Jinger's Engaged to the Son of a Preacherman

[SpoonfulOSugar]

People has confirmed that Jeremy and Jinger are engaged.  (We are surprised.  Not.)

On the previous thread, we had a discussion of patriarchy v. misogyny, and a new picture of the clan in New York City.

Last page of the previous thread:

Thread title courtesy of @Angelic83 who successfully gave me a blankity-blank song earworm.

[marmalade]

@halcionne How did you figure out where the proposal took place? Someone on another board speculated it was taken at Rockerfeller Center. 

[habert]

@EmCatlyn The idea that misogyny is only how people think about woman isn't completely correct. The systematic oppression of woman through patriarchy is misogyny since oppression is hatred. 

Woman being blocked from inheritance, income, government, access to public spaces, reproductive health, safety, positions of authority etc. etc. because men are considered (socially/culturally) above woman is patriarchy and misogyny. Patriarchy is the system which oppresses woman, misogyny is the why.

 

 

[Four is Enough]

As to the question if Jessa is pregnant or not, RELAX, people! This was the woman, I recall, who coyly hid her stomach under pillows, made little, "We have nothing to say" announcements, before she finally announced herfirst pregnancy. It was like a game to her... So when I said, "I think she looks pregnant"....... to me, it was part of the game. 

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

I'm legitimately surprised that Jinger has her hand on Jeremy's torso in that shopping pic. They look like any average couple. 

[halcionne]

58 minutes ago, marmalade said:

@halcionne How did you figure out where the proposal took place? Someone on another board speculated it was taken at Rockerfeller Center. 

I am thoroughly unfamiliar with the Manhattan skyline, so I could be wrong, of course.

People here said it was the Empire State Building (I only recognize that building in daylight). The casual clothes and generally impromptu nature of the pics and video got me thinking 'this can't possibly be the actual proposal.' I think someone on here said they were at People mag, or maybe I just guessed, since they were def in NJ to meet Jeremy's cousins or whoever. 

I get curious about some silly things, and, as you may be able to tell from my posting history, when I get curious about something I start googling. Anyway, I was curious about whether the pics were taken at the cousins' house in the Wyckoff area, so I looked at some skyline photos taken in NJ and it seemed clear to me that the couple of skyscrapers we can see are oriented differently than they are when seen from Jersey.

I can't understate how little I know about NYC architecture and geography, so I tried to pick out a distinctive building and determine how it's oriented to the ESB. I ~think~ the building on the left margin is One57, due to the distinctive roof line.

tldr: I have too much time on my hands and decent googlefu, maybe

[sophie10130]

31 minutes ago, habert said:

@EmCatlyn The idea that misogyny is only how people think about woman isn't completely correct. The systematic oppression of woman through patriarchy is misogyny since oppression is hatred. 

Woman being blocked from inheritance, income, government, access to public spaces, reproductive health, safety, positions of authority etc. etc. because men are considered (socially/culturally) above woman is patriarchy and misogyny. Patriarchy is the system which oppresses woman, misogyny is the why.

Right.

Truthfully, I'm not sure why we are having this conversation. In the case of Jinger and Jeremy, do any of us REALLY think Jeremy is upholding his patriarchal ideals and taking a good deep look at himself and saying to "But this is not misogynistic because I don't hate her. This just ISN'T."? No. If he's one, he's the other. No one can change my mind that you can have patriarchy without misogyny no matter how many different dictionaries and definitions are pulled out.

Many, many, many christians, and not even just fundie ones, are raised with the notion that men are the leaders of the household because women are LESSER in that aspect and they are born that way. That is misogyny! You can maybe have misogyny without patriarchy (I've never seen it but I guess maybe it's possible?) but you can't have patriarchy without misogyny.

Again, I'm not sure why anyone is defending patriarchy in this way? Even if there's patriarchy without misogyny are we really hoping for that for Jinger? That she is being told she can't do something because of her gender but because he doesn't hate her or other women we should be glad? Seriously?

[EmCatlyn]

24 minutes ago, habert said:

@EmCatlyn The idea that misogyny is only how people think about woman isn't completely correct. The systematic oppression of woman through patriarchy is misogyny since oppression is hatred. 

Woman being blocked from inheritance, income, government, access to public spaces, reproductive health, safety, positions of authority etc. etc. because men are considered (socially/culturally) above woman is patriarchy and misogyny. Patriarchy is the system which oppresses woman, misogyny is the why.

