All Things Dillard - Part 5

[justoneoftwo]

It depends on what scale you're talking about. On a societal level--which is always the level I'm talking about wrt these issues--looking at existing power structures, sexism against men is no more a thing than racism against white people. There are all sorts of egregious individual examples of discrimination members of the dominant group, but no "-isms."

Seriously, that comment as an example of "sexism against men" is just fucking stupid. Of course men can be ignorant of what women experience. That's not controversial. Men don't have to deal with things women do so a lot of shit is just not on their radar.

I agree the comment is stupid as an example, it't just an example of someone being over sensitive. I suppose I don't know exactly what you mean by a societal level. I would say society punishes men who want to be stay at home dads or go into fields that are traditionally for women. I would also say society punishes men who are emotional or in other ways don't fit the male stereotype. Again, this is no where near the same as what women face, but its still a thing. Though perhaps I'm just not understanding what you mean.

[halcionne]

Wow. So a man can't say that he feels being called ignorant and grouped into what could be construed as a pretty condescending comment about his sex is not okay? How is your response ANY different than , say , the following exchange:

Male dominated forum:

Male Poster: I think most women are just ignorant about the way they comment on x to men can be seen as demeaning.

Female Poster: That's pretty offensive, I've also met some pretty ignorant men on this topic. Let's not be sexist.

Next Male Poster: What, you're a woman, your opinion isn't valid on this. Don't talk over the men with your fluff.

:roll:

I understand " ignorant" wasn't meant in an offensive way. But everyone is aware that generally " ignorant" IS used to be insulting and the vast majority of people would prefer to hear " I don't think most people of group x are aware are aware of" rather than " I think most people of x group are ignorant of" , regardless of the subject or the group.

And how can someone be accused of " talking over" someone else on a freaking comment stream? That's ridiculous.

If an individual man takes general comments personally, that's his problem. Bawwing about "not all men" is derailing and annoying. This isn't directed at you, or anyone else specific, Mama Mia. Your analogy about turning the tables doesn't work, imo, because it's not really possible for women to demean men in the same way men demean women. There's a power differential called patriarchy at play here.

MatthewDuggar, your "LMAO whatever" reply was dismissive, but not unexpected.

[halcionne]

I agree the comment is stupid as an example, it't just an example of someone being over sensitive. I suppose I don't know exactly what you mean by a societal level. I would say society punishes men who want to be stay at home dads or go into fields that are traditionally for women. I would also say society punishes men who are emotional or in other ways don't fit the male stereotype. Again, this is no where near the same as what women face, but its still a thing. Though perhaps I'm just not understanding what you mean.

But the reason men get static for filling what are traditionally women's roles is because of patriarchal assumptions that that type of work is inherently less valuable, and a man who does it must be feminine, and being feminine is bad. Homophobia comes from the same place.

[lascuba]

I agree the comment is stupid as an example, it't just an example of someone being over sensitive. I suppose I don't know exactly what you mean by a societal level. I would say society punishes men who want to be stay at home dads or go into fields that are traditionally for women. I would also say society punishes men who are emotional or in other ways don't fit the male stereotype. Again, this is no where near the same as what women face, but its still a thing. Though perhaps I'm just not understanding what you mean.

Like you said, patriarchy hurts everyone, and the bolded are the direct result of patriarchy and sexism against women, because criticizing men for staying home with their kids and being emotional comes from the belief that anything that's historically typical of women is weak and worthy of mockery. As for men taking on fields traditionally held by women? Yeah, maybe mockery happens, but you know what else? They get paid more than the women who have always done that work. It happens time and again, across every profession. That's what I mean by societal--the system is set up so that men always come out on top, so that they're orders of magnitude safer than women. I get routinely harassed on the street by men but when I complain about it I'm supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of men who claim they're well-behaved?

[lascuba]

But the reason men get static for filling what are traditionally women's roles is because of patriarchal assumptions that that type of work is inherently less valuable, and a man who does it must be feminine, and being feminine is bad. Homophobia comes from the same place.

Yes, and the way men worry about gay men targeting them. They're terrified that gay men will treat them the way straight men treat women.

[VelociRapture]

He is 13 now and doing okay, thanks for asking!

I used to be very shy and polite once and comments from strangers would hunt me for days. But now I'm older and wiser and mean :twisted: . It would be nice if people learn something from my unsensitive remarks, but at least I hope it brings some shame on the right person....

