I think these two rock. It's not exactly the path I would choose (although I do want a lot of kids, and I do intend to home-school at least some of them), but I think they're a pretty neat family.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh. My. God. and they're from my home town.
And they're home schooling so they're probably not stupid so that's good. (though they're possibly crazy.) Never thought a home school would have to worry about classroom size.
What does Jim-Bob do that he can afford to support a wife and all these kids? (I'm assuming she's a stay at home mom.) Ya, Springdale isn't the most expensive place in the world to live but a family of 19 has to have some hefty expenses.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They started, developed, and sold a few businesses. I believe they are now financially independent.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow! I'm having a hard enough time dealing with getting 1 child here.
Definitely not the kind of thing for me, but that's cool that they're healthy enough and are able to care for so many kids (I assume they're all well taken care of).
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He buys and sells real estate. He's also a former Congressman and ran unsuccessfully for the Senate, I believe.
TLC/Discovery Health have done, I think, 3 specials on them: the original, "Raising 15 Children" or something, "16 Kids and Moving In", and "On the Road With 16 Kids." They re-air occasionally (at least the last two.) I think there might be one more, too, but I can't remember.
The children are indeed all well cared for (although some people get grumpy about their methods, no one suggests abuse or anything.) I really admire them.
I've been hearing so much negative stuff about them, think I might send a baby present to show my support. (Their address is listed both on their website, which hasn't been updated for a while since Discovery Health gave them their own page there, and in the White Pages.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ya, Springdale isn't the most expensive place in the world to live but a family of 19 has to have some hefty expenses.
Oh, I think at one point he was quoted as saying that they don't have a precise budget but it takes about $5,000 a month to cover their expenses. They own their home free and clear and have income from commercial properties they also own free and clear.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watch them on Discovery Health and am simply amazed how they pull it off.
On sort of a tangent, they went on a road trip and spray painted stuff... which I believe might have something to do with my current spray paint fetish, though I'm at a loss to understand why..
Posts: 1215 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're doing another special that's set to air next month, apparently: "Duggar Family Portrait", I believe.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I support their decision to have a large family, it squicks me out a bit how they parade them around the way they do. I have a largish family myself (although only about a third as many children) and I'm uncomfortable when people make a big deal out of it. I can't imagine putting them all on display like that. I don't have television, so I've never seen anything about them other than the online news articles every time they have another child. Even that though would make me uncomfortable.
All that said, if my circumstances were different, I would have liked to have had more children than I did, and I think it's pretty snarky for anyone to feel like they have any right to comment about the number of children they (or anyone else) have (or don't have as the case may be.)
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They see it as a missionary opportunity, which is why, after prayer, they consented to give interviews and then be filmed the first time around.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Okay, this is another one of my pet peeves - somehow people think that couples who have a lot of children do nothing all day long but have sex. I've heard lots of people say things like "my parents weren't Catholic or Mormon, they just liked sex" to explain why they have large families. I can't tell you how many variations I heard like that from people who thought they were being cute when they learned I was pregnant *again*.
There is just so much wrong with this, I'm not sure where to start. Of course, the obvious response is that anyone with no children, or only one or two, must by extension hate sex. And obviously, more children = less privacy, less time, less space, and almost certainly less sex.
I know I'm reacting to more than what you just said, Scott. I'm pretty sensitive, I know, but it's just so silly.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, it's not like they get huge amounts of compensation for having kids. In fact, they have a lot of expenses because of it, but they have chosen that and are happy with the choice. They pay cash for everything they buy, they don't have debt, they don't accept state aid-- but they do that by working for it and making wise investment and purchasing choices. I admire them very much.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:somehow people think that couples who have a lot of children do nothing all day long but have sex
Well, no. In fact, I think the opposite: couples who have a lot of children probably have less sex than couples who have fewer than three children.
When I say "professional breeder," I don't mean to imply they're having sex all the time; in the same way that one doesn't let one's best mare just go at it all the time, I expect they optimize their sexual encounters for the purposes of breeding.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
um, I wouldn't think so. That would seem as contrary to the whole Quiverfull philosophy as rhythm birth control.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless they have a specialized breeding hut, or unless they somehow hog-tie their children to their beds, I can't imagine that a house with 17 children has a lot of sex in it. There's no way that sexual encounters aren't scheduled.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
But everyone's bedtime is also 10 pm (although the littler ones sometimes fall asleep during the pre-bedtime scripture study/prayer time and are carried up.) And if the littles wake in the night (other than the baby babies), their "buddy" or another older sibling can help them to the bathroom, change a diaper, get them a drink, whatever (the girls all sleep in one room and the boys in another-- by choice, at this point, they did it for so long that when they built the new house and were given a choice they chose two huge rooms instead of individual ones.) So between the strict schedule and lots of help with the littles, I'd guess their chances of sex on any given night are better than mine.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strict schedule? Somehow that bothers me a bit. I hope they are not into Ezzo, Pearl or Gothard. I don't care if people have a large family, as long as they are completely kind to their children, ie, no letting newborns CIO or believing that newborns can manipulate a person in the first place. Not that they do that, but if they did it would make me angry...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine the media exposure and consequential money that is to be had by such exposure helps pay the bills.
