Duggars by the Dozen - General Discussion Part 17

[MatthewDuggar]

59 minutes ago, DuggarWatch said:

 

Next question:  What's the difference between Michelle and Jim Bob dating and their kids having courtships?

 

Apparently JB & JChelle made some sort of horrific "mistakes" that they don't want the kids to have to go though.  There was also mention of "baggage" being brought into the relationship by Michelle.

[quiverofdoubt]

1 minute ago, MatthewDuggar said:

Apparently JB & JChelle made some sort of horrific "mistakes" that they don't want the kids to have to go though.  There was also mention of "baggage" being brought into the relationship by Michelle.

Because that courtship thing is working out so wonderfully for them.

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, Valerie3kids said:

Double defrauded here. I guess I am thick in the skull but what is the difference in ski pants and pants? I can't seem to grasp that. At all.

I don't think that the Duggar/Fundie objection to long pants on women is because of defrauding.  Tight pants, shorts, etc. (like short skirts) yes, but the issue with women wearing pants is that pants are supposed to be men's garb.  It goes back to an OT prohibition against transvestism.

Ski pants are probably okay because they meet a functional need.  They really are the only sensible garb for skiing, and probably Michelle hadn't heard that ski-skirts existed.  The Duggar girls wore pants for some fire fighter/first responder exercises in some show, didn't they?  Even back in the Frumper days?  My understanding was that they allowed (modest) pants for specific purposes (like skiing or sliding down a fire dept pole).

 

[quiverofdoubt]

4 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I don't think that the Duggar/Fundie objection to long pants on women is because of defrauding.  Tight pants, shorts, etc. (like short skirts) yes, but the issue with women wearing pants is that pants are supposed to be men's garb.  It goes back to an OT prohibition against transvestism.

Ski pants are probably okay because they meet a functional need.  They really are the only sensible garb for skiing, and probably Michelle hadn't heard that ski-skirts existed.  The Duggar girls wore pants for some fire fighter/first responder exercises in some show, didn't they?  Even back in the Frumper days?  My understanding was that they allowed (modest) pants for specific purposes (like skiing or sliding down a fire dept pole).

 

Even michelle wore pants for sky diving. I think you're right about the reason for the pants. I also think skirts do double duty as they don't show off the legs (pretty sure michelle has mentioned that before as well?)  BUT aren't pants generally gendered anyways? Women's pants are made for, and tailored for, women's bodies and styles. Men's for well, men.  Doesn't that separate them anyway?

[EmCatlyn]

14 minutes ago, MatthewDuggar said:

Apparently JB & JChelle made some sort of horrific "mistakes" that they don't want the kids to have to go though.  There was also mention of "baggage" being brought into the relationship by Michelle.

Somewhere in Arkansas at least one now-middle-aged man is chuckling softly every time Michelle comes on screen to talk about purity, modesty and the virtue of not even holding hands.

(What do you want to bet that JB was not the first guy she kissed or even the first guy she made out with?  What do you want to bet that JB got a chance at her because she had an unhappy love affair, perhaps with one of the football players?)

Just a wild guess. . .

[Bad Wolf]

Too much logic for a Duggar. We don't wear pants because that's men's clothes. Well, sometimes we wear pants, if we can rationalize it in our minds.

[Chickenbutt]

7 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Somewhere in Arkansas at least one now-middle-aged man is chuckling softly every time Michelle comes on screen to talk about purity, modesty and the virtue of not even holding hands.

(What do you want to bet that JB was not the first guy she kissed or even the first guy she made out with?  What do you want to bet that JB got a chance at her because she had an unhappy love affair, perhaps with one of the football players?)

Just a wild guess. . .

Now wouldn't that be interesting if someone popped up with a book...."I Dated Michelle Duggar." We could learn all kinds of snark-able dirt. Hand holding? Kissing? Petting (yes I used that word..lol)? More?

[CorruptionInc.]

She only said yes to dating him because he was the son of her boss.

Not sure why, but basically it's clear Michelle had the taste of normal boys and Michelle was probably JB's first for everything.

[MarblesMom]

1 hour ago, MatthewDuggar said:

There was also mention of "baggage" being brought into the relationship by Michelle.

Pretty sure she *was* the baggage.

[EmCatlyn]

7 minutes ago, quiverofdoubt said:

Even michelle wore pants for sky diving. I think you're right about the reason for the pants. I also think skirts do double duty as they don't show off the legs (pretty sure michelle has mentioned that before as well?)  BUT aren't pants generally gendered anyways? Women's pants are made for, and tailored for, women's bodies and styles. Men's for well, men.  Doesn't that separate them anyway?

It should.  But for many fundies it doesn't.  Some of them believe that God ordained that only men should wear pants.  They even object to split-skirts/culottes.  Though sometimes framed as a modesty thing, it is really about limiting female behavior.  A lot of activities and occupations are not practical in skirts. Making women wear skirts emphasizes female helplessness and place in the home.

