Duggars by the Dozen - General Discussion Part 16

[SassyPants]

18 minutes ago, choralcrusader8613 said:

Considering the family, I'm not surprised. I mean, his mother is the one who made a robo-call against people who are transgender, and his brother is for "traditional marriage", as I'm sure most of the family is.

For traditional marriage except when he's cheating.

[choralcrusader8613]

Just now, SassyPants said:

For traditional marriage except when he's cheating.

Hence the quotes lol.

[GeoBQn]

The Duggar Family Official FB page asked people to post their favorite Bible verses.  Some people took the chance to post verses condemning adultery, incest, and lying.  Leghumpers are accusing them of taking "cheap shots" against the family.  Oh?  If you think the Bible is the inerrant word of G-d, then why are you getting offended?  This is highly amusing.

[Bad Wolf]

Jessa's verse was Acts 4 13. Sorry, can't copy but it was about people marveling at the uneducated disciples. She must have chosen that for Ben. Uneducated, but just listen to his wisdom. 

[HarleyQuinn]

I hope someone posts the incorrect Bible verse from Pulp Fiction.

[GeoBQn]

[choralcrusader8613]

6 minutes ago, GeoBQn said:

This is a national treasure.

[NeverQuivered]

5 hours ago, GeoBQn said:

I need this!

[GeoBQn]

It's from a cross-stitch pattern company called Steotch.  They released bit by bit as a mystery stitch-along two years ago.  They let people buy it one day a year--which, unfortunately, was Friday.

[EmCatlyn]

21 hours ago, Catey said:

John David is wearing a Benham Brothers shirt in that picture.

Insensitive much?

Insensitive to whom?  Gays? People who support gay rights?  Why would John David want to be "sensitive" in this area?  The Duggars believe that gay behavior is against God's will.  Why would John David be any different?

This is actually less "in your face" than wearing an overtly  anti-gay rights or an anti-choice shirt.  Unless you know the Benham Brothers (and a lot of people out there don't) it is just a shirt. 

Don't get me wrong.  I am both Pro-Choice and Pro-Gay Rights.  But I do not expect a Duggar to be "sensitive" to this position any more than I expect female Muslim students in my class who are wearing veils to be "sensitive" to how uncomfortable this expression of limited rights for women makes me.  (Note that my problem here is not with Islam--Many Muslim women don't wear the veil--it is with fundamentalists who participate in a world view that limits the options of women. Whether they are Christian, Jewish or Muslim, they make me uncomfortable.)

I guess my point is that while we can (and should) criticize people for beliefs that we consider wrongly held, we shouldn't expect them to be "sensitive" to the point that they cannot express or act on their opinions.  The fundamentalist Muslim student has the right to be veiled, even if it makes me uncomfortable.  JD has the right to wear a shirt that promotes the real estate business of some people whose views he probably agrees with without being accused of insensitivity even if it makes some of us uncomfortable.

But most importantly, it is not the "insensitivity" for which we should fault him (and the Benhams, and the other Duggars etc.) It is the narrowmindedness that leads the to oppose Gay rights and so forth.  It is not news to us that the Duggars are bigots.. Why should we mind that they dress in ways that occasionally remind us of their wrong-headed views?

[choralcrusader8613]

55 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

But most importantly, it is not the "insensitivity" for which we should fault him (and the Benhams, and the other Duggars etc.) It is the narrowmindedness that leads the to oppose Gay rights and so forth.  It is not news to us that the Duggars are bigots.. Why should we mind that they dress in ways that occasionally remind us of their wrong-headed views?

Indeed, and without these reminders, a lot of people who aren't denizens of FJ would forget just how toxic this fundie culture is, preferring to think of them as "Christians who are just a little weird".

[Toothfairy]

20 hours ago, GeoBQn said:

The Duggar Family Official FB page asked people to post their favorite Bible verses.  Some people took the chance to post verses condemning adultery, incest, and lying.  Leghumpers are accusing them of taking "cheap shots" against the family.  Oh?  If you think the Bible is the inerrant word of G-d, then why are you getting offended?  This is highly amusing.

This is awesome. 

