Bringing Up Bates & Bates Family Doings: Part 2

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I stand corrected. I found this post Kelly made on the blog back in August:

We prefer them to not get pierced ears while living with us, because once pierced they cannot be reversed. We have several reasons, but one of the reasons is because as a young girl, I had pierced ears and one ear ripped as a earring caught on a piece of clothing. If our children choose to get pierced ears when they move out, obviously they are old enough to make that decision and care for them without worrying over infections or injuries. Love, Kelly

[formergothardite]

So, did anyone out there do a double take when the boys did a house tour on the Q&A special and saw that Gil and Kelly's room was PINK? Not the bubble gum pink Erin picked, but still pink.

And, not sure if I've missed this in an old post, but does it bother anyone else that the intro is in reverse birth order EXCEPT for Michael and Alyssa? I mean, I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think this is accurate. It's the three married Bates "kids" that cap off the end (before Kelly Jo and Gil). This really bothers me, like Michael isn't an adult.

In their minds Michael isn't an adult. You don't reach adulthood until marriage.

As for having their ears pierced, I wouldn't be surprised if Gil and Kelly were the type of fundies that felt husbands should be the ones to choose if a wife has her ears pierced, so girls must wait till they are married.

[ILoveJellybeans]

I am all for not letting kids get their ears pierced until they are old enough to care for it themselves, it sounds fairly sensible and a lot of people do that, but not allowing your kids in their twenties to is weird. What kind of baby does she think Michael is for her to be a grown woman incapable of looking after herself? She is old enough to vote, get a job, live on her own, get married, but just because she is a virgin, she is automatically on the same level of a toddler who might get their grubby fingers on her new earrings and get it infected. Its like they think that having a penis in your vagina magically downloads all of the adult abilities into your brain.

[19 cats and counting]

I stand corrected. I found this post Kelly made on the blog back in August:

It actually can be reversed. I had my ears pierced when I was 12 (old enough to make the decision for myself) only to discover that I was allergic to most metals and I couldn't wear earrings without risking serious infection. I should have bought stock in that Claire's ear care sterilizing solution. The last time I wore a pair of earrings was when I was 15.

In December, a guy tried to sell me some (really cute) cat earrings that I totally would have worn and then he took one look at my ears and apologized. He thought I never even had them pierced.

[JillyO]

It actually can be reversed. I had my ears pierced when I was 12 (old enough to make the decision for myself) only to discover that I was allergic to most metals and I couldn't wear earrings without risking serious infection. I should have bought stock in that Claire's ear care sterilizing solution. The last time I wore a pair of earrings was when I was 15.

In December, a guy tried to sell me some (really cute) cat earrings that I totally would have worn and then he took one look at my ears and apologized. He thought I never even had them pierced.

Experiences vary signicantly though. I got my ears pierced when I was about 7 or so and apparently wiggled in the exact moment the piercer was doing my second ear, so the hole sits way lower than it was supposed to. I got the same lobe repierced at around 12 and haven't worn an earring in the first hole ever since. It is still there, looks exactly the same and (as I recently discovered when I was putting me earrings on without looking in the mirror) I can still wear an earring in it. I didn't even notice the earring was in the wrong hole until I looked in the mirror. This is 13 or so years after I last wore an earring in that hole. So yeah, definitely not reversible for everyone.

[doubleT]

If I don't wear ear rings at least every three days, my holes start to close up.

[Georgiana]

I get what Kelly is saying, though I think she worded it wrong. A healthy piercing will often heal over just fine if you let it.

However, if a piercing is ripped, pulled, infected, etc. it can do permanent cosmetic damage that may never properly heal, scar, or prevent future piercings in that location. I'm allergic to metal, so I have a high piercing rejection rate. The piercings that I have had rejected did leave permanent marks/scars. You can definitely see them, which is why I don't get facial piercings with the exception of my nose (which was done over and existing scar...but thank God it took!).

So if you let a young child get a piercing and they rip it or do not care for it, they may do damage that might be irreversible and prevent them from ever having pierced ears.

Really doesn't explain why teenagers and young adults can't have them though.

[formergothardite]

She isn't just saying that kids can't have them, I could understand that, she is saying that teen/adults who are not married(because that is the only acceptable way that their children can move out) can't choose to get their ears pierced. I think the parts about not wanting to risk infections or rips is just to distract from how crazy it would sound to just say "We would forbid our teen/adult daughters from getting their ears pierced until marriage."

[justmy2cents]

Kelly wants her daughters to go into marriage with virginal ear lobes. Leave it to the new headship to decide if he wants his wife to get hers pierced. Is it a Gothard thing? I think the Duggar girls get their's pierced.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

It actually can be reversed. I had my ears pierced when I was 12 (old enough to make the decision for myself) only to discover that I was allergic to most metals and I couldn't wear earrings without risking serious infection. I should have bought stock in that Claire's ear care sterilizing solution. The last time I wore a pair of earrings was when I was 15.

