Maxwell 35: Choosing The Right Vest For an Extended Family Member

[Hane]

16 hours ago, thoughtful said:

Welcome to the world, adorable Caleb. Sorry you were born to the Maxhell part of it.

And of course there’s this:

 

[SassyPants]

21 hours ago, anjulibai said:

They were asked if Elissa and Joseph are doing a theme, and Teri said she didn't ask. You'd think if they were doing a theme, this would come up. I mean, what do they have to talk about when they all get together? 

Chore packs including when they last dusted the ceiling fans, Steve’s latest fast day and scheduling Grandma’s next reading to the grandkids day, 9 months away. ?

[Bethy]

16 hours ago, Melissa1977 said:

Fundies with big families sure abuse their kids putting them too much responsibilities and chores. But also exaggerate and are experts in rewording the reality. Fundie or not, a 3 year old "helping" means picking up the toys or putting the spoons on the table for dinner etc. Exactly what no-fundie children do in heathens homes. With the main difference that fundie ones get a hard treatment if disobey.

I think the other fundamental difference is that fundie children, girls in particular, are groomed to accept a life of backbreaking work from an early age. Hence a chorepak clipped to the pocket of a child too young to read. No other options are given to her. She's trained to think she wants this life before she knows how to think.

Reminds me of an old article on NGJ - can't remember if Mike or Debi wrote it - saying you need to incorporate your child in work from the time they're born. They gave the specific example of a baby sitting in the dishwater, sloshing a dish brush in a bowl. Um...okay. First of all, if your dishwater is tepid enough for a baby to sit in it, you're not getting your dishes clean. Second, later I pieced together (I think from something written by Shoshanna or Shalom) that they don't believe in diapers - they're into "training" the child (fundie Elimination Communication, I guess, but probably with more hitting than mainstream EC) to go in the potty from birth.

So what we have is a diaperless infant playing in tepid dishwater while you wash the utensils your family eats from.

[raspberrymint]

On 1/24/2020 at 9:02 AM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Some of us have tried that and failed miserably.  I'm glad you have a happy marriage, but for those of us who didn't being in a bad marriage is far worse than being alone could ever be.

Not directed at you, but it comes up on here all the time about how much people have accomplished by Sarah's age and a lot of you have done a lot of impressive things in your 20's and 30's.  But some us spent that time in bad marriages just trying to figure out how to survive mentally and make life better for our kids.

I'm not saying Sarah's lack of autonomy is healthy, it's not.  I'm just saying it's not like everyone who isn't a Maxwell had a young adulthood of advanced degrees, true and abiding love, career success, and raising perfect trouble free kids.

My 20's was spent in a shitty marriage, raising my children, caring for my mom on hospice until her death, and going from being a SAHM to being a divorced mom of 3 small kids, one special needs,  who had never held a job and had always been financially supported by someone else.  

I wouldn't trade my kids for anything, but I certainly don't think Sarah would consider herself to be trading up to have my life rather than hers.

And my best friend married a piece of shit, divorced him and chose not to have kids with him because she realized he's a piece of shit, and has a baby with someone she may never marry.  The point is choice.  She could choose that.  We can choose things.  Sarah is a human being and deserves that right as well.  I don't think we actually disagree.

And I would absolutely rather be a single mom than a SAHD.  I planned to be a single mom if I didn't find someone.  But I advocate financial independence and, barring that, financial assistance for people who need it.  The latter needs a reformation to be actually helpful and non-biased.  Again, I don't think we actually disagree.  I'm not Sarah and we don't know what she wants, but she deserves choices as a human right.

Edited January 28, 2020 by raspberrymint
2nd paragraph

[dripcurl]

2 hours ago, raspberrymint said:

  I'm not Sarah and we don't know what she wants, but she deserves choices as a human right.

I agree. Yesterday I had an epiphany: I accepted quite a while ago that it is technically *ok* that I ended up dating, having sex, smoking weed, etc at a later age (early 20s) than most, but I just now realized that the reason I still feel traumatized by it is because I was limited to that. I wanted to do all of those things at a much younger age, but I couldn't because of my evangelical parents. Just because some things in some people's lives happen at a later age doesn't mean they want it that way, and worse yet some people, like Sarah, and me to a much lesser extent, are simply not allowed because Patriarchy and Hell. 

[Melissa1977]

9 hours ago, Bethy said:

Second, later I pieced together (I think from something written by Shoshanna or Shalom) that they don't believe in diapers -

Shoshanna's youngest wears diapers (just diapers: no clothes). Every Pearl children has its own and speshul weirdness.

[Katzchen24]

On 1/27/2020 at 3:38 AM, MamaJunebug said:

Killian

Colleen

Collette

Killarney

Claire

Clara

Clare

Clendennig

Klute

Klein

 

Cnut? I'm listening to the British History Podcast and by coincidence this is the king they're currently up to.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Katzchen24
Context is needed for a name like Cnut.

[SassyPants]

2 hours ago, Katzchen24 said:

Cnut? I'm listening to the British History Podcast and by coincidence this is the king they're currently up to.

