of non-productive people hanging around using up resources. D*mn useless eaters.

 

Of course, as an overly-sentimental person I always struggle with the list-making. I personally feel that my children and I deserve to exist, but I have a hard time deciding exactly which people don't deserve their children, or which people are likely to bear undesirables, or which undesirables are really and truly beyond reform.

 

I think the ZPG people should work harder at setting a good example. Why have any children when there already too many? And are ZPG people very careful to constantly assess whether they, themselves, are of such use to society that they, themselves, should keep using up precious resources?

Edited November 8, 2011 by Tibbie Dunbar

[Pretty in Pink]

So now we don't have enough corn in this country? Really? :glare:

[Aelwydd]

The world would be a much better place without all these pesky people running around!!

 

I don't begrudge the people who are here (and that's really unkind of you to imply that I wish them all gone). What I take offense at is the people, who are here on this earth pretending that they owe no responsibility for the resources they have, or for considering how their choices impact the well being of others. Or, who label those of us who are concerned as being "hateful."

 

To me, it's hateful to "spew" vitriol at a whole group of people for pointing out some very basic facts.

[I.Dup.]

Ok, I'll remember this statement as food, energy, and every thing else continues to rise in cost, while fisheries continue to decline, soil continues to be depleted, and climate changes increase the numbers of places and area affected by drought and flooding.

 

I mean, you can continue to maintain the belief that there is no difference in the resources consumed between a planet with 7 billion, and one with 15 billion. Certainly, there's nothing stopping us all from reproducing without thought, but I don't think it's a particularly sustainable plan.

 

It's just simple math. Less food because of decreasing arable land and temperate climate, minus less resources to water and transport that food (and other things) equals increased competition, and hardship among greater numbers of people.

 

So, when hamburger goes up to $6 lb this winter, thanks to Texas' and OK's droughts, and the flooding throughout much of the east, along with huge increases in the cost of many other foods, what will you chalk that up to, if not the result of too much demand for a dwindling food supply (thanks to terrible climate conditions)?

 

Your simple math must not be taking into account the fact that people are dying constantly, quicker than we are replacing them, and many countries are in a dire crisis of dwindling populations because couples are having less and less children. I'm not going to take the time to link up to all of the studies supporting my view, as anyone can look them up online. I know many of you disagree (and I will not attempt to change your minds, too upsetting and time consuming :tongue_smilie: ) but I truly believe the overpopluation argument that is constantly thrown around is just a way for people to be elitist in their beliefs while distancing themselves from the general population. The hatred that comes from these environmentalists is just unreal. This is an issue near and dear to my heart because we HAVE chosen to have more than the average number of children, and I really feel for the Duggars with people being so ugly and nasty to them, it's just ridiculous with the people who deserve that kind of judgment, for people to focus on the Duggars and the environmentalists are the worst about it!

[zaichiki]

Thank you. I wasn't aware I had too many dc until you just now pointed it out to me. :glare:

 

Yeah... once a week... my mother had 2 kids and I recall many, many long periods of time in my childhood where neither of us got one private talk a week. I guess she had too many kids. I wonder which one of us should be returned. :glare:

[I.Dup.]

That is pretty dire.

 

Maybe we should start thinking about how to reduce the undesirable elements of our world's population? I'm thinking we probably can't save the earth with the concept of ZPG, no matter how evangelical we are in spreading the message. There's just not enough time. Most people are too selfish to stop having babies, anyway.

 

Yes, we should definitely go at this from another angle. How to start depleting people that are not essential to society? Such an approach would be much quicker and much more effective at preventing global disaster. Do you have any thoughts on how to get started with that? There must be millions of non-productive people hanging around using up resources. D*mn useless eaters.

 

Of course, as an overly-sentimental person I always struggle with the list-making. I personally feel that my children and I deserve to exist, but I have a hard time deciding exactly which people don't deserve their children, or which people are likely to bear undesirables, or which undesirables are really and truly beyond reform.

 

I think the ZPG people should work harder at setting a good example. Why have any children when there already too many? And are ZPG people very careful to constantly assess whether they, themselves, are of such use to society that they, themselves, should keep using up precious resources?

 

Hmmm...sounds familiar....

[Moxie]

I don't begrudge the people who are here (and that's really unkind of you to imply that I wish them all gone). What I take offense at is the people, who are here on this earth pretending that they owe no responsibility for the resources they have, or for considering how their choices impact the well being of others. Or, who label those of us who are concerned as being "hateful."

