Joy & Austin 15: Standing for the Fetus

[Analytica49]

On 10/5/2017 at 2:05 PM, freshlemonade said:

What kind of relationship do you think Jill will have with Joy's baby?  Will she be a spoily, grandmotherly-type?  Weird because they will have kids the same age.  Or do you think she'll try to tell Joy what to do a lot?  Or will she be competitive?  With so many grandchildren of similar ages, I often wonder what the dynamic is like.  Are the girls and Anna secretly comparing each other's kids/parenting styles/etc. (and even Michelle and Anna a few years ago)  I think you just naturally would to some degree.  Does everyone roll their eyes behind Jill's back about her parenting?  It will be telling to see who Joy goes to for advice.

@freshlemonade, these are good questions! I will just mention that my own children are now parents, and one thing has really surprised me, as the grandmother of four grandchildren: Each of my two children parents their children very differently from the other. That is, although my kids were always very close growing up, they've turned into very different parents from each other, in regard to characteristics like how much they protect their children, how much they expose their children to media, how much they emphasize politeness, and how much they expose their children to a variety of experiences.

For some reason I was quite surprised by this--I guess I implicitly assumed they would raise their children very similarly. So it leads me to wonder: Are there, or will there be, substantial differences in how the Duggar offspring raise their kids? I guess we are already seeing some differences. This also surprises me, I suppose because I assumed all the Duggar offspring were equally and completely lobotomized by growing up with J-Boob and MEE-chelle as their parents.

[FeministFunPolice]

13 hours ago, front hugs > duggs said:

To all the royal enthusiasts here: 

Why are royals connected to certain cities/counties/regions? Is each city/county/region in England, Scotland, and Wales represented by a royal? Is Northern Ireland represented by the royal family? TIA!

I think it's to create a connection between an area and the royal family, for example Princess Beatrice has done more public events in York because her father is the Duke of York. 

Before the aristocracy started dying out the ducal family for each area acted as like a mini royal family for that area. Now that there are less ducal families the Royals are free to adopt a wider range of regions. 

There is also a special connection between the Prince of Wales and the duchy of Cornwall, he receives income from lands he owns in the region which are inherited. 

Disclaimer! This is just my speculation I'm not 100% certain. 

 

[IamNIKE]

I'm not surprised that the J kids are having such a variation in their own styles/convictions/morals/values/beliefs/lifestyle/parenting/etc. I think that Anna will always be the closest to JB & M in terms of all that and you'll be able to knock me over with a feather if that ever changes but as far as the other kids go, I'm sure there will be even more changes as time goes on. Maybe I'm just biased because of the Jinger pants thing and the Spurgeon "jumping for joy" thing in addition to personal experience with fundie familes, specifically the "second generation." I'm waiting for the day when someone breaks out and will be first in line to get that book. 

 

But all this does bring me to another question I've had for quite some time (so my above answer is subject to change) but....financially speaking, how likely is a breakout? From what I've seen, no one really works. You might have a car lot here or dirt work there but those businesses along with other money (and from what I'm guessing, homes) all come with strings attached, no? Grandma Duggar owns Josh & Anna's old house which now houses Ben and Jessa, Jill and Lloyd Christmas were living in a home provided by JB, etc. I've been out of the loop for a bit and am just now trying to get back in so those are just a few examples. I think it's a safe assumption that if you don't follow what momma and daddy want, you're probably getting all of those "benefits" yanked. 

[SapphireSlytherin]

10 hours ago, IamNIKE said:

Grandma Duggar owns Josh & Anna's old house which now houses Ben and Jessa

Jessa and Ben are listed as the owners of this property - as of May or June (I believe).

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

12 hours ago, Analytica49 said:

@freshlemonade, these are good questions! I will just mention that my own children are now parents, and one thing has really surprised me, as the grandmother of four grandchildren: Each of my two children parents their children very differently from the other. That is, although my kids were always very close growing up, they've turned into very different parents from each other, in regard to characteristics like how much they protect their children, how much they expose their children to media, how much they emphasize politeness, and how much they expose their children to a variety of experiences.

For some reason I was quite surprised by this--I guess I implicitly assumed they would raise their children very similarly. So it leads me to wonder: Are there, or will there be, substantial differences in how the Duggar offspring raise their kids? I guess we are already seeing some differences. This also surprises me, I suppose because I assumed all the Duggar offspring were equally and completely lobotomized by growing up with J-Boob and MEE-chelle as their parents.

My siblings and I are all vastly different in how we raise our kids.  I was/am a very hands on mom.  I'm the out spoken feminist who taught her kids EVERYTHING about sex starting in 5th grade, it got progressively more detailed as they got older. I was also the SAHM who taught Sunday School and help organize summer VBS in our church.  I'm the head chef and child care provider. We believe in discipline and freedom to make your own mistakes. 

My sister is much less hands on she works full time and enjoys her children being gone most of the day, though she loves the few hours a night with her kids and her weekends. She's much less hands on and her kids are pretty much allowed to do what ever with little disciplinary follow through.

My brother and his wife are totally hands off almost to the point of neglect. They have 1 child and to spite each other they ignore their daughter because the OTHER parent should do this because she's a she or he can do it to, so neither of them do it and their 5 year old suffers.  My sister was most upset about having to leave her behind (they moved 12 hours away this summer) because they lived 5 minutes away from them and Niece #1 spent a lot of time with her as they also have a daughter the same age (Niece #2). I live 45 minutes away from them or I would spend more time with her but with my kids at 19 and 17 it isn't always easy to find time for a 5 year old in our current lifestyle, but we are going to have to start finding more time, she needs someone to pay attention to her our parents are too old and her parents live 14 hours away. 

[SapphireSlytherin]

18 minutes ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

My brother and his wife are totally hands off almost to the point of neglect. They have 1 child and to spite each other they ignore their daughter because the OTHER parent should do this because she's a she or he can do it to, so neither of them do it and their 5 year old suffers. 

I'd report them to DFS/CPS.

[SapphireSlytherin]

Downvotes? For saying I'd report child neglect/abuse? Ooookay.

[JDuggs]

11 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

Downvotes? For saying I'd report child neglect/abuse? Ooookay.

Well the original poster said almost to the point of neglect, not neglect/abuse.  I think the neglect could possibly mean letting the child watch hours of TV rather than bringing her to the park, reading, setting up play dates, etc. Maybe not enough cause to bring in CPS.

[nastyhobbitses]

5 minutes ago, JDuggs said:

Well the original poster said almost to the point of neglect, not neglect/abuse.  I think the neglect could possibly mean letting the child watch hours of TV rather than bringing her to the park, reading, setting up play dates, etc. Maybe not enough cause to bring in CPS.

And it's horrible, but CPS is overstretched as it is. They're not going in guns a-blazing for a kid who's clean, fed, educated, and in a livable house/apartment. They can barely intervene with kids like Hana Williams, or even the Duggar kids after the molestation was reported (and then they had the bright idea to give JB and M custody of Tyler, though to their dubious credit they seem to be keeping him away from the cameras and he seems like he's decently well cared for, which is admittedly a low bar).

[SapphireSlytherin]

OP also said the child SUFFERS. That is a horrible thing.

[JDuggs]

9 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

OP also said the child SUFFERS. That is a horrible thing.

Yeah, unfortunately, many children live in unhappy homes. The original poster said she needs to spend more time with her niece, not take her away from an abusive situation. Without more specifics, it didn't seem to warrant CPS involvement to me.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

15 hours ago, Analytica49 said:

For some reason I was quite surprised by this--I guess I implicitly assumed they would raise their children very similarly. So it leads me to wonder: Are there, or will there be, substantial differences in how the Duggar offspring raise their kids? I guess we are already seeing some differences. This also surprises me, I suppose because I assumed all the Duggar offspring were equally and completely lobotomized by growing up with J-Boob and MEE-chelle as their parents.

Even if they all turned out the same (and they didn’t), they all married different people. Plus they have that “headship” concept, so in theory the daughters’ children are being raised according to their husbands’ wishes.  That’s going to bring in a lot of differences.

[JDuggs]

22 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Even if they all turned out the same (and they didn’t), they all married different people. Plus they have that “headship” concept, so in theory the daughters’ children are being raised according to their husbands’ wishes.  That’s going to bring in a lot of differences.

Of the husbands so far, I think that Ben, Jeremy and Derick are going to want to raise their kids more in the real world. Ben and Jeremy will both for sure want their boys to play youth sports even with heathens. Austin was raised more like the Duggars so he might be fine with life being all about family. I envision the Duggar daughters and Duggar wives all homeschooling their kids together if they're living close enough so I think there will be many educational similarities.

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

2 hours ago, JDuggs said:

Well the original poster said almost to the point of neglect, not neglect/abuse.  I think the neglect could possibly mean letting the child watch hours of TV rather than bringing her to the park, reading, setting up play dates, etc. Maybe not enough cause to bring in CPS.

Exactly, She's clean, she has her own room a nice bed, toys, clothes, access to food, they, and they do do stuff with her, just not as much as they should IMO, and yell at her for stupid things while letting more serious issues slide. They are lazy and inconsistent for sure, and I would be upset if MY kids were treated like she is, but there is nothing remotely criminal about how she is raised.  For reference, have you seen a show called the Goldberg's? Yeah, my husband says I'm the mom.  He's a butthead.

[MoonFace]

On 10/11/2017 at 6:15 PM, SapphireSlytherin said:

Snip

So. who knows? I'd say maternal diet does figure into baby weight, though.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/17/birth-weight-mother-diet-child-pregnant

I would say that part of the weight issue for Duggar offspring would be that they appear to eat a diet high in sugars and carbohydrates (which converts to sugars) and that adds to the baby's weight. 

[CharlieInCharge]

I feel CPS is for serious neglect and abuse. I also think it has turned into a tool of harassment in a few cases. Regardless, the damage that can be done by needlessly instigating an investigation into a family is severe. Even if there isn't an extremely traumatic separation there can still be a lot of confusion from the questions that come up. I had an experience with this in my youth and frankly it gave me a deep suspicion of CPS in general. I'm sure there are a lot of amazing people doing great work, but my personal interactions were invasive and deeply damaging to me. I still believe there are times CPS is the best option, but I don't think they should be the first response to crappy parenting. 

@SapphireSlytherin I tend to agree with you a lot of the time, but I vehemently disagreed with this one. I upvoted you about two minutes later on another comment, if that helps  

[IamNIKE]

8 hours ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

Jessa and Ben are listed as the owners of this property - as of May or June (I believe).

Ah, I didn't know that. I still have concerns though, like on paper circumstances could possibly be a lot different than the reality lived. Possibly through religious abuse, emotional manipulation, etc. I just feel like there are a lot of other ways for Boob to exert control.

[WhyNotJulie]

I just watched Joy's Obituary episode and they played that clip from a few years back where Joy tells Jenni that she's "going to have to take her to Jana if she doesn't obey". Shivers. The word "obey" just has such heavy connotations.

[Incognito22]

I remember the first time I heard Anna tell one of her kids, "instantly obey".  Yes, kids should generally listen to their parents but to teach them to do everything an adult says without any thought is quite dangerous.  Especially in that household!

[llg1234]

http://people.com/tv/joy-anna-duggar-austin-forsyth-first-look-wedding-day/

Joy and Austin's first look. The flower idea was kinda cool, but does this episode really need to be 2 hours long??? We've already seen most of the wedding.

[samurai_sarah]

On 12/10/2017 at 3:05 PM, front hugs > duggs said:

To all the royal enthusiasts here: 

Why are royals connected to certain cities/counties/regions? Is each city/county/region in England, Scotland, and Wales represented by a royal? Is Northern Ireland represented by the royal family? TIA!

The crowns of England, Scotland and Ireland are technically different crowns, in union. The habitual title for the heir of the English crown is "Prince/ess of Wales". The habitual title for the heir of the Scottish crown is "Duke/Duchess of Rothesay", and for Ireland it's "Carrickfergus". Hence, when the current queen is in Scotland, her main title is the queen of Scots, and her heir is the Duke of Rothesay.

If she rocked up in Scotland, using her title as the queen of England, it would qualify as a visit from a foreign monarch. Not to mention that some of her Scottish subjects would be deeply offended by such an act!

Having said that, a title connected to a certain locality can benefit said locality. The Duke of Edinburgh (aka Prince Phillip) served as chancellor for the University of Edinburgh for many, many years. The uni benefited from royal patronage. Since he's retired from that post, Princess Anne has taken over, keeping things going. It helps the uni via affiliation, which benefits local businesses and so on. Of course, a royal taking a particular interest in "their place-name" also fosters a bond between "the common people", and the monarchy.

[front hugs > duggs]

Thanks for answering @samurai_sarah! Is there a royal for every locality ? Do some areas get at all disadvantaged by not having somebody "looking out" for them?

[samurai_sarah]

44 minutes ago, front hugs > duggs said:

Thanks for answering @samurai_sarah! Is there a royal for every locality ? Do some areas get at all disadvantaged by not having somebody "looking out" for them?

The short answer is "no". The long answer is that it's complicated. For example, the current Earl of Wessex (Prince Edward, son of the Queen) is, well...the county of Wessex stopped existing in medieval times. It's a historical region, rather than an existing one. There's no administrative region, no precise place etc associated with it. These days, it's a more or less ceremonial title that makes noble hierarchy clear.

The thing is that we don't live in feudal times any longer. A title doesn't mean you actually own anything. The Queen of England, technically owns England, but even according to English law that would be very hard to prove in an individual  property dispute. The crown owns the land as such, but that doesn't mean they can take it away. Clear as muck, right?

I suppose that there is a disadvantage to not having some royal watching out for you, but then the UK is a democracy. From my limited experience, I would say that having a royal fighting your cause is a benefit, but just that.

Also, please note that I am not British. I've just lived in the UK for longer than I care to admit. So, please, please, British FJers, correct me!

[Bad Wolf]

4 hours ago, Incognito22 said:

I remember the first time I heard Anna tell one of her kids, "instantly obey".  Yes, kids should generally listen to their parents but to teach them to do everything an adult says without any thought is quite dangerous.  Especially in that household!

I think the daleks have said, "instantly obey". Not that any Duggar would recognize Dr. Who.

[mulberry]

On 10/7/2017 at 8:34 AM, sta_sha said:

My maternal grandmother was one of fourteen and had brothers named Harry and Harold. 

Maybe Harry's legal name was Henry?