Escape From Duggarville

[gardenmom5]

That's your opinion, but reasonable people can (and do) disagree.  We can also disagree on whether it's really better to be the baby of the family for more than x months/years.  The owner of the womb gets to weigh those and other questions, preferably without outsiders' judgment.

 

 

my *experience* with my children buddying up, irrelevant of age, is not an "opinion". it's fact.

 

when people choose to have kids is their business - and I really don't give a rip.  I have my own life - and am too busy living it to live anyone else's. (though I do know a few people who do try to live other people's life for them.  :rolleyes: )

I stated my "opinion" about having kids close in age as one of the things I don't like about QF. 

 

and just an aside - if you were that sure of your opinion that kids really close was ideal - you wouldn't have cared what my opinion was and posted what comes across to me as a defensive post.  (you would have simply posted - not responding to mine - that you like having kids close together and feel it has worked for you.)

[gardenmom5]

And many would disagree with that.

 

I have five kids.  I have some experience with that.

 

eta: I should add - four of them are adults - so we've been through all the various stages.

[Dory]

I have five kids.  I have some experience with that.

 

I came from a family of seven we have experience with that too. I'm sure in your case that it has obviously worked out well and that's great, I'm just saying, the opposite has proven healthy and good in many other peoples cases that are not QF people. It just seems an odd reason to not like QF.

 

People who have twins would also have a kid who doesn't get to be the baby.

[SKL]

my *experience* with my children buddying up, irrelevant of age, is not an "opinion". it's fact.

 

when people choose to have kids is their business - and I really don't give a rip.  I have my own life - and am too busy living it to live anyone else's. (though I do know a few people who do try to live other people's life for them.  :rolleyes: )

I stated my "opinion" about having kids close in age as one of the things I don't like about QF. 

 

and just an aside - if you were that sure of your opinion that kids really close was ideal - you wouldn't have cared what my opinion was and posted what comes across to me as a defensive post.  (you would have simply posted - not responding to mine - that you like having kids close together and feel it has worked for you.)

 

You stated your "fact" to support your "opinion" that close in age benefits are irrelevant after preschool.

 

You stated that you were "offended" by people intentionally having kids close in age.  So obviously you do give a rip.

 

Whether I was "defensive" or just stating another view is not important to me.  I have never borne a kid, so I wouldn't consider myself QF or anything close to it.  I am one of 6 kids myself, 4 of whom were pretty close in age, and my kids are only 3 months apart in age.  So I have some personal experience too, and it doesn't coincide with yours.  What I have observed is that kids who got to be "the baby" for more than a couple of years were most likely to have behavioral and social problems.

 

[gardenmom5]

I think to further expound upon why I do not like the QF version of popping them out yearly - there is no choice, it's an expectation they will be frequent .

[Frances]

I don't understand the need to label another person's choice to get pregnant or not as "selfish" or "unselfish."  I can't think of too many things that impact me less than whether some other person wants a kid.

 

I completely disagree. Children being raised in abusive, neglectful, or extremely dysfunctional situations affect all of us. Some people simply aren't ready to be parents when they bring a child into the world. And if they aren't willing or able to get help or to choose adoption, their children suffer terribly and all of society is impacted.

[SKL]

I completely disagree. Children being raised in abusive, neglectful, or extremely dysfunctional situations affect all of us. Some people simply aren't ready to be parents when they bring a child into the world. And if they aren't willing or able to get help or to choose adoption, their children suffer terribly and all of society is impacted.

 

I said wants a kid, not has an unwanted pregnancy.

 

Kids are abused in families of all sizes.  Kids are treated well in families of all sizes.  In any family size and any demographic, most kids are loved and cared for.

 

If you're talking about a specific person you know who is trying to have a baby under very bad circumstances, that's not what I'm talking about.  I do not make it my business to opine on other people's family planning in general.  Have there been a couple close people whose plan for another child made me concerned?  Yes.  Not for my sake, but for theirs / their kid's.  But my concern is not about "selfishness."

[LucyStoner]

I think to further expound upon why I do not like the QF version of popping them out yearly - there is no choice, it's an expectation they will be frequent .

Also sometimes this is risky to the point of being reckless. Women who have very closely spaced pregnancies can increase their risk of pregnancy complications and preterm labor. Most women need some recovery time for best outcomes for the next pregnancy. Even if the baby is born healthy, a common thing I hear is that constant pregnancies in some cases deprive the other children of maternal care. That's one thing if it is 9 months every few years or less, quite another if someone who has hard pregnancies is pregnant or just post partum most of the years her kids are growing up.

[LucyStoner]

I completely disagree. Children being raised in abusive, neglectful, or extremely dysfunctional situations affect all of us. Some people simply aren't ready to be parents when they bring a child into the world. And if they aren't willing or able to get help or to choose adoption, their children suffer terribly and all of society is impacted.

This applies in a larger sense but also on a person to person level, I can't say I relish the thought of what happens if my idiot relative reproduces AGAIN with someone who can't be a good mother. Not only is it hard for the kids, it's hard for those of us that step up because it's the only right thing to do. I often have 2-3 additional kids with me because they need a stable environment. It's a joy to be able to help kids in need but it doesn't come free for me or my husband. Many of the only times my reproduction happy relative's kids get a number of their needs met- physical, emotional, social, is when they are with me and my husband. It's draining and I am not selfish to say that the kids in question unequivocally don't deserve the shit both of their parents put them through at times. Stable, helpful relatives and community members can't make up for the hole in the kids' life because they have a rotten, selfish, abusive and neglectful father. I can't change my relative but I've also earned the right to be skeptical about the consequences of him fathering more children. Having children can be a profoundly selfish thing to do.

