Anna Duggar and the M Kids - Part 3

[19 cats and counting]

15 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Well, I would say that it depends on the seriousness of the lies/broken promise and the context.  

A friend who always arrives late despite fervent promises to be on time may not be someone you want to cut out of your life until/unless s/he is best man/maid of honor at your wedding and shows up late for that. (Though why you would ask someone with a punctuality problem to play such an important role in your wedding without also assigning someone else to get them to the church on time, I don't know.). In contrast, a friend who offers to pick up your kid from daycare for you and forgets should not get a second chance, never mind the third.

However, I agree that no matter how you look at it, Anna has given Josh all the chances he deserved.

I recently cut a friend off who had a string of incidents like this.  For the longest time, I chalked it up to Friend being Friend, but it was very habitual.  Like consistently making plans and then flaking, and saying 'oops' instead of apologizing, etc.  

I wish I had seen that quote 10 years ago.

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, 19 cats and counting said:

I recently cut a friend off who had a string of incidents like this.  For the longest time, I chalked it up to Friend being Friend, but it was very habitual.  Like consistently making plans and then flaking, and saying 'oops' instead of apologizing, etc.  

I wish I had seen that quote 10 years ago.

I think your case is more extreme than my example.  I was thinking of someone who is 15 to 20 minutes late every time and always apologizes/has good reason--not someone who "flakes" on plans and doesn't even apologize. 

For me, at least, the "three strikes and you're out" policy only makes sense when the offenses are serious (in the estimation of the person offended) but not serious enough to warrant a "one strike you are out" approach.  But we all have different thresholds.

Adultery, for me, is a "one strike you are out," matter.   Being somewhat unpunctual to social engagements might be forgiven more than three times; "flaking out" and not showing up at all when/where expected would get the " three times is enough" response.  

There are different ways of looking at this but the general rule is that we don't have to keep forgiving to the point of accepting bad treatment and enabling dysfunctional behavior.  In Anna's case, I think we can all agree that, barring a miracle, Josh is not going to change and her forgiveness  is not going to heal the marriage, only prolong her pain.

I wonder if it is better in a case like that to hold on to hope that he might change or to give up hope and just endure.

[Drala]

10 hours ago, EmmieJ said:

When I finally decided I wanted to go to college, I was 21.  

You're never too old to begin college, imo.  I was 27 and had 4-year-old twins when I started college.  I finished by BA when I was 37 and my twins were 14.  When I was working on my BA, people would say to me, "You'll be 40 years old before youi're finished."  My response was this:  "If I don't die, I'll be 40 some day one way or another.  I'd rather be 40 with a college degree than without it."  By the time I was 41, I'd finished my Master's degree.

[2manyKidzzz]

Marianne Williamson said "You can forgive someone but you don't have to have lunch with them." Forgive them for your own sanity, and stay away if that is easier. No need to suffer mindlessly.

 

As I have seen the trailer for the specials, my gut feeling is that Anna is being exploited to have to go on national TV after everyone knows what Josh has done to her and her children. 

Anyone else, thoughts? Hard to imagine she wants to do this, but maybe she does. 

 

edited, more thoughts to share

 

 

[nastyhobbitses]

41 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I think your case is more extreme than my example.  I was thinking of someone who is 15 to 20 minutes late every time and always apologizes/has good reason--not someone who "flakes" on plans and doesn't even apologize. 

For me, at least, the "three strikes and you're out" policy only makes sense when the offenses are serious (in the estimation of the person offended) but not serious enough to warrant a "one strike you are out" approach.  But we all have different thresholds.

Adultery, for me, is a "one strike you are out," matter.   Being somewhat unpunctual to social engagements might be forgiven more than three times; "flaking out" and not showing up at all when/where expected would get the " three times is enough" response.  

There are different ways of looking at this but the general rule is that we don't have to keep forgiving to the point of accepting bad treatment and enabling dysfunctional behavior.  In Anna's case, I think we can all agree that, barring a miracle, Josh is not going to change and her forgiveness  is not going to heal the marriage, only prolong her pain.