As the expression "wears the pants in the house" would suggest, masculine authority is linked to pants-wearing. And in the 19th century, women who tried to reform women's dress (to make it less constrictive and unwieldy) were associated with challenging male authority even when they didn't propose pants for women.  Femininity in many people's minds is connected to inconvenient clothing. (Think heels!) Pants, if they are comfortable, are unfeminine.

It can be argued that pants are "immodest" because they outline the female shape, but a skirt that is any shorter than half-way between the ankle and the knee is going to be immodest any time you are caught in the wind unless it is relatively tight (in which case, not only could the skirt be immodest but it limits mobility).  Indeed, a skirt can much more immodest than pants, and the hassle to "stay modest" while wearing a shortish skirt is perceived by some as one of the necessary burdens of womanhood.  (Consider what many of us who grew up in the 60s were taught about skirt wearing, even by reasonable parents: Smooth the skirt down when you sit and pull it down so it doesn't show too much knee or thigh or whatever it is supposed to cover.  Keep knees together when you sit.  Hold the skirt down it to cover your rear when you bend over, be careful when you go up and down a staircase so that you aren't giving the guys a show . . .)  The inconvenience of skirts is part of their appeal.

Women wearing pants symbolically threaten Fundie ideas about masculine superiority.  Skirts represent submission because they restrict activity and make it difficult for women to forget about being "modest" and the male gaze upon them.

[quiverofdoubt]

3 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

It should.  But for many fundies it doesn't.  Some of them believe that God ordained that only men should wear pants.  They even object to split-skirts/culottes.  Though sometimes framed as a modesty thing, it is really about limiting female behavior.  A lot of activities and occupations are not practical in skirts. Making women wear skirts emphasizes female helplessness and place in the home.

As the expression "wears the pants in the house" would suggest, masculine authority is linked to pants-wearing. And in the 19th century, women who tried to reform women's dress (to make it less constrictive and unwieldy) were associated with challenging male authority even when they didn't propose pants for women.  Femininity in many people's minds is connected to inconvenient clothing. (Think heels!) Pants, if they are comfortable, are unfeminine.

It can be argued that pants are "immodest" because they outline the female shape, but a skirt that is any shorter than half-way between the ankle and the knee is going to be immodest any time you are caught in the wind unless it is relatively tight (in which case, not only could the skirt be immodest but it limits mobility).  Indeed, a skirt can much more immodest than pants, and the hassle to "stay modest" while wearing a shortish skirt is perceived by some as one of the necessary burdens of womanhood.  (Consider what many of us who grew up in the 60s were taught about skirt wearing, even by reasonable parents: Smooth the skirt down when you sit and pull it down so it doesn't show too much knee or thigh or whatever it is supposed to cover.  Keep knees together when you sit.  Hold the skirt down it to cover your rear when you bend over, be careful when you go up and down a staircase so that you aren't giving the guys a show . . .)  The inconvenience of skirts is part of their appeal.

Women wearing pants symbolically threaten Fundie ideas about masculine superiority.  Skirts represent submission because they restrict activity and make it difficult for women to forget about being "modest" and the male gaze upon them.

Thank you! I guess i knew this to some extent, but haven't really thought through all the details. The duggars try to claim they can do anything in a skirt that a man can do, and that the girls choose to only wear skirts. But then claim it's because women shouldn't wear man's clothes. I guess I was trying to point out that by their biblical justification girls should be able to wear clothes culturally made for girls (including women's pants). But since they can't then there must be other reasons they can only do the skirts. Modesty only makes a little sense, as not all pants are immodest and not all skirts are modest.  Your reasons are the real reasons- the ones they can't and won't admit to the public.

i hope that makes sense. Pregnant and tired = smart as a box of rocks over here.

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, quiverofdoubt said:

Thank you! I guess i knew this to some extent, but haven't really thought through all the details. The duggars try to claim they can do anything in a skirt that a man can do, and that the girls choose to only wear skirts. But then claim it's because women shouldn't wear man's clothes. I guess I was trying to point out that by their biblical justification girls should be able to wear clothes culturally made for girls (including women's pants). But since they can't then there must be other reasons they can only do the skirts. Modesty only makes a little sense, as not all pants are immodest and not all skirts are modest.  Your reasons are the real reasons- the ones they can't and won't admit to the public.

i hope that makes sense. Pregnant and tired = smart as a box of rocks over here.

Yes, you definitely make sense--and of course you are right. They claim--and often believe-- that the reason that women should not wear pants is that God forbids women to wear men's clothes and vice-versa.  But who said that all pants are men's clothes?  American mainstream culture has been comfortable with women wearing pants to all occasions for the past 40 years, at least.  And, as you point out, pants sold for women are made differently than pants sold to men. Proportions, designs, colors. . . Even jeans are made differently in subtle ways.  So their choice to classify pants as "men's clothing" is just one more way in which they keep women in a dependent and subordinate role.

