TLC can't get enough of the Duggars...

[Guest]

It's not??? :svengo:

 

WHY WAS I NOT INFORMED OF THIS???

 

;)

Seriously. I invested several thousand dollars in one of my kids' smiles...

[Murphy101]

Seriously. I invested several thousand dollars in one of my kids' smiles...

I have so far invested $17,000 over the course of 6 years in my 9th born's smile. And that's a smile that is slowly falling out! We are avoiding thinking about how much her permanent teeth are going to end up costing over the coming years.

 

Worth every penny. But dang. Could America please for the love of health and sanity recognize that TEETH and EYES and EARS are part of our health and properly cover vision, hearing, and dental care?!

 

That aside...

 

Wow. A huge portion of the women on this board do not have college degrees and they are not vapidly trying to make it in life on their pretty smiles. Quite a few people think they shouldn't talk about educating children because they do not have a teaching degree. Most of us think that's total bunk.

 

Why is it always women talking about other women as though they are inferior and focusing on their looks? This is NOT educated, kind, helpful, Christian, or have anything to do with the topic. It's just being mean to be mean.

 

I don't know anything about the Duggers except what little I've read here and elsewhere online. I never did watch their show and I don't plan to start.

 

Sure being in tv means they are gossiped and speculated and judged.

I'd never want to be on tv. Not even for a lot of money.

 

So if people really feel that way, don't watch it.

 

Say what you want about TLC and the Duggers. I think it says more about viewers than the network or the family.

 

I mostly avoid all reality tv.

[Audrey]

She has been called on it multiple times, and refuses to write out the word.

 

It is rude to do so when you have been requested not to do so.  This is not a question of unawareness and multiple people have addressed it, over time. 

 

I'm presuming that people would dislike it if other terms were steadfastly used despite requests that were unappreciated, like "pro-death" for pro-choice, or "pro-(insert sexual term)" for gay, or "pro-mutilation" for pro circumcision or multiple other examples I am sure could occur.   

 

I just checked the community guidelines written by the site owner and it does not say you cannot use abbreviations or shorthand.   There is a long and sacred history to the use of the X to denote Christ.  Just because you and a few other board members ask someone not to use does not mean it violates board guidelines.  I'm sure the board owner would have said something by now.  Seeing as how Albeto inspires an astonishing amount of RTFS* around here, I'm sure the board owner is well aware of the opinions of the objectors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Report Trigger Finger Syndrome

[Aelwydd]

And she has only been hassled about it because certain members want to have another reason to gnash their teeth about her.

Seriously, I've used it, and never gotten hassled about it. On a classical education board, the term should not need to be explained (over and over and over...).

 

Considering the the word Christian, itself, was originally a derogatory term for followers of Christ, how ironic is it that using a diminutive of the term is considered the insult?

 

So, the term Christian comes about as a form of mockery by nonbelievers, and believers embraced it.

 

Then, said term comes to be represented and expressed in a shorter form that originated from believers themselves, but that symbol, X, is what is rejected by some today as being the mockery??

 

Paul said he taught "Christ crucified," which was "foolishness to the Gentiles."

 

I don't think Christ was foolish at all (assuming he existed), but the hostility some believers evince about the nature of the symbol X is simply ridiculous.

 

For goodness sake, I've seen Christian evangelical tee shirts with the Greek symbol on them. Are they, like albeto, trying to dictate the terms of the discussion!?

 

(At what point does the rabbit with a watch run down a hole, lol?)

[Rebel Yell]

I don't have time to goolge for links but the first trip was meant to be for short term language classes and a couple service projects.  Then they have TLC obligations and weddings and midwifery license exams to come back for, and my understanding is the plan is to then be assigned to a long term mission in a Spanish speaking country.

 

SBC I think requires wives to work too as missionaries, so the long term assignment might have required she be licensed in the US before being given an assignment.  Of course it's possible her special will do so well ratings wise that they'll have a show pickup, whatever that looks like. 