In December, a guy tried to sell me some (really cute) cat earrings that I totally would have worn and then he took one look at my ears and apologized. He thought I never even had them pierced.

It depends how you pierce them. A gun will heal over fairly easily, but also comes with a whole host of problems (including an increased chance of infections, the elongated look some people get when wearing dangly earrings, etc). A piercing needle (which basically cores your ear) won't heal over very easily. My friend hasn't used earings in 3 of her holes for 5 year and she can still put earings in them if she wanted to.

Also, not everyone who has pierced their ears and had them heal over sees them completely disappear. In fact, I've never met anyone who has been as fortunate as you. Hell, all of my ex boyfriends had their ears pierced in high school, took out their piercings in college, and still have very visible scars from their piercings now (they're all in their late twenties to early thirties).

[actuallyjessica]

She isn't just saying that kids can't have them, I could understand that, she is saying that teen/adults who are not married(because that is the only acceptable way that their children can move out) can't choose to get their ears pierced. I think the parts about not wanting to risk infections or rips is just to distract from how crazy it would sound to just say "We would forbid our teen/adult daughters from getting their ears pierced until marriage."

i've known of a few families who aren't religious in any way who don't like piercings. one family had a rule of no piercings what so ever, but once you're grown up and out on your own that's on your own back and their parents couldn't force them to take them out. another family say no piercings until the age of 16.

it's possible that the bates find it easier to say "no piercings in this house" so that they aren't constantly having younger ones whining about how they want their ears pierced and how it's unfair that their sister's who also live under the same roof as them have their ears pierced.

[LovelyLuna]

It actually can be reversed. I had my ears pierced when I was 12 (old enough to make the decision for myself) only to discover that I was allergic to most metals and I couldn't wear earrings without risking serious infection. I should have bought stock in that Claire's ear care sterilizing solution. The last time I wore a pair of earrings was when I was 15.

In December, a guy tried to sell me some (really cute) cat earrings that I totally would have worn and then he took one look at my ears and apologized. He thought I never even had them pierced.

I got mine when I was 9 and I am moderately allergic. about 4 times a year I wear then for about 2 hours. they are mighty angry for about 3 days so. My mom is like you and can’t at all. she can’t even wear rings on her fingers. If it wasn’t Kelly talking I would be nodding my head at her logic. I don’t believe (for myself and my kids)* in cosmetic surgery/modifications until they are old enough to make informed decisions. I will be a non circ'ing Jew even, but we all know Kelly is just nuts and there is no loci to her choices.

*not trying to start a debate, other people are free to do whatever they chose :)

[LovelyLuna]

It's a lot to assume

1. That she won't have happiness or security in her family

2. That they're going to beat their children.

3. That Zach even wants to raise his children the same way he was raised.

Ok this is the first time I have had to defend my words as a FJ member so I’m a little nervous. well, here goes nothing.....

1.I said 'Whits large brood†meaning the kids will not have have it. Whit may be over the moon with AIT/IBL but her children will suffer. See Lisa from the Pennington Point Blog for examples.

2. Michelle herself endorses Blanket Training and Instant Obedience. All emotions except happy compliant robots are disciplined out of the kids. if you haven’t google Michele Pearl you should. Again, Lisa from the Pennington Point Blog for examples.

3. I don’t know this, but Whit stopped wearing pants and they are still deep enough into the koolaid that they felt the need to confess their premarital kissing to his parents. based on this I believe they mean to stay. But since I don’t know I did add "unless they end up fundie light or mainstreamâ€. There is a chance, there is always hope. I tend to be a very hopeful person so I hope down the line I am wrong and her kid are happy and healthy and free of GotHard and all his evil webs.

Howed I do? :embarrassed: :think:

[nelliebelle1197]

If I don't wear ear rings at least every three days, my holes start to close up.

I am allergic to earrings too, but have teenage piercings as well as a 25 year old nose piercing. I can still stick a ring in any of the holes even though I haven't used the ear holes in 30 years and the nose one in 20

[16strong]

I got my ears pierced at age 5/6 by way of a very sketch Claire's piercing gun. I go long stretches (sometimes it's been years) without wearing any earrings, and my holes do not close up. The trick is to wear earrings for about 3 months continuously without taking them out so that the skin around the earring heals up and stays that way.

[HermioneSparrow]

I am allergic to earrings too, but have teenage piercings as well as a 25 year old nose piercing. I can still stick a ring in any of the holes even though I haven't used the ear holes in 30 years and the nose one in 20

I'm allergic to every earring material that's not silver or gold. I had a nose ring when i was 18 and it healed perfectly after i stopped using it 3 years ago.

[eh02]

Metal allergies are very common, but as long as you avoid cheap alloys (usually anything containing more than trace amounts of nickel) you're pretty safe. I get worse skin reactions from cheap necklaces than cheap earrings, actually - huge rashes around my neck and chest. Pretty much anyone can wear niobium, high quality sterling silver, platinum, palladium. Regular cheaper sterling silver and stainless steel both contain some nickel but tend not to react with your skin.

It's also kind of a misconception that gold (both yellow and white) are "safe" for those with nickel allergies. They're better than a really cheap metal from Claire's, I'm sure, but they have more nickel than many other "safer" metals. No jewelry is made with pure gold. You can request nickel-free gold alloys, I think, but I'm not sure how reputable it is and it'd probably have to be customized.

Anyway, I can agree with Kelly that for small kids, the maintenance and small amount of risks - and just plain annoyances - of piercings are not worth it. It's hard enough just to have to bathe and clothe a 4 year old every day, much less make sure their ear piercings aren't getting infected. But the maintenance is easy for most kids once they are old enough to take a shower and brush their teeth every day on their own. Just one more small step in your daily routine.

I don't really get people having these huge fears about doing something that's "forever" to your body. Bodies get old and ugly on their own without any help at all. What's the big deal if some day you're 80 and have a tattoo or piercing you don't really like anymore? I am sure when if I make it to 80 I will have bigger worries than some closed up holes in my ears that didn't heal 100%!

[feministxtian]

I have metal allergies...found a solution. I coat the metal parts of the earrings with clear nail polish. It works. I also did the same thing for my glasses.

Just a hint...

[PennySycamore]

I have metal allergies...found a solution. I coat the metal parts of the earrings with clear nail polish. It works. I also did the same thing for my glasses.

Just a hint...

I actually first heard about the clear nail polish trick in Mystery in Arizona, a Trixie Belden mystery that I read when I was maybe in 6th grade. That was almost 50 years ago. A wealthy patron of this dude ranch told Trixie and Honey that she put clear polish on her silver jewelry so that she could wear it without irritation.

[socalrules]

My mom had my ears pierced when I was two at May Company. I have no idea how hard it is to take care of them or what you do. I probably wore them everyday until Maybe my twenties when they were just one extra item a day I didn't feel like putting on because I was lazy. I would then go a few years without wearing them and then go back to wearing them all the time. The holes have never closed up.

[antwan]

I remember a while back we had a poster who said she knew the Bates casually and that while they came off nice, they only seemed to have people around when they needed a favor from that person. Very shallow. I could see Gil being that way, but I sense a warmth from Kelly. Who really knows, though.

Wouldn't make that quantum leap (that they are shallow) for several reasons. First, knowing someone "casually" means what, exactly? Unless we had any real idea of the extent of this person's regular contact (or lack of) with the Bates family, it doesn't give us much objectivity to go on.

Also, I only have 4 kids, and I don't feel comfortable with entertaining, nor do I feel I have the time to pursue regular social contact with friends. Occasional, yes, not not regularly. Still, if we needed help with a task, we would certainly call on those in our circles, as they would call on us as well. It is not perceived as shallow, as we all purpose to serve one another and meet a need when we can. I think this could be the case for the Bates family, too.

[FundieFarmer]

Ok this is the first time I have had to defend my words as a FJ member so I’m a little nervous. well, here goes nothing.....

1.I said 'Whits large brood†meaning the kids will not have have it. Whit may be over the moon with AIT/IBL but her children will suffer. See Lisa from the Pennington Point Blog for examples.

2. Michelle herself endorses Blanket Training and Instant Obedience. All emotions except happy compliant robots are disciplined out of the kids. if you haven’t google Michele Pearl you should. Again, Lisa from the Pennington Point Blog for examples.

3. I don’t know this, but Whit stopped wearing pants and they are still deep enough into the koolaid that they felt the need to confess their premarital kissing to his parents. based on this I believe they mean to stay. But since I don’t know I did add "unless they end up fundie light or mainstreamâ€. There is a chance, there is always hope. I tend to be a very hopeful person so I hope down the line I am wrong and her kid are happy and healthy and free of GotHard and all his evil webs.

Howed I do? :embarrassed: :think:

1. I really don't think she is. I think she's just going along with it. But that could just be me.

2. Michelle and Kelly are two very different birds. Very, very different, despite some of their similarities. I believe somewhere on this thread, someone mentioned that Kelly refused to utilize the Pearls' training. But I'll agree with you that Michael Pearl is terrifying.

3. I don't think it's fair to say they won't have happiness or security, ATI/IBLP or not. While I think the Duggars are a bit more put-upon to act happy when they're not, the Bates certainly allow their kids to speak freely and from what I've seen, they're well-adjusted and logical kids who are content with their lives. They can leave and change if they like, as I strongly feel Alyssa has been, or they can stay and toe the family line. But I truly believe that at least the Bates have had happy and free childhoods and were given much love and care and protection by Kelly and Gil.

[formergothardite]

Kelly might not have followed the Pearls but she followed Ezzo with her children. Here are some quotes.

This is about infant sleep training:

Chelsea’s parents understand that virtues must be nurtured in her tiny heart… Chelsea’s parents must govern and monitor her until they are assured she bears the self-control and moral awareness needed to govern herself.â€

Got to teach those newborns self-control and moral awareness. :roll:

Yes, you can harm a baby by picking him or her up too much. Not in that single act, but in the collective nature of such a response. Over time this parenting attitude creates negative propensities. These inevitably spill over into pretoddler and toddler development.†(p. 141)

Yes, please ignore your crying babies if it isn't time for their scheduled be held time.

Ezzo says that mothers should ignore their instincts to pick up their crying babies:

Mother’s decisions without assessment can be dangerous. To deny the importance of careful assessment is to deny parents their role as leaders. Leaders must be clear-headed and ready to make decisions. They should not be driven by emotions. In practice, emotional mothering can set the stage for child abuse.†(p. 151)

He also warns nursing mothers against listening to lactation consultants who are concerned about the rigid feeding schedule.

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/03/08/ ... -own-risk/

James Dobson(the dog beater) thinks Ezzo is too rigid and dangerous:

On the other hand, we do have some concerns and reservations about the Ezzos' work, including the updated editions of _Preparation for Parenting_ and _Growing Kids God's Way_. First, it seems to us that their philosophy of childrearing is far too rigid

Speaking of Scripture, the Ezzo's use of biblical texts is, in our view, a second cause for serious concern. They have, for example, cited Matthew 27:46 -- ". . . My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" -- in support of their teaching that mothers should refuse to attend to crying infants who have already been fed, changed, and had their basic needs met. "Praise God," writes Mr. Gary Ezzo in _Preparation for Parenting_, "that the Father did not intervene when His son cried out on the cross." We see no way to make such an application of this verse without completely disregarding its original context and purpose.

our ministry has received numerous letters from parents, pastors, midwives, physicians, and lactation professionals regarding cases of failure-to-thrive in infants subjected to the Ezzos' program. We don't believe their experience should be ignored.

http://www.ezzo.info/Focus/FOTFstatement.htm

Doctors have also warned against Ezzo's teachings:

One such book, On Becoming Babywise, has raised concern among pediatricians because it outlines an infant feeding program that has been associated with failure to thrive (FTT), poor weight gain, dehydration, breast milk supply failure, and involuntary early weaning. A Forsyth Medical Hospital Review Committee, in Winston-Salem N.C., has listed 11 areas in which the program is inadequately supported by conventional medical practice.The Child Abuse Prevention Council of Orange County, Calif., stated its concern after physicians called them with reports of dehydration, slow growth and development, and FTT associated with the program. And on Feb. 8, AAP District IV passed a resolution asking the Academy to investigate "Babywise," determine the extent of its effects on infant health and alert its members, other organizations and parents of its findings.

I have reviewed numerous accounts of low weight gain and FTT associated with "Babywise" and discussed them with several pediatricians and lactation consultants involved.

In a question-and-answer section, parents of a 2-week-old baby, who did not get a full feeding at the last scheduled time and wants to eat again, are instructed that babies learn quickly from the laws of natural consequences. "If your daughter doesn't eat at one feeding, then make her wait until the next one."

Kelly also says that they use Ezzo's book "Reflections of Moral Innocence" which says adult children should not be taught all about sex until right before their wedding. He also advises parents to not teach their children the proper names for genitalia because the words "penis" and "vagina" are not used in the KJV Bible.

I have no problem believing that Kelly treated her babies just as poorly as Michelle did.

[zadie]

From what we've heard about Mkchelle I think there's a chance she might have been better. She does seem genuinely obsessed with snuggling little babies, so she at least might not have ignored holding her crying baby. But there's no way to be sure, that's just speculation.

How do you think the buddy system worked with these parenting methods? Did Kelly and Michelle watch and make sure ear children were following through? Or did they just not care and let the older buddies deal however they wanted?

[nokidsmom]

Other than appearing warmer and a bit more emotionally involved, I don't think Kelly was a better mother than J'chelle period. She and had Gil used harmful methods of child rearing and she employed / still employs the same buddy system of having older daughters raise their siblings. Younger siblings raised by an older one are experiencing separation anxiety when older one gets married which indicates that the younger kids at least are not connected to their mother as much as if she were actually raising them.