MJDai

Just FYI, Brian Henson did a Facebook Live Q&A yesterday in honor of Farscape's 20th birthday.

I’m a little worried you’re all going to be disgusted with me but here it is: I am having trouble fitting the image of Josh I had before (loving husband and father, bully to LGBT and women’s rights) and this new one of molester. I find myself going back and forth between Molester Then, loving father/husband and whackjob right-taker now, and Molester who cannot be a loving father/husband. Even if I only take into account what we know- he molested five minors, and keep aside all speculation about the possibility of his being a sexual predator now. How can he be both have molested his sisters AND love his daughter? I find myself excusing his “teenage mistake” until it makes me physically ill. Then I try to make him less of a dad but that is not fair to his family. I think I have been so conditioned into viewing the world in black/white, good/evil that seeing that a person can be more than a molester takes some real effort. He was never all good obviously. Good people try to help others, they don’t try to put restrictions on who is allowed to love who. But he was ruining lives from the safety of his office, never having to witness the pain and destruction of life he was causing. That makes him an idiot, a bully and a coward. Now we know he’s a molester as well. Invading the sanctity of the body of another without consent, we can all agree that’s just evil. But evil people don’t have lame competitions with their brother-in-law. They don’t carry their children or are too weak to tell their wife they don’t want more kids. We don’t see evil every week on the tv smiling at us as he recounts another inane event of his life. We certainly don’t let evil into our living room, or in the case of their fans, into our hearts. So how can he be evil? How can he be a molester? And at that point the whole circle starts anew. Josh Duggar made a mistake. Could happen to anyone. He molested 5 minors. Evil. Aw Crap! If anyone can explain to me how someone can love his family and still have molested his sisters (amongst other) I would be interested to know. This is breaking my head. (Written in first person singular because I don’t want to assume, but I think these same thoughts are what makes fans stick by Josh Duggar.)

It could be an attribution thing. I am spinning theories here, this is all conjecture. But Jessa and Jinger seem to be externaly motivated to do their chores (/slave labour) as in their parents make them and they do it but don't feel they have to like it. Jill seemed internally motivated, she did her chores so people (her parents) would see she is A Good Girl + she would derive pride out of being a good servant etc. Jana seems to be externally motivated but has internal attribution. She does the work because she is told to but is down on herself because she doesn't like it. If that is the case it would explain why Jana of all the J'slaves seems most down. If she thinks she's a bad person and no accomplishment is ever good enough because she has times where she doesn't enjoy it... that leads to fear, depression and stagnation. It would explain her seeming lack of interest in her own future. I don't think Jana blames her parents. Loyalty and obedience to the parents seem too central to their lives. So all she is left to blame is herself. Which, if she is already pre-disposed to internal attribution could have bad consequences. Again, just guessing.

What really gets on my nerves about the Duggars is the parentification of the children and the infantalisation of the adults. Pre-teens can raise their siblings and take care of their parents (cleaning their room for instance) but adults aren't trusted to go out alone, talk to people of the opposite sex unsupervised or even walk with their heads up if there is an uncovered knee in their general area. The Duggar brood seems likely to suffer from a lot of identity issues. Some of the adult children seem stuck in Teen-mode (Jill, JD), others seem to just have no idea how to form an identity (Jana) and others' developmentally normal distance taking from their parents (+biology) has left them married very young (Jessa, Josh). I honestly believe Dim Bulb and MEchelle are trying their best, but they've got such blinders on! For all their controlling they can't seem to see the harm they do to the development of their children. I guess when the goal of childrearing is to create soldiers for God's army instead of healthy, well adjusted adults, this is what you get.

Probably a combination of all of them. She clearly doesn't have a strongly articulated personality, has had her share of repression (in whatever form) and tried on the martyr, only to find that you need someone to pay attention to you for martyrdom to give any satisfaction. All she's left with is blah. Ever the optimist I hold out hope that she could discover/develop more of a personality if she found herself outside of her family's atmosphere but as that is unlikely to happen, she'll have to settle for being Poor Jana. Poor, blah, beaten down, martyr Jana. I can't seem to wrap my head around the fact that these are real people and not characters... their lives are so sad.

