Jill, Derick & the Kids: Moving On!!

[toodles]

In case your heart wasn't sick enough, here is another quote along the spare the rod, spoil the child vein:

Tripp further explains:

The child’s heart is the world’s smallest battleground, and the conquering of it calls out for all-out, hand-to-hand combat.[5]

As you train the child’s heart, it is important to keep these verses in mind:

Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.            Proverbs 13:24

Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.                Proverbs 22:15

Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from hell.                                                                                                             Proverbs 23:13-14

Notice the word “rod” in these verses. God ordained that the parent use corporal punishment as a means to drive out the foolishness bound in the heart of the child. The rod refers to an instrument that is flexible and stings the child but is not injurious to the child. It is to be used during times when the child is rebellious to your authority. Even Psychologist Robert Larzelee admits that non abusive spanking actually benefits a child more that alternative forms of discipline. He states that “no other discipline technique, including timeout and withdrawal of privileges, had more beneficial results for children under thirteen than spanking, in terms of getting children to comply with their parents wishes.[6] Furthermore, according to an article in the U.S. News and World Report, “parenting experts” based all their findings against corporal punishment “on a body of research that is at its best inconclusive and at worse badly flawed.[7] I take time to briefly mention the use of corporal punishment since it is such a controversial topic in our present culture. However, I am not saying that spanking is the only kind of discipline parents should administer. Other forms of punishment such as “withdrawing a privilege” or a “time out” can in certain situations be effective. Keep in mind that the Bible is specific that spanking should be used when a child exhibits a defiant or rebellious attitude.

 

This makes me sick to my stomach.

[ginger90]

What does "In a culture that is infiltrated with humanistic thought" actually mean?

[JoanArc]

 There's a misprint in the title. It should read :  Child training for the 12th century.

[Mollie]

Here is a video of Michael Pearl showing how to beat a child:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QntAr1OuzU

[RazzleberryPie]

1 hour ago, ginger90 said:

What does "In a culture that is infiltrated with humanistic thought" actually mean?

Supposed to mean we think about what sinful humans want, not what God wants. I think? But it sounds like they don't want humans to think like humans. Because that makes perfect sense. 

Bottom line = these people are such control freaks it is terrifying. Weak men buy into this, because they want to dominate everything around them, and need what they think is God's authority to justify brutality. Real leaders, real men (or women), and real Christ followers shouldn't enjoy dictating every breath of another human's life, and feeling the need to break their spirits or beat them for not having 100% submission. This is not what Jesus meant when he said to love thy neighbor as thyself, etc.

It's really sad that people like Derrick, who I thought had some sense and a better upbringing, can fall so hard for that "you are the ultimate patriarchial authority, ordained by God himself", so any time anyone makes you think they're remotely opposing you or disagreeing with you, they're in immediate rebellion and need squashed. Poor Izzy. The only power struggle he's involved in is getting a cookie or not taking a nap. He's two years old. He's not trying to go Game of Thrones on you, Derrick. Sorry if your mental picture of a perfect baby isn't working out the way you (unrealistically) dreamed, but this kid is not manipulative or siniful. He's a baby. Grow up and deal with it, without branding him a big rebellious sinner. 

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, ginger90 said:

What does "In a culture that is infiltrated with humanistic thought" actually mean?

Well, I think they're going with the theological view that the only moral and correct way to live is to take the inerrancy of the whole bible as your bedrock truth in ALL THINGS. And whatever else you think has to be built on that -- that you have to test every other thing that comes by with whether it might conflict with something in the bible or might set up reason or science or sympathy for another person or something as a value ahead of something -- anything -- in the bible. To do that is to put HUMAN things before the bible and, thus, to be "humanist." And our society does that all over the place, of course -- by their lights, anyway -- when it says stuff like "the earth is 4 and a half billion years old" and "human beings didn't show up until the universe had been around for billions of years" and the inerrant bible says -- "people showed up in the first few days." Etc. So we're all hopelessly humanist. And thus damned. According to some of these folks.

