Michaela & Brandon Keilen 5: She Goes By Michaela

[meee]

Just curious...for anyone who doesn't want Michaela to have a baby at all, what kind of parent do you think she'll be? We all know she's not likely to have a big family, so if she manages 1-2 children spaced pretty far apart, for example, she won't have any need to blanket train them or turn anyone into sister moms. And it's also entirely possible that her years of infertility will lead to her holding her own child finally and not being able to bear the thought of abusing him/her.

[llucie]

Since she is planning on starting college in september it is really not a good timing for them to think of adoption or embryo adoption now. I hope she finnishes her degree before they contemplate that. And if she is working that actually would help them to get aproved for adoption more easily in the future having 2 incomes.

[VineHeart137]

2 hours ago, meee said:

Just curious...for anyone who doesn't want Michaela to have a baby at all, what kind of parent do you think she'll be? We all know she's not likely to have a big family, so if she manages 1-2 children spaced pretty far apart, for example, she won't have any need to blanket train them or turn anyone into sister moms. And it's also entirely possible that her years of infertility will lead to her holding her own child finally and not being able to bear the thought of abusing him/her.

I think she will still teach her children to have hateful beliefs that cause harm to others even if she isn't physically abusing her own children. And she will still be teaching her daughters that their goal in life should be to be meek, submissive helpmeets to their husbands.

Plus it's not just about what Michael wants. If Brandon says they should be blanket training, she will blanket train.

[19tacos&counting]

This ^. You could have one child and still make them a racist, sexist, homophobic, hateful person who works towards taking away so many rights. ( not gun rights though, those are soooo important) 

If trump has proven anything, we have more than enough of those type of people. 

I am torn, the human/women/mother in me hates to see anyone suffer infertility. Especially when your life revolves around all things pregnancy and babies. 

The logical side of me says even one baby born to follow their ideals is too many. Brandon seems extremely rigid and soaked in kool aid so I wouldnt be surprised if they still abused one child. To them it’s not abuse, it’s preparing the child to be a good obedient person. “ spare the rod, spoil the child. “ 

[Melissa1977]

4 hours ago, meee said:

Just curious...for anyone who doesn't want Michaela to have a baby at all, what kind of parent do you think she'll be? We all know she's not likely to have a big family, so if she manages 1-2 children spaced pretty far apart, for example, she won't have any need to blanket train them or turn anyone into sister moms. And it's also entirely possible that her years of infertility will lead to her holding her own child finally and not being able to bear the thought of abusing him/her.

I know non-fundie people who have just 1 or 2 kids and still treat them very strictly, using sleep training methods and punishments. And some of these kids have came after fertility treatments, so those parents have waited for a long time and definitely wished to have them.

Having too many kids stress parents and those parents can eventually become stricter or negligent but by no means we can conclude that having a few kids equals to a gently parenting style.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Melissa1977
Spelling

[RosyDaisy]

Why would anyone want children born into this cult? Michael stated that she was glad sh was raised strict abd would be just as strict with her own kids. That's a terrifying thought.

[Eponine]

4 hours ago, meee said:

Just curious...for anyone who doesn't want Michaela to have a baby at all, what kind of parent do you think she'll be? We all know she's not likely to have a big family, so if she manages 1-2 children spaced pretty far apart, for example, she won't have any need to blanket train them or turn anyone into sister moms. And it's also entirely possible that her years of infertility will lead to her holding her own child finally and not being able to bear the thought of abusing him/her.

Having only 1-2 children doesn't mean she wouldn't use blanket training or other harmful childrearing philosophies. I don't think there is any indication she would diverge much from how she was raised, except that she wouldn't have her kids looking after each other out of necessity. I think she would love a child immensely but still harm them with all the fundie discipline, enforced gender roles, restricted lifestyle, etc.

And as others have pointed out, the world doesn't need any more people raised with hateful ideologies and we all know that's what all the Bates will teach their children.

