Bringing Up Bates

[eh02]

Yes, I know it's ridiculous how much you love them. But you are the same person criticizing the Browns for being such fundies when their kids are allowed to make their own choices, go to real colleges and live in dorms. None of the bates would ever be allowed that. Alyssa and Erin are well on their way to Kelly 2.0 status considering that the first year of both their marriages has been 100% percent defined by pregnancies.

The Browns are grown ass adults who have adult children. They have had literally DECADES to learn from their mistakes. I'm just failing to see how the Bates girls - especially Alyssa, who is what, 19 or 20 years old? - are possibly supposed to be judged in the same breath as the Browns. You don't just magically mature into a wise full-fledged adult the day you're legally independent from your parents. They've barely even found their footing.

I also think it's unfair to say that just because they want children that we can assume they're automatically just as crazy and awful as Kelly or Michelle and that their fate and future is somehow sealed already. There is nothing especially fundie about wanting a baby, or being sad that you cannot have one. When they want nonstop, endless, double digit numbers of babies to the point that their health is at risk and they can't care for their children adequately, THEN we have a problem.

They both have JUST gotten out of their parents' supervision. I really don't understand how we're supposed to have all of this sympathy and understanding for the minor children in fundie families until the day they turn 18, when we bring the hammer down and expect them to instantly heal the lifetime of damage that's been inflicted on them. Makes no sense at all to me.

[nelliebelle1197]

Fair enough points in your paragraph re: minor vs. barely legal. There is likely lack of perspective in both conversations - some folks feel the bates love is just too much and the big picture is missing while others are taking a sins of the father approach. I know I am digging in harder when I see posts that make me want to call humpers anonymous to get a quote on a group rate.

[Mama Mia]

To me, the most offensive and hateful views they hold is the anti-LGBT opinions. And more importantly, that they want to legislate those views.

But I try to remember that the parents have largely shunned the wider culture for the past 25+ years. And that their children have been shielded from society since birth.

I'm in my early fifties. I've lived my whole life in the San Francisco Bay Area. I grew up In a particular liberal area, with political activist, leftist, semi-hippie parents. And still when I was growing up I had NO clue that several gay relatives were gay. And they weren't trying to hide it. Even fifteen years ago I have extended family teens who were shocked to find out that the friend their grandmother lived with, who she brought to every family function - was her girlfriend. And she wasn't hiding her relationship - they just didn't even think about it. Because it wasn't in everyone's general consciousness as a society yet.

I think the really rapid changes in society have completely caught people like the Bates and Duggar parents off-guard. And must be an utter shock to the young adults. It would be pretty surprising if they went from being told all their lives that homosexuality was a sin and the downfall of the family ( I'm assuming, maybe they aren't told anything at all?)

To all of a sudden being totally a o.k. with marriage equality.

Even lots of people who aren't fundie, or even religious, are still working on catching up. In polls taken 10 ago, about a third of adults supported marriage equality, two thirds opposed. Today those numbers have basically flipped. That's a gigantic attitudinal shift in a remarkable short time period.

[RosyDaisy]

I think it's pretty ridiculous to act like them being fundie immediately means every other thing they do is null and void.

No it's not. What is ridiculous is the Bates love fest that's going on in spite of the fact that we know how dangerous their beliefs are and how they sugarcoat it.

[formergothardite]

I don't see people as that black and white. I'm sorry, I just don't. Obviously it's highly edited and people on tv aren't exactly who they are in real life. I sure as hell wouldn't be. I'm lying in bed in my messy house wasting time on forums and farmville and eating chips. If I was on a reality show I'd make a Duggar dentist visit look fascinating. When my kids were at home I had meltdowns that make the exorcist look good. If I was on a " reality" show I would have tried to sound as Valium laced as Michelle.

It's not leg-humping to think that people are a whole bunch of good and bad traits and beliefs.

For example I used to homeschool some of my kids. I would never, ever, ever pick a fundamentalist history or science curriculum. But at the same time the Practical Math workbooks put out by some Christian Conservative group were fantastic.

They are obviously trying to sell themselves as a wholesome, happy family and hiding their more extremist views. You can hate their view on homosexuality, but still chat about their taste in bedroom colors or baby names. Just like people do in real life with friends/relatives/co-workers who you disagree with.

ITA this. If I was going to have a reality television show I would be the sweetest mother in the entire world. :lol: Of course I try to be a good mom, but I'm human and reality is that I fuck up a lot of the times. But having a camera there for a scripted show would certainly go a long way in making it a appear that I am practically perfect.

