Clara Nolkamper: I Have 11 Children

[dramallama]

I'll say it: choosing to have enormous families in this day and age of accelerating climate change and dwindling resources is irresponsible, period.  Their carbon footprint has to be insane.  I judge.

[HereComesTreble]

51 minutes ago, dramallama said:

I'll say it: choosing to have enormous families in this day and age of accelerating climate change and dwindling resources is irresponsible, period.  Their carbon footprint has to be insane.  I judge.

I get what you’re saying about carbon footprints, to a point.  But judging them solely because they have a big family—that seems a little dramatic.  

Do you have a specific cut off number? 

Are you judging based on any environmental lifestyle behaviors?  Or solely based on number of children?

Edited January 5, 2020 by HereComesTreble
Clarify—wondering about reasoning

[HereComesTreble]

^^^I ask because some of the most earth conscious, water-wise people I know have 4,5,6 kids.  They are also usually into the natural birth, baby led weaning nursing, holistic parent scene.

Maybe it’s regional (SoCal).  I see a lot of big, crunchy families like this where I live.  I’d hate for big families to take the fall for our crummy environment.  Especially because the ones I know are 10x better environmentalists than my small one.

[dramallama]

Obviously large families that live a typical first world lifestyle - lots of travel by large vehicles needed to hold 11 kids, meat every day, high energy usage, etc - are going to be worse for the planet than those that try to minimize their impact.  And 4, 5, even 6 kids are a far cry from 11.  I don't have a chart all laid out telling me what # of kids to judge at what level, sorry.  This isn't actually something I spend much time pondering. But 11 is excessive by any measurement.

Edited January 5, 2020 by dramallama

[HereComesTreble]

Is it all big families or just fundies?  It just seems super duper judgy (just their very existence is a problem).

[HereComesTreble]

What I’m trying to say is (but not doing a great job at it)—fundies are terrible when they’re hateful, bad to their children, rude, etc.  it seems like a waste to dislike them solely because they exist, ya know?

[Jencendiary]

6 hours ago, HereComesTreble said:

What I’m trying to say is (but not doing a great job at it)—fundies are terrible when they’re hateful, bad to their children, rude, etc.  it seems like a waste to dislike them solely because they exist, ya know?

Nah. Because by virtue of being fundie, or conservative christian, their beliefs are intentionally damaging to a whole host of marginalized people. You can't just be fundie and not harm anyone. The basic fact of being fundie, voting fringe theocratic right/white wing, having more children than you can educate and refusing to let people educate them properly, damaging your friends and family members (and children!) who are LGBTQ+ or questioning their religion. . .

Do I need to go on?

[HereComesTreble]

7 hours ago, Jencendiary said:

Nah. Because by virtue of being fundie, or conservative christian, their beliefs are intentionally damaging to a whole host of marginalized people. You can't just be fundie and not harm anyone. The basic fact of being fundie, voting fringe theocratic right/white wing, having more children than you can educate and refusing to let people educate them properly, damaging your friends and family members (and children!) who are LGBTQ+ or questioning their religion. . .

Do I need to go on?

I agree.  I think you misunderstood me.  I meant their existence as human beings, not as fundies.  As in, the entire point of the poster and mine’s back and forth.   Previous poster said because they judge simply because they had too many kids.  I said, that’s a waste—judge them because they are hateful (etc.).

[PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea]

19 hours ago, HereComesTreble said:

^^^I ask because some of the most earth conscious, water-wise people I know have 4,5,6 kids.  They are also usually into the natural birth, baby led weaning nursing, holistic parent scene.

Maybe it’s regional (SoCal).  I see a lot of big, crunchy families like this where I live.  I’d hate for big families to take the fall for our crummy environment.  Especially because the ones I know are 10x better environmentalists than my small one.

As far as I've seen, being water-wise etc. but having lots of kids doesn't really reduce your ecological footprint that much, because kids take so many resources, no matter how savvy you are.

The top few personal choices you can make to reduce your C footprint are: (a) have fewer kids, (b) don't take any planes, and (c) reduce/eliminate driving. Obviously these are pretty hard to do!

The other way to look at it is that personal choices make up a relatively small amount of C emissions; the largest polluters are large oil companies. So it may be better overall to have as many kids as you please but lobby hard for corporate responsibility. (If you take a more pro-capitalist approach, the retort would be, oil companies just fill a demand for easy and cheap energy.)

So it's complicated. But having a ton of kids AND being very wasteful (looking at you, Duggars, and your disposable plates at every meal) is definitely a bad combination. Not that the Duggars have ever indicated that they give a shit about the environment anyway.

/environmental scientist

[Joyleaf]

According to his facebook Robert's vocational degree is in "Automotive Technology".

There seems to be a religious side to having these many kids. They wanted two or maybe three kids, and when they had three they were planning on having a vasectomy and Robert had an appointment for that.
But then Robert deepened his faith and decided against it. And this didn't mean that they chose a different form of family planning but they just continued to have kid after kid - my guess is "as god wanted to give them".

Spoiler

Robert put this as a quote on his facebook:

Spoiler

He also writes poems to his wife about "protecting her heart".

