Jill, Derick & the Kids: Moving On!!

[Nysha]

4 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

8 hours ago, Nysha said:

I've never gone to a church that served wine for communion. Every church I ever went to (Baptist, Nazarene, Wesleyan, FourSquare, Assembly of God and assorted charismatic community churches) served grape juice.

I truly don't understand this. When did Jesus ever frown on a sip of wine?

The charismatic churches I attended with my parents as a middle school student had many recovering alcoholics in the congregation and grape juice was substituted so as not to cause any of them to stumble and begin drinking again. The other churches preached that the wine in Jesus's day was very weak and only fermented because the drinking water was too foul to drink. The water was foul because Israel is a desert country and relied on cisterns dug into the earth for water. The Wesleyan church is the one I last attended as an adult and they have a book of rules that God forgot to put into the Bible that is almost as thick as the actual Bible.

[Triple P]

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

If my loss of interest in Derick reflects others, then I'm guessing traffic has slowed down on all their social media. Derick's maniacal Tweets is was kept my snark going into between episodes. I just can't do Jill's sloppy recipes and haphazard parenting.

Thank goodness I have my 4 month anniversary with @Celia Rubenstein to look forward to. #freesloppysundae? #shecallsmekitten #snarkqueenextraordinaire #totallyspecial #yay!

What about#bestwifeyever!

[ginger90]

[GeeGolly]

12 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

Jim Bob donated $1000, Lawson Bates $100, nothing from Jill and Derick and $150 from BJ Seewald.

Maybe Ben & Jessa should consider putting her initial first.

Edited May 26, 2018 by GeeGolly

[MargeGunderson]

2 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Jim Bob donated $1000, Lawson Bates $100, nothing from Jill and Derick and $150 from BJ Seewald.

Maybe Ben & Jessa should consider putting her initial first.

So Jill puts up a request for others to donate but doesn’t do so herself? I hope she remembers that the next time she and her husband want others to pay for their life choices.

[kokapetl]

On 25/05/2018 at 7:19 PM, Scarlett45 said:

I graduated in 2010- one of the WORST years to graduate for attorneys. Things are slightly better now but the debt is real and the market is over saturated. A lot of first year associate work has been given to paralegals to cut down costs etc. I don’t think Derrick is bright enough to succeed OR ambitious enough to be a solo practioner. 

I heard being a lawyer is a lot like doing homework full time? Is that true?

Also, we have a billion legal questions for you. 

23 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

Donate to fund the tragedy.

[Nysha]

3 hours ago, xwordfanatik said:

Shame on these cheapskates.  I won't use the restroom at a mini-mart on the road without buying something.  

And to just go to a restaurant for a freebie without a purchase and tip for the server?  Never.

I get an email coupon for free small pizza and pop from one of our local pizza places for my birthday and usually, I'll go by myself and not order anything else and I will use McDonald's bathrooms without buying anything if I'm out and need a bathroom break, but, I'm a frequent customer for both places. I've even been known to post a FB picture stating that the best part of growing old is my free pizza/margarita/sundae at wherever. Of course, the margarita or sundae is part of a paid meal, not just a fly-by freebie. So, if anyone but the Duggars posted the #freefood drippy sundae pictures, I wouldn't think twice. But, because the Duggars and Dillards are total grifters, I automatically assume that the only reason they're at the restaurant is to get free food and I totally side-eye them for their wicked ways.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Nysha
too many 's

[Fostersmom]

Not Jill and Derick specifically, but I've seen plenty of the other Duggars eating a meal at the restaurant the sundaes are from. Not that it means they actually bought a meal this time, but the family certainly has in the past. 

[Albanyguy]

42 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Jim Bob donated $1000, Lawson Bates $100, nothing from Jill and Derick and $150 from BJ Seewald.

If Jim Bob really kicked in $1000 of his own money, I'm astonished and will give him full credit for a rare good deed. However, I would need some independent verification before I believe it. It's more likely an empty promise that he has no intention of actually carrying out.

[DragonFaerie]

https://www.marketplacegrill.com/awards/

Me thinks the Marketplace has gotten hip to all the free food.  They now have introduced a rewards club - using a free downloadable app to your phone it tracks your spending and gives you rewards.  

They also offer a birthday reward and an anniversary of joining their club reward.

Birthday Bonus Reward – Party with your friends and family at any of our restaurants and we will give you $10 off your meal. This offer is only available during the month of your birthday and applies for dine in only. - I'm guessing that's for Jill and Derelick.

Anniversary Bonus Reward – On your membership anniversary we would like to treat you to a complimentary dessert when the purchase of an entrée of $9.99 or more. This offer is only available the month of your MarketPlace Rewards Club sign up date.

Interesting.

[Rabbittron]

Now or never ever see the initials BJ and not think anything else but Blow Job?

[DragonFaerie]

25 minutes ago, Rabbittron said:

Now or never ever see the initials BJ and not think anything else but Blow Job?