But it seems they were already doing just fine before they became famous.
I'm very impressed with their resolve, and I really hope all their children turn out OK but statistically they have some rough stuff ahead of them. I'll be happy with my 3-4 children thank you very much.
Just watch when in 20 years somehow 2-3 more kids in addition to 4 slip between the cracks somehow.
edit: Also KQ once again proves that she is the eminent source of all things Duggar related NOT CNN.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Syne, I would argue that newborns do NOTHING but manipulate people. It's pretty much all they're capable of doing.
They don't consciously manipulate people, but that's not the issue.
I only hate it when people state that you shouldn't pick a baby up too much because they will become spoiled or they will manipulate you. That is total absolute bunk. When they are that small they NEED to be picked up and held as much as possible. They don't stay that small for long.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Syne, I would argue that newborns do NOTHING but manipulate people. It's pretty much all they're capable of doing.
They don't consciously manipulate people, but that's not the issue.
I only hate it when people state that you shouldn't pick a baby up too much because they will become spoiled or they will manipulate you. That is total absolute bunk. When they are that small they NEED to be picked up and held as much as possible. They don't stay that small for long.
Right, but you DO need to press into a babies mind that it needs to trust the parent over it's own instincts. This lesson only comes into play with alot of concerted effort on the part of both parents.
Babies also need to learn how to communicate via other means beyond simply weeping. I read a story about a 2 year old girl that started crying heavily, her mother stooped down and said, "Don't cry, use your words, tell me what's wrong."
The 2 year old calmed herself in just a few seconds and carefully managed to convey to her mother what was wrong and the problem was easily remedied.
Parents that simply tell their kids to stop crying and don't expect them to be able to communicate until they are almost 3-5 do themselves and their children a disservice. I know the Enderverse sounds pretty far fetched but children deserve more credit then they often times get.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also KQ once again proves that she is the eminent source of all things Duggar related NOT CNN.
I don't know if I'm concerned the most about the fact that KQ has put enough time into the Druggar family to be considered the eminent source of all things related or that this isn't the first time it's come up.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Syne, I would argue that newborns do NOTHING but manipulate people. It's pretty much all they're capable of doing.
They don't consciously manipulate people, but that's not the issue.
I only hate it when people state that you shouldn't pick a baby up too much because they will become spoiled or they will manipulate you. That is total absolute bunk. When they are that small they NEED to be picked up and held as much as possible. They don't stay that small for long.
Right, but you DO need to press into a babies mind that it needs to trust the parent over it's own instincts. This lesson only comes into play with alot of concerted effort on the part of both parents.
Babies also need to learn how to communicate via other means beyond simply weeping. I read a story about a 2 year old girl that started crying heavily, her mother stooped down and said, "Don't cry, use your words, tell me what's wrong."
The 2 year old calmed herself in just a few seconds and carefully managed to convey to her mother what was wrong and the problem was easily remedied.
Parents that simply tell their kids to stop crying and don't expect them to be able to communicate until they are almost 3-5 do themselves and their children a disservice. I know the Enderverse sounds pretty far fetched but children deserve more credit then they often times get.
Yes, but not when they are a newborn and physically can't do anything else but cry. You have some people who try to push their babies into things that are not age appropiate, When they are ready to talk, encouraging them to talk is a good thing, when they are weeks old though, that's just stupid.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Syne, I would argue that newborns do NOTHING but manipulate people. It's pretty much all they're capable of doing.
They don't consciously manipulate people, but that's not the issue.
I only hate it when people state that you shouldn't pick a baby up too much because they will become spoiled or they will manipulate you. That is total absolute bunk. When they are that small they NEED to be picked up and held as much as possible. They don't stay that small for long.
Right, but you DO need to press into a babies mind that it needs to trust the parent over it's own instincts. This lesson only comes into play with alot of concerted effort on the part of both parents.
Babies also need to learn how to communicate via other means beyond simply weeping. I read a story about a 2 year old girl that started crying heavily, her mother stooped down and said, "Don't cry, use your words, tell me what's wrong."
The 2 year old calmed herself in just a few seconds and carefully managed to convey to her mother what was wrong and the problem was easily remedied.
Parents that simply tell their kids to stop crying and don't expect them to be able to communicate until they are almost 3-5 do themselves and their children a disservice. I know the Enderverse sounds pretty far fetched but children deserve more credit then they often times get.
Yes, but not when they are a newborn and physically can't do anything else but cry. You have some people who try to push their babies into things that are not age appropiate, When they are ready to talk, encouraging them to talk is a good thing, when they are weeks old though, that's just stupid.
I think we more or less agree with each other.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Somehow that bothers me a bit. I hope they are not into Ezzo, Pearl or Gothard.
No worries, Syn. They are not that kind of people. And honestly their kids are so well-behaved and pleasant (one of their family rules is "Always display a cheerful demeanor, even when no one else is around" and even the ones who are too little to really control themselves that way seem to pick up on the happiness) I don't see discipline as one of their biggest focuses. As discipline comes up the parents seem to take those moments as teaching moments to explain why they should treat each other with love and respect, not time to punish the child. (Two other family rules are "Never raise a hand to hit" and "Never raise a foot to kick" so when it does happen the problem is swiftly dealt with before it gets out of hand, the children having the problems are taken aside to be reminded of the rules before they actually harm each other.) Their focus as a family is on love and service, to each other and everyone else, and I think that's great.
