I think they announce on the Today Show the day the episode airs, don't they? So they're just breaking the news by 12-14 hours or so?
I was wondering the same thing and spent some time googling last night with no results. I think it's something lame like having to cook for a record number of guests or fit a ton of family members in their house or something (they previews showed upwards of 20 people coming over soon?). Lame.
I think from the previews it's just the entire Duggar family is showing up a day early. Nothing that exciting.My first thought was that she is pregnant again, but in the preview she mentioned something like "you're going to be here today?!".
Also, does anyone else think they are super wasteful when it comes to dishes? They are always eating off paper plates and using paper cups. I'm sure the kitchen has three dishwashers.
I think the surprise is the family coming a day early. If Anna was pregnant, she wouldn't be finding out on the phone. If Michelle was, they would tell Josh & Anna in person since they're about to come over for dinner. They wouldn't show Erin Bates because she miscarried and I think the timing is off for her sister Priscilla.
They updated that Josh and Anna special to add Marcus. At the end Anna mentioned how they weren't trying and was fully okay with only having 3 kids. Josh wasn't smiling though.
I just love the Duggars so, so much. It's so hard for me to find anything wrong with them.
That said... this whole Jessa courtship is weird. He's so much younger than her, has no "real" job or education, etc. And she doesn't seem that into him.
Jill, on the other hand, I am so, so happy for. She seems super in love, and the guy she's marrying is adorable and seems like a great guy.
What? Are we thinking of the same family? You see nothing wrong with requiring your children to raise your other children thereby having no childhood? You see nothing wrong With encouraging your sons to have a career and not your daughters?
i feel so sorry for those older girls. I can't imagine spending everyday since you were 8 raising your parents children.
Oh, goodness. I just think they are a very nice family with old-fashioned values. They do what works for them. It doesn't mean that it has to work for you or that you have to agree with it.
I personally love seeing a Christian family portrayed on TV. I love that the Duggars are debt-free, pay for everything in cash, and are frugal even though they've obviously done well for themselves. There are lots of things that I love about them.
Also, I don't think you've really watched the show if you think that they don't encourage their daughters to have careers. The two oldest girls are involved in midwifery (I think one is studying to be a midwife and one a doula, but I may be off on that). Their parents have been supportive of that.
I'll add a random that I was considering a purchase (a not totally necessary one) and had the family motto "but used, save the difference" suddenly in my head, so yay for being MM
What? Are we thinking of the same family? You see nothing wrong with requiring your children to raise your other children thereby having no childhood? You see nothing wrong With encouraging your sons to have a career and not your daughters?
i feel so sorry for those older girls. I can't imagine spending everyday since you were 8 raising your parents children.
Oh, goodness. I just think they are a very nice family with old-fashioned values. They do what works for them. It doesn't mean that it has to work for you or that you have to agree with it.
I personally love seeing a Christian family portrayed on TV. I love that the Duggars are debt-free, pay for everything in cash, and are frugal even though they've obviously done well for themselves. There are lots of things that I love about them.
Also, I don't think you've really watched the show if you think that they don't encourage their daughters to have careers. The two oldest girls are involved in midwifery (I think one is studying to be a midwife and one a doula, but I may be off on that). Their parents have been supportive of that.
Google Gothardism.
What the believe is a form a harmful fundamentalism. They hands down believe that a woman's place is in the home. Google stay at home daughters. The believe that a woman must always submit to a males authority. They embrace To Train Up a Child, a horrific child training manual. They do not allow, or encourage, any kind of critical thinking or free thought.
The group they belong to is a cult. And it's harmful, no matter how great they seem on a scripted reality TV show.
Quote from website:
Gothard’s view of authority is far more extreme. The wife must submit entirely to her husband, regardless of the rightness of his choices. She is allowed to appeal if he wishes her to sin. Of course, the definition of “sin” is incredibly and inexplicably narrow in this context, especially compared to the hyper-sinfulization [My own word...I am quite pleased with it!] of those not in the position of authority! If her appeal is denied, she may choose to suffer for doing right, but must continue to honor her husband, and look happy to the rest of the world, since any discontent in her countenance is a public shaming of her head. In addition to this, he teaches very strongly that the one under authority is the one responsible for change: In other words, if the husband does something wrong, it is all your fault. If you were only more submissive, more this, more that, you would please him and he wouldn’t do that. You can patch the leaks in your umbrella by just trying harder to submit. It is the perfect recipe for abuse.