 

I really think SAG should incorporate reality show stars into their rules so the stars are protected and have trust funds instead of parents using the money for anything they want.  If the writer's guild can incorporate stupid entertainment blogs, why can't SAG include reality stars, especially kids, to protect them from exploitative parents and long working hours.

 

:iagree:

 

[Catwoman]

I just checked the community guidelines written by the site owner and it does not say you cannot use abbreviations or shorthand. There is a long and sacred history to the use of the X to denote Christ. Just because you and a few other board members ask someone not to use does not mean it violates board guidelines. I'm sure the board owner would have said something by now. Seeing as how Albeto inspires an astonishing amount of RTFS* around here, I'm sure the board owner is well aware of the opinions of the objectors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Report Trigger Finger Syndrome

 

Perhaps someone should start a poll about whether or not people find the term "xian" to be offensive.

 

If nothing else, shouldn't the x be capitalized if it is referring to Christ?

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Using X to represent Christ has a long tradition among people of faith. In fact, C. S. Lewis used to use this shorthand frequently. "X" stands for the Greek letter "chi." Interpreting one particular member's use of it as derogatory is inference. Stop arguing about the X and talk about things that really matter. Thank you.

 

SWB

[Joanne]

No doubt you would disagree but I do think there are ethical ways to share one's faith, whatever that faith may be (Christian, Muslim, whatever). So long as it's done in a non coercive, non violent way, without holding food, medicine and other incentives over people's heads. More like, "I'm helping you because my religion tells me to. I can tell you more about that if you want, but no worries if you aren't interested. Here's the supplies I brought you."

How about (if asked) "I am helping you because you need it right now, and I am human. You will do the same someday for someone in need."

 

Full stop.

 

Just saying. There is no such thing as (exclusive) Christian values.

[Mimm]

How about (if asked) "I am helping you because you need it right now, and I am human. You will do the same someday for someone in need."

 

Full stop.

 

Just saying. There is no such thing as (exclusive) Christian values.

 

I was talking about an ethical way to share your religion in the context of missionary work, not that that's the only way or reason to help people. I get that if you're atheist or anti-religion there's really no acceptable way to share your religion. There's really nothing anyone can say to make it seem ok if you believe everyone would be better off without religion in their lives.

[MFG]

Perhaps someone should start a poll about whether or not people find the term "xian" to be offensive.

 

If nothing else, shouldn't the x be capitalized if it is referring to Christ?

The use of Greek uncials (capitals) or minuscules (lower case) does not follow the same conventions as English.

[Catwoman]

The use of Greek uncials (capitals) or minuscules (lower case) does not follow the same conventions as English.

Thanks -- I wasn't sure how that worked. I have always seen "Xmas" but never "xmas," so that's why I was wondering.

[dancingmama]

Perhaps someone should start a poll about whether or not people find the term "xian" to be offensive.

 

If nothing else, shouldn't the x be capitalized if it is referring to Christ?

Already been done a couple years ago. The poll was approximately 2:1 for not offensive. But by all means, start another.

[Bluegoat]

How about (if asked) "I am helping you because you need it right now, and I am human. You will do the same someday for someone in need."

 

Full stop.

 

Just saying. There is no such thing as (exclusive) Christian values.

 

That seems a little forced.  People act out of their specific beliefs, and their actions will differ depending on what those beliefs are.  If they are going to talk about the reasons for their actions, and there are lots of instances where people will do so, why talk around them as if there is something they need to avoid. 

[albeto.]

I was talking about an ethical way to share your religion in the context of missionary work, not that that's the only way or reason to help people. I get that if you're atheist or anti-religion there's really no acceptable way to share your religion. There's really nothing anyone can say to make it seem ok if you believe everyone would be better off without religion in their lives.

