Jill, Derick and Israel- Part 16

[SassyPants]

25 minutes ago, lascuba said:

I'm not sure about that. I mean yes, lifestyles are completely different, but I do think that mainstream religions do encourage zealotry...they're the primer, as it were. They often view fundamentalism as relatively harmless and therefore don't bother analyzing them and view such analysis as anti-religious. It makes complete sense to me that someone who grew up religious but not fundamentalist would end up in a cult. The basic beliefs are already ingrained, and if the personality is right for it, boom, we end up with a Derrick. 

If that was the case, wouldn't there be far more crazy fundies around?

[lascuba]

47 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

If that was the case, wouldn't there be far more crazy fundies around?

Maybe there aren't that many fundie-inclined personalities? Thank goodness. I'm mostly spitballing about this. I don't think that growing up in a religious household will lead to fundamentalism in most people, but I do think there would be a lot less cults and zealots if they didn't have that mainstream religion base to build upon. Not to get all slippery-slope about this, but I think that once you have that religious foundation, and therefore a tolerance for people who take that faith to an extreme, it's a pretty easy leap into fundamentalism. At the very least, we end up with one our two major political parties openly catering to zealots when everyone should be united in mocking them since few people are fundies. 

[Snarkylark]

Does anyone else think that birth parents should be listed on the birth certificate? After all, that were the ones involved in the birth of the child. I understand for privacy reasons that names are changed but I feel that a child has a right to the information as much as or more than the birth parents' right to privacy. Couldn't there be some sort of certificate of adoption that allows the birth certificate to remain in tact, while providing parental rights to the adoptive parents? My husband's father dies when my husband was 4. His mother remarried and her husband adopted my husband. His birth certificate was  changed to list his adoptive father. Something just bothers me about that. 

[VixenToast]

5 minutes ago, Snarkylark said:

Does anyone else think that birth parents should be listed on the birth certificate? After all, that were the ones involved in the birth of the child. I understand for privacy reasons that names are changed but I feel that a child has a right to the information as much as or more than the birth parents' right to privacy. Couldn't there be some sort of certificate of adoption that allows the birth certificate to remain in tact, while providing parental rights to the adoptive parents? My husband's father dies when my husband was 4. His mother remarried and her husband adopted my husband. His birth certificate was  changed to list his adoptive father. Something just bothers me about that. 

That bothers me too, mostly for medical reasons. I mean for all intents and purposes being a parent is what you do and not what you produce from your loins. I have an Aunt who got pregnant in HS in the early 70's. She put my cousin up for adoption (I think against her will.), and for days my Aunt got sicker and sadder until my other Aunt told her to get in the car because they were going to get the baby. A few years later my Aunt got married to a wonderful man who adopted my cousin. I assume my cousins birth cert was changed too. 

[patsymae]

On June 3, 2016 at 0:06 AM, BlessedMajorNeglect said:

Even disregarding Cathy's bio mom's feelings (and that of her family), the way Jill chose to word the request was awful.

Izzy's Great Grandma is the woman who raised Cathy, period. The woman who gave birth to Cathy is a genetic ancestor but not "family" in the same sense as the family that supported and helped grow both Cathy and Derick. 

As someone pointed out way to show you'll promote adoption as "perfect" solutions to discourage abortion or fertility treatment but then turn around and betray that you believe only biological parents are real parents.

Even if Cathy asked for it, even if her biological mother and family want it, there's a way to ask that doesn't involve essentially minimalizing what adoptive parents go through and do and spitting in their face they aren't "real." 

 

And at least be honest that it's because they as adults are curious or desiring this, don't blatantly lie and say your infant is demanding to know!

She never said that only the biological parents are real parents-- just that Cathy's biological mother is Izzy's great-grandmother, which she is, as is Cathy's adoptive mother. Adoption adds to an adoptee's family, it doesn't eradicate biological ties  (except legally in Western adoptions). Despite the ego needs of many adopters, they are not the  "only" or only "real" family; all adoptees have two sets of parents.

[Jucifer]

On May 31, 2016 at 2:34 PM, ksgranola1 said:

Well, tomorrow is June. So I would expect J/Der getting ready for their re-entry into non-dangerous Arkansas.

Since it's possible J/A are occupying the pool house, I wonder where they are going to live. And how soon a new pregnancy will be announced, Zika notwithstanding. I suppose JB has been looking for a place for them since he's such a clever real estate barren and all. I suppose Derrick could go back to Walmart & grovel to get his old job back, or he could look for something on his own. JB could hire him to keep the books but he prob. doesn't want Derrick to know how much $$$ he's got socked away.