Spoiler

They may not look like fundies and being religious, homeschooling and having as many kids as possible doesn't automatically make you fundie but nevertheless I think there is more religious stuff going on in the background than they let shine through.

Edit: To me she sounds very religious in this article:
https://www.lovewhatmatters.com/wait-is-this-normal-he-turned-his-neck-my-first-thought-as-a-mama-of-10-was-lymph-node-then-i-touched-it-i-knew-mom-admires-11-year-old-sons-tenacity-duri/

Edited January 6, 2020 by Joyleaf

[Giraffe]

In the article @Joyleaf posted, it’s clear they have access to money. They were able to immediately up and move states?? They were able to insist on being seen sooner than their “medical share” would cover (so they had to pay out of pocket and wait for reimbursement)? Yeah, these are not your typical fundies. She was able to “hire a nanny” and be with her son. It’s great they were able to do that, but it takes funds to do that!

[raspberrymint]

Maybe wealthy, maybe not.  I was immediately able to up and move states, and I'd be able to hire a nanny in exchange for room and board if I had to.  I'm definitely lower middle class (working class).

(My co-workers saw my move as very fast, taking place in a couple of months.  My wife points out that I prepared for years without knowing where I'd move to until I knew when I wanted to move.  And I was renting previously, so didn't have to sell a house.  (I'm going to rent out my current home when I move again, probably in a rent to own method.)

I'd like a big family, personally.  I had a small, toxic family growing up.  I don't know what the numbers will be or how many I'll put into the world, but I've always planned on adopting.  I hope I wouldn't consider myself more moral by saying my family's carbon footprint matters less because I didn't physically put x amount of children into the world.  I'd probably be increasing the carbon footprint of adopted children, if just a little, by giving them resources and food for a healthy life.  It's corporations and the uber rich harming the planet more than individuals.

Fundamentalists are bad and they all deprive their children.  Not saying otherwise.

Edited January 7, 2020 by raspberrymint
another way to speed a move

[PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea]

4 hours ago, raspberrymint said:

 I'd probably be increasing the carbon footprint of adopted children, if just a little, by giving them resources and food for a healthy life. 

Yes, but I agree that this isn't a bad thing. We all want sustainability AND to lift people out of poverty. Development doesn't necessarily have to be fosssil-fuel based. (We're in a lucky time - developing countries can mostly skip over the fossil fuel development stage and go to renewables.)

Best of luck in forming the family you want!

[mysweetetc]

In her latest post, Clara says that looking at Elliot gives her baby fever.

How the heck is it possible to get baby fever when you still have a newborn? More #IrishTwins incoming, I guess.

[Deleorean88mph]

On 1/10/2020 at 10:47 PM, mysweetetc said:

In her latest post, Clara says that looking at Elliot gives her baby fever.

How the heck is it possible to get baby fever when you still have a newborn? More #IrishTwins incoming, I guess.

Based on her pregnancy pattern, it would not be shocking if she were to have another baby by the end of 2020.

[SolomonFundy]

17 hours ago, Deleorean88mph said:

Based on her pregnancy pattern, it would not be shocking if she were to have another baby by the end of 2020.

It would be more shocking if she didn't. She's definitely, absolutely, without any doubt, already actively trying. 

[Giraffe]

How can her body sustain so many back to back pregnancies? I’m in awe, and not in a good way. 

[3splenty]

9 hours ago, Giraffe said:

How can her body sustain so many back to back pregnancies? I’m in awe, and not in a good way. 

That's what I was thinking.  Pregnancy is taxing on the mother's body and it needs time to rebuild it's own reserves.  What about when she's older, and the effects on her body are more clear?

[quiversR4hunting]

On 12/31/2019 at 9:28 PM, dripcurl said:

I believe it is very possible to homeschool 12 kids successfully, but the spacing with this family is just too insane. Even if the children were in public school, there would still be just too much to do. I would even argue that having them all in public school might not make too much of a difference. Just think of all of the homework she would have to make sure got done, think of all the lunches that would have to be packed, think of how by the time the younger ones got picked up from half-day Kindergarten (since she probably has two that are Kindergarten age), the older ones would be home soon. Let’s say there is a rural bus route - imagine getting all of her school age children out the door on time fully prepared! While she would probably need a nap by the time they did all get out the door, she now is responsible for doing a lot more of the laundry and cleaning. For a family of this size and spacing, public school would mean less time “teaching” and more time spent prepping. And if she has no caregivers to help with the child with cancer, then she definitely has zero time to do much of anything as it is.

There would be a lot to do but it would be better. And so many people think the parents have to pack the kids lunches. Nope, make the kids eat school lunch. There is nothing wrong with it. And parents don't have to pack the lunches, the kids can. My kids have been packing their own lunch since kindergarten. I help the youngest (in 2nd grade now) but she knows what she can and can't have for lunch and what time she has to start packing otherwise she gets hot lunch. i have to get 4 people out the door at the same time and I have to get up at 5:20 am each morning. I am not waking up earlier to pack lunches. In addition, many parents, with a lot less kids, don't check kid's homework at night, or go to school events, etc. (Not saying this is good just saying it happens.) Getting the kids out the door would be come a routine, Kids typically thrive in routine and consistency, once they learn it they would be fine. Plus think of the older kids, they finally could be with other kids their own age and for a few hours a day just concentrate on what they need- not what siblings need. While the school age kids are at school then she would need a schedule to clean, cook, prep meals, laundry and appointments. I actually see school as a better option. 