[Audrey]

Indeed. I just read the whole thing, and I noticed a few places where her particular way of interpreting the Scripture that supposedly imprisoned her was just way, way off from what I've always known. I don't think I'm going to take her indictments seriously.

 

But, you see... that interpretation was the one she was given.  She didn't come up with that herself.  The worst one in the equation is whomever fed her that line of thinking (or not thinking, really).

[Audrey]

I'd like to see these weekly hate threads come to an end.

 

 

I wouldn't.  Some things really are that hateful.  Best not to sweep them under the rug all the time, IMO.

[Audrey]

Personally, I think it's entirely unselfish to remain childless if you don't want children or if you don't believe you will be a good parent or be able to provide a happy home environment for a child.

 

I think it's a whole lot more selfish to go ahead and have kids and then be a lousy parent.

 

Children are a lifelong commitment and a huge responsibility. Having kids isn't something to enter into lightly.

 

 

Liking is not enough.  Must repost, and boldy-bold the best bits.

[Audrey]

You stated your "fact" to support your "opinion" that close in age benefits are irrelevant after preschool.

 

You stated that you were "offended" by people intentionally having kids close in age.  So obviously you do give a rip.

 

Whether I was "defensive" or just stating another view is not important to me.  I have never borne a kid, so I wouldn't consider myself QF or anything close to it.  I am one of 6 kids myself, 4 of whom were pretty close in age, and my kids are only 3 months apart in age.  So I have some personal experience too, and it doesn't coincide with yours.  What I have observed is that kids who got to be "the baby" for more than a couple of years were most likely to have behavioral and social problems.

 

 

 

The whole thing about having kids close in age so they will have a built in buddy is complete bunk.  You can force kids to play together, but that doesn't mean they will like each other.  I've personally known plenty of close-age siblings who spent more time wailing the heck out of each other or trying to avoid each other than being buddies.   

[Dory]

The whole thing about having kids close in age so they will have a built in buddy is complete bunk.  You can force kids to play together, but that doesn't mean they will like each other.  I've personally known plenty of close-age siblings who spent more time wailing the heck out of each other or trying to avoid each other than being buddies.   

 

and I personally know many kids close in age who were very close and loved each other like crazy. Some of that depends on the household too.

[Rosie_0801]

Christians are supposed to "die to themselves," they are supposed to be willing to sacrifice their own desires (not their needs) if it will accomplish good for others. Christians are especially supposed to follow the example of self sacrifice in their marriages. But this unselfish sacrifice is supposed to be done by the husband and the wife. In the context of this conversation we are speaking of Christians, and so selfishness should be something they are trying to avoid.

 

Avoiding selfishness does not mean you don't love yourself , or take care of yourself. God wants us to love all his children and take care of them, including ourselves. The concept of selflessness does NOT mean you should be a doormat or put up with abuse, anyone who can should stand up to abuse.

 

The problem is that fringe groups like many QF families twist the meaning of selfishness, along with many other teachings. It isn't selfish to limit family size because of finances, health, etc. but many QF families will claim that it is. In the case of abusive men, they hold the concepts of pride and selfishness over their spouses head in order to control them. It is sad that so many women are abused in the name of religion, but the religion is being twisted and abused by these people as well.

 

I understand this, but I don't think it answers my question unless you mean the crime of selfishness is being committed against potential.

[ktgrok]

I don't get how "kids are a blessing" means "more kids is better". Water is a blessing, but too much water will drown you. 

 

Food is a blessing, but too much will make you obese/give you diabetes/etc. 

 

Just because something is a blessing doesn't mean you need as many/much as possible. There is no logic there. 

 

that said, i want another baby. I just dont' really want another birth. I hate pushing, and the last kid had a 15inch head and was over 10lbs. 

[Mimm]

I have five kids.  I have some experience with that.

 

eta: I should add - four of them are adults - so we've been through all the various stages.

 

People are still allowed to disagree with people with five children.

 

My first two are 18 months apart. It was difficult on me to have them close in age at first but it was very good for the rest of their childhood.

[BlsdMama]

My husband would call this a pi$$ing contest, where everyone sees who can pee further than who.  Okay, fine.  I have two sets of Irish twins - two children born within 12 months.  We had one set in 2001 - Hannah on Valentine's Day and Elizabeth just before Christmas.   (Hannah died at 12 days so nursing didn't work so great as a spacer) and then Rebecca did better on formula than breastmilk so we switched her.  Rebecca's birthday?  January 2004.  Tim was born in December of that year.  AND I have 12 kids, therefore the MOST experience, so I get to be the expert witness!  :D 

 

Sigh.

 

Ya'all nobody wins on these threads.  No one.

 

When will everyone learn that sitting around ripping others apart isn't a real life?  It's just some ridiculous game where if we can make the mom next to us look like she's getting a big, fat F then we feel like we're skating by with a C, or maybe a B, because everyone knows one mom whose doing way better than us, so she gets the A.