What has bothered me about this thread is how is seems like Gil and Kelly get cut a ton of slack just because they know how to appear more likeable on a reality television show. Yes, they come off as nice, good, wholesome parents, but are they really any different than Jim Bob and Michelle? I hardly think so. Gil is on a BoD that was given proof of Gothard's actions and instead of growing a backbone and standing up to the old bastard he helped to protect him and continued to allow his own daughters to travel with him. That is pretty horrific behavior and yet Jim Bob is the one people seem to find creepy and Gil got called a good, nice person in this thread? Michelle is always bashed for not knowing her children, yet Kelly literally said she is unable to provide the names of her children, and this is no big deal? There would be a long thread devoted to the subject if Michelle ever said that remembering her children's names is too hard. The double standard for the parents has been really confusing to me.

I expect the children in both families will take some time to slowly move away from the rigid beliefs they were raised with. I don't expect that they will all go mainstream, but I don't think any of them will stick with the exact same rules they were raised with. I also think that for both families having a following like they do will make it harder on any child who does want to reject some of the key teachings they were raised with.

[nelliebelle1197]

You know, the more I think about it, the more I have to ask why the Bates kids are immune from the same criticism as the Duggar kids? If anything, Alyssa and Erin are much more likely to stay in the cult since they chose fellow cult members. Why is Josh Duggar, barely past college age, always the fat, evil Smuggar? Why is Jill such koolaide drinking Michelle clone? Why is Jessa always criticized as being such a bitch? They are just products of their upbringing. If a Duggar thread had this much humping, this board would explode. The first Bates show certainly did not earn them many fans; why now? Because they learned from the Duggars and their previous show how to manipulate their image, not because they are any better than the Duggars.

[formergothardite]

You know, the more I think about it, the more I have to ask why the Bates kids are immune from the same criticism as the Duggar kids? If anything, Alyssa and Erin are much more likely to stay in the cult since they chose fellow cult members. Why is Josh Duggar, barely past college age, always the fat, evil Smuggar? Why is Jill such koolaide drinking Michelle clone? Why is Jessa always criticized as being such a bitch? They are just products of their upbringing. If a Duggar thread had this much humping, this board would explode. The first Bates show certainly did not earn them many fans; why now? Because they learned from the Duggars and their previous show how to manipulate their image, not because they are any better than the Duggars.

This is a good point. I don't really know why people assume the absolute very worst of any of the Duggars and do not do that with the Bates.

[HereticHick]

This is a good point. I don't really know why people assume the absolute very worst of any of the Duggars and do not do that with the Bates.

I would like to point to a few threads in the Duggar quiver, such as "Josh and Anna's evolving views" and "I can't help but feel sorry for Josh..." that offer a bit of a counterpoint to "Josh always the fat evil smugger"

I understand the "I'll cheer them on after they choose to leave" attitude. But I suggest that some of you at least attempt to understand the "I'll cheer for their baby steps that may be putting them on the path to leaving" attitude as well.

And I am annoyed that yet again, I have to explain why I find the Bates interesting: I am interested in them as a social media phenom. I want to watch, and discuss, how their reality show changes them, or doesn't. I want to watch, and discuss how the media portrayal of the Bates differs from that of the Duggars. I want to watch to see, and discuss, if the popularity of the Bates changes the behavior/portrayal of the Duggars. Stating that the Bates are "more likable than the Duggars" is not semantically equivalent to saying "I like the Bates."

In short, I want to have a conversation about the Bates. I have an immediate family member who is an TLC executive, but steadfastly won't discuss the Duggars with me :( so I rely on this forum for that conversation.

Having someone screaming "leg humper" in response to everything I say--is not the conversation that I am seeking.

[RosyDaisy]

I'm not 100% convinced that Erin's and Alyssa's marriages and Michael's courtship weren't arranged. Think about. Gil is put on the BoD, Chad's father is also on the BoD, John's father is a U.S. senator and ATI royalty, and Brandon's family is. ATI royalty. I'm not sure which came first, but it's all too much of a coincidence to be ignored.

[HereticHick]

I'm not 100% convinced that Erin's and Alyssa's marriages and Michael's courtship weren't arranged. Think about. Gil is put on the BoD, Chad's father is also on the BoD, John's father is a U.S. senator and ATI royalty, and Brandon's family is. ATI royalty. I'm not sure which came first, but it's all too much of a coincidence to be ignored.

