Evelyn speaks

[RosyDaisy]

Point taken. Just know that this Alabama gal will fight for the rights of LGBT and against discrimination in general.

For a major new outlet to expose the Duggars and other Gothard followers is for Gothard's most recent victims to come forward and criminal charges filed. Same goes for DPIATR. I seriously doubt Lourdes was his only victim.

[MatthewDuggar]

I have a feeling that most new outlets are foregoing the Gothard connection simply because his movement is not a household name. The article would have to educate the reader. Most of these gossip rags want the quick flashy highlights.

[doggie]

So, Josh feels free to quote his aunt (whom he probably hasn't seen or spoken with as well, he doesn't want to run afoul of J-Chelle and her "anger problem") on something that may or may not have been discussed years ago?

I can't wait to read what the Enquirer comes up with.

I am sure he would quote her as saying gay is a choice too.

[txmommyof4]

I am sure he would quote her as saying gay is a choice too.

He may believe like my mother. She always says she knows being gay isn't a choice, it's their cross and everyone has their cross. She says being gay isn't a sin, choosing to live that lifestyle is the sin. WTF :angry-banghead:

[eh02]

I don't think having a gay aunt was something they ever really had to "deal" with since Michelle didn't seem very close to her to begin with. They probably see their aunt, what, once a year? Briefly? If even that? It's easy for them to just shrug it off with silent "loving" judgment just like when they pretend to love Amy just how she is even though their "convictions" are different.

The real test would be how they'd handle it if one of their own children came out, which I doubt would happen for quite some time. I really feel awful for those kids if a single one of them is gay - for their sake, I hope they're not. They will have a hard road ahead of them. I hope if any of them are that they are aware of places they could receive support if they ever did come out. There'd be a lot of people in their corner rooting for them, but openly identifying as something that will isolate you from your family is extremely difficult.

With the way the Duggars reproduce, and between all the J'kids and the DOZENS of grandkids that will likely be around in the next 10 years or so, there will likely be gay, trans, intersex etc. kids that the Duggars have no idea how to understand because it falls out of their Arkansas-ized version of gender and sexuality. :roll:

[txmommyof4]

With the way the Duggars reproduce, and between all the J'kids and the DOZENS of grandkids that will likely be around in the next 10 years or so, there will likely be gay, trans, intersex etc. kids that the Duggars have no idea how to understand because it falls out of their Arkansas-ized version of gender and sexuality. :roll:

They won't be able to understand because of their controlling parents and growing up so sheltered from the real world. Even the real world in Arkansas (a state which recognizes same sex marriage thank you very much). It's not where they live, it's their lack of real exposure.

[Quiverfullofit]

I think the relationship is weak between Michelle and all of her siblings because they are so much older than her; I read somewhere that by the time she went to Kindergarten, all but one had moved out of the house. She didnt grow up like her kids are, grown adults still stuck with small children, the older children raising the younger. Michelle probably has nieces and nephews her age, a la Mckenzie and Jordyn and Josie.

I'm in the same situation but I'm still close with all of my siblings.

By the time I started grade school I only had 1 sibling living at home, but they all made a point to have a relationship with me, even if they were 20+ years older. We also only have 1 nephew (my poor mother) who's a year and a half younger than me. He has aspergers and some mental issues so it's a bit hard to be emotionally close with him, be we all try. It never bothered any of us to hang out even if there is decades between us.

It just depends on how close the family wants to be, which in Michelle's case, doesn't seem like they want to at all. There isn't really any mention of her side except for the reunion 6 years ago. It could be that her family doesn't want to be part of the d&p (I sure as hell wouldn't), but it's still a bit odd. There doesn't see to be anyone from Michelle's family that she seems to be close with, it's all Jim Bob and his family.

But there was a post on one of the Duggar's instagrams about hanging out with a few cousins a few months back. They looked similar to the howlers, but I'm not sure what side/who's kids they were. But it's good the kids have cousins that they can hang out with.

I wonder if they're as religious as the Duggars? Or how would they handle it if someone from JB/M's family wanted to hang out with the kids but didn't have the same ideals. Like if Evelyn wants to take Jinger out for a day trip; would it be allowed?

[marmalade]

i'm sure he did mention it on a radio show, but i'm pretty sure he mentioned it on an old d&p show episode, possibly 17k&c at that point, where they had a family reunion and were talking about different family members and stuff like that. that would put it at about 2010. he probably just recycled his statement.

