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.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
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.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
They started, developed, and sold a few businesses. I believe they are now financially independent.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
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).
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
They had a TV show as well, and it just re-aired last week. I watched it again with my wife.
Those people are insane. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
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.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
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.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Owning property is a great way to make your cost of living go down.
(edit: bah. sorry for whining )
[ August 03, 2007, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
He hasn't been in congress, just the Arkansas house of reps. He did run for senate but didn't get the republican nomination.
Okay, my mistake. I knew he did something in government at some point.
Posted by aiua (Member # 7825) on :
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..
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
They're doing another special that's set to air next month, apparently: "Duggar Family Portrait", I believe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It must be odd to be professional breeders.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
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.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
^ What she said.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It must be odd to be professional breeders.
Good work if you can get it, though...
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:It must be odd to be professional breeders.
Good work if you can get it, though...
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.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
um, I wouldn't think so. That would seem as contrary to the whole Quiverfull philosophy as rhythm birth control.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
EVERYTHING in their house is scheduled.
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
[ August 04, 2007, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
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.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
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.
Hobbes Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
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.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I love it when people wear babies...
I suppose some people can pull off the look, but they just don't make toddlers that fit me right around the inseam.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
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.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
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.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I wasn't. She's had them before and she wants to maximise her chances of future healthy pregnancies and births.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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!
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
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.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
The family is unusual enough without needing to invent stories about them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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."
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
If you google for Duggar and blanket training, you will find a bunch of links.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
...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.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
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.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
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?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chanie: If you google for Duggar and blanket training, you will find a bunch of links.
None of which prove anything of the sort.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
As long as hitting isn't involved... That's one of the many reasons why I loath Ezzo. That and how his advice caused a lot of babies to be hospitalized, not to mention the potential for attachment problems. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Of course, I never knew that "blanket time" was an actual thing; it was something I came up with to preserve my sanity. We also don't completely childproof, we prefer to teach our kids to stay away from exposed outlets as soon as they start moving around to covering them all up, things like that. That's also a "parenting philosophy" but I didn't know that either until well after I did it, it just made sense to me.)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Blanket time sounds a lot like dog training actually...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Banna, I have often thought that training babies is a lot like training animals.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
There are folks out there who believe in training children as if they are dogs. I HATE these people strongly. Works cannot describe my deep loathing for the sort of people who would advocate hitting 4 month old children in the name of training them. Babies! There is absolutely no reason to hit a child, especially one that young whose brain is still developing! I cannot stand these people and the people who support them make me blood boilingly mad because you're talking about flogging kids! That's what it is and there's really no reason at all for those concepts to exist, let alone be called biblical!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Boundary training dogs does not mean hitting them either. Hitting a dog (except in a clear case of self defense) is IMO as vile as hitting a baby.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Wait, some people think it's a bad thing for teenagers to watch their younger siblings? I've never heard that. Those people would really not like my family. When we were younger we always complained that our parents had so many kids to do all of the housework, but in retrospect, my parents were working around the house far more often than we were.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote: 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.
Actually, they don't. Babies and toddlers today are way overstimulated and it's much more harmful to their development than being understimulated. It's almost impossible to find a toy that doesn't light up or make sounds, neither of which we allow for Aerin. I firmly believe in the adage "active toys make for passive children" and we're also trying to adhere to the ten-toy rule (a toy can have multiple parts, like a shape sorter and games and sporting equipment don't count as toys). We have lots of friends whose houses are like toy stores and their kids bounce off the walls while Aerin has excellent concentration.
I haven't seen any evidence that the Duggars believe in striking or "hurting" children, let alone infants. Blanket time seems extremely reasonable to me - very similar to the quiet time practiced in many preschools and daycare centers.
Back to the Duggars - I found it hilarious when they were talking about building a deer stand at their new house and the TLC-provided, New York City interior designer was looking at them with horror and disbelief.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Watching Supernanny, I think training children and dogs is a lot alike. But we never hit our dog in training and that was a HUGE no-no. The most negative we ever got was saying no and then distracting him with another activity.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That was amusing, Mrs. M.
I sent them a baby gift and a letter explaining why I am sending it and what I admire about their family. I hope they don't find that creepy.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
To clarify: I am not against physical corrections for a dog. Dogs understand touch because it is how they communicate with each other. But there is a galactic difference between a properly executed physical correction a la Ceasar Millan than "hitting" a dog.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:There are folks out there who believe in training children as if they are dogs. I HATE these people strongly.
Glad to know you like me so much, Syn.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm okay with choke collars and rolled-up newspapers, but I draw the line at the Invisible Fence.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Wait, some people think it's a bad thing for teenagers to watch their younger siblings? I've never heard that. Those people would really not like my family. When we were younger we always complained that our parents had so many kids to do all of the housework, but in retrospect, my parents were working around the house far more often than we were.
I don't think teenagers watching their siblings is a bad thing. Them becing co-parents though and being responsible for disciplining the children can't be too healthy for them. *thinks of having to baby sit my cousin when I was young because his mother was out partying all night long*
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:There are folks out there who believe in training children as if they are dogs. I HATE these people strongly.
Glad to know you like me so much, Syn.