 

To be fair, I didn't comment about the problem with religion, I responded to the idea that it's offensive to try and encourage people to adopt an alternative religious theology insofar as it's aimed against xians. I'll change 'duck's comments to illustrate my point: "Non-xians don't want or need them. Non-xians are really tired of having various other groups come and try to proselytize them and their countries." What the Duggars are attempting to do (convert people to their particular theology, or at least something more compatible with it), isn't offensive because they're targeting Catholics, it's offensive because it's ethnocentric, insensitive, hypocritical and in my opinion, remarkably full of hubris.

[umsami]

So as an aside...and in addition to the Xian thing...as a Muslim convert, I found it interesting that a lot of born Muslims I know will never say "cross your fingers" or "cross my heart" because of it's Christian implications.   Similarly, the expression "Jeez!" is troublesome to them.  

 

As for the Duggar girls....I feel sorry for them that their parents did not allow/encourage any sort of higher education for their daughters.  Reality TV money won't last forever.  I also feel sorry for them having basically had the job of taking care of their younger siblings non-stop.  I take no issue with direct entry midwives as one was the only one who would see me when I was pregnant with my fourth, had gestational diabetes, and had no health insurance for about five months.  If it wasn't for my endocrinologist and her, i would have had zero prenatal care.  Still, as many states don't recognize direct entry, and as Jill is now a missionary abroad, she would have been better served to be a certified nurse midwife.  

[dirty ethel rackham]

her education for their daughters.  Reality TV money won't last forever.  I also feel sorry for them having basically had the job of taking care of their younger siblings non-stop.  I take no issue with direct entry midwives as one was the only one who would see me when I was pregnant with my fourth, had gestational diabetes, and had no health insurance for about five months.  If it wasn't for my endocrinologist and her, i would have had zero prenatal care.  Still, as many states don't recognize direct entry, and as Jill is now a missionary abroad, she would have been better served to be a certified nurse midwife.  

Not necessarily.  The certification Certified Nurse Midwife is pretty much a US thing.  In most places in the world (developed and 3rd world), most midwives don't become nurses first and are not looked down upon if they don't.  Different skill sets.  

[TranquilMind]

Control the language, control the argument.

That's clearly the intent here, yes. 

[TranquilMind]

To be fair, I didn't comment about the problem with religion, I responded to the idea that it's offensive to try and encourage people to adopt an alternative religious theology insofar as it's aimed against xians. I'll change 'duck's comments to illustrate my point: "Non-xians don't want or need them. Non-xians are really tired of having various other groups come and try to proselytize them and their countries." What the Duggars are attempting to do (convert people to their particular theology, or at least something more compatible with it), isn't offensive because they're targeting Catholics, it's offensive because it's ethnocentric, insensitive, hypocritical and in my opinion, remarkably full of hubris.

Informed that this inappropriate designation will stand.

 

I retract the rest of my statement. 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Using X to represent Christ has a long tradition among people of faith. In fact, C. S. Lewis used to use this shorthand frequently. "X" stands for the Greek letter "chi." Interpreting one particular member's use of it as derogatory is inference. Stop arguing about the X and talk about things that really matter. Thank you.

 

SWB

Well, I see that the decision has been made here by the one who gets to enforce it.

 

I get it. 

 

I have a history with this poster that pre-dates this forum, so I am actually not inferring without evidence.

 

But you win.  Your way or the highway. 

[Joanne]

I was talking about an ethical way to share your religion in the context of missionary work, not that that's the only way or reason to help people. I get that if you're atheist or anti-religion there's really no acceptable way to share your religion. There's really nothing anyone can say to make it seem ok if you believe everyone would be better off without religion in their lives.

 

Ok, I hear you on the limited and specific response to how to share faith in context.

 

The bold is a generalization - not applicable to me or across the board to atheists or "anti-religion" or non Christian spirituality.

 

The last sentence, especially, is inaccurate for me.

 

But, that said, I find the sharing of faith for the purpose of evangelizing to be invasive and intrusive.

[TranquilMind]

I stopped writing Xmas, when someone pointed out that I was crossing out Christ.

 

Yes, it's offensive, as she is doing it to be disrespectful to our faith, and not to just save time.