 

As I said, it is a question of how we use the words.  I do not agree that "oppression is hatred." I do not agree that "misogyny is the why" of patriarchy. Generally available dictionary definitions support my choice of diction. 

 To be sure, in ccertain politically charged discourse it may be appropriate to oversimplify the connection between disempowering and hating.   And I don't disagree that the system of patriarchy is linked to cultural elements of misogyny. 

But we are talking about an individual and his individual personality characteristics.  The distinction I was trying to make are valid.  

In any case, all I wanted to say that Jeremy (or any other fundie guy) might treat his wife and daughters decently because he recognizes them as human beings.  Let's not get caught up in a political jargon debate.  

 

[ester]

@habert, that's it exactly. Feelings, thoughts and actions are three distinct things. A man in patriarchy might 'feel' love and affection for women, or at least for the specific women in his life, yet he can still think he knows what is best for her due to his superior brain, and thus he acts upon it. He assumes that her compliance is agreement, and it may well be if she has spent her life being acculturated to be a lesser being, albeit with a meaningful back story.

Oppressed people throughout history, around the world have frequently acquiesced to and supported oppressive systems due to deep acculturation and indoctrination. It's a kind of mass Stockholm syndrome, referred to sometimes as 'slave mentality.'

[habert]

5 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

As I said, it is a question of how we use the words.  I do not agree that "oppression is hatred." I do not agree that "misogyny is the why" of patriarchy. Generally available dictionary definitions support my choice of diction. 

 To be sure, in ccertain politically charged discourse it may be appropriate to oversimplify the connection between disempowering and hating.   And I don't disagree that the system of patriarchy is linked to cultural elements of misogyny. 

But we are talking about an individual and his individual personality characteristics.  The distinction I was trying to make are valid.  

In any case, all I wanted to say that Jeremy (or any other fundie guy) might treat his wife and daughters decently because he recognizes them as human beings.  Let's not get caught up in a political jargon debate.  

 

I'm sorry, but oppression is hatred, and for victims of oppression it is a political debate. I'm just not interested in distinguishing a scale of benevolent patriarchy. The lifestyle Jinger has been brought up in and will be married in to is not to her benefit and never will be.

[awkwardblackchick]

Has anyone seen this yet http://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/jill-jessa-counting-on/jinger-shares-her-haircare-regimen/.  TBH, I thinks this is an improvement from this last Duggar hair tutorial

[lizzybee]

3 minutes ago, awkwardblackchick said:

Has anyone seen this yet http://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/jill-jessa-counting-on/jinger-shares-her-haircare-regimen/.  TBH, I thinks this is an improvement from this last Duggar hair tutorial

Definitely. I want her to get a better straightener though, that one is not working with her. 

[ester]

If the ideas of misogyny and patriarchy are too complex, one could have the same conversation about racism and slavery. In order to have slavery, an institution upon which societies have been built, one group must have another group that they see as less than fully human. We have all certainly heard many apocryphal stories of slaves and slave owners in the US who may have cared deeply about one another, but the action of claiming ownership of another human tells the truth of the matter. The slave is less than human. Perhaps beloved, perhaps "a member of the family," but. A slave. Less than.

[sophie10130]

1 minute ago, ester said:

If the ideas of misogyny and patriarchy are too complex, one could have the same conversation about racism and slavery. In order to have slavery, an institution upon which societies have been built, one group must have another group that they see as less than fully human. We have all certainly heard many apocryphal stories of slaves and slave owners in the US who may have cared deeply about one another, but the action of claiming ownership of another human tells the truth of the matter. The slave is less than human. Perhaps beloved, perhaps "a member of the family," but. A slave. Less than.

And often times, these love stories between slaves and masters and Bill O'reilly's blunder about how they were well fed and well kept are just stories to make whites feel better about themselves for OWNING HUMANS. And to make history seem less terrible. And to shut up black people for being mad that they were slaves. Did they exist? No idea. But they should never be used as an example of reasons why slavery wasn't ~~that bad~~ 

[ariel9]

Yay Jinger gets 5 seconds of quasi freedom. 

[ester]

@sophie10130, exactly the story I was thinking about! Utter garbage and utterly irrelevant. O'Reilly is such a limbic rage addict.