LOL  and I think BJ and the bear - which totally dates me - :-)

[Lunera]

Boob probably gave the Dullards money to donate but Derick decided to spend them on Apple airpods instead

[CatS]

They need to start using the hashtag #cheap. 

[graefin]

Jill only has two kids, but based on what I've seen in her videos, she interacts with Izzy in a weirdly unfocused, unengaged way. He'll often make statements, and she seems to be in her own world and doesn't respond to them, or says something else not related to what he's just said. She typically responds only when he asks her a direct question.

And in one video, he is holding a jar of various stones and asks her if he can keep three, to which she responds, yes. He ends up pulling out five different ones, counts them, and then shows them to her, and she says, "you can have three" and simply puts two random ones back in the jar. I would like to think most parents would take the opportunity to ask their child *which* three of the five they would like to keep? Couldn't she be bothered? Or didn't she think it was important he be allowed the choice?

[Albanyguy]

3 hours ago, graefin said:

she interacts with Izzy in a weirdly unfocused, unengaged way.

Jill seems so generally unfocused and unengaged and the constant "Yay!!!" (accompanied by the Raised Eyebrows of Ecstasy) seem so over-the-top. This is pure speculation, so it comes with a huge gain of salt, but t I wonder if she's not on some kind of anti-depressant. I realize that this a big no-no in their world, but the Duggars are good at rationalizing doing whatever they please and still acting holier than God. I'll bet there are more than a few Fundie wives out there who are being medicated as a last-ditch effort at "keeping sweet".

[GeeGolly]

4 hours ago, Albanyguy said:

Jill seems so generally unfocused and unengaged and the constant "Yay!!!" (accompanied by the Raised Eyebrows of Ecstasy) seem so over-the-top. This is pure speculation, so it comes with a huge gain of salt, but t I wonder if she's not on some kind of anti-depressant. I realize that this a big no-no in their world, but the Duggars are good at rationalizing doing whatever they please and still acting holier than God. I'll bet there are more than a few Fundie wives out there who are being medicated as a last-ditch effort at "keeping sweet".

Being unfocused and unengaged is more of an indication that an anti-depressant is needed rather than being used. I think her affect is due to years of being trained not to display any feelings that aren't pleasant. The Duggars probably unknowingly use CBT. I'm sure many of Jill's "yays" follow an unconscious response in what a Duggar would consider a negative feeling, using the "yay" to cancel it out. Unfortunately the Duggars' definition of negative feelings is so broad that they train themselves to feel nothing at all.

Edited May 27, 2018 by GeeGolly

[Jynnan tonnix]

47 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Being unfocused and unengaged is more of an indication that an anti-depressant is needed rather than being used. I think her affect is due to years of being trained not to display any feelings that aren't pleasant. The Duggars probably unknowingly use CBT. I'm sure many of Jill's "yays" follow an unconscious response in what a Duggar would consider a negative feeling, using the "yay" to cancel it out. Unfortunately the Duggars' definition of negative feelings is so broad that they train themselves not feel nothing at all.

And I'm sure there are a whole slew of positive feelings which are similarly frowned upon, even aside from the sort that might raise desires which cannot be righteously fulfilled. It doesn't seem to be about actual happiness as much as it is merely keeping a smiling, yet basically neutral countenance.

[sixlets]

If I were married to either of them (I couldn't help it, I'm equal opportunity), I would need Prozac, Xanax, and a glass (or six) of wine each night.  For as much as she "pro-children", she comes across with a serious disconnect in regards to both of her sons.  She had better connections with her buddy group.  It's like she has/had two separate families-her buddies then her own.  She's probably exhausted from the first round.

I saw her post regarding the couple who were in the car accident.  I sincerely hope that young woman is ok.  I can't imagine what he husband is going through.  Thankfully, their son won't remember the actual accident with him being so young.  I will say I'm very curious about the $500 anonymous donation as it's saying an 'offline donation'.  I hope JB's is sincere with no strings attached.

Edited May 27, 2018 by sixlets

[Churchhoney]

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Being unfocused and unengaged is more of an indication that an anti-depressant is needed rather than being used. I think her affect is due to years of being trained not to display any feelings that aren't pleasant. The Duggars probably unknowingly use CBT. I'm sure many of Jill's "yays" follow an unconscious response in what a Duggar would consider a negative feeling, using the "yay" to cancel it out. Unfortunately the Duggars' definition of negative feelings is so broad that they train themselves not feel nothing at all.

 

1 hour ago, Jynnan tonnix said:

And I'm sure there are a whole slew of positive feelings which are similarly frowned upon, even aside from the sort that might raise desires which cannot be righteously fulfilled. It doesn't seem to be about actual happiness as much as it is merely keeping a smiling, yet basically neutral countenance.

Bingo. Some drugs are good at suppressing your feelings. But PEOPLE -- especially people who get you at birth and condition you for years and years -- are WAY WAY better at doing it. 