You are a person who is willing to consider the implications of what you do and to change it, if warranted.  I've done it myself on a few terms that others seemed to find offensive, even though they were absolutely accurate terms.  But to keep peace, and to give preference to others who cared more about it, I have changed terms.    It is what you do in a polite society, especially after being repeatedly asked to do so, so as not to give offense. 

 

Not everyone is like you. 

[Murphy101]

Well, I see that the decision has been made here by the one who gets to enforce it.

 

I get it.

 

I have a history with this poster that pre-dates this forum, so I am actually not inferring without evidence.

 

But you win. Your way or the highway.

I happen to agree with you about the poster, but this was just snotty.

 

X is accepted usually.

 

Much like saying "ma'am" or "sir" is respectful except when we know good and well that someone is saying it with attitude.

 

And yes. This is SWB forum so either respect that or move on. There was nothing to win there because that is just the natural state of things. But you lose some respect by responding in this manner to her reasonable response.

[Mimm]

You are a person who is willing to consider the implications of what you do and to change it, if warranted.  I've done it myself on a few terms that others seemed to find offensive, even though they were absolutely accurate terms.  But to keep peace, and to give preference to others who cared more about it, I have changed terms.    It is what you do in a polite society, especially after being repeatedly asked to do so, so as not to give offense. 

 

Not everyone is like you. 

 

Good grief.

 

You really care nothing about the historical context here?

[Joanne]

TV is a profit vehicle - the content of the featured show is used to garner business for the advertisers. TLC is not interested in the best interest of Duggar persons, the advertisers are not interested in the best interest of Duggar persons. The Duggars and TLC have a reciprocal interest of income and profit.

 

The Duggar women involved have limited choices - limited by their upbringing, the psychology produced by their upbringing, the dynamic produced by spending a significant number of formative years as reality TV stars, and patriarchy (which functions both as part of their religion and also a stand alone dynamic.)

 

There is very little they can authentically *consent* to given their few choices.

 

 

[Mimm]

Ok, I hear you on the limited and specific response to how to share faith in context.

 

The bold is a generalization - not applicable to me or across the board to atheists or "anti-religion" or non Christian spirituality.

 

The last sentence, especially, is inaccurate for me.

 

But, that said, I find the sharing of faith for the purpose of evangelizing to be invasive and intrusive.

 

I was generalizing and not meaning to imply that you specifically (or that all atheists) are anti-religion but some people are. I would classify albeto as anti-religion though she might argue with that. :) Either way, you think there's no perfectly moral way to share one's faith, I think there is, we can agree to disagree. :)

[ktgrok]

I tried desperately to find a meme or image of two trolls fighting each other, but couldn't. 

[Joanne]

I was generalizing and not meaning to imply that you specifically (or that all atheists) are anti-religion but some people are. I would classify albeto as anti-religion though she might argue with that. :) Either way, you think there's no perfectly moral way to share one's faith, I think there is, we can agree to disagree. :)

 

I didn't even say THAT.

 

I said if the purpose was evangelizing. I only know of one (umbrella) religion in which this happens. As such, it might seem I am against that religion exclusively. That, too, is inaccurate.

[Mimm]

I didn't even say THAT.

 

I said if the purpose was evangelizing. I only know of one (umbrella) religion in which this happens. As such, it might seem I am against that religion exclusively. That, too, is inaccurate.

 

Sorry, I'm not intentionally misunderstanding you. But I'm wrestling a one year old right now so perhaps it's not the best for me to have this conversation. :)

[JadeOrchidSong]

Seriously. I invested several thousand dollars in one of my kids' smiles...

So true! I am investing many thousands in one of mine right now.

[gardenmom5]

I tried desperately to find a meme or image of two trolls fighting each other, but couldn't. 