Every time we are in So America and I see billboards for one of their cellular carriers, I turn into a 12 YO boy. Yep, it’s CNUT. Of course conversation always ensues, “is your phone roaming on CNUT?”

ETA- IMO, Caleb Alexander is the best fundie name to date. It’s quite nice and mainstream without being too popular.

Edited January 28, 2020 by SassyPants

[JermajestyDuggar]

Caleb and Calia are just too close for my taste. Just like Johanna and Joy-Anna are too close for my taste. Let’s hope they don’t do even more names like that. 

Jesse is 25. Nathan and Joe were 25 when they got married. I’m thinking it’s very possible Jesse will end up married sometime this year.

[Paperplate]

I think Kult would be a great name for the next baby (or Cult, for the one after that). Fits all the criteria.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Paperplate
typo

[Hane]

At this point, I don’t GAF about what they name their babies (and, trust me, I used to get *way* too invested in this topic!) as long as they grow up to have education and autonomy.

[theologygeek]

On 1/26/2020 at 6:42 PM, anjulibai said:

They were asked if Elissa and Joseph are doing a theme, and Teri said she didn't ask. You'd think if they were doing a theme, this would come up. I mean, what do they have to talk about when they all get together? 

I saw that and signed into fj to see if it was being talked about.  It was odd that no one in the family brought it up.  I would have asked after Kyle was born.  Maybe their relationship is strained.  

[FloraDoraDolly]

17 minutes ago, theologygeek said:

I saw that and signed into fj to see if it was being talked about.  It was odd that no one in the family brought it up.  I would have asked after Kyle was born.  Maybe their relationship is strained.  

I don't know about "strained", but it's fairly obvious that Joseph, Elissa, and their kids aren't around as much as the other Extended Maxwells. Maybe they actually have (((gasp))) friends?

[JermajestyDuggar]

4 minutes ago, FloraDoraDolly said:

I don't know about "strained", but it's fairly obvious that Joseph, Elissa, and their kids aren't around as much as the other Extended Maxwells. Maybe they actually have (((gasp))) friends?

I think it’s the same with Chelsy and John too. Chelsy and John seem to visit her family often or they host her family. So they aren’t as available as Chris and Nathan’s family. I imagine Joe and Elyssa just enjoy their alone time. I know I do. My little family spends a lot of time together just the 4 of us. Sure we see our extended families. But we aren’t there all the time. However my siblings both spend a lot of time with our parents. Much more than my family. But we also live further away. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

16 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Much more than my family. But we also live further away. 

Holds true for J and E as well.  I mean they live almost a whole mile from the compound which, in Maxwell units of measure, may as well be Canada!

[uber frau]

Let's be honest, if the residents of the Max mothership collectively had the observation skills and imagination of a handful of brine shrimp, they wouldn't post half the crap they do.  (NEWS FLASH:  DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN SHRED LETTUCE WITH PIZZA WHEEL??!!!??? OR THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY USE THE 90 SECONDS TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN STARE AT THE TIMER COUNTING DOWN WHILE YOU'RE WAITING FOR SOMETHING TO HEAT UP IN THE MICROWAVE??!!!??? We are amazed at the pure brilliance of our intellect and we know that very few people would possibly think of these extraordinary ideas by themselves. ) 

I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even notice the /c/ theme going on.  

[NancyDrewFan1989]

 

 

2 hours ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I think it’s the same with Chelsy and John too. Chelsy and John seem to visit her family often or they host her family. So they aren’t as available as Chris and Nathan’s family. I imagine Joe and Elyssa just enjoy their alone time. I know I do. My little family spends a lot of time together just the 4 of us. Sure we see our extended families. But we aren’t there all the time. However my siblings both spend a lot of time with our parents. Much more than my family. But we also live further away. 

I agree, but I also think it has to do with the fact that both Chelsy and Elyssa have not fully conformed to Maxwellian ways. I wouldn't be surprised if both Chelsy and Elyssa brought in Christmas and Easter decorations that Steve deems evil. Both of them, meaning Chelsy and Elyssa, have had no problem giving Steve and Teri a run for their money by not only conforming, but being more "liberal" with their practices as well. After all, Chelsy seems to have no problem going on trips with Axton while John stays at home and work. For some reason, I wouldn't be surprised of Steve scolded, so to say, John for letting Chelsy be a little more independent than most fundie wives. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

8 hours ago, NancyDrewFan1989 said:

 

 

I agree, but I also think it has to do with the fact that both Chelsy and Elyssa have not fully conformed to Maxwellian ways. I wouldn't be surprised if both Chelsy and Elyssa brought in Christmas and Easter decorations that Steve deems evil. Both of them, meaning Chelsy and Elyssa, have had no problem giving Steve and Teri a run for their money by not only conforming, but being more "liberal" with their practices as well. After all, Chelsy seems to have no problem going on trips with Axton while John stays at home and work. For some reason, I wouldn't be surprised of Steve scolded, so to say, John for letting Chelsy be a little more independent than most fundie wives. 