 

To me, it's hateful to "spew" vitriol at a whole group of people for pointing out some very basic facts.

 

Well, I find it offensive to assume that eveyone with a big family has no consideration for the world and it's resources. I also take offense to the idea that people who disagree with your fatalistic point of view are uneducated to very basic facts.

[I.Dup.]

I don't begrudge the people who are here (and that's really unkind of you to imply that I wish them all gone).

 

Sadly, there are many people with similar beliefs to yours who DO think people should die to help save the earth. I have heard it.

[melmichigan]

Have you heard??

 

Michelle is pregnant again!! That makes 20 for them :)

 

I always tell my husband I want to be her when I grow up, LOL! I so admire her patience and ability to parent so many children in such a calm and caring manner.

 

Wow.

[Aelwydd]

That is pretty dire.

 

Maybe we should start thinking about how to reduce the undesirable elements of our world's population? I'm thinking we probably can't save the earth with the concept of ZPG, no matter how evangelical we are in spreading the message. There's just not enough time. Most people are too selfish to stop having babies, anyway.

 

Yes, we should definitely go at this from another angle. How to start depleting people that are not essential to society? Such an approach would be much quicker and much more effective at preventing global disaster. Do you have any thoughts on how to get started with that? There must be millions of non-productive people hanging around using up resources. D*mn useless eaters.

 

Of course, as an overly-sentimental person I always struggle with the list-making. I personally feel that my children and I deserve to exist, but I have a hard time deciding exactly which people don't deserve their children, or which people are likely to bear undesirables, or which undesirables are really and truly beyond reform.

 

I think the ZPG people should work harder at setting a good example. Why have any children when there already too many? And are ZPG people very careful to constantly assess whether they, themselves, are of such use to society that they, themselves, should keep using up precious resources?

 

 

Tinbar, your polemical argument only serves to offend, and does nothing to address the problem. I am not in favor of genocide, and frankly, I think it's incredibly mean of you to imply that I am. The hostility in your post is totally uncalled for.

 

There is zero connection between your accusations and what I said to Winter. I point out to Blessed Winter that her disgust regarding environmentalists and her belief that they are all just making it up, would not jive with the very real economical and practical issues facing us, and this equals me wanting to go out and kill masses of people?

 

I'm a person who believes that there are enough resources to share on this planet, if only we would all be willing to do so, and were willing to cooperate and make some sacrifices.

 

And of the two of us, if someone were to get put to death, I'd probably be the one to worry. I'm less likely to owe or use a gun than most folks here.

[WIS0320]

 

I always tell my husband I want to be her when I grow up, LOL! I so admire her patience and ability to parent so many children in such a calm and caring manner.

 

I watch the show occasionally and overall I think they are a nice family. But the reality is that she doesn't actually parent all those kids. She is like a cheerful CEO who delegates most of the work out to her older children. Obviously she keeps all the balls in the air and her husband seems almost worthless and entirely dependent on the older daughters when Michelle is away, BUT the honest fact is that Michelle is not tending every scraped knee, putting them all down for naps, keeping up with the housework and so on on her own.

 

I'd probably be more patient too if I had that amount of free labor to depend on to keep things running smoothly around here too. :tongue_smilie:

[Mergath]

Yeah... once a week... my mother had 2 kids and I recall many, many long periods of time in my childhood where neither of us got one private talk a week. I guess she had too many kids. I wonder which one of us should be returned. :glare:

 

There's a big difference between chatting with mom and one sibling and fighting for attention with eighteen or nineteen brothers and sisters.

[I.Dup.]

There's a big difference between chatting with mom and one sibling and fighting for attention with eighteen or nineteen brothers and sisters.

 

Do the Duggar children look like they are suffering or vying/fighting for attention? I have never seen the slightest hint of that, and I'm guessing we'd see some glimpse of that with all of their shows and all of their young children on air quite often, but maybe I have missed something...

[Aelwydd]

Actually the reason meat prices are going up is due to corn(grains) are now part of fueling up our cars. ;) It is not the people or overpopulation doing this. Corn is being used in everything so corn prices are going up. That is why we got rid of our chickens as we couldn't afford to feed them anymore. 7 years ago one big bag of feed was around $7.00. When we got rid of the chickens same bag of feed costs $45 a bag. When they started using corn for part of fuel combo the feed cost went up drastically.