 

It's not enough.  It's a very dry substitute of joy.

 

Let's be honest, from the title it was a, "Let's hate Christians with big families thread."  :p  It's okay.  I'm used to it really.  I get the glares at the grocery store where no one is paying for my food except me.  Some days on really fun days, we get looks at stoplights.  DH thinks we really need to tint the windows on the new van like the old van so people stop counting us at red lights.  Oh, and ladies, when I'm shopping at a consignment store and my 3yo is demanding, she's no different than any other 3yo just because you would think we have learned what causes that.... Yes, rude, judgmental people just light up my life and seem to  come out of the woodwork.  But it's all okay because *I* am doing what I believe is right.

 

However, have you ever noticed how often folks around here don't think we should judge?  And yet, do you see the irony there?  Hm...

 

So on this:

 

Look, this woman hates her life.  Honestly, I was insulted.  She affirms she essentially talked her husband into this life, pushed for it, wanted to stay home, pushed for babies, and now claims it is abuse.

 

I've seen an abused woman after an attack.

 

She had NO CONTROL over what happened to her.  None. 

 

Then there is emotional abuse.

 

It's a little time we say, "If you have the control in the situation, you were NOT abused."  She had control.   She got her husband to go along with what she wanted and she's still not happy, so she's turning a 180 and attacking everything she knew.  She figures, "If I was heading North and I wasn't happy, then North was the wrong direction.  Stop.  About face. Go SOUTH!" 

 

It's a damn shame.

Out there is a man who just lost custody of his kids.

He lived his life.

He loved his family.

In her words he put them first.

And he, if he's lucky, will only get labeled an abuser but hopefully still get to see his kids on weekends. 

 

I feel so sorry for him.

 

And then let's talk about the author, shall we?

 

Can we recognize crap when we see crap?  Or are we fooled when someone dresses it up as a cupcake?  OR, more importantly, do we just not care at all and we simply want to play the timeless game of Pin the Tail on the Duggars?  It is great fun after all?

 

Look, the moment she titled it: Escape from Duggarville I knew what was coming.  But here's the deal - that post was about abuse.

Granted, I've seen the Duggars all of about a dozen times.  However, it doesn't seem like a physically or emotionally abusive power trip.

 

Honestly?  It's insulting to insinuate it is.  Because it belittles real abuse situations. 

 

Oh, and on the kids close together thing?

 

My closest (relationship) sibling set is the 18yo to the 6yo.  I find that the kids tend to pair up the way friends IRL do - by personalities.  Some relationships are easy, some require effort.  But how nice that they have 10 others from whom  to "click" with, yes? 

 

I'm blessed in that I didn't come into this lifestyle blind.  My grandmothers were old Catholic families - one had 11 and one had 12 - 11 lived to adulthood. 

My grandma that I was close to was a staunch liberal feminist.  (Funny, yeah?)  :D  She stopped having children at 32.  She had had 11 children in 13 years.  She was the type who really just wanted to sit and read and ABSORB information, very academic.  This life was a poor fit for her.  And yet she stuck at what she had chose to do. She stuck with her marriage, she stuck with her kids.  She died 2 1/2 years ago.  We were close, very close and I loved that woman.  She thought I was a wee bit crazy, I think, for choosing to have so many.  :p  When she died, she'd had dementia.  We were in Oregon and I had missed the whole disease.  But, at her deathbed, were her children.  All 11 stopped what they were doing so they could be there for the three final days.  They sang to her the silly songs of their childhood.  Some of them drove Grandpa back and forth so he could get sleep and stay with him.  Some of them ran for food.  Some stayed with Grandma.  Some went back to the house and slept so they could switch shifts. 

 

Someone can relate to me all the evils of the large family but I am blessed because I can call out Truth from Lies.  The truth is that a broken family where anger and selfishness is ugly in ANY family size.  But commitment, love, respect, and nurturing is healthy in ANY family size.   My grandparents didn't do everything right.  Grandpa was telling me this on Friday as I visited his assisted living apartment.  That man.  Oh my gosh, that MAN.  I love him.  He WAS the greatest generation.  Do you know he gets more visitors than anyone else in that community?  His sons, his daughters, his grandchildren.  He had three children named after him this year.   JUST THIS YEAR.

 

I get it.  Ya'all hate the Duggars.  Many of you hate big families.

Maybe I need to stop avoiding the topics here.

Maybe it's time *I* speak out, let you have  a peek into *MY* family.

Maybe the tide would change?

Fine, I'm Kelly.  I believe my family is AWESOME.  I think I'm permanently tied to these 11 children and it's freakishly exhausting and I'm not an awesome mom all the time, and I fail on a regular basis.  No, I don't think my family is better than my sister's who only has ONE!  ;)  I love ALL COMMITTED, LOVING families. 

 

Oh, and whoever said the baby stops being the baby?  I'm confused.  If you can't have two babies at the same time then does that mean the oldest twin is automatically a toddler?  Of course not.  The baby is still a baby, she's just a little older.  ;)

[maize]

My husband would call this a pi$$ing contest, where everyone sees who can pee further than who.  Okay, fine,  I have 12 kids therefore the MOST experience so I get to be the expert.

 

Sigh.