Daniel Webster is NOT a US Senator. He is a United States Representative. There is a big difference.

These kids have been running in ATI circles all their lives--ATI spawn are who they (are allowed to) hang out with. I don't think these weddings are arranged--just introduced and encouraged.

[RosyDaisy]

Oops....temporary brain fart. You're right he is a U.S. Representative. However introduced and encouraged is a sugarcoated way of saying arranged. After all courtships are meant to lead to marriage.

[BirthingGodsWarriors]

Slightly off topic but I just wanted to give a rundown of the upcoming episodes (according to On Demand) for those who cannot watch.

Episode 4 "Training Up Bates"

The younger kids get a lesson; Gil and Kelly's method for discipline; shopping for the ultimate test; Erin takes a trip to the doctor.

Episode 5 "Nashville Son"

Lawson Bates meets with a record label executive and a vocal coach; Kelly, Gil and the younger kids start planting a fall garden.

A couple of FU internet moments (see we really do garden, and let out kids travel on their own) coupled with some of what we've already seen. I remember in their first show they did a whole episode on proper table manners and restaurant etiquette and then went out to a restaurant to test their skills. I'm guessing the same is planned with the shopping trip. I don't care, it sure beats dentist visits.

[nelliebelle1197]

I would like to point to a few threads in the Duggar quiver, such as "Josh and Anna's evolving views" and "I can't help but feel sorry for Josh..." that offer a bit of a counterpoint to "Josh always the fat evil smugger"

I understand the "I'll cheer them on after they choose to leave" attitude. But I suggest that some of you at least attempt to understand the "I'll cheer for their baby steps that may be putting them on the path to leaving" attitude as well.

And I am annoyed that yet again, I have to explain why I find the Bates interesting: I am interested in them as a social media phenom. I want to watch, and discuss, how their reality show changes them, or doesn't. I want to watch, and discuss how the media portrayal of the Bates differs from that of the Duggars. I want to watch to see, and discuss, if the popularity of the Bates changes the behavior/portrayal of the Duggars. Stating that the Bates are "more likable than the Duggars" is not semantically equivalent to saying "I like the Bates."

In short, I want to have a conversation about the Bates. I have an immediate family member who is an TLC executive, but steadfastly won't discuss the Duggars with me :( so I rely on this forum for that conversation.

Having someone screaming "leg humper" in response to everything I say--is not the conversation that I am seeking.

A few threads out of thousands that are sympathetic isn't really evidence of anything. The vast majority of Duggars threads are highly critical.

HH, you keep taking offense at the humper comments, but I am not really sure you are even one of the posters who is humping. In a previous post you stated, to paraphrase, that those of us who are more cautious hate the Bates. Not true. It's not that black and white. I am interested in the Bates for pretty much the same reason you are. Just because I am deeply disturbed by the people falling for their shtick does not mean I don't want to have a discussion.

I don't know about Rosydaisy, but FG and I are coming here as people who got out of fundamentalism - she gothard and me IFB by choice during my early teens. We both know how easy it is to be lured into that and what it takes to change. I still sometimes yearn for the simplicity of having all the answers and not having to think. It's personal for me and for her, not just shiny people on tv

[nelliebelle1197]

[quote="

yDaisy"]I'm not 100% convinced that Erin's and Alyssa's marriages and Michael's courtship weren't arranged. Think about. Gil is put on the BoD, Chad's father is also on the BoD, John's father is a U.S. senator and ATI royalty, and Brandon's family is. ATI royalty. I'm not sure which came first, but it's all too much of a coincidence to be ignored.

Daniel Webster is NOT a US Senator. He is a United States Representative. There is a big difference.

These kids have been running in ATI circles all their lives--ATI spawn are who they (are allowed to) hang out with. I don't think these weddings are arranged--just introduced and encouraged.

[formergothardite]

I've admitted from the beginning that the Bates come off as more likable and entertaining than the Duggars. But I disagree that Gil and Kelly are more decent humans than Michelle and Jim Bob. I don't think that they are better parents or better people, they just know how to spin their reality television show to make themselves look like they are. It just seemed like their were a lot of posters who think Gil and Kelly are better people, without taking into account that this show is hardly the reality of their lives and Gil has been involved in the cover up and protection of a man who man who sexually harassed and molested teen girls for decades. That right there should automatically put him in the "not a decent human" category. That doesn't mean that he isn't going to come off as a nice, lovable guy, but there are some things decent people don't do and covering up abuse is one of those things. So, yeah, I'm going to remind people when they say Gil is a good, decent, kind man what he did.

