I'm sure the horse is dead, but... (Duggar content)

[cin]

Regarding the nit-pickiness (is that a word? If it is, did I spell it right?) I think that those of us with fewer children have NO IDEA what it's like to parent 10+ kids, let alone 20!

 

I have 2 kids, and when I watch(ed we don't have cable anymore) the show I often wondered why they were doing something so differently than me. But as the family grew, I realized that I only two, and if I had 18 more kids, well, *I* would be in a padded room. The older children would HAVE to help out a bit. I'm sure the children know who mama and daddy are, but when you have a larger family, the kids are going to help out. There's just no other way. And I don't really think it's all that bad for the kids to learn to be good husbands or wives, or homemakers, or run a household, or whatever you want to call it, because as an only child, my mom did EVERYTHING. I didn't know how to boil an egg when I got married, let alone do laundry (I ruined our sheets by washing them with the towels) or iron (I don't iron at all, now). At least their kids will be able to take care of themselves when they get on their own.

 

FTR, I believe that having a quiverfull is an individual decision. We have 2, and our quiver is FULL.

[Guest]

:iagree:I really don't understand the nit-picky animosity so many have towards this family. Is it really so surprising that an older sister would take joy in caring for a newborn in her household? Perhaps that says more about the critics than said sister. How exactly does what this family does affect those who delight in tearing them down? Why anyone would care to the point of having to say something unkind or critical about them is a complete enigma to me. Like Dianne said, if you don't like them, turn off the tv. I mean, really, why watch if it's going to be so painful?

 

I think it is especially ironic that homeschoolers, who as a whole tend to abhor this kind of behavior when it is directed at them by friends and relatives who cannot abide their choice to homeschool, would have so much to say about how another family chooses to live. There is no abuse going on (I understand the Pearl animosity very well) - the Duggars are just different. Why is it so hard to just let them be who they are? I think they are a perfectly lovely family and head and shoulders above many families I know as far as closeness, caring, industriousness, selflessness and many other desirable character traits goes.

 

We all have blind spots in our parenting no matter how many children we have. We all fail in this area or that. How about showing Michelle a little grace here. And if you're really concerned that she's such a lousy mom, why not pray for her? I'm sure she'd be the first to admit her shortcomings and redouble her efforts to improve her parenting.

 

No, I don't think it would be a shocking anomaly for an older sibling to love the baby in the family. I was speaking to something that is depicted on the show over and over again, through the years. That Michelle is generally baby-free, like a benevolent CEO who has delegated all her care-giving responsibilities.

 

I don't hate on the family; I watch the show because it's a relief to find something on TV that isn't trash/sex/homicide/foul-mouth, etc. But, they choose to demonstrate their lives to millions of curious viewers; it shouldn't be astounding that someone takes exception to something they do. Am I a perfect parent? Nope. Definitely not. Do I want to demonstrate that for everyone who wishes to tune in each week? Definitely not. When you take the trade of money for privacy, you can't be surprised by criticism.

 

I'm positive the Duggars are well aware that they are on the outer fringe of what society considers normal. I'm sure they have heard it said before that the four oldest daughters are like substitute mothers and bear an undue load of childrearing. Apparently, they are satisfied with their system and aren't concerned what Quill thinks. ;) But so long as they're going to be odd in front of the free world, they might as well know some people will think their ways are not optimal.

[Dahliarw]

Older children being in charge of younger siblings is nothing new. In fact, before thie 1900s it was very common (and probbably well into it). If you read the Little House books, it talks about Mary and Laura being in charge of baby Carrie out on the prarie, etc. It was the only way Ma could get done what they needed. And I'm sure, especially in poorer families, older siblings have been baby sitters and caregivers so parents could work (or those children worked themselves, prior to child labor laws).

 

Of course, "back in the day" birth control was not well known and much more complicated (NFP or condoms made from animal skins for the most part). And it would have been typical for most to have more children than the 1-2 most families have today. Older children helping with younger was essential for the family to survive.