 

Ya'all nobody wins on these threads.  No one.

 

When will everyone learn that sitting around ripping others apart isn't a real life?  It's just some ridiculous game where if we can make the mom next to us look like she's getting a big, fat F then we feel like we're skating by with a C, or maybe a B, because everyone knows one mom whose doing way better than us, so she gets the A.

 

It's not enough.  It's a very dry substitute of joy.

 

Let's be honest, from the title it was a, "Let's hate Christians with big families thread."  :p  It's okay.  I'm used to it really.  I get the glares at the grocery store where no one is paying for my food except me.  Some days on really fun days, we get looks at stoplights.  DH thinks we really need to tint the windows on the new van like the old van so people stop counting us at red lights.  Oh, and ladies, when I'm shopping at a consignment store and my 3yo is demanding, she's no different than any other 3yo just because you would think we have learned what causes that.... Yes, rude, judgmental people just light up my life and seem to  come out of the woodwork.  But it's all okay because *I* am doing what I believe is right.

 

However, have you ever noticed how often folks around here don't think we should judge?  And yet, do you see the irony there?  Hm...

 

So on this:

 

Look, this woman hates her life.  Honestly, I was insulted.  She affirms she essentially talked her husband into this life, pushed for it, wanted to stay home, pushed for babies, and now claims it is abuse.

 

I've seen an abused woman after an attack.

 

She had NO CONTROL over what happened to her.  None. 

 

Then there is emotional abuse.

 

It's a little time we say, "If you have the control in the situation, you were NOT abused."  She had control.   She got her husband to go along with what she wanted and she's still not happy, so she's turning a 180 and attacking everything she knew.  She figures, "If I was heading North and I wasn't happy, then North was the wrong direction.  Stop.  About face. Go SOUTH!" 

 

It's a damn shame.

Out there is a man who just lost custody of his kids.

He lived his life.

He loved his family.

In her words he put them first.

And he, if he's lucky, will only get labeled an abuser but hopefully still get to see his kids on weekends. 

 

I feel so sorry for him.

 

And then let's talk about the author, shall we?

 

Can we recognize crap when we see crap?  Or are we fooled when someone dresses it up as a cupcake?  OR, more importantly, do we just not care at all and we simply want to play the timeless game of Pin the Tail on the Duggars?  It is great fun after all?

 

Look, the moment she titled it: Escape from Duggarville I knew what was coming.  But here's the deal - that post was about abuse.

Granted, I've seen the Duggars all of about a dozen times.  However, it doesn't seem like a physically or emotionally abusive power trip.

 

Honestly?  It's insulting to insinuate it is.  Because it belittles real abuse situations. 

 

Oh, and on the kids close together thing?

 

Whoever said the baby stops being the baby?  I'm confused.  If you can't have two babies at the same time then does that mean the oldest twin is automatically a toddler?  Of course not.  The baby is still a baby, she's just a little older.  ;)

 

I don't agree with everything you said, but I agree with a lot of it. It does seem to me that this woman made choices, then later felt betrayed by those choices, and turned around to blame them on someone or something else. I understand she feels betrayed by the system she bought in to...but she doesn't seem willing to take any responsibility at all for her own choices and involvement. 

 

And as for babies...I can't think that I have ever treated my toddler differently after the birth of a new sibling than I did before. Maybe some people feel like being "the baby" is and should be a special status and loosing that status is a hardship? I don't know. I treat a three month old like a three month old, a twelve month old like a twelve month old, a two year old like a two year old; I try to provide for each child according to my perception of their needs, regardless of whether they have a younger sibling or not. For me this has included tandem nursing when my older child seemed to still have a need to breastfeed. 

 

I think there can be entirely valid reasons to space children out, including the physical and mental health of both parents, but "letting the baby be the baby" longer would never have occurred to me as a need.

[Slartibartfast]

IMO if people hate the Duggars so much then they ought to ignore them and not watch the show. Do not talk about it all the time on websites dedicated to Duggar hating that are also giving them ratings.

 

The less attention, even negative attention then the less time the show will be on. I don't know why this is a tv show. People who hate them are earning them as much money as the people who love them. If people really hate it, if they really hate toddler beauty pageants, and people with fifteen wives or 47 children  then call your cable company and cancel TLC. I let my children play video games but I don't allow TLC. I used to love TLC. :(

 

I do think Michelle Duggar is remarkably patient and handles many children better than many would. My concern is that what happens when one of her daughters becomes depressed or has health issues? How would her parents react? We are looking at this family through the lens of a woman who has been extremely fortunate health-wise. I don't really care what people do but I do care when a Christian movement is not accepting of people who do not fit within a precise mold, whether or not they chose that. This sets some up for the ruin of someone's health or a spiritual crisis.

 

That is not Biblical to me. 

 

If someone likes being QF and has the good fortune of good-health then I *do not care* whatever, more power to them. But I *do* care what happens when there is a daughter who cannot do that and suffers consequences for circumstances she cannot control. 

[maize]

Regarding people talking about their experience raising their own kids: isn't it great that one person can say "I did things this way and they worked out well" and someone else can say "I did things this other way and they worked out well"? Because really we know there is more than one way to successfully raise a family. I do think it is problematic for any of us to say "I did things this way and it worked so this is the best way".