I have to say that I'm not totally convinced that Der and some of these other people preaching all this -- babies are corrupt -- stuff are necessarily behaving like the Pearls, though. That kind of stuff is a big theological fad currently, so I think that's why they're preaching it. They want to be seen as these great preachers preaching the done thing of the moment and being leaders and all. But I do think that it's quite possible to preach something and then not carry it out fully in real life. Der kind of sounds to me as if he's protesting too much about Izzy's corruption, for some reason -- as if there's a good chance that he's mostly parroting and probably says some of this to Iz but doesn't viciously whack him either. I could be wrong about that, of course. But when you're a wannabe parrot, especially, you may talk more than you act, I think.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Churchhoney

[RazzleberryPie]

16 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Well, I think they're going with the theological view that the only moral and correct way to live is to take the inerrancy of the whole bible as your bedrock truth in ALL THINGS. And whatever else you think has to be built on that -- that you have to test every other thing that comes by with whether it might conflict with something in the bible or might set up reason or science or sympathy for another person or something as a value ahead of something -- anything -- in the bible. To do that is to put HUMAN things before the bible and, thus, to be "humanist." And our society does that all over the place, of course -- by their lights, anyway -- when it says stuff like "the earth is 4 and a half billion years old" and "human beings didn't show up until the universe had been around for billions of years" and the inerrant bible says -- "people showed up in the first few days." Etc. So we're all hopelessly humanist. And thus damned. According to some of these folks.

Refresh my memory, what was is Jesus said, and did, about loving and helping your fellow humans being more important than following every letter of the law? 

[DangerousMinds]

On April 20, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Mollie said:

In June, 2015, Radar Online reported receiving this auto-response when it contacted Derick at his Walmart email address.

"I have recently accepted a position outside of Walmart and am no longer working for the company."

That indicates that he accepted a bona fide job, not that he was leaving to become a self-employed missionary.  The Dillards announced that they were leaving to be missionaries on a TLC preview of an unaired show in May, 2015.  (That was just before the Josh sexual molestations of his sisters hit the press on May 19.)  During that Spring, S.O.S. Ministries was raising money to build a house for new missionaries in Guatemala and the deadline for completion was June, 2015, when the new missionary couple was expected to live in it.

In January, 2016, S.O.S. Hope Ministries of Clearwater, FL, released this statement:

"It is SOS's privilege to introduce Derick and Jill Dillard to the Latin mission. They will come alongside Alex Lara, our Director of Missions for Latin America, to assist, preach, and engage the new regions. We have prepared, trained and now appointed them. Derick will focus on the men and young people, while Jill will focus on women and children ministry. Both of them will help with strengthening and encouraging married couples, which is mostly neglected in the Latin world, and they have already led a group from the church to a new region to preach the gospel…. To financially support their work and the work of many others in the Americas, Africa, and mid-Asia, visit SOSHope.org."

This clearly says that S.O.S. "prepared" and "trained" (Spanish lessons) Jill and Derick. Also, S.O.S. asked that money be sent to its organization to support the missionary work of Jill and Derick in Central America, not to the Dillard's directly.

The Dillards appear to be double-dipping in the fundraising department, and they are doing this with the help of Ma and Pa Duggar who are also asking people to send $$ to the Dillards' personal ministry organization, not to S.O.S.

How is marriage "neglected" in Latin America?? Fuck these people.

[MargeGunderson]

21 hours ago, doodlebug said:

From one of the above links:   'Even before birth, your baby's little heart was already programmed for sin and selfishness. The inclination toward depravity is such that, given free reign, every baby has the potential to become a monster.

That's some straight up Puritan crazy there. Also, to be pedantic, it should be rein, not reign, in the sentence above. Was Satan doing the editing?

[Sew Sumi]

Very common error, but I can see a fundie actually knowing the grammar and using "reign" anyway. They're projecting a baby/toddler/child as ruler of the household. 

[truthtalk2014]

On April 21, 2017 at 1:06 PM, TaxNerd said:

This terrible sentence has me picturing locals trading bibles as payment for goods and services, where they are eventually resold to the Dullards.  

Bible Mafia.  

[RazzleberryPie]

1 hour ago, DangerousMinds said:

How is marriage "neglected" in Latin America?? Fuck these people.

Truth = it isn't. There's probably less divorce than the US, because it's a culturally more traditionally Catholic country. 

Wait - second thought - ministries toward marriage such as the Dullards are used to, probably is neglected in Central America, and that's not a bad thing. The Dullards and company obsess over marriage. If they'd actually do something useful beside brainwash themselves as to what 'proper Biblical roles' are, they wouldn't find microscopic marriage difficulties and blow them out of proportion.

