Erika Shupe *glower pout* Large Families on Purpose Part 5

[grandmadugger]

Ok, I'm going to admit something that might get me shot here.  I am totally into the whole crunchy chiropractic thing.  Here's the thing though, he will tell you "This is out of my scope you need to see a MD"  While he will tell you to do all kinds of natural stuff he knows full well that it won't fix everything.  If Erika had showed up with her kid to his office he would have called 911.  He would also be all over her about the lack of variety and healthy fats & proteins in the kids diet.   

[YoshiCat]

On 2/11/2016 at 10:03 PM, amandaaries said:

 This is just not okay.  It's the same problem with homeschooling: lack of oversight/other sight.  Sometimes it's just better to have more people involved, for another viewpoint, another set of ideas, another realm of experiences from which to draw. Isolated children very rarely thrive.  There need to be more points of intervention. 

I always figure that they're trying to avoid seeing mandated reporters, like actual MDs and nurses. She hits her children and does not get them adequate food or exercise. She knows that a doctor or nurse would report those things. 

She certainly doesn't want another viewpoint or another set of ideas. Her viewpoints and ideas are the correct ones. She does not need to consider any others.

.

[mango_fandango]

I think I saw somewhere that Erika USED to get her kids vaccinated and then- I dunno how, probably after doing some "research"- decided that vaccines were bad and so now is an anti-vaxxer. So Karen and Melanie might be vaccinated, possibly Brandon too. I think she said that thankfully there were no negative side-effects in the vaxxed kids... well DUH! There AREN'T negative side-effects in the vast majority of cases!

Wonder why she changed from a legit paediatrician to a chiropractor. Slightly OT, but I think I saw somewhere that Karen has neck issues or something, which is a legit reason to use a chiropractor. But to use them for everything? Nuh uh. 

[Granwych]

No way I'd let chiropractor mess with my neck, or that of anyone in my family.   It's way too easy to cause permanent paralysis.  Massage is one thing, but "manipulating"  or "cracking," a big, resounding   "Hell No!"

[Vex]

I love when fundies refuse to send their kids to uni because they're going to lose their faith and be among all these deviants.

1) If your child is so weak in their faith that being exposed to other ideas will break it, they were probably always going to lose faith or they are already just paying lip service. Way to believe in their spiritual fortitude.

2) Fundies are the deviants, not us. A deviant is defined as a person who defies social norms. A norm is defined as a societal expectation of behaviour. Society expects kids to go to uni, experiment and grow in their beliefs, and they expect girls to have autonomy and to not be under an 'umbrella of protection'.
You know where their lifestyle IS the norm? The Middle East, with all those strict Muslims they hate so much.

[pnwgypsy]

5 hours ago, mango_fandango said:

Wonder why she changed from a legit paediatrician to a chiropractor. Slightly OT, but I think I saw somewhere that Karen has neck issues or something, which is a legit reason to use a chiropractor. But to use them for everything? Nuh uh. 

Money?  In her post about Scamaritan she mentions that (I believe) the job Bob had before he started his own business didn't provide insurance, so they got Scamaritan & Scamaritan doesn't cover routine checkups.  Cash pay chiropractor visits are pretty cheap in comparison.  My previous guy charged $40 & my current one sells a 10 pack for $350.  Cash pay at a regular doctor is probably $100 or more.  Meanwhile they are OBVIOUSLY eligible for Washington's expanded medicaid, Apple Health, under Obamacare, but *gasp* it covers birth control and stuff.

 

ETA: Here's a real doctor for your kids Erika.  Sliding scale fees.  http://www.seamar.org/location.php?xloc=8&xser=1&xcty=2&xserloc=5

[sawasdee]

6 minutes ago, pnwgypsy said:

Money?  In her post about Scamaritan she mentions that (I believe) the job Bob had before he started his own business didn't provide insurance, so they got Scamaritan & Scamaritan doesn't cover routine checkups.  Cash pay chiropractor visits are pretty cheap in comparison.  My previous guy charged $40 & my current one sells a 10 pack for $350.  Cash pay at a regular doctor is probably $100 or more.  Meanwhile they are OBVIOUSLY eligible for Washington's expanded medicaid, Apple Health, under Obamacare, but *gasp* it covers birth control and stuff.