 

Now, not saying it's wrong or right. And it probably depends on how it is done, but it's nothing new and was probably widely accepted until modern times.

[Kathleen in VA]

I offer up the possibility that the reason Michelle rarely holds a baby (at least while standing up) is due to her back issues (I mentioned those in my first post in this thread). I have six screws in my spine having royally messed up my back during the birth of my last child. I can't imagine any mother of approx. 5 or more children not having back issues.

 

When my granddaughter comes for a visit I must always sit to hold her - even when she was newborn and weighed only 7 lbs. I don't watch the show (my solution to the tv trash problem was to just cut out the cable altogether) so I don't know if she is shown a lot sitting down sans babies. But I know only too well from personal experience how difficult it is to carry anything 5 lbs. or heavier when you have back problems. Also, she is probably the one who gets up in the night with the babies, so perhaps the older children are trying to give her a break on that account as well. Just some thoughts.

[mycalling]

I have about as many little ones as the Duggars and it doesn't take 4 teenaged girls to take care of them. I think people who don't have a bunch of kids over-estimate the amount of "mothering" these older girls are asked to do or maybe their own children are more dependent than children from large families are. Even ~6yo Jackson has a little buddy, so it's not just these "poor teenage girls."

 

My littles vie for getting to push the stroller, sitting next to the baby, feeding the baby, cooking and baking. I really don't think it's a stretch that these children actually want to do the things they do to contribute to the family.

Edited November 29, 2011 by MyCalling

[JumpyTheFrog]

And I don't really think it's all that bad for the kids to learn to be good husbands or wives, or homemakers, or run a household...

 

I haven't seen the show. But what I have noticed is that in every online discussion about the Duggars I've read, it's always the daughters mentioned as taking care of the babies and toddlers. Do any of the sons wear them around in slings? If not, then I'm concerned they're learning that a good husband is one who let's the wife do all the childcare, while he gets the credit as the family patriarch.

[mycalling]

I haven't seen the show. But what I have noticed is that in every online discussion about the Duggars I've read, it's always the daughters mentioned as taking care of the babies and toddlers. Do any of the sons wear them around in slings? If not, then I'm concerned they're learning that a good husband is one who let's the wife do all the childcare, while he gets the credit as the family patriarch.

I wonder how many of the Hive's husbands wear their babies in slings. Hardly any, I bet, but that doesn't make them bad fathers...let alone expecting it from older brothers! The show has showed Jim Bob taking care of little ones while out, also while eating at home. He seems very involved with the other children.

 

I doubt with all the girls in the house, the boys are allowed much time with the babies. I literally have to have a rotation to make sure everyone here gets baby time, I could only imagine the line waiting if we had more than twice as many!

[Audrey]

I have to just about do battle with Diva to get Baby Boo. She's all over him like a bad smell...wanting to feed, change, etc. I'm sure I'd get a negative comment or 12 for how much she does w/him, but its at HER insistance!

 

 

I don't have a problem with that. Some kids really like babies, and choose to play 'momma' with their sibings. There's nothing wrong with that at all. I'd not think too well of you if you purposely set her up to be the main caregiver and then just stepped aside yourself. That's a whole other dynamic.

 

Also, my biggest grind on the Duggars is the fact that they've pimped out their children to television. I think that's disgusting no matter WHAT your intentions are for doing it. They're children, not public entertainment.

 

In that respect, I think the Duggars are not even one iota better than the Gosselins or Octomom or the Sister Wives clan or the Toddlers in Tiaras families.

[In2why]

I agree that it's what they depict on the show. And it's not that I think there's anything wrong with keeping back one capable sibling to be helpful. As a mom, it would break my heart to see most of my family heading back to our home country while I'm stuck in a foreign land with a sick baby - very unnerving! It just looked to me like (as I said already), "Okay - now we have a new baby coming, it's time to groom Josie to look first to Jill and not Mama!" That's what bothers me.