 

how about this http://orig00.deviantart.net/0b7a/f/2010/046/2/5/troll_fight_by_nihonjinjanai.png

[Pam in CT]

re: sharing faith vs. evangelizing:

I was generalizing and not meaning to imply that you specifically (or that all atheists) are anti-religion but some people are. I would classify albeto as anti-religion though she might argue with that. :) Either way, you think there's no perfectly moral way to share one's faith, I think there is, we can agree to disagree. :)

 

Speaking as neither an atheist or a Christian:  I love sharing faith traditions with people of other backgrounds.

 

The different paths of both individuals and of established faith traditions are, for me, among the world's great conversations, rich and deep and, for me, fascinating.  I've participated in two standing interfaith groups, one for more than five years and my current one going on four, and can honestly say that the encounters and discussions and what I've learned within them have changed both my worldview and my day-to-day life.

 

Sharing faith is different from evangelism.  Evangelism is explicitly setting out with the intention of persuading others.  Sharing faith is two way, predicated on mutual listening; evangelism is one way and predicated on a view that one tradition is superior to that which the conversion "target" already has.

 

[ktgrok]

how about this http://orig00.deviantart.net/0b7a/f/2010/046/2/5/troll_fight_by_nihonjinjanai.png

 

That works :)

[mellifera33]

re: sharing faith vs. evangelizing:

 

Speaking as neither an atheist or a Christian:  I love sharing faith traditions with people of other backgrounds.

 

The different paths of both individuals and of established faith traditions are, for me, among the world's great conversations, rich and deep and, for me, fascinating.  I've participated in two standing interfaith groups, one for more than five years and my current one going on four, and can honestly say that the encounters and discussions and what I've learned within them have changed both my worldview and my day-to-day life.

 

Sharing faith is different from evangelism.  Evangelism is explicitly setting out with the intention of persuading others.  Sharing faith is two way, predicated on mutual listening; evangelism is one way and predicated on a view that one tradition is superior to that which the conversion "target" already has.

 

Yes! I have found that sharing faith happens naturally as relationships deepen. As intimacy develops between friends, we naturally share what is most important to us, including faith. 

[Bluegoat]

re: sharing faith vs. evangelizing:

 

Speaking as neither an atheist or a Christian:  I love sharing faith traditions with people of other backgrounds.

 

The different paths of both individuals and of established faith traditions are, for me, among the world's great conversations, rich and deep and, for me, fascinating.  I've participated in two standing interfaith groups, one for more than five years and my current one going on four, and can honestly say that the encounters and discussions and what I've learned within them have changed both my worldview and my day-to-day life.

 

Sharing faith is different from evangelism.  Evangelism is explicitly setting out with the intention of persuading others.  Sharing faith is two way, predicated on mutual listening; evangelism is one way and predicated on a view that one tradition is superior to that which the conversion "target" already has.

 

I think the kind of differentiation you are talking about here makes a lot of sense when we have a modern context, where for the most part we all know about a number of other religions and are in a position to find out more if we would like to.

 

It looks a bit different - though by no means totally different - when you are talking about something that is new, or where you are going to have to make some effort to put information out where people can get it.

 

I think we have a tendency to think of evangalization as very pushy, as if somehow the people on the receiving end have no interest or aren't being given a chance to think about a new idea that they might be interested in.  That isn't a description that can be used in a blanket way though.  Historically, if the first Buddhists hadn't set off across the mountains to share their ideas, there is no way the people in China would have been able to come up with it out of their own brains.  Contrary to popular belief the spread of Christianity was not always controversial or unwelcome either, particularly outside of teh New World, in many cases it was adopted because people found it in some way compelling.  The same is true of many North Americans who converted to Buddhism in the mid 20th century after teachers from the east came specifically with the purpose of sharing their ideas.

 

To say that those people were somehow being put upon seems pretty paternalistic, and it seems odd to fault the people sharing their ideas when they in fact found a receptive audience. 

 

And it seems a bit hypocritical too - its not like the modern west hasn't worked very hard to spread the worldview of the Enlightenment to the poor less fortunate souls who weren't part of it, either through our social values or scientific and technological ideas, or our economic systems, or our politics.