Your wife, who was juggling a bunch of kids with no help and no budget burnt the beans and rice? Let's find some scripture to admonish her for not being careful and ruining your dinner. Don't help her, it's her own fault for not being submissive and obedient, well, unless Satan built a fortress in her heart - no wait, that's her fault, too. She's a woman. 

[Churchhoney]

2 hours ago, RazzleberryPie said:

Refresh my memory, what was is Jesus said, and did, about loving and helping your fellow humans being more important than following every letter of the law? 

Apparently that doesn't fit the world view of some people. lol    

1 hour ago, DangerousMinds said:

How is marriage "neglected" in Latin America?? Fuck these people.

My guess is it's "neglected" in any place that Ma and Pa Duggar don't live. According to all Duggarlings and, apparently, Duggar-adjacents, that is. (Jere-Meee might disagree with that, although I expect from his comments that he sees it as neglected anywhere his parents don't live.)

None of them can see an inch beyond the end of its nose. 

[JoanArc]

It seems their concept of a good marriage mostly involves endless breeding and telling other people how great their marriage is.

[Temperance]

3 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

How is marriage "neglected" in Latin America?? 

I see this more in the vein of the people on Shark Tank solving a problem nobody had thought to deal with. Basically marriage retreat is sometimes a kind of service that has marketing and money opportunities. You can sell books and pamphlets about improving marriage, you can host day seminars, and even hold weekend marriage retreats all of which you can charge for.  Latin America may be new to these kinds of services, which makes it an untapped market. 

[satrunrose]

20 hours ago, ginger90 said:

What does "In a culture that is infiltrated with humanistic thought" actually mean?

I'm about 15 years past studying this, so please correct me, but I think humanism is a belief in the unlimited potential and dignity of humans. It was originally church-based (because of the belief that humans are created in God's image) but can, and has, also slid over into secular humanism where you work to help improve the lives of other humans because we need to help others be the best humans they can be, not because Jesus! I think (and I'm less sure on this) that fundies have issues with it because it's very, very far from the vision of us as miserable sinners, broken bicycles, rags and spit. Secular humanism is also supposed to respect cultural and religious differences, and we all know how the Duggar-Dillards feel about that.

[queenanne]

On 4/22/2017 at 4:59 PM, toodles said:

It was the husband’s responsibility to channel the family into religion; to take them to church on the Lord’s day, and the oversee the sanctifying of that entire day in the home; to catechize the children, to teach them the faith; to examine the whole family after each sermon, to see how much had been retained and understood, and to fill in any gaps in understanding that might remain; To lead the family in worship daily, ideally twice a day, and to set a Godly example at all times and in all matters. To this end he must take time to learn the faith that he is charged to teach. 

Can you imagine what a difference it would make if fathers re-instituted this spiritual discipline in their homes? Dads, I challenge you to make family devotions a priority.

Yeah, I was gonna say, that sounds like a great foundation if those are your beliefs!  (Though, I'm pretty sure we've seen sources of the Puritan era putting mothers in charge of doing some of the aforementioned child examining.)

...Now, when precisely have the Duggars done and shown all those things?

[satrunrose]

"Little Women" and "Anne of Green Gables" also have mother and mothers figures doing most or all of this in the late 1800s and their authors have enough of a religious background that I think we can take their words for it. 

[Annb67]

On 4/22/2017 at 6:28 PM, Mollie said:

Here is a video of Michael Pearl showing how to beat a child:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QntAr1OuzU

How do people believe in this crap!? This is child abuse!!

[Temperance]

2 hours ago, satrunrose said:

"Little Women" and "Anne of Green Gables" also have mother and mothers figures doing most or all of this in the late 1800s and their authors have enough of a religious background that I think we can take their words for it. 

Bronson Alcott talked the same way about his daughters that Jill and Derrick talk about Israel. (I had book where they said when she was about 1 or 2 that her father complained she had "trouble controlling her impulses.) She actually had a pretty crazy background (for example they joined a very weird sect at one point where they were supposed to forage for food in the middle winter (didn't go very well)).

[queenanne]

15 minutes ago, Temperance said:

Bronson Alcott talked the same way about his daughters that Jill and Derrick talk about Israel. (I had book where they said when she was about 1 or 2 that her father complained she had "trouble controlling her impulses.) She actually had a pretty crazy background (for example they joined a very weird sect at one point where they were supposed to forage for food in the middle winter (didn't go very well)).