I'm so glad to hear that! I hope your son continues to stay healthy and lives a very long, very happy life! :D

[VelociRapture]

Now that I am 3 and a half rum and cokes in, I must ask this question. To put it in "Twilight" terms, why so much inter-board hostility, towards people who are "Team Jessa" or "Team Jill"? I totally understand the whole "is 4 month old Izzy developmentally delayed" nonsense, because it isn't cool to bag on a baby. Though as an aside, I think he just looks exhausted. The poor bebe has traveled more in his 4 months, than some 40yos I know, and is probably on some wacky schedule, if any.

The thing is, is that both Jessa and Jill, and their respective husbands, are really nothing more, than assholes. You have Jessa "abortion is the holocaust, the #1 religion in the world (aka catholicism) is wrong" Seewald, versus Jill "everything is amazing, even my "70 hour" labor, that I withheld medical intervention until shit got really real, and Imma bring my WASPy baby to grace the presence of every El Salvadoran, not to mention my accountant husband will do their taxes" Dillard. Not to mention that both of them, think we all suck, because we feel bad they got molested, and want them to get any help they may need. The good news is, is that if you are atheist you don't even exist, if you're gay you are damned to hell so your opinion means naught, and if you happen to be trans-gendered you are simply too busy cruising bathrooms looking under stalls at you leisure (I kid on all of that of course, but is it really that far from their viewpoint).

Maybe it is picking the more tolerable and/palatable asshole, that brings out the hostility, I don't know. I don't think either of them lose sleep, over any of our opinions on them. Not to mention that it helps to have comment scrubbers, who delete any comment that isn't "omg you are fabulous, in the biblical sense" on their social media accounts. It isn't like neither of them, wouldn't unfairly judge any of us, because of what we do/say/believe. Neither one of them would pony up $1.00, if one of our kids had cancer, but they sure would have no problem, taking $1.00 from a family that has a kid with cancer. Though, they might give you $1.00, for your cancer kid, IF they got a lot of good press, perhaps a People Magazine snippet, for the do-gooding.

They both suck, so why fight amongst ourselves? Look at the shit they say and do, so why get mad when someone says that pregnancy doesn't suit Jessa, and she looks rode hard and put away yet? Why get mad, when someone says Jill really needs to throw a Spanx on, because jersey knit is flattering only to a chosen few, and a 4 month post-partum woman, that had a 9+lb baby isn't one of them? Why get mad, when someone says Derick, looks like the real-life version of Shaggy, from Scooby-Do? Why get so mad at people on here, for saying bitchy, catty, irrelevant things about these two, when they probably don't even care (though if they read here, I'm sure they are praying for our souls, unless you are atheist, gay or transgendered, because we are all going to hell regardless).

For the record, if you couldn't tell, I don't like either of them, although Jill "I just had 3 People Magazine articles about me, but I need money for El Salvador", is slightly more palatable than Jessa "Imma post cryptic bible verses, from the bible version of the day".

Can't we all just get along? And can't we all agree, that Derick looks like the real-life version of Shaggy? Now that I am on rum and coke #5...

This isn't exactly what you were asking, but you mentioned it a bit and I wanted to discuss it. I'll try to explain my view on this. Sorry if this makes zero sense!

The way I see it, there is no difference between Jill and Jessa (or Jana or Jinger or Joy or Josiah or James, etc.) on the most basic level. If you remove their personality traits and strip them down to the core of their beliefs, they're pretty interchangeable. They all believe the same disgusting things.

When I first joined, I fully admit that I tended to defend Jill more often than not. I appreciated the fact that she kept her disgusting views rather quiet, while also knowing that she had them. So I guess I was slightly favoring the more palatable of the two at times. Now that she decided to grift for Jesus, I am much less likely to jump to her defense - at least when it comes to reasonable speculation and criticism.

When it comes to calling out other posters though, I don't have a problem doing it if they're out of line. There have been posters claiming that Jill simply must have PPD because she is clearly attempting to kill her son by wearing the sling wrong. Or that Jill is obviously lazy because her stomach isn't flat two seconds after she gave birth.

Jessa has had her share of unwarranted criticism too. Posters claiming that she is a huge bitch because of how she reacted during a short scene where Jana was trying on Bridesmaids dresses. Or how she obviously doesn't care about her siblings because she wasn't posting pictures of her hanging with her buddies after she got married like Jill did.

