Above Rubies: More is Easier

[dripcurl]

A post in which a mother explains why having a large number of children is easier than a smaller family: More children to do more of her job. 

Facebook post link:

Above Rubies August 27th 2019

Some highlights:

 

“I hadn’t slept well last night and because I’m pregnant, I slept in a little later. When I got up, I noticed my 13-year-old daughter preparing breakfast and getting all the clothes ready for the other children to wear to church. Another daughter was looking after the baby. All was well.”

 

”Each time a new baby comes along there are more and more arms wanting to hold the baby and play with him. There are more helpers to help with meals and keep the home running smoothly.”

 

“I think the most overwhelming time of motherhood is when you have your first two or three children. You have no helpers. But as children come along, you have more and more helpers.”

 

I personally believe there is nothing wrong with having a larger family, or having older kids help out. What is wrong is to contextualize the number of children within the number of helpers you have when those helpers are, well, the existing children. Then those babies become helpers: when does the cycle end? I suppose by the time the youngest is no longer a baby that the oldest could be a quiverful parent needing help from the siblings they raised. I guess everything comes full circle? There is nothing wrong with helping out, but if you are raised with that being your deemed purpose, that is sad.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Coconut Flan

[refugee]

1 hour ago, dripcurl said:

I suppose by the time the youngest is no longer a baby that the oldest could be a quiverful parent needing help from the siblings they raised. I guess everything comes full circle? There is nothing wrong with helping out, but if you are raised with that being your deemed purpose, that is sad.

I’ve been struck by the number of older fundie kids who have expressed no interest in having kids of their own. They’ve already raised a family.

[SassyPants]

If you’re too tired to get out of bed and take care of the kids you already have, you need to stop having kids. Don’t force the consequences of your behaviors and decisions onto children who do not have a vote in your choices.

[Giraffe]

Wow, way to make kids feel loved & wanted. 

/s

[hoipolloi]

Above Rubies? Nancy Campbell? Say no more -- I already know it's absolute shite.

She & her husband Colin must still be successfully grifting off their "ministry."

[Giraffe]

Also, “more is easier” for who?! Because I’m guessing every single one of your children who ends up having even more responsibilities placed upon them is NOT thinking “yay, more help!” every time you push another blessing out!

[HeadshipRegent]

lol Kendra Tierney wrote a similar thing (apparently, 9 kids is the magic number). I guess her living in an estate and coming from a rich af family must help too but idk you guys. 

[Giraffe]

6 hours ago, HeadshipRegent said:

lol Kendra Tierney wrote a similar thing (apparently, 9 kids is the magic number). I guess her living in an estate and coming from a rich af family must help too but idk you guys. 

I knew a woman who liked playing the role of Perfect Mom of Many Under School Age. What she consistently failed to share is how much outside help she had on a near daily basis!! Being wealthy (and therefore having the ability to pay for help) can make such a difference in ones parenting experiences. If she hadn’t had so much help I doubt she would’ve had so many. 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Giraffe
Clarifying

[JermajestyDuggar]

Its just like Braggie from misformama. She is extremely privileged in so many ways but finds things to be a martyr for. Her mother and oldest son act as 3rd and 4th parents. She has so much help. She probably feels guilty that her life is so damn privileged compared to other Christian moms to 8 that she has to come up with ways to martyr herself. But she’s not fooling anyone on FJ. We see right through her bullshit.

[danvillebelle]

What really irks me is when some of these moms of 8+ hearken back to centuries past, even early 20th century, as some sort of golden age when big families were the norm because people cherished kids so much more.  No, you dipshits, people had more back then because statistically, close to half of them were going to die before reaching adulthood.

ETA: being a genealogy nerd makes one acutely aware of how true this used to be.  I have too many dead babies and toddlers in my family tree.  And a beautiful great-aunt who died of polio as a teen, which makes me extra-ragey at the anti-vaxx idiots.

Edited August 29, 2019 by danvillebelle
more

[JermajestyDuggar]

7 minutes ago, danvillebelle said:

What really irks me is when some of these moms of 8+ hearken back to centuries past, even early 20th century, as some sort of golden age when big families were the norm because people cherished kids so much more.  No, you dipshits, people had more back then because statistically, close to half of them were going to die before reaching adulthood.

