Jill, Derick and Israel- Lucky Number 13

[rainbowbubbles]

On 2/18/2016 at 6:56 PM, MatthewDuggar said:

I grew up in the upper midwest US and we often called them "skeeters" - First time I've heard "mozzies"!

My grandpa always called them " the bastard love children of the devil himself " As he had a farm along a river in northern Ontario I'd say he knew about those devil's 

[floridaotaku]

10 hours ago, gustava said:

When I flew to Botswana and my friend from the embassy met me, another embassy wife was meeting someone.  The embassy wife had her small son with her...and a paddle.  She showed us the paddle and let us know she used it.  It was unnerving.  I can well believe that fundies (and I think she was) do the same.

I can attest. My parents' tool of choice was a ping pong paddle.

You can bet I hid out as long as possible whenever I knew I'd done something wrong. 

[Ungodly Grandma]

22 minutes ago, rainbowbubbles said:

My grandpa always called them " the bastard love children of the devil himself " As he had a farm along a river in northern Ontario I'd say he knew about those devil's 

Your grandpa had a way with words!

I prefer his term to skeeter (American) or mozzie (Australian?)

Anyway,  back to the fundies!

12 hours ago, lascuba said:

I don't think blanket training per se is a big deal. If it weren't for the hitting of babies, I wouldn't be at all against the idea of training babies/toddlers to stay on a blanket for when a parent really can't have them crawling all over the place (it sounds like a fantastic convenience when you're at someones else's home, for example, and don't want them putting their hands on other people's stuff). So I do agree with @THERetroGamerNYthat there is a hyperfocus on blanket training specifically, when the real issue is that "spare the rod, spoil the child" is a philosophy that too many embrace. 

As a mother and grandmother, I can't imagine how you'd keep a baby stationary.It would be handy, but it goes against their nature. That's why we have play pens, gates, etc. To keep them safe. I just don't see where even hitting would do the trick, unless of course you trained them rigorously and relentlessly. No wonder Michelle had no time for actual home schooling, she was trying to train the devil out of infants.

[Four is Enough]

About Izzy's bruises: I have a relative who, from little up, has had a "black eye". She has what looks like a huge bruise under her left eye. In times of illness or fatigue, it is more prevalent. In times of health and happiness, it is more easily covered (almost) by makeup. She is in her late thirties and this mark has never left her. 

 

Perhaps that's what we're seeing on Izzy. It is always in the same place....Just My Conjecture.

[lascuba]

10 hours ago, nst said:

and that is Both Brilliant and happy because Jessa can't be controlled 

That's actually always made me sad because that  means that she got the shit beaten out of her even more than the rest of them. I'm glad that she survived it with her natural-born asshole-ness intact (if, unfortunately, misdirected), but damn, I can't imagine how hellish her childhood was.

About the blanket-training, I was talking in the hypothetical, since I've never actually seen it IRL (and I'm inclined to think that those babies/toddlers who stay on the blanket do so because that's just their personality, anyway). Yes, toddlers explore, but we still try to teach them what not to touch and such, no? Theoretically, the idea of a child staying on a blanket when you need it--not ALL THE TIME EVEN AT HOME--sounds pretty good to me, and if it could be done without abuse, why not? It sounds a bit ridiculous to me that ANY constraints on behavior at any time is considered inappropriate. Why is a kid staying within the boundaries of a blanket any worse than sticking him in a playpen?

[RoseWilder]

@HarryPotterFan: Candace put that on her blog a long time ago, during the time when she wasn't in the public eye very much. She stepped away from her career for about 10 years to be a stay-at-home-mom and during that period of time the press wasn't really paying any attention to her. When she stepped back into the spotlight again, she revamped her personal website and removed the book recommendations. I'm still kicking myself for not taking a screenshot back when the old website was still up. 

[nst]

40 minutes ago, lascuba said:

That's actually always made me sad because that  means that she got the shit beaten out of her even more than the rest of them. I'm glad that she survived it with her natural-born asshole-ness intact (if, unfortunately, misdirected), but damn, I can't imagine how hellish her childhood was.