In a family like this, good feelings, bad feelings, thoughts of any kind -- ANYTHING that arises from the INDIVIDUAL and doesn't arise from the PRESCRIBED FAMILY PLAYBOOK -- has been manipulated out of existence for the Duggar kids on a daily basis FROM BIRTH and continuing into their adulthood as long as they're within manipulating distance. 

This is how authoritarian families, societies, states, etc. have operated from time immemorial and continue to operate. And no matter how successful an authoritarian REGIME may be, an authoritarian FAMILY is way way more successful at doing it. Then have many many more tools and much more access to brains that are in the process of formation. 

As a result, for the most part the Duggarlings have absolutely NO IDEA what they actually feel or think about ANYTHING because they've been subjected to a particularly effective 24/7, 360 degree manipulation regime. 

Been there. Done that.

Bank on it. 

If they let their own kids veer from this kind of thing even a little bit, it'll be a victory that they'll have to be congratulated for. 

Edited May 27, 2018 by Churchhoney

[Fostersmom]

30 minutes ago, sixlets said:

If I were married to either of them (I couldn't help it, I'm equal opportunity), I would need Prozac, Xanax, and a glass (or six) of wine each night.  For as much as she "pro-children", she comes across with a serious disconnect in regards to both of her sons.  She had better connections with her buddy group.  It's like she has/had two separate families-her buddies then her own.  She's probably exhausted from the first round.

I saw her post regarding the couple who were in the car accident.  I sincerely hope that young woman is ok.  I can't imagine what he husband is going through.  Thankfully, their son won't remember the actual accident with him being so young.  I will say I'm very curious about the $500 anonymous donation as it's saying an 'offline donation'.  I hope JB's is sincere with no strings attached.

Maybe John David? He posted a very short update the the GoFundMe. We know he's a private person, so I could see that particular anonymous donation being him. 

[3 is enough]

I have been out of town, so I missed the latest.  Whoa!  Law school?

  First, he has to GET ACCEPTED.

  Second, if he does get in, this is non-stop studying for 3 years.  Really hard, if not impossible, to accomplish with a stage 5 clingy wife, two little kids, and devoting almost every waking thought to Jesus.  Just saying...

Third, I would assume he would have to take out loans for both tuition and living expenses. Those loans start accruing interest from the day you take them out.  I know this first hand because my daughter and son-in-law both have medical school loans.  You don't have to make payments until you graduate, and then the required payment is 10% of your salary, but if you continue paying only the minimum required it will not even cover the interest, never mind making a dent in the principal.  SIL is finished residency and making a good salary, but DD is about to start a two year fellowship which does not pay a whole lot.  They both pay more than the minimum required amount but it will take years for them to pay off the loans.  They don't have kids, a mortgage, or car payments.  Also, there are expenses involved in finishing residency such as licensing, board exams, etc, which cost thousands of dollars, and are not optional.  I imagine the same is true after finishing law school. The bar exam is not free and if you fail, you have to pay to take it again until you pass.

What a bone-headed idea.  Yet hardly surprising...

Edited May 28, 2018 by 3 is enough

[queenanne]

10 hours ago, graefin said:

Jill only has two kids, but based on what I've seen in her videos, she interacts with Izzy in a weirdly unfocused, unengaged way. He'll often make statements, and she seems to be in her own world and doesn't respond to them, or says something else not related to what he's just said. She typically responds only when he asks her a direct question.

And in one video, he is holding a jar of various stones and asks her if he can keep three, to which she responds, yes. He ends up pulling out five different ones, counts them, and then shows them to her, and she says, "you can have three" and simply puts two random ones back in the jar. I would like to think most parents would take the opportunity to ask their child *which* three of the five they would like to keep? Couldn't she be bothered? Or didn't she think it was important he be allowed the choice?

Don't you remember the old Pilgrim adage, "children should be seen and not heard"?  Izzy is property to them.  Of course he doesn't get a choice on which stones to keep, or which anything for that matter.  The parents' rule is law.  They own the kid, and certainly wouldn't think to let him challenge them in anything so trivial as a matter of a grouping of attractive stones. 

They will continue to think they own him until he's a senior citizen/they die, unless the adult kids do anything to change this themselves.  Hell, JB clearly still thinks he "owns" the likes of John David.  What we see as "an embarrassing failure to launch", these people see as "the only right and true way that unmarried children should ever live, under the umbrella of protection provided by their parents' roof, just like was done in the pioneer days/Old Country."  Jill has decided the rocks don't have any real importance to Izzy because they don't have any real importance to her, and she can't fathom a child feeling any differently than "what Mom and Dad says, goes."  I mean, let's not forget either, Jill was raised being told she couldn't even call any of her clothes "her own", as they all have to go into a shared closet.  It's no wonder she attaches no importance to "things" or "ownership".

Edited May 27, 2018 by queenanne

[cmr2014]

49 minutes ago, queenanne said:

Don't you remember the old Pilgrim adage, "children should be seen and not heard"?  Izzy is property to them.  Of course he doesn't get a choice on which stones to keep, or which anything for that matter.  The parents' rule is law.  They own the kid, and certainly wouldn't think to let him challenge them in anything so trivial as a matter of a grouping of attractive stones. 