I don’t know why, but I imagine Steve being passive aggressive in his approach to disapproving of Chelsy. Actually I imagine both Steve and Teri being incredibly passive aggressive with their married sons and daughters in law anytime they disapprove of their actions.

[Queen Of Hearts]

I found it interesting that the baby announcement post didn't include a picture of the parents with the baby. Usually they include at least one. I really wonder if Joeseph and Elissa have asked to not be featured on the blog. 

[petrushka]

2 hours ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I don’t know why, but I imagine Steve being passive aggressive in his approach to disapproving of Chelsy. Actually I imagine both Steve and Teri being incredibly passive aggressive with their married sons and daughters in law anytime they disapprove of their actions.

Agreed. I think it's integral to their personalities.  I base my opinion on the way they write their Mom and Dad Corners.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

3 hours ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I don’t know why, but I imagine Steve being passive aggressive in his approach to disapproving of Chelsy. Actually I imagine both Steve and Teri being incredibly passive aggressive with their married sons and daughters in law anytime they disapprove of their actions.

I agree.  I know nothing about Elissa's family, but I wouldn't be surprised if S and T were somewhat intimidated by the Bontragers.  Just as "fundy famous" if not more (Idk, anyone know?  I only know fundies from here), better superficial presentation, and they blog too so S and T can't keep it quite when she dared to wear pants.  

[HereComesTreble]

Speaking of not believing in diapers/infant elimination training/whatever nonsense it’s called—I firmly believe it was 100% created to make life harder for mothers.  It’s ties them down to the house more.  It forces the mother to stare at her infant every single second, looking for the tiniest of indications that it’s instantly poo/pee time.  It’s mom’s fault if she doesn’t read her baby’s potty signals well enough.

It is not just a fundie phenomenon either.  It’s trendy in the more crunchy parenting world, too.  It’s literally crap.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

34 minutes ago, HereComesTreble said:

Speaking of not believing in diapers/infant elimination training/whatever nonsense it’s called—I firmly believe it was 100% created to make life harder for mothers.  It’s ties them down to the house more.  It forces the mother to stare at her infant every single second, looking for the tiniest of indications that it’s instantly poo/pee time.  It’s mom’s fault if she doesn’t read her baby’s potty signals well enough.

It is not just a fundie phenomenon either.  It’s trendy in the more crunchy parenting world, too.  It’s literally crap.

What?!  This is a thing?  This is a Maxwell thing?

That'll add some time to their chore schedule.

[JermajestyDuggar]

35 minutes ago, HereComesTreble said:

Speaking of not believing in diapers/infant elimination training/whatever nonsense it’s called—I firmly believe it was 100% created to make life harder for mothers.  It’s ties them down to the house more.  It forces the mother to stare at her infant every single second, looking for the tiniest of indications that it’s instantly poo/pee time.  It’s mom’s fault if she doesn’t read her baby’s potty signals well enough.

It is not just a fundie phenomenon either.  It’s trendy in the more crunchy parenting world, too.  It’s literally crap.

Unpopular opinion: 

Some of the crunchy attachment parenting stuff seems like it causes more stress to mom instead of less. Bed sharing, constant nursing on demand for older babies, and babywearing can cause more stress when the people who promote it seem to think it makes motherhood less stressful. I say this as someone who experienced the stress first hand. Bedsharing was stressful as fuck for me. I was afraid I would roll over on him even though he was an older baby. Room sharing was better but it still has its problems. I nursed my younger son on demand until he was 2. I let him nurse all the damn time and it was such a pain. Babywearing is good if it works for you. But my kids weren’t super into it. So a stroller and a bouncy seat worked much better. 

Basically you are still an attached parent if you have your kid sleep in his own bed from day one, use formula, and put your kid in a stroller instead of wearing him. 

[PennySycamore]

35 minutes ago, HereComesTreble said:

Speaking of not believing in diapers/infant elimination training/whatever nonsense it’s called—I firmly believe it was 100% created to make life harder for mothers.  It’s ties them down to the house more.  It forces the mother to stare at her infant every single second, looking for the tiniest of indications that it’s instantly poo/pee time.  It’s mom’s fault if she doesn’t read her baby’s potty signals well enough.

It is not just a fundie phenomenon either.  It’s trendy in the more crunchy parenting world, too.  It’s literally crap.

Not much is more irritating to have led an LLL meeting and really need to pee after two hours and then have to wait to go until a 8 month old can finish using the only toilet in the store where we met. (Used all the TP, too.  Not a square to spare.)   It's not the child who is trained, but the mom.   Renowned pediatrician T Berry Brazelton was adamantly opposed to "elimination communication".  He pointed out in an interview on CNN that children needed the muscle control associated with walking in order to be really potty trained.  Babies, in general, are not bothered by diapers if they are changed often enough so they don't get rashy and aren't cold.

Mothers in the developing world might carry their babies in a sling so that they are intimately tuned to their babies' body rhythms and so get that baby to the toileting spot, but that's not cultural in the US.  My aunt jokes about giving  all her nieces Egyptian baby diapers when we had babies as Egyptian babies don't wear diapers.  That's just not going to work for most moms in the developed world, even if we're really in tune with our babies.