why I prefer the Gilbreths to our fundies

[mnb357]

I read Liilian Gilbreth's autobiography, which, interestingly, is written in the third person...can't for the life of me remember the title, though. At any rate, the house the family lived in had to be torn down after Lillian moved to an apartment, it was in such disrepair from the kids. Also, her younger daughter, Jane, got into a bit of trouble at Randal Macon Woman's College...trouble which Lillian had to head to Virginia to clear up!

Another funny note: Lillian gave a lecture to one of the boy's college class...a class he chose to skip. At the pop quiz the next class about the lecture, he asked a classmate who the lecturer wa, he said, "Youre mother, you Jackass," to which he responded, "Would you kindly tell this Jackass what she lectured on?" Don't picture our fundies doing the same, do you? Also, none of the children chose to have big families themselves.

Finally, supposedly "Queen for a Day" offered Lillian a new home once she moved into an apartment, (apparently she was a lousy housekeeper,)...she was incensed, and put the producer in his place. I'm amazed the fundies claim to like this family so much. My thought is that the Gilbreths would chew the likes of the Duggars up, and spit them out.

Wish I could remember more, but it's been about 7 years since I read the book....I think I'll ask my library to get it for me again!

[Rachel333]

You know, even today I don't think eugenics is automatically terrible. Saying "you guys should have children because you would make beautiful babies" is eugenics. So is deciding not to have children because of genetic issues or the like. The problem is when you tell other people how to reproduce (which, okay, the first one kind of is, but isn't so bad, especially compared to what was going on in the early 20th century).

[susang]

I agree with all that has been said.

I think the things that stand out, for me, are the love of education, and that Mom and the girls were valued for their minds, and encouraged in learning and working.

Bingo.

I was wondering if anyone knew large families that were just families like anyone else, just bigger. I have 12 children and until the last tough year was wide open to more. We truly enjoy our children and they were all pretty sad that we stopped when our duties began to overrun our resources.Most of my kids are quite sad that there is not another baby in the works.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2871536585598

[debrand]

Bingo.

I was wondering if anyone knew large families that were just families like anyone else, just bigger. I have 12 children and until the last tough year was wide open to more. We truly enjoy our children and they were all pretty sad that we stopped when our duties began to overrun our resources.Most of my kids are quite sad that there is not another baby in the works.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2871536585598

If it wasn't for finances, I would have had more children. Those kids might have come through adoption but I would have loved more than four kids. The perception by some fundies that we pick on people only for having a large number of kids really annoys me. Some of the members on this forum have several kids.

[IReallyAmHopewell]

Like Theodore Roosevelt, the Gilbreaths were for basic eugenics--those who are "best" should have the most kids. And as others have said, the books are not 100% non-fiction. Plus, even when times were "hard" they still paid people to do much of the work.

The fact is one parent cannot do it "all"--I know I'm a single Mom (I adopted my kids so no ex- to help out, like that would happen anyway in too many cases). It's a total joke to think Mrs. Gilbreath or Mrs. Duggar or Mrs. WhoeversheisQuiverfull can do everything.

[darkplumaged]

I don't know anyone IRL who has or is part of a "just because we love kids" super-large family. There was once a non-fundie, apparently normal family of 12 on Kids by the Dozen--can't remember their name right now, but they were from New England and seemed very down-to-earth and practical.

Cheaper by the Dozen and Belles on Their Toes have been among my favorite books for years. I'm jealous that Hisey got to look at Lillian's papers.

The books are obviously heavily fictionalized... for starters, there were never twelve children living at once (Mary died before half of the kids were born), but Cheaper indicates that there were. And it wouldn't be possible to remember childhood incidents with such clarity and detail (and I doubt everyone in the family was as witty as they're portrayed). But I take the books for what they are and thoroughly enjoy them every time I read them.

[susang]

Like Theodore Roosevelt, the Gilbreaths were for basic eugenics--those who are "best" should have the most kids. And as others have said, the books are not 100% non-fiction. Plus, even when times were "hard" they still paid people to do much of the work.

The fact is one parent cannot do it "all"--I know I'm a single Mom (I adopted my kids so no ex- to help out, like that would happen anyway in too many cases). It's a total joke to think Mrs. Gilbreath or Mrs. Duggar or Mrs. WhoeversheisQuiverfull can do everything.

So you are saying no one can raise a large family successfully?

Remove abuse from the equation

Remove Patriarchy and religious/political agenda.

It cannot be done? My kids are mostly still small and there is no way of knowing how the next 20 years will play out, but I will give all I have to ensure my children are healthy, happy, loved, safe, and educated.

[Hisey]

About Lillian Gilbreth and her neglect of her kids. . .