I guess I'm attempting to say that to me there is a line of basic decency that we should tread lightly around. A few examples:

- Calling Derick a Shaggy look-alike? Fine. Speculating that he absolutely without a doubt has a medical condition because he is tall and gaunt? Not fine. One pokes a bit of fun at his appearance, but is generally harmless. The other plays on stereotypes of medical conditions and is just in poor taste.

- Saying that Jill is an asshole for playing missionary and grifting for donations? Fine. Saying that she is purposely putting her son in jeopardy because he is absolutely going to catch all sorts of diseases? Not fine. The first is a legitimate criticism towards the religion she was raised in and the beliefs that she has which could cause more harm than good. The other is hurtful speculation that has no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

- Lets move on to Ben and Jessa now. Saying that the two of them are bound to break free of Fundamentalism because of their strong willed natures? Fine. Claiming that Jessa is going to be without a doubt the worst and most abusive mother ever and Ben is too much of an idiot to stop her? Not fine.

So, to sum up, it has to do with the general thoughts being expressed and the language used to describe it. If you word things by saying, "Is it possible that Michelle has Bi-Polar Disorder and, if so, is it possible it may have contributed to her decision to become Fundie?" then I am far more likely to be polite with you than if you state, "Michelle absolutely has this condition because she is hella creepy and has buggy eyes."

And I want to address this paragraph specifically:

They both suck, so why fight amongst ourselves? Look at the shit they say and do, so why get mad when someone says that pregnancy doesn't suit Jessa, and she looks rode hard and put away yet? Why get mad, when someone says Jill really needs to throw a Spanx on, because jersey knit is flattering only to a chosen few, and a 4 month post-partum woman, that had a 9+lb baby isn't one of them? Why get mad, when someone says Derick, looks like the real-life version of Shaggy, from Scooby-Do? Why get so mad at people on here, for saying bitchy, catty, irrelevant things about these two, when they probably don't even care (though if they read here, I'm sure they are praying for our souls, unless you are atheist, gay or transgendered, because we are all going to hell regardless).

The reason I call people out for those "bitchy, catty, irrelevant things," is because there are more important things to snark on - such as their disgusting beliefs, the fact that Jill grifts for Jesus, that Jessa and Ben are currently unemployed with a baby on the way, that the two girls minimized sexual assault in general while speaking to Megyn Kelly, that their parents literally thought a locked door would keep them safe, etc. Why on earth would people want to focus on that fluff stuff on a site that is dedicated to discussing the flaws of fundamentalism? That stuff is better left to People Magazine's comment section (in my opinion).

Did that make any sense at all? :lol:

[Firiel]

I didn't see anyone in this thread say anything about the patriarchy hurting only women, but I've been gone for a few days, so maybe I missed it.

Is it over the top for me to reconstruct the recent conversation with different variables? (Why am I even asking-- it's the Internet... I'll do it regardless!)

Person 1 with hypothyroidism: This is a hard disorder to have sometimes.

Person 2 with hypothyroidism: Yeah, I hate when people assume I'm lazy because I'm so damn tired all the time.

Person 1 with hypothyroidism: It feel like they just really don't understand where we're coming from, and I wish they'd take the time to just listen and accept our symptoms as valid.

Person with HYPERthyroidism: Hey, that's not fair! You know it really sucks to have hyperthyroidism too, right? It sucks to always be hot and antsy and unable to sleep. It's not JUST hypothyroidism that sucks.

People with hypothyroidism: ...

[nausicaa]

I don't doubt you, but I'm wondering, where do you interact with these men? I'm in my 50's, and I can't recall ever talking to a man who was surprised if I want to have a conversation about a serious topic. Although I'm not interested in military strategy , but politics, economics, etc....definitely. I have always heard the " smile" comments though. I haven't really tracked so much who says them though. I have heard one of my sons ( in his twenties) be told to smile by a female . It was an acquintence not a stranger , don't know if that means anything.

Dating, work, book clubs. History related events like air shows and museum tours. I find men tend to express a lot more surprise about it than women. Now, some of that is just because I have weird interests (especially for someone of my age). I used to not think much of it. But since I've had a profile up on a dating website and I get tons of messages along the lines of "Wow, I found the one. A woman who actually knows about history/wars!" I've begun to see it differently. Some of it is just a heterosexual guy being excited that he found a woman who shares some interests with him. But when he keeps expressing shock that a woman has hobbies and intellectual interests, that is when my radar starts pinging. It's often very subtle but I think the sexism and subconscious diminishing of women's internal lives is still there.