 

 

I see it as the same way. She isn't the primary parent but the buddy is, and she is the final parent, if that makes sense. Kind of like when a child prefers the Nanny. It doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of love, but you can only spread yourself but so thin.

The thing that upsets me the most is that she has formula to feed the baby, I am not sure if it is supplemental, or if because she was a preemie there were issues, but then I thought about how breastfeeding is a natural way of BC to help space out children and you wanted to hurry up and have more, perhaps you would cut back on breastfeeding. I sure hope not, but it would help to explain why she is pregnant so soon after each child.

[Marylou]

Not only is the horse dead, I think it is quite mummified:001_smile:

[Tenaj]

I see it as the same way. She isn't the primary parent but the buddy is, and she is the final parent, if that makes sense. Kind of like when a child prefers the Nanny. It doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of love, but you can only spread yourself but so thin.

The thing that upsets me the most is that she has formula to feed the baby, I am not sure if it is supplemental, or if because she was a preemie there were issues, but then I thought about how breastfeeding is a natural way of BC to help space out children and you wanted to hurry up and have more, perhaps you would cut back on breastfeeding. I sure hope not, but it would help to explain why she is pregnant so soon after each child.

 

Josie is lactose intolerant - that's why she uses formula for her.

[astrid]

I offer up the possibility that the reason Michelle rarely holds a baby (at least while standing up) is due to her back issues ...... I can't imagine any mother of approx. 5 or more children not having back issues.

 

I'm no Duggar fan, but I do think this is entirely plausible. Heck, I only had one pregnancy/labor/delivery and she managed to mess up my back! :glare:

 

astrid

[astrid]

Not only is the horse dead, I think it is quite mummified:001_smile:

 

Oh GOOD! So we can keep beating it, as opposed to a rapid decomposition which would leave nothing to bat around like a pinata! :D

 

astrid

[Annie G]

Oh GOOD! So we can keep beating it, as opposed to a rapid decomposition which would leave nothing to bat around like a pinata! :D

 

astrid

 

Thanks for making me spew Pepsi Max through my nose.

[Guest]

That's not accurate.

 

Michelle was alone with Josie for the first many many mos of her life. I think Jill is training (thru some half witted hsing org) to be a nurse- midwife, so its logical to me that she would be a good choice to stay with a sick baby and mom.

 

Also, Michelle is pg so maybe its not so easy on her back to hold a 2 yr old.

 

*sigh* Yes, I know Michelle was alone with Josie for the critical months that Josie was at death's door. Obviously! Michelle was also (mercifully) not pregnant at that time. Now she is. And Josie's not precariously fragile now, though I would hardly call her healthy. Sure it makes sense to keep a sibling there with them in a foreign country. I was speaking about over-all. On the whole, it gives the impression that once Michelle is pg again, the previous baby is shuffled along to whichever sister is happy to do it. Or not happy to do it. Or whatever, because that's just the M.O. of their family life.

 

Maybe it is all explained by Michelle's back pain. Though I think Josie weighs something like 15 lbs.; she is not the size of a typical 2yo.

 

I don't have a problem with that. Some kids really like babies, and choose to play 'momma' with their sibings. There's nothing wrong with that at all. I'd not think too well of you if you purposely set her up to be the main caregiver and then just stepped aside yourself. That's a whole other dynamic.

 

Also, my biggest grind on the Duggars is the fact that they've pimped out their children to television. I think that's disgusting no matter WHAT your intentions are for doing it. They're children, not public entertainment.

 

In that respect, I think the Duggars are not even one iota better than the Gosselins or Octomom or the Sister Wives clan or the Toddlers in Tiaras families.

 

Yes, exactly. :iagree: Whenever we talk about the role of the older daughters, there are always people saying, "Older siblings should help." Yes! They should help. They should not be the presumed primary caregiver. I know of other large families who do not assign children to a secondary "nanny-sister". These are not the same thing.

 

Oh GOOD! So we can keep beating it, as opposed to a rapid decomposition which would leave nothing to bat around like a pinata! :D

 

astrid

 

:lol::lol::lol: I'll bring the stick!