It wasn't just the fact that she chose go to Europe after her husband's death. Although there was plenty of insurance money, the trip may have been necessary in order to assume Frank's place in their engineering firm. It's interesting to note, though, that Ernestine and several of the other kids felt rather bitter about the way their mother presented the issue to them (she acted like she had to go, when really there were several other choices available--and then pretended to give the kids the "choice" of what to do).

The thing is, Lillian chose to be away from her family far more than necessary. When her kids were still young, but she was earning good money as an engineer, she chose to take a job as a professor in Indiana! And the family lived in New Jersey! Her kids stayed in NJ with the nannies, and she went out to Purdue. She returned frequently to see the kids, but she was still away from home teaching in the midwest for two college semesters a year.

Long after Lillian was making really good money as an engineer, she was still taking jobs out of town and out of the country. I don't think she liked fancy parties or social life--I think she just liked work and was bored of kids.

Even when she returned from Europe, she didn't rush right back to her grieving kids in Nantucket. She meandered around Montclair (where thye lived) and New York, visiting Frank's grave, etc. If it were me, I could not have stopped myself from heading to Massachusetts to see my kids. They'd just lost their father, for goodness sake!

With that said, I like the Gilbreth family a lot, particularly their emphasis on educating the girls. And they all felt loyal and loving towards their parents, even as adults. That says a lot about the family.

[Hisey]

I agree with the poster who felt Lillian sent a false message about her family.

She made many women in the 1900's feel they could have it all, because she did. She neglected to mention she was away from the kids a huge amount (one summer she left her four girls --aged 7 and under-- for two months with their 75 year old grandmother, while she went to Europe with Frank). She neglected to mention she had nannies and cooks.

She sent out a false message to these women, and probably made them feel pretty bad. You don't get a lot of credit or prizes for being home after school to chat with your kids. Lillian got a lot of prizes, because she chose a different route--her career. That's fine, but don't pretend you've done both well.

[Alcyone]

The whole idea of knowing that #12 was the last "newest model" must have meant that the Gilbreths had taken steps to make sure that #13 wouldn't happen. I suspect a hysterectomy.

Your hunch about the hysterectomy turns out to be correct. I found a biography of Lillian that says she had an emergency hysterectomy when Jane, the youngest, was nine months old.

[tabitha2]

I don't think so.With the 13th baby she miscarried from a fall down the stairs if she had a hysterectomy it was a result of that trauma.

[susang]

I agree with the poster who felt Lillian sent a false message about her family.

She made many women in the 1900's feel they could have it all, because she did. She neglected to mention she was away from the kids a huge amount (one summer she left her four girls --aged 7 and under-- for two months with their 75 year old grandmother, while she went to Europe with Frank). She neglected to mention she had nannies and cooks.

She sent out a false message to these women, and probably made them feel pretty bad. You don't get a lot of credit or prizes for being home after school to chat with your kids. Lillian got a lot of prizes, because she chose a different route--her career. That's fine, but don't pretend you've done both well.

I really agree about the false message of bliss and perfection. My life is all about compromises and adjusting my goals and expectations constantly. I will not know if I have done well for another twenty or thirty years. Maybe then I will start a blog on all the things I know about parenting. :whistle:

[Alcyone]

I don't think so.With the 13th baby she miscarried from a fall down the stairs if she had a hysterectomy it was a result of that trauma.

This book I am looking at is really interesting. The title is "Making Time: Lillian Moller Gilbreth".

The author states that the baby who died was the eighth child. Labor was precipitated early by a fall down the stairs but apparently the cause of death was given as a knot in the umbilical cord. She was never named and neither parent wrote about her. (According to the book the birth occurred in Sept. 1915.)

Some other surprising things from the book:

- The author contends that the large number of children was in part due to the difficulty Frank and Lillian had discussing birth control! Call me a voyeur but would I ever like to know more about that tidbit and where the author found it.

- Lillian only had responsibility for the youngest baby. The older children each had a younger sibling to whom he or she was assigned. Lillian is then quoted as saying the children loved having family responsibilities and chores and other families had children running wild because they were not given enough family responsibility.

[Feberin]

I think it's hard to compare since the Gilbreths were from a different time so a lot of things they do that we might not approve of these days were simply normal for that time period. Also the whole nannies raising the children thing seems in line with wealthy families during that time no matter how many children. I would assume if the Gilbreths were a modern family they would have stopped after two or three kids and Lillian would have been your typical working mother.

[TheSassyOne]

Slavery was "normal" for people in the U.S. at one time in our history.

I guess that made it okay.

'Just saying. :shock:

[keen23]

This book I am looking at is really interesting. The title is "Making Time: Lillian Moller Gilbreth".