I wonder if it is better in a case like that to hold on to hope that he might change or to give up hope and just endure.

I can let flakiness go as long as the person apologizes and gives good reason. Sometimes people have fickle schedules, so I won't get terribly mad unless they really are indicating that our plans are meaningless to them. But if someone I know sexually assaults/assaulted someone and/or cheats on me, they have no place in my life. If I were in Anna's shoes, Josh would have been my ex-husband six months ago and I would be petitioning for full custody of the children, no contact with Josh except to arrange supervised visits and to deal with legal stuff. Maybe I'm a little callous; I have very little issue with cutting people out of my life or just disengaging from relationships if I find that the other person's a shithead with nothing to make up for their shithead-ness.

[Trynn]

I have a friend who is always an hour or so late to everything. It's frustrating, but it's not upsetting enough to cut her out of my life.

[LadyCrow1313]

18 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I agree. There are a lot of highly motivated younger students in my classes, but the percentage of highly motivated students is considerably higher among the older students.  As you say, there is a difference between wanting (and paying for) education and being in school because parents give you no choice or because you don't want to have to go out and work yet.

The only problem I have ever had with older students has been when they are determined to show everyone that they are superior because they are older/more experienced.  Their motivation is not to learn but to acquire an academic degree that validates them.  They can give younger professors a hard time, especially if the younger professor is female and they are male.  And in some cases they cannot understand that "class discussion" isn't meant to be an opportunity for them to give a monologue.  

These cases are relatively rare.  Most older students have enough maturity to recognize that they are there to learn and to respect  the dynamics of class discussion.  So in general, they do well in the college environment.

When I graduated from a local community college before moving on to a 4-year school, I remember an older student in @ least one of my classes named Angela. She (@ the time) was in her 70's (can't exactly remember her age as it was 20 years ago; holy crap!), & she was a very sweet lady. And not surprisingly, I can remember that she did very well with her grades.

If you're an older person & want to go back to school, I say go for it!

[elliha]

1 hour ago, Drala said:

You're never too old to begin college, imo.  I was 27 and had 4-year-old twins when I started college.  I finished by BA when I was 37 and my twins were 14.  When I was working on my BA, people would say to me, "You'll be 40 years old before youi're finished."  My response was this:  "If I don't die, I'll be 40 some day one way or another.  I'd rather be 40 with a college degree than without it."  By the time I was 41, I'd finished my Master's degree.

If you are 40 you usually have 25-30 years left at work, why would it not be worth getting a degree for that in particular if you can get a higher paying job? It can really make a huge difference once you decide to retire.

[Dandruff]

48 minutes ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

Marianne Williamson said "You can forgive someone but you don't have to have lunch with them." Forgive them for your own sanity, and stay away if that is easier. No need to suffer mindlessly.

As I have seen the trailer for the specials, my gut feeling is that Anna is being exploited to have to go on national TV after everyone knows what Josh has done to her and her children. 

Anyone else, thoughts? Hard to imagine she wants to do this, but maybe she does. 

edited, more thoughts to share

The more I think about it, the more I'm OK with Anna being on the show.  The Duggars (far as I can tell) will exploit anyone who they think will bring an audience and $$s.  This should earn her some money - which she can hopefully keep - and will allow her to say her piece.  People will make assumptions regardless.  Her appearance will also help gauge the public's current feelings about her family and their involvement with the show.  Josh can't appear, but why exclude Anna and the Mkids, especially when the specials are "next generation" oriented anyway?  I believe the public will be OK with it as long as Anna doesn't start making excuses for him.

It is a win-win for Jim Bob.  Anna & kids are still nearby and working for the firm.

[Jeebusismycopilot]

11 minutes ago, Trynn said:

I have a friend who is always an hour or so late to everything. It's frustrating, but it's not upsetting enough to cut her out of my life.