They will continue to think they own him until he's a senior citizen/they die, unless the adult kids do anything to change this themselves.  Hell, JB clearly still thinks he "owns" the likes of John David.  What we see as "an embarrassing failure to launch", these people see as "the only right and true way that unmarried children should ever live, under the umbrella of protection provided by their parents' roof, just like was done in the pioneer days/Old Country."  Jill has decided the rocks don't have any real importance to Izzy because they don't have any real importance to her, and she can't fathom a child feeling any differently than "what Mom and Dad says, goes."  I mean, let's not forget either, Jill was raised being told she couldn't even call any of her clothes "her own", as they all have to go into a shared closet.  It's no wonder she attaches no importance to "things" or "ownership".

This is exactly right. Jill even posted something a few days ago that was something like a "Mother's Prayer for her Children." It was full of Jesus stuff and obedience stuff (an included something about praying for a godly spouse -- something so very important for the mother of toddlers). There was nothing there about praying for him to be independent, or creative, or even just a kind and caring person. Their "values" such as they are, are just very foreign.

[doodlebug]

1 hour ago, queenanne said:

Don't you remember the old Pilgrim adage, "children should be seen and not heard"?  Izzy is property to them.  Of course he doesn't get a choice on which stones to keep, or which anything for that matter.  The parents' rule is law.  They own the kid, and certainly wouldn't think to let him challenge them in anything so trivial as a matter of a grouping of attractive stones. 

They will continue to think they own him until he's a senior citizen/they die, unless the adult kids do anything to change this themselves.  Hell, JB clearly still thinks he "owns" the likes of John David.  What we see as "an embarrassing failure to launch", these people see as "the only right and true way that unmarried children should ever live, under the umbrella of protection provided by their parents' roof, just like was done in the pioneer days/Old Country."  Jill has decided the rocks don't have any real importance to Izzy because they don't have any real importance to her, and she can't fathom a child feeling any differently than "what Mom and Dad says, goes."  I mean, let's not forget either, Jill was raised being told she couldn't even call any of her clothes "her own", as they all have to go into a shared closet.  It's no wonder she attaches no importance to "things" or "ownership".

There's a rather notorious example of this line of thinking on the Maxwell's blog.  One of the girls was getting orthodontia (they all have terrible teeth and needed major work).  Something that they'd tried hadn't worked as planned and the kid had a lot of pain.  Mom took her to the orthodontist who outlined a couple of options to deal with the problem, explained them and then had the nerve to involve the child in the conversation, asking her if she understood what was being proposed and if she was ok to follow the new plan.  All the while, Terri was standing right there! How dare the orthodontist speak to the child, let alone ask her opinion!  She has no opinion, her mother will tell her what her opinion is!  Stevehovah railed against the nerve of this doctor, proclaiming that this is exactly the problem in today's world; people actually treating children like sentient beings who have opinions about things such as their own dental care.

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, cmr2014 said:

This is exactly right. Jill even posted something a few days ago that was something like a "Mother's Prayer for her Children." It was full of Jesus stuff and obedience stuff (an included something about praying for a godly spouse -- something so very important for the mother of toddlers). There was nothing there about praying for him to be independent, or creative, or even just a kind and caring person. Their "values" such as they are, are just very foreign.

"Mark of the devil! Mark of the devil!" said JimBob and Meeechelle.

[Sew Sumi]

IIRC, that was also the last time they went to that orthodontist. No biggie, since Mary was the last in line. 

[queenanne]

1 hour ago, doodlebug said:

There's a rather notorious example of this line of thinking on the Maxwell's blog.  One of the girls was getting orthodontia (they all have terrible teeth and needed major work).  Something that they'd tried hadn't worked as planned and the kid had a lot of pain.  Mom took her to the orthodontist who outlined a couple of options to deal with the problem, explained them and then had the nerve to involve the child in the conversation, asking her if she understood what was being proposed and if she was ok to follow the new plan.  All the while, Terri was standing right there! How dare the orthodontist speak to the child, let alone ask her opinion!  She has no opinion, her mother will tell her what her opinion is!  Stevehovah railed against the nerve of this doctor, proclaiming that this is exactly the problem in today's world; people actually treating children like sentient beings who have opinions about things such as their own dental care.

Geez, that's terrible.  I mean, I can imagine in some vague scenarios, parents being asked by the child/child's doctor about a *cosmetic procedure*, responding "we don't think that's necessary and it's definitely not affordable at this point in time - we can revisit it if you still feel the same about it after you're grown", but I can't imagine the situation in which the child isn't allowed to participate in his/her own *pain relieving measurements*, in a clear and present nature of emergency... but then I realized, this is rather like my own parents' parenting skills.  You had to *convince* my mother that XYZ was important enough for you to be listened to, right here, right now.  Unless you made a fuss (and then were told you were wrong for making the fuss, as a special treat in the bargain, so you basically learned to suck it up and deal with anything so as not to be accused of "bothering" the parents), you weren't listened to.  The default first answer for everything was always "No.  I don't think you need that" (basically because I myself can't imagine ever needing that, or put myself in the shoes of someone else needing that), "so good luck getting it, kid." 