Evelyn's sexuality has never been mentioned on the show. The only time she was seen (and just tangentially, the oldest sister Pam is the only one who ever spoke to camera, first in an old special) was during the family reunion in Ohio when her father was still alive, but obviously suffering from Alzheimer's.

The oldest sister was pregnant at the same time their mother was with Michelle, so yes, Michelle has at least one niece or nephew who is exactly her age.

[lilwriter85]

I have a feeling that most new outlets are foregoing the Gothard connection simply because his movement is not a household name. The article would have to educate the reader. Most of these gossip rags want the quick flashy highlights.

I agree with this. If Gothard and his movement had been very well known for a long time, news outlets would have ripped on the Duggars years ago either when they had the documentaries or when the regular show started.

[DGayle]

He may believe like my mother. She always says she knows being gay isn't a choice, it's their cross and everyone has their cross. She says being gay isn't a sin, choosing to live that lifestyle is the sin. WTF :angry-banghead:

A friend of mine says this, and she compared it to pedophilia. She says it's like how being sexually attracted to kids isn't the problem itself, but choosing to act on it is. When called out on defending people attracted to kids, she compared that to being attracted to someone who isn't your spouse, which most of us experience, and you have to use self control.

Okay, so fair point about how you can't choose who you're attracted to. But the people saying sure, you can't choose that, but you can choose to act or not, are leaving out how acting affects other people. Pedophilia hurts kids who can't consent. Adultery hurts the partners who had an understanding of monogamy. A same-sex relationship hurts...uh, the bible?

Anyway, that's the mindset of people who call it a cross, and say just don't act on it. It doesn't matter that a same-sex relationship doesn't hurt or betray anyone.

[txmommyof4]

A friend of mine says this, and she compared it to pedophilia. She says it's like how being sexually attracted to kids isn't the problem itself, but choosing to act on it is. When called out on defending people attracted to kids, she compared that to being attracted to someone who isn't your spouse, which most of us experience, and you have to use self control.

Okay, so fair point about how you can't choose who you're attracted to. But the people saying sure, you can't choose that, but you can choose to act or not, are leaving out how acting affects other people. Pedophilia hurts kids who can't consent. Adultery hurts the partners who had an understanding of monogamy. A same-sex relationship hurts...uh, the bible?

Anyway, that's the mindset of people who call it a cross, and say just don't act on it. It doesn't matter that a same-sex relationship doesn't hurt or betray anyone.

It seems so incredibly sad to me that through either fear or ignorance anyone would compare homosexuality and pedophilia. I know they do, I just can't ever understand how. Some of the closest, longest lasting, most loving couples I have had the privilege to know were same sex. I know plenty of male/female couples that could learn a thing or two from them.

[eh02]

Okay, so fair point about how you can't choose who you're attracted to. But the people saying sure, you can't choose that, but you can choose to act or not, are leaving out how acting affects other people. Pedophilia hurts kids who can't consent. Adultery hurts the partners who had an understanding of monogamy. A same-sex relationship hurts...uh, the bible?

Same-sex relationships hurt the people who are uncomfortable with it, apparently. And don't forget all those poor kids with same sex parents who will suffer from all of the unspecified (but frequently mentioned) negative consequences of close proximity to gayness in their delicate formative years. :roll:

I mean, look at the reasoning they have against same-sex marriage; it's not "traditional" marriage, not "historical" marriage, not a "Godly" marriage. On that, they should be campaigning just as strongly to make divorce illegal, or to make women legal property of a man. Because what's historically more traditional than marriage being legal evidence that a man owns a woman? We all know they love the transfer of authority day. Where's that on FRC's mission statement?

But when you're talking about people who will send their own children to a sexual predator, all while not even letting their adult children go to the GROCERY STORE alone...good luck trying to get anywhere with logical thinking. If anything, I think they distrust logic (read: science, critical thinking) because it is seen as having a lack of faith.

[RosyDaisy]

I agree with this. If Gothard and his movement had been very well known for a long time, news outlets would have ripped on the Duggars years ago either when they had the documentaries or when the regular show started.

But hasn't his movement been active since the late 1960's-1970's?

[Cleopatra7]

But hasn't his movement been active since the late 1960's-1970's?

