Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

Null 302

By Null 302
in Counting On

Guest

As a reminder, the site's Politics Policy remains in effect.  Yes, Jim Bob is apparently running for office again. That does not make it an acceptable topic of conversation in here - unless for some mysterious reason, TLC brings the show back and it is discussed on there. Even then, it would be limited to how it was discussed on the show.

If you have any questions, please PM the mods, @SCARLETT45 and myself.

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 13k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

cmr2014
cmr2014

I was thinking about this and the idea that the girls weren't "harmed" and weren't "damaged goods" which led me to realize that ALL of the Duggar children are "damaged goods" and I think that's becomi

Churchhoney
Churchhoney

They put themselves on tv and have proclaimed over and over and over and over again that their way of life is the way to ensure that your children are totally safe from every evil of the world, and in

WhitneyWhit
WhitneyWhit

I don't know where to post this but I fucking met Michelle Duggar. Let me set the scene. So my cousin is getting married and we were at a shop looking at dresses here in Kentucky when the Duggars marc

Posted Images

bigskygirl

bigskygirl

Was John David close by because he is the so-called emergency personnel expert. Also, emergency personnel do not arrive on scene as soon as 911 is called. I live near a volunteer fire department station. The paramedics and other fire personnel can arrive quickly, but the law enforcement personnel and ambulance will take a little longer to arrive on scene. .

floridamom

floridamom

I am sorry to hear that Josie suffered a seizure. I wouldn't want any child to have any health issues as they are innocent of those circumstances. Having said that, I have a lot to say to Michelle and Jim Bob...those parents have some 'splainin' to do. I think Michelle carries the "power of positive thinking" a bit too far here. Sure, Josie is perfectly fine and has NO issues from being born so prematurely...yeah, right. That's what happens when you have a birth mother who lives in "la la land". That woman is a 48 year old teenager who never grew up...Where were they during this episode? and Yes, where was John David, the paramedic first responder? Poor Jana had to deal with yet another situation that should have not been hers.. she is not that kid's mother, Michelle is. She should grow up and assume the role she is "awarded" with plaques and roses for. I'm sure they were either on their "date night" or away at some speaking engagement..why people would pay to hear her talk, is beyond me. They have absolutely nothing NEW to say. Poor Josie; she probably won't ever be the best she can be...like her older sisters.

  • Love 6
GEML

GEML

Given that poor Jill had to handle Josie's first medical crisis when Michelle was right in the room when they first brought her home, and Jill was also the one handling things when the son fell off the stage and was pretty banged up and Michelle was right there, I'm not so sure it matters if she's there or not. She's not going to, or isn't capable of handling a crisis.

  • Love 5
SmallTownMom

SmallTownMom

Wow, Jana gives an interview with a seriously ill child in the background?  WTH is wrong with these people?

 

Also just saw the picture of Jason shopping at Costco, or wherever, buying more styrofoam to be forever in landfills.  Why do these kids keep flashing the "gangster sign?"  You look even more stupid than usual.

 

Everytime I see one of them holding up two fingers like that, I think they are answering somebody who just questioned what grade level they are reading on.

Zahdii

Zahdii

Because the actual parents don't care a whit and they know that Jana will take care of the problem for them.

 

This is why I suspect that not only will JB&M do everything they can to keep Jana from marrying, but Jana herself has a stronger parental feeling than either of the actual parents.

 

I wonder how Jana feels.  Does she admit to herself that her parents are horrible people who only want to dip into the parental mode when it's convenient or necessary for the 'ministry' (aka the show)?  Does she realize that if she were gone there's no telling how bad the neglect would get for the younger siblings?  Or has she been so indoctrinated into the cult that she really believes she's just doing her part so her parents can continue the mission to bring the rest of us heathens into the fold or out breed us so they can take over?

 

Once in a while there's a person in a family that has so little sense of self that they slip into the role of caretaker for the family.  They start out by being the backup for their initial family, but as time goes by they're handed around to other family members to take care of things in a crisis, always ending up back at the family home taking care of business until the next time they're needed.  That's Jana.  She stays at home handling all the family business until she's needed to run a Journey of the Heart.  Or Smugger wants to take a trip with his family and they can't figure out how to manage all of their three kids by themselves.  When Jill finally gives birth look for Jana to be hovering in the background to do the heavy lifting while Jill and Derick pose for pictures with the new baby.