[Pam in CT]

I think the kind of differentiation you are talking about here makes a lot of sense when we have a modern context, where for the most part we all know about a number of other religions and are in a position to find out more if we would like to.

 

It looks a bit different - though by no means totally different - when you are talking about something that is new, or where you are going to have to make some effort to put information out where people can get it.

 

I think we have a tendency to think of evangalization as very pushy, as if somehow the people on the receiving end have no interest or aren't being given a chance to think about a new idea that they might be interested in.  That isn't a description that can be used in a blanket way though.  Historically, if the first Buddhists hadn't set off across the mountains to share their ideas, there is no way the people in China would have been able to come up with it out of their own brains.  Contrary to popular belief the spread of Christianity was not always controversial or unwelcome either, particularly outside of teh New World, in many cases it was adopted because people found it in some way compelling.  The same is true of many North Americans who converted to Buddhism in the mid 20th century after teachers from the east came specifically with the purpose of sharing their ideas.

 

To say that those people were somehow being put upon seems pretty paternalistic, and it seems odd to fault the people sharing their ideas when they in fact found a receptive audience. 

 

And it seems a bit hypocritical too - its not like the modern west hasn't worked very hard to spread the worldview of the Enlightenment to the poor less fortunate souls who weren't part of it, either through our social values or scientific and technological ideas, or our economic systems, or our politics.

 

Yes, sharing any type of ideas or information is different in the modern context than in the ancient.

 

For me, the simple gauge is: is the conversation mutual -- are both people talking, learning, respecting, really receiving one another's ideas, really valuing where they other person is coming from?  That's sharing faith.  That's sharing, generally.  (IMO Buddhism, with its 84,000 doors, has much to teach the rest of us in this regard.)

 

If the receiving instruction/listening is all on one side, and the teaching/deliverance is on the other, that's evangelism.

 

 

Totally agree re: last bolded bit.  All sorts of ideas are hawked aggressively, even coercively.  

[Catwoman]

I happen to agree with you about the poster, but this was just snotty.

 

X is accepted usually.

 

Much like saying "ma'am" or "sir" is respectful except when we know good and well that someone is saying it with attitude.

 

And yes. This is SWB forum so either respect that or move on. There was nothing to win there because that is just the natural state of things. But you lose some respect by responding in this manner to her reasonable response.

I think TranquilMind may not agree that it was a "reasonable response" and wanted to respond. Admittedly, a PM may have been better, but since the entire argument was public, as was Susan's post about her decision on the issue, I think it was acceptable for TM to respond publicly as well.

 

Whatever the case, the decision has been made and TM has made her feelings clear, so I assume the discussion of the "x" debate is over.

[Peaceful Isle]

I have never really watched the duggers, and I don't plan on watching the daughter's show. Just not of any interest to me.

 

Being brought up in some way like them, I cringe at the thought of seeing their "smiling" faces. Sorry, just can't go there. :( 

[JadeOrchidSong]

Would people be equally offended by the use of Ó¨ to refer to God? I have used it myself when writing quickly taking notes or such.

Taking notes for yourself and writing a long post for all to see and not spell out a word are two different contexts.

[Mimm]

re: sharing faith vs. evangelizing:

 

Speaking as neither an atheist or a Christian:  I love sharing faith traditions with people of other backgrounds.

 

The different paths of both individuals and of established faith traditions are, for me, among the world's great conversations, rich and deep and, for me, fascinating.  I've participated in two standing interfaith groups, one for more than five years and my current one going on four, and can honestly say that the encounters and discussions and what I've learned within them have changed both my worldview and my day-to-day life.

 

Sharing faith is different from evangelism.  Evangelism is explicitly setting out with the intention of persuading others.  Sharing faith is two way, predicated on mutual listening; evangelism is one way and predicated on a view that one tradition is superior to that which the conversion "target" already has.