 

ETA: Here's a real doctor for your kids Erika.  Sliding scale fees.  http://www.seamar.org/location.php?xloc=8&xser=1&xcty=2&xserloc=5

My jaw regularly drops on this thread, but the idea of someone refusing to get proper medical care for her children because she disagrees with the underlying political principles - colour me completely and utterly gobsmacked! I grew up with poor families who would compromise almost anything for their children's future. THAT is being a parent, as far as I am concerned - and she puts HER eternal salvation ahead of her children's interest? Nah, disqualified from eternal bliss for that alone.

[iweartanktops]

9 hours ago, grandmadugger said:

Ok, I'm going to admit something that might get me shot here.  I am totally into the whole crunchy chiropractic thing.  Here's the thing though, he will tell you "This is out of my scope you need to see a MD"  While he will tell you to do all kinds of natural stuff he knows full well that it won't fix everything.  If Erika had showed up with her kid to his office he would have called 911.  He would also be all over her about the lack of variety and healthy fats & proteins in the kids diet.   

I don't see a problem with this, especially since it sounds like your chiropractor has common sense.  My mom sees a chiropractor for back problems (along with medical professionals). The thing is, my mom has four children. When we were minors, we had vaccinations, well-child checks, emergency room visits for emergencies and medical providers for illnesses. If you're an adult, I see no problem with doing what you want with your body (but I strongly encourage seeking medical care, so you don't leave your child(ren) without a mother or father as a result of your negligence). Kids aren't able to make these decisions! So they need responsible parents to see that they're followed by a medical doctor, physician's assistant or pediatric nurse practitioner. 

[notfundy]

I read the same post you did, @StepMonsterInLA, and it appears she does NOT vaccinate (although she may have in the past, before she found her calling as a know-everything fundie blogger).  

[Foudeb]

Erika's already denying them a proper environment (read: enough space), an education and a proper upbringing (one that teaches you to make your own choices rather than systematically taken them away from you). Makes sense she would also deny them medical care.

 

That woman is one of the scariest fundies I've read about. Even the Duggars I think try to do the best they can for their family - they're just too thick and too brainwashed to make good decisions. With Erika, it's more like systematic prioritisation of her own little obsessions over her own kids.

[pnwgypsy]

2 hours ago, sawasdee said:

My jaw regularly drops on this thread, but the idea of someone refusing to get proper medical care for her children because she disagrees with the underlying political principles - colour me completely and utterly gobsmacked! I grew up with poor families who would compromise almost anything for their children's future. THAT is being a parent, as far as I am concerned - and she puts HER eternal salvation ahead of her children's interest? Nah, disqualified from eternal bliss for that alone.

Yeah.  I just don't understand the whole "I can't have health insurance because they might provide a procedure my religion doesn't agree with to a person I don't know" belief.  I mean, how far does that extend?  Maybe Erika should stop supporting all businesses with policies against her beliefs.  So long to your beloved Costco Erika!  & with Medicaid, you're not paying for it, so what's the issue?  & what about the taxes you to pay?  Maybe a tiny, tiny fraction of them goes to medicaid & pays for some woman's birth control?  Stop paying taxes Erika!!!!

[older than allosaurs]

7 hours ago, Vex said:

I love when fundies refuse to send their kids to uni because they're going to lose their faith and be among all these deviants.
 

Erika, if memory serves, graduated from our local and notoriously liberal state university (as a bonus, so did Michael Farris of HSDLA) and yet somehow has managed to hold onto fundiedom. I do realize she says it has been a chore to unlearn her education there, but still, she did it. Are her own children not as smart, not as discerning, not as well-educated as she was when she attended? And if not, what could account for that?

[iweartanktops]

I swear, my blood pressure rises in this thread. 

[THERetroGamerNY]

I swear, my blood pressure rises in this thread. 