[Catey]

5 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

we shouldn't expect them to be "sensitive" to the point that they cannot express or act on their opinions

Why not? I think that people should be able to hold onto whatever hate filled judgemental doctrine that gets them through the night, I do wish that people would be more considerate of what they actively display to others. It is so much more than just the gay rights stance for me with those boys, it was all the public flaunting and misrepresentation of Jane Roe that pisses me off.

Either way, I understand that people can wear whatever they want,, but just like I would call someone out with a stupid I survived Roe vs Wade shirt or someone wearing a Hitler costume on Halloween I see wearing their shirt as equally inappropriate.

I despise Trump, yet I still wouldn't wear a shirt espousing those thoughts, while I would be happy to debate his ideas all night long I just think that some things are rude, tacky and offensive. I KNOW that the Duggars and many of their ilk are never going to see it that way, but I will always want more from all of them.

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, Catey said:

Why not? I think that people should be able to hold onto whatever hate filled judgemental doctrine that gets them through the night, I do wish that people would be more considerate of what they actively display to others. It is so much more than just the gay rights stance for me with those boys, it was all the public flaunting and misrepresentation of Jane Roe that pisses me off.

Either way, I understand that people can wear whatever they want,, but just like I would call someone out with a stupid I survived Roe vs Wade shirt or someone wearing a Hitler costume on Halloween I see wearing their shirt as equally inappropriate.

I despise Trump, yet I still wouldn't wear a shirt espousing those thoughts, while I would be happy to debate his ideas all night long I just think that some things are rude, tacky and offensive. I KNOW that the Duggars and many of their ilk are never going to see it that way, but I will always want more from all of them.

I don't disagree that the beliefs and values associated with the Benham Brothers are offensive. And you may well find the shirt offensive, even if I don't, particularly. 

My comment was about the use of the word "insensitive" in this context.  I maintain that when people dress according to their beliefs they are not being "insensitive" to others.  Insensitivity implies not caring about the feelings of others.  I think the real issue here is JD's bias, not his lack of sensitivity towards those who might be offended by signs of that bias.  

The truth is the Duggars and their ilk can't see how offensive they are. 

[Front Hugging Fiend]

3 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I don't disagree that the beliefs and values associated with the Benham Brothers are offensive. And you may well find the shirt offensive, even if I don't, particularly. 

My comment was about the use of the word "insensitive" in this context.  I maintain that when people dress according to their beliefs they are not being "insensitive" to others.  Insensitivity implies not caring about the feelings of others.  I think the real issue here is JD's bias, not his lack of sensitivity towards those who might be offended by signs of that bias.  

The truth is the Duggars and their ilk can't see how offensive they are. 

I agree with you here. Distinguishing the difference between insensitivity and bias is important, I think, particularly when discussing much of the Duggar's behaviour. 

When I took Study of Religion back in high school, we argued in class over the idea that someone's perception of right and wrong can differ so greatly to the person next to them. There was this huge discussion over morals and values, particularly as they pertain to what most consider 'evil' actions. For example, almost everyone abhors Hitler's actions as unjust, evil, horrific and morally wrong. But in his mind, if he thought what he was doing was right, how does that affect how we perceive his actions?

Of course, I'm not at all comparing any of the Duggars to Hitler - they may have some very questionable views but they're definitely not on that level. But it's definitely an interesting discussion to have. The Duggars, no matter how horrific we may see some of their values, genuinely feel that they are being sensitive to others, as they think they can help 'show people the way', so to speak. 

I don't condone any of their behaviour but it's definitely a perplexing issue when thinking about the true extent of morals, values, etc.

[EmCatlyn]

9 hours ago, Front Hugging Fiend said:

I agree with you here. Distinguishing the difference between insensitivity and bias is important, I think, particularly when discussing much of the Duggar's behaviour. 

When I took Study of Religion back in high school, we argued in class over the idea that someone's perception of right and wrong can differ so greatly to the person next to them. There was this huge discussion over morals and values, particularly as they pertain to what most consider 'evil' actions. For example, almost everyone abhors Hitler's actions as unjust, evil, horrific and morally wrong. But in his mind, if he thought what he was doing was right, how does that affect how we perceive his actions?