[unsinkable]

On the whole, it gives the impression that once Michelle is pg again, the previous baby is shuffled along to whichever sister is happy to do it.

 

I think the proper term here is SisterMom.

 

:lol:

[mommaduck]

I don't have a problem with that. Some kids really like babies, and choose to play 'momma' with their sibings. There's nothing wrong with that at all. I'd not think too well of you if you purposely set her up to be the main caregiver and then just stepped aside yourself. That's a whole other dynamic.

 

Also, my biggest grind on the Duggars is the fact that they've pimped out their children to television. I think that's disgusting no matter WHAT your intentions are for doing it. They're children, not public entertainment.

 

In that respect, I think the Duggars are not even one iota better than the Gosselins or Octomom or the Sister Wives clan or the Toddlers in Tiaras families.

:iagree:

[silliness7]

I'm sure Jill is Josie's "buddy." I just don't get why that would mean Michelle doesn't hold her if it would be possible for Jill OR Michelle to hold her.

 

Deep breath. It's a show. I really don't think we can make accurate assessments of the reality of their life even though it's technically labeled a "reality show". Where is the dead horse smilie? Someone posted one once. I don't know how to go out into the interwebs and fetch one and bring it back here or I would. :D

[silliness7]

:iagree:I really don't understand the nit-picky animosity so many have towards this family. Is it really so surprising that an older sister would take joy in caring for a newborn in her household? Perhaps that says more about the critics than said sister. How exactly does what this family does affect those who delight in tearing them down? Why anyone would care to the point of having to say something unkind or critical about them is a complete enigma to me. Like Dianne said, if you don't like them, turn off the tv. I mean, really, why watch if it's going to be so painful?

 

I think it is especially ironic that homeschoolers, who as a whole tend to abhor this kind of behavior when it is directed at them by friends and relatives who cannot abide their choice to homeschool, would have so much to say about how another family chooses to live. There is no abuse going on (I understand the Pearl animosity very well) - the Duggars are just different. Why is it so hard to just let them be who they are? I think they are a perfectly lovely family and head and shoulders above many families I know as far as closeness, caring, industriousness, selflessness and many other desirable character traits goes.

 

We all have blind spots in our parenting no matter how many children we have. We all fail in this area or that. How about showing Michelle a little grace here. And if you're really concerned that she's such a lousy mom, why not pray for her? I'm sure she'd be the first to admit her shortcomings and redouble her efforts to improve her parenting.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[NotSoObvious]

As far as the nit pickyness comments, the truth is, they ARE on TV. We ARE going to talk about them. They've put it out there and I think it's perfectly fair to accept the fact that people are going to ask questions and try to figure out just how all of that works when we only see 2% of their lives.

 

I love the show because of how the family members treat each other. But at the end of the day, it's still a reality show and it's fun to speculate about it all!

[Guest]

I think the proper term here is SisterMom.

 

:lol:

 

...A whole new show is born!

 

Deep breath. It's a show. I really don't think we can make accurate assessments of the reality of their life even though it's technically labeled a "reality show". Where is the dead horse smilie? Someone posted one once. I don't know how to go out into the interwebs and fetch one and bring it back here or I would. :D

 

Now that would totally make my day. I don't know how to do that, either. :tongue_smilie:

[Pamela H in Texas]

I think it is important to realize that a 30 minute show that shows a week or two of time is not likely to show every aspect of a family's life. Seriously, my kids spend more than 30 minutes per DAY with my littles. A show could most certainly make it look like my kids are the ones who do their meals, caretaking, discipline and who play with them. They DO. Of course I do also. But it'd be easy to make it look like I don't especially if you show each teens' and Dad's care of them.

 

I know of a newspaper article (that is as much as I'm saying) that was to show a neat aspect of a person's life. The people involved hoped to help others with the information and it was said that the article was to bring benefits to people with this situation. Imagine the shock when the aspect was turned into something it most certainly was not. Everyone involved couldn't believe it. The person couldn't understand how they could misrepresent the situation so significantly. Quotes were taken out of context. Facts were sensationalized in ways the person could not imagine. "News" is an artform, not truth.