About the blanket-training, I was talking in the hypothetical, since I've never actually seen it IRL (and I'm inclined to think that those babies/toddlers who stay on the blanket do so because that's just their personality, anyway). Yes, toddlers explore, but we still try to teach them what not to touch and such, no? Theoretically, the idea of a child staying on a blanket when you need it--not ALL THE TIME EVEN AT HOME--sounds pretty good to me, and if it could be done without abuse, why not? It sounds a bit ridiculous to me that ANY constraints on behavior at any time is considered inappropriate. Why is a kid staying within the boundaries of a blanket any worse than sticking him in a playpen?

now I don't know if the reason that Jessa is the way she is because she could tolerate the beatings more than anyone 

and if that is true - that is pure sickening.. 

my cousin was verbally and physically abused her entire childhood and she will be 50 soon - SHE still isn't over it - (she moved away from her parents, actually moved countries) so my point is - if Jessa was all those things - doesn't make sense to ME that she is still so enamored despite the money and lack of avenues to run to. Actually to a degree it does - but STILL sickens me 

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, lascuba said:

About the blanket-training, I was talking in the hypothetical, since I've never actually seen it IRL (and I'm inclined to think that those babies/toddlers who stay on the blanket do so because that's just their personality, anyway). Yes, toddlers explore, but we still try to teach them what not to touch and such, no? Theoretically, the idea of a child staying on a blanket when you need it--not ALL THE TIME EVEN AT HOME--sounds pretty good to me, and if it could be done without abuse, why not? It sounds a bit ridiculous to me that ANY constraints on behavior at any time is considered inappropriate. Why is a kid staying within the boundaries of a blanket any worse than sticking him in a playpen?

I hear what you are saying.  I think the problem for me is that infants don't have the cognitive ability to learn to stay on a blanket with or without the use abusive techniques.  They will, however, simply fail to act at all if the response from the environment is too harmful.  

I am struggling to try to figure out exactly how to say it, but here's a try.  For the first several months of life (really the first year to a large extent), babies don't really know what is going on at all.  That sounds harsh, but studies show that infants don't really even fully recognize the difference between their parents and other people.  They are at a stage where they are trying to learn about the world and to develop cognitive pathways etc.  They do this by using whatever motor and sensory skills they have developed at that time.  

By around 9 months, most kids will be able to consistently recognize their parents.  By about 12 months, most kids achieve what is called object permanence - in other words if you show them a toy or person and then hide it under a blanket they finally seem aware that the object still exists.  They will pick up the blanket to look for the object.  Before they reach that cognitive milestone, they literally seem unaware that objects still exist when they can't see them.  A few months later, they start to understand that objects are used for specific purposes and they will start playing with toys like they understand what they are doing to some extent.  So, basically, they are achieving a bunch of smaller milestones that get them ready to fully understand cause and effect relationships, etc.

From what I understand, the suggestion is that people start blanket training their kids at about 7 to 9 months (I hope that is correct).  This flies in the face of everything we know about cognitive development.  Children who don't understand cause and effect are not going to put the pieces together and realize they are supposed to be staying on the blanket.  Further, the primary means of learning and further development is by acting on natural curiosity to learn and explore through trying things out.  When a kid is first learning to crawl (typically around 9 months although this obviously varies across children), they don't really understand cause and effect much at all.  If you stick them on a blanket and try to use any method of getting them to stay there, the cause-effect relationship isn't going to click in their brains.  They literally can't understand that you want them to stay on the blanket.

Basically, this is what people are saying when they are saying they don't even get how hitting a kid would even work to keep them on a blanket.  This is also why kids under a certain age can't be trusted next to an outlet while holding a fork even if they have shocked the crap out of themselves several times before.  I can't even imagine the process involved when these mothers who trust in people like the Pearls grab a piece of plumbing line and try to "train" that infant to stay on that blanket...

Sorry - that is long and likely doesn't make a ton of sense.  As someone was saying earlier, most normally developing kids won't really understand what "no" means and be able to process it in a way that results in their stopping the unwanted behavior until about 12 to 18 months.  Honestly, it is quite upsetting for me to even try to talk about this as I know that these infants don't have a damn clue what is going on if a person starts trying to blanket train them at 7 months of age.