Normally the comments are ostensibly complimentary. I joined a WWI book club at my local library and was the youngest person there by about forty years and also the only woman. There were tons of shocked faces in the group, and they all laughed and said I had to introduce myself first since everyone wanted to know how I got interested in the topic. At a charity dinner someone was talking about the political aspect of the (science-based) government department I work for and I chimed in about some things to do with the science aspects of it, and the man said "How does someone like you know about that?"

I'd say about 30 to 50% of the time that I pipe in about something to do with history or finance (two of my big interests), someone expresses surprise that I am interested in it. And I find that this can extend to anything to do with politics, health, religion. It doesn't help that I am traditionally feminine looking and wear makeup and skirts a lot. It could also be that maybe I just look really dumb :lol:

[luv2laugh]

Now that I am 3 and a half rum and cokes in, I must ask this question. To put it in "Twilight" terms, why so much inter-board hostility, towards people who are "Team Jessa" or "Team Jill"? I totally understand the whole "is 4 month old Izzy developmentally delayed" nonsense, because it isn't cool to bag on a baby. Though as an aside, I think he just looks exhausted. The poor bebe has traveled more in his 4 months, than some 40yos I know, and is probably on some wacky schedule, if any.

The thing is, is that both Jessa and Jill, and their respective husbands, are really nothing more, than assholes. You have Jessa "abortion is the holocaust, the #1 religion in the world (aka catholicism) is wrong" Seewald, versus Jill "everything is amazing, even my "70 hour" labor, that I withheld medical intervention until shit got really real, and Imma bring my WASPy baby to grace the presence of every El Salvadoran, not to mention my accountant husband will do their taxes" Dillard. Not to mention that both of them, think we all suck, because we feel bad they got molested, and want them to get any help they may need. The good news is, is that if you are atheist you don't even exist, if you're gay you are damned to hell so your opinion means naught, and if you happen to be trans-gendered you are simply too busy cruising bathrooms looking under stalls at you leisure (I kid on all of that of course, but is it really that far from their viewpoint).

Maybe it is picking the more tolerable and/palatable asshole, that brings out the hostility, I don't know. I don't think either of them lose sleep, over any of our opinions on them. Not to mention that it helps to have comment scrubbers, who delete any comment that isn't "omg you are fabulous, in the biblical sense" on their social media accounts. It isn't like neither of them, wouldn't unfairly judge any of us, because of what we do/say/believe. Neither one of them would pony up $1.00, if one of our kids had cancer, but they sure would have no problem, taking $1.00 from a family that has a kid with cancer. Though, they might give you $1.00, for your cancer kid, IF they got a lot of good press, perhaps a People Magazine snippet, for the do-gooding.

They both suck, so why fight amongst ourselves? Look at the shit they say and do, so why get mad when someone says that pregnancy doesn't suit Jessa, and she looks rode hard and put away yet? Why get mad, when someone says Jill really needs to throw a Spanx on, because jersey knit is flattering only to a chosen few, and a 4 month post-partum woman, that had a 9+lb baby isn't one of them? Why get mad, when someone says Derick, looks like the real-life version of Shaggy, from Scooby-Do? Why get so mad at people on here, for saying bitchy, catty, irrelevant things about these two, when they probably don't even care (though if they read here, I'm sure they are praying for our souls, unless you are atheist, gay or transgendered, because we are all going to hell regardless).

For the record, if you couldn't tell, I don't like either of them, although Jill "I just had 3 People Magazine articles about me, but I need money for El Salvador", is slightly more palatable than Jessa "Imma post cryptic bible verses, from the bible version of the day".

Can't we all just get along? And can't we all agree, that Derick looks like the real-life version of Shaggy? Now that I am on rum and coke #5...

Can I like this comment 500 times? But really, I liked it then unliked it just to like it again. Many people on here seem to have a "pet" Duggar and it's always either Jana or Jill. It's loony to me, we all know they believe the same. Don't know why anyone's surprised... Just wait until Jana marries and starts popping out a million kids and then makes posts on gays or abortion , some here will lose their marbles. :lol:

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Here's the first pic of the Dillards, allegedly in El Salvador. I don't know the original source so I don't know the context (who else is in it, etc)

[Mama Mia]

It depends on what scale you're talking about. On a societal level--which is always the level I'm talking about wrt these issues--looking at existing power structures, sexism against men is no more a thing than racism against white people. There are all sorts of egregious individual examples of discrimination members of the dominant group, but no "-isms."