I think it would be interesting to discuss how much they change for their show based on what they know the Duggars get criticized for and if this has any impact on what the Duggars do with their show. It seems to me that the Duggars are portrayed on TLC with the "look how freakishly different they are from everyone else!" theme, while the Bates on UP are going for "look how we aren't any different from a normal, American, Christian family." theme. I think the likability of the kids comes from the different themes that the shows are going for and that in real life they probably aren't that different at all. I don't think Gil and Kelly are more relaxed and opened minded with their children, I think that they were handed different circumstances than the Duggars and had to deal with them. And that Gil and Kelly are much, much more media savvy.

Anyway, my objection isn't to "they seem more likable" it is to "Gil and Kelly are nice, decent, good people who are soooooo much better than the Duggar parents".

[nelliebelle1197]

They definitely seem more likeable. And they are just better looking. Kelly was actually stunning - prettier than her girls, I'd say -in her college photos. And Gil minus the porn stache was good looking. They both still are pleasant -looking and probably would be gorgeous without the tater tot casserole weight (they both seem to carry in their faces, which softens the definition) and the frumpy clothes. They aren't much older than I am but honestly, my friends and I look a decade younger and my husband looks half Gil's age when he is only 4 or 5 years younger (a perfect former competitive athlete's body and a wardrobe of jeans, t-shirts and henleys helps).

[RosyDaisy]

Just to clarify, I grew up conservative Christian, not fundie. I left the Church of Christ of my own accord. My family didn't disown me. They weren't kool-aid drinkers anyway. However, I do have fundies in my family that would give the Bateses and Duggars a run for their money. I have seen the damage that patriarchal fundamentalist Christianity does to people. It ain't pretty. It's harmful to women and children, and they are expected to keep sweet at all times in spite of the abuse.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

ITA this. If I was going to have a reality television show I would be the sweetest mother in the entire world. :lol: Of course I try to be a good mom, but I'm human and reality is that I fuck up a lot of the times. But having a camera there for a scripted show would certainly go a long way in making it a appear that I am practically perfect.

What has bothered me about this thread is how is seems like Gil and Kelly get cut a ton of slack just because they know how to appear more likeable on a reality television show. Yes, they come off as nice, good, wholesome parents, but are they really any different than Jim Bob and Michelle? I hardly think so. Gil is on a BoD that was given proof of Gothard's actions and instead of growing a backbone and standing up to the old bastard he helped to protect him and continued to allow his own daughters to travel with him. That is pretty horrific behavior and yet Jim Bob is the one people seem to find creepy and Gil got called a good, nice person in this thread? Michelle is always bashed for not knowing her children, yet Kelly literally said she is unable to provide the names of her children, and this is no big deal? There would be a long thread devoted to the subject if Michelle ever said that remembering her children's names is too hard. The double standard for the parents has been really confusing to me.

I expect the children in both families will take some time to slowly move away from the rigid beliefs they were raised with. I don't expect that they will all go mainstream, but I don't think any of them will stick with the exact same rules they were raised with. I also think that for both families having a following like they do will make it harder on any child who does want to reject some of the key teachings they were raised with.

I've yet to see anyone cut them any slack. EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has said they are more likeable has said that they know their beliefs are dangerous and what not. Actually, I have a feeling a lot of people who are going on about "why do you think they're likeable" don't even understand what the word MEANS. So here's a definition for you:

(Especially of a person) pleasant, friendly, and easy to like.

Now, people here are saying that he Bateses are MORE likeable. Which means they are "more pleasant," "friendlier," and "easier to like." THAT'S ALL that is said when someone says that the Bateses are more likeable than the Duggars.

There's nothing in the definition of "more likeable" that has anything to do with liking someone's belief system, or thinking they're great people. Saying someone is "more likeable" is not the same thing as being a leghumper. Saying someone is "more likeable" does not mean you're cutting them any slack on their beliefs and their ideals. We're just saying that they are easier to like on a surface level than the Duggars. That's. It.

[formergothardite]

I've said they are more likable and sugar coat the hate better than the Duggars. :shifty-kitty:

[nelliebelle1197]

I've yet to see anyone cut them any slack. EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has said they are more likeable has said that they know their beliefs are dangerous and what not. Actually, I have a feeling a lot of people who are going on about "why do you think they're likeable" don't even understand what the word MEANS. So here's a definition for you:

Now, people here are saying that he Bateses are MORE likeable. Which means they are "more pleasant," "friendlier," and "easier to like." THAT'S ALL that is said when someone says that the Bateses are more likeable than the Duggars.