Of course, I'm not at all comparing any of the Duggars to Hitler - they may have some very questionable views but they're definitely not on that level. But it's definitely an interesting discussion to have. The Duggars, no matter how horrific we may see some of their values, genuinely feel that they are being sensitive to others, as they think they can help 'show people the way', so to speak. 

I don't condone any of their behaviour but it's definitely a perplexing issue when thinking about the true extent of morals, values, etc.

You raise a good point, though it is not precisely the one I was getting at by distinguishing bias from insensitivity, but well worth discussing. 

Let me clarify my point with an analogy before tackling yours.  Let's say I hate cats. That is a bias. I have a t-shirt that says "Kill the Cats." (It represents a campaign against cats in the city.). Though I would love it if all cats were dead and gone, I know my friend is very tenderhearted about her kitty, so I don't wear the shirt around her.  This may be sensitive of me, but it is just concealing my bias.  I am going to vote for the Kill the Cats proposition at the next referendum.  I am going to give money to the anti-cat campaign and do my best to make my city cat free.  Does it really matter that I was "sensitive" about not wearing the shirt around my friend?  Would my friend really appreciate my "sensitivity" or might she not find that whether "sensitive" or not to her feelings, my bias against cats makes me a person she doesn't want to be friends with?  Similarly, it isn't the insensitivity of wearing a particular shirt but the views represented by the shirt that bothers me about the Duggars.  The bias, not the shirt, is the problem.

Now your point is related. You are asking, I think, at what point do we hold people responsible for things they do (or opinions they hold) which we think are wrong but which they believe are right.  Is it right to hold people responsible for being "insensitive" when the views they hold offend others?

I think of this often in relation to the abortion debate.

People who oppose abortion rights, in general, do so because they are genuinely concerned about the taking of a human life.   I am pro-choice, but I am not offended by this position.  What does offend me is when people hold anti- choice views without considering the ramifications.  It is not "insensitive" to believe (and act upon the belief) that abortions kill people.  It is offensive that someone should hold this view and try to solve it simplistically, by insisting that if we just force all women to go through with all pregnancies, everything will be fine.  That suggests (to me) that the bias against abortion is making people insensitive to the bigger issues (a woman's right to control her own body being the main one).

You are right that there is no good answer when people hold diametrically opposed views about matters that are important to them.  Whether they are right or wrong, when people feel strongly that they are "right," they are often not going to be "sensitive" to those with different points of view.  And where they are sensitive--as in my hypothetical example of the Kill the Cats t-shirts, maybe they shouldn't be, because the "sensitivity" can be a form of dishonesty.

I don't think that recognizing that people sometimes do bad things believing that they are good gives anyone a "pass" for what we consider bias or wrong thinking. However, maybe we can be more forgiving of the well-meaning bigot, even when we do everything we can to stop his bigotry (or worse) from increasing in power and influence.

Back to the Duggars:  Anna has, in the past, expressed pretty intolerant views about gays, abortion rights, etc.. Anna has also, as far as I can tell, no real understanding of the damage that remaining in ATI and married to Josh, could do to her kids.  Do we give her a pass because she is well-meaning and hasn't been taught any better, or do we condemn her for accepting and supporting biases that may harm others?  And can someone like JD or Jana be a decent human being and still believe that gays are perverts and that women should submit to their husbands?

[justoneoftwo]

4 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

 

People who oppose abortion rights, in general, do so because they are genuinely concerned about the taking of a human life.   I am pro-choice, but I am not offended by this position.  What does offend me is when people hold anti- choice views without considering the ramifications.  It is not "insensitive" to believe (and act upon the belief) that abortions kill people.  It is offensive that someone should hold this view and try to solve it simplistically, by insisting that if we just force all women to go through with all pregnancies, everything will be fine.  That suggests (to me) that the bias against abortion is making people insensitive to the bigger issues (a woman's right to control her own body being the main one).

 

This may be a bit off topic, but I have always wondered if the person opposing abortion really believes abortion kills is a women's right to control her own body still the bigger issue?  Obviously for those of us who do not think abortion kills a person the choice to control your own body is bigger, but if we honestly believed otherwise would it be?  

Sorry, I know thats really off topic your post just brought up the question.  