 

I am tired of people blaming population for problems in this country.

 

Actually, you are wrong (although I think that corn for ethanol is a stupid, stupid thing). Texas and Oklahoma ranches lost huge numbers of cattle this year due to the unprecedented levels of drought we are still facing. What's worse is that the ranchers that had to slaughter or sell off whole herds have lost the genetic investment they've made to continue breeding animals suited to this particular environment. You don't just rebuild a herd overnight. So, that means that the shortage of beef is likely going to be pinching us for at least the next few years.

 

 

Corn and wheat crops also suffered tremendously, which means that dairy farms in other states must now vye for the same reduced crop to feed their animals. Which means that other foods are also going to increase. Thanks to all the flooding that folks east of the Mississippi experienced, those crops are also greatly depleted.

 

You may be tired of hearing it, but the fact remains. It's a basic law of economics. Increased demand + decreased supply = rise in cost.

 

All you have to do is google "Texas drought" and "food costs" to bring up a plethora of resources on this.

[Mergath]

I watch the show occasionally and overall I think they are a nice family. But the reality is that she doesn't actually parent all those kids. She is like a cheerful CEO who delegates most of the work out to her older children. Obviously she keeps all the balls in the air and her husband seems almost worthless and entirely dependent on the older daughters when Michelle is away, BUT the honest fact is that Michelle is not tending every scraped knee, putting them all down for naps, keeping up with the housework and so on on her own.

 

I'd probably be more patient too if I had that amount of free labor to depend on to keep things running smoothly around here too. :tongue_smilie:

 

:iagree: They have their schedule posted on their website, and if you read through the whole thing, it explicitly says that the older siblings are getting the youngers ready in the morning, doing their homeschooling, making dinner, and it sounds like doing the baths in the evening, as well (because there's no way one woman could bathe that many young kids by herself). Between that and their own education, they have basically no time for themselves. That's not right. It's entirely appropriate to have older kids help. Not to have them each doing more of the parenting than the actual parents.

 

And yes, to the pps I offended, in a family of that size, where it would be so easy for a quiet child to get lost in the shuffle, I do think each kid needs more one-on-one time with mom. Sue me.

[Mergath]

Do the Duggar children look like they are suffering or vying/fighting for attention? I have never seen the slightest hint of that, and I'm guessing we'd see some glimpse of that with all of their shows and all of their young children on air quite often, but maybe I have missed something...

 

I doubt we'd see any of it. I'm sure anything like that is carefully edited out.

[Joanne]

Do the Duggar children look like they are suffering or vying/fighting for attention? I have never seen the slightest hint of that, and I'm guessing we'd see some glimpse of that with all of their shows and all of their young children on air quite often, but maybe I have missed something...

 

It's simple math. I'm not categorically against the family size. But the insistence of some Duggar fans that the amount of parental time available to 19 vs. 3 is comparible is silly.

 

The quality of parental time can't be ascertained by the amount of time available, but availability *is* dictated by number.

[Jennifer3141]

Do the Duggar children look like they are suffering or vying/fighting for attention? I have never seen the slightest hint of that, and I'm guessing we'd see some glimpse of that with all of their shows and all of their young children on air quite often, but maybe I have missed something...

 

How long is this show? Half hour? Hourly? Edited... Once per week?

 

I can present a perfect family once a week for half an hour too!!! Especially if I have makeup artists and producers. :001_smile:

[Ginevra]

A Duggar thread that's getting heated...how rare! :rolleyes:

[Stacia]

Tinbar, your polemical argument only serves to offend, and does nothing to address the problem. I am not in favor of genocide, and frankly, I think it's incredibly mean of you to imply that I am. The hostility in your post is totally uncalled for.

 

There is zero connection between your accusations and what I said to Winter. I point out to Blessed Winter that her disgust regarding environmentalists and her belief that they are all just making it up, would not jive with the very real economical and practical issues facing us, and this equals me wanting to go out and kill masses of people?

 

I'm a person who believes that there are enough resources to share on this planet, if only we would all be willing to do so, and were willing to cooperate and make some sacrifices.

 

And of the two of us, if someone were to get put to death, I'd probably be the one to worry. I'm less likely to owe or use a gun than most folks here.

 

:iagree: