Erin and Chad 4: Hoping She Loses the Polka Dot Cape

[miss_batson]

1 hour ago, LillyP said:

When I saw those photos the first thing I thought was "gosh I wonder if those are jeans". It's not just the double button, which I don't think I've ever seen on a jean skirt, but also the look of the fit around her waist/hip area. 

My thoughts excatly. I think she wears jeans.

[Naughty&nice]

On 10/13/2018 at 2:02 PM, Hisey said:

I'm starting to think that maybe, in their culture, they don't spend a lot of time with their kids. They leave them to play alone a lot. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but it is different from what I did when my kids were little

I wonder if these activities seem old and boring to Erin, who has 16 (?) younger siblings. Maybe watching a one-year old splash in a puddle is old news to her. Because Chad seems like a great hubby, the kids are gorgeous and sweet, the cottage is beyond adorable. . . but she still seems really bored. 

Your line of thinking is very confusing to me.  You say Erin is bored & obviously doesnt like to play with her kids, but you just said she must have done all that chalk painting with them, cause there is no way they did it all by themselves (which is what led you to the conclusion that she was bored)

 

On 10/13/2018 at 11:23 PM, Hisey said:

I don't mean to be rude either, but I think it's sexist of YOU to assume I just meant Erin. I mean Chad, too. I think the way they both spend their time is strange.

So much time on things that don't matter, when they have tiny children. Your kids are only little once, why make your life complicated and difficult by having toddlers, a nursing newborn, AND a bedroom that's out of commission?

I do think she's bored, and it's a shame she can't work. She obviously needs other outlets besides her kids, which is fine (who doesn't?). 

 

And now you say that they both spend so much time on things that dont matter when they have tiny children (like decorating her bedroom) but you think she needs to leave her kids & get a job?

6 hours ago, Hisey said:

Erin looks happy, the kids look happy, Chad looks stressed. If you look into his eyes, they looked stressed. Not everyone likes the demands of two toddlers and an infant.

And now you can tell by a picture that Chad (who you previously called a great husband) is stressed out by his children??

Edited October 21, 2018 by Naughty&nice

[just_ordinary]

Well, to the last part- we all claim a lot of things based on pictures. We make assumptions without any real knowledge all the time. I actually would agree Chad looks stressed but I believe it is just how he looks. Some people just look tired/stressed (similar to having a resting bitch face).

[Iamtheway]

On 10/13/2018 at 10:28 PM, LawsonBatesEgo said:

Part of the reason I don't plan to have kids is that I would be a terrible mother to infants - I really only start to enjoy children once they are about 4 or so. I'd be neglectful before that because I'd be SO bored.

I know you said it’s only part of the reason but if you actually do want children you just need to have them with someone that does their bit of the work so that you share the boredom. Or even better, someone that loves the 0 to 4 stage that can do most of the work.

I’m not that fond of babies either. I think Miniway has just gotten better and better since the day he was born. He’s 4,5 now and such a funny little boy.

[Hisey]

On 10/21/2018 at 4:34 PM, Naughty&nice said:

 

And now you can tell by a picture that Chad (who you previously called a great husband) is stressed out by his children??

LOL, sweetheart, great husbands get stressed by their children every day! So do great dads (and Chad may be a great dad, for all I know.)

Did you think "great" parents never got stressed?

Edited October 22, 2018 by Hisey

[HarleyQuinn]

My first thought was "oh wow, they got a photo of Brooklyn not looking miserable" then I got to the 3rd photo.  

[just_ordinary]

5 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

My first thought was "oh wow, they got a photo of Brooklyn not looking miserable" then I got to the 3rd photo.  

I think it is because she favours Chad so much. As I said above, he always looks tired/stressed to me. Little Brocklyn will grow into her looks I am sure. I always find this age weird when children loose the super cute but generic baby look and  start developing their own features. It feels like their head/face is often still too small to carry it. To me they often look really not cute (dare I whisper ugly?) in this stage. But once the head size catches up they are back to be sweet in my eyes. Do I make sense?

[LawsonBatesEgo]

4 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I think it is because she favours Chad so much. As I said above, he always looks tired/stressed to me. Little Brocklyn will grow into her looks I am sure. I always find this age weird when children loose the super cute but generic baby look and  start developing their own features. It feels like their head/face is often still too small to carry it. To me they often look really not cute (dare I whisper ugly?) in this stage. But once the head size catches up they are back to be sweet in my eyes. Do I make sense?

Yes, because my niece went through this exact stage for about 4-6 months ?.

[Melissa1977]

I think Erin always look great because she's like Kelly. They seem happy (or fake it easily) no matter how hard their lifes are. In the old times, even when Bates were living in a miserable house and grifted for food, Kelly looked relaxed.  

Regarding Brooklyn, I feel uncomfortable reading some comments. Well, maybe she won't be as *traditionally* pretty as her sister or some cousins, but she looks cute, healthy and full of spunk. There is beauty out of the perfect features of the fashion magazines. If there is people in this forum  saying she's not pretty enough, can you imagine what is she listening in her family? I'm sorry, but I think no one should comment on a 2 year old looks, except if the kid is looking neglected.

[nolongerIFBx]

On 10/21/2018 at 1:32 PM, LillyP said:

When I saw those photos the first thing I thought was "gosh I wonder if those are jeans". It's not just the double button, which I don't think I've ever seen on a jean skirt, but also the look of the fit around her waist/hip area. 

I think it is a triple button and I found two: https://www.filenesbasement.com/product/skirts/685175-30372/nofuze-belted-long-denim-skirt.html?utm_source=googleproductads&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=Cj0KCQjwjbveBRDVARIsAKxH7vmq1vWtKsRxfnEL9P_l51l_nI5iYmwjPZbPXRYODD6t8EbD98tZlbcaAvK8EALw_wcB

and

https://www.burlington.com/b/3-Button-Denim-Skirt-277968638.aspx?h=50360

There's also this double one: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Retro-Double-Pocket-Button-Mid-Long-Pencil-Denim-Skirt-2015-Women-High-Waist-Package-Hips-Skirts/32498505889.html

Could be jeans but I'd be surprised. She seems genuinely happy the way that she is. Of course, I would never have predicted JillD would wear jeans, so. . .

Edited October 23, 2018 by nolongerIFBx

[Audrey2]

3 hours ago, nolongerIFBx said:

I think it is a triple button and I found two: https://www.filenesbasement.com/product/skirts/685175-30372/nofuze-belted-long-denim-skirt.html?utm_source=googleproductads&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=Cj0KCQjwjbveBRDVARIsAKxH7vmq1vWtKsRxfnEL9P_l51l_nI5iYmwjPZbPXRYODD6t8EbD98tZlbcaAvK8EALw_wcB

and

https://www.burlington.com/b/3-Button-Denim-Skirt-277968638.aspx?h=50360

There's also this double one: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Retro-Double-Pocket-Button-Mid-Long-Pencil-Denim-Skirt-2015-Women-High-Waist-Package-Hips-Skirts/32498505889.html

Could be jeans but I'd be surprised. She seems genuinely happy the way that she is. Of course, I would never have predicted JillD would wear jeans, so. . .

Of all of our married Bates and Duggar fundies, I don't see Michael or Erin wearing pants, as well as Kendra Duggar. I don't want to rule out Jessa, Joy (less likely) or Lauren (also less likely), as who knows what the next 5-10 years will bring.

[HarleyQuinn]

My comments on Brooklyn aren't about her physical looks, but her facial expressions of looking like she'd rather be anywhere else but taking that photo. 

Which is fine. One of my nephews was a permanently unhappy baby/toddler and he's a very happy 3rd grader now. 

[Rachel333]

On 10/23/2018 at 7:58 AM, Melissa1977 said:

Regarding Brooklyn, I feel uncomfortable reading some comments. Well, maybe she won't be as *traditionally* pretty as her sister or some cousins, but she looks cute, healthy and full of spunk. There is beauty out of the perfect features of the fashion magazines.

This honestly seems harsher about her looks than most of the other comments here. She's a toddler, it seems awfully soon to be pulling out the "not traditionally pretty" comments and saying she isn't as pretty as her cousins.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Rachel333

[Melissa1977]

9 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

This honestly seems harsher about her looks than most of the other comments here. She's a toddler, it seems awfully soon to be pulling out the "not traditionally pretty" comments and saying she isn't as pretty as her cousins.

My words were "maybe she won't be", not that she is. Because of course some grandBates will be more beautiful physically than others, and it shouldn't be important, plus sometimes less *perfect* people are more attractive than traditionally pretty ones.

I see the same in Maxwells threads, comparing the level of beauty of grandMaxwells. I know we all live in a society absolutely focused in appearances, but it's quite uncomfortable sometimes.

[Rachel333]

6 hours ago, Melissa1977 said:

My words were "maybe she won't be", not that she is. Because of course some grandBates will be more beautiful physically than others, and it shouldn't be important, plus sometimes less *perfect* people are more attractive than traditionally pretty ones.

I see the same in Maxwells threads, comparing the level of beauty of grandMaxwells. I know we all live in a society absolutely focused in appearances, but it's quite uncomfortable sometimes.

But you were talking about one specific little girl, not saying generally that some people are more attractive than others, and then followed that by a "but" and a comment about her current looks. It just seemed really harsh and unnecessary, and even if you didn't mean it as a negative comment about her looks (and I really don't think you were intentionally being mean) it did come across that way, which seemed particularly odd in a comment criticizing others for commenting about her looks. 

And there is such a thing as being attractive without being traditionally pretty, but telling someone they aren't traditionally pretty is rarely taken as a compliment, especially not for a little girl. I mean, would any mother take it well if someone told her, "well, your daughter might not end up traditionally pretty, but at least she looks healthy!"? 

Edited October 26, 2018 by Rachel333

[SassyPants]

7 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

But you were talking about one specific little girl, not saying generally that some people are more attractive than others, and then followed that by a "but" and a comment about her current looks. It just seemed really harsh and unnecessary, and even if you didn't mean it as a negative comment about her looks (and I really don't think you were intentionally being mean) it did come across that way, which seemed particularly odd in a comment criticizing others for commenting about her looks. 

And there is such a thing as being attractive without being traditionally pretty, but telling someone they aren't traditionally pretty is rarely taken as a compliment, especially not for a little girl. I mean, would any mother take it well if someone told her, "well, your daughter might not end up traditionally pretty, but at least she looks healthy!"? 

I would strike the word traditionally and insert classically beautiful. Some people are cute and others are classically beautiful, there is a difference. I think cute, especially as a child, is accompanied by a certain energetic personality and and joyful demeanor. Most children are not classically beautiful...that takes a maturity not yet developed.

Really, in terms of raw looks, all these kids are cute.

[Rachel333]

4 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

I would strike the word traditionally and insert classically beautiful. Some people are cute and others are classically beautiful, there is a difference. I think cute, especially as a child, is accompanied by a certain energetic personality and and joyful demeanor. Most children are not classically beautiful...that takes a maturity not yet developed.

I agree. I think it makes a difference how you frame it, too. Telling someone they aren't classically beautiful is likely to be perceived as at least somewhat insulting, while just telling someone they're cute is complimentary.

[HereticHick]

On 10/26/2018 at 7:55 AM, Melissa1977 said:

 Because of course some grandBates will be more beautiful physically than others, and it shouldn't be important, plus sometimes less *perfect* people are more attractive than traditionally pretty ones.

I don't care if the Bateseses have 4 heads and scales. The interior toxicity is what matters.

[miss_batson]

Brooklyn did her first manicure.. Personally i hate to see painted nails on so little girls. My doughter is almoust four and ofcourse she would love to manicure, but im so against it..

 

[Melissa1977]

4 hours ago, miss_batson said:

Brooklyn did her first manicure.. Personally i hate to see painted nails on so little girls. My doughter is almoust four and ofcourse she would love to manicure, but im so against it..

I share your opinion about manis, but for me the red flag in Erin's post is not the mani itself, but the fact that Brook has not asked for it. Allowing a toddler to have a mani is a parental decision. *Forcing* a mani when the child is asleep is SO wrong. Erin is pushing Brook to be an ultragirly-girl despite Brook's opinions.

*Don't get me wrong, I know that probably Erin was trying to have fun and a mani is not a tragedy. But as a mother, I know that toddlers can get really frustrated and angry if they wake up and realised that part of them has been modified .

[HermioneSparrow]

1 hour ago, Melissa1977 said:

I share your opinion about manis, but for me the red flag in Erin's post is not the mani itself, but the fact that Brook has not asked for it. Allowing a toddler to have a mani is a parental decision. *Forcing* a mani when the child is asleep is SO wrong. Erin is pushing Brook to be an ultragirly-girl despite Brook's opinions.

*Don't get me wrong, I know that probably Erin was trying to have fun and a mani is not a tragedy. But as a mother, I know that toddlers can get really frustrated and angry if they wake up and realised that part of them has been modified .

This and the fact that Erin probably doesn't know what's in nail polish, I dare to assume it's a drugstore brand which usually has very toxic components for everyone, specially a toddler. I'm a medical student and recently saw a little girl in the ER because of an infection in her face caused by ordinary nail polish (she rubbed her nails in her eyes). Certain components such as triphenyl phosphate, phtalate, lead, formaldehyde and toluene can cause allergic reactions, infections and have carcinogens.

[PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea]

1 hour ago, HermioneSparrow said:

This and the fact that Erin probably doesn't know what's in nail polish, I dare to assume it's a drugstore brand which usually has very toxic components for everyone, specially a toddler. I'm a medical student and recently saw a little girl in the ER because of an infection in her face caused by ordinary nail polish (she rubbed her nails in her eyes). Certain components such as triphenyl phosphate, phtalate, lead, formaldehyde and toluene can cause allergic reactions, infections and have carcinogens. 

I was all, "there's no way they put LEAD in nail polish" and google is not turning up anything very reputable that lead has ever been found in nail polish. The David Suzuki foundation is with you on the organic solvents, though.

https://davidsuzuki.org/queen-of-green/choose-non-toxic-nail-polish/

The Environmental Working Group rates nail polish and the really badly rated ones all seem to be discontinued, so I guess that's good: https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/search.php?query=nail+polish&search_group=everything&&showmore=everything&start=0

Of course, we all know toddlers are going to ingest some of that nail polish, unless you (Erin) train(s) them out of it. Sigh.

 

[HermioneSparrow]

1 minute ago, PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea said:

I was all, "there's no way they put LEAD in nail polish" and google is not turning up anything very reputable that lead has ever been found in nail polish. The David Suzuki foundation is with you on the organic solvents, though.

https://davidsuzuki.org/queen-of-green/choose-non-toxic-nail-polish/

The Environmental Working Group rates nail polish and the really badly rated ones all seem to be discontinued, so I guess that's good: https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/search.php?query=nail+polish&search_group=everything&&showmore=everything&start=0

Of course, we all know toddlers are going to ingest some of that nail polish, unless you (Erin) train(s) them out of it. Sigh.

 

Thank youuu for this article. We ALL need to be careful and read the labels before purchasing. 

IMO toddlers don't need nail polish.

[PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea]

1 minute ago, HermioneSparrow said:

Thank youuu for this article. We ALL need to be careful and read the labels before purchasing.  

IMO toddlers don't need nail polish.

No problem! I love research, even if only via google. (I have a Web of Sci subscription courtesy of work but didn't fire it up yet...) I don't wear cosmetics but I STILL find researching the "maybe bad but not banned by the FDA or Health Canada" chemicals in shampoo, body lotion, nail polish etc. pretty overwhelming. It feels like a full time job!

And I agree that toddlers don't need nail polish, especially if they don't even ask for it!

[HarleyQuinn]

The fact that Erin has made comments in the past about Brooklyn not liking to cuddle her, plus always being on the move makes this even worse for me. Who knows if she even wanted that.