I suffer from dizzy spells due to extremely low blood pressure. I put extra salt on stuff and use Ericka's bad parenting as a medical supplement.

[THERetroGamerNY]

Oh... brace yourselves ... she has a new post on her blog up about skirts.

[JesusCampSongs]

I find the whole line of "What if my husband doesn't want me to wear skirts all the time?" inquiry really weird. Having been raised fundie lite, it was always my impression that there are two kinds of men in the world: the ones who expect modest dress, and the ones who don't really care about clothing so long as it's suited to the occasion. I wear skirts more or less exclusively, for practical reasons (they are comfier and I have a hard time finding pants that fit me well), and I've never encountered or dated a guy who was like, "Yo, you need to wear more pants." 

Is this a real thing?

[iweartanktops]

11 minutes ago, THERetroGamerNY said:

Oh... brace yourselves ... she has a new post on her blog up about skirts.

Before I check it out, I'm predicting the mention of the word, "crotch." You know that you males just can't help but stare at our crotches! *barf*

1 minute ago, JesusCampSongs said:

I find the whole line of "What if my husband doesn't want me to wear skirts all the time?" inquiry really weird. Having been raised fundie lite, it was always my impression that there are two kinds of men in the world: the ones who expect modest dress, and the ones who don't really care about clothing so long as it's suited to the occasion. I wear skirts more or less exclusively, for practical reasons (they are comfier and I have a hard time finding pants that fit me well), and I've never encountered or dated a guy who was like, "Yo, you need to wear more pants." 

Is this a real thing?

I know. I really think it's ridiculous.  I'm pretty sure my fiancé doesn't care what I'm wearing! I mean, I'm sure he wouldn't appreciate me heading off to the grocery store in a g-string, but as long as I'm clothed in public, I can't imagine him commenting on my clothing, aside from compliments. 

[iweartanktops]

I skimmed the post because Erika is so long-winded, on purpose! *beam*

In the comments:

 

Quote

 Mrs. Waring,

 

We wear skirts yes to look like women, but mostly to help boys and men keep their minds pure by not being distracted by seeing too much of a woman (the

crotch

 

area, specifically the back side - not to be too crass). Also to help us feel, think like, and behave more femininely and submissively. I encourage you to read the original post on why we wear skirts. There's more to it than just dressing "like a woman", and it's a Biblical command, not a matter of preference, or personal interpretation. *hugs*

 

[THERetroGamerNY]

Yeah, this whole crotch-shield ... er, sorry, SKIRT, obsession seems to be some Freudian-level thing that is just deeply rooted in Fundies like Erika ... I remember when my mom had my older sister suddenly wearing long skirts as the de facto standard, and it was because of "eye traps" and all that Gothard crap...

Here's the thing that puzzles me: You clearly didn't obsess about your crotch beforehand, right?!

I mean ... you were just a normal woman beforehand, and now - thanks to Fundyism - an obsession with crotches is all around you.

I don't get it. I just cannot make the full connection in my male head.

I mean ... WTF?!

I mean... I honestly do NOT find myself target-locked on my own wife's crotch (yes, I had to go here lol) every second of the day...

Reminds me of that wonderful comment a page or so ago about somebody more Fundy than Ericka requesting a crotch-check at the bathroom. I stumbled across a new blog on Wordpress (thanks to a commenter on the hilarious Defaming the Duggars blog) and the blog is this bizarre New Age-Girly-Girly-Quiverfull thing (I guess this is a thing?!) Anyways, that blogger mentioned all her girls wearing skirts because of romantic notions about fashion. Crotches were never mentioned.

Sooooo... get that New Age-Fundy-Lite woman in the room, with Erika, and the uber-Fundie ... it would be a Pay Per View event. ONE of these women would eventually hit a breaking point and scream "Why are you so obsessed with my crotch?!"

I would pay cold cash, and make a good tub of popcorn with a frosty cold soda to watch that.

[OnceUponATime]

44 minutes ago, JesusCampSongs said:

I've never encountered or dated a guy who was like, "Yo, you need to wear more pants." 