 

Reality TV is the same. We know a family who was on a reality tv show. The show focused on one particular aspect as this show is keen to do. The aspect was TRUE, but boy was it spun. The family was almost unrecognizable because of the situation. The family didn't do this for fame or money or whatever. They did it for an adventure and they got one. They said they'd do it again. But they do understand that it isn't THEM being portrayed. Reality TV is an oxymoron!

 

I think the Duggars are pretty forward with who they are and what they do. However, I do think that "reality tv" isn't all inclusive. There is most certainly aspects of life left out and others that are made to seem true when it may be to a certain degree (for example, the buddy thing is TRUE, we know; but how much child care/holding/disciplining/watching/etc does Michelle do?).

 

BTW, I do not think the Duggars are "surprised" or bothered by this like my examples. They may have been a couple times; but they probably, like the family on the show I mentioned, have decided it's "good enough." They are probably secure enough with both themselves as well as with what is portrayed that they don't worry about things like people being weird about a big sister carrying her baby sister. Though a few times, they seemed oblivious about what the rest of us might think about some weird thing or another.

Edited November 30, 2011 by 2J5M9K

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Here ya go, Quill:

[SnowWhite]

The thing that upsets me the most is that she has formula to feed the baby, I am not sure if it is supplemental, or if because she was a preemie there were issues, but then I thought about how breastfeeding is a natural way of BC to help space out children and you wanted to hurry up and have more, perhaps you would cut back on breastfeeding. I sure hope not, but it would help to explain why she is pregnant so soon after each child.

 

The Amish are the quintessential QF community, and even with twins the biggest family I heard of had 16 children. No reason to RUSH fertility.

[Mosaicmind]

Michelle had to put Josie on formula because she is lactose intolerant and allergies, it was on the shows when she was in the hospital. It's one of the reasons her stomach had gotten so distended. If this had not been the case she would still be breastfeeding her.

 

Jana has always been on the show and was not "sent" to an ATI camp. All the girls went to this retreat camp for girls, there is one for boys too.

[KungFuPanda]

I haven't seen the show. But what I have noticed is that in every online discussion about the Duggars I've read, it's always the daughters mentioned as taking care of the babies and toddlers. Do any of the sons wear them around in slings? If not, then I'm concerned they're learning that a good husband is one who let's the wife do all the childcare, while he gets the credit as the family patriarch.

 

 

They don't seem to HAVE a lot of older boys. I think part of what makes their home so efficient is that most of the older teens are girls. That's a lot of capable young women all in one place and working together. I don't know if it would run nearly as smoothly if her oldest girl was twelve and most of the teens were boys. They probably would have needed to abandon their stance on traditional gender rolls years ago just to keep everyone fed and in clean clothes.

[UmMusa]

They don't seem to HAVE a lot of older boys. I think part of what makes their home so efficient is that most of the older teens are girls. That's a lot of capable young women all in one place and working together. I don't know if it would run nearly as smoothly if her oldest girl was twelve and most of the teens were boys. They probably would have needed to abandon their stance on traditional gender rolls years ago just to keep everyone fed and in clean clothes.

I've thought about that before, too. Had her oldest kids been mostly boys, I can see how things might be different for them. Who knows, but it is what it is! I know that I get inspired by them each time I watch their show.

[Sandsam]

Jana has always been on the show and was not "sent" to an ATI camp. All the girls went to this retreat camp for girls, there is one for boys too.

 

Ok - need to speculate. Could Jana possibly be dating and thus absent from the show?

[UmMusa]

Ok - need to speculate. Could Jana possibly be dating and thus absent from the show?

:lol: I like your speculation! I've seen her in the background, although she never interviews or gets proper face time. I doubt it's because she would be couring. I think she made a 'grown-up' decision about two years ago and just backed out of the show, but I recall the last few times I did see her I noticed she looked sad, indifferent, or annoyed. Or a combination of those emotions. Right after I noticed her face she quit showing up so much on the episodes even though she is clearly there with them on their trips.