I absolutely agree that Jana's looks play a part in how we think of her. Sad but true, that is part of the human condition. I also think that we react to Jana as being a victim far more than her sisters is because she paints herself as such. Meekly saying: "I don't know why no one else is sewing" will be taken by a lot of people as: "I'm afraid to speak up for myself." Because she is pretty and meek and introverted yet charismatic, we all flock to her and metaphorically pat her on the head and say: Not your fault." If she was uglier, or abrasive or annoying I think we would collectivelly be telling her to get a grip. But alas, she is and the wearing of her victimhood badge is somehow or other working for her. I think she differs from her sisters not because she was treated diffrently, I for one just don't know how much of that is true, I think she experiences things differently (every sibling does) and doesn't know how to, doesn't want to, or doesn't think she can change like they have done.

I think JD's not into the filming at all (just like Jana, but she has even less choice than he does) but goes along with it because it is a large part of his livelyhood. Even the 'belittling' of Ben seemed producer driven to me and JD just did what was asked of him. The glee about the trashing of the car seems legit... It shows how stunted he is as a person. Just like Jill acting like a teen with her first boyfriend, JD acts like a teen who gets to do something naughty when trashing the car. So yeah, he is a man-child, and has never been taught how to deal with emotions or been given the tools to reflect upon his own behaviour and state of life. I just want to send the whole Duggar brood to therapy. Individual therapy. Or give them anyone who isn't up the Duggar's posterior to talk to. Those kids (and sadly, those 25 y/o seem to still be kids) don't know even know what they do not know!

I think Jana is quite good at the childcare/homemaking/music things. How could she not be? She been at it since she could hold a dishrag. But she has never chosen to do them. Her work in the home has been expected from her and when she is done she is not thanked, she is given more. Personally, I don't care how good I am at something and how much I could enjoy it, if I HAD to do it without given any choice in the matter and without any thanks I would get annoyed and unhappy too. And this way of life has been going on for so long- literally her whole life, that it become who she is. I don't think she feels she has the agency to change that. Even at 25 she does not know how to change her circumstances. Jana seems to be more introverted than her sisters. Where Jessa gives stink eye and Jinger and Jill find something of their own to be excited about, I think Jana gives inner-stink eye at herself and her family and probably punishes herself for not meeting all the expectations while still inwardly railing against the expectations heaped upon her. But this is all speculation because I can't see inside Jana's head. But I hope that, if myspeculation is right, Jana does find some agency, some personal power, because else she's going to lie on her deathbed in 60 years and think: my life sucked.

Mbutterfly that's an interesting point of view. I've been raised atheist/agnostic and am still agnostic. I wonder at the sense of connectedness through one Creator you feel. It seems to me that must be a wonderful feeling. What makes me wonder about it is the many many variants of religion that exist. Is there still that feeling when y'all disagree on the how/why/when/who? I do feel that the waning of religion is part of the reason why therapy is on the rise. Having no clear set of rules makes finding right and wrong harder. Having no weekly congregating community makes loneliness easier. On the other hand, when a person does a good deed because they know they're going to get judged at the end can never me truly philantropic. That is not to say agnostics/atheist are always philantropic when doing good, I myself quite enjoy babysitting for various neighbours free of charge because I like people thanking me and thinking well of me, also I like hanging out with the kids as playing in the mud as an adult is frowned upon ;) I hope that without religion we will still feel a connectedness. Not to a Creator, but to Life. As for the emptyness of the lives of children. I think that has more to do with the modern focus on the having of stuff i.s.o. more worthwile pursuits than the lack of religion.