Seriously, that comment as an example of "sexism against men" is just fucking stupid. Of course men can be ignorant of what women experience. That's not controversial. Men don't have to deal with things women do so a lot of shit is just not on their radar.

Of course sexism against men is a thing on a societal level. It may be because the things that are looked down on by society are traditionally female, but it still impacts millions of men and the choices that all men and women make. That's hardly a few individual cases that you can be dismissive about. If men can't properly access services when they are victims of sexual domestic assault or are less likely to gain custody of their children or are considered unemployed deadbeats when their female counterparts are overworked , undervalued Stay at Home moms. That's sexism. And seeing men viewed that way continues the to promote sexism through further generations. Because who wants to take on the societal roles that are seen as less valued? Who wants to admit to needing help if there is not only a vastly greater stigma , but virtually no resources if you are one sex instead of the other.

The particular comment in this thread didn't need to be such a big deal. One man pointed out he didn't like to be called ignorant. Ignorant is technically a neutral word, but I think if it were any other subject and someone said, " hey, I don't like to be called ignorant" the response would be more along the lines of " sorry, didn't mean it an insulting way, just meant it's not something people know about" --- instead of a dismissive "sit down and shut up, you're not allowed to talk" - which was basically what he got.

[DeFrauder]

Saying that Jill is an asshole for playing missionary and grifting for donations? Fine. Saying that she is purposely putting her son in jeopardy because he is absolutely going to catch all sorts of diseases? Not fine. The first is a legitimate criticism towards the religion she was raised in and the beliefs that she has which could cause more harm than good. The other is hurtful speculation that has no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

About that catching disease thing.

If the baby is getting all of his immunizations (and he better be these people better not take up anti-vaxxing) then there is no reason to fear that he will get sick.

Plus, there is the bigoted subtext that poor areas and people have more germs than rich areas. I have actually heard people insist that there is more bacteria on the sidewalks in poor areas than there is in rich areas! We would all be in the same boat if immunizations were not available.

I also believe it is ok to speculate about how X activity could lead to Y problem.

For example we can speculate that if we do not give our kids the polio vaccine, they could get polio. Or if we do not ensure that our children get enough vitamin D, they will get rickets. Or if we drink water out of the tap in Central America without boiling it first, we could get dysentery. If you make a habit of buying street food, you might get food poisoning.

I am sure that Izzy has been vaccinated and that they are consuming safe water and food. I am also sure that if any of them get sick that they can very easily obtain the medication and care required. It is just stupid to say they are risking his health.

They probably will all get dysentery at least once. That's just the way it is in countries where water is an extremely scarce resource and there is inadequate infrastructure.

You know in the US you see ad after ad for anti-depressants and pain medication. In Mexico they run ad after ad for stomach ailment medication.

[Librul]

Where are the Dullards in that picture? I'm missing them....

[VelociRapture]

About that catching disease thing.

If the baby is getting all of his immunizations (and he better be these people better not take up anti-vaxxing) then there is no reason to fear that he will get sick.

Plus, there is the bigoted subtext that poor areas and people have more germs than rich areas. I have actually heard people insist that there is more bacteria on the sidewalks in poor areas than there is in rich areas! We would all be in the same boat if immunizations were not available.

I also believe it is ok to speculate about how X activity could lead to Y problem.

For example we can speculate that if we do not give our kids the polio vaccine, they could get polio. Or if we do not ensure that our children get enough vitamin D, they will get rickets. Or if we drink water out of the tap in Central America without boiling it first, we could get dysentery. If you make a habit of buying street food, you might get food poisoning.

I am sure that Izzy has been vaccinated and that they are consuming safe water and food. I am also sure that if any of them get sick that they can very easily obtain the medication and care required. It is just stupid to say they are risking his health.

They probably will all get dysentery at least once. That's just the way it is in countries where water is an extremely scarce resource and there is inadequate infrastructure.

You know in the US you see ad after ad for anti-depressants and pain medication. In Mexico they run ad after ad for stomach ailment medication.