Interesting, but it seems not because he was a Calvinist type (I grant is only Wikipedia and I'm taking it at its word):

Quote

Alcott was fundamentally and philosophically opposed to corporal punishment as a means of disciplining his students. Instead, beginning at the Temple School, he would appoint a daily student superintendent. When that student observed an infraction, he or she reported it to the rest of the class and, as a whole, they deliberated on punishment.[133] At times, Alcott offered his own hand for an offending student to strike, saying that any failing was the teacher's responsibility. The shame and guilt this method induced, he believed, was far superior to the fear instilled by corporal punishment; when he used physical "correction" he required that the students be unanimously in support of its application, even including the student to be punished.

The most detailed discussion of his theories on education is in an essay, "Observations on the Principles and Methods of Infant Instruction". Alcott believed that early education must draw out "unpremeditated thoughts and feelings of the child" and emphasized that infancy should primarily focus on enjoyment.[134] He noted that learning was not about the acquisition of facts but the development of a reflective state of mind.[135]

Edited April 24, 2017 by queenanne

[JoanArc]

16 hours ago, satrunrose said:

very, very far from the vision of us as miserable sinners, broken bicycles, rags and spit.

They hate used things. Except for buying used and saving the difference, or "saving" people. Then it's all good.

[Churchhoney]

6 hours ago, queenanne said:

Interesting, but it seems not because he was a Calvinist type (I grant is only Wikipedia and I'm taking it at its word):

Well, the business of kids needing to have their wills broken and such went way beyond Calvinism and was pretty much universal, at least in the western world -- don't know about the rest -- for centuries and centuries, I think. I think it was related to the fact that childhood wasn't really regarded as a separate state from adulthood for much of our history. Kids were sort of smaller adults and were kind of expected to behave accordingly, I suppose. Calvinism just added the fillip of "all humanity is utterly depraved!" to it, I guess.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Marigold]

i think the problem lies largely with Derick. 

He seems to have a short fuse and high expectations when it comes to children.  Derick got all snippy about the piano lesson, remember that odd clip?  Izzy didn't sit well for his lesson, no surprise there, he is 2 years old! Derick actually looked annoyed. 

Then this quote and a few other posters have pulled more quotes from Derick. The photographs of Izzy crying and Derick laughing.  Not to mention he hit the cat on the sled and thought that was funny too. 

Derick seems way, way off.   He is frustrated by a child's childlike behavior?  And he seems to think it's funny when his son is hysterical and snaps a picture?  

He is not very warm to Jill and continues dragging Jill to CA to fulfill some delusional missionary fantasy...it's no secret Jill is not happy in CA.  Derick is not that warm and fuzzy daddy...I see a dark Derick. 

Jill has many, many problems going on.   But before she married Dullard, she smiled and we saw some happiness on camera.  She seems to have been a darn good buddy to the little girls because they obviously adore her.  We have all noticed how much those little ones hug Jill and Jill is affectionate right back to them!  Jill appears more affectionate and more emotionally bonded to her little sisters than her own son. 

Something does not add up with Jill, Derick and Izzy.  I'm betting a large part of the issues lie with Derick. He just seems so...disturbed.   I don't think he is good for Jill.  

A married couple should make each other better.  Jill does not seem better since marriage and having a baby.  She seems unglued. Contrast with Jessa who seems to have improved overall since marriage and children. 

[bigskygirl]

I think the major problem is Derick did not see the writing on the wall while he was courting Jill. Yes, he should have noticed how dependent and child like Jill was during the courting part. She was not totally honest with him, and JB and Jill had their hooks in Derick from day one. He was the first guy to give her the attention she craves, and sadly, she was damaged by Josh and her nitwit parents, plus the fact she had no idea what marriage was actually like, and she has the mentally of a teenage girl living in a fake, fairytale like state of mind. She clings to him like fleas cling to a hound dog on a hot summer day. She wanted to go with him to CA, but she was expecting one or more of her sisters to tag along to take care of Izzy, so she can be with Derick 24/7. The sad fact is neither one of them were ready for marriage and instant parenthood, but they both went in without thinking the whole thing through. It takes two to make a marriage work, and Jill needs to take part of the blame for her unhappy marriage along with her parents and even Josh in some ways, playing a part in it. Also, I think the only one who gives Izzy decent love and affection is Derick's mother. And yes, spouses should try to make each other better, but if the other spouse does not want to work at having a happy, stable marriage and happy, well loved, and stable children, then all hope is lost. Derick did seem like an okay guy while they were courting, but I think the Duggars took away any hope of a nice, decent guy for their daughter and sister. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have Jill as a wife, and the Duggars as in-laws. If I spent five minutes with any of them, I would go screaming into the night, going to the store to buy root beer and chocolate, and asking my physician assistant to recommend a good counselor to help me deal with the nightmares and terror from being around any of them.