It does make me laugh, sometimes, when I see these hilarious modern sitcoms and dramedies where the parents play "we care how our kids feel about moving schools and uprooting their lives, and thus we are going to let them veto moving to a new job opportunity that is going to improve everyone's standards of living."  There was no such remote thing as "listening to the children" in this scenario, in my parents' world.  The children were property.  They were packed up and moved just like the contents of their play cubes.  I had hysterics for weeks when my parents uprooted me from my classmates and friends in the middle of seventh grade - you think it stopped them?  Ha.

[Nysha]

5 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

As a result, for the most part the Duggarlings have absolutely NO IDEA what they actually feel or think about ANYTHING because they've been subjected to a particularly effective 24/7, 360 degree manipulation regime. 

Been there. Done that.

Bank on it. 

If they let their own kids veer from this kind of thing even a little bit, it'll be a victory that they'll have to be congratulated for. 

I think Jeremy & Jinger will, Jessa & Ben might, Austin & Joy probably won't, and Derick & Jill are well on the way to squashing any and all emotions out of their boys.

[doodlebug]

54 minutes ago, queenanne said:

Geez, that's terrible.  I mean, I can imagine in some vague scenarios, parents being asked by the child/child's doctor about a *cosmetic procedure*, responding "we don't think that's necessary and it's definitely not affordable at this point in time - we can revisit it if you still feel the same about it after you're grown", but I can't imagine the situation in which the child isn't allowed to participate in his/her own *pain relieving measurements*, in a clear and present nature of emergency... but then I realized, this is rather like my own parents' parenting skills.  You had to *convince* my mother that XYZ was important enough for you to be listened to, right here, right now.  Unless you made a fuss (and then were told you were wrong for making the fuss, as a special treat in the bargain, so you basically learned to suck it up and deal with anything so as not to be accused of "bothering" the parents), you weren't listened to.  The default first answer for everything was always "No.  I don't think you need that" (basically because I myself can't imagine ever needing that, or put myself in the shoes of someone else needing that), "so good luck getting it, kid." 

It does make me laugh, sometimes, when I see these hilarious modern sitcoms and dramedies where the parents play "we care how our kids feel about moving schools and uprooting their lives, and thus we are going to let them veto moving to a new job opportunity that is going to improve everyone's standards of living."  There was no such remote thing as "listening to the children" in this scenario, in my parents' world.  The children were property.  They were packed up and moved just like the contents of their play cubes.  I had hysterics for weeks when my parents uprooted me from my classmates and friends in the middle of seventh grade - you think it stopped them?  Ha.

I dunno, that sounds pretty typical of the era when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's. We moved several times when I was between the ages of 9 and 15 and it was always presented to us kids as a done deal, our opinions were never solicited nor did we expect to be asked for our input.  When I watch reality TV where the parents are looking for a new home and are absolutely appalled at the thought that their precious kids might actually have to share a bathroom (never a bedroom, quelle horreur!), I wonder what in the world those parents are thinking.  Of course, two of our moves were economic (we couldn't pay the mortgage or rent and were evicted) and another due to the fact that my mom got pregnant with #6 in her 40's and the 8 of us continuing to share a 3 bedroom/1 bathroom house with my grandfather was a bit tight for even us to contemplate.  

My parents' generation believed that all major decisions were up to the parents and kids were not part of the decision making team.

I didn't get orthodontia until I was 30 and could afford to pay for it myself, but my mother certainly took me to the dentist and I was allowed to speak to him and ask questions.  It's no wonder none of the Maxwell daughters are married although several are well into their 30's.  They can't decide what color socks to wear without input from their parents, all the decision-making skills have been suppressed out of them.

Edited May 27, 2018 by doodlebug

[madpsych78]

See I think it should depend on the decision and the developmental age of the child. A major decision like moving should be left up to the parents. However, I believe it is absolutely reasonable for kids to have input in something like decorating their new bedroom or a playroom in the new house.

[Marigold]

Jill has always been a bit odd, however, she raised so many of her siblings and I don't remember her looking so disconnected and so fake joyful.  Being married to that nutter Derick has not been a good thing for her.  She appeared much better without him. 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Marigold

[3 is enough]

When our kids were young we had to move three times in six years because my husband's company was going through a lot of changes. Each time we scheduled the move so that they were able to finish the school year before we left.  They were sad to leave their friends behind, but always made new friends in their new schools.  I think it made them quite resilient.  There is a middle ground between making all decisions for them and letting them decide everything...