The pool house is the one with the dented refrigerator, right?

That drives me crazy. That's what refrigerator magnets are for. :/

[OrchidBlossom]

I have two thoughts. About Cathy and how fundie or not fundie she is, I'm not sure what gives people the impression she is more "normal" or less fundamentalist than the Duggars (but this is just my opinion, I would love to know why people do see her as less so). I mean she isn't ATI (that we know of) but she has always struck me as someone who was past conservative and into fundamentalist. I think the thing that sticks out the most is when Jill and Derrick got engaged and Mechelle made some comment about being so blessed to have him in their lives and Cathy said "well we raised him using the same instruction manual!" or something. The way she said it struck me as less "we both generally believe in the bible" and more "we both have the same restrictive beliefs and interpret the bible the same general way". I would imagine that either she is not anti-birth control or that she came to an anti-birth control stance later in life. It is very possible that she raised Derrick in a conservative Christian manner and that he became more fundamentalist first (someone mentioned possibly a school group and I saw that happen to many friends in college--I went to school in the bible belt-- so I would believe it) and he led Cathy to a more fundamentalist way of living. That happens sometimes. It doesn't seem to have affected Dan so much, he has that shorts wearing girlfriend that I think someone said he may live in sin with? but Cathy may have been drawn to a deeper legalistic life after the passing of her husband, or just because she had the temperament for it and just happened to be exposed (Through Derrick or someone else).

Second, per Jill and the adoption thing, someone said they want Jill to imagine that happens once she has adopted a child and they have a child and so on, but I still deeply doubt any Duggar will ever adopt. IBLP isn't big on adoption and adoption agencies aren't big on giving kids to 20 somethings without jobs who are constantly popping out biological babies for the lord. Also because of IBLP teachings on adoption Jill may never see herself as the "family" of an adopted child so much as the "savior" of an adopted child, and may not have an issue with that kind of language. Pure speculation here though. 

I will say I totally agree that this IBLP nonsense about how adoption is wrong because sins of the father and your biological family is your real family and blah blah drives me totally batty. Especially when you factor in the anti-choice stuff, but even on its own. I have so many friends who were adopted into loving, caring, wonderful families for a whole host of reasons (and some who don't know why they were put up for adoption!) and it breaks my heart when someone implies that there is something wrong with children of adoption or something lesser about those families. Especially for a group of people who so claim to have a heart for children and a servant's heart and all that bullshit.

[VelociRapture]

Out of curiosity, I checked the message Jill posted on Twitter. I'm not sure where people saw anything about "real Great-Grandma," but nothing like that was listed.

See below picture for the post I saw:

Spoiler

Normally I wouldn't use a spoiler because it's her public account, but I thought I should because some of the birth mother's information was listed. Just seemed a bit respectful somehow.

I mean, technically speaking this woman would be his biological Great-Grandma. That in no way diminishes the love and time and effort put in by Cathy's (adoptive) mother as she raised her either - both women are Cathy's mothers and Israel's Great-Grandmas, just in different ways. But based off the screenshot I really don't get why people are blasting Jill for apparently thinking adoptive family isn't real family. She didn't say anything like that. Did Jill edit the post or something?

Note: I specified biological mother versus adoptive mother for reading context. It might have been too confusing otherwise.

[Kira]

12 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

Out of curiosity, I checked the message Jill posted on Twitter. I'm not sure where people saw anything about "real Great-Grandma," but nothing like that was listed.

See below picture for the post I saw:

  Reveal hidden contents

Normally I wouldn't use a spoiler because it's her public account, but I thought I should because some of the birth mother's information was listed. Just seemed a bit respectful somehow.

I mean, technically speaking this woman would be his biological Great-Grandma. That in no way diminishes the love and time and effort put in by Cathy's (adoptive) mother as she raised her either - both women are Cathy's mothers and Israel's Great-Grandmas, just in different ways. But based off the screenshot I really don't get why people are blasting Jill for apparently thinking adoptive family isn't real family. She didn't say anything like that. Did Jill edit the post or something?

Note: I specified biological mother versus adoptive mother for reading context. It might have been too confusing otherwise.

Twiiter dosesn't allow post to be edited. You can delete tweets. 

 

[artdecades]

Cathy already publicly state she met her bio mom and that her mom wanted an abortion and couldn't have one and thats why she's anti-choice. Also that the bio mom wanted nothing to do with her. This seems to be a slap in the face to the birth mother's wants which the Dillards were perfectly aware of. Of course, who cares what she wants when Jesus is on Jill's side.