[halcionne]

Unfortunately--or fortunately, for people who like to be able to easily identify homophobes--multiple Duggars wear Benham shirts all the time. It occurs to me now that maybe they're working together on something? I don't feel like looking into it right now to see what the Benham brothers are up to, but I've seen enough of their shirts on Duggars to wonder if they were asked to wear them for advertising purposes, or to support like-minded friends, or something along those lines.

[Valerie3kids]

2 hours ago, halcionne said:

Unfortunately--or fortunately, for people who like to be able to easily identify homophobes--multiple Duggars wear Benham shirts all the time. It occurs to me now that maybe they're working together on something? I don't feel like looking into it right now to see what the Benham brothers are up to, but I've seen enough of their shirts on Duggars to wonder if they were asked to wear them for advertising purposes, or to support like-minded friends, or something along those lines.

Maybe they also work Duggar Real Estate?!?!

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, justoneoftwo said:

This may be a bit off topic, but I have always wondered if the person opposing abortion really believes abortion kills is a women's right to control her own body still the bigger issue?  Obviously for those of us who do not think abortion kills a person the choice to control your own body is bigger, but if we honestly believed otherwise would it be?  

Sorry, I know thats really off topic your post just brought up the question.  

Okay, here is my answer:  "What is a person?" I do not regard the unborn as "a person" but I do regard the embryo/fetus as a human life.  If you think that human life = person, then a fetus is a person. But to me that is not the important question.

The question is whether it is ever right to force a person (which a woman definitely is) to accept another being ("person" or not) as a parasite on her body.   I don't believe it is.  Therefore, the "right to life" at the expense of a woman's right to control her own body, is wrong.

As an analogy, I would say that just as you cannot force a parent to donate a kidney, or a portion of liver, or even bone marrow or blood to save the life of a child that has been born, you cannot force a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want in her body for nine months.

Both of my babies were very much wanted and sacrificed for.  I had fertility problems and bad pregnancies. And I would have given anything my babies needed, any part of my body or the food out of my mouth for their well-being.  But that was my choice.  It should always be a choice.  

A problem with the "right to life" is that it usually reflects the idea that the woman is less important as a vessel than as a person. Pregnancy-- sometimes even just the possibility of pregnancy--shifts the woman to secondary status as soon as you start assigning "rights" to her unborn child.

It is not that odd that many people (like the Duggars) who are extremely anti-choice (not even if the mother's life is threatened) also believe that the woman has to be available sexually at all times, shouldn't work outside the home, etc.  It all comes down to seeing women as beings whose rights are secondary to the rights of others.  So it doesn't matter if we say that the fetus is a "person" or not.   No person has a right over another person's body.

[Heathen525]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

It is not that odd that many people (like the Duggars) who are extremely anti-choice (not even if the mother's life is threatened)

The Duggars are (surprise) hypocrites. Michelle was induced at 25 weeks due to preeclampsia. She terminated her pregnancy due to her life being at risk. Josie surviving was a coin toss.

[EmCatlyn]

30 minutes ago, Heathen525 said:

The Duggars are (surprise) hypocrites. Michelle was induced at 25 weeks due to preeclampsia. She terminated her pregnancy due to her life being at risk. Josie surviving was a coin toss.

I think that inducing early labor and hoping the kid will survive does not count as an abortion in their minds (or mine).   I do agree they are hypocrites, but not necessarily because Josie was induced early instead of waiting for both of them to die naturally.

[Front Hugging Fiend]

8 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

You raise a good point, though it is not precisely the one I was getting at by distinguishing bias from insensitivity, but well worth discussing. 

 

You're very right. I will admit, it was around 2am/3am-ish when I hit FreeJinger last night, and I see what you're saying much clearer now. 

In terms of giving people free passes - no, I don't think we should give anyone a free pass for behaviour or views that go against our own personal standards. But I do think we should keep context in consideration when discussing those things. 

In regards to the Duggars themselves: Anna, I believe, should be held responsible for her damaging views whilst still acknowledging her limited experience and knowledge. For example - if she spent a year living with her brother (Daniel?) outside of total fundieland and STILL upheld the same values and promoted the same damaging causes, I'd be much more inclined to condemn her than I am now. While I still think Anna's views etc. are horrific in most cases I am very aware that her circumstances may not necessarily provide her with the knowledge she requires to make an informed decision and take an informed stance. Same goes with Jana and John-David, for me, in the sense that they've only truly been exposed to the limited information JB&DQ have allowed. JD wearing the Benham Brothers shirt didn't seem as controversial to me only in the sense that his wearing the shirt could simply be 'I'm supporting these guys because my parents want me to, because I got a free shirt, and also I think maybe I believe what these guys do'. I'm still going to condemn his wearing of the shirt and what it means, but I'll be much less harsh in my condemnation than I would if JD had publicly spoken about it (like Josh or JB). 