Maybe not you, but Ezzo and Pearl and their ilk. They advocate hitting children with spoons, glue sticks, quarter inch piping, birch barks, or boards with holes in them. That's just wrong! People don't even hit dogs that way.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
In our house, my teen is watches the younger kids and doesn't get paid for it. It is a household chore, like my 9 year old has to unload the dishsasher every day and my son has to take out the trash. It's part of what is done to chip in and help out the family.
She does, however, get special privileges the others don't. Mostly due to her age, of course, but also because she's proven she is reponsible and can handle being "in charge" for a couple of hours if Mom and Dad both have to be somewhere.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Exactly. When I was a teenager, I ended up watching my youngest sibling just as often as Mom did. It wasn't me being a "slave", it was me helping out.
I'm completely baffled at the apparently large number of people out in the Blog-o-sphere who view simple family duties as "evil".
One gets the feeling they wouldn't have lasted long back in the era when "teenager" was not truly a recognized stage of life between adult and child. These days it's become a nebulous age of carefree fun that often seems to have been extended into some people's early 30s.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I watched my younger siblings often. If I babysat for my parents to go out for "fun," they paid me the same rate I charged other families. If I babysat for my parents to go out to a "household" function - shopping, or going to parent-teacher night, for example - I did not get paid.
And I was never paid for watching them as part of day-to-day household functioning.
I think - and thought so back then - that this was a very fair way to handle the situation.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:There are folks out there who believe in training children as if they are dogs. I HATE these people strongly.
Glad to know you like me so much, Syn.
Maybe not you, but Ezzo and Pearl and their ilk. They advocate hitting children with spoons, glue sticks, quarter inch piping, birch barks, or boards with holes in them. That's just wrong! People don't even hit dogs that way.
Okay, but that's not what you said.
I wouldn't train a dog OR a child that way, but I use a lot of the same methods to train my young children that I would to train a dog. It's the same concept, they need to learn to listen and obey, stay out of potentially dangerous situations, respect the adults giving them directions, and follow house rules.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
True, but there are also some differences which make me object to the word "train" for babies and children... Dogs must stay totally depended on their owners, children have to go out and do their own thing and stand on their own... grr. I can't frame it without Ezzo/Pearl rage, it's the sort of venom I'd like to throw at them for planting ideas like that into people's minds in the first place. Their way of "training" a child seems totally limiting for the child and puts 100% control in the hands of the adult. I'm not saying you're like that, but the word train used like that makes my teeth grind.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
How did you hear about these Ezzo/Pearl people?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I somehow stumbled on Pearl on Amazon.com! His book to Train a Child teaches parents to systematically break the will of their children so they are totally obediant and do not rebel against their parents when they are teenagers. His methods include- putting an object in front of a child and hitting them each time they try to reach for it, or calling a child that is about one after they've been playing, telling the child to go back and play and waiting for the child to get absorbed into what they are doing, then calling them again. If they don't come right away, he believes in striking the child. I don't know how I stumbled on to Ezzo, but he knows nothing about babies! He thinks that babies from the day they are born need to be put on a schedule and they must also be allowed to cry it out or else they will turn out evil. He claims his method of raising children is God's method, but he's had to make a lot of changes to Babywise because of several babies who suffered from failure to thrive because of not being fed on demand, not to mention the results of allowing a newborn to cry it out in their crib. His original publisher doesn't even publish him anymore and the church that supported him before cut him off, and his method was criticised in Christianity Today and by Sears, as well as by the AAP who state that babies should be fed on demand and not on a schedule because it results in failure to thrive and many mother's breast milk has dried up as well from using this book.
But, it's still commonly sold and has a high rating on Amazon.com. It couldn't make me more angry.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Dogs must stay totally depended on their owners, children have to go out and do their own thing and stand on their own...
Babies are totally dependent until about 3 months old, and very dependent for a long time after that. Some parts of parenting are teaching, and some parts are definitely training. I don't know what else you would call saying "No" repeatedly and removing a child from a place/object until they don't go near it any more (what we do to train our kids to stay out of the cat water.)
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
just out of curiousity syn, do you have a dog?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No, but I do have a rabbit.
quote:Some parts of parenting are teaching, and some parts are definitely training. I don't know what else you would call saying "No" repeatedly and removing a child from a place/object until they don't go near it any more (what we do to train our kids to stay out of the cat water.)
This is true, teaching and disciplining children is important, children without discipline are like sidewalks with ice on it. A disaster for society. I just wish these folks did not equate training and teaching with hitting and dominating. That's what makes it crazy. That they somehow think religion and the bible = hitting children and I wonder where they draw the line.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Syn, I really think that the people who do think that are a tiny subset of society. It's very sad, I agree, but wouldn't a more proactive thing to do, rather than discussing it with people who agree with you, be to get involved in parent education or similar work (volunteer or professional) to change it?
In any case, the Duggars are definitely NOT that kind of parents.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
The thing that scares me is this sort of stuff is more mainstream than I'd like it to be. The sort of ratings Babywise gets on Amazon! But suspect Amazon deletes bad reviews a lot of the time. I wish I wasn't so shy, and right now I have no credibility since I don't have children yet and I'm afraid of becoming punative when I have children.