ETA: being a genealogy nerd makes one acutely aware of how true this used to be.  I have too many dead babies and toddlers in my family tree.  And a beautiful great-aunt who died of polio as a teen, which makes me extra-ragey at the anti-vaxx idiots.

Not only that, but many of them didn’t have birth control options! I’m sure plenty of women wanted to stop getting pregnant every 18 months. But they had very little choice in the matter. 

[AmazonGrace]

My grandmother was one of thirteen. Six of the siblings survived until adulthood.

[SassyPants]

9 hours ago, HeadshipRegent said:

lol Kendra Tierney wrote a similar thing (apparently, 9 kids is the magic number). I guess her living in an estate and coming from a rich af family must help too but idk you guys. 

She’s soon to have her 10th-

[elliha]

I actually think no birth control was more important in why you had a lot of kids than having spare ones in case some died. Often 1-2 kids died unless you lived near contaminated water, that would only mean that you would need perhaps 5-6 kids to have someone to help both mom and dad. Many families were much larger than that and women had children more or less their whole lives from marriage to 40+ but usually less frequently after 35. 

[feministxtian]

More is NOT "easier". I raised 5 and man...it was TOUGH! 5 little beings who ALL demanded ALL my attention, ALL my time, ALL my everything (I had 3 bio and 2 steps that lived with us full time). Good grief. I knew 2 families with 10 and 12 kids respectively but they were pretty spread out in age and I don't remember any of this "sibling parenting" that went on. One friend, by the time she had #10, her 2 oldest were like 26 and 24 and on their own. The school-aged kids were involved in sports, after school activities, you name it, they were in it. The other family was much the same, I think the oldest was about 24 when the youngest was born. Another set of kids that had active lives of their own that didn't involve "sibling parenting". Yeah, the kids all had chores and would help out with the younger ones but it was quite clear that they had no real responsibility for the younger ones. 

My kids were the same way, although prying a couple of the littles away from the big ones got interesting. The little ones were solely MY responsibility, I didn't expect any of the olders to step in, well, except for things like watching the littles while I went in the shower, crap like that. Their biggest responsibility was to assure the critters were taken care of, food, water, clean litter boxes. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

All the moms I know with more than your average 2.5 kids have much busier lives and more to do. But these moms I know don't force their oldest kids to be parents. That’s the real difference. 

[danvillebelle]

There are a couple of only children in my family tree born in the 1890's, most notably one g-gma whose dad I have mentioned here before as one who grew up smack in the middle of 13, then only had one child himself.  I often wonder if they were just really, really careful, knew something about the rhythm method, or just didn't have that much sex. 

[louisa05]

My friend has seven kids. When number 7 was a baby, she told me that it was really nice to have older kids who would pick up and soothe the her sometimes. The two oldest who were 11 (twins) when she was born sometimes did that. It had not happened with the rest of the kids.  BECAUSE she had not expected them to be doing that when they were young children themselves. She took care of the kids. Her kids still are rarely responsible for caring for siblings. They are probably more responsible for taking care of their own stuff than kids in smaller families that I know of, but that's not really a bad thing. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

1 hour ago, danvillebelle said:

There are a couple of only children in my family tree born in the 1890's, most notably one g-gma whose dad I have mentioned here before as one who grew up smack in the middle of 13, then only had one child himself.  I often wonder if they were just really, really careful, knew something about the rhythm method, or just didn't have that much sex. 

My great grandparents had only two children. They married at 19 and 21 so they weren’t too old or anything. I have a sneaking suspicion my great grandmother may have used something. Diaphragms were around at that time. Or they could have used something less reliable like the rhythm method. They were major planners. I can see them saying one boy and one girl are enough. Of course they would never talk about something that personal so we will never know! 

My grandfather had a sister with a heart condition. She was told to never have children. So she never did. Her husband was obviously ok with this. Otherwise he wouldn’t have married her. And they weren’t interested in adoption so they had no kids. I have another great aunt that never had children. But it was because her husband was sterile. I believe he contracted a disease that caused it. I can’t remember if it was measles or another one. Yet another reason I’m thankful for vaccines. 