That being said, I'm being awfully generous with my benefit of the doubt. Tv editing does wonderful things - I just have to believe that deep down, at least some of the Duggar kids are relatively good people. Otherwise I get angry and ranty and start questioning way too much.

[foreign fundie]

5 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Okay, here is my answer:  "What is a person?" I do not regard the unborn as "a person" but I do regard the embryo/fetus as a human life.  If you think that human life = person, then a fetus is a person. But to me that is not the important question.

The question is whether it is ever right to force a person (which a woman definitely is) to accept another being ("person" or not) as a parasite on her body.   I don't believe it is.  Therefore, the "right to life" at the expense of a woman's right to control her own body, is wrong.

As an analogy, I would say that just as you cannot force a parent to donate a kidney, or a portion of liver, or even bone marrow or blood to save the life of a child that has been born, you cannot force a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want in her body for nine months.

Both of my babies were very much wanted and sacrificed for.  I had fertility problems and bad pregnancies. And I would have given anything my babies needed, any part of my body or the food out of my mouth for their well-being.  But that was my choice.  It should always be a choice.  

A problem with the "right to life" is that it usually reflects the idea that the woman is less important as a vessel than as a person. Pregnancy-- sometimes even just the possibility of pregnancy--shifts the woman to secondary status as soon as you start assigning "rights" to her unborn child.

It is not that odd that many people (like the Duggars) who are extremely anti-choice (not even if the mother's life is threatened) also believe that the woman has to be available sexually at all times, shouldn't work outside the home, etc.  It all comes down to seeing women as beings whose rights are secondary to the rights of others.  So it doesn't matter if we say that the fetus is a "person" or not.   No person has a right over another person's body.

I find it very sad that the 'pro life' side of things is so often represented by people who are anti-choice.

I believe a woman should be free to choose to engage in sexual activities or not. No woman should ever be forced in or outside marriage. And women should be free to learn about their fertility and choose anti-conception if they want. And I believe women of all ages should have the freedom AND the support they need to keep and raise the child they conceive, also when the child was unplanned. 

Also women should not in my opinion willingly engage in sexual activity if there is a risk of pregnancy which they are not willing to face the consequences of. Nor should men btw, as they have every bit as much responsibility for the child if conceived. Abortion is never a small matter, and can have emotional and physical side effects.

Personally I think an abortion is a tragedy that should be prevented if at all possible. Taking human life in your hands is a very serious issue and no child should ever be so unwelcome that it is not allowed to be born.

I think society has the responsibility to promote the protection of women so that unwanted pregnancies through rape or force are minimized. And to make sure there is support for women to raise their babies so abortion and adoption are never forced by economics. And men and women have their responsibility to make sure they don't make babies they can or will not raise. 

Although I think abortion is a tragedy, I realise a woman can/should not be forced to have a baby if she really does not want it, after all options have been offered and discussed. An unborn baby is at it's mother's mercy in that sense. Society cannot ultimately protect unborn babies without the mother's cooperation. In such cases I believe a medically safe abortion should be available, lest the mother should endanger herself.

And there will always be tragic cases of incest, medical complications and babies who cannot live after birth. These should in my opinion be looked at individually and the tragedy be minimized in what ever way is best, carefully considering the mother's needs.

So although I believe every baby deserves the right to be born, I do realise this moral viewpoint can at best be promoted, but cannot be forced on autonomous individual women. 

As for pro-life activists, I think most of the effort should go to fighting rape culture, ignorance about reproductive health, and poverty. This will hopefully prevent the bulk of abortions.

If zero abortions is unattainable at least I hope to see the day that every woman who wants to keep her child can keep it.

[ClaraOswin]

Foreign Fundie...thanks for putting into words most of the things that are in my head regarding abortion.