[SKL]

I rather think the point some were trying to make is that having children close in age is no guarantee of friendship between the children. Nor is being separated by X years a guarantee thT siblings won't be friends.

 

Nobody was claiming a guarantee of friendship.  I said it was one reasonable consideration in family planning.  I was responding to a person taking offense at not letting a baby be "the baby" for some minimum amount of time.  The implication being that we're ruining our kids if we don't space them out enough.

 

In my case, close-in-age works great because, aside from my kids being very good friends, I don't have to be in two places at once etc. to accommodate their changing needs as they grow.  (I guess you could call that selfish.)  Now if I had 12 kids, I would not be able to claim that benefit.  But whether you hve 2 kids or 12 kids, I don't think every kid needs to be "the baby" for an extended time period.  I have seen families who choose to space for various reasons and that's fine too.  Whatever makes them happy.  But to be "offended" on behalf of close-in-age siblings is not right.

 

I did say I agree on the issue of the mother's health.  I do know lots of people who had several kids close in age and that worked great for them health-wise.  Whether they could go on to do 10 more is another question.

[KungFuPanda]

 

You love your children, they cannot be more of a blessing to you than they are now. What can be a blessing is another child. That other child does not in any way effect your previous children and how much they bless you, having another child is a new, added blessing. If children are a blessing then don't we want as many blessings as we can?

 

 

Your nephew, in the minds of QF families, is valuing his ministry above children. In their minds, if he truly believed children were a blessing he would want his own children, and he is choosing not to have them for the sake of something else.

 

I wonder if that helps to explain it any

This seems like spiritual gluttony to me. WHY would anyone want to hoard as many blessings as possible?. Shouldn't we be grateful for any blessings at all and not be so focused on the numbers or the next acquisition? Somehow that explanation sounds greedy. Also, if you TRULY believe children were a blessing, why wouldn't that apply equally to ALL children? It seems almost arrogant to believe that your own, special, homemade children are more valued or heaven blessed than the rest. It all sounds so childlike to me "I want more blessings. MY children are the most important. I deserve more and more children and God will care for me and them we because we are special." Just replace children with 'money' or 'toys' and you must see how the rest of the world shakes it's collective head at the very idea. I think most parents come from a place of "Ask not what your children can do for you . . ."

[LucyStoner]

The whole thing about having kids close in age so they will have a built in buddy is complete bunk. You can force kids to play together, but that doesn't mean they will like each other. I've personally known plenty of close-age siblings who spent more time wailing the heck out of each other or trying to avoid each other than being buddies.

Yeah, my close in age nieces spend more time in each other's faces than playing happily together. Very close age siblings often have a heightened level of sibling rivalry in my experience. Certainly there are emotionally close siblings of all age gaps but there are no certainties in age spacing. You can't order loving siblings from a catalog.

[KungFuPanda]

Wait, are you all saying that this Vicky lady got her husband to go along with this lifestyle, then later when it became unsustainable and the stress crushed them, she reframed her regret as abuse? I''m just trying to put the story together from this thread. I don't actually know of this woman or her story beyond this conversation.

[gardenmom5]

Yeah, my close in age nieces spend more time in each other's faces than playing happily together. Very close age siblings often have a heightened level of sibling rivalry in my experience. Certainly there are close siblings of all age gap but there are no certainties in age spacing. You can't order loving siblings from a catalog.

 

you can't even expect they'll hit their different milestones spaced out . . . (snicker.)  I know one woman who spaced them quite a bit with intent they would do things in different years . . .  they ALL got married the same summer.

 

(and another friend who finally got her reluctant son potty trained - and immediately her much younger dd wanted big girl pants. it stressed her out  - at least she really was ready and willing.)

[maize]

Wait, are you all saying that this Vicky lady got her husband to go along with this lifestyle, then later when it became unsustainable and the stress crushed them, she reframed her regret as abuse? I''m just trying to put the story together from this thread. I don't actually know of this woman or her story beyond this conversation.

 

In the article she is mostly quoted as saying "we believed", "we had studied the Bible carefully", lots of "we" in the decision to embrace their particular quiverfull lifestyle. She does say at one point " â€œNo,†I told Deb, “he never threatened me.†I *willinging* went along with all the harsh demands of the Quiverfull lifestyle, and in many instances, I was the one who pushed patriarchy and headship ON HIM."  

 

Then when she decided the whole lifestyle was abusive she divorced him. Maybe it was the only way she could see to reform her life at that point, I am not judging her for her decision. But she doesn't seem to acknowledge her own responsibility in the decisions she made up to that point.

 

I've only read this one article though.

[SKL]

Yeah, my close in age nieces spend more time in each other's faces than playing happily together. Very close age siblings often have a heightened level of sibling rivalry in my experience. Certainly there are emotionally close siblings of all age gaps but there are no certainties in age spacing. You can't order loving siblings from a catalog.

 

I don't disagree that close siblings fight.  (So do not-so-close siblings.)  But usually the fighting stems from a subconscious competition for the parents' favor.  When the parents are not around, they are more likely to stick up for one another.  When the poo hits the fan, they are more likely to be there for each other.  Like the other day, when my smaller kid got physical with her sister, but the purpose was to get her out of the road because a car was coming.