[Temperance]

3 hours ago, doodlebug said:

I didn't get orthodontia until I was 30 and could afford to pay for it myself, but my mother certainly took me to the dentist and I was allowed to speak to him and ask questions.  It's no wonder none of the Maxwell daughters are married although several are well into their 30's.  They can't decide what color socks to wear without input from their parents, all the decision-making skills have been suppressed out of them.

 

Sarah is the only Maxwell daughter in her 30s (36).  The other two are in their early twenties. 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Temperance

[Jynnan tonnix]

1 hour ago, 3 is enough said:

When our kids were young we had to move three times in six years because my husband's company was going through a lot of changes. Each time we scheduled the move so that they were able to finish the school year before we left.  They were sad to leave their friends behind, but always made new friends in their new schools.  I think it made them quite resilient.  There is a middle ground between making all decisions for them and letting them decide everything...

We were a military family and moved every 2-3 years during our kids' entire childhoods. We did give them the option, when we could, of either moving between school years or starting as the "new kid in class" once the year was underway, and they always chose the latter, feeling that they were more likely to be able to make friends faster when they were a bit of a novelty rather than being just one among a multitude when everyone was busy just adjusting to new classes and teachers - or even major surroundings as they would be going into a new middle school or high school. 

And, yes, they all did grow up exceptionally resilient and independent, and even though they remember resenting some of those moves, they all eventually grew to appreciate how much it made them stronger in the long run. 

Two of the three opted to join the military themselves as adults.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Jynnan tonnix

[bigskygirl]

1 hour ago, Marigold said:

Jill has always been a bit odd, however, she raised so many of her siblings and I don't remember her looking so disconnected and so fake joyful.  Being married to that nutter Derick has not been a good thing for her.  She appeared much better without him. 

Hmmm... I would not say she was better without him. I think she had problems long before he came down the townpike. She was desperate for any guy to come along and marry her, She acted like a teenage girl with her first boyfriend playing house when she first met Deredick and got married. Neither one of them were ready for the commitment of marriage and parenthood and wanted something totally different from each other. She wanted a guy who treat her like she was the most important thing in his life and stay glued to her side 34/7/365. He wanted someone who would feed his ego and help him with his so-called missionary work. Deredick thought Jill and the Duggars would help him, but it backfired big time. They got married to fast and had a kid too fast. A perfect example of buyer beware for JB, Deredick, Jill and some way Cathy.

[jcbrown]

11 minutes ago, Jynnan tonnix said:

We were a military family and moved every 2-3 years during our kids' entire childhoods. We did give them the option, when we could, of either moving between school years or starting as the "new kid in class" once the year was underway, and they always chose the latter, feeling that they were more likely to be able to make friends faster when they were a bit of a novelty rather than being just one among a multitude when everyone was busy just adjusting to new classes and teachers - or even major surroundings as they would be going into a new middle school or high school. 

And, yes, they all did grow up exceptionally resilient and independent, and even though they remember resenting some of those moves, they all eventually grew to appreciate how much it made them stronger in the long run. 

Two of the three opted to join the military themselves as adults.

Thank you all for your service. We now return you to your regularly scheduled snark.

[Rabbittron]

I go to a Lutheran Church and the wine they serve there believe it or not is Manischewitz.

[Catfin]

55 minutes ago, Rabbittron said:

I go to a Lutheran Church and the wine they serve there believe it or not is Manischewitz.

Same! It’s tasty in small quantities, such as that of communion. We picked up a bottle for recreational drinking and couldn’t stomach it. 

[GeeGolly]

Jill the sister-mom was more like the favorite aunt than an actual mother. Now she is the mom. Jill's example of a mom was Michelle who could emotionally and physically check out because Michelle had a husband and kids picking up the slack. Jill doesn't. I think she is parenting her children like Michelle did rather than being their favorite aunt, not realizing kids need the whole package.

Jill also seems to be trying to instill the "16 Things to Pray For Your Children" into a 3 year old all at once. That's not the way it works. There's plenty of natural opportunities for kids to learn life lessons and build "character qualities" without having to drill them into them from birth. There is so much more to parenting besides focusing on raising a 'good Christian'.

Jill needs to relax and be the favorite aunt with her own children some of the time.

[Trillium]

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

 

Jill also seems to be trying to instill the "16 Things to Pray For Your Children" into a 3 year old all at once. That's not the way it works. There's plenty of natural opportunities for kids to learn life lessons and build "character qualities" without having to drill them into them from birth. There is so much more to parenting besides focusing on raising a 'good Christian'.

Jill needs to relax and be the favorite aunt with her own children some of the time.

Yeah I feel that that they use that as a checklist of things they need to do, and if they do that then their kids will be these perfect Jesus loving Christians ever. That’s absolutely not how it works. Kids aren’t computers you can program. You love and nurture who they naturally are, and lead by example. Both my kids are different personalities but both are very caring and empathetic.  I didn’t sit them down and tell them to do this. I honestly don’t take much credit as they were like this even as one year olds. But then someone told me, they watched me and my husband. I didn’t need to tell them because I was leading by example. I don’t try to mold them into who I think they should be. They are not a checklist. 