 

Every time I hear this crap about Michelle happily talking about one of her kids having "a servants heart" I want to vomit.  When it comes to Jana, it's more accurate to substitute 'slave' for 'servant'.

  • Love 5
andromeda331

andromeda331

I wonder how Jana feels.  Does she admit to herself that her parents are horrible people who only want to dip into the parental mode when it's convenient or necessary for the 'ministry' (aka the show)?

 

 

She probably does. But she also knows it does her no good to voice her feelings or anger. The poor girl admitted to feeling angry in the past and her parents sent her to be reprogrammed. What's the point in saying anything? I can't understand why her siblings dump more work on her. They grew up in the house they knew she does everything and yet Josh has no problem using her to help his wife who can't take care of their three kids, Jill has no problem dumping making all the bridesmaids dresses and ties on her. I've know crappy parents who have dumped all the responsibilities on their kid but I've never seen their siblings adding to it. They usually try to lessen the work load and help him or her out. The ones who move out usually invite him or her over for a break, to relax, or convince to leave.

  • Love 1
GEML

GEML

(edited)

There may also be the explanation that the family recognizes that Michelle is mentally ill and can't care for her youngest children. And Jana is being paid now to do so by her father, with long breaks to DC and perhaps elsewhere when she needs them. This would explain why Jana felt resentment in the past but doesn't feel it now - she's still doing the same things only with some recognition from her father and likely older sister Jill, who probably fills in the gaps in her absences. Jill might have the large house to bring said siblings over when Jana is away.

I think Michelle has some problems. And I also think Jim Bob loves his wife and will never admit those to anyone. But I also think he loves his children and might try to come up with a working solution that ALSO keeps things quiet so the show continues and the money pours in. If it's true that Jana genuinely does not wish to marry and leave home, this might be the simplest explanation that works for them.

Edited by GEML
  • Love 5
bigskygirl

bigskygirl

Denying Michelle having a possible mental illness is helping her and the kids how? Getting her help instead of burying his head in the sand and expecting his daughters to take care of his children would be the right step. And giving his first married daughter a big house and sending the kids over so she and her husband can take care of them because his precious wife cannot handle her own children. If a person has to pray to God to be able to love their children, they should not be having them.

GEML

GEML

(edited)

They aren't bringing any more children into the fold. I think Jim Bob knows that. Just watching that episode at the doctor's office and how he responded and she did (one was rational and one was in denial) were eye opening.

It's a lovely idea that you can get mentally ill people help, but you can't - not legally, and you can't even convince many of them that they are ill. You can't force anyone to get therapy for themselves, as a couple or as a family. The idea that she can't carry a child older than six months is outright delusional, for instance. That she can't speak to her daughter seeing her in a wedding dress without a cue card? That she can't make a 911 call. There is something profoundly wrong with the woman - not in a psychotic sense, but in a more basic, day to day sense. It may have accelerated at Josie's birth and that genuine trauma, how would we know? But I'm betting there is a lot more going on behind the scenes, and I'm simply proposing this as a possible explanation.

Edited by GEML
  • Love 7
cmr2014

cmr2014

I was thinking about this today, and it occurred to me that even though we live in the same country at the same time in history, we experience the world through very different lenses.

 

In the culture that I come from (which I consider to be main-stream America), individuality and independence are prized, in their world they are not. In my world, children are taught to think for themselves and make their own choices -- and to accept responsibility for those choices -- with the scope of the options increasing as the child matures. There is no concept of "mature" in their world, and children are always under the authority of a parent. Almost every single thing that I can think of that I would want for a child is something that they do not want: independence, intellectual curiosity, creativity, and the opportunity to love, and be loved by, the person of their choice.

 

From my own cultural perspective I see J'chelle as a bad mother, but JB and the children may not see things that way. I see her ignoring her children and not knowing -- or caring -- about them as individuals. From their perspective, though, you could make a case that she is a good mother. She has "trained" them all to be obedient (#1 requirement in Gothardland), she has indoctrinated them all into a religious and political mindset, and she has "protected" them all from outside influence. Since God is responsible for every aspect of their life, and anything that happens to them is "God's will," she really -- in her mind -- has no responsibility beyond giving them life.