Edited August 29, 2019 by JermajestyDuggar

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

36 minutes ago, danvillebelle said:

There are a couple of only children in my family tree born in the 1890's, most notably one g-gma whose dad I have mentioned here before as one who grew up smack in the middle of 13, then only had one child himself.  I often wonder if they were just really, really careful, knew something about the rhythm method, or just didn't have that much sex. 

My grandfathers were each from a family with 8 kids (all lived to adulthood), but both my grandmothers came from small families. One grandma had 2 siblings, and the other was the only child of her mother. (Her father was divorced  and had two children by his first wife. His first marriage was rarely spoken of, but I imagine that might have been common in the early 20th century.)

I have wondered whether my great-grandmothers used some type of birth control, or whether they had health or fertility issues. In my case, I got my period back pretty quickly after giving birth, even though I was exclusively breastfeeding on demand. I'm very thankful that my husband and I could choose our family size!

[refugee]

2 hours ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

My great grandparents had only two children. They married at 19 and 21 so they weren’t too old or anything. I have a sneaking suspicion my great grandmother may have used something. Diaphragms were around at that time. Or they could have used something less reliable like the rhythm method. They were major planners. I can see them saying one boy and one girl are enough. Of course they would never talk about something that personal so we will never know! 

My grandfather had a sister with a heart condition. She was told to never have children. So she never did. Her husband was obviously ok with this. Otherwise he wouldn’t have married her. And they weren’t interested in adoption so they had no kids. I have another great aunt that never had children. But it was because her husband was sterile. I believe he contracted a disease that caused it. I can’t remember if it was measles or another one. Yet another reason I’m thankful for vaccines. 

I remember hearing that mumps can make males sterile. You'd think the fundies would be all in favor of mumps vaccine because of that.

6 hours ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Its just like Braggie from misformama.

I keep reading that as "misinformed mama" or "misformed mama"...

[VVV]

5 hours ago, danvillebelle said:

There are a couple of only children in my family tree born in the 1890's, most notably one g-gma whose dad I have mentioned here before as one who grew up smack in the middle of 13, then only had one child himself.  I often wonder if they were just really, really careful, knew something about the rhythm method, or just didn't have that much sex. 

Or they may have been subfertile. Low sperm count or perhaps an issue on the mother's side; that one child could have been a lucky roll of the dice for them. There's no way to be sure.

Editing to add that Laura Ingalls Wilder and Almanzo had only one surviving child (another child died in infancy). It's believed that the diptheria they both caught after the birth of their second child, or its complications made Almanzo infertile.

Edited August 29, 2019 by VVV

[Beermeet]

My FIL comes from 9 or 10. I forget.  They all say it was too much. Not enough attention.  They weren't expected to care for the youngest,  they had chores, mom had help and there was plentyof love.  Still, a few didn't have kids, the rest had 2-3.  

[mango_fandango]

My grandparents were all born in the 30s (‘35, two in ‘36 and one in ‘38). My maternal grandfather was an only child. My paternal grandfather had two younger siblings. Maternal grandma had one older sister, and my paternal grandma had one much younger sister (born in ‘46, so one of the oldest baby boomers). Mum has one older sister and Dad two younger sisters. I also have just one brother. I’m not a parent yet but I can see myself having 2-3 kids.

I do find large families fascinating, especially when there’s no religious reason behind it, in a kind of “omg WHY” type way... pregnancy is just not fun for many women, and that’s not even mentioning labour...

[VVV]

34 minutes ago, mango_fandango said:

I do find large families fascinating, especially when there’s no religious reason behind it, in a kind of “omg WHY” type way... pregnancy is just not fun for many women, and that’s not even mentioning labour...

We have three kids, which was our maximum--we paid for private music lessons, other activities, college (still have one in college)--it has been a strain, and I don't think we could have managed any more kids. That being said, I loved being pregnant. I had very easy pregnancies, was never sick, and although my labors and births were painful, there were no complications. If it weren't for actually ending up with another human to care for, feed, clothe, and educate, I wouldn't have minded another pregnancy.

I'll show myself out now.