Gothard seems to be well-known in conservative Christian circles but not outside of it. The bunker-like nature of families that follow Gothardism, as well as their self-imposed isolation from society, allows them to fly under the radar. If asked, I think many Gothardites would probably not even admit to being members of ATI (think of how evasive the Duggars and the Bateses have been about their association with Gothard, even in the early specials). Gothardism is almost like a religious version of Fight Club where nobody admits to being a member.

[RosyDaisy]

Yeah I see you point, Cleopatra7.

[Cleopatra7]

I'm in the same situation but I'm still close with all of my siblings.

By the time I started grade school I only had 1 sibling living at home, but they all made a point to have a relationship with me, even if they were 20+ years older. We also only have 1 nephew (my poor mother) who's a year and a half younger than me. He has aspergers and some mental issues so it's a bit hard to be emotionally close with him, be we all try. It never bothered any of us to hang out even if there is decades between us.

It just depends on how close the family wants to be, which in Michelle's case, doesn't seem like they want to at all. There isn't really any mention of her side except for the reunion 6 years ago. It could be that her family doesn't want to be part of the d&p (I sure as hell wouldn't), but it's still a bit odd. There doesn't see to be anyone from Michelle's family that she seems to be close with, it's all Jim Bob and his family.

But there was a post on one of the Duggar's instagrams about hanging out with a few cousins a few months back. They looked similar to the howlers, but I'm not sure what side/who's kids they were. But it's good the kids have cousins that they can hang out with.

I wonder if they're as religious as the Duggars? Or how would they handle it if someone from JB/M's family wanted to hang out with the kids but didn't have the same ideals. Like if Evelyn wants to take Jinger out for a day trip; would it be allowed?

I think that Michelle isn't close to her family because she chooses not to be, rather than the age gap. As I recall, Michelle ' s parents didn't approve of her marrying at such a young age and they were probably even more disapproving of her quiverfull lifestyle. Given how controversial Gothard and quiverfull is even among mainstream conservative Christians, I think that many adherents separate from their families so they and their children aren't exposed to criticism about their choices. Family is only valuable to fundies as long as everyone follows a narrow script of acceptable behavior. Those who don't have to be cut loose.

[Jana814]

I have to agree w/ what everyone is saying about Michelle & her siblings. If my sibling starting becoming religious I would be upset also.

[SassyPants]

I have to agree w/ what everyone is saying about Michelle & her siblings. If my sibling starting becoming religious I would be upset also.

The Duggars are not what I would consider religious. They follow a fabricated cult, attend their own "special, secret" church and bend the rules as they see fit. They take the easy way out and seem adverse to hard, sustained work. 90% of life is showing up and they cannot even do that on time. Wearing skirts, marrying strangers, treating woman as nothing but a wide vagina and spouting religious words does not make one religious.

[lemonhead]

radaronline (I know :roll: ) has an article about Michelle's sister: http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/ ... ister-gay/

"...Michelle’s older sister Evelyn Ruark, 63, identifies as a lesbian. Ruark has been in a long-term relationship with Ohio native Sharon Callahan, 52, and the two live together in Cincinnati, Sharon’s mother Dolores confirms to Radar."

[Rainytown]

I wish another magazine was publishing this and not the Enquirer. That rag never says anything truthful.

I disagree. The National Enquirer hired many investigative reporters when newsrooms around the US were purged due to budget cuts. They've broken more than a few national stories and were cited by the NYT for their coverage of the OJ Simpson trial and John Edwards' downfall, to note two.

If the Duggars are on the National Enquirer's radar, it's very bad news indeed for TLC and their publicists. IMHO, of course. If there's dirt to be found (and published) they'll find it. Imagine the scandal if things at the TTH aren't as peachy (and wholesome) as they appear...

[Palimpsest]

They have no responsibility to speak up imo. The subject might be really touchy or painful to Evelyn and her partner because the Duggars are family. If they want to speak up, that's great. If they don't, don't push it.

Also, the people that have the responsibility to speak up for queer people are cisgender + heterosexual people, NOT queer people. We don't always have the privilege or safety to speak up + be listened to, and we often can't detach ourselves emotionally from the issues the way that cishets can.

Interesting post, Ofglen.

I agree with your first paragraph. It is up to Evelyn and her partner to speak up when they are ready. Or not, as the case may be. It is certainly their decision about whether and when to speak and I won't criticize them for not doing so. It is a hard thing to do.

Your second paragraph, not so much. In a perfect world, perhaps the majority will speak up for the minority but we are certainly not there yet. A lot of gender issues are obscured by social constructs anyway.