[RoseWilder]

@OnceUponATime : I'm having trouble with the quote feature so I can't seem to quote the part of your post where you're talking about Lori Anderson's claim that you have to spank kids to save their life. When Lori gave the example of a kid running into the street I was just shaking my head. What is wrong with these people. I watch my almost-2-year-old niece while her parents are at work, and I've been working lately on teaching her to stay away from the street when we're outside playing (we're also working on parking lot safety for when we're in public) and I have never once had to hit her to accomplish this. There's a certain line in the driveway (and a spot in the yard) that she's not allowed to go past. And we've been practicing it. When she gets near that line, I put my hand up in the air like it's a stop sign and I say, "Stop. No kids past that line" She's now getting to the point where she's starting to do it on her own. Yesterday she got near the line and she put her little hand up in the air and said,"Stop. No kids line." And then when she does it I tell her she did a good job. She always gets a smile on her face when I tell her she did a good job with something. 

[DuggarWatch]

7 hours ago, HarryPotterFan said:

I didn't know Candace Cameron Bure recommended the Pearls. That makes me sick. How the fuck does she still have a career after admitting that? She's a much bigger public figure than the Duggars. She said they're incredible. Ugh. And gets to be on the "family friendly" Full House reboot. Know what isn't family friendly? Child abuse.

From her blog (post now removed):

"Do you have any parenting tips?
Who doesn't? We all learn things along the way, that we end up sharing with people whether they like it or not. There are 3 books I consult along with long conversations with my sister-in-law, mom and few good friends. The books that guideline raising our children are the Bible, Shepherding a Child's Heart by Tedd Tripp and To Train Up a Child by Michael & Debi Pearl. My parenting tip of the day is ... consistency; it's key.(May 2004)" 

http://web.archive.org/web/20040616170029/http://www.candacecameronbure.net/askcandace.php

[nst]

19 minutes ago, DuggarWatch said:

From her blog (post now removed):

"Do you have any parenting tips?
Who doesn't? We all learn things along the way, that we end up sharing with people whether they like it or not. There are 3 books I consult along with long conversations with my sister-in-law, mom and few good friends. The books that guideline raising our children are the Bible, Shepherding a Child's Heart by Tedd Tripp and To Train Up a Child by Michael & Debi Pearl. My parenting tip of the day is ... consistency; it's key.(May 2004)" 

http://web.archive.org/web/20040616170029/http://www.candacecameronbure.net/askcandace.php

doesn't surprise me at all - she is Kirk Cameron's sister 

doesn't surprise me at all  

ok it just sickens me 

but it explains a lot about her personality 

[lascuba]

Thank you for the explanation, @Whoosh.

[RoseWilder]

I think other people's observations that Fundies beat their kids because they're trying to train them to have no independent thought is a great one. But I also think they do it because they have so many kids that are so close in age. Getting children to behave without hitting them requires a lot of time spent teaching them how to behave. Sometimes you have to work on teaching a particular aspect of good behavior for weeks/months before they start to master it. If you have a three-year-old, a two-year-old, a one-year-old and a newborn there wouldn't be a lot of time, energy, or patience left for that. 

Also, there wouldn't be a lot of time/energy/patience left to deal with the underlying reasons for misbehavior. I used to work as a nanny, and I never thought it was enough to just discipline and then leave it at that. I think the underlying reasons for misbehavior have to be addressed in order for a child to grow up to be a person who can regulate their own behavior. Kids misbehave for a lot of reasons (they're sick, they missed a nap, they're trying to get attention and I addressed those reasons too), but I think one of the big reasons they misbehaved was that they had feelings they didn't know how to deal with (they're angry/sad/frustrated and they don't know how to handle those feelings or express them in a healthy way) - and I figured if I just send them to time out or take away a toy and just leave it at that then at the end of the punishment they still have anger/frustrations/sadness and they still don't know how to handle those feelings in a healthy way, so we haven't accomplished anything other than to teach them to behave out of a fear of punishment. So if a kid got angry at his sister and hit her, he still got in trouble for it (the punishment varied based on what they did) but then afterwards we always talked about what happened. I never wanted them to think they were in trouble for being angry, so I always explained to them, "You're not in trouble because you got angry. It's okay to be angry. Everyone gets angry. But it's not okay to hit someone because you're angry." And then we would talk about the reasons why hitting someone isn't an acceptable way to express anger. Then we would talk about better options for handling their anger the next time. I would greatly simplify this process with really young kids and then go more in-depth with it when dealing with an older child.

I saw some really good results when taking that approach, but the thing about it was there's no way I would have had the time or energy or patience to do that if there was a baby born every year. Of course, it's irrelevant anyway because Fundies want children who are obedient robots and teaching a child to handle their own feelings might lead to them having independent thoughts and feelings and you can't have that when raising your child in a cult. But the logitics of having that many kids that close in age would make it impossible to do even if they wanted to.

[Hera]

1 hour ago, lascuba said:

That's actually always made me sad because that  means that she got the shit beaten out of her even more than the rest of them. I'm glad that she survived it with her natural-born asshole-ness intact (if, unfortunately, misdirected), but damn, I can't imagine how hellish her childhood was.

<snip>

You know, I know she's got her fire and anger directed at all the wrong places, but I really can't express how glad I am to see at least 1 of the 3 Duggar "kids" we know as adults show some life and determination, as opposed to being seemingly overwhelmed and lost like Jill or a passive-aggressive asshole like Josh who is too chickenshit to change his life, but too weak not to ruin his wife's.  Gives me hope for some of the others because it shows that even the Duggars couldn't break all of their kids' spirits.  Hopefully as she matures, Jessa will take her anger and drive and focus it less on hating others and more on getting out from under JB's control. 

And, maybe the kids won't all be totally messed up. I mean, they're all fucked due to their lack of anything approaching an education, which ties them financially to JB, and most of them will be yolked to  a spouse and multiple kids by the time they're 25, but more of them than I initially thought may have figured out how to work the system as best they can. I figure JD knew better than to get married and get stuck.  Jana's got more freedom now than she would with a husband and her own pack of kids. Maybe there's a reason most of the other older kids have tried courting. After a certain point, they're probably living as close to independently as they ever have. Perhaps they learned a thing or two from watching their siblings.  Sure getting married gets you out if the TTH, but it doesn't get you away from your parents and it also gets you saddled with a never-ending stream of babies of your own and no option to get out.  

[quiverofdoubt]

1 hour ago, Whoosh said:

I hear what you are saying.  I think the problem for me is that infants don't have the cognitive ability to learn to stay on a blanket with or without the use abusive techniques.  They will, however, simply fail to act at all if the response from the environment is too harmful.  

I am struggling to try to figure out exactly how to say it, but here's a try.  For the first several months of life (really the first year to a large extent), babies don't really know what is going on at all.  That sounds harsh, but studies show that infants don't really even fully recognize the difference between their parents and other people.  They are at a stage where they are trying to learn about the world and to develop cognitive pathways etc.  They do this by using whatever motor and sensory skills they have developed at that time.  

By around 9 months, most kids will be able to consistently recognize their parents.  By about 12 months, most kids achieve what is called object permanence - in other words if you show them a toy or person and then hide it under a blanket they finally seem aware that the object still exists.  They will pick up the blanket to look for the object.  Before they reach that cognitive milestone, they literally seem unaware that objects still exist when they can't see them.  A few months later, they start to understand that objects are used for specific purposes and they will start playing with toys like they understand what they are doing to some extent.  So, basically, they are achieving a bunch of smaller milestones that get them ready to fully understand cause and effect relationships, etc.

From what I understand, the suggestion is that people start blanket training their kids at about 7 to 9 months (I hope that is correct).  This flies in the face of everything we know about cognitive development.  Children who don't understand cause and effect are not going to put the pieces together and realize they are supposed to be staying on the blanket.  Further, the primary means of learning and further development is by acting on natural curiosity to learn and explore through trying things out.  When a kid is first learning to crawl (typically around 9 months although this obviously varies across children), they don't really understand cause and effect much at all.  If you stick them on a blanket and try to use any method of getting them to stay there, the cause-effect relationship isn't going to click in their brains.  They literally can't understand that you want them to stay on the blanket.

Basically, this is what people are saying when they are saying they don't even get how hitting a kid would even work to keep them on a blanket.  This is also why kids under a certain age can't be trusted next to an outlet while holding a fork even if they have shocked the crap out of themselves several times before.  I can't even imagine the process involved when these mothers who trust in people like the Pearls grab a piece of plumbing line and try to "train" that infant to stay on that blanket...

Sorry - that is long and likely doesn't make a ton of sense.  As someone was saying earlier, most normally developing kids won't really understand what "no" means and be able to process it in a way that results in their stopping the unwanted behavior until about 12 to 18 months.  Honestly, it is quite upsetting for me to even try to talk about this as I know that these infants don't have a damn clue what is going on if a person starts trying to blanket train them at 7 months of age.

Thank you for this! this is basically what i was trying to say, but more explicative and elaborate. @lascuba it's not about never having expectations, or just allowing kids to do whatever whenever. It's about developmentally appropriate expectations. Babies are not adults in small bodies: as whoosh described babies brains are very very different and only partially formed.  Your brain doesn't ever really stop changing, but full development is said to happen between 21 and 24.  Tends to be closer to 24 for me, which kind of explains a lot, no?  To expect a baby to do something they are literally incapable of is just not appropriate and can cause long term damage. It goes against their very nature.  Might as well teach them to drive a car or do algebra- they will learn about the same amount.  

 

11 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

I think other people's observations that Fundies beat their kids because they're trying to train them to have no independent thought is a great one. But I also think they do it because they have so many kids that are so close in age. Getting children to behave without hitting them requires a lot of time spent teaching them how to behave. Sometimes you have to work on teaching a particular aspect of good behavior for weeks/months before they start to master it. If you have a three-year-old, a two-year-old, a one-year-old and a newborn there wouldn't be a lot of time, energy, or patience left for that. 

Also, there wouldn't be a lot of time/energy/patience left to deal with the underlying reasons for misbehavior. I used to work as a nanny, and I never thought it was enough to just discipline and then leave it at that. I think the underlying reasons for misbehavior have to be addressed in order for a child to grow up to be a person who can regulate their own behavior. Kids misbehave for a lot of reasons (they're sick, they missed a nap, they're trying to get attention and I addressed those reasons too), but I think one of the big reasons they misbehaved was that they had feelings they didn't know how to deal with (they're angry/sad/frustrated and they don't know how to handle those feelings or express them in a healthy way) - and I figured if I just send them to time out or take away a toy and just leave it at that then at the end of the punishment they still have anger/frustrations/sadness and they still don't know how to handle those feelings in a healthy way, so we haven't accomplished anything other than to teach them to behave out of a fear of punishment. So if a kid got angry at his sister and hit her, he still got in trouble for it (the punishment varied based on what they did) but then afterwards we always talked about what happened what happened. I never wanted them to think they were in trouble for being angry, so I always explained to them, "You're not in trouble because you got angry. It's okay to be angry. Everyone gets angry. But it's not okay to hit someone because you're angry." And then we would talk about the reasons why hitting someone isn't an acceptable way to express anger. Then we would talk about better options for handling their anger the next time. I would greatly simplify this process with really young kids and then go more in-depth with it when dealing with an older child.

I saw some really good results when taking that approach, but the thing about it was there's no way I would have had the time or energy or patience to do that if there was a baby born every year. Of course, it's irrelevant anyway because Fundies want children who are obedient robots and teaching a child to handle their own feelings might lead to them having independent thoughts and feelings and you can't have that when raising your child in a cult. But the logitics of having that many kids that close in age would make it impossible to do even if they wanted to.

This.  A parent who is overwhelmed, emotionally and physically exhausted and has no time for self care cannot supply the emotional needs of their child. Children act out because of unmet needs, and those needs can't be met if the mother's needs are so woefully ignored.  My fundie lite friend had 5 pregnancies (4) babies in 5  years. She is in ultimate survival mode. No emotional energy left to even care what her kids emotional needs are, nevertheless meet them.  It's probably partially why she resorts to drastic measures to get "good" behavior from them.  Having children is the most emotionally wrenching thing on the planet. It's a roller coaster of craziness.  It brings up all the past abuse and crap you ever went through, and pushes every button you have. Buttons you didn't know existed.  Having so many babies back to back to back leaves you a physical, emotional, hormonal sleepless wreck.  Just surviving the day to day tasks of wiping butts, feeding mouths, doing dishes, laundry and more laundry, mess after mess- that's enough to drive anyone to emotional shut down.  It can be 1000% times worse if you have ppd and prayer is your only allowed treatment.

[quiverofdoubt]

7 minutes ago, Hera said:

You know, I know she's got her fire and anger directed at all the wrong places, but I really can't express how glad I am to see at least 1 of the 3 Duggar "kids" we know as adults show some life and determination, as opposed to being seemingly overwhelmed and lost like Jill or a passive-aggressive asshole like Josh who is too chickenshit to change his life, but too weak not to ruin his wife's.  Gives me hope for some of the others because it shows that even the Duggars couldn't break all of their kids' spirits.  Hopefully as she matures, Jessa will take her anger and drive and focus it less on hating others and more on getting out from under JB's control. 

And, maybe the kids won't all be totally messed up. I mean, they're all fucked due to their lack of anything approaching an education, which ties them financially to JB, and most of them will be yolked to  a spouse and multiple kids by the time they're 25, but more of them than I initially thought may have figured out how to work the system as best they can. I figure JD knew better than to get married and get stuck.  Jana's got more freedom now than she would with a husband and her own pack of kids. Maybe there's a reason most of the other older kids have tried courting. After a certain point, they're probably living as close to independently as they ever have. Perhaps they learned a thing or two from watching their siblings.  Sure getting married gets you out if the TTH, but it doesn't get you away from your parents and it also gets you saddled with a never-ending stream of babies of your own and no option to get out.  

If jessa ever gets enough kool aide out of her system to see the damage her parents did I imagine her anger will be turned towards them. When she has to start processing her childhood and the damage done I think the anger towards her parents will be immense.  If she starts socializing with people outside of the cult and realizes her childhood wasn't only abnormal but unhealthy and painful? and that most kids don't have to go through that? A lot of rage will surface.  Whether or not that becomes potent, or she keeps it to herself, is hard to say.

[QuiverDance]

I think it is really, really dangerous to make assumptions about corporal punishment or neglect based simply on childhood bruises.  It's not rational or fair in any way, not matter who these people are.  Kids play hard.  They fall down.  Children who have never had any boo boos are children who are too sheltered.  Period.  And since part of what we say here is that these children are indeed too sheltered... Well, it's just kind of cutting your dress to fit the cloth, which is not fair.  In Michelle's case, we know she uses or did use blanket training, and we know what blanket training IS, so it's easy to make assumptions, but it is SO UNCOOL to apply that reasoning to encompass the practices of other families who have not said they use those methods.

19 minutes ago, quiverofdoubt said:

If jessa ever gets enough kool aide out of her system to see the damage her parents did I imagine her anger will be turned towards them. When she has to start processing her childhood and the damage done I think the anger towards her parents will be immense.  If she starts socializing with people outside of the cult and realizes her childhood wasn't only abnormal but unhealthy and painful? and that most kids don't have to go through that? A lot of rage will surface.  Whether or not that becomes potent, or she keeps it to herself, is hard to say.

In order to do this, that girl would have to admit she is damaged, and since she is a class A narcissist, she will NEVER admit that she is damaged.

[SassyPants]

3 hours ago, lascuba said:

That's actually always made me sad because that  means that she got the shit beaten out of her even more than the rest of them. I'm glad that she survived it with her natural-born asshole-ness intact (if, unfortunately, misdirected), but damn, I can't imagine how hellish her childhood was.

About the blanket-training, I was talking in the hypothetical, since I've never actually seen it IRL (and I'm inclined to think that those babies/toddlers who stay on the blanket do so because that's just their personality, anyway). Yes, toddlers explore, but we still try to teach them what not to touch and such, no? Theoretically, the idea of a child staying on a blanket when you need it--not ALL THE TIME EVEN AT HOME--sounds pretty good to me, and if it could be done without abuse, why not? It sounds a bit ridiculous to me that ANY constraints on behavior at any time is considered inappropriate. Why is a kid staying within the boundaries of a blanket any worse than sticking him in a playpen?

And what's particularly nice about this likely scenario and Jessa, in that she appears to really enjoy her own baby. So maybe she is just edgy enough to break the disengaged parental behaviors with her own children...maybe even enough to realize that NO 2 people can lovingly and effectively raise 19 children to a healthy outcome for all.

I certainly hope so.

[QuiverDance]

My question, is WTF can't they just use a playpen????

[DuggarWatch]

5 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

And what's particularly nice about this likely scenario and Jessa, in that she appears to really enjoy her own baby. So maybe she is just edgy enough to break the disengaged parental behaviors with her own children...maybe even enough to realize that NO 2 people can lovingly and effectively raise 19 children to a healthy outcome for all.

I certainly hope so.

When Jessa was speaking at the Southern Women Show, she spoke of her desire to raise more than 19 children.  If she 'learned' anything from Jim Bob and Michelle it was that a multitude of children is the ticket to fame and fortune.  My guess is that she will turn into another Octomom.

[ksgranola1]

Quote

 

I don't think that kind of awareness will surface in any of these kids till maybe after Joyanna, when the younger ones might begin to notice that their older siblings use a different approach to discipline.

 

2 minutes ago, QuiverDance said:

My question, is WTF can't they just use a playpen????

LOL! That was my thought exactly. I know Jill has one in CA; I saw it in a corner when they first got there.

[RoseWilder]

6 minutes ago, QuiverDance said:

My question, is WTF can't they just use a playpen????

Great question. I know some people are opposed to playpens, and I'm not a fan of putting a child in one and leaving them there for long periods of time. But it's so nice to be able to put them in there while I'm making breakfast and know that I don't have to worry about crawling/toddling around near the stove. 

The extra bonus for me was that my niece loved to pass things through the bars of the playpen. She thought it was hilarious. So whenever I would get really tired from running around after her, I would get a bunch of small toys and put her in there and we would sit and pass things back and forth through the bars. She thought it was so fun that she would be laughing the whole time and I got to sit down and rest for 15 minutes!

[quiverofdoubt]

9 minutes ago, QuiverDance said:

My question, is WTF can't they just use a playpen????

I've seen playpens in the tth before. Usually tucked away. so i'm pretty sure they do use them. Like i've said before, the point isn't to safely contain them (though that's the reason they give) but instead to break their little spirits and instill obedience.

and to the person who put up the pearl quote about "obedience the first time asked" i KNOW i've heard michelle tell her little girls "you need to obey mommy the first time" a line STRAIGHT out of pearl. 

2 minutes ago, ksgranola1 said:

I don't think that kind of awareness will surface in any of these kids till maybe after Joyanna, when the younger ones might begin to notice that their older siblings use a different approach to discipline.

 

LOL! That was my thought exactly. I know Jill has one in CA; I saw it in a corner when they first got there.

That's probably true.  but a girl can hope and dream right?

the younger kids seem to get much less parenting, of the pearl variety and otherwise. they may end up with a very different take on their parents then the older kids. as well as outcomes and chosen lifestyles.  MAY.  we can hope they break away, right?

[nst]

2 minutes ago, quiverofdoubt said:

I've seen playpens in the tth before. Usually tucked away. so i'm pretty sure they do use them. Like i've said before, the point isn't to safely contain them (though that's the reason they give) but instead to break their little spirits and instill obedience.

and to the person who put up the pearl quote about "obedience the first time asked" i KNOW i've heard michelle tell her little girls "you need to obey mommy the first time" a line STRAIGHT out of pearl. 

is it Gothard who demands that you break the spirit of a child - people who follow him must be pretty demented and yes I mean Ma and Pa Duggar to have the need to break the spirit of a baby all for the sake that the baby must be perfect. 

these people take the bible too seriously 

[silverspoons]

10 minutes ago, QuiverDance said:

My question, is WTF can't they just use a playpen????

Or what about those play yards that you can make as big or small as you like? I had major surgery when my very active and chubby 9 month old become mobile. That play yard was the best $100 I ever spent. I actually had 2 so I could make it as big as 12x12. 12x12 was like a playroom for my son and he didn't even notice the "wall" around him and was busy playing. I took it with me in the smaller pieces when I visited people's houses and even took it outside and as my child grew I used it to around our Christmas tree.