 

My kids couldn't be closer in age without being twins, but they really don't fight much.  I have close siblings and while one of them used to get my goat as a kid, now we are very good friends and we'd die for each other.  I never really fought with my closest sibling (21mos older).  I was best friends with the one 3.5 years my senior, and I was in more of a maternal role to the ones who were 9 and 13 years my junior.  My close friends who have very close-in-age siblings generally report that they didn't fight much, if at all.  (There are some exceptions, but even they are friends now.)  Based on my many observations, I conclude that sibling rivalry is more about personality than about age difference.

[maize]

I don't disagree that close siblings fight.  (So do not-so-close siblings.)  But usually the fighting stems from a subconscious competition for the parents' favor.  When the parents are not around, they are more likely to stick up for one another.  When the poo hits the fan, they are more likely to be there for each other.  Like the other day, when my smaller kid got physical with her sister, but the purpose was to get her out of the road because a car was coming.

 

My kids couldn't be closer in age without being twins, but they really don't fight much.  I have close siblings and while one of them used to get my goat as a kid, now we are very good friends and we'd die for each other.  I never really fought with my closest sibling (21mos older).  I was best friends with the one 3.5 years my senior, and I was in more of a maternal role to the ones who were 9 and 13 years my junior.  My close friends who have very close-in-age siblings generally report that they didn't fight much, if at all.  (There are some exceptions, but even they are friends now.)  Based on my many observations, I conclude that sibling rivalry is more about personality than about age difference.

 

I agree with a lot of this, though I'm not sure I agree with the competition for the parent's favor (conscious or unconscious) causing most fighting. I think it's more just dynamics between the children themselves. My kids tend to fight when A) one child tries to control the behavior of another; B ) children are playing an imaginative game together and each has different ideas about how the game should go; C) two children want the same toy/book/whatever; D) children are trying to make sure no-one else gets more of something good (like icecream!) than they do; or E) children are tired/hungry/hot/generally cranky and just irritable to the people around them. 

[Joanne]

Wait, are you all saying that this Vicky lady got her husband to go along with this lifestyle, then later when it became unsustainable and the stress crushed them, she reframed her regret as abuse? I''m just trying to put the story together from this thread. I don't actually know of this woman or her story beyond this conversation.

No. Her whole story is more complicated than that.

[SKL]

The worst sibling rivalry in my house was between the kid who was the baby for nearly 7 years, and her next younger sibling.  It happens that both of these kids' personalities were on the difficult side of the spectrum.  They were never at peace for long.  Once when they were 10 and 17 IIRC the older (girl) "playfully" put the younger in a choke hold, and the younger (rapidly growing boy) thrust her off, resulting in a concussion.  Then of course older was very angry because nobody wanted to kill younger.  The rivalry probably wore off when they were both over 30.  Maybe.

 

Another thing I thought I'd mention is that if you ask my parents, God will make a pregnancy happen regardless of birth control if God wants it badly enough.  :P  My parents say at least half of their kids were of the "God must have really wanted this" category.

[maize]

The worst sibling rivalry in my house was between the kid who was the baby for nearly 7 years, and her next younger sibling. It happens that both of these kids' personalities were on the difficult side of the spectrum. They were never at peace for long. Once when they were 10 and 17 IIRC the older (girl) "playfully" put the younger in a choke hold, and the younger (rapidly growing boy) thrust her off, resulting in a concussion. Then of course older was very angry because nobody wanted to kill younger. The rivalry probably wore off when they were both over 30. Maybe.

 

Another thing I thought I'd mention is that if you ask my parents, God will make a pregnancy happen regardless of birth control if God wants it badly enough. :P My parents say at least half of their kids were of the "God must have really wanted this" category.

I've had a couple of friends who seemed to get pregnant no matter what they did. One friend says she gave up on family planning after her second IUD pregnancy.

[Guest]

Please don't think that all non-Christians think this way. I cringe whenever I see a Vyckie thread and want to flutter about saying, "Some of my best friends are Christian!" and doing all that annoying white girl stuff even though I know that's not very helpful.

 

I just had to say it one time and like Kelly's post.

 

The more controversial figure who won the anti-trust suit seemed to have a better understanding of the situation and a lot more compassion for individuals who actually were escaping from abusive marriages. I don't see this Vyckie person following in her footsteps, especially with sensationalized title of this article piggybacking on a teevee show I don't watch. I hope I am mistaken and that somehow she finds peace without doing too much damage to the homeschooling community.

 

We (non-Christians) don't all hate you and some of us even know how to mind our own business.

[Corraleno]

Wait, are you all saying that this Vicky lady got her husband to go along with this lifestyle, then later when it became unsustainable and the stress crushed them, she reframed her regret as abuse? I''m just trying to put the story together from this thread. I don't actually know of this woman or her story beyond this conversation.

 

It's more complicated than that. In other articles she's said that he was physically abusive to the kids, and verbally and emotionally abusive to all of them. Her oldest daughter tried to commit suicide. She says that during a trial separation, he gave her a list of all the ways she was being "disobedient" and took the kids.

 

It's not unusual for someone in an abusive relationship to not recognize it as abusive (and even to willingly submit to the abuse at the time) until they're out of it and can see things more clearly. So "reframing" a relationship as abusive after the fact doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't abusive.