My best friend is constantly late for everything. To the point where we simply call it "Lissa time" Bless her.   We contemplated delaying the starting time of my Dad's funeral because we knew she was coming, but chose to go on as planned. I told my mum she would show up 15 minutes late. As we were leaving the church, I spotted her in the back. I ran and hugged her and just said " 1:15?"  and she simply replied "1:10 - I knew this was important"   I also don't hold it against her. She took 2 days off work and flew to Toronto from Texas just for the funeral, so that's a total pass.  I could never cut her out of my life. 

 

Adultery is another thing. There are no chances with that. There are no strikes, it's simply "Out. Get out now" 

If I were Anna, I would have kicked Josh out immediately. What he has done to her is completely unforgivable. 

2 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

The Duggars (far as I can tell) will exploit anyone who they think will bring an audience and $$s.  This should earn her some money

I fear that she really won't see that money. She might get a stipend of sorts from JimBob to put food in her fridge for the MKids, but I doubt she will be given any significant amount. Sadly, JimBob just sees her as a cash cow. People will tune in to see her and that's where the money is. 

[MakeItSo]

I agree with @Dandruff. As long as Anna doesn't come up with excuses for Josh and defends his actions, I think it will be ok. I actually think it's about time she gets to voice what's really on her mind and how she really feels without having Smuggar there forcing her to stare at him lovingly. 

(Please let me just go on wishfully thinking that she actually will tell her side of the story and how she really feels.) 

[TXGirlInAMaterialWorld]

I think change with Anna will happen slowly.  Right now she is going through the shock of so many changes- having a newborn, moving halfway across the country besides having the humiliation of everything Josh has done.  If Anna ever does leave I think it will be more that she will slowly back out the door rather than have a knock down drag out and split.  

[justoneoftwo]

Just now, TXGirlInAMaterialWorld said:

I think change with Anna will happen slowly.  Right now she is going through the shock of so many changes- having a newborn, moving halfway across the country besides having the humiliation of everything Josh has done.  If Anna ever does leave I think it will be more that she will slowly back out the door rather than have a knock down drag out and split.  

I think this is likely.  Even without the cult many people take a break to try to figure out what they should do if faced with all of this.  I would even recommend it.  

[Georgiana]

When I think of changes with Anna, I think of something she said on 19 kids.  I can't remember the actual quote, but to paraphrase, she said that while Josh did have his failings as a husband, whenever she got frustrated with them she would just remember how blessed she was to not have to be a working woman/work outside the home.  

Now, there's nothing wrong (and everything right!) with a woman who WANTS to be a SAHM feeling thankful that she is blessed enough in life to have that opportunity.  However, the way Anna said it, it came across not as her feeling thankful for being able to stay home because it was what SHE wanted, but rather that she believed that working women were inherently miserable.  

I see that belief as the backbone of the reason Anna will stay.  Because no matter how miserable she is in her marriage, she's been brainwashed to believe that it will be even WORSE if she leaves.  I think if someone is ever able to show Anna that there are happy, Christian working mothers, she may choose to leave her unhappy marriage.  Until then, however, she'll always believe that she's happier where she is than any possible scenario where she leaves.  

[Valerie3kids]

I just do not feel that Anna will receive any monies from her work for TLC. I feel that JB has those contracts written to behoove JB and no one else. I am sure he has some great story about trust funds or some crap but it will still benefit JB. I feel they all must ask him for funds and explain what they are needed for. I would be shocked if Michelle even is allowed to carry her own debit card. He is a penny pinching smarm who cares for no one but himself. (and his hairspray) I can also see some type of allowance system where he stands there and hands them money each week and tells them how fortunate they all are to have him to take care of them.  