[Deleorean88mph]

By age 30, Kelly Jo had 7 kids. Michelle had 8, and JRod had 9. So far Clara is on pace to surpass all of them!

[AliceInFundyland]

Baby fever in these women = pregnancy hormones addiction. I have become convinced of this.

The more and more big kids they have the shittier that all gets. When they're pregnant and in their newborn haze those hormones kick in and it's easy and fun to believe in the Lord's work.

Total high when you can't drink a glass of wine ??

[SassyPants]

On 12/28/2019 at 4:40 AM, sableduck said:

I’m on her instagram.  I’m actually horrified with how many babies she’s had so quickly.

The attention seeking on every large mega famous family IG is almost Jill level, if Jill has IG.

OMG. if I see one more late 20 or early 30-something with 5,6,7 + stair step kids, and rocking the baby pump On IG, I just might throw up. And they all look the same- Is this some new phenomenon? How do these young families support these kids? Will the influencer world be the next bubble to burst, sending all these people spiraling into poverty? It’s like Stepford  met Pleasantville - 

[Adie]

First post ever on this site but she has pushed me into it with her humble brags. Can’t stand the “look at me with 75 kids, just serenely walking around, taking trips and homeschooling at 11 different levels with no help from anyone and all on 55 mins sleep a night”.  I’ve never felt so strongly about anything to want to actually post it but my god this humble bragging gets to me.  She also gets all these comments about how she’s super-mom and people looking up to her - if I was a mum with a few kids and feeling overwhelmed- looking at her and how she does seemingly everything on her own, including teaching English and maths etc at all the different levels, field trips with no help, birthday tables, blah blah blah, well if I was already struggling, that would tip me over the edge and I’d be saying I’m such a sh$t mum, I’m a dreadful person, can’t even cope with my few kids. 
 

And if I see one more post of hers on the Duggars (that I follow only with the horrified fascination) saying “Oh how lovely it’s X’s birthday. We have 11 kids and I love how they surround my husband with hugs and kisses. Oh did I tell you we have 11 kids. Could someone from a TV network please see this and follow us because basically I’m Supermom”.  Ok I might have made the last part up ? But that’s how I read it. 
 

Sorry for rant but mother of all that is good and holy she annoys the bejaysus out of me!!!!!!!!! 

[JermajestyDuggar]

1 hour ago, Adie said:

First post ever on this site but she has pushed me into it with her humble brags. Can’t stand the “look at me with 75 kids, just serenely walking around, taking trips and homeschooling at 11 different levels with no help from anyone and all on 55 mins sleep a night”.  I’ve never felt so strongly about anything to want to actually post it but my god this humble bragging gets to me.  She also gets all these comments about how she’s super-mom and people looking up to her - if I was a mum with a few kids and feeling overwhelmed- looking at her and how she does seemingly everything on her own, including teaching English and maths etc at all the different levels, field trips with no help, birthday tables, blah blah blah, well if I was already struggling, that would tip me over the edge and I’d be saying I’m such a sh$t mum, I’m a dreadful person, can’t even cope with my few kids. 
 

And if I see one more post of hers on the Duggars (that I follow only with the horrified fascination) saying “Oh how lovely it’s X’s birthday. We have 11 kids and I love how they surround my husband with hugs and kisses. Oh did I tell you we have 11 kids. Could someone from a TV network please see this and follow us because basically I’m Supermom”.  Ok I might have made the last part up ? But that’s how I read it. 
 

Sorry for rant but mother of all that is good and holy she annoys the bejaysus out of me!!!!!!!!! 

I understand your feelings. Humble brags are 100 times worse than outright brags.

[AverageGiraffe]

1 hour ago, Adie said:

 

And if I see one more post of hers on the Duggars (that I follow only with the horrified fascination) saying “Oh how lovely it’s X’s birthday. We have 11 kids and I love how they surround my husband with hugs and kisses. Oh did I tell you we have 11 kids. Could someone from a TV network please see this and follow us because basically I’m Supermom”.  Ok I might have made the last part up ? But that’s how I read it. 
 

 

I find her pretty insufferable, but it's 1000x worse because of her obsession with other mega families. She follows all of the duggars, the bates, sierra, the whole shebang-- and comments on everything constantly, always with a mention of how many children she has. It's so strange and fangirl-y. She doesn't know them. they never interact with her (maybe the occasionally "like" a comment, idk, but they don't reply to her comments or follow her back or comment on her stuff). It's kind of sad, in a way-- she wants so badly to be noticed and validated by other people-- but she also is (I feel very sure) only doing this with the famous fundies. She follows other large families but I doubt she is interacting with them in the same way.