Bringing Up Bates

[HereticHick]

I think everyone here recognizes the dangers of the Bates' likeability. I for one am fascinated by it, because 2 years ago I thought the Bates were just too "hillbilly" (I get to say that since I'm a hillbilly myself :D ) to become reality TV stars. Now I think UPTV has a hit on their hands, and I honestly think that they could threaten the Duggars' social media popularity. I want to see how the Duggars react to this threat, and how reality TV stardom changes the Bates.

We shouldn't have to certify that we recognize BatesDanger every 5 minutes. I am getting pretty damn irritated by a few people who want to jump on posters if they haven't prefaced every comment about the Bates with some sort of "I know the Bates are in a Cult and I hate everything about them" statement of an approved length. Enough with the Gothardesque demands for platitudes.

[2 much chickenetti]

Post deleted

[HereticHick]

If Nathan is under 18, we aren't going to discuss it on Free Jinger.

[BullyJBG]

Nathan Bates is 21. Will turn 22 this coming August. The next Bates child to turn 18 is Trace, on February 1.

!	{TEXT1}:
	I want to add for clarification, that the not speculating rule would apply to any of the children still living at home including those over 18.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I think everyone here recognizes the dangers of the Bates' likeability. I for one am fascinated by it, because 2 years ago I thought the Bates were just too "hillbilly" (I get to say that since I'm a hillbilly myself :D ) to become reality TV stars. Now I think UPTV has a hit on their hands, and I honestly think that they could threaten the Duggars' social media popularity. I want to see how the Duggars react to this threat, and how reality TV stardom changes the Bates.

We shouldn't have to certify that we recognize BatesDanger every 5 minutes. I am getting pretty damn irritated by a few people who want to jump on posters if they haven't prefaced every comment about the Bates with some sort of "I know the Bates are in a Cult and I hate everything about them" statement of an approved length. Enough with the Gothardesque demands for platitudes.

I wonder if the Duggars are going to start injecting more personality into their show to try to hold on to viewership because I guarantee that if viewers are given the choice between watching the Duggars and watching the Bateses, people are going to go to the Bateses. TLC is going to really have to up their game.

[memabelle]

I definitely agree with this!

As do I. Which is why I would love the Bateses to discuss their religious beliefs on their show. But even though they're on a Christian network, it'll never happen.

[RosyDaisy]

The fact that people are commenting about the Bates being so much more likable than the Duggars is a prime example of the dangers of cults. The Bates are considered wonderful because they seem personable and interact well with one another. That must mean their beliefs aren't as bad as others. People seem to forget that they hold the same beliefs as the Duggars and similar beliefs to the Maxwells. No one would consider the Maxwells likable. The Bates are one of the reasons why it can be so easy to become involved in cults. They see this family that is just so damn likable that there is no way they can be bad.

QFT! Given what we know, I just don't understand how they are more likeable. These are hateful people who see it as their mission to create soldiers for Christ and turn America into a Fundamentalist Christian nation. Screw what they say or how they appear on tv.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

QFT! Given what we know, I just don't understand how they are more likeable. These are hateful people who see it as their mission to create soldiers for Christ and turn America into a Fundamentalist Christian nation. Screw what they say or how they appear on tv.

... the qualifier here being MORE. No one here is saying that they're entirely likeable or that there's nothing to not like. They're just MORE likeable than the Duggars.

[LovelyLuna]

If Zach Is an actual law enforcement officer then I am the Queen of Sheba. :?

[calimojo]

I have 2 kids and a dog, and honestly, Sometimes I have to run through all names before I get the right one. So I really think we can let Kelly off the hook for getting the names of her kids wrong on tv one time. It is obvious she knows her kids and she is attached to them, especially the older ones.

The family is more likeable, on the surface. I think most of us agree on that. Does this make them more dangerous? Are they wolf in sheep's clothing of the Fundie World? Possibly/Probably. I agree with others that I would like to see them answer some harder questions. I would like to hear them asked about Gothard and his sexual misconduct, for example. I would like to hear them really questioned about patriarchy, anti-gay and anti-reproductive rights. I doubt we will see that ever happen, but I would like to hear what they have to say.

In the Name that Bates video with Tori, it is so obvious how much more comfortable the kids are with their parents, than the Duggar kids are. It seems like Gil and Kelly are already realizing that their kids are not going to follow fully in their footsteps and they don't appear to be threatened by that. So while Gil and Kelly have some pretty terrible beliefs, I wonder if they will be more fluid with them as they see their own children go into the world. We see it in small ways now, Zach's courtship, Michael doing full on hugs, Alyssa dressing more of the world, Tori making it obvious she is not up for a litter of kids, etc. Maybe the kids will be successful in teaching their parents. Certainly it seems like the love is there. Even if a Bates kid strayed fairly far away, I think they would still be welcomed and loved. Where as I think when the cameras are off, JB and M, would be fine with turning cold towards a child who disappointed them.