But there's got to be a way to meekly make non-punative parenting more mainstream. I am a member of Gentle Christian mothers and some say differently. I reckon I'll judge if I have more information. The conservativeness of the Duggars kind of scares me...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Conservative does not equal bad parent. Strict does not equal physical discipline. Schedule does not equal child beating.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
After reading this discussion, one aspect of it puzzles me. I think it is fine for a family to have as many children as they want and can provide for, but I don't understand the "fan" thing. I don't see why it is more admirable, good, special or otherwise worthy of "fans". I do get that it is noteworthy but it strikes me as neutral rather than necessarily either good or bad.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
'Cause they're on TV! (Occasionally.) I enjoy watching shows about them; that makes me a fan.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Conservative does not equal bad parent. Strict does not equal physical discipline. Schedule does not equal child beating.
True, but conservatives tend to frighten me for other reasons.
The Duggars did have this dangerous recipe I should never try. It was mindboggingly full of SUGAR
But it looked rather good with some extra chocolate modifications... But I am already unhealty.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
...
Good to know.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: 'Cause they're on TV! (Occasionally.) I enjoy watching shows about them; that makes me a fan.
Okay. I don't really get it - but then I tend to avoid the "worthy of fame because they are famous" stuff. I couldn't tell Lindsay Lohan (no idea if that is spelled right) from Paris Hilton.
Not that there's anything wrong with that - lots of people do it - jsut not my cup of tea.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't usually do that either, but TLC's Family Night programming is some of the only "reality tv" I'm really into. I also love the Roloffs. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
. I like Jon and Kate Plus 8 Those two positively win at genes. They have the cutest kids ever. But Kate is very punticiious. I find her annoying, but secretly wish I was like that. *eyes the chaos of this apartment*
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: No, but I do have a rabbit.
Dogs and rabbits are really, really different. I'd say a rabbit is closer to...hm, I'm not sure. But I definitely think a rabbit is less of an interactive type pet than a dog. I think the same thing about cats.
-pH
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Rabbits are rabbits. They can be interactive when they want to, and quite naughty like dogs and cats, but you don't just sit there and leave them alone most of the time, even though they like to hang out in their little space for hours...
I don't know how I'm supposed to train Bernie not to do typical annoying rabbit stuff as he looks so cute when he's annoying me and it usually means he's healthy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: In our house, my teen is watches the younger kids and doesn't get paid for it. It is a household chore, like my 9 year old has to unload the dishsasher every day and my son has to take out the trash. It's part of what is done to chip in and help out the family.
She does, however, get special privileges the others don't. Mostly due to her age, of course, but also because she's proven she is reponsible and can handle being "in charge" for a couple of hours if Mom and Dad both have to be somewhere.
Precisely.
There don't need to be 17 kids in the house for it to be reasonable (necessary, even) for the parent(s) to depend on teens to occasionally babysit their sibs.
And Dags, I like that way of working things. I am going to have to consider that when my babysitter gets back from sleepaway camp. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Speaking of how to raise babies...
I met a woman a few weeks ago who was visiting my workplace. We were walking somewhere and talking about our families, and I mentioned that I'm expecting. She told me about her friend who had a new baby and she had almost gotten the baby to sleep through the entire night. (I think she said the baby was only a few weeks old.) The mother accomplished this by not allowing the baby to sleep during the day--what her exact methods were, I'm not sure, but it didn't sound good. This woman was telling me that I should do that, after all we as adults know better than the baby when it should sleep.
I was not convinced--just told her that was interesting and moved on. I happen to believe that a baby's natural instincts about when to eat and when to sleep are there for a reason, and should not be tailored to fit my schedule.
What do you all think? I'm new to all this, so I don't have any scientific data to back me up--I just think it sounds like common sense to me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The rate of sleep disorders in this country makes me skeptical of the claim that being an adult confers knowledge of good sleep habits.
I also don't get the obsession people seem to have with getting babies to sleep through the night as fast as possible. Total strangers would come up to me and ask if my baby was sleeping through the night yet.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: 'Cause they're on TV! (Occasionally.) I enjoy watching shows about them; that makes me a fan.
Okay. I don't really get it - but then I tend to avoid the "worthy of fame because they are famous" stuff. I couldn't tell Lindsay Lohan (no idea if that is spelled right) from Paris Hilton.
Not that there's anything wrong with that - lots of people do it - jsut not my cup of tea.
Most pointless of all quibles: Lindsay Lohan is famous because for her acting in the remake of The Parent Trap, which she got from acting in soap operas. Paris Hilton is famous 'cause she's a rich floozie.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'd be all-- "How do you know I have a baby, Total Stranger?"
Then I'd punch him in the throat. Because that's what sleep deprived parents should do to nosy strangers.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I admire the Duggars because they're raising seventeen apparently kind, healthy, happy, intelligent children.
I don't know that I'm a fan. But I'm a casual admirer.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I happen to believe that a baby's natural instincts about when to eat and when to sleep are there for a reason, and should not be tailored to fit my schedule.
In the beginning, yes. My children woke and were fed when they were hungry, I didn't even worry about them sleeping through the night until they had outgrown the need for a nighttime feeding. I just tried to take advantage of their naps during the day to steal some sleep myself.
There comes a time though when they're waking from habit and not from hunger. In that case, you can begin to adjust their schedules and aim for more daytime activity. We just tried to keep them awake longer during the day and shortening their naps and when they did wake at night, we'd get them, change them, comfort them, but try not to stimulate them or play with them at all. Eventually, they began to learn that nightime was for sleeping, not playing, and they adjusted themselves to sleeping at night.