[sometimesy]

Just a guess:

Derick is a weak and damaged person who sought the structure and fame of the Dugg family. He also wormed his way into a wife, because let's face it, that douche wasn't going to persuade any other woman to let him be a king. Derick also prefers to go to places where he is considered wealthy and wise, and so he is 'honored' as such. It's not a stretch in my mind that Derelict would go the control route in child-raising. 

[bigskygirl]

3 minutes ago, sometimesy said:

Just a guess:

Derick is a weak and damaged person who sought the structure and fame of the Dugg family. He also wormed his way into a wife, because let's face it, that douche wasn't going to persuade any other woman to let him be a king. Derick also prefers to go to places where he is considered wealthy and wise, and so he is 'honored' as such. It's not a stretch in my mind that Derelict would go the control route in child-raising. 

I see your point of view, but in my opinion, Jill is just as weak and damaged as Derick is. She seems to think she "all that" and was desperate for someone to love her and give her the attention she craves. She is not parent material herself, and I do not see her treating Izzy any better than Derick does. I bet dollars to donuts, she only pays attention to Izzy when it is convenient for her and when she wants to be pretend she is his mommy *ring any bells Michelle* Sadly, Jill reminds me a lot of a woman I have known since high school. No, her parents did not have nineteen kids, and she was not molested by her brother,  but she seeks attention, judges and tells others how to live their lives, spreads nasty rumors about people especially people she does not likes, dates or falls in love with guys who pays her a little attention, never lived on her own, and ended up having a stand off at her house because a guy she supposedly loved had a friend show up at her house one day to the point she called 911, an officer shows up, the guy pulls out a firearm, and threatens to shoot the officer. Her mother made her go off to California for six months, and she ended up telling people she was in the Witness Protection Program for the whole six months. A few years later she told me she wanted to get back with the guy whose friend threaten to kill the officer and ended up in the state mental hospital. She will not seek professional help and thinks people who seek counseling are weak, and she can handle her problems with the help of her mother and expects others to hold her hand. Sounds familiar Jill, Derick and the rest of the Duggar clan.

[Whyyouneedaname]

On 4/21/2017 at 8:25 PM, Mojitogirl said:

It makes me beyond sad that a man who, through all indications, was raised in a loving environment, would consider a 2 year-old saying "I love you" TO HIS PARENTS as a manipulative being. It's mind boggling. I have a 4 year old and while he certainly wheedles me with his little face and smile when he wants an Oreo and even says I love you, the bottom line is that he DOES love me because I am his mother, probably the most important person (along with his father) in his life.  And regardless of the outcome he gets, he really does love me. 

I want to think that this quote is taken out of context. He can't be that stupid, that bad, such a shitty father. It tells me all I need to know about how they treat him, see him, and are raising him. 

Izzy better mind his P's & Q's, they'll have him shipped off to ALERT & won't bat an eye ;)

[sometimesy]

@bigskygirl Oh I agree about Jill. She is a manipulative pathetic parasite that feeds off of the kook-aid. She wants to be Michelle, go back to the TTH and have use of the sister slaves. 

[Marigold]

48 minutes ago, sometimesy said:

Just a guess:

Derick is a weak and damaged person who sought the structure and fame of the Dugg family. He also wormed his way into a wife, because let's face it, that douche wasn't going to persuade any other woman to let him be a king. Derick also prefers to go to places where he is considered wealthy and wise, and so he is 'honored' as such. It's not a stretch in my mind that Derelict would go the control route in child-raising. 

That's my exact opinion of Derick.  

Both of them have major issues...clearly their relationship and mental health are not doing well.  I feel sorry for their kids. 