For a female who does not wear skirts/dressed for comfort reasons I get the opposite a lot. "Why don't you put on a skirt", "why don't you ever wear a dress", "but you'd look so pretty if you wore a skirt'. FFS it drives me nuts. and now I feel even less free to ever wear a skirt if I felt like it because God only knows what the crazy response would be. That time I wore pink socks was bad enough.

I have heard people questioning exclusive-skirt wearers as to why they don't wear shorts/pants when doing sporting activities. I guess there is that.

 

18 minutes ago, THERetroGamerNY said:

I mean... I honestly do NOT find myself target-locked on my own wife's crotch (yes, I had to go here lol) every second of the day...

I think that means you're doing it wrong. You should probably spend more time focused on your wife's crotch and disregarding all other things. It is clearly something all *real* guys do, just make sure you don't let your eyes stray to the woman next door

 

Quote

[...] but mom's dressing to look clean[...]

this is wrong right? Because I've just spent 5 minutes reading the sentence containing this on her blog and my mind keeps fizzing out and getting confused.

That blog is a whole lot of wtf for me. also it *again* isn't new. It is from 2012. The top comment is funny though "why would anybody think that a husband and wife need to agree on what a wife wants to wear?" *sniggers*
 

[THERetroGamerNY]

5 minutes ago, OnceUponATime said:

[...] but mom's dressing to look clean[...]

this is wrong right? Because I've just spent 5 minutes reading the sentence containing this on her blog and my mind keeps fizzing out and getting confused.

That blog is a whole lot of wtf for me

No, you're right: That is wrong. In every particular.

Another magnificent addition to the Shupe dictionary. Mangling grammar and spelling with vitality.

[defraudingjezebel]

Wow, that entry is just a big heaping dumpster fire. I read the last part, which was written by Bob, quite closely. Now I know why Erika can't spell worth a shit- Bob is just as bad at spelling and on top of that, can barely write a coherent sentence. I had a hard time making sense of his writing. 

The comments are GOLD though. One comment said something to Erika about how men too should (theoretically) be obligated to cover their crotches because all of the gay men will be scoping them out, as well. Erika responded by saying that she doesn't believe there aren't enough "gay-homosexual" [sic]  men out there to warrant that concern.

[Shiny]

2 minutes ago, defraudingjezebel said:

Wow, that entry is just a big heaping dumpster fire. I read the last part, which was written by Bob, quite closely. Now I know why Erika can't spell worth a shit- Bob is just as bad at spelling and on top of that, can barely write a coherent sentence. I had a hard time making sense of his writing. 

The comments are GOLD though. One comment said something to Erika about how men too should (theoretically) be obligated to cover their crotches because all of the gay men will be scoping them out, as well. Erika responded by saying that she doesn't believe there aren't enough "gay-homosexual" [sic]  men out there to warrant that concern.

The way these fundies fear "the homosexuals", I assumed there was one on every corner. I've got two sitting on my couch right now, ffs. 

[THERetroGamerNY]

Gay-homosexual...?!

As opposed to a non-gay-homosexual?!

[DarkAnts]

11 hours ago, Vex said:

I love when fundies refuse to send their kids to uni because they're going to lose their faith and be among all these deviants.

1) If your child is so weak in their faith that being exposed to other ideas will break it, they were probably always going to lose faith or they are already just paying lip service. Way to believe in their spiritual fortitude.

2) Fundies are the deviants, not us. A deviant is defined as a person who defies social norms. A norm is defined as a societal expectation of behaviour. Society expects kids to go to uni, experiment and grow in their beliefs, and they expect girls to have autonomy and to not be under an 'umbrella of protection'.
You know where their lifestyle IS the norm? The Middle East, with all those strict Muslims they hate so much.

I lost my faith in high school. I went to an LCMS school and was flabbergasted that people could have a small world view. I boycotted theology class for a while because there was too much hate being spread towards other religions. Luckily my pasture was supportive of my views. I just could not believe in a God that would send an innocent child to hell simply because they have not been exposed to Christianity or were given a change to be baptized.