[lizzybee]

I think patriarchy can feel like it's not misogyny. You can believe you love, respect women, and even highly esteem them without soul searching enough to identify that you also find them to be inferior or less than capable of being equal to you as a man. You can say equal but different, but if different means a woman can't have what you have, that cannot be equal. But that requires introspection and identification of root ideas and feelings that a patriarchal subscriber has vehemently denied themselves. 

To be a woman in a patriarchal situation there is a misogyny toward yourself and your own sex. Meaning you accept and allow yourself to be treated as other and less than the man. If you agree with it and teach it to your daughters, you support it. That requires some self-hatred/self-misogyny to help you adhere to the belittling of your capacity as a woman on the whole. 

I don't think you can separate the two as a whole because while patriarchy believes itself to be elevating the woman to special treatment, in the end it limits her and pits the man against her as the stronger, surer version of humanity. It requires her to need a man in a way that a man does not need a woman and the acceptance of that as a valid idea is misogyny. 

[Shadoewolf]

My oldest loves the fabrics used in Aeropostle so I buy her a TON of it at one of our local thrift stores. But when they have their additional 30% off clearence sale, I can sometimes buy new. Thrift storing can be awesome if you put the time and effort into seeking out the good stuff.

[EmCatlyn]

32 minutes ago, habert said:

I'm sorry, but oppression is hatred, and for victims of oppression it is a political debate. I'm just not interested in distinguishing a scale of benevolent patriarchy. The lifestyle Jinger has been brought up in and will be married in to is not to her benefit and never will be.

I don't disagree that "The lifestyle Jinger has been brought up in and will be married in to is not to her benefit and never will be."  I have never said anything about "benevolent patriarchy."  I made a comment about the best that one could hope from Jeremy.  I did not say that there is anything "okay" about Jinger having no choices besides marry someone like Jeremy or remain unmarried.  The situation that all "fundie" kids are in is a bad one and I would like to see Jinger and all of them be "free."

Since it doesn't sound as if she particularly wants to be "free" and since we are not going to abduct and deprogram her against her will, all we can hope is that the man she marries can value her and treat her like a person, not just a convenience.  This is not to say, "Oh Fundy Patriarchy isn't so bad if the husband is a decent guy."  Absolutely, I am not saying that.  I am saying is that within the bad situation she is in, if Jeremy turns out to be a decent guy who appreciates her, she will be better off with him (though he is a representative of fundie patriarchy) than staying in the TTH.

 As far as "oppression is hatred," goes, it has a nice ring to it, but IMHO, it is no more true to general experience than "property is theft."   However, I don't want to argue about it.  As I keep saying, people use language differently.  I will respect your choice of words if you will respect mine. Let's agree to disagree.

[habert]

33 minutes ago, lizzybee said:

I think patriarchy can feel like it's not misogyny. You can believe you love, respect women, and even highly esteem them without soul searching enough to identify that you also find them to be inferior or less than capable of being equal to you as a man. You can say equal but different, but if different means a woman can't have what you have, that cannot be equal. But that requires introspection and identification of root ideas and feelings that a patriarchal subscriber has vehemently denied themselves. 

To be a woman in a patriarchal situation there is a misogyny toward yourself and your own sex. Meaning you accept and allow yourself to be treated as other and less than the man. If you agree with it and teach it to your daughters, you support it. That requires some self-hatred/self-misogyny to help you adhere to the belittling of your capacity as a woman on the whole. 

I don't think you can separate the two as a whole because while patriarchy believes itself to be elevating the woman to special treatment, in the end it limits her and pits the man against her as the stronger, surer version of humanity. It requires her to need a man in a way that a man does not need a woman and the acceptance of that as a valid idea is misogyny. 

Imagining Lizzy Bennet saying this warmed my heart!!

[Jinder Roles]

Jinger needs a tail comb to section her hair pronto! I also hope she detangled before straightening! Technique is everything when straightening hair. 

Pro-tips: try running cool air from your blow dryer over your hair to seal the hair and prevent frizz. Anti-frizz serum is also good. She's right though, brushes are the absolute worst for curly hair. 

At least she used heat protector but not the best straightening job I've seen. I don't know why the Duggars post videos and tips on stuff they're not particularly great at. 