[Churchhoney]

5 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Jill the sister-mom was more like the favorite aunt than an actual mother. Now she is the mom. Jill's example of a mom was Michelle who could emotionally and physically check out because Michelle had a husband and kids picking up the slack. Jill doesn't. I think she is parenting her children like Michelle did rather than being their favorite aunt, not realizing kids need the whole package.

Jill also seems to be trying to instill the "16 Things to Pray For Your Children" into a 3 year old all at once. That's not the way it works. There's plenty of natural opportunities for kids to learn life lessons and build "character qualities" without having to drill them into them from birth. There is so much more to parenting besides focusing on raising a 'good Christian'.

Jill needs to relax and be the favorite aunt with her own children some of the time.

I guess in a culture where you have David Waller testifying to his hell-meriting sinfulness and need for Christ's blood redemption at age 3 and Jingle likewise at age 5 and so on, this is one of the  subliminal beliefs that many of them hold. ........

There are probably some whose personalities make this less congenial so they just unconsciously act differently...... But I'm afraid if we're waiting for a reflective bent, education and actual intelligence to bat it down in the others we'll be waiting a long long time. 

There's a whole idea here that kids are supposed to be fully baked at a VERY young age -- but still remain completely subservient to their patriarchs FOREVER, nonetheless. Yet another completely messed-up idea permeating Duggardom.  Fun for the patriarchs, though. They get to blame kids, even tiny ones, for everything. AND get to run everybody's lives in minute detail for as long as their little Scroogey hearts desire. 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Churchhoney

[GeeGolly]

12 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

I guess in a culture where you have David Waller testifying to his hell-meriting sinfulness and need for Christ's blood redemption at age 3 and Jingle likewise at age 5 and so on, this is one of the  subliminal beliefs that many of them hold. ........

There are probably some whose personalities make this less congenial so they just unconsciously act differently...... But I'm afraid if we're waiting for a reflective bent, education and actual intelligence to bat it down in the others we'll be waiting a long long time. 

There's a whole idea here that kids are supposed to be fully baked at a VERY young age -- but still remain completely subservient to their patriarchs FOREVER, nonetheless. Yet another completely messed-up idea permeating Duggardom.  Fun for the patriarchs, though. They get to blame kids, even tiny ones, for everything. AND get to run everybody's lives in minute detail for as long as their little Scroogey hearts desire. 

Yet I don't believe Jill and other Duggar parents think they are doing this. Even JB, I believe he likes to feel important and respected, but I really don't think he wants to be, or is, in control of everyone. 

As I've said before I believe JB fell into a cult that strokes his ego, but I just don't see him as being smart enough to intentionally do anything - he is a follower. Once Michelle realized what was going on, I believe she intentionally manipulated JB and this cult system to suit her, all the while playing the part. She absolutely doesn't want to control anyone or anything other than her own little protective Michelle bubble.

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

Yet I don't believe Jill and other Duggar parents think they are doing this. Even JB, I believe he likes to feel important and respected, but I really don't think he wants to be, or is, in control of everyone. 

As I've said before I believe JB fell into a cult that strokes his ego, but I just don't see him as being smart enough to intentionally do anything - he is a follower. Once Michelle realized what was going on, I believe she intentionally manipulated JB and this cult system to suit her, all the while playing the part. She absolutely doesn't want to control anyone or anything other than her own little protective Michelle bubble.

Yeah, I agree that he's too stupid to have started doing it intentionally. I do think though that he was unconsciously attracted to a cult that not only massaged his ego but gives him everything that the most messed-up parts of his natural personality crave. 

And he's too dumb -- and too ego-driven and thoughtless -- ever to question any of what's happened....Because, hell, it's all making HIM very very happy. So it must be great!

I don't believe most people who do this set out consciously to do it.

But I'm not sure it's any less forgivable to do what I agree that JB and most others have done..... i.e., allow yourself to do something that suits you; spend years seeing results that -- if you looked carefully, consulted a conscience and thought about it -- would show you clearly that while it makes you happy it damages others; yet never never never ask questions like, "Am I doing the best thing FOR MY CHILDREN?" "Am I really doing what Jesus would want me to do?" Etc. 

Doing very damaging things largely because you're a lazy unreflective selfish ass -- and not because you set out to do them -- is probably just as bad, to me. ...

I think that's because I've spent many many years observing kids -- in classrooms full of 13 and 14 year olds, among many other situations -- and I truly think that NEARLY EVERYONE DOES HAVE THE ABILITY to consult a conscience and to cultivate the ability to think -- at least a bit -- about the effects of their actions on others....to learn empathy to at least some small degree.

Knowing a ton of kids has actually left me feeling very positive about what the whopping majority of humans are able to become, in an ethical and moral sense.

So when I see an adult who just doesn't bother with any of that -- despite the clearly stunting effects it's having on his own children -- I'm inclined to think that that adult has simply refused the opportunity to question him or herself ethically and morally, out of laziness, selfishness and self-satisfaction. ....