(For what it's worth, in my experience, pregnancy doesn't slow the brain, really --it just makes you think that your brain is slowing down along with everything else.   )

[Divemaster01]

Scottish kilts? Of course, they probably don't know about that or choose to ignore it.

[Sundaymorning]

17 hours ago, Becket70 said:

I don't know if this has been covered elsewhere but Ted Cruz will be in Springdale today at the Cross Church.  It will be interesting to see if any Duggars are in the audience. Seems to me they have stayed pretty low regarding politics for the past six months or so.

I think no candidate who has a single brain cell left would ever want to be associated with the Duggars after all the Joshgates last year.

Which of course, could very well mean that Trump and Cruz would be glad for their support.

But seriously, Boob and J'Chelle are still toxic assets. Most I could imagine is if some of the younger Duggars would publibly support Cruz, as Trump, despite his crazy rhetoric, really isn't up their alley when it comes to his lifestyle, family and pretty liberal past.

[helenprev]

The discussion of men's and women's pants/trousers has reminded me of the episode of the I.T. Crowd where Moss wears 'women's slacks' and because they are so comfortable it miraculously gives him self confidence, assertiveness and success!

(I have no idea if anyone outside the UK will have seen the I.T. Crowd. But it's wonderful.)

[quiverofdoubt]

1 hour ago, Divemaster01 said:

Scottish kilts? Of course, they probably don't know about that or choose to ignore it.

I'm going to say that pants in general are fairly modern, at least in the sense of being the standard. They are much harder to fit, make and repair than skirts/robes/dresses.  It's only recently that we can go to a store and grab a pair of factory made pants, or anything for that matter.  Up until then people had to make clothes, or find a local person to tailor for them.  Skirts and robes are much simpler to cut/sew and repair. Plus, cooler for warm climates.  If they really want to live like biblical times they'll have to ditch their entire wardrobes and start sewing robes.

[HarryPotterFan]

On February 25, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Sweet Fellowship said:

Oh gosh. I got a funny image in my head now. A middle-aged Ben along with 18 year old Spud on TV. The rapping and preaching duo. That'd be quite hilarious to watch, to be honest.

Don't give them any ideas!!

[Timetostoplurking]

2 hours ago, quiverofdoubt said:

I'm going to say that pants in general are fairly modern, at least in the sense of being the standard. They are much harder to fit, make and repair than skirts/robes/dresses.  It's only recently that we can go to a store and grab a pair of factory made pants, or anything for that matter.  Up until then people had to make clothes, or find a local person to tailor for them.  Skirts and robes are much simpler to cut/sew and repair. Plus, cooler for warm climates.  If they really want to live like biblical times they'll have to ditch their entire wardrobes and start sewing robes.

Like in Harry Potter?!?  Lol

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

7 hours ago, Divemaster01 said:

Scottish kilts? Of course, they probably don't know about that or choose to ignore it.

When the Duggars were at (not sure which exact one) Highland Games in Scotland, some brawny Scottish men rolled JB up in a great kilt over his clothes. (A great kilt is made by taking a piece of cloth and kilting it on the wearer--often by putting the cloth on the floor/ground and holding it to the body while the person rolls themselves up in the fabric. Hope that made sense?) JB looked goofy with an improvised kilt over his pants and shirt. Well, goofier than usual.

[choralcrusader8613]

4 minutes ago, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

Well, goofier than usual.

I didn't think that was possible!

[ljohnson2006]

J'Chelle's baggage is mowing the lawn in a bikini.

[Bad Wolf]

Right, because if she hadn't mowed the lawn in her bikini, she wouldn't have defrauded the neighbor, so that he had to get a divorce. Bad J'chelle. It's a good thing she has Boob to remind her of her sin. 

[Hera]

5 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

Right, because if she hadn't mowed the lawn in her bikini, she wouldn't have defrauded the neighbor, so that he had to get a divorce. Bad J'chelle. It's a good thing she has Boob to remind her of her sin. 

You think they even realize just how conceited and bizarre this whole story is? Do they really think all it takes is a look at a teenager in a bikini to ruin a marriage? 

[choralcrusader8613]

21 minutes ago, Hera said:

You think they even realize just how conceited and bizarre this whole story is? Do they really think all it takes is a look at a teenager in a bikini to ruin a marriage? 

Not just ruin the marriage. Michelle once said that she was also inspiring lust or whatever in the woman's son (same neighbors) as well, and something like "No wonder she hated me!"

Meanwhile, choral is thinking  

Unless she literally came over to Michelle/her parents and said that, whatever happened to putting the best construct on someone else's actions? Oh wait, forgot who we were talking about.

[Valerie3kids]

JB has always alluded to the fact that Michelle is the one with the "past" and not he. I would think at this point after so many years of marriage the man could give it a rest but he can not. He is still jealous over things that others probably don't even remember at this point in their lives. He mentions that bikini incident every time he can and I feel he uses it as a way of control over Michelle. He feels it makes him look superior. It only adds to him looking ridiculous that Michelle is the only girl he has ever kissed, held hands with etc etc.