 

Ah, I was equating the two. I do think "sharing one's faith" is something that should be done in the context of a relationship where you actually care about the person whether they convert to your faith or not. So many times evangelism seems as if there is no interest in the other person beyond converting them. Actually, sometimes that's explicitly so. I recently had someone tell me the only way she would hang out with non-Christians is if she thought she could witness to them, which wouldn't be possible in the particular activity we were considering. I just don't even know what to say to people sometimes.

[JadeOrchidSong]

Deleted"

[JadeOrchidSong]

Deleted.

[ktgrok]

Y'all, SWB said knock it off. Please be courteous and do so. PM each other if you have to. 

[abcmommy]

You should start another thread on that topic since you seem to want to talk about different midwife certifications outside  of the Duggar context. Doing so is hijacking the thread-that's frowned on here.  I suggest when you do, you provide some research to back up your position because this is TWTM boards and people around here are usually interested in more substantial discussions about medical related issues.

 

If you are interested in furthering the discussion you can feel free to start the thread.  Ample evidence exists if you'd like to do your own research.  I think Jill's certification rather than pursuit of a legitimate degree in nursing and midwifery is very relevant given the Duggar family's views on educating women (waste of time) and college (waste of money?) and the fact that Jill will be out in the "mission field" touting her expertise, perhaps elevating herself as a christian and american over traditional practitioners who may not share  her certification but who may have encountered far more emergency scenarios than she will have in the limited practice of a lay midwife.

 

The midwifery practice I birthed my son and daughter with had three midwives per practice, attending home and private center births and the midwives were very well practiced in their field.  I think given their ages (30s at the youngest, 50 on the outside) 1500 would be a low number.  I prefer a practiced practitioner with a degree which shows mastery in the field.  Who knew that would be controversial here at WTM.  ;)

[HS Mom in NC]

If you are interested in furthering the discussion you can feel free to start the thread.

 

This doesn't make any sense. That's what I said to you when you changed the topic.  It doesn't work to say the same thing back to someone who wants to stay on topic.

 

 Ample evidence exists if you'd like to do your own research.

 

This isn't a valid argument.  It's basically, "I'm right and if you just looked into it yourself you would see that I'm right." If you want to present research to back up what you say, the burden is on you to do so.  It's up to the speaker (you) to make the case to the listener (those reading the thread), not the listener (those reading the thread)  to make the case on behalf of the speaker (you.)

 

You keep insisting the research is there and proves your point.  Again, it's up to you to produce this evidence in a thread directly related to different types of midwife certification.  Don't keep us in suspense any longer, start the thread and post your links.

 

 I think Jill's certification rather than pursuit of a legitimate degree in nursing and midwifery is very relevant given the Duggar family's views on educating women (waste of time) and college (waste of money?)

 

Are all the other midwives with her type of certification from patriarchy homes too? Are they all from other types of anti-intellectual/anti-educational backgrounds of other types? 

 

and the fact that Jill will be out in the "mission field" touting her expertise, perhaps elevating herself as a christian and american over traditional practitioners

 

How do you know what Jill Duggar will be doing and what her motivation will be on the mission field? Have you heard her say such things?  When?  Where? I would love to see links to that. Please post them.

 

who may not share  her certification but who may have encountered far more emergency scenarios than she will have in the limited practice of a lay midwife.

 

How do you know this?  You would have to have detailed knowledge of not only which mission field she will be in, what the training is by the traditional practitioners, how those compare to her certification and the individual situations she has and will run into during her training as which ever type of midwife she's trained to be.  Not only that, you seem to know that she won't be experiencing many emergency scenarios.  How is it you know all of this?

 

The midwifery practice I birthed my son and daughter with had three midwives per practice, attending home and private center births and the midwives were very well practiced in their field.

 

Most are whatever type of midwifery certification they have.

 

 I think given their ages (30s at the youngest, 50 on the outside) 1500 would be a low number.

 

Every type of midwife and OB started at 0 births and worked their way up one baby at a time.  Every certification process has rules about how many births they have to attend under supervision of someone who has already been certified and experienced. Is that bad in their situations too?