 

it was discussed here

 

 

[nastyhobbitses]

It's a bit of a BEC snark, but Jill, your kid is one. The only things he "would love" to do are sleep, eat, put foreign objects in his mouth, and scream really loudly. Unless Cathy's bio-mom has those awesome magical food-providers attached to her chest or gives him stuff, I don't think he gives a rat's ass about meeting her.

[theinvisiblegirl]

19 minutes ago, artdecades said:

Cathy already publicly state she met her bio mom and that her mom wanted an abortion and couldn't have one and thats why she's anti-choice. Also that the bio mom wanted nothing to do with her. This seems to be a slap in the face to the birth mother's wants which the Dillards were perfectly aware of. Of course, who cares what she wants when Jesus is on Jill's side.

 

it was discussed here

 

 

Then what the fuck, Jill?  Did all of this just slip her mind? Did Derick never tell her about it for some crazy reason? This just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

[artdecades]

1 minute ago, theinvisiblegirl said:

Then what the fuck, Jill?  Did all of this just slip her mind? Did Derick never tell her about it for some crazy reason? This just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

Jill is special. The past doesn't matter to her. What other people want doesn't matter to her. She has Jesus on her side and that is all that matters.

[theinvisiblegirl]

1 minute ago, artdecades said:

Jill is special. The past doesn't matter to her. What other people want doesn't matter to her. She has Jesus on her side and that is all that matters.

This exactly. I'm sure it never once occurred to her that, if the biological mother was still alive and had no interest in a relationship with Cathy way back when, she probably wouldn't want a relationship with J/D/I.

Now the only reason I can see this search coming about is that Cathy wanted to try again with contact but had lost track of her whereabouts over the years? And even if that is the case, then given how the woman wanted nothing to do with Cathy when she was 27, this should have all been handled waaay more privately.

[FleeJanaFree]

3 hours ago, Snarkylark said:

Does anyone else think that birth parents should be listed on the birth certificate? After all, that were the ones involved in the birth of the child. I understand for privacy reasons that names are changed but I feel that a child has a right to the information as much as or more than the birth parents' right to privacy. Couldn't there be some sort of certificate of adoption that allows the birth certificate to remain in tact, while providing parental rights to the adoptive parents? My husband's father dies when my husband was 4. His mother remarried and her husband adopted my husband. His birth certificate was  changed to list his adoptive father. Something just bothers me about that. 

Nope. A woman that does not want the child deserves the choice of having peace and privacy after enduring the pregnancy. 

[lascuba]

57 minutes ago, artdecades said:

Cathy already publicly state she met her bio mom and that her mom wanted an abortion and couldn't have one and thats why she's anti-choice. Also that the bio mom wanted nothing to do with her. This seems to be a slap in the face to the birth mother's wants which the Dillards were perfectly aware of. Of course, who cares what she wants when Jesus is on Jill's side.

 

it was discussed here

 

 

I had completely forgotten about this. This definitely proves that there was an ulterior motive for tweeting that. This is going to be a TLC special or something.

I always said Jill was trash.

[nausicaa]

37 minutes ago, artdecades said:

Jill is special. The past doesn't matter to her. What other people want doesn't matter to her. She has Jesus on her side and that is all that matters.

She's Jim Bob's daughter. She learned about steamrolling over other people's feelings from the best.

[JesusCampSongs]

I agree that this is really weird, given what Jill already knew about this situation. Let's be honest, this family has no boundaries, and there's no way she didn't know. 

Things anti-choicers love: parading around women who regret their abortions, gave their children up for adoption and are happy about it, and got shotgun-wed and now have fiftyleven babies who attend March of Life every year. Also: happy adoption reunification stories.

Things anti-choicers largely refuse to acknowledge: the pain of women who were compelled into surrendering children against their will, unhappy adoption stories (from the kids themselves or the birthparents), any truthful accounts of the baby scoop era more generally, and the existence of women who don't regret their abortions.

I think it would be one thing if Cathy's birthmother was willing to play along in the "Abortion is bad, adoption is good! Happy families forever!" fairytale for TV audiences across America, but it's pretty clear that that's not the case. I feel badly for Cathy's birthmother, assuming she's still alive and continues to feel the way she did when Cathy was 27. I also feel badly for Cathy if Jill did this without her knowing or consenting. 

Silver lining? It's something to add to the "Duggars are assholes, including the girls" scrapbook. 