  • Love 4
Betweenyouandme

Betweenyouandme

(edited)

I personally don't think because a person lives in the same country at the same time period that they have to please me and have the same way of thinking about family and success. There are so many families, for instance, in the US from other countries. Their culture is just different. As long as people aren't breaking laws, someone may not like it- they may hate it, but there's not much to be done. And, I don't think that courtesy of respect should only be extended to those of a different culture. I'll admit it. My father cares for me financially and makes the big decisions. It's the way things are done in my family until I meet someone suitable to marry. Heck, I'm pregnant, and my dad is delighted. But, either way, here I am. I don't let people I meet who are confused about my situation get me down. I'm not hateful to others or steal or anything like that.

Now, I know the Duggars are on TV and push politically. But, I'm talking in a general way in response to the above post.

Edited by Betweenyouandme
  • Love 1
DamWrite

DamWrite

On President's Day, the Duggars want a WH that honors G-d.  They're really starting to put it out there.  I'd like to see this kind of talk on the TV show and see what happens to ratings.  https://www.facebook.com/duggarfamilyofficial/photos/a.518180528315601.1073741828.510067475793573/602813113185675/?type=1&theater  

bigskygirl

bigskygirl

Seriously...What about honoring gays/lesbians, and women by letting them have the same rights and freedoms others have. What about honoring children by letting them go to a regular school, not be used for political and religious agendas and be allowed to go by themselves instead of being controlled by two selfish, famewhoring. narcissistic parents who are willing to sell their offsprings to the highest bidders. I also would like to see the older children and their spouses not turn into younger versions of their parents (looking at you Josh, Anna, Jill and Derick.)

galax-arena

galax-arena

(edited)

What does the new law say? The article linked above only really describes the previous law that Michelle was against.

It prohibits cities and counties from enacting anti-discrimination laws that will protect LGBT people. 

 

These people are truly, truly awful. 

What about honoring gays/lesbians, and women by letting them have the same rights and freedoms others have.

Get out of here with your gay agenda!

Edited by galax-arena
  • Love 2
Betweenyouandme

Betweenyouandme

(edited)

It prohibits cities and counties from enacting anti-discrimination laws that will protect LGBT people.

These people are truly, truly awful.

Get out of here with your gay agenda!

That is surprising. I mean, it's surprising that is legal. A law that prohibits anti-discrimination? Why doesn't the Federal government decide on this? Well, I guess that's off-topic to get involved in too deeply here except for that the Duggars are involved, but thank you for explaining it to me! I was really wanting to know.

I keep reading my third sentence and getting myself confused. I'm not good with things similar to double negatives. If I'm actually saying something inappropriate, please let me know. I can't get it to make sense. I hope it's not offensive. I'm really sorry if it is. I can't figure it out.

Edited by Betweenyouandme
galax-arena

galax-arena

(edited)

I hope I'm not going too off-topic in explaining more, and I thought about just PMing you, but I thought others might be interested in the topic. Can move this to Small Talk if it'd be better there.

 

Why doesn't the Federal government decide on this?

Every state can come up with their own statewide anti-discrimination laws. It's why some states ban discrimination based on gender identity/sexual orientation (e.g. California) and some don't (e.g. Alabama), similar to how some states allow gay marriage and others don't.

 

Sometimes, even if the state doesn't have a statute protecting a certain class of people, an individual county or city will come up with their own ordinance. For example, West Virginia has no statewide protections for sexual orientation or gender identity. However, just this year, a town in West Virginia became notable for being the smallest town - 5 residents! - to enact an ordinance that banned discrimination against LGBT people. (You go, Thurmond, West Virginia!)

 

So what this Arkansas bill is doing is essentially forbidding these individual counties/cities/towns from enacting anti-discrimination ordinances that "one-up" what's covered by the state. And since Arkansas doesn't cover anti-LGBT discrimination statewide, these counties/cities/towns aren't allowed to, either. IIRC technically this covers any sort of group not covered by the state, but it's a transparent attempt to hurt the LGBT population. The justification used by the senators pushing the bill was that they needed "uniformity."

 

One city in Arkansas, Eureka Springs, defiantly passed an anti-discrimination ordinance anyway, although this bill probably makes it unenforceable. (Don't quote me on that.) I'm sure someone will challenge it, though. 

 

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on the division between state/federal jurisdictions, so I hope I have all this right. Someone more knowledgeable than I am can jump in to correct me! 