I realize that, even on my view of humanity, there are likely a few people who simply DON"T have that capability. And that Jim Bob may be one of the few who has absolutely no choice in the matter -- whose nature 100 percent propels him to be a controlling ass and that he's never had a moment when a question about this "system" he loves has ever flitted across his mind.

But I think the people in that situation are very few. So in my view, odds are that Jim Bob's been one of those who, out of selfishness and laziness, has just passed up many chances to examine his behavior and its effects. Because, hyuk hyuk hyuk, it's good for HIM!

[GeeGolly]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

Yeah, I agree that he's too stupid to have started doing it intentionally. I do think though that he was unconsciously attracted to a cult that not only massaged his ego but gives him everything that the most messed-up parts of his natural personality crave. 

And he's too dumb -- and too ego-driven and thoughtless -- ever to question any of what's happened....Because, hell, it's all making HIM very very happy. So it must be great!

I don't believe most people who do this set out consciously to do it.

But I'm not sure it's any less forgivable to do what I agree that JB and most others have done..... i.e., allow yourself to do something that suits you; spend years seeing results that -- if you looked carefully, consulted a conscience and thought about it -- would show you clearly that while it makes you happy it damages others; yet never never never ask questions like, "Am I doing the best thing FOR MY CHILDREN?" "Am I really doing what Jesus would want me to do?" Etc. 

Doing very damaging things largely because you're a lazy unreflective selfish ass -- and not because you set out to do them -- is probably just as bad, to me. ...

I think that's because I've spent many many years observing kids -- in classrooms full of 13 and 14 year olds, among many other situations -- and I truly think that NEARLY EVERYONE DOES HAVE THE ABILITY to consult a conscience and to cultivate the ability to think -- at least a bit -- about the effects of their actions on others....to learn empathy to at least some small degree.

Knowing a ton of kids has actually left me feeling very positive about what the whopping majority of humans are able to become, in an ethical and moral sense.

So when I see an adult who just doesn't bother with any of that -- despite the clearly stunting effects it's having on his own children -- I'm inclined to think that that adult has simply refused the opportunity to question him or herself ethically and morally, out of laziness, selfishness and self-satisfaction. ....

I realize that, even on my view of humanity, there are likely a few people who simply DON"T have that capability. And that Jim Bob may be one of the few who has absolutely no choice in the matter -- whose nature 100 percent propels him to be a controlling ass and that he's never had a moment when a question about this "system" he loves has ever flitted across his mind.

But I think the people in that situation are very few. So in my view, odds are that Jim Bob's been one of those who, out of selfishness and laziness, has just passed up many chances to examine his behavior and its effects. Because, hyuk hyuk hyuk, it's good for HIM!

I hear you. I'm by no means giving JB a pass on his behavior, I'm just saying I don't believe the image he has tried to portray as this all and powerful headship. Although I also don't believe he is full of ill will toward his children. Has he had opportunities to recognize how he has stunted, trapped and warped his children? Probably. But again I believe his insecurities and his own indoctrination has blinded him. A well fed ego can make any person get stuck in stupid. 

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I hear you. I'm by no means giving JB a pass on his behavior, I'm just saying I don't believe the image he has tried to portray as this all and powerful headship. Although I also don't believe he is full of ill will toward his children. Has he had opportunities to recognize how he has stunted, trapped and warped his children? Probably. But again I believe his insecurities and his own indoctrination has blinded him. A well fed ego can make any person get stuck in stupid. 

And his ego is VERY well fed ... !

[Jeeves]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

 A well fed ego can make any person get stuck in stupid. 

^^For some reason I am just loving that today. Well said!!

[Lunera]

That woman told no lies

[ginger90]

I am suprised Jill responded.

[Christina87]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I hear you. I'm by no means giving JB a pass on his behavior, I'm just saying I don't believe the image he has tried to portray as this all and powerful headship. Although I also don't believe he is full of ill will toward his children. Has he had opportunities to recognize how he has stunted, trapped and warped his children? Probably. But again I believe his insecurities and his own indoctrination has blinded him. A well fed ego can make any person get stuck in stupid. 

I agree. I do think JB loves his kids and makes some effort to get to know them as individuals (within the limited spectrum of personality traits / interests that are acceptable in their world). I think he believes he is doing right by them, or believed it at the time of the first specials. I wonder if he looks at them now and thinks, "oh crap!" but is in too deep to admit failure now, since he's built this successful brand, and a lot of leghumpers still give him positive reinforcement. If he realized Michelle's awful homeschooling sucked, none of his kids but JD have job skills, his daughters are awful housewives, and at least two of their marriages are terrible, what good would come to him by admitting it publicly? That's more than I can say for Michelle, btw. She doesn't make any effort to know them individually past infancy, except for Josh, Jessa, and Josie. She also lacks any kind of self reflection skills or wherewithal to realize that her homeschooling skills are horrible.