With my twins, I had to have them on a schedule to survive. By that I mean if one woke to eat, the other was wakened. I didn't feed one at a time at night, or I would never have gotten any sleep. So while I didn't try to force them on MY schedule I did want them to coordinate THEIR schedules. Makes sense? It worked well, and actually they began sleeping through the night on their own around three months, quicker than my other two kids. I think because they slept in the same room, even the same crib for a while, and if they woke at night and weren't hungry, they had no need to cry for boredom or need of company because they had each other.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you admire people who raise one or two kind, healthy, happy, intelligent children? If that is what they have decided to do? Or people who raise none but spend their time doing other things well, if they have decided that is right for them?
I ask not because I think that choosing to raise lots of children is a bad thing - I just don't think it is any better than doing any number of things well that aren't deemed worthy of TV specials.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Synthesia, I mean this gently, delicately, and as a friend: being obsessed with Ezzo and Pearl is not going to make anyone -- least of all people who would review you as a candidate for adoptive parent -- feel better about having you in charge of kids. It comes across as an unhealthy obsession, and that raises red flags.
I know you don't focus on this deliberately in order to seem more noble or better suited to parenting than other people. I know it honestly concerns you. But currently any conversation that is had about children, child-rearing, or thinking about having children calls forth from you a rant about evil parenting disciplines.
Sweetheart, nobody can carry on a conversation about children with you anymore. You are speaking to points that aren't even made and not paying any attention to what is actually being said, speaking completely apropos of nothing at times. If you have this mindset when being interviewed as a potential adoptive parent, or even just for babysitting, people will think you are obsessed and not quite stable. You don't want that!
If this topic is so overwhelming and mind-consuming that you can't carry on a regular conversation, then (I think) it touches on some serious personal issues which you need to deal with separately. (*warm hug) It might be too much for you to work through on you own, and I can see that it may be impeding your friendships right now, too. Better to deal with it now than later.
---
Edited to add: This is my opinion, and mine alone. Please take it with the due grain of salt.
[ August 07, 2007, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Do you admire people who raise one or two kind, healthy, happy, intelligent children?
I sure do.
I even admire people who decide not to have any children because they feel that they'd be terrible parents.
One of the things I love most about being a technical writer is being able to talk to people who are really, really good at what they do. I have a lot of admiration for people who are talented or knowledgeable.
I do see knowledge and competence in the Duggars. Ergo, my admiration. They seem to be doing quite well with an abnormal family size.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Cool. As I said, I don't have any problem with large families. I come from a large family (6); my great-grandmother had sixteen children; when I was a little girl, I was charmed by "Cheaper by the Dozen" (the book, not the movie).
I just don't get the "fan" thing. Lots of people do well whatever it is they choose to do.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Belle, that makes sense. But she was talking about doing this to an infant right away, getting it to sleep through the night in mere weeks, based on waking the baby up. I can understand using other techniques to eventually get the baby on a night-sleeping schedule, like changing the environment for day and night, giving long feedings at night, etc. But I got the impression that this mother was doing things like pinching the baby awake. (I hope she wasn't actually pinching the baby, but that's what came to my mind when she said waking the baby up.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Katarain:
When we were n00b parents, we were advised by the hospital to wake up our infant by patting, stroking, and undressing them...
BUT this was so we could get our sleepy daughter to eat food. Beyond critical health matters...let sleeping babies sleep.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I just don't get the "fan" thing. Lots of people do well whatever it is they choose to do.
Not everyone can throw a football 100 yards.
Not everyone can throw a baseball 100 miles per hour.
Not everyone can ride a bicycle 100 miles in less than a day.
Not everyone can raise 17 happy, intelligent, kind, healthy kids.
The Duggars are somewhat unique, wouldn't you say?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah, I don't get the sports fan thing either.
I get that some people do.
I guess that what I'm trying to say is that, while it is interesting and unusual, I don't see it as more "good" than other things done well.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't see it as more "good" than other things done well.
Because "done well" in this instance means that you're making other people happy, intelligent, kind, and healthy.
So-- definitely a Good Thing To Be Admired, IMO.
EDIT: and a better thing, in fact, than being able to do backflips. Better even than making lots of money.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree with dkw and Belle, for the most part. Expecting to schedule a newborn to any significant extent is an exercise in futility and frustration. (And I think half the stories people tell about when their kids slept through the night, and said their first words, or learned toileting skills, are a combination of misremembered information and wishful revisionist history. Myself included!)
While there certainly are ways to gently wake a newborn (Scott listed some of them), I am unconvinced that spending the time to do so actually gains the parent any energy. Good grief, every time the baby falls asleep, you wake her up? How exhausting! How about catching a nap yourself instead? Or grabbing that lunch you were going to eat three hours ago? Or that shower you never had a chance for this morning?
The only times I would suggest deliberately waking a baby less than 2 months old is when she is not eating enough (an issue I had with my oldest too), or if she has already been asleep for several hours in the middle of the day. I am not at all convinced that waking a newborn all day long would even work at helping them sleep at night. Seems to be it would be at least as likely to teach them to only sleep in tiny snatches.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
edit: This is what I get for not completely reading through a thread before posting. Everything I mentioned is already being discussed. Nothing to see here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I guess that what I'm trying to say is that, while it is interesting and unusual, I don't see it as more "good" than other things done well.
I don't think that either the presence of a show or people's interest in the family indicates that the makers or watchers of the show "see it as more 'good' than other things done well," either.
This excludes those who support or advocate the quiverfull movement, of course. Such people clearly are saying it is more good than some other things. But I doubt agreeing with the quiverfull philosophy motivates more than a small fraction of their fans.
The things I do well are unlikely to be the subject of fandom. I don't think they're less valuable. But I do understand their less inherently interesting to outsiders.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Re: sleeping through the night: unless they are much older (over a year, maybe? Perhaps 9 months? I don't know) and not sleeping through the night yet, I don't think rearranging their schedule is a good idea.
Emma slept through the night consistently at about 3 months. Bridget had very strong day/night instincts from birth and slept through the night around six weeks. We were shocked and thrilled, but we don't expect that to happen with any of our other children (although it would be great if it did); each kid is different!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Re: fandom: I am a fan of almost everyone I know who is good at raising their kids. Including rivka, Jim-Me, and Boon, to name a very few. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: We were shocked and thrilled, but we don't expect that to happen with any of our other children (although it would be great if it did); each kid is different!
Yeah, it was #3 who I had the most trouble getting to sleep through the night. Despite the fact that her birthweight was considerably higher than that of either older sibling.
And thanks, kq. I haven't been feeling like a particularly good parent recently, so I appreciate the vote of confidence. Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
To give a micropreemie perspective - you have to have a schedule from the day you take them home. You usually just stick to the NICU schedule and/or modify it to fit your family needs. You MUST feed them a certain number of times per day, a certain number of hours apart, and you also have to factor in whatever medications they're taking. It's also critically important that they get good sleep, which can be hard to manage with the feedings and meds and the apnea alarm going off (I imagine it's even more difficult if the baby is on oxygen or has a feeding tube).
We did have to "train" Aerin to sleep in her bassinet. It did not involve letting her cry - we would just put her in it at every chance and take her out when she cried. Eventually she got used to it. Otherwise, I had to hold her almost 24 hours a day (at that point, she hated slings and carriers). We also made the decision to go about our business during the day without making an effort to be especially quiet. That has turned out extremely well as Aerin will now sleep through ANYTHING, including Richmond thunderstorms.
Because of our schedule, Aerin slept through the night at 2 months adjusted. Schedules aren't evil and it makes me uncomfortable to hear them vilified (I'm not saying that anyone here is doing that - I've just heard it elsewhere a lot).
Posted by guinevererobin (Member # 10753) on :
I'm not baby-ready yet (about to marry, and then we want to wait about three years in... we'll see how that works out...), but I like reading about parenting because it's going to be the most important part of our lives. I find it really comforting when ya'll talk about babies sleeping through the night at 3 months or so. I like my sleep, and one of the (many) scary parts about having a baby is the idea that I'll always be painfully sleep deprived...
how did things turn out for ya'll that kept working? This is something I'm still trying to figure out (because we're trying to plan for a mortgage and how much we'd be able to afford), and I'm afraid handling a full-time career at the same time as being up all night with a baby would be completely beyond me. Does anyone have any insights?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
My insight is that I recommend as strenuously as possible that a parent stay home with the child(ren) if at all conceivably possible, at least until they enter school.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by guinevererobin: I find it really comforting when ya'll talk about babies sleeping through the night at 3 months or so.
Don't count on it, though. Not all babies do, and having that as an expectation is asking for trouble. Also, "sleeping through the night" = 5-6 hour stretches, NOT the 8 or more hours you may be used to.
quote:Originally posted by guinevererobin: I like my sleep, and one of the (many) scary parts about having a baby is the idea that I'll always be painfully sleep deprived...
Never mind "baby." Having kids means you will never again (well, at least for a dozen years or more) get as much sleep as you used to.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: My insight is that I recommend as strenuously as possible that a parent stay home with the child(ren) if at all conceivably possible, at least until they enter school.
While I agree, I do not believe that knowing this is not possible (or realizing it after the fact) is necessarily a reason not to have kids. Having one parent work part-time, or staggered work schedules, or having relatives who are able to help with childcare are all good alternatives, IMO.
And if child care is a necessity, there are ways to work with that, too.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Realize that outside child care is likely to take a big chunk of your money, though, so look in to the other alternatives rivka suggested first.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I have raised six children and I never felt "painfully sleep deprived". There were certainly nights that I didn't get the sleep I needed, more that I didn't get as much as I wanted, but I never went for any appreciable length of time with inadequate sleep.
I've known people who *swore* their kids never slept. I remember one couple I knew back in the late 80's who were always complaining how their kids (they had 3 under 6 IIRC) didn't let them sleep... they talked about all the late night infomercials they watched (I didn't even know there was such a thing until they told me).
I never quite grokked them. Not that I thought they were lying, but I couldn't comprehend letting a 2 or 4 year old stay up all night. By the time my children were 6-8 months old (no longer needing night time feedings... it's been a while, it may have been a bit later), unless they were sick, they went to bed and stayed there until morning. It was never an issue.
Honestly, if I'd ever been "painfully sleep deprived" I never would have had 2 children, let alone the 6 I have. I desire sleep myself far too much for that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
mb, ability to sleep well is partly genetic. You may just have won the genetic lottery while the people you know were less lucky.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I'm sure there may be some truth to that, rivka. I know I got "lucky" with my children in other ways, and I don't try to claim I am the reason they're as remarkable as they are.