Edited by galax-arena
  • Love 4
Betweenyouandme

Betweenyouandme

(edited)

Thank you! I think the world needs less discrimination. I think where I used to live there was a law, rarely enforced, that two unmarried people couldn't cohabitate in a one bedroom (it was somewhere same-sex marriage wasn't legal). I remember hearing that it was kept on the books to be anti-LGBT. Is this the type of thing Arkansas does that the Duggars support?

Edited by Betweenyouandme
maraleia

maraleia

I hope I'm not going too off-topic in explaining more, and I thought about just PMing you, but I thought others might be interested in the topic. Can move this to Small Talk if it'd be better there.

 

Every state can come up with their own statewide anti-discrimination laws. It's why some states ban discrimination based on gender identity/sexual orientation (e.g. California) and some don't (e.g. Alabama), similar to how some states allow gay marriage and others don't.

 

Sometimes, even if the state doesn't have a statute protecting a certain class of people, an individual county or city will come up with their own ordinance. For example, West Virginia has no statewide protections for sexual orientation or gender identity. However, just this year, a town in West Virginia became notable for being the smallest town - 5 residents! - to enact an ordinance that banned discrimination against LGBT people. (You go, Thurmond, West Virginia!)

 

So what this Arkansas bill is doing is essentially forbidding these individual counties/cities/towns from enacting anti-discrimination ordinances that "one-up" what's covered by the state. And since Arkansas doesn't cover anti-LGBT discrimination statewide, these counties/cities/towns aren't allowed to, either. IIRC technically this covers any sort of group not covered by the state, but it's a transparent attempt to hurt the LGBT population. The justification used by the senators pushing the bill was that they needed "uniformity."

 

One city in Arkansas, Eureka Springs, defiantly passed an anti-discrimination ordinance anyway, although this bill probably makes it unenforceable. (Don't quote me on that.) I'm sure someone will challenge it, though. 

 

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on the division between state/federal jurisdictions, so I hope I have all this right. Someone more knowledgeable than I am can jump in to correct me! 

All of this is perfectamudo TM Fonzie

Thanks for explaining this to the peeps here galax-arena

galax-arena

galax-arena

(edited)

Someone on another site pointed out that the US Supreme Court already struck down these types of bans in the 1996 case Romer v. Evans, so it's certain that this bill will be found unconstitutional sooner or later. The Arkansas legislature is tilting at windmills. What a waste of taxpayer money. 

 

Newsflash, bigots: You've lost! And a couple of decades from now, people will look back at you with all the nostalgia of 1950s segregation. 

Is this the type of thing Arkansas does that the Duggars support?

Probably. And I'm sure it's more symbolic than anything else, because at this point in history, there is no way any state could attempt to enforce that sort of law without a federal judge bitchslapping that law so hard you'd see stars. 

 

IIRC, the anti-gay sodomy law that was struck down in Lawrence v. Texas is still on the books, and conservative Texas lawmakers are resisting efforts to formally/officially repeal it. 

Edited by galax-arena
  • Love 3
Betweenyouandme

Betweenyouandme

(edited)

Oh yes. Well, TX ...three words: Rainbow Lounge raid. I was living in Fort Worth at the time. Huge deal all around. Have the Duggars ever made a public statement about any sort of hate crime?

Yep, that law about cohabitation was in NC. It's now struck down, but the original law referenced a "man and woman" living together. However, gay people were targeted, too. From what I remember, it was more firing people from jobs with that law as an excuse...at least in the time period I remember.

I wonder how much, if any, research either Jim Bob or Michelle do. Are they ignorant or just committed to their stance regardless? With Josh's job, do he and Jim Bob make any joint statements?

Edited by Betweenyouandme
Zahdii

Zahdii

I suppose it's too much to hope for that Joseph has quit the show and the Duggars have invented a reason for why he's not seen anymore.  It could explain why he wasn't added to the picture.

 

I know, that's crazy talk, but for a moment I let myself smile at the thought of one of the kids doing just that.  I even fanwanked a story that he's actually holed up in a little apartment on the dime of a book publisher while he works with a ghostwriter to churn out the tell all that makes Gothard cringe, his parents blanch, and gives Joy Anna some hope that her life might have some options opening up for her.

  • Love 4
Guest

As a reminder, the site's Politics Policy remains in effect.  Yes, Jim Bob is apparently running for office again. That does not make it an acceptable topic of conversation in here - unless for some mysterious reason, TLC brings the show back and it is discussed on there. Even then, it would be limited to how it was discussed on the show.

If you have any questions, please PM the mods, @SCARLETT45 and myself.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...