[Crimson Wife]

I think Ms. Garrison was in an abusive relationship and bought into the Kool-Aid that if she were only more gung-ho QF that all the marital and family problems would magically disappear. Kind of like a belief that digging deeper, faster will get you out of the hole.

 

Could her marriage and faith have been saved if they'd gotten good marital and spiritual counseling instead of problematic guidance? That's anybody's guess. The husband would've had to want to change, and only God knows if that would've been possible.

[Joanne]

I just read the link.

 

Or at least this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/656002/

 

I have read Vyckie's story before. I read this thread thinking maybe the link presented a very superficial summary. Instead, it details ALL of the elements of flat out abuse, power, and control.

 

I am aghast at the victim bling in this thread.

 

I don't "like" Vyckie but I understand that she's now spent years recovering from abuse induced PTSD.

 

Her story is representative; she was far on the continuum of quiverful but there is nowhere on the continuum that is not abusive and women-hating.

[Word Nerd]

It seems like she's still focusing a lot of her time and energy on this movement since escaping from it, though I understand that she wants to give others in a similar position a voice and is passionate about helping them get out too. I think this "former minor celebrity in the Quiverfull Movement" (i.e., big fish in a pretty small pond) would be more persuasive if she weren't still riding on the Duggars' coattails to get a platform. I think it detracts from her message.

[Joanne]

It seems like she's still focusing a lot of her time and energy on this movement since escaping from it, though I understand that she wants to give others in a similar position a voice and is passionate about helping them get out too. I think this "former minor celebrity in the Quiverfull Movement" (i.e., big fish in a pretty small pond) would be more persuasive if she weren't still riding on the Duggars' coattails to get a platform. I think it detracts from her message.

The continued focus bis part of the PTSD and experience.

 

Doesn't her story and her speaking out pre-date Duggar fame?

[Jenny in Florida]

Exactly. Sure, some people are choosing to limit family size so they can go on fancy vacations, afford to live in a nicer house, drive nicer cars, eat out more often and sleep in on weekends. So? I mean, I didn't make that choice, but I do understand it.

 

And, I mean really, it's not like we "need" more children. The world won't stop turning if Joe and Sue down the street choose to have just one child or even none and instead spend their money on fixing up their yard or paying off their mortgage or going on vacation or any of the other things I can't afford to do because I had kids. In fact, if they spend their money, it might help keep the other folks who did choose to become parents (or have more than one child) employed. So, win for everyone.

 

And, honestly, do any of us believe that someone who doesn't want to have a child should be guilted or pressured into doing so? In what world is that a good idea?

[Guest]

Doesn't her story and her speaking out pre-date Duggar fame?

 

Yes, I'm pretty sure it does, and almost positive it predates the Duggars' reality show.

 

I move in weird circles and probably knew about Michelle and Jim Bob's existence before the average TV watcher, but I only remember ignorant comments about brief newspaper articles, blog posts, or opinion pieces and the controversial character defending the Duggars on her own blog at the time I first heard about Vyckie.

 

That was probably somewhere between 2004 and 2007, but I have "Mommy brain" from the 6yo, so you should double check with a more reliable source.

 

 I think this "former minor celebrity in the Quiverfull Movement" (i.e., big fish in a pretty small pond) would be more persuasive if she weren't still riding on the Duggars' coattails to get a platform. I think it detracts from her message.

 

:iagree:

 

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

This is not exactly on topic but I would like to raise my semi-annual, feeble one-woman protest against the use of the term "Irish twins." I realize nobody of Irish descent is allowed to be offended, usually, by derogatory terms like Irish twins, paddywagon, hooligan, Mick, etc. but the fact that most people think it's just fussy to object doesn't keep us from objecting.

 

If you study the origins of some of these slurs, you'll find they go back to early days of Irish immigration to the USA when religious and ethnic bigotry toward the Irish was rampant. We can't do much about the problems in Ireland today but we can at least leave the derogatory terminology in the past here.

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree that QF ideas are outside of mainstream Christianity.

 

I agree that the Duggars (in particular) mostly seem like decent parents who try to do the right thing. I do also agree that I would worry about what would happen if one of the daughters or daughters-in-law had a health problem that precluded lots of children (to include things like PP psychosis, which is very real). Would she feel less than? Would she be treated as less than?

 

I don't think threads disagreeing with the Duggars shows any kind of "hate" or malice toward them. That is a misuse of the word. They have absolutely associated and aligned *themselves* with dominionists, misogynists and (at *least*) borderline racists.

 

It is partly their endorsements that allow such people to flourish at places like homeschool conferences and make it SEEM like QF and similar movements are part of mainstream Christianity and/or homeschooling. That is what causes them to be repeatedly discussed here. If they disagree with such people, then why are they recommending their books, videos and appearing at conferences with them? It is also worth pointing out (again) that some of these people have *actively* and *intentionally* run other types of people out of homeschool conferences.

 

As long as these people attempt to control the face of homeschooling, it is perfectly fair to discuss it regularly here, IMO.

 

Practicing wifely submission in your own home is not at all the same as insisting that some of the extreme forms of patriarchy are the ONLY Biblical way to run a marriage. It's clear to me from Proverbs 31 that women are capable and expected to run various aspects of the home, including making financial decisions on her own. If you don't practice an extreme form of patriarchy that precludes women from making any decisions on their own, then nobody is talking about you.