The schedule is really pretty necessary to run the house, I think (although there are "daddy days" at their house when Jim-Bob comes in and says, "We're going to so and so" today and takes everyone out to do something unscheduled and spontaneous instead.) But babies are not forced on a schedule, they're kind of "exempt" and everyone around them just goes on with the schedule until they are old enough to fall into it. Michelle spends a lot of time wearing her newborns (again a good thing in my eyes, I'm a big fan of babywearing!) so, along with her, they are kind of at the center of the household, and they are able to get a lot of love and attention while life goes on.
I would have no worries that the kids are being beaten into submission if I were you.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's good. I love it when people wear babies, and when I have kids, that's what I'll do. I do not like people hitting children at all.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I suppose some people can pull off the look, but they just don't make toddlers that fit me right around the inseam.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I suppose some people can pull off the look, but they just don't make toddlers that fit me right around the inseam.
That calls to mind a classic "Family Guy" episode.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Duggars are wonderful - I've been watching them for years.
I was surprised that she had a VBAC at her age after 16 other babies (but only 2 Sections, I think). Bless her heart.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't. She's had them before and she wants to maximise her chances of future healthy pregnancies and births.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do they do any outside activities? You know, sports, dance classes for the kids, etc? Because if so, I cannot see how.
I'm being pulled in so many different directions this fall with one in high school band, one in gymnastics, one playing football and one taking tumbling/cheerleading classes. I can't imagine handling more than four activities - I'm not even sure I'll survive the next few months myself!
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't see that mentioned at all in your link. Here's the relevant quote:
quote:With 6 little boys age 5 and under we’ve enjoyed much more peace, harmony, & order in our home since a friend shared with us about ‘blanket time’. We began this training four years ago, when our second set of twins were 17 months old. They started learning self-control & obedience by sitting quietly on a blanket playing with a few toys. The key words are ‘sit’ & ‘quiet’! At first, we practiced 5 minutes, 2-3 times a day, & worked up to 10-20 minutes at a time. This one tip has changed the atmosphere of our home tremendously. We don’t have little ones tearing up the house as often & getting into things while we are busy.
Nothing about hurting that I can see, although perhaps that's advocated for the technique somewhere else.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, but the link you provided says nothing about using pain to enforce "blanket time." Moreover, every link I can find on the subject mirrors what I was told years ago when my kids were babies -- if the kid goes off the blanket, you gently put them back on. You also start with just a few minutes and work your way up.
It's no different than putting a child in a playpen for 15 minutes, except they learn to stay there without a "wall."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
...links to people making claims of physical abuse as punishment, but very little on what backs these claims up.
If they have evidence of abuse, good...please give it. Otherwise it just seems like other "someone said it on their blog, so it MUST be true!" info.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like this need to demonize someone because you disagree with their life choices.
If someone is acting badly, that will become apparent. If they are not, then inventing stories about them to make them look bad is flat-out...pathetic, really. It's a sign of a weak argument if you have to evil-up your opponent so they'll look bad.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. Many of the blog posts that turn up when one Googles those terms include something to the effect of the following statement:
"Only evil insane Nazi Christian fundies like the Duggars expect their teenage kids to help look after the little ones! It's like putting their teens in PRISON! They're so BAD!"
Okay, in large families, the older kids are often asked to help out in watching the younger ones. That's not an "insane fundie" belief, that's just a fact of large families.
Seriously, are there any thoughtful, calm criticisms of this family?
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I have seen people make a reasoned, logical argument for why in their own families they pay or otherwise compensate the older sibs for helping with the younger ones, and stating that that is what they feel is right. However, I usually then see another person come in and say in her family they don't compensate older sibs for helping care for younger sibs, this is the reason, and that they think THAT is right. That's about as far as it goes as far as thoughtful, calm, and reasoned.
Most of it is rather wild accusations, IMO. I am rather surprised at the hostility they seem to attract. But I suppose I shouldn't be.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I dislike blanket time the way Ezzo suggests it... He advocates hitting a baby each time they wander off, but I'm not sure how healty it is to let a child play with a small handful of toys alone on a blanket... Children need a lot more stimulous than that for their developing brains.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Syn, both of my kids have had blanket time as babies. Not punished if they get off, just put back on until they stay. You would be amazed at how much fun they can have with one or two toys or books, much more than that and they can get overstimulated. Now, of course you don't do it all day every day, but most babies need some short periods of quiet time in between all the stimulation that happens in a normal day, and all babies need some tummy time to strengthen their muscles as newborns, and time to practice sitting and reaching and manipulating and other similar skills as an older baby. And training a baby to stay on a blanket when you put them on it, at least for a few minutes at a time, is a very valuable thing to do when you go to a public place (such as church) or someone's non-baby-proofed house and the baby wants to get down and play but you can't let them wander.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |