Jump to content
IGNORED

First family pic of Elissa, Joe, and Calia Maxwell is up


SPHASH

Recommended Posts

I don't know about the 2nd generation, but Teri is very pro-scheduled feeding.

These are people who need to schedule a fifteen minute block to discuss baby names. I doubt they could cope with feeding on demand. (And it's never too early to begin to break a baby's selfishness. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

In the early versions of their MOTH book they advocated scheduled feedings. They've since removed that from the later versions, but not sure if that's because they changed their minds or because of the bad rap scheduled feedings have received.

They were Ezzo fans back in the day, but later, on their Mom's board they forbid any discussions of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the early versions of their MOTH book they advocated scheduled feedings. They've since removed that from the later versions, but not sure if that's because they changed their minds or because of the bad rap scheduled feedings have received.

They were Ezzo fans back in the day, but later, on their Mom's board they forbid any discussions of him.

I used to post on the moms forum. They didn't allow posts about Ezzo because it was so decisive. The Maxwells liked the scheduling aspect of Ezzo, but did not like the rest of his training programs. They also didn't allow any posts about focus on the family. They read and moderated every single post, and that was mainly Sarah's job. There were topics they didn't want Sarah to read about, like intimacy, but I'd guess now that they also didn't want her reading about opinions from other Christians that diverged too much from her parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creepy photo, for sure, but Elissa's hair looks good.

I'd be willing to bet Elissa made that hideous headband since she is a gifted seamstress. It's ugly and it's way too big, but she likes it a lot so it must mean something special to her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to post on the moms forum. They didn't allow posts about Ezzo because it was so decisive. The Maxwells liked the scheduling aspect of Ezzo, but did not like the rest of his training programs. They also didn't allow any posts about focus on the family. They read and moderated every single post, and that was mainly Sarah's job. There were topics they didn't want Sarah to read about, like intimacy, but I'd guess now that they also didn't want her reading about opinions from other Christians that diverged too much from her parents.

I wonder why they didn't allow posts on Focus on the Family? It's not as if they are the type of Christian to eschew politics. Every election day they have a post about voting, saving babies, et cetera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Focus on the Family is probably too liberal for them. From what I recall, Focus on the Family is generally in favour of birth control, higher education, women working, women wearing pants, enjoying (clean) secular entertainment, going to a real church, enrolling your kids in extra curricular activities, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Dobson is a psychologist. So the whole premise of the Focus on the family ministry is based on Man's knowledge, not God's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Focus on the Family is probably too liberal for them. From what I recall, Focus on the Family is generally in favour of birth control, higher education, women working, women wearing pants, enjoying (clean) secular entertainment, going to a real church, enrolling your kids in extra curricular activities, etc.

Also beating with implements. I was given one of his books a million years ago while pregnant with my first child and was devouring everything about parenting at the time. I was viscerally sick at his matter of fact openness about the necessity of beating a child. He calls it spanking or hitting, but it's beating. He is also abashedly unashamed that he beat his dog with a belt because it wasn't obedient.

I hate this guy so much I have no words.

I trust your details as I don't know the specifics of the rest of his belief system, but I just have to say something whenever I see his name mentioned because this man has no business being near a child or an animal, and the fact that he puts himself out there as an expert makes me so angry.

I don't know if he's the kind of fundy who believes you need to answer for your life when you die...before getting into heaven thing? Probably not exactly like Defending your Life with Albert Brooks, but along those lines. But I hope he is and if I had one wish it would be that THAT belief would be true. And when he gets to the afterlife expecting all kinds of kudos and accolades he's confronted with the damage and pain he's caused every child or animal in his lifetime - by his own actions and those hurt because others, weak and incapable of critical thought, followed his advice. I would love it to be like the episode of Charmed where the muses can make people literally feel the physical and emotional pain of their lifetime of victims.

/ rant - I really fucking hate this guy. Good for Steve for not letting that shit through, whatever his reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also beating with implements. I was given one of his books a million years ago while pregnant with my first child and was devouring everything about parenting at the time. I was viscerally sick at his matter of fact openness about the necessity of beating a child. He calls it spanking or hitting, but it's beating. He is also abashedly unashamed that he beat his dog with a belt because it wasn't obedient.

I hate this guy so much I have no words.

I trust your details as I don't know the specifics of the rest of his belief system, but I just have to say something whenever I see his name mentioned because this man has no business being near a child or an animal, and the fact that he puts himself out there as an expert makes me so angry.

I don't know if he's the kind of fundy who believes you need to answer for your life when you die...before getting into heaven thing? Probably not exactly like Defending your Life with Albert Brooks, but along those lines. But I hope he is and if I had one wish it would be that THAT belief would be true. And when he gets to the afterlife expecting all kinds of kudos and accolades he's confronted with the damage and pain he's caused every child or animal in his lifetime - by his own actions and those hurt because others, weak and incapable of critical thought, followed his advice. I would love it to be like the episode of Charmed where the muses can make people literally feel the physical and emotional pain of their lifetime of victims.

/ rant - I really fucking hate this guy. Good for Steve for not letting that shit through, whatever his reasons.

James Dobson is the main reason for my parents' "punishment methods" (aka abuse) when I was growing up - I couldn't agree more and also I really fucking hate this guy. Although he's probably, incidentally, the #1 reason my kids will never experience corporal punishment so maybe something good will come out of his asshattery after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind you, Dobson beat up on a LITTLE dog. Not even a dog that was big enough to do him serious damage if he wanted, but a little ankle biter who committed the crime of growling at him when Dobson wanted to use the toilet.

Edited to say that of course you still shouldn't do that to a bigger Dog, I'm just pointing out that this is worse than it sounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Dobson is the main reason for my parents' "punishment methods" (aka abuse) when I was growing up - I couldn't agree more and also I really fucking hate this guy. Although he's probably, incidentally, the #1 reason my kids will never experience corporal punishment so maybe something good will come out of his asshattery after all.

I'm really sorry that happened to you and I am so glad that you broke the cycle. Your kids not having to experience that is 100% your wisdom and choices to parent without violence...he gets no credit for any of your good judgement. Your kids are lucky to have you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind you, Dobson beat up on a LITTLE dog. Not even a dog that was big enough to do him serious damage if he wanted, but a little ankle biter who committed the crime of growling at him when Dobson wanted to use the toilet.

Edited to say that of course you still shouldn't do that to a bigger Dog, I'm just pointing out that this is worse than it sounds.

Wasn't it a dachshund? Like you I in no way advocate hitting larger dogs* but it's good to point out in case someone reads and thinks maybe he was in fear of his safety or keeping a large and aggressive dog from harming others and maybe getting put to sleep and was misguided but well intentioned. It was a little guy who didn't obey him and growled in "defiance."

*I've been a dog owner (mom? companion?) most of my life and always big dogs and the number of times I've (or anyone in our home(s)) hit them cumulative is zero. Issues I've had with aggression and danger from any of them? Zero. Come to think of it I've gotten three kids to adulthood without any violence as well. All three are decent, compassionate, smart, and hard working. Also snarky, messy, opinionated, absentminded, eye rolling pains in the ass at times but I wouldn't trade them for anyone...I look at them and think I did good. But then I think James Dobson and I have very different ideas on what it means to be a successful parent. Blind obedience and absence of critical thought wouldn't be in my win column.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also beating with implements. I was given one of his books a million years ago while pregnant with my first child and was devouring everything about parenting at the time. I was viscerally sick at his matter of fact openness about the necessity of beating a child. He calls it spanking or hitting, but it's beating. He is also abashedly unashamed that he beat his dog with a belt because it wasn't obedient.

I hate this guy so much I have no words.

I trust your details as I don't know the specifics of the rest of his belief system, but I just have to say something whenever I see his name mentioned because this man has no business being near a child or an animal, and the fact that he puts himself out there as an expert makes me so angry.

[snip]

Yes, yes, yes - 100%. I hope it didn't seem like I was defending Focus on the Family or Dobson, because I was not, at all - just pointing out why the Maxwells would probably find them unacceptable. But I have to say, unfortunately I doubt that beating children would be one of the reasons. Most fundies seem to be a-ok with 'the rod' and I'm not sure why the Maxwells would be any different. In most other ways, though, Focus would be too liberal for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really sorry that happened to you and I am so glad that you broke the cycle. Your kids not having to experience that is 100% your wisdom and choices to parent without violence...he gets no credit for any of your good judgement. Your kids are lucky to have you.

Aw thanks - I should say "future kids" (one in utero, due any day now, and any future kids). But regardless - definitely breaking that cycle. He is truly a bad person of the highest degree and I shudder to think of how many kids have suffered because of his "professional advice" - ugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reasons the Maxwells didn't allow posts about Dobson or Ezzo had nothing to do with their advocacy of corporal punishment, it was only their theology, and psychology they were opposed to. At least at the time, they were friendly with the Pearls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Focus on the Family is probably too liberal for them. From what I recall, Focus on the Family is generally in favour of birth control, higher education, women working, women wearing pants, enjoying (clean) secular entertainment, going to a real church, enrolling your kids in extra curricular activities, etc.

I figured it was that, but the Duggars enjoy clean, secular entertainment and some of the women (sort of) work and wear knee length skirts, and Steve didn't hesitate to have JB write a foreword to his book. Methinks Steve's real loyalty is to the almighty dollar.

And yeah, James Dobson sucks giant hairy balls. An old classmate of mine has started to post FotF stuff on FB, and I really hope she isn't using corporal punishment on her three babies. :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes, yes - 100%. I hope it didn't seem like I was defending Focus on the Family or Dobson, because I was not, at all - just pointing out why the Maxwells would probably find them unacceptable. But I have to say, unfortunately I doubt that beating children would be one of the reasons. Most fundies seem to be a-ok with 'the rod' and I'm not sure why the Maxwells would be any different. In most other ways, though, Focus would be too liberal for them.

I didn't think you were and I agree that in many ways much too liberal for the Maxwells. It's just an automatic response on my part when I hear them referenced to rant a little PSA about the abuse because a lot of people don't know. I just need people to know the only place his books should be is in a museum cataloging crimes against the vulnerable.

And @Anonymousguest I am sure that wasn't his reasoning, but any suppression of Dobson works in my book regardless of the reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think you were and I agree that in many ways much too liberal for the Maxwells. It's just an automatic response on my part when I hear them referenced to rant a little PSA about the abuse because a lot of people don't know. I just need people to know the only place his books should be is in a museum cataloging crimes against the vulnerable.

And @Anonymousguest I am sure that wasn't his reasoning, but any suppression of Dobson works in my book regardless of the reason.

Reading about the Pearls will do that too. It's even more blatant and they preach psychological spousal abuse.

Horrible people. It's sad that seemingly intelligent parents buy into those twisted methods. They use that verse about spare the rod, spoil the child, but i don't think they'd agree with a shepherd whipping a sheep with his staff when it strayed a little. Gentle guidance and a loving relationship work so much better than bullying and fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She must wear a bow so the world will know she's a girl, Silly!

That thing around her looks like that mesh some fruit is packed in.

Is it Cal-eeah or CaleeA?

It reminds me of junior high art class photography unit.

So the pressure is now on, who? Jesse? To marry and prove his manhood.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She must wear a bow so the world will know she's a girl, Silly!

That thing around her looks like that mesh some fruit is packed in.

Is it Cal-eeah or CaleeA?

It reminds me of junior high art class photography unit.

So the pressure is now on, who? Jesse? To marry and prove his manhood.......

No, no -- John will have to be next because he's older. And whomever lands him will be one lucky lady. He's the only Maxwell that has never had a significant acne condition and he's cute and he's a rebel. If a gal can manage to get him off the compound, he's got a chance at a normal life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no -- John will have to be next because he's older. And whomever lands him will be one lucky lady. He's the only Maxwell that has never had a significant acne condition and he's cute and he's a rebel. If a gal can manage to get him off the compound, he's got a chance at a normal life.

Ohhhhhhh jooohnnnn...

The things I could teach that guy.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't it a dachshund? Like you I in no way advocate hitting larger dogs* but it's good to point out in case someone reads and thinks maybe he was in fear of his safety or keeping a large and aggressive dog from harming others and maybe getting put to sleep and was misguided but well intentioned. It was a little guy who didn't obey him and growled in "defiance."

*I've been a dog owner (mom? companion?) most of my life and always big dogs and the number of times I've (or anyone in our home(s)) hit them cumulative is zero. Issues I've had with aggression and danger from any of them? Zero. Come to think of it I've gotten three kids to adulthood without any violence as well. All three are decent, compassionate, smart, and hard working. Also snarky, messy, opinionated, absentminded, eye rolling pains in the ass at times but I wouldn't trade them for anyone...I look at them and think I did good. But then I think James Dobson and I have very different ideas on what it means to be a successful parent. Blind obedience and absence of critical thought wouldn't be in my win column.

Exactly.

And yes, I believe you're correct about it being a dachshund. It's very easy to deal with them without resorting to a belt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, it was a dachshund named Siegfried.

Dobson is NOT a clinical psychologist. His PhD is in educational psych. Apparently he gets very testy if you don't call him doctor. Dobson was raised Nazarene and, according to Gil Moegerle, thinks that he's been redeemed and can not just do no wrong, but is above sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that white is probably supposed to make the picture look "pure" or something, but it just looks washed out.

They tried to make the picture all about the dad, but it just looks off - and he looks demented with that smile and :pink-shock: those eyes!

And of course the baby has a big headband. How else would we know they have a vagina? Because the only thing that really matters in Maxhell is whether the baby has "boy" parts... :cray-cray:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.