Cisgender (and there is a lot of leeway in that designation because some may conform to the "norm" for safety's sake) and heterosexual (and there is a lot of leeway in that designation too) are probably not going to adequately "speak up for" LGBT communities without understanding the issues. Can they ever understand them completely? I doubt it, but knowledge would be good and knowledge can only be gained by minorities speaking up. Why shouldn't people "speak up for" themselves if they want to? I know many people who do. Loudly and voluntarily and those include queer and trans people too. They are very powerful advocates.

Would you apply this same thinking to racial/ethnic and disability (heck any minority) discrimination too. Or is it just gender issues that are so sensitive that the "normative" majority needs to "speak up for" for the minority?

I'm not being sarcastic, I want to know your thinking. Sadly, I also can't help wondering why you used the (I'm reliably informed) pejorative term "cishet."

[bluebird]

I am a bit curious too ( using that particular terminology)...peace

[txmommyof4]

I may have missed something but I just assumed Ofglen merely used cishet as it is literally defined, cis gender heterosexual, without intending it as a derogatory slur. Perhaps I am just naive but it didn't feel that way to me.

[Ofglen]

Interesting post, Ofglen.

I agree with your first paragraph. It is up to Evelyn and her partner to speak up when they are ready. Or not, as the case may be. It is certainly their decision about whether and when to speak and I won't criticize them for not doing so. It is a hard thing to do.

Your second paragraph, not so much. In a perfect world, perhaps the majority will speak up for the minority but we are certainly not there yet. A lot of gender issues are obscured by social constructs anyway.

Cisgender (and there is a lot of leeway in that designation because some may conform to the "norm" for safety's sake) and heterosexual (and there is a lot of leeway in that designation too) are probably not going to adequately "speak up for" LGBT communities without understanding the issues. Can they ever understand them completely? I doubt it, but knowledge would be good and knowledge can only be gained by minorities speaking up. Why shouldn't people "speak up for" themselves if they want to? I know many people who do. Loudly and voluntarily and those include queer and trans people too. They are very powerful advocates.

Would you apply this same thinking to racial/ethnic and disability (heck any minority) discrimination too. Or is it just gender issues that are so sensitive that the "normative" majority needs to "speak up for" for the minority?

I'm not being sarcastic, I want to know your thinking. Sadly, I also can't help wondering why you used the (I'm reliably informed) pejorative term "cishet."

I never said that queer + trans people shouldn't speak up. There are many of us speaking up all the time because we, personally, feel it best to do so. The point is that people tell us we have to speak up. Some of us can't or choose not to for many reasons, and it's important that we respect that. I choose to do so all the time because it's important for me, but I will never chastise another marginalized person that does not speak up for their own group. We should not be expected to act as textbooks for privileged people whenever they feel like it.

You are right that cishet people will never understand the issues adequately. So this is why it's important that they do not speak over what is already being said by queer + trans people, but simply use their privilege to relay what we're saying to other cishets. This is what good allyship looks like. Standing up for what's right, without speaking over us. There are plenty of queer/trans people already saying over and over again what we want to be heard, it's just that no one is listening...

The above all applies to queer/trans people, disabled people, people of color, and other marginalized groups. For the record, I am queer, trans, and disabled.

I may have missed something but I just assumed Ofglen merely used cishet as it is literally defined, cis gender heterosexual, without intending it as a derogatory slur. Perhaps I am just naive but it didn't feel that way to me.

Yeah, it's not a slur. It literally just means cisgender+heterosexual. And cishet people are not oppressed for being cishet ever in the slightest, so I'm a little pissed that someone would come up here questioning my use of that term. Like, honestly? If you're wondering about the term you can google it, and if even if you think it was meant in a derogatory way (which it wasn't, because it literally is just a descriptive word), i'm sick and tired of privileged people getting all up in arms over shit like this like I have to be perfectly polite to them 100% of the time regardless. Even if the word was pejorative (which... it's not), I have a right to be upset with cishets and express that disapproval. All cishets (yes, all) have shit to work through and it is incredibly frustrating to put up with. I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

[DugFan]

:angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

Yeah, but you are actively working to take away rights from your precious auntie. Way to "love" there.

No kidding... what if we said, "Hey Duggars, we love ya... you're amazing (not really, but go with me :)), but we're going to support a bill that bans anyone from having more than two children." ??