Whatever God is speaking, he will speak to your husband/father. It doesn’t really matter what the topic is: A daughter’s future spouse, your callings and responsibilities, how you should spend your time, how you should raise your children. Any decision is between the father/husband and God, and the father/husband will let you know when he is ready to. Your responsibility is to cheerfully go along with it. Even if your father is not a believer (which is somehow also your fault, of course), you still have to rely on him to be the go-between between you and God.
What? Are we thinking of the same family? You see nothing wrong with requiring your children to raise your other children thereby having no childhood? You see nothing wrong With encouraging your sons to have a career and not your daughters?
i feel so sorry for those older girls. I can't imagine spending everyday since you were 8 raising your parents children.
Oh, goodness. I just think they are a very nice family with old-fashioned values. They do what works for them. It doesn't mean that it has to work for you or that you have to agree with it.
I personally love seeing a Christian family portrayed on TV. I love that the Duggars are debt-free, pay for everything in cash, and are frugal even though they've obviously done well for themselves. There are lots of things that I love about them.
Also, I don't think you've really watched the show if you think that they don't encourage their daughters to have careers. The two oldest girls are involved in midwifery (I think one is studying to be a midwife and one a doula, but I may be off on that). Their parents have been supportive of that.
They embrace To Train Up a Child, a horrific child training manual.
You are so very wrong on this point.
?? Haven't the Duggars admitted to blanket training?
And to skib, the don't encourage the daughters to have careers. They have to do everything in pairs which is why poor Jana had to do midwifery with Jill. Only Jill was truly interested in it. Midwifery is one of a handful of allowed professions.
?? Haven't the Duggars admitted to blanket training?
They don't follow the book's lead on that. Michelle does "blanket train" with positive reinforcement, not hitting. Their practices are night and day, IMO.
Wrong on whether they embrace it, or whether it is horrific?
You're joking, right?
No...? Your comment was ambiguous. They've admitted to using blanket training, and they did at one point endorse the book on their website (it has since been removed).
No...? Your comment was ambiguous. They've admitted to using blanket training, and they did at one point endorse the book on their website (it has since been removed).
Yep.
And last I checked it was very much embraced by ATI.
If I am wrong on that point I would be happy. Those poor kids deal with enough already, they don't need to be physically abused as well.
I didn't know they endorsed that book at one point.
I just remember reading time and again how vastly different Michelle's "blanket training" was to the book. She basically teaches her kids to sit still and play quietly. I've seen her demonstrate something similar with her older children. She often takes one of her 3-10 year olds and has them sit in a chair and watch other children practice their instruments, etc.
What's wrong with blanket training? I'm not saying that in an attacking manner but being inquisitive.
What's he developmental difference between that and a timeout? Or what's the difference with a child who can only play on the blanket or a child confound to a playroom or having them sit at a table for a duration of time? Assuming toys are in play with both, creative free play is still being used.
This is assuming it is not happening multiple times a day.
What's wrong with blanket training? I'm not saying that in an attacking manner but being inquisitive.
What's he developmental difference between that and a timeout? Or what's the difference with a child who can only play on the blanket or a child confound to a playroom or having them sit at a table for a duration of time? Assuming toys are in play with both, creative free play is still being used.
This is assuming it is not happening multiple times a day.
Blanket training as described on TTUAC:
"Blanket training" has been one of the most helpful tools for me! I only wish that I had heard about it before my 7th child came along!! The sweet lady who explained blanket training to me called it her "playpen in a purse"! This concept involves placing your baby or toddler on his/her favorite blanket, explaining to the best of their understanding that they must stay on their blanket, and then demonstrating the consequences of getting off the blanket with a small rod or switch. Simply switch the floor or carpet all around the outside edges of the blanket and firmly but sweetly say, "No, No! Don't touch!" Give your child few favorite toys to keep his attention, and switch the toys out every little bit, and that child will learn to stay on his blanket for quite a long period of time. Begin with just 3 - 5 minutes with very young children, and after practicing every day for several weeks, he will build up his time to play happily on that blanket until he can stay there for an hour or more! What a joy and a help this was to me when I had the older 6 children in school and needed to spend time with them! The joy of this training is that you can fold that blanket up, put it in the diaper bag, and take it easily to a friend's house, or visiting new church members, and your child will sit quietly without disrupting the visit! One of my pet peeves is when folks come to visit and just "unleash" their children to invade every room of your home! What chaos! This blanket training is easily converted to "church training" when you begin taking your young child into the services. Simply fold the blanket and put it on the pew and your child will already understand the limitations and rules!
So, basically, beat your kid if they move off the blanket. Even if they are a baby. And it is not a punishment - it is part of "child training"
Place a few interesting toys in the center of the rug or spread-out quilt, maybe ones the child has not seen for awhile. Pat the floor around each edge of the blanket, saying "no" firmly. If your baby is like all of mine, he will watch your show with interest and then crawl straight past the fascinating toys toward the edge of the blanket. As soon as his hand begins to touch the forbidden zone (floor or carpet), say, "no", and swat his hand so that it stings. Comfort him on the blanket and place him in the center again. This will need to be repeated. Two essentials: at this stage; watch with undivided attention. If the child gets off even once, it will strengthen his will to try again and make it harder to train him (but not impossible). Second, do not make the training time too long. Once the child is playing with the toys for a little while, even just a few minutes, pick him up and praise him, take him off and put the blanket away until the next time. Extend the Blanket Time gradually to longer periods of time. Older children can be expected to eventually play for an hour happily. If your child is over one year old and knows "No" well, he may need a real spanking instead of a hand swat, when he refuses to stay on in the designated area.
Joshlyman, I'm just asking for clarification. In both examples it doesn't mention hitting the child, but hitting the floor or carpet around the blanket. Am I reading that correctly?
I'm sure some don't hit, but from the second article:
As soon as his hand begins to touch the forbidden zone (floor or carpet), say, "no", and swat his hand so that it stings. If the child gets off even once, it will strengthen his will to try again and make it harder to train him. If your child is over one year old and knows "No" well, he may need a real spanking instead.
This is what is advocated in TTUAC. They even go so far at to describe what kind of plumbing tube is best to hit them with.
?? Haven't the Duggars admitted to blanket training?
They don't follow the book's lead on that. Michelle does "blanket train" with positive reinforcement, not hitting. Their practices are night and day, IMO.
More on the man the Duggars follow (aka former leader and founder of ATI):
From Washington Post:
Gothard’s resignation from the Institute in Basic Life Principles, according to a letter sent to families affiliated with the ministry he founded, comes a week after he was put on administrative leave. According to an organizer involved in the whistle-blowing website Recovering Grace, 34 women told the website they had been sexually harassed; four women alleged molestation.
RNS spoke with several women who alleged they were sexual harassed, including one woman who alleged that Gothard molested her when she was 17.
Gothard is 79 and single.
Gothard told the Board of Directors he wanted to follow the New Testament command to listen to those who made accusations against him, according to an email sent from David Waller, administrative director of the Advanced Training Institute to families involved in the ministry.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus directs his followers to “go and be reconciled” if “your brother or sister has something against you.”
“To give his full attention to this objective, Mr. Gothard has resigned as president of the Institutes in Basic Life Principles, its Board of Directors, and its affiliated entities,” Waller’s email said.
Waller said the two institutes will continue under interim leadership, including upcoming conferences in Nashville and Sacramento under ATI president Chris Hogan.
Gothard’s ministry had been a popular gathering spot for thousands of Christian families, including the Duggar family from TLC’s “19 Kids and Counting.” Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute conferences were also popular among families within the Quiverfull movement, who eschew birth control and promote big families.
Gothard has also rubbed shoulders with Republican leaders. He and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee were photographed at a campaign lunch together; former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue spoke at one of Gothard’s conferences; and Sarah Palin, when she was a small town mayor in Alaska, attended his International Association of Character Cities conferences declaring Wasilla among Gothard’s “Cities of Character.”
The allegations against Gothard dovetail with financial woes. In recent years, IBLP’s net revenue has dropped significantly, and the ministry is losing money. Between 2009 and 2012, it lost $8.6 million. Its net assets dropped from $92 million in 2010 to $81 million in 2012. It held 504 seminars in 2010, but that number dropped to fewer than 50 in 2012.
More on the man the Duggars follow (aka former leader and founder of ATI):
Gothard told the Board of Directors he wanted to follow the New Testament command to listen to those who made accusations against him, according to an email sent from David Waller, administrative director of the Advanced Training Institute to families involved in the ministry. s
Isn't Priscilla, Anna's sister, married to a David Waller? Is it the same guy?
More on the man the Duggars follow (aka former leader and founder of ATI):
Gothard told the Board of Directors he wanted to follow the New Testament command to listen to those who made accusations against him, according to an email sent from David Waller, administrative director of the Advanced Training Institute to families involved in the ministry. s
Isn't Priscilla, Anna's sister, married to a David Waller? Is it the same guy?
Post by phoenixrising on Apr 19, 2014 8:27:27 GMT -5
Wow...I did not realize that this could be streamed in full on Netflix. Looks like I know what I will be watching once I am done with Orange is the New Black.