Bates Family Part 6

[HermioneSparrow]

Bradley is seriously beautiful, like model child kind of beautiful.

[JillyO]

15 minutes ago, HermioneSparrow said:

Bradley is seriously beautiful, like model child kind of beautiful.

He is the most adorablest child ever!!! I would ask you to help me steal him, but then I'd have to kill you after, so...

[iknowright]

I know that it isn't uncommon for young marrieds to have two or even three close together.  I know several myself.  

However, when you put the pieces together that 1) Both Duggars and Bates parents are intentional as many babies as possible and fixated on pregnancy/childbirth 2) Both of the families are ATI/IBLP royalty 3) None of their offspring have left this cult 4) So far, unless I've missed one, none of the married children have made it past a year without having a child or announcing a pregnancy (with the exception of Erin who also would have had children within her first year of marriage if she had not had several miscarriages).  

I suppose it is possible that some of these couples could have their families completed early on and not have more than two or three, but I think that would involve them leaving the cult first, and I just have not seen any sign that any of the young couples have left it.  Perhaps, with the lawsuit things are going to change.  

[ljohnson2006]

Waiting over two years between babies is kind of unheard of in Fundie world. I'm glad that Whitney and Zach are enjoying the time with Bradley, before popping out another one.

[Charliemae]

It's not uncommon to have two close togther, but it's naive to think that's the case with these families. Too many posters want to give the Bates the benefit of the doubt. Not I. They are quiverfull, patriarchal, cult members until proven otherwise.  What happens in mainstream culture is not relevant.   

[HermioneSparrow]

52 minutes ago, ljohnson2006 said:

Waiting over two years between babies is kind of unheard of in Fundie world. I'm glad that Whitney and Zach are enjoying the time with Bradley, before popping out another one.

They didn't wait two years, Bradley is barely one and Whitney was probably pregnant before Bradley's first bday. It's clear that they don't use any type of birth control.

[LadyCrow1313]

9 hours ago, mango_fandango said:

Exactly. My aunt was born May 1966 and my mum March 1968 so technically that's two under two, even if for a brief period (seeing as my aunt was right at the end of May whereas Mum was more the middle of March). In fact, two years (give or take) seems to be about average for sibling gaps. 

That seems about right. My brother & sister were born 18 months-ish apart. I arrived on the scene about 7 years later, & my family isn't uber-religious by any means.

[nausicaa]

10 hours ago, socalrules said:

Many people who are not religious have children early in their marriage or close in age. It's pretty normal. There isn't anything wrong with it. When they have 6 kids in 7 years then maybe it's because of their belief system but a young couple with multiple kids is common in our society. Why should it be any different for a Bates or Duggar? As much as I believe in birth control, I also believe in a person's right not to use it. 

My cousin got married, had her first child after barely a year of marriage and ended up with 5 kids in 8 years, granted a set of twins in there. Both she and her husband are well-educated with masters degrees. She is run of the mill Christian, has no extreme views and isn't adverse to birth control. Having a lot of kids happens and doesn't always mean it's a bad thing or the result of some ulterior motive. No one gets to decide when someone else should start a family in a marriage that they are not a part of. If people want kids right off the bat, or having them close together, who cares? It's not a point of shame. 

I wouldn't say a twenty year old woman with a baby and another (potentially) on the way is exactly normal in our society...

I wouldn't even say a twenty year old being married is normal in our society. 

And in this case, since their parents have openly stated that they do not believe in birth control, that women should birth as many of God's warriors as possible, and none of the adult kids have publicly renounced those beliefs, I think suspecting an ulterior motive other than "we just wanted to get our kids out of the way" is understandable.  

[elliha]

1 hour ago, Charliemae said:

It's not uncommon to have two close togther, but it's naive to think that's the case with these families. Too many posters want to give the Bates the benefit of the doubt. Not I. They are quiverfull, patriarchal, cult members until proven otherwise.  What happens in mainstream culture is not relevant.   

This fails to recognize that a break from this type of culture may very well be gradual. Having a couple kids close together if you know you still want kids can give you a couple years of slow drift or to plan a more definite excape. We have no idea what the kids are really like but at this point we cannot rule out anything.

Parents in these movements believe that they can reproduce children who are exactly like them but in reality even with this type of upbringing that rarely happens. While the changes are small, some drift has already been been detected from some of the Bates children. They may never be liberals but they may very well be a slightly less conservative Christian than their parents already at this point. That does not have to mean that they want to alienate their parents or that they have not kept most of their parents' views. 

[Georgiana]

The thing is, ~18 months between kids isn't evidence of anything.

It would be perfectly normal in any other married couple their age, AND it is normal child spacing in the fundie world as well.

It's simply too soon to judge whether ANY of the Bates 2nd genners will be mega-family QF-ers like their parents, with the exception of Michaella, who has said that she would like to be.  

All we can tell is that they certainly weren't rushing to conceive #2 ala Michelle Duggar.  But even if they have 4 kids spaced ~18 months apart a piece right away, that's pretty normal.  Plenty of couples like to "get it out of the way" all at once.  They aren't overly rushing to fill their quiver, so only time will tell if they eventually choose to use birth control or not.  

[Snarkle]

Whit and Zach are following the party line and method.   Although Whit may be more open to a passel of children because of her own past - she wouldn't be the first to want a larger family to retroactively heal a difficult childhood.  She saw what she was getting into before she married Zach.  And Zach, as oldest, knows what it's like to have a large family and is probably OK with it.  It will be much more interesting to see in 15-20 years about the youngest Bates kids (and Duggars, for that matter), and how they build their families since by then they won't have a show to document their lives and marriages and kids and they'll see how their older ATI 2.0 siblings handled the pressures and outcomes of that lifestyle.  Considering it's only been a couple of decades since ATI took serious root, it will be interesting to see its effects twenty years in the future.

[singsingsing]

My opinion is that we kind of have to assume that all of these couples are staying quiverfull until they say otherwise. So far there's no evidence whatsoever that any of them are trying to prevent or purposely space their children in any way. Michael, Erin and Alyssa all married men whose families are heavily involved in ATI. Zach and Whitney have deviated a tiny little bit from his parents' strict teachings, but as far as I know they've been mum on the subject of family planning aside from repeating the line that children are a blessing from the Lord. We have no reason to think that these couples aren't going to follow in their parents' footsteps.

[Mela99]

So a bunch of them made comments on Nathan's girlfriend and left it at that? 

[HermioneSparrow]

34 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

My opinion is that we kind of have to assume that all of these couples are staying quiverfull until they say otherwise. So far there's no evidence whatsoever that any of them are trying to prevent or purposely space their children in any way. Michael, Erin and Alyssa all married men whose families are heavily involved in ATI. Zach and Whitney have deviated a tiny little bit from his parents' strict teachings, but as far as I know they've been mum on the subject of family planning aside from repeating the line that children are a blessing from the Lord. We have no reason to think that these couples aren't going to follow in their parents' footsteps.

I agree with this sooooo much. I have to add that Whitney and Zach said they wanted Bradley to have LOTS of siblings, I think this was on the show last season... If someone remembers please confirm but i'm almost sure.

[JillyO]

17 minutes ago, Mela99 said:

So a bunch of them made comments on Nathan's girlfriend and left it at that? 

That's what I'd like to know.

[OodOnTheLoo]

Whitney is absolutely in love with her little boy and being part of a family.  She's absolutely glowing and being a mom seems to feed her soul.   Two kids won't change that much.  Keep having kids and you get less of that and more managing everyone.  Don't do it Whitney.  It's a trap!

[bashfulpixie]

27 minutes ago, Mela99 said:

So a bunch of them made comments on Nathan's girlfriend and left it at that? 

Pretty much.  They were throwaway comments from the talkingheads on the couch.  The different groups were asked about the next one of them to court, and the Nathan girlfriend comments were tossed in there with comments about Tori and Carlin and Nathan's comment about it being Lawson because he isn't expecting it or something.  Then they moved on.

[HarleyQuinn]

I thought it would be Michaella first. Oh well, Whitney seems to want a lot of kids. Hopefully she can handle them herself and not delegate future sister moms. 

[clueliss]

I knew it was going to be Whitney.  Not because of the way any of them looked in photos.  But because on her Instagram Whitney packed Bradley off the grandparents house 17 weeks ago (yes I went back to look).  I mentally started counting then regrading 'they're trying for a second kid.'

[bal maiden]

11 minutes ago, clueliss said:

I knew it was going to be Whitney.  Not because of the way any of them looked in photos.  But because on her Instagram Whitney packed Bradley off the grandparents house 17 weeks ago (yes I went back to look).  I mentally started counting then regrading 'they're trying for a second kid.'

I don't know whether to be impressed or creeped out by this! 

[clueliss]

I would be creeped out.  Because she more or less put it out there for those paying attention.  And really, who puts that stuff out there for general consumption?

[Pixiedust1960]

I'm guessing there will be more baby announcements in the next couple of episodes.  Erin and Chad may wait a bit. I'm sure Michael was trying from day one. 

[Screamapillar]

How long has Gil been on the IBLP Board? And Chad Paine's father? I can't recall and the information isn't on the IBLP site. Though they do have this gem in Gil's bio:

Quote

Not only does Gil bring to the Board a wealth of practical wisdom on marriage and training up sons and daughters, but he also has a marvelous testimony about combining prayer, initiative, diligence, creativity, and patience in providing for his family. This has included a large home, a tree-trimming business with special equipment, and family transportation—all without a steady income and no debt!

The "all without a steady income" sentence ending in an exclamation point is very amusing to me. Not having a steady income is exclamation point worthy?

[formergothardite]

I"m not sure how long they have been on it, but wasn't Chad's dad mentioned in the lawsuit because he did a check up on one of the women after they were abused?

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 minutes ago, Screamapillar said:

How long has Gil been on the IBLP Board? And Chad Paine's father? I can't recall and the information isn't on the IBLP site. Though they do have this gem in Gil's bio:

The "all without a steady income" sentence ending in an exclamation point is very amusing to me. Not having a steady income is exclamation point worthy?

THANK YOU!  I posted a rant on this somewhere ages ago...

Hey, Fundies...that's not a good thing!

Seriously it's like they live in bizzaro world - raising kids (much less several hundred of them) without steady income is a sure source of panic for most rational people...not a point of honor.