If Gil and Kelly are already modifying a bit, based on some experiences they have had, then maybe there is hope that as they have more "worldly" success, they will continue to be positively influenced. They feel more adaptable in a genuine way than JB and M.

[FreeHannie!]

I will readily admit their beliefs are dangerous, but at least in that video with Tori, they actually seemed like two normal parents with their teenage daughter. I don't get that impression when I watch J'Chelle and Boob interact with the J'Slaves.

[alba]

I have 2 kids and a dog, and honestly, Sometimes I have to run through all names before I get the right one. So I really think we can let Kelly off the hook for getting the names of her kids wrong on tv one time. It is obvious she knows her kids and she is attached to them, especially the older ones.

The family is more likeable, on the surface. I think most of us agree on that. Does this make them more dangerous? Are they wolf in sheep's clothing of the Fundie World? Possibly/Probably. I agree with others that I would like to see them answer some harder questions. I would like to hear them asked about Gothard and his sexual misconduct, for example. I would like to hear them really questioned about patriarchy, anti-gay and anti-reproductive rights. I doubt we will see that ever happen, but I would like to hear what they have to say.

In the Name that Bates video with Tori, it is so obvious how much more comfortable the kids are with their parents, than the Duggar kids are. It seems like Gil and Kelly are already realizing that their kids are not going to follow fully in their footsteps and they don't appear to be threatened by that. So while Gil and Kelly have some pretty terrible beliefs, I wonder if they will be more fluid with them as they see their own children go into the world. We see it in small ways now, Zach's courtship, Michael doing full on hugs, Alyssa dressing more of the world, Tori making it obvious she is not up for a litter of kids, etc. Maybe the kids will be successful in teaching their parents. Certainly it seems like the love is there. Even if a Bates kid strayed fairly far away, I think they would still be welcomed and loved. Where as I think when the cameras are off, JB and M, would be fine with turning cold towards a child who disappointed them.

If Gil and Kelly are already modifying a bit, based on some experiences they have had, then maybe there is hope that as they have more "worldly" success, they will continue to be positively influenced. They feel more adaptable in a genuine way than JB and M.

Kelly didn't just call a kid by the wrong name, like every parent ever does, though; she refused to even bother trying to list their names in an interview. As in, she's not confident in her ability to rattle off in birth order the names that she gave her children.

[FreeHannie!]

Maybe the kids will be successful in teaching their parents. Certainly it seems like the love is there. Even if a Bates kid strayed fairly far away, I think they would still be welcomed and loved. Where as I think when the cameras are off, JB and M, would be fine with turning cold towards a child who disappointed them.

I have to agree with this. From what we've seen, the Bates seem a bit more open to letting their kids be themselves and I could see them loving a child who goes mainstream Christian or even rejects Christianity altogether, while I get the impression a Duggar child would be shunned completely.

[formergothardite]

Kelly straight out said that she couldn't name her children. If Michelle did that people would use it constantly as an example of how bad a mother she is, but for some reason Kelly gets a pass because she comes off as more likable. If a Duggar child snapped at one of their siblings like one of the Bates kids did there would be a whole thread devoted to it talking about how bitchy, mean and rude that daughter was, but no, with the Bates it is just a sign of how they have raised their children better.

If anyone came here and started talking about how the Duggars parents are such good, nice people they would be jumped all over with lists of all the stuff they did, including their involvement with ATI. It seems like there is a different standard for the Bates just because they are better at reality television. Yes, I agree, they come off as a much nicer, happier family, but all we are seeing of the Bates is a carefully scripted reality television show and a blog that is just as carefully scripted. We are seeing exactly what they want us to see, but we aren't seeing the reality of their lives.

I hardly think Jim Bob and Michelle are stellar parents, and I think that if they could they would do anything to get their kids to live just how they were raised, but I don't think they would shun a child for becoming a mainstream Christian. They would probably shun an atheist child or a Muslim one or a gay one, but I bet Gil and Kelly would too. It seems like people like to assume the worsts about the Duggars and the best about the Bates.

[SquirrelySquirrel]

The Bateses better study up on boating laws in TN. An appropriate PDF for every person must be worn, or within reach. Kids 12 and under must be wearing one at all times. Not sure if there were any kids that young aside from the little toddler boy who had one. But with a current like that, I'd have been making a lot of those kids wear one.

We've been stopped by Indiana DNR officers a couple of times and been required to show our PDFs (I'm usually sitting on mine to give my booty some cushion). Here, they can confiscate your boat at the very least if you aren't following the law.

I'm not even going to get started on the stupidity of canoeing in jeans and denim skirts.

[lascuba]

Dammit, I'm going to defend the Duggars a little bit...