[MakeItSo]

39 minutes ago, Valerie3kids said:

I just do not feel that Anna will receive any monies from her work for TLC. I feel that JB has those contracts written to behoove JB and no one else. I am sure he has some great story about trust funds or some crap but it will still benefit JB. I feel they all must ask him for funds and explain what they are needed for. I would be shocked if Michelle even is allowed to carry her own debit card. He is a penny pinching smarm who cares for no one but himself. (and his hairspray) I can also see some type of allowance system where he stands there and hands them money each week and tells them how fortunate they all are to have him to take care of them.  

I, for some reason, thought any money from her appearances would go straight to Smuggar...

[Bad Wolf]

JB or Smuggar, equally sad choices. Would that even be legal? I guess it depends on how the contract is written

JB may be willing to exploit Anna, but a lot of people, judging from FJ are concerned about her welfare. I will not watch

[MakeItSo]

good question @Bad Wolf. I actually assumed that as soon as each Duggar kid turns 18, they'd each get their own contract...especially since child labor laws don't apply anymore then, so new contracts should have to get written, right? I'm in film school, I feel like I should know this haha (I'm going to ask my professor tomorrow if I remember). 

[patsymae]

22 minutes ago, MakeItSo said:

good question @Bad Wolf. I actually assumed that as soon as each Duggar kid turns 18, they'd each get their own contract...especially since child labor laws don't apply anymore then, so new contracts should have to get written, right? I'm in film school, I feel like I should know this haha (I'm going to ask my professor tomorrow if I remember). 

They probably have an LLC that TLC contracts with, and the CEO is JB. Poor Anna (I really do feel bad for her) was surprised, as an adult married woman with children, expressed surprise at how easy it was to get a library card. I'm sure she doesn't have the savvy to protect herself financially even if she had the emotional distance from her family/cult to want to. I don't really know the law, but I'm under the impression that reality TV is in this gray area and the people involved aren't paid as actors. The law hasn't caught up.

Brainwashed as she is, Anna does at least have a few siblings who have broken the mold, at least one of whom is not going away anytime soon, so as someone said maybe she will slowly get the message and be able to back away.

Then again, I thought Derrick was the real deal and would take Jilly away to do actual work, so what do I know?

[Chickenbutt]

About going back to school.....my oldest son is 33, a full time, single father of two young girls (mom is not in the picture) and works full time. He is in college full time getting his Bachelors in Biology(!) and then heading onto Physicians Assistant School. He was a horrible High School student and tried some college classes over the years, but was never motivated. Now he is motivated and is an outstanding student. He has a 4.0 GPA. He only has a few semesters left, then comes application to PA School. I must say he has certainly surprised me. Since he is so motivated, I have made it my mission to do all I can to make his life a little easier in any way I can.

The only thing he complains about at school, is the disinterest of the younger students. He sees them on their phones, missing assignments or not coming to class, and bitches about how these "kids" should be taking advantage of the opportunity to get an education. I always laugh at that and remind him that, at that age, he too had the chance to go to college (with us paying for it) and he declined the offer. But I do have to say that when he declined the school offer, he did join the military and served for 4 years. So he didn't waste that time.

[Cleopatra7]

4 hours ago, Valerie3kids said:

I just do not feel that Anna will receive any monies from her work for TLC. I feel that JB has those contracts written to behoove JB and no one else. I am sure he has some great story about trust funds or some crap but it will still benefit JB. I feel they all must ask him for funds and explain what they are needed for. I would be shocked if Michelle even is allowed to carry her own debit card. He is a penny pinching smarm who cares for no one but himself. (and his hairspray) I can also see some type of allowance system where he stands there and hands them money each week and tells them how fortunate they all are to have him to take care of them.  

I think the question of who got the money from 19K&C is going to be a major scandal at some point in the future. Maybe not now, but soon the howlers or one of the lost girls is going to realize they grew up on TV and never got financially compensated for it. It'll be like when Gary Coleman sued his parents, but even more bitter, because religion is tied up in it.

[JenniferJuniper]

2 hours ago, MakeItSo said:

I actually assumed that as soon as each Duggar kid turns 18, they'd each get their own contract...especially since child labor laws don't apply anymore then, so new contracts should have to get written, right? 