[MargeGunderson]

Neither one of them thought all of this through or has the maturity to deal with it now. Derick wanted to be a missionary, but apparently gave very little thought to what it would be like to bring a family along. I suspect he didn't think it would be terribly different than being a missionary in Nepal, just with an added person. Any idiot (except apparently him) would know that it would be drastically different with a clingy wife and a willful toddler. Jill was completely ill-prepared to be a full-time missionary, assuming that it would be just like all of those 1-2 week missions the Duggars performed, handing out lollipops and doing nails. Jill in particular didn't have a clue how to live without all of her siblings/parents to help her out with basic life stuff - and doesn't seem that interested in learning how to adult. I wish both of them would take stock of their situation and perhaps draw the conclusion that maybe it's not God's will for them to be missionaries.

[BitterApple]

28 minutes ago, Marigold said:

That's my exact opinion of Derick.  

Both of them have major issues...clearly their relationship and mental health are not doing well.  I feel sorry for their kids. 

I think this second baby is going to send them over the edge. There's no more Sister-Moms to pick up the slack. Jinger's married, Jessa's married, Joy's courting and Jana is probably needed at the TTH more than ever since Tabitha's gone. Michelle will probably loan out a few of the Littles to get them out of her hair, but it's not the same. 

[Absolom]

Neither one of them had a true picture or understanding of the other.  Derick had someone like his mother in mind with Jill's face.  He expected to marry an adult woman.  Jill expected to marry someone like dear old Dad.  Instead they each got a not fully formed adult and they aren't managing to grow up together as they might if they'd really known who they were marrying.  For their benefit, I hate to be this way, but perhaps this delivery won't go well and will put them out of the child bearing business.  Those two don't need any more children in this disaster they've made.

[bigskygirl]

I wonder what Cathy's take on all of this is and if she is doing anything to try to help the both of them see the light. I do not see any friendship, love or even tolerance between Jill and Cathy at all. Her son is in major trouble and needs someone to have a very serious talk about the state of his marriage and relationship with his own children because it will only get worse instead of better.

[Marigold]

13 minutes ago, bigskygirl said:

I wonder what Cathy's take on all of this is and if she is doing anything to try to help the both of them see the light. I do not see any friendship, love or even tolerance between Jill and Cathy at all. Her son is in major trouble and needs someone to have a very serious talk about the state of his marriage and relationship with his own children because it will only get worse instead of better.

I don't think Cathy sees much of a problem.  I think Cathy is dealing with trauma of her cancer diagnosis and all of that...understandably so.  She might not be able to process that her son and DIL are not in good shape.  Denial sometimes protects the mind. 

Plus, she seems to be on a very religious trip at the moment...

[RazzleberryPie]

Jill acts like she tolerates Cathy, but is actually annoyed that they have to consider to factor her into their family plans. This is beyond selfish. I can't imagine marrying into a family where my in laws were just a huge inconvenience to my own needs. 

Cathy acts like she wants to be so much more involved, but is holding back, because she's trying to keep the peace. 

[Churchhoney]

39 minutes ago, RazzleberryPie said:

Jill acts like she tolerates Cathy, but is actually annoyed that they have to consider to factor her into their family plans. This is beyond selfish. I can't imagine marrying into a family where my in laws were just a huge inconvenience to my own needs. 

Cathy acts like she wants to be so much more involved, but is holding back, because she's trying to keep the peace. 

This is the way it looks to me, too. But I don't know that viewing your in-laws as an alien inconvenience is very unusual, unfortunately.

I know two different families who routinely and openly refer to everybody who's married into them -- and all the parents, siblings, grandparents, friends, coworkers, etc., of those people -- as an "outlaw" and kind of treat them accordingly. I.e., any event or person or issue involving the outlaws, no matter how important and serious, must always always always give way to any competing event or person or issue arising from "the family," no matter how relatively trivial and unnecessary. And if it doesn't happen, the 'outlaw" is punished in various ways. When they use the word "outlaw" they shade it with just the tiniest merest hint that they might be sort of joking, but mostly it's quite clear that they're completely serious. And the "outlaws" spouses appear to side with "their families" over their "outlaw" spouses, too. 

It's appalling. But it does seem like the Duggars to me. 

Edited April 24, 2017 by Churchhoney

[bigskygirl]

Cathy probably is not considered a true Duggar, so she is considered second class to the Duggar clan. The only people who are important to the Duggars are the Duggars themselves and anyone and everyone willing to jump on their bandwagon and drink their brand of koolaid.