[albeto.]

I just read the link.

 

Or at least this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/656002/

 

I have read Vyckie's story before. I read this thread thinking maybe the link presented a very superficial summary. Instead, it details ALL of the elements of flat out abuse, power, and control.

 

I am aghast at the victim bling in this thread.

 

It's interesting to watch, isn't it? Especially in light of the first sentence, "Whenever I talk about my escape from the Quiverfull movement, Christians immediately dismiss my experience by saying, 'Your problem was not with Jesus or Christianity. Your problem was that you were following an extreme, legalistic cult. Let me tell you about my personal relationship with Jesus.'†She knows what response she's likely to get because it's predictable, and a quick skim of this thread shows the same defense is found here, at least at first. Blaming the victim is a predictable reaction to being confronted with the extreme emotional discomfort of recognizing two deeply held beliefs are otherwise distressingly contradictory. 

[Crimson Wife]

FWIW, the only people I know IRL who use the term "Irish twins" are themselves Irish-American. So while I agree that the other terms listed are offensive ethnic slurs, I can't get my knickers in a bunch over "Irish twins". My grandma had her first 3 kids in 3 1/2 years, and she always called them "Irish triplets" with a laugh.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

FWIW, the only people I know IRL who use the term "Irish twins" are themselves Irish-American. So while I agree that the other terms listed are offensive ethnic slurs, I can't get my knickers in a bunch over "Irish twins". My grandma had her first 3 kids in 3 1/2 years, and she always called them "Irish triplets" with a laugh.

 

I was expecting you! :D Semi-annually when I bring this up, you are always the first one to tell me that Irish people like to use these terms so they're fine.

[albeto.]

I'd like to see these weekly hate threads come to an end.

 

With respect, when we are confronted with the criticism of deeply held beliefs, it's uncomfortable. Understandably so, I think. Any one of us might hold a belief that seems from our own perspective to be decent, moral, and safe, while others disagree. To be confronted with negative imagery or examples of the practical application of these beliefs may be emotionally distressing. While it may be usually only peripherally so, sometimes it can shake an entire philosophy, or even sense of self. But I would suggest that only by confronting these beliefs can we make a change for the good. If our beliefs are truly reasonable and provide practical benefit to us and others, they should be defensible without having to rely on appeals of emotion, appeals of tradition, or anything that generally takes the spotlight off them and allows them to maintain a privileged position, safe from criticism. There are a great many ideas that we hold today that would have been horrifying to people two generations ago, much less centuries ago. There's no reason to assume two generations from now those things our modern society may feel are "just fine" will be understood (rightfully so, I should think) as unjustifiable. But this doesn't happen without having these uncomfortable conversations. I say this from the perspective of being on the defensive team of beliefs myself. I know how uncomfortable it is. I also know that when reason wins out, justice and mercy win out, which is really what most of us want ultimately anyway. 

[Word Nerd]

The No Longer Quivering blog started in 2009 from what I can tell, the same year as the first Duggar TV special. (ETA: This says the first episode of the series was in 2008, and the first special was in 2004.) I don't know why that matters, though. We are discussing an article titled "Escape from Duggarville," which is what I was referring to.

[Joanne]

I'd like to see these weekly hate threads come to an end.

I believe that quiverful and patriarchy culture to be abusive, limiting, women hating, and full of dysfunction.

 

I will speak about that whenever it comes up.

 

I have been around and worked with such families , and the related theology of conservative Christian culture, for years and I care about and worry about those families daily

 

And the Duggars *invite* discussion by making their living based on fame and ratings.

[Crimson Wife]

With respect, when we are confronted with the criticism of deeply held beliefs, it's uncomfortable. Understandably so, I think. Any one of us might hold a belief that seems from our own perspective to be decent, moral, and safe, while others disagree. To be confronted with negative imagery or examples of the practical application of these beliefs may be emotionally distressing. While it may be usually only peripherally so, sometimes it can shake an entire philosophy, or even sense of self. But I would suggest that only by confronting these beliefs can we make a change for the good. If our beliefs are truly reasonable and provide practical benefit to us and others, they should be defensible without having to rely on appeals of emotion, appeals of tradition, or anything that generally takes the spotlight off them and allows them to maintain a privileged position, safe from criticism. There are a great many ideas that we hold today that would have been horrifying to people two generations ago, much less centuries ago. There's no reason to assume two generations from now those things our modern society may feel are "just fine" will be understood (rightfully so, I should think) as unjustifiable. But this doesn't happen without having these uncomfortable conversations. I say this from the perspective of being on the defensive team of beliefs myself. I know how uncomfortable it is. I also know that when reason wins out, justice and mercy win out, which is really what most of us want ultimately anyway. 

 

How does the constant pot-stirring over religion make this BBS a better place? There are all sorts of other venues where you can go on your rants about how awful you think Christianity is- why do you feel the need to constantly harp on it here?

[Slartibartfast]

FWIW, the only people I know IRL who use the term "Irish twins" are themselves Irish-American. So while I agree that the other terms listed are offensive ethnic slurs, I can't get my knickers in a bunch over "Irish twins". My grandma had her first 3 kids in 3 1/2 years, and she always called them "Irish triplets" with a laugh.

 

The people who I know who are actual Irish by nationality find it offensive.