[5kidsforME]

Didn't one of the Duggar girls have their diary/journal stolen from the home? If it was Jana I can completely understand backing away from the limelight. What an invasion of privacy. Having the show is a bad enough invasion of privacy, but to have your most secret thoughts (especially as a teenager!!) for the world to see....horrible.

[mom4him]

:iagree:I really don't understand the nit-picky animosity so many have towards this family. Is it really so surprising that an older sister would take joy in caring for a newborn in her household? Perhaps that says more about the critics than said sister. How exactly does what this family does affect those who delight in tearing them down? Why anyone would care to the point of having to say something unkind or critical about them is a complete enigma to me. Like Dianne said, if you don't like them, turn off the tv. I mean, really, why watch if it's going to be so painful?

 

I think it is especially ironic that homeschoolers, who as a whole tend to abhor this kind of behavior when it is directed at them by friends and relatives who cannot abide their choice to homeschool, would have so much to say about how another family chooses to live. There is no abuse going on (I understand the Pearl animosity very well) - the Duggars are just different. Why is it so hard to just let them be who they are? I think they are a perfectly lovely family and head and shoulders above many families I know as far as closeness, caring, industriousness, selflessness and many other desirable character traits goes.

 

We all have blind spots in our parenting no matter how many children we have. We all fail in this area or that. How about showing Michelle a little grace here. And if you're really concerned that she's such a lousy mom, why not pray for her? I'm sure she'd be the first to admit her shortcomings and redouble her efforts to improve her parenting.

:iagree:

[Guest]

Here ya go, Quill:

 

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5: That's perfect!

 

They don't seem to HAVE a lot of older boys. I think part of what makes their home so efficient is that most of the older teens are girls. That's a lot of capable young women all in one place and working together. I don't know if it would run nearly as smoothly if her oldest girl was twelve and most of the teens were boys. They probably would have needed to abandon their stance on traditional gender rolls years ago just to keep everyone fed and in clean clothes.

 

I've thought that, too. Or even, if Jana, Jessa, Jinger and Jill were to marry off any time soon, that would leave only JoyAnna as the next capable girl and it's still quite a lot of younger kids below JoyAnna.

 

Didn't one of the Duggar girls have their diary/journal stolen from the home? If it was Jana I can completely understand backing away from the limelight. What an invasion of privacy. Having the show is a bad enough invasion of privacy, but to have your most secret thoughts (especially as a teenager!!) for the world to see....horrible.

 

That was Jinger. My understanding was that nothing was disseminated from the diary, though; the girl who stole it had an attack of conscience and returned it.

[learningmama]

:lol: I like your speculation! I've seen her in the background, although she never interviews or gets proper face time. I doubt it's because she would be couring. I think she made a 'grown-up' decision about two years ago and just backed out of the show, but I recall the last few times I did see her I noticed she looked sad, indifferent, or annoyed. Or a combination of those emotions. Right after I noticed her face she quit showing up so much on the episodes even though she is clearly there with them on their trips.

 

 

I had noticed that they hardly interview her either. But, they don't interview her twin brother(they are twins right?) much either. Interesting. I am amazed that they do have at least 3 kids over the age of 18 now. Wonder how long the kids will stay at home?

[Guest]

I had noticed that they hardly interview her either. But, they don't interview her twin brother(they are twins right?) much either. Interesting. I am amazed that they do have at least 3 kids over the age of 18 now. Wonder how long the kids will stay at home?

 

I thought that with John-David (yes, he's Jana's twin). He is very rarely interviewed. They did say on a previous show that he is more shy than others, so that might play a role. I have (tongue-in-cheek) thought he might look at Josh and think, "Man, I don't want all that on my plate yet!" (One of the many things I don't love about the courting stance. It's saying if you're old enough to be interested in romance, you're old enough to very soon take on family responsibilites.)