I just wanted to point out that having children doesn't have to equal never getting enough sleep for years on end.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Emma and I both have sleep problems that have been present from infancy-- as did my dad, his mom, her mom, her dad...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:n00b parents
Heh.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
For work, a huge amount depends on your job. My husband and I have been having just a wonderful time working out our schedules around baby. Sometimes I work until 2am, sometimes I am supposed to leave for work by 8am (and sometimes I don't make it on time). But I work in a research lab with a boss that is basically retired but has tenure so doesn't actually retire. So, I can come and go as I please. I also bring the baby in one of two times a week. In a few weeks, my friend's husband returns and then free babysitting!!! The greatest most wonderful thing in the universe.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by maui babe: I just wanted to point out that having children doesn't have to equal never getting enough sleep for years on end.
Agreed. Moreover, I freely admit that many of my sleep issues are a combinations of bad habits and poor scheduling (of myself, not my kids).
However, Murphy's Law applies. To she whom sleep is most precious will likely be born the Baby Who Never Sleeps. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Just let me get my hands on that bastard Murphy . . .
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Now, now. Let's leave ol' Murph's mom out of this.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
My first child actually slept through the night from the very start... my mother-in-law and I were up all night checking on her. We moved from Florida to Idaho when she was not quite 3 months old and that messed up her schedule enough that she started waking up once a night.
I never got so lucky again. Of course, it WOULD be the first child, not the 6th, right?
The thing was, when she was sleeping through the night, she didn't nap during the day, so it was a challenge to get much done during the day (including having to wait for Daddy to come home before I could shower)... it was worth it though, to sleep through the night.
Interestingly, when she was in high school, that child became a major night owl, staying up much later than the rest of the family. She kept quiet, didn't disturb the rest of us, and she never gave me grief about getting up in the morning, so I let her keep her own hours. But not until she was 14-15 or so. She made up the sleep on weekends... at least that's what she claimed. I often wished I could "bank" sleep that way. Wouldn't that be nice?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I've always been told you can't bank sleep; nevertheless I do.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I do, too. I can go three to four days without sleep as long as I can sleep for about two days straight thereafter.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I can no longer pull all all-nighter without serious issues the next day. (Although I used to be able to do it all the time, and once in grad school I went like four days without sleep.)
But I can go pretty much indefinitely on two hours a night.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I can go about two weeks on two hours (usually during the day, not night.)
At that point I start to have problems.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I've never tried to go that long; when the weekend comes I sleep.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I like reading about parenting because it's going to be the most important part of our lives.
I highly recommend that you make your relationship to your spouse the most important part of your lives, and parenting a close second.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Synthesia, I mean this gently, delicately, and as a friend: being obsessed with Ezzo and Pearl is not going to make anyone -- least of all people who would review you as a candidate for adoptive parent -- feel better about having you in charge of kids. It comes across as an unhealthy obsession, and that raises red flags.
I know you don't focus on this deliberately in order to seem more noble or better suited to parenting than other people. I know it honestly concerns you. But currently any conversation that is had about children, child-rearing, or thinking about having children calls forth from you a rant about evil parenting disciplines.
Sweetheart, nobody can carry on a conversation about children with you anymore. You are speaking to points that aren't even made and not paying any attention to what is actually being said, speaking completely apropos of nothing at times. If you have this mindset when being interviewed as a potential adoptive parent, or even just for babysitting, people will think you are obsessed and not quite stable. You don't want that!
If this topic is so overwhelming and mind-consuming that you can't carry on a regular conversation, then (I think) it touches on some serious personal issues which you need to deal with separately. (*warm hug) It might be too much for you to work through on you own, and I can see that it may be impeding your friendships right now, too. Better to deal with it now than later.
---
Edited to add: This is my opinion, and mine alone. Please take it with the due grain of salt.
You make good points, I should avoid reading these people because they are oleander honey but THEY MAKE ME SO MAD I can't help it. I don't know why their point of view has to exist and why it's becoming so mainstream and tainting good things like Christianity and parenthood, but perhaps I should not read about it so much as it's one of the Things that Stress me Out, but it makes me so angry. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I can't help it.
I believe that you can, but not while you keep telling yourself that you cannot.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I've never tried to go that long; when the weekend comes I sleep.
I never "try" to do it; it just happens. The last time was when I was having contractions every 10-20 minutes while I was pregnant with Emma. I literally did not sleep for more than 30 minutes at a time for 2 weeks. They finally induced me. I was so glad.
When the contractions started with Bridget, I told my doctor and he induced me early. I love my new doctor.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Actually, thinking back, it was 20 minutes at a time, and even that was rare.)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: You make good points, I should avoid reading these people because they are oleander honey but THEY MAKE ME SO MAD I can't help it. I don't know why their point of view has to exist and why it's becoming so mainstream and tainting good things like Christianity and parenthood, but perhaps I should not read about it so much as it's one of the Things that Stress me Out, but it makes me so angry.
I'm so sad for you to see you unhappy. It is obviously very distressing to think about.
Tell me about something else: what do you want to do for a favorite weekend when you have a child? What do you dream about? Do you dream about seeing movies together and giggling over popcorn, or is it playing pitch-and-catch in the park, or flying kites?
I never had any real kites as a kid (only ones I made from newspaper, and they never flew), but my sweetie just got me the most glorious big, pink bird kite. It went so high!
I think I'd love to fly kites with a child. Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
CT, flying kites with kids is awesome. When I worked at the Y, I wanted to get the more sedentary kids outside, but I didn't want to push sports on them. So I wheedled money from our program director and got a couple dozen kites and big, foam airplanes. I let the kids put them together and decorate them. They were a huge hit! It was like magic - they worked together to figure out the best way to get them off the ground and keep them up and, later, to fix them. And I earned the respect of the middle school boys when I ghetto-rigged (as they called it) the airplanes back together with toothpicks and paste.
You know, I feel like I missed most of Aerin's infancy. The first few months were about keeping her alive and out of the hospital and she was just such a difficult baby that I was too exhausted and drained to realize that time was passing. Thank goodness for the blog and pictures.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My husband had his math class mke kites and then they spent a class period flying them. It was the best day ever. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I did a lesson with my preschool art class on weather; we read a book about the weather, then painted a mural of the outside sky together, then made lunch bag kites (a favorite when I was a kid.)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: You make good points, I should avoid reading these people because they are oleander honey but THEY MAKE ME SO MAD I can't help it. I don't know why their point of view has to exist and why it's becoming so mainstream and tainting good things like Christianity and parenthood, but perhaps I should not read about it so much as it's one of the Things that Stress me Out, but it makes me so angry.
I'm so sad for you to see you unhappy. It is obviously very distressing to think about.
Tell me about something else: what do you want to do for a favorite weekend when you have a child? What do you dream about? Do you dream about seeing movies together and giggling over popcorn, or is it playing pitch-and-catch in the park, or flying kites?
I never had any real kites as a kid (only ones I made from newspaper, and they never flew), but my sweetie just got me the most glorious big, pink bird kite. It went so high!
I think I'd love to fly kites with a child.
That would be cool, especially if they were neat Asian kites.. Or mechanical airplanes, reading to them, or whatever they're interested in, even if it's baseball games which bore me a lot.
i wonder how old kids have to be before you can take them to awesome cool concerts
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Your kids are unlikely to be genuinely interested in "cool" concerts for some time, depending on your definition of "cool." Sophie, for example, is easily overwhelmed by any crowd of more than 8 adults.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Not to mention that it won't be long before their idea of cool, by definition, will exclude yours.
But wait, that came out really negative. By all means, think about the stuff that you would enjoy doing with your kids!
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I am looking forward to arts and crafts with my little girl. I went to Ikea and was looking at their easel and art toys and was wishing monster was big enough to use them. But then, she makes a developmental milestone and I am like, nooo, my baby is growing up too fast. She can stand on her own for a few seconds now and can take a few steps along the coffee table. I don't want her to walk yet...So, yeah, conflicting emotions.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I want to make (barely edible) crackers by putting a flour/water/butter/seeds paste in the sunshine on a jar lid. And sun tea.
And make mudpies, and draw the leaves we find, and tie an old bandana on the end of a stick to play hobos.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
CT, you can borrow my kids anytime. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The lovely thing about being an aunt is that you can do the fun stuff - you're supposed to do the fun stuff - and you rarely have to do the boring stuff.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I am both an aunt and a grandmother. Hoo-yay!
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I will hopefully be an aunt soon (my sister in law is like a week overdue). The problem is, I am a mom already, so not just the fun stuff. Depending on the school district, I think my nephew and my daughter will be same year in school, so hopefully they'll be friends. But not as lucky as my sister who is just an aunt and loves it. Also, nice for me cause everytime I see my sister, I come home with a bag of very nice clothes for the baby.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I can't help it.
I believe that you can, but not while you keep telling yourself that you cannot.
it's so hard not to because they are twisting things and making people turn off their natural instincts and become indifferent to their childrne and see them as the enemy and not helpless young creatures who really aren't trying to annoy their parents with their typical child ways.
I want to finger paint on the walls with my future kids. That would be so much fun, or drawing on the sidewalk, or making sandcastles and teaching them about insects and poisonous plants, and giant moths because giant moths are cool.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Syn, you are in charge of what you think and what you feel.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can't understand why no one else seems to be as angry about it as I am... What they are doing and promoting is so unhealty.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Personally, I'm not angry 'cause I figure the majority of people that follow the schools of thought you're discussing are already the kind of people who would practice ahorable child rearing techniques before they find the books you're talking about. Not much anger can do about it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I can't understand why no one else seems to be as angry about it as I am... What they are doing and promoting is so unhealty.
Yes, it is. But dwelling unhealthily on it does not stop them. If I were to do something about it, it would be to promote awareness of good parenting, and try to reach people who might not have access to that information-- not obsessing over it on a board full of what seem to be, from what I can tell, some pretty good parents. Also, I have interacted with a lot of parents, and if I have learned one thing, it's that you can't force your own parenting style on anyone else, and the best you can hope for is that your good example can rub off on others around you. Besides that, I really do not think that these ideas are as widespread as you fear. The internet can really distort issues like this, making them appear more widespread than they really are.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I can't understand why no one else seems to be as angry about it as I am... What they are doing and promoting is so unhealty.
Syn, the thing is that there are lots of things - some much, much worse - that people are doing in this world.
The problem isn't that it makes you angry when you hear about them. The problem is that you don't seem to be able to talk about raising children without getting angry, even when they do not come up. In a sense, you have allowed their existence to rob some of the joy inherent in child-rearing.
I also think that your premise (that no one else seems as angry about it as you) is based on an unrealistic expectation that if others don't show anger as you do, then they don't abhor a practice as much as you do. Other people's ability to discuss other aspects of parenting without becoming angry at Ezzo, et al. does not mean they care less about bad parenting techniques.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I can't understand why no one else seems to be as angry about it as I am... What they are doing and promoting is so unhealty.
But your reaction is unhealthy too. I don't think there is a single parent on this board that used the techniques you hate so much, so what are you accomplishing by ranting against them all the time?
Lots of people do lots of things that are unhealthy for their kids. I'm appalled at people who buy fast food for their families multiple times a week. Or allow their toddlers to drink sodas full of caffeine and sugar. But every time someone brings up food on this forum I don't start ranting and raving about those things.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know else to do... Short of chasing those writers on a horse dressed like a Nazgul in armor...
It would be so cool to do that....
Mostly I want to stop them without sinking to their level.
Now to force myself to do stuff I don't want to do.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I bet a very fun afternoon could be spent making our own giant moth costumes.
Mothra, Mothra, come here, Mothra ... Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Wow. I had no idea there was so much information about Mothra.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
You're sort of proving their remarks true, Syn. You seem more than a bit fixated on your negative feelings towards these people. It's never a good idea to make something you hate a core of your life.
Trust me, I'm speaking from bitter experience. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Mostly I want to stop them without sinking to their level.
[and from page 2]
quote:... since I don't have children yet and I'm afraid of becoming punative when I have children.
*gently
This might be at the root of some of this.
I remember the first time I was angry at a child. I was astonished that I could be upset at a baby. An innocent baby! The force of that emotion -- so new and so completely unexpected -- really terrified me. It was years before I felt comfortable acknowledging I was capable of such anger, sometimes unreasonable anger, but that I also had enough skills and was smart and savvy enough to keep both me and the child I was angry with safe.
Also, sometimes people who were abused as children are also terrified of being abusers themselves, so they focus and dwell on the possibility of abuse. I don't know the details of your history, Syn, but it might be that the fear and dread of your own childhood leads you to obsess on this now, to the detriment of (as was noted above) your ability to focus on the positive.
If so, that would be a good thing to work on before it becomes time for you to actively pursue adoption, if you do. This sort of thing can take a long time to work through. It can be done, though, and the people who need to and do work through it, become very strong and wise and wonderful people.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Mothra, Mothra, come here, Mothra ...
Rebirth of Mothra, Rebirth of Mothra II, and Rebirth of Mothra III are all available free on demand from my cable company. It's a lot to take all at once, but they're fun flicks.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Mostly I want to stop them without sinking to their level.
[and from page 2]
quote:... since I don't have children yet and I'm afraid of becoming punative when I have children.
*gently
This might be at the root of some of this.
I remember the first time I was angry at a child. I was astonished that I could be upset at a baby. An innocent baby! The force of that emotion -- so new and so completely unexpected -- really terrified me. It was years before I felt comfortable acknowledging I was capable of such anger, sometimes unreasonable anger, but that I also had enough skills and was smart and savvy enough to keep both me and the child I was angry with safe.
Also, sometimes people who were abused as children are also terrified of being abusers themselves, so they focus and dwell on the possibility of abuse. I don't know the details of your history, Syn, but it might be that the fear and dread of your own childhood leads you to obsess on this now, to the detriment of (as was noted above) your ability to focus on the positive.
If so, that would be a good thing to work on before it becomes time for you to actively pursue adoption, if you do. This sort of thing can take a long time to work through. It can be done, though, and the people who need to and do work through it, become very strong and wise and wonderful people.
I reckon this is true, but there's so many good things about kids that drown out all the bad stuff from the past.
still, I really don't want to turn into my mother or various other relatives and should just stick to reading Sears because he is cool.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It's good to focus on the positive, but if the negative does end up still haunting you, there are ways to deal with it.
*big hug
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm just looking forward to the day when I'm asked why the sky is blue.
"Well,, it all has to do with atmospheric scattering of different wavelengths of light..."
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I just got to explain how night and day work and why we can see the stars at night and...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:there's so many good things about kids that drown out all the bad stuff from the past.
This is a nice, popular sentiment that is completely untrue.
There are many good things about having children. But those good things don't necessarily heal emotional or psychological scars from the past. Children can make those wounds even deeper.
Like CT said, though, there are ways of dealing with those wounds. Having children isn't one of them. Kids aren't the cure.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Like CT said, though, there are ways of dealing with those wounds. Having children isn't one of them. Kids aren't the cure.
Well put, Scott.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:preens:
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Trust me, I'm speaking from bitter experience.
Frank Miller comics, Puffy? Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:there's so many good things about kids that drown out all the bad stuff from the past.
This is a nice, popular sentiment that is completely untrue.
There are many good things about having children. But those good things don't necessarily heal emotional or psychological scars from the past. Children can make those wounds even deeper.
Like CT said, though, there are ways of dealing with those wounds. Having children isn't one of them. Kids aren't the cure.
But thats not really why I want to have kids or even what I meant by that statement...
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Trust me, I'm speaking from bitter experience.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(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.)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)