My in-laws do not care for me, and I have no problems with it. They do not like me because I told them to get their heads out of their behinds when it came to my husband's illness and learn to deal with him being sick or stay away until they do. They have treated him and me like crap and actually said they already went through his dad dying from colon cancer in 1992, so they do not want to deal with his illness. Really... My one sister-in-law came in and try to take over and run the show. She found out the hard way I am not like the rest of them because I told her to back off because I already went through the same crap with my own family, and I will not put up with her crap anymore. The rest of them blindly let her pull this crap because they do not want to stir up trouble. To me, they are guilty by association. I do not hate them, but I do feel sorry for them. Luckily, one of the few things about having to deal with my health issues is the fact I can use said issues in order to stay far away from my husband's three sisters. My family are a major pain in the behind also, so I stay far away from them also for my mental and physical health.

[Nysha]

My mother-in-law didn't like me, she told me to my face that she had picked out a different second wife for my husband and even after 20 years of marriage still felt the other woman would have been a better match. After my husband died, she stopped sending Christmas & Birthday gifts to our kids and pulled some underhanded crap over joint assets, so I haven't spoken to her in years. OTOH, my husband and my parents pretty much hated each other, so he always stayed home when I took the kids to visit and they never visited us.

At least, in-law troubles aren't something that can be laid at Gothard's feet.

[Marigold]

Jill had her fist misstep with Cathy at the wedding when Cathy got some second rate corsage. Remember? The wheel chair pictures were poorly done too. 

I doubt Cathy and Jill hate each other.  I imagine that Jill is very lost in Dggarland and doesn't really have social skills or life experience to understand how to treat your MIL or develop a relationship.  She looks awkward during filing scenes with Cathy, like they haven't established much more than a polite, cordial relationship. 

Jill is very awkward on a good day. ;)

[RazzleberryPie]

I don't think Jill or Cathy hate or even dislike each other. I do think Jill acts like Cathy is a huge obligation that she doesn't want to deal with, while Cathy would love to have a daughter in law she can really bond with and dote on, or at least a lot more interaction with her grandchild.

Its sad that Michelle, who doesn't have the heart for children, gets more opportunity for involvement, than Kathy who looks like she's just dying to break lose and be Grandma of the Year with a lot of sincere attention and love. 

Maybe Israel will be williful and irritating enough that Jill will ship him to Cathy's house.

I guess I'm lucky that my mother and law and I get among really well. My mother and my MIL even get among well. I'm sure we get on each other's nerves at times, but we do like each other's company, and I can't imagine withholding grandchildren from her, etc. 

[BitterApple]

I like my MIL well enough, but we don't do lunches or hang out together. Pretty much all our interaction happens through my husband. She's a nice lady, but we just have nothing in common. Jill barely has a relationship with her own mother, so I can understand why she's awkward around Cathy. None of the Duggar kids are well socialized and they don't seem to do well with people who aren't from their "bubble."

[zoomama]

after reading this page, i sure hope everyone is WAY wrong on their interpretations of jill and derrick's relationships with their family. their life sounds so hopeless, when reading it. 

[Ripley68]

So maybe me thinking Izzy's black eyes weren't accidents wasn't too far fetched?

Maybe Jill has problems with Cathy because Cathy is so different than JB's mother.  She's the one who lived with them and did the laundry and stuff, right?  It looks like Cathy wants to be firmly in the "grandmother" role, and has no interest in taking over as "secondary" or even "primary" mother.

My MIL and I loved each other for the first few years.  She has MS, and unfortunately, the mood swings that come with it have driven a huge wedge between her and her son, and thus me.  It's very difficult to be understanding to someone who one minute tells you you're an awesome parent, than the next, belittles and insults everything you do.  Add to the fact that she is very delusional about her son's personality.

[bigskygirl]

Cathy does have another daughter-in-law she can spend time with and bond with. I wonder if Jill sees her new sister-in-law as a threat to her relationship with Cathy especially since she does not have the skills to bond or be around others outside her own family. I know my one sister-in-law sees me as a threat and wanted to come along with me and my mother-in-law when we went out together. I actually did get along well with my mother-in-law until the time we found out my husband was seriously ill, and sadly it went downhill afterwards.

I cannot stand Jill and Derick and put them in the same league as my one sister-in-law, but for the sake of their children, I hope they work on their marriage and their relationship with Izzy and baby number two, and come out happier and stronger.