[anotherone]

2 hours ago, Snarkylark said:

Does anyone else think that birth parents should be listed on the birth certificate? After all, that were the ones involved in the birth of the child. I understand for privacy reasons that names are changed but I feel that a child has a right to the information as much as or more than the birth parents' right to privacy. Couldn't there be some sort of certificate of adoption that allows the birth certificate to remain in tact, while providing parental rights to the adoptive parents? My husband's father dies when my husband was 4. His mother remarried and her husband adopted my husband. His birth certificate was  changed to list his adoptive father. Something just bothers me about that. 

There was a reason for keeping the birth mother's privacy, and you have to understand what it was like 50-100 years ago.  If you were pregnant out of wedlock in the mid century or earlier, it was so horrible that you or your family would be outcasts of society.  The women were pushed to feel so ashamed, not just for being pregnant, but for publicly admitting they actually had premarital sex.  There was also a financial aspect, the disappointment that  the girl's father now had to support an extra child.  The only way some women could deal with giving up their baby was to try to suppress the emotions they might have and just try to forget it.  They know they will never see that child again.  And the adoptive family, they also didn't want to think someone could come and take the baby back years later.  Those things were important back then, although they might seem ridiculous now.

The idea of open adoptions is a relatively new concept.  And it can only happen in a culture where having a baby out of wedlock, and everyone realizing they had premarital sex,  is not even a big deal at all - nowadays you can adopt and write letters and send pictures to the birth mother, meet with her before birth, be there in the hospital with her, etc.  That would be so unheard of to people over 75.  But it's so normal to younger people, the way that maybe being a working mother or a divorced women is socially acceptable nowadays.

Even now there are some women that just don't want to be found.  That is their right too.  Although I agree that changing the birth certificate after the child is already like 4 is kind of odd.

[PecanThief]

Jill probably thinks Izzy is just so special being you know the next great Duggar Prophet that Cathy's bio mom would change her mind and be oh so grateful to meet them. 

Or maybe she thought if she got all her rabid leg humper fans on the trail that Cathy's bio mom would feel pressured to change her mind?

Whatever this twit was trying to accomplish it was stupid and rude.

[OrchidBlossom]

1 hour ago, VelociRapture said:

Out of curiosity, I checked the message Jill posted on Twitter. I'm not sure where people saw anything about "real Great-Grandma," but nothing like that was listed.

See below picture for the post I saw:

  Hide contents

Normally I wouldn't use a spoiler because it's her public account, but I thought I should because some of the birth mother's information was listed. Just seemed a bit respectful somehow.

I mean, technically speaking this woman would be his biological Great-Grandma. That in no way diminishes the love and time and effort put in by Cathy's (adoptive) mother as she raised her either - both women are Cathy's mothers and Israel's Great-Grandmas, just in different ways. But based off the screenshot I really don't get why people are blasting Jill for apparently thinking adoptive family isn't real family. She didn't say anything like that. Did Jill edit the post or something?

Note: I specified biological mother versus adoptive mother for reading context. It might have been too confusing otherwise.

I think it is partially said by implication knowing the views on adoption Jill was brought up with, although I think also someone paraphrased her by saying "real" and it took off a little from there. I also do think, and this is a very sensitive subject that everyone will have their own personal feelings about and all feelings are valid, so I don't want to discount that, that for many people an adopted family member is more of a family member than a biological one and for many people who give up their children for adoption, they don't really consider themselves the "grandparents" and so on of the progeny of the children they gave up for adoption. Some, of course, still do consider themselves those things and that is also valid, but for someone who has been said to have really truly wanted to give up that familial relationship she may not appreciate being called his great grandmother (and there is no way to find out without invading her privacy). 

I think many people are taking issue with the way that it is worded, to the exclusion of Cathy's adopted mother and forcing something upon a woman we know nothing about. Especially in the context of Jill's IBLP upbringing, it makes me uncomfortable without being overtly offensive regarding bio/adopted parentage.

You are right though that on it's face, that judgment value of "real" isn't there, I can just see where it was read in.

4 minutes ago, PecanThief said:

Jill probably thinks Izzy is just so special being you know the next great Duggar Prophet that Cathy's bio mom would change her mind and be oh so grateful to meet them. 

Or maybe she thought if she got all her rabid leg humper fans on the trail that Cathy's bio mom would feel pressured to change her mind?

Whatever this twit was trying to accomplish it was stupid and rude.

I don't know whether Jill actively thought to pressure the woman (I don't know if I think she is that bright) but I do think it could be an unfortunate consequence.