 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, ester said:

If the ideas of misogyny and patriarchy are too complex, one could have the same conversation about racism and slavery. In order to have slavery, an institution upon which societies have been built, one group must have another group that they see as less than fully human. We have all certainly heard many apocryphal stories of slaves and slave owners in the US who may have cared deeply about one another, but the action of claiming ownership of another human tells the truth of the matter. The slave is less than human. Perhaps beloved, perhaps "a member of the family," but. A slave. Less than.

The "ideas of misogyny and patriarchy" are not "too complex."  What is complicated is how people use language and the assumptions that they bring to discourse.  It has been my experience that when two people or groups of people use key words differently they can end up fighting about words when they may not be too far in their ideas.  

Regarding the bolded statement about slavery, I have to say that the history of slavery does not support your generalization that racism came first.  Historically, the first slaves were people very much like their masters who were enslaved in war or for debt, etc. The slave that is a slave because s/he comes from an "inferior" race (chattel slavery) is connected to early modern European history.   To be sure, racism and slavery are closely intertwined in America.  But not all racists were slave owners. Many were abolitionists.   

I do agree that the very fact of slavery taints the relationship between master and slave, that no matter how much love there may be between two individuals, the power that a slave owner has over the slave is a form of oppression.  A good example would be Thomas Jefferson, who obviously recognized his slaves as human beings and felt guilty about being a slave owner but was both a racist convinced that blacks were inferior and unable to face the economic price of freeing his slaves. (We could also talk about Sally Hemings. . .)

As far as the parallels between the practice of slavery and patriarchy, they are most certainly there. We have come a long way since the days when women couldn't vote and married women could not control their own property.  But we still have a ways to go, and the fundie idea of restricting women to subservient roles is repulsive and should be challenged.

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, sophie10130 said:

Right.

Truthfully, I'm not sure why we are having this conversation. <snip>

Again, I'm not sure why anyone is defending patriarchy in this way? Even if there's patriarchy without misogyny are we really hoping for that for Jinger? That she is being told she can't do something because of her gender but because he doesn't hate her or other women we should be glad? Seriously?

I am not sure why we are having this conversation either.  I had this silly hope when we started a new thread, that we would go back to discussing the promos for the show or Jinger's hairstyle.  Once people start disagreeing about word definitions, sensible discussion becomes impossible.  Let's agree to disagree about whether or not patriarchy is or is not possible without misogyny. 

I also don't know how distinguishing between "patriarchal attitudes" and "misogyny" constitutes "defending patriarchy."   There is a lot that is wrong with patriarchy, and there is even more wrong with fundie patriarchy.  But because we are talking about real people, not abstractions, we can say that if Jinger has to marry a fundie pastor we can hope that he is not a man who has obvious hatred and contempt for women.

Can we agree on that?  

[Mercer]

4 hours ago, habert said:

I'm sorry, but oppression is hatred, and for victims of oppression it is a political debate. I'm just not interested in distinguishing a scale of benevolent patriarchy. The lifestyle Jinger has been brought up in and will be married in to is not to her benefit and never will be.

To me, hatred actually implies some level of regard. Hatred is a strong emotion, and for someone to feel that, they have to consider the target worthy of that sort of emotional response.

I think it's entirely possible to oppress someone through disregard and a willingness to thoughtlessly benefit from a system stacked against them. It's possible to oppress someone through indifference. It's possible to oppress someone by simply not making them a priority, or not recognizing a sense of common humanity with them.

It's possible to oppress someone without having conscious negative feelings about them at all... and I think we see that playing out in America every day.

Maybe it's just semantics, but for me the word "hatred" has a pretty specific meaning, and not everything oppressive falls under it. Not being hatred doesn't make it better - it can be even worse when the oppression is so ingrained that it becomes automatic.

[eveandadam]

6 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

As to the question if Jessa is pregnant or not, RELAX, people! This was the woman, I recall, who coyly hid her stomach under pillows, made little, "We have nothing to say" announcements, before she finally announced herfirst pregnancy. It was like a game to her... So when I said, "I think she looks pregnant"....... to me, it was part of the game. 

I understand where they were coming from, however, I didn't say anything negative ( bloated, acne or fat or whatever), just the face (meaning a slightly fuller face and a glow), her pose in the picture and chose of clothing. I really don't understand the hate. We are talking about deeply personal stuff about the Duggars in almost aspect.

And as for the leghumpers comment: oh come on! I really think that if you registered on this forum you either have a fundie past or are at least 1% leghumper.