The author states that the baby who died was the eighth child. Labor was precipitated early by a fall down the stairs but apparently the cause of death was given as a knot in the umbilical cord. She was never named and neither parent wrote about her. (According to the book the birth occurred in Sept. 1915.)

Some other surprising things from the book:

- The author contends that the large number of children was in part due to the difficulty Frank and Lillian had discussing birth control! Call me a voyeur but would I ever like to know more about that tidbit and where the author found it.

- Lillian only had responsibility for the youngest baby. The older children each had a younger sibling to whom he or she was assigned. Lillian is then quoted as saying the children loved having family responsibilities and chores and other families had children running wild because they were not given enough family responsibility.

If you look at the birthdates, a Sept 1915 miscarriage would fit in, and the 2.5 years between child #7 and #8 is the largest gap between babies.

[Alcyone]

If you look at the birthdates, a Sept 1915 miscarriage would fit in, and the 2.5 years between child #7 and #8 is the largest gap between babies.

Yes, and supposedly, it was almost a full-term pregnancy. She was only a week away from her due date. She got pregnant again within a few months.

[Austin]

Slavery was "normal" for people in the U.S. at one time in our history.

I guess that made it okay.

'Just saying. :shock:

"Just sayin" that of course it doesn't make it okay. But that still doesn't negate the fact that historical figures need to be considered within the context in which they lived. There were the equivalent of what would consider today as serious scientists who pushed the concept of eugenics forward. Many, many of the educated class (the intelligentsia, so to speak) gave credence to it in those days.

Now we know better, so we have a moral responsibility to do better. I hope that 100 years from now, those who are alive then will look back at us and consider us through the lens of the context and time that we lived.

[QAF_Rocks]

I don't know anyone IRL who has or is part of a "just because we love kids" super-large family. There was once a non-fundie, apparently normal family of 12 on Kids by the Dozen--can't remember their name right now, but they were from New England and seemed very down-to-earth and practical.

The Gonyas? They lived in Massachusetts. Dad was a postmaster, and the kids went to public school. I think they were Catholic, so they might have been avoiding birth control for religious reasons, but it wasn't addressed in the episode. There were a few other non-fundie families on the show, too: the Sentmans and the Casons.

Also the whole nannies raising the children thing seems in line with wealthy families during that time no matter how many children.

Yes, that was definitely normal for the time period. I think people tend to associate nannies mostly with England, but wealthy American families used them, too. One of my parents was raised that way. My grandparents only had two children, but my mother and uncle were raised almost entirely by their nanny until they went away to boarding school. Their parents were involved, of course, but their nanny handled most of the day-to-day care.

[ceg045]

Ah, the Casons. I remember liking them on KBTD and checking in to see what they were up not long ago. Then I saw the father had Michelle Malkin's site under his "favorite links" on the blog. Eesh. All kinds of crazy out there. :(

[TheSassyOne]

I do agree with some of your post, yet thankfully there were people who "knew better" back in that period too, or I'd be out picking cotton today.

The Gilbreths wanted education, for all their kids. YAHOO. But when you dig down and find out much of the truth behind the book/movie, I think this would be a family that many Free Jingerites (is that how it's spelled?????) would snark to high heaven - fundie or not!

[TheSassyOne]

Off Topic

WOOT, I just realized that my status has changed. I can now wear plaid frumpers...YES :lol:

[QAF_Rocks]

Ah, the Casons. I remember liking them on KBTD and checking in to see what they were up not long ago. Then I saw the father had Michelle Malkin's site under his "favorite links" on the blog. Eesh. All kinds of crazy out there.

The Casons were definitely very religious, but at least they were miles and miles better than the Arndts or Jeubs. I'm never sure of the difference between conservative evangelical and fundie-lite, but whatever the Casons were, they didn't seem bent on making their children follow in their footsteps.

[valsa]

I do agree with some of your post, yet thankfully there were people who "knew better" back in that period too, or I'd be out picking cotton today.

The Gilbreths wanted education, for all their kids. YAHOO. But when you dig down and find out much of the truth behind the book/movie, I think this would be a family that many Free Jingerites (is that how it's spelled?????) would snark to high heaven - fundie or not!

I agree with you. I think some posters here are doing what they also tend to do with some present day fundies- excuse their crap beliefs because they like the family. Just because you like a family or, worse yet, like a highly fictionalized book loosely based on the family, doesn't mean you should bend over backwards to rationalize the offense beliefs they hold. Especially since most horrible beliefs that current fundy families hold could be rationalized just as easily.

[Alecto]

The family on Table for Twelve was not fundie in the least. They were Catholic, but I think they were mostly in it because they loved kids.