[VelociRapture]

12 minutes ago, OrchidBlossom said:

I think it is partially said by implication knowing the views on adoption Jill was brought up with, although I think also someone paraphrased her by saying "real" and it took off a little from there. I also do think, and this is a very sensitive subject that everyone will have their own personal feelings about and all feelings are valid, so I don't want to discount that, that for many people an adopted family member is more of a family member than a biological one and for many people who give up their children for adoption, they don't really consider themselves the "grandparents" and so on of the progeny of the children they gave up for adoption. Some, of course, still do consider themselves those things and that is also valid, but for someone who has been said to have really truly wanted to give up that familial relationship she may not appreciate being called his great grandmother (and there is no way to find out without invading her privacy). 

I think many people are taking issue with the way that it is worded, to the exclusion of Cathy's adopted mother and forcing something upon a woman we know nothing about. Especially in the context of Jill's IBLP upbringing, it makes me uncomfortable without being overtly offensive regarding bio/adopted parentage.

You are right though that on it's face, that judgment value of "real" isn't there, I can just see where it was read in.

I don't know whether Jill actively thought to pressure the woman (I don't know if I think she is that bright) but I do think it could be an unfortunate consequence.

Ah! Thanks! Your explanation makes a ton of sense. I was taking it more literally than it was intended it seems - thanks for pointing out that might not be how the original commenter meant it.

[Denim Jumper]

Geez, even if Cathy is okay with all of this, it's still horribly insensitive to assume this woman wants to be found at all, let alone in such a public way.

[ophelia]

On 3.6.2016 at 3:56 PM, Buzzard said:

That was my immediate thought when I saw the post: "CROSSOVER."  Smuggles did a DC cupcake episode and DerJill is pining for the same thing.  I can totally see it: Jill comes to a cemetary, places a flower at the grave, and coos at izzy "Your great gamma gave the gift of life instead of murdering grandma cathy and now you're here!"

Then they have awkward lunch with surviving relatives.  Jill cries.

I can totally see that and it already makes me sick. She'll probably wear one of those awful "I survived Roe vs. Wade"-shirts every Duggarling seems to have. She'll be crying and sobbing, her voice will break away during the interview and she'll talk a lot about "children are a blessing" etc.

20 hours ago, MatthewDuggar said:

Have we figured out yet if Cathy was aware of this and/or sanctioned it?

Many have hoped and felt that Cathy was a pillar of normalcy despite Derrick becoming a Duggar, but I've been pretty skeptical from the beginning.   I don't have any proof, but I just have a feeling that there is much more to the story of both Bin & Derrick.  For all we know Cathy may have been a Duggar "fan-girl" and encouraged Derrick to seek out JB in the prayer-tinder in order to get involved....  Think  of Grandma Mary being all sweet yet we know she calls many of the shots behind the scenes.  

I always pictured Cathy as a conservative/evangelical Christian, probably a Duggar fangirl that saw the Duggars as the holy family of Evangelical Christianity. Maybe the death of her first husband and her own severe illness caused her to get more and more into her faith and made her views more extreme so that Jill and her upbringing seemed to be the bright and great future for her son.

[Snarkylark]

23 minutes ago, anotherone said:

There was a reason for keeping the birth mother's privacy, and you have to understand what it was like 50-100 years ago.  If you were pregnant out of wedlock in the mid century or earlier, it was so horrible that you or your family would be outcasts of society.  The women were pushed to feel so ashamed, not just for being pregnant, but for publicly admitting they actually had premarital sex.  There was also a financial aspect, the disappointment that  the girl's father now had to support an extra child.  The only way some women could deal with giving up their baby was to try to suppress the emotions they might have and just try to forget it.  They know they will never see that child again.  And the adoptive family, they also didn't want to think someone could come and take the baby back years later.  Those things were important back then, although they might seem ridiculous now.

The idea of open adoptions is a relatively new concept.  And it can only happen in a culture where having a baby out of wedlock, and everyone realizing they had premarital sex,  is not even a big deal at all - nowadays you can adopt and write letters and send pictures to the birth mother, meet with her before birth, be there in the hospital with her, etc.  That would be so unheard of to people over 75.  But it's so normal to younger people, the way that maybe being a working mother or a divorced women is socially acceptable nowadays.

Even now there are some women that just don't want to be found.  That is their right too.  Although I agree that changing the birth certificate after the child is already like 4 is kind of odd.

Right. I understand how it USED to be but I think as a culture we have changed somewhat from then and it isn't as taboo or "shameful" as it used to be. We also understand now the importance of genes and medical history. I believe a child has the right to this information. Open adoptions allow for some contact with birth parents, IF and WHEN the adoptive parents allow it and can be rescinded at any time for any reason. It is not a contract or guarantee at all! And birth certificates are still always changed even in open adoptions.