[JermajestyDuggar]

I think the Pearls became very popular amongst quiverful families because there were so many overwhelmed mothers who felt they had no choice but to beat their babies into submission. Personally I think the more kids you have, the more likely you are to blanket train and neglect them. I have no proof of this. It’s just my own theory. And I’m sure there are lots of small families that blanket train too. 

[nelliebelle1197]

I am really confused as to why Michael would change anything about how she would rear kids just because she has some issues getting pregnant. She is the most Gothard-esque of all the Batesesseses and the one least likely to diverge. And that's saying something since Erin and Alyssa are married to the children of current or previous board members of IBLP.

[Eponine]

37 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I think the Pearls became very popular amongst quiverful families because there were so many overwhelmed mothers who felt they had no choice but to beat their babies into submission. Personally I think the more kids you have, the more likely you are to blanket train and neglect them. I have no proof of this. It’s just my own theory. And I’m sure there are lots of small families that blanket train too. 

I think you're right about why the Pearls became popular, but if you were raised that way, saw and possibly participated in your siblings being raised that way, and it's normalized in your community, how likely do you think it is you'd change that even if you only had a couple of kids? It's possible some of these gen2 fundies won't Pearl-ize their kids, but I think it's more likely that they'll just go along with raising them the way they already know.

At the very least, I will assume they do until there's some reason to believe they don't.

[JermajestyDuggar]

It’s hard for me to say one way or the other since I was spanked regularly as a kid and my husband was too, and I choose not to spank my kids. But I also grew up in the baptist church and I’m now agnostic! So I’m obviously a black sheep

Edited May 31, 2019 by JermajestyDuggar

[Ali]

15 hours ago, meee said:

Just curious...for anyone who doesn't want Michaela to have a baby at all, what kind of parent do you think she'll be? We all know she's not likely to have a big family, so if she manages 1-2 children spaced pretty far apart, for example, she won't have any need to blanket train them or turn anyone into sister moms. And it's also entirely possible that her years of infertility will lead to her holding her own child finally and not being able to bear the thought of abusing him/her.

She did not let her brothers eat any candy while they were decorating gingerbread houses and punished one of them who could not resist. It seems cruel to let them play with candy and not let them eat any. I imagine she would be pretty strict. 

[Flossie]

7 hours ago, Ali said:

She did not let her brothers eat any candy while they were decorating gingerbread houses and punished one of them who could not resist. It seems cruel to let them play with candy and not let them eat any. I imagine she would be pretty strict. 

Oh, she'd have hated to ride the train with me that time my youngest and I took a trip.  We each got a bag of M&Ms and were writing out words and making small pictures with them.  Then we divided them up according to our personal preference when we finally decided to eat them.  I'm all "Go ahead, play with your food.  It's candy, you're supposed to enjoy it."  

I'm also the person who teaches small children to put their olives on their fingers and wave them around before eating them.

[QuiverDance]

12 hours ago, Ali said:

She did not let her brothers eat any candy while they were decorating gingerbread houses and punished one of them who could not resist. It seems cruel to let them play with candy and not let them eat any. I imagine she would be pretty strict. 

The entire purpose of making gingerbread houses/making Christmas cookies/decorating gingerbread men.  She is brain *dafuck* warshed.

[is.it.real]

I’m trying to keep two things in my mind at the same time...

I don’t wish infertility on anyone! And I can feel for Michaela, on an individual level. I also think it is important to feel for her. She lives in a community where she’s seen as having less of human value first because she’s a woman, and added to that because she’s unable to have children (at this point). If I met her I would sympathize with her. Because I firmly believe that in order to make it possible for extremists to not demonize me, I have to treat the person as a valued individual despite their background, and that is important if they want to leave their cult.

On a structural level, I don’t want more children born into their cult and their culture. That’s a given.

[GuineaPigCourtship]

16 hours ago, Flossie said:

I'm also the person who teaches small children to put their olives on their fingers and wave them around before eating them.

Man, the first time I read about blanket training I thought "oh, that's a good idea to keep kids safe when you're trying to multi task" and about 0.001 seconds later I realized that the training involves hitting and it's not a sometimes thing with these families.  It really squashes natural exploration, play, learning, etc. which severely hinders development.  And seriously, hitting babies?  No matter how shiny a picture these people portray, the mental gymnastics required to normalize hitting babies is a constant reminder that we are insurmountably different.  I hope that at least some of the gen2 fundies don't do this, but it seems unlikely when they seem to think it's normal and acceptable.

I prefer olive training.

[feministxtian]

I don't have it in me to do shit like blanket training. I just spent a lot of time tripping over tiny humans and assorted 4 legged kids. I guess I was fortunate because my kids liked being underfoot  close to me. I did have a playpen that lasted all of about 10 minutes once the tiny human that was in it figured out how to climb out. Our house started to resemble Fort Knox with baby gates, double baby gates, hook & eye latches on doors (to the outside and the master bedroom). It was far easier to do that than to spend time beating the kid to stay on some damn blanket. Thing is, I rarely had problems if we went out. They were hellions at home and well behaved outside the house. Best part is that they still remember the lessons they learned. They, as adults, are still unfailingly polite, respectful and all around good people. 

[JingerSnaps]

My dog is 100% force-free non-violently* blanket trained.  It is very convenient when I have to open the front door for visitors or have something out that I don’t want him messing with for his own safety. He is compensated very well in high value treats for laying on his blanket. 

So, I understand the appeal of the overall concept. Why these asshole think they need to beat their babies with plumbing line to keep them on a blanket is what baffles me.

* My dog was a 7 year old reactive rescue dog when I got him. He has required a lot of training. Every bit of it has been with positive training methods. He has never ever been punished physically or even scolded by me or his trainer. 

[GuineaPigCourtship]

YES!  I was initially thinking of dog training with positive reinforcement, like a down-stay command to calm them down when needed.

[Melissa1977]

1 hour ago, JingerSnaps said:

My dog is 100% force-free non-violently* blanket trained.  It is very convenient when I have to open the front door for visitors or have something out that I don’t want him messing with for his own safety. He is compensated very well in high value treats for laying on his blanket. 

So, I understand the appeal of the overall concept. Why these asshole think they need to beat their babies with plumbing line to keep them on a blanket is what baffles me.

* My dog was a 7 year old reactive rescue dog when I got him. He has required a lot of training. Every bit of it has been with positive training methods. He has never ever been punished physically or even scolded by me or his trainer. 

I understand your point, but babies and toddlers do not respond to positive training like a dog. Positive  reinforcement can be absolutely ignored by a strong-willed toddler or, especially, by a baby who need to be held or who feels the urge to move and explore. That's why trainings use to be hard when applied to babies (sleeptraining usually means letting them cry, nursing schedule generally means also crying etc). Not saying positive training is impossible...but in general babies are not made for trainings. Raising babies should be more flexible...

And while positive reinforcement can work with older children (sometimes), these techniques are being critizised for some psycologist nowadays because teaches kids to act for rewards, and may increase their materialist side. (I suppose it's about children who are constantly trained that way).

I think we parents have all tried some positive (or even negative) reinforcement. Sometimes succesfully. But education cannot be based in trainings.

[Anna Bolinas]

I think there needs to be a mix of positive and negative reinforcement. I don't have kids, but when I was a kid, I knew there were consequences for my actions. If I threw a tantrum in a store, I got yelled at and then put in timeout. Nothing physical. (Even the one time I bit my mom on the shoulder in a Payless when I was 3 did not get me a physical response lol). Then there are other instances like if your mom tells you not to touch the hot stove and you touch it anyway and get burned. Sometimes that's what it takes to learn that the hot stove is not for touching.

But fundies take it too far, as usual. There's no reason to beat a baby for doing things that babies do, like crawling or crying or what have you. There's also no reason to beat a child for doing things that children do, like talking back or throwing a tantrum. 

[feministxtian]

6 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

Then there are other instances like if your mom tells you not to touch the hot stove and you touch it anyway and get burned. Sometimes that's what it takes to learn that the hot stove is not for touching.

#2 son learned that the hard way. He kept trying to put his hands on the oven door, I pulled him away, he had a fit, repeat. Third time I let him touch it...his eyes got big as saucers, he looked up at me and said "HOT!". He never touched it again. He didn't get burned, just putting his hands on it was enough. Sometimes, natural consequences work best. 

Dogs...LOTS of positive reinforcement. One dog was crate trained...it was easy. Put his food, water and blanket in the crate. Tell him "go night-night" and show him the crate. Housebreaking him was not easy. He pooped in front of the door one time too many and our older dog decided to "have a chat" with him regarding pooping on the floor. Evidently the message was received because the pup was 100% housebroken that very day. 

But...kids and critters are two different things. My kids were more like my cats...you tell them "get down" and they look at you like you're stupid and then move when they're damn good and ready. I can't tell you how happy I am to be done with that and get perverse joy that the same hard-headedness has gone to the next generation. 

[PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea]

22 hours ago, JingerSnaps said:

My dog is 100% force-free non-violently* blanket trained.  It is very convenient when I have to open the front door for visitors or have something out that I don’t want him messing with for his own safety. He is compensated very well in high value treats for laying on his blanket. 

So, I understand the appeal of the overall concept. Why these asshole think they need to beat their babies with plumbing line to keep them on a blanket is what baffles me.

* My dog was a 7 year old reactive rescue dog when I got him. He has required a lot of training. Every bit of it has been with positive training methods. He has never ever been punished physically or even scolded by me or his trainer. 

Maybe the best we can hope for is that fundies movie toward the Amy Joy from Corner of Joy method (she probably didn't invent it, but mentioned it on her blog), having the kid stay on the blanket using rewards and encouragement. (I have no idea if this still works with toddlers.)

It still presumably encourages a lack of exploration which I'm not down with, but hey, at least the baby isn't getting beaten. (Ugh.)

[HermioneSparrow]

On 5/31/2019 at 9:35 PM, Ali said:

She did not let her brothers eat any candy while they were decorating gingerbread houses and punished one of them who could not resist. It seems cruel to let them play with candy and not let them eat any. I imagine she would be pretty strict. 

I don't wanna be the devil's advocate but that's an edited show, maybe she didn't let them eat the candy because they behaved bad or something, reality tv can be deceiving.

I'd rather not judge someone's hypothetical parenting skills based on an edited show and ONE experience we saw. For all we know she could be super fun and sweet since her nieces and nephews adore her, and her siblings too.

That being said, she'll probably blanket train and follow her parents parenting because that's all she knows but forbiding candy to a bunch of rowdy and bad behaved boys isn't a proof of anything, let alone a proof of someone who isn't even a mother yet will be abusive IF she becomes one. 

[Scoodilypoop]

14 minutes ago, HermioneSparrow said:

I don't wanna be the devil's advocate but that's an edited show, maybe she didn't let them eat the candy because they behaved bad or something, reality tv can be deceiving.

 I'd rather not judge someone's hypothetical parenting skills based on an edited show and ONE experience we saw. For all we know she could be super fun and sweet since her nieces and nephews adore her, and her siblings too.

That being said, she'll probably blanket train and follow her parents parenting because that's all she knows but forbiding candy to a bunch of rowdy and bad behaved boys isn't a proof of anything, let alone a proof of someone who isn't even a mother yet will be abusive IF she becomes one. 

It was specifically stated that one of her rules is that when they make ginger bread houses they don't eat candy while making them. They can only eat the candy when they eat the entire ginger bread house. It was weird. She also made one of the boys (Jackson, maybe?) apologize for sneaking some candy because he was "setting a bad example."

 

However, I completely agree that she is likely to blanket train and be extremely strict (abusive) with her own children, no matter how long she waits to have a baby. She believes it is in the best interest of the children and has even stated in the past that she would be strict with her children. 

Edited June 3, 2019 by Scoodilypoop
Fixed a typo!