I think a lot of their lack of likability compared to the Bates is just that they've been on tv longer and more consistently. You see this with everyone who's been in the public eye for a while, be they reality tv personalities or even bloggers--when they're new and not well known they have they're style/image that's mostly just who they are (Granted, even from the first special there was definitely some scripting with the Duggars, which made it hard to ever break out and have a public personality that differed from that). Once they've been around for a while and there's been fan feedback and they've had to deal with the fallout of people thinking they know more than they do because of the glimpses they see of them, people start censoring themselves, both to maintain the image they decided is best and to protect their privacy.

With the Bates, the children aren't used to being filmed all the time so they're more natural because they haven't yet learned to worry much about how they come across, and the adults--Kelly and Gil especially--have been observing public reactions to the Duggars for years, so they know what to say and how to say it so they can avoid blowback. I have no doubt that the two families aren't all that different in personalities when they're aren't any cameras around.

Also, I 100% agree with formergothardite about viewer hypocrisy here--people would flip the fuck out if Jessa said, "Shut up and eat it!" to anyone complaining about her cooking.

[happy atheist]

!

{TEXT1}:

A reminder of our rules: Do NOT post speculation concerning the sexual orientation of any minor children or adult children still living in their parental homes. Users who are unable to abide by this rule after warnings have been issued will be placed on a Journey to the Heart to consider their actions. If this rule comes as a surprise to you, I suggest you take a few minutes to review our complete rules: basic_rules.php

[eh02]

I don't think it's a huge deal that Kelly wouldn't name them. She was probably thinking about how terrible she'd feel if she missed a name and that poor kid knew they were the forgotten one.

She clearly knows her kids better than Michelle, who I'm sure can name them all off in order in 6 seconds flat. So it seems like a pretty minor detail to me.

[formergothardite]

Seriously, people would never let Michelle live it down if she was asked to name her children and she replied that no she couldn't do that. On a carefully scripted television show Kelly appears to know her children well and that is after she has seen Michelle be criticized for not appearing to know a lot about her children. I really don't get why people are not treating Gil and Kelly like they do Jim Bob and Michelle.

[Dandruff]

I noticed they're slipping religion in more; e.g. the church group get-together and Gil's "chalk talk". It'll be interesting to see whether this is a trend for the show - hope not.

I'm finding the Bates show much more watchable than the Duggar's, but the Bates show is new and the Duggars have been at it for a decade. Time will tell if it's a real hit. If they're already slipping into contrived family activities, weekly references to being late, and overt religion, then I have my doubts.

[nelliebelle1197]

Seriously, people would never let Michelle live it down if she was asked to name her children and she replied that no she couldn't do that. On a carefully scripted television show Kelly appears to know her children well and that is after she has seen Michelle be criticized for not appearing to know a lot about her children. I really don't get why people are not treating Gil and Kelly like they do Jim Bob and Michelle.

There has been a huge outbreak of Duggar and Bates leghumping on here lately....

[Georgiana]

I noticed they're slipping religion in more; e.g. the church group get-together and Gil's "chalk talk". It'll be interesting to see whether this is a trend for the show - hope not.

I'm finding the Bates show much more watchable than the Duggar's, but the Bates show is new and the Duggars have been at it for a decade. Time will tell if it's a real hit. If they're already slipping into contrived family activities, weekly references to being late, and overt religion, then I have my doubts.

Isn't UP a Christian network? If it is, it would be more understandible for the Bates' show to be more religious in nature. The network might even be pushing for it.

TLC, on the other hand, isn't an overtly religious network. So they tend to be fine with talking about specific extremist doctrine (Courtship! No kissing! Side hugs! Plural marriage!) because it makes for good tv....but they tend to stay away from sermons and evangelizing because they have a more neutral viewer base.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

Isn't UP a Christian network? If it is, it would be more understandible for the Bates' show to be more religious in nature. The network might even be pushing for it.

TLC, on the other hand, isn't an overtly religious network. So they tend to be fine with talking about specific extremist doctrine (Courtship! No kissing! Side hugs! Plural marriage!) because it makes for good tv....but they tend to stay away from sermons and evangelizing because they have a more neutral viewer base.

Yes, the whole point of the Up Channel is to offer "wholesome, Christian family values programming." So, there will definitely be a lot of god talk.

[amers]

I thought the chalk painting was pretty impressive. I was pretty shocked they had all those people canoeing without life jackets. And to have two people watching all those kids by a creek? My nerves would have been shot. All it takes is one to waddle off and drown. But I am a helicopter parent, I've been told. lol

[memabelle]

The chalk drawing WAS beautiful - as an artistic person, I was definitely impressive and a little jealous at how good it was (though without a full-time job I'm sure Gil has plenty of time to practice)...not surprised UP is showing the Christian and God talk...it is a Christian network. But I don't think they'll show the extent of the Bateses beliefs, though I think they should. I thought at one point during the chalk art sermon I heard Gil say something about trusting God with the size of their families but I might be wrong and it was kind of a glossed over line anyway...