There's nothing in the definition of "more likeable" that has anything to do with liking someone's belief system, or thinking they're great people. Saying someone is "more likeable" is not the same thing as being a leghumper. Saying someone is "more likeable" does not mean you're cutting them any slack on their beliefs and their ideals. We're just saying that they are easier to like on a surface level than the Duggars. That's. It.

I think you need to go back and read this thread if that is what you are getting from all those posts about what relaxed parents they are and how much poeple just love Erin and Chad.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I think you need to go back and read this thread if that is what you are getting from all those posts about what relaxed parents they are and how much poeple just love Erin and Chad.

What is wrong with people loving Erin and Chad. When have they EVER done ANYTHING that solidifies the idea that they are "awful people" and they are "wolves in sheep clothing?" ALL we know about them is that they're in love with each other, he treats her amazingly well, they're obviously upset about the miscarriages (which IS PERFECTLY NORMAL), Erin plays piano and teaches kids, and they've obviously had a great relationship despite their challenges.

I've NEVER heard Erin or Chad say anything against anyone. And, we don't even have proof that they're going to raise their kids in ATI because THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE KIDS.

What is so bloody wrong about thinking that these two people who have shown no ill will towards anyone in the time that they've been culturally viewed as adults (and probably even before then; I never saw anyone post on here about any ill will these two showed to anyone else or any group other than fundies before marrying).

They're not their parents and should not be treated as if they are.

[formergothardite]

I agree that there is no proof that Chad and Erin are going to be as bad as their parents. They are probably very very fundie but give them a couple of years and they might change or they might be more fundie. Only time will tell.

Gil and Kelly though, I'm not sure why people want to think they are better people or parents than Jim bob and Michelle.

[nelliebelle1197]

What is wrong with people loving Erin and Chad. When have they EVER done ANYTHING that solidifies the idea that they are "awful people" and they are "wolves in sheep clothing?" ALL we know about them is that they're in love with each other, he treats her amazingly well, they're obviously upset about the miscarriages (which IS PERFECTLY NORMAL), Erin plays piano and teaches kids, and they've obviously had a great relationship despite their challenges.

I've NEVER heard Erin or Chad say anything against anyone. And, we don't even have proof that they're going to raise their kids in ATI because THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE KIDS.

What is so bloody wrong about thinking that these two people who have shown no ill will towards anyone in the time that they've been culturally viewed as adults (and probably even before then; I never saw anyone post on here about any ill will these two showed to anyone else or any group other than fundies before marrying).

They're not their parents and should not be treated as if they are.

You know, I will back off that. I did say that earlier. I guess my issue is that while there is no indication that they are just like their parents, there is nothing indicating that they will be any different.

Of course they did have a cake for Gothard's birthday at their wedding. And they have spent their entire young marriage trying to get pregnant.

But I do get why people root for them, in all fairness. I expected to dislike Erin based on her previous media. But she is much different than I expected.

[19 cats and counting]

I agree that there is no proof that Chad and Erin are going to be as bad as their parents. They are probably very very fundie but give them a couple of years and they might change or they might be more fundie. Only time will tell.

Gil and Kelly though, I'm not sure why people want to think they are better people or parents than Jim bob and Michelle.

Maybe this is a product of their kids' birth order and genders (ie no pack of older girls a la Duggars) but I think hands down that Kelly is a better mother than Michelle. She actually spends time with her kids (that is not staged by producers) and does not hand them off to siblings to raise.

There was an episode of 19 kids where one of the younger Duggar girls got glasses (Jordyn or Jennifer) and Michelle took her. From the looks on the kid's face, it gave me the vibe that a distant aunt was taking her as opposed to her mother. (I do think Jim Bob is a better father than Michelle is mother, at least to the younger kids).

The other major difference is that the Bates parents seem to embrace their kids differences and accept them. Jana only participated in midwifery because of Jill, not because of her own interest. Kelly didn't make Erin have a chaperon with her when she taught piano. The Bates kids have the opportunity to go to a brick and mortar college, even if it's an unaccredited Bible college. And the Bates kids actually do set their own courtship rules (I don't believe for one second the Duggar kids do as all 3 have had the same rules).

[RosyDaisy]

And the leg humping continues. This thread reminds me of a P.T. Barnum quote.