I agree. My point was targeted more at people who claim they are purposely putting him in harm's way by bringing him there because it's a third world country (or something). Usually these comments will refer to them as idiots or morons or something similar while also accusing them of not vaccinating - which I don't think we can honestly say with any certainty.

But yeah, I agree in general about speculating that something might happen medically if they don't take precautions. I'm pretty much ok with it as long as people don't try and state that it's going to happen no matter what I'm fine with it.

[Rescinded and Mended]

I think that might be Derick on the far right outer perimeter of the picture, but I don't see Jill.

One girl in the middle looks a bit like Josiah's fiancee, Marjorie. Are they there, as well?

[purpleflowers]

Derick is the tallest person in the picture on the right edge. Jill is right in front of him holding Izzy. She is wearing the same clothes she had on when they left. I wonder who is doing their wash.

[Cleopatra7]

Now that I am 3 and a half rum and cokes in, I must ask this question. To put it in "Twilight" terms, why so much inter-board hostility, towards people who are "Team Jessa" or "Team Jill"? I totally understand the whole "is 4 month old Izzy developmentally delayed" nonsense, because it isn't cool to bag on a baby. Though as an aside, I think he just looks exhausted. The poor bebe has traveled more in his 4 months, than some 40yos I know, and is probably on some wacky schedule, if any.

The thing is, is that both Jessa and Jill, and their respective husbands, are really nothing more, than assholes. You have Jessa "abortion is the holocaust, the #1 religion in the world (aka catholicism) is wrong" Seewald, versus Jill "everything is amazing, even my "70 hour" labor, that I withheld medical intervention until shit got really real, and Imma bring my WASPy baby to grace the presence of every El Salvadoran, not to mention my accountant husband will do their taxes" Dillard. Not to mention that both of them, think we all suck, because we feel bad they got molested, and want them to get any help they may need. The good news is, is that if you are atheist you don't even exist, if you're gay you are damned to hell so your opinion means naught, and if you happen to be trans-gendered you are simply too busy cruising bathrooms looking under stalls at you leisure (I kid on all of that of course, but is it really that far from their viewpoint).

Maybe it is picking the more tolerable and/palatable asshole, that brings out the hostility, I don't know. I don't think either of them lose sleep, over any of our opinions on them. Not to mention that it helps to have comment scrubbers, who delete any comment that isn't "omg you are fabulous, in the biblical sense" on their social media accounts. It isn't like neither of them, wouldn't unfairly judge any of us, because of what we do/say/believe. Neither one of them would pony up $1.00, if one of our kids had cancer, but they sure would have no problem, taking $1.00 from a family that has a kid with cancer. Though, they might give you $1.00, for your cancer kid, IF they got a lot of good press, perhaps a People Magazine snippet, for the do-gooding.

They both suck, so why fight amongst ourselves? Look at the shit they say and do, so why get mad when someone says that pregnancy doesn't suit Jessa, and she looks rode hard and put away yet? Why get mad, when someone says Jill really needs to throw a Spanx on, because jersey knit is flattering only to a chosen few, and a 4 month post-partum woman, that had a 9+lb baby isn't one of them? Why get mad, when someone says Derick, looks like the real-life version of Shaggy, from Scooby-Do? Why get so mad at people on here, for saying bitchy, catty, irrelevant things about these two, when they probably don't even care (though if they read here, I'm sure they are praying for our souls, unless you are atheist, gay or transgendered, because we are all going to hell regardless).

For the record, if you couldn't tell, I don't like either of them, although Jill "I just had 3 People Magazine articles about me, but I need money for El Salvador", is slightly more palatable than Jessa "Imma post cryptic bible verses, from the bible version of the day".

Can't we all just get along? And can't we all agree, that Derick looks like the real-life version of Shaggy? Now that I am on rum and coke #5...

I've concluded that until a Duggar publicly repudiates Gothardism, I'm going to assume that they're all true believers who are content to accept and spread these toxic beliefs. There is no solid evidence that any of the Duggars are questioning or wavering in their beliefs. Not Jinger, not Josiah, not Jessa, none of them. Jana may be "sweet" but I have no doubt that she believes that LGBT people are evil sodomites who are ruining America and deserve Hell, and that Cabbage Patch Dolls are satanic. They don't leave, because Gothardism is what they believe and they have benefited materially from their association with this "ministry." The hard truth is that probably Jinger doesn't want to be free, and until she and any other Duggars say otherwise I have to regard them as enemies who are fighting against everything I believe in.

[Boogalou]

Where are the Dullards in that picture? I'm missing them....

They are all on the far right of the picture. Jill is holding Izzy and wearing a black and white patterned skirt. Derrick is standing directly behind her.

Lol at the poster who said Derrick looks like Shaggy. If they were more of the world that would be a great Halloween costume. Jill could wear a turtleneck and glasses and be Velma and they could dress Israel as Scooby. How fun would that be?

[DeFrauder]

I agree. My point was targeted more at people who claim they are purposely putting him in harm's way by bringing him there because it's a third world country (or something). Usually these comments will refer to them as idiots or morons or something similar while also accusing them of not vaccinating - which I don't think we can honestly say with any certainty.

But yeah, I agree in general about speculating that something might happen medically if they don't take precautions. I'm pretty much ok with it as long as people don't try and state that it's going to happen no matter what I'm fine with it.

I'm pretty sure they are not anti-vaxxers. We would have heard by now I think. It would be all "we hate gays and the vaccines that turn people gay!" and "Vaccines lead to gender dysphoria!" Plus the media roasts any celebrity anti-vaxxer they can find.

So hopefully they don't start up with such nonsense or we can start a FB page called "The Duggars: Life is all Rubella and Polio".

[HarleyQuinn]

Jill looks so worthless in that group picture holding the baby. I know they're just there to harass people, but it's kind of funny how glaringly unhelpful she's going to be with anything there since she has a baby to take care of.

[ShepherdontheRock]

About that catching disease thing.

If the baby is getting all of his immunizations (and he better be these people better not take up anti-vaxxing) then there is no reason to fear that he will get sick.

Plus, there is the bigoted subtext that poor areas and people have more germs than rich areas. I have actually heard people insist that there is more bacteria on the sidewalks in poor areas than there is in rich areas! We would all be in the same boat if immunizations were not available.

I also believe it is ok to speculate about how X activity could lead to Y problem.

For example we can speculate that if we do not give our kids the polio vaccine, they could get polio. Or if we do not ensure that our children get enough vitamin D, they will get rickets. Or if we drink water out of the tap in Central America without boiling it first, we could get dysentery. If you make a habit of buying street food, you might get food poisoning.

I am sure that Izzy has been vaccinated and that they are consuming safe water and food. I am also sure that if any of them get sick that they can very easily obtain the medication and care required. It is just stupid to say they are risking his health.

They probably will all get dysentery at least once. That's just the way it is in countries where water is an extremely scarce resource and there is inadequate infrastructure.

You know in the US you see ad after ad for anti-depressants and pain medication. In Mexico they run ad after ad for stomach ailment medication.

Um, they won't get dysentery if they're careful. Diarrhea probably, food poisoning likely, but it's not that serious. The worst that'll happen are Jill and Derick lose weight.

But yeah. They have ad upon ad for Alka Seltzer in Central America. Everywhere.

[FundieWatcher]

I'm sorry if this has been talked about, I'm not an active reader of this board. There doesn't seem to be a conversation about it that I was able to find though.

I just read a DailyMail article about how lay midwife Jill was not allowed, by her parents, to attend the birth of unwed mother and family member Susanna Keller's daughter. If there any known truth to this? Even if you don't believe in sex outside marriage, what is wrong with attending a birth? With most babies in America being born outside marriage, it seems that makes midwife an odd career choice for someone who will associate only with those similar to them.

[RabbitKM]

I don't know whether this is true or not. However, it seems implausible, because Jill has stated (online, on the show, etc) that the whole reason she got into midwifery is because her "friend" was a teenaged mom and Jill was her support system. So, why would she be allowed to be friends with this person, but not go to Susanna's birth?

[VelociRapture]

I'm sorry if this has been talked about, I'm not an active reader of this board. There doesn't seem to be a conversation about it that I was able to find though.

I just read a DailyMail article about how lay midwife Jill was not allowed, by her parents, to attend the birth of unwed mother and family member Susanna Keller's daughter. If there any known truth to this? Even if you don't believe in sex outside marriage, what is wrong with attending a birth? With most babies in America being born outside marriage, it seems that makes midwife an odd career choice for someone who will associate only with those similar to them.

General consensus on this old thread is that the story is false:

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=24843&p=865023&hilit=SUSANNA+KELLER#p865023