[Marigold]

49 minutes ago, zoomama said:

after reading this page, i sure hope everyone is WAY wrong on their interpretations of jill and derrick's relationships with their family. their life sounds so hopeless, when reading it. 

me too.

I always wonder...do they show the good parts of the filming??????  if so, uh-oh. That's the good parts of Derick & Jil?????????  

Maybe they are showing the crappy moments so we will talk about them? I doubt it. 

[GeeGolly]

I think Jill is intimidated and confused by Cathy. Cathy appears to share the same beliefs yet associates with none believers, wears pants, and financially supports herself and supported her boys on her own. I also think Cathy desperately wants a relationship with the "3rd person that she is related to by blood" and to just be a grandma.

As far as parenting, Jill doesn't know what she wants or what she is doing. She was raised thinking it's okay to restrain a child and whack a baby and has no clue of typical development of a child. Someone needs to mail them a modern day book on parenting, and quick, because like other posters have said, this next child is going to break them.

[queenanne]

Just now, GeeGolly said:

I think Jill is intimidated and confused by Cathy. Cathy appears to share the same beliefs yet associates with none believers, wears pants, and financially supports herself and supported her boys on her own. I also think Cathy desperately wants a relationship with the "3rd person that she is related to by blood" and to just be a grandma.

As far as parenting, Jill doesn't know what she wants or what she is doing. She was raised thinking it's okay to restrain a child and whack a baby and has no clue of typical development of a child. Someone needs to mail them a modern day book on parenting, and quick, because like other posters have said, this next child is going to break them.

Not to mention, she's 1,000% bathing in and lapping up the Kool-Aid.  Jill in that recent People Magazine:

With a second child on the way — their baby boy is due in July — the parents have learned a thing or two about parenting their first son, but they don’t think they’re in a position to be dishing out advice.

“We only have one kid. I think my mom’s the only one who can,” Jill says in reference to Michelle Duggar, who is a parent of 19 children.

(bolding mine)

With the unspoken part of the sentence being "only one who can [dole out advice on parenting, because she's a splendidly experienced parent who has actively parented multiples]", Jill has just slammed a Mardi Gras-sized glass of fine irony down on the table and dared us to drink it.

Jill still thinks, with the benefit of hindsight and distance, that MICHELLE has parented.  Actively, to the point of view where she can dole out advice.

The part where it was in fact Jill and her fellow sister wives who did the lion's share of the parenting, hasn't even crossed her mind.

[lascuba]

Are there and specific incidences where it looked like Jill doesn't like Cathy? I'm genuinely asking...I find them both so odious that I haven't paid attention to their dynamic. 

3 hours ago, Marigold said:

me too.

I always wonder...do they show the good parts of the filming??????  if so, uh-oh. That's the good parts of Derick & Jil?????????  

Maybe they are showing the crappy moments so we will talk about them? I doubt it. 

I think 90% of the time we're watching a scripted show with people who can't act for shit, and in the 10% that's closer to the real end of the spectrum, we get what the family and producers think is sweet, charming quirkiness.

[JoanArc]

7 hours ago, Absolom said:

Neither one of them had a true picture or understanding of the other.  Derick had someone like his mother in mind with Jill's face.  He expected to marry an adult woman.  Jill expected to marry someone like dear old Dad.  Instead they each got a not fully formed adult and they aren't managing to grow up together as they might if they'd really known who they were marrying.  For their benefit, I hate to be this way, but perhaps this delivery won't go well and will put them out of the child bearing business.  Those two don't need any more children in this disaster they've made.

EVERY SINGLE Duggar kid marriage so far makes the best case for dating and picking your own spouse. I think they'll all fail, eventaully - not necessarily divorce, just lifetimes of unnecessary misery for all involved. Yes, this includes Jessa.

Quote

after reading this page, i sure hope everyone is WAY wrong on their interpretations of jill and derrick's relationships with their family. their life sounds so hopeless, when reading it. 

And this is just strangers. Imagine hearing one of Jill's pleading mews to have Derrick help her do something basic, like cut banana bead, or being Jill and having Derrick want to leave her alone for 5 minutes a day. They must be miserable. I really hope there's no Zika complications with this baby, or that the baby is in any way 'imperfect'. That'll really make them snap.

 

Does anyone remember when, before the wedding, Cathy said she couldn't want to spend time with Jill as a daughter. I'm sure she got skilled in the Duggar golden rule: whoever's a Duggar dominates their relationship. Period.