I was thinking about religion and the social safety net. It seems like countries where the government-arranged social safety net is strongest there is comparitively little religion. I'm thinking of the Scandinavian countries in particular. In the USA there seems to be the reverse: a lot of religion and not so much government-arranged social safety net. As y'all have been telling the congregation is encouraged to give "love-offerings" and as most religious text goes into helping others being a good thing- could it be that the churches have taken it upon themselves to arrange the social safety net for their followers? In a way that has a LOT less admin? It would explain why religion is still going so strong there (even if it seems to be waning now). I don't want to overask, but could someone explain how or in what way the congregation helps those in need (other than prayer?) and how the ones that actually are in need are picked out? As an agnostic, I don't really get organised religion but I really like the idea of a lot of people carrying the load of the weak amongst them. I also like the idea of the USA secretly being a really socialist country only via the churches iso the government, but I dare not suggest it as the ghost of McCarthy (is he even dead?) is going to haunt me.

Sorry to hear that Bigskygirl. Over here the city arranges taxi services for those that can't drive or use public transportation. Not willy nilly and for everything mind you but for getting to/fro work, the weekly shopping, doctor's visits and such... Uhm.. feeling a little emberassed about tooting the horn of my country. Here's the bad stuff: they just overhauled the entiremental health system without having another one in place so the weakest in my society have no idea what's going to happen to them. Also we're a bunch of racists. I don't think I implied you were lazy. If I did I apologize. I implied that you were without alternative options and that somehow it seems as though a lot of the self-worth in USA'ians seems to be tied up in the having of a car (or more than one) which makes the realizing of alternative options to having cars improbable.

It's a bit of a topsy turvy argument though: We all have to have multiple cars per family unit because there is not alternative transportation available. There is no alternative transportation available because we have multiple cars per family. To me, that's just odd and yes, is a very USA'ian attitude. I live in a fairly rural area, I had to cycle 7k to get to school from age 8 through 17. My mother(64) still cycles up to 17k to her work. Yes, on back country lanes so no highways involved because there is cycle-friendly infrastructure over here (NL's). But that infrastructure is available because we made it a priority (and kept doing bloody stupid things like cycle alongside densely trafficed roads until the city council got nervous enough to put in bikelanes). Same goes for public transport. Why isn't it readily available? In rural areas that's kind of understadable but from suburbs there should be, unless there's the expectation that there will be cars. And then we're back to the original point. ETA: That's not to say you should never own one or more cars. Do whatever works for you. But the argument made on the Jill/Derick thread that it was irresponsible or even unsafe not to have transportation at the ready 24/7 seemed a tad odd.

I'm kind of loving this whole 2nd car discussion as it epitomizes USA values in a way. I feel it encumbent upon me as European to assure everyone that yes, you can live a happy, fulfilling and safe life without a second car. Or even *gasp* without any car at all. If Jill and Derick choose to spend their money on something other than a car, well who cares? I feel I am doing the snarking wrong here as it's directed at the forum rather than the subjects under scrutiny. I assure you, it is done with love. In retaliation, feel free to make fun of my car-less life. Or my apparent lack of knowledge of the boondock lifestyle.

You know with OT God being quite smitey, maybe he was like: Come on, I've given you plenty of signs that you should stop breeding (I made bunnies so I'll always have cute "littles" around). But if you won't listen I'm going to let you have it! And then they had 19 kids they didn't have the emotional capacity to raise as their (and their childrens) punishment.

I think Jana more than her sisters was pressed into the mould her parents needed her to be in. No one in that house has, or so it seems, ever considered Jana's needs and in that house, it's normal! Her skills, with children and the cooking and sowing and whatnot, are what she HAD to become good at. Without any consideration of what she would be inclined to become skilled at... And as she was not allowed to be friends with her brothers her bestie had to be Jill. I think out of self-defence Jill became the Good Girl (i.e. snitch and line-tower) but that leaves even less room for Jana to develop her own personality. And hey, even if she tried to be a Good Girl too it wouldn't get noticed because everything Jana does is taken for granted. So I don't think Michelle is jealous of Jana's mothering skills... I think that to Michele Jana isn't really a person in her own right. *sigh* Poor Jana.