Child labor laws never applied to the Duggar kids.  There's nothing like a Coogan law in Arkansas and reality show kids are usually exempt anyway.  

Apparently TLC does put some money in a trust for the kids (probably to cover their own asses if laws change in the future) but when Jacob Roloff saw his bank account at 18, he was not too pleased.

My guess is that TLC does want contracts with featured adults but that daughters and wives hand over any funds directly to their headships.

[Cleopatra7]

On 12/6/2015, 7:12:58, foreign fundie said:

The problem is that among evangelical Christians there is a lot of confusion about the 7 times 70 rule. Jesus taught that, like we have been forgiven many times over, we should always forgive others. But that does not mean that a forgiven person has the right to stay in the same position or relationship to us. Particularly when inflicting serious damage and the above 'three times is a pattern' rule has been satisfied. 

You can forgive a cheating husband and still get a divorce. You can forgive an abusive parent and still refuse contact. You can forgive an unreliable friend and still decide to do no more business with them. 

The (very important) point I got from the book about sociopaths, is that you should do everything you can to make sure to stay out of their field of influence. So I got away from a very destructive boss who had gotten way beyond just three.

To me the real problem with fundegelical "forgiveness" is that it is only directed towards those in the white fundegelical tribe. Fundies have no problem with the death penalty, extremely punitive prisons that provide no job or educational skills for ex-offenders, or judging and condemning people who are otherwise different from themselves, but think that they should get a pass because white Jesus. I seriously doubt so many conservative and fundie Christians would have stood up for Josh during Joshgate 2.0 had he not been "one of them." 

[JenniferJuniper]

On 11/27/2015, 9:20:50, Finduilas said:

On his phone while 'staying late in the office' or 'on a business trip' ? I mean if he found time to see a sex worker, watching the essential parts of a porn video must not be that hard to fit in his schedule.

On his phone gets my vote.  That thing was always attached to his hand.  In this case, probably his left hand.....

And now I'll just go ahead and add the 

[foreign fundie]

43 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

To me the real problem with fundegelical "forgiveness" is that it is only directed towards those in the white fundegelical tribe. Fundies have no problem with the death penalty, extremely punitive prisons that provide no job or educational skills for ex-offenders, or judging and condemning people who are otherwise different from themselves, but think that they should get a pass because white Jesus. I seriously doubt so many conservative and fundie Christians would have stood up for Josh during Joshgate 2.0 had he not been "one of them." 

Of course I was not referring to general evangelical or fundie attitudes towards criminal justice, but just to the forgiveness of someone who has personally wronged you, like a spouce, parent or friend. 

Still, you bring up some interesting points. It has often surprised me how there is so little outcry from American society as a whole (including evangelicals/ fundies) against the injustices in the prison system. Granted, some people should be behind bars to protect society. And sometimes long prison sentences or arguably even the death penalty are 'loving' for the victims of the crime, which should be the first (even if not only) object of our concern. 

But the generations of (often colored) young men that spend their days in a cruel system without a valid chance to lead a normal life, that is just deeply sad. For them and their families, and for American society as a whole, which misses out on potential caring fathers and good labourers.

As with abortion, I think evangelicals would gain credibility if they would pour (more of) their many resources into prevention. For example, if they would help provide high risk groups with the opportunities to avoid or leave a life of crime.

As for fundie 'forgiveness' towards their own (like Josh), I do not really see that as forgiveness. Mostly the sins are down played, rationalised, or even denied. 

Christians are called to both justice and mercy, not to one at the expense of the other. And forgiveness is that place where justice and mercy meet, where the sin is fully recognised, but the charges are dropped.

And when I say 'charges', I do not mean criminal charges in case a crime is commited. We cannot forgive on behalf of society. But that does not mean that Christians  cannot challenge society to show more mercy to those who need a second chance, instead of giving up on people.