 

I personally know a midwife who got her certification at 30.  No, in her situation 1500 wouldn't be a low number.

 

I prefer a practiced practitioner with a degree which shows mastery in the field.

 

Great!  Then hire one who meets your criteria. The OBs who hired my midwife for their homebirths before my midwife was a CNM were perfectly OK with it.  So were the nurses and other medical staff who hired her over the years.  Welcome to the wide world where different people have different ideas about that. 

 

 Who knew that would be controversial here at WTM.   ;)

 

Did you not know that lots of people have hired midwives that weren't CNMs and were very satisfied with their services?  You aren't really surprised such a diverse group of people would have such diverse ideas about that or anything else did you? (Wink Wink.) Are you new to TWTM boards?  Are you new to the midwife hiring community?  If you are, you're better off observing before you go around making an assumption like that.

 

If you're surprised that something turns controversial here at TWTM board, you're not paying attention.  It happens quickly and often. Welcome to the boards!

 

 

[Joules]

 

 

I really think SAG should incorporate reality show stars into their rules so the stars are protected and have trust funds instead of parents using the money for anything they want.  If the writer's guild can incorporate stupid entertainment blogs, why can't SAG include reality stars, especially kids, to protect them from exploitative parents and long working hours.

 

:iagree: Liking alone isn't enough for this.  If these parents are making money off of this the kids need to be protected.  Union support would be great, but if not, at the very least, state child labor laws should apply.  

[ktgrok]

 

 

The midwifery practice I birthed my son and daughter with had three midwives per practice, attending home and private center births and the midwives were very well practiced in their field.  I think given their ages (30s at the youngest, 50 on the outside) 1500 would be a low number.  I prefer a practiced practitioner with a degree which shows mastery in the field.  Who knew that would be controversial here at WTM.   ;)

 

Homebirth midwives typically take on 4 due dates per month, to make sure they don't miss a birth. So, that's 208 births a year. So 1,500 births is 7 years. I think 7 years of attending births is probably "a practiced practitioner". And here in Florida anyway, a CPM does have a degree which shows mastery in her field. 

 

Even if they do double that, and take 8 women per month, that's 3.5 years. 

[Alessandra]

I am surprised that Derick feels ok about leaving his mother. Isn't she still battling cancer? I don't know the history or family dynamics, but it seems odd.

 

From reading the boards here, I see a lot of people who arrange their lives so as to help parents who are in need.

 

What a contrast!

[ktgrok]

That's what I get for posting before coffee.

[SproutMamaK]

The midwivery practice I go to gives each midwife 5 clients due per month. However, we also have two midwives at all births, one primary and one backup. (They also see it as one to take care of the Mom, one to take care of the baby.) So they attend, on average, ten births per month. They also get two full months a year off because of the constant on-call nature of the job. So that's 100 births per year, only half of which they are the primary caregiver on. At 100 births a year, that's 15 full years of practice before getting to 1500 births... and that's only if you include the births where they were a support person instead of the primary midwife. If you only counting primary caregiving, it would take 30 years to get to 1500 births. Counting at least 4 years of post-secondary education and training to get a certification that would mean that the midwives who have supervised 1500 births are the one who are over 50 and about a decade away from retirement. And for the record, this practice is known to be one where the midwives are overworked and (voluntarily) take too many clients (because there simply aren't enough services in our area to meet demand, so they know that either they take on too many clients or those clients will get stuck with one of the few, generally horrible OBs in town who are available to take on new clients). Most practices around here prefer to stick to 4 clients due per month for each midwife... which would mean they're hitting 1500 births at around, um, retirement.

 

Edit: Ugh, I just got sucked down the rabbit hole, didn't I? Regardless, I think she MAY have some valuable skills that could help in that area, but it seems like training across the US is inconsistent, and I'm sure care there is much different than here, so there should be specific training for that as well. None of which really makes a difference if they're not using their  mission funds properly in the first place, lol. There's a whole lot we don't know about their specific situation.