Bates Family Part 10

[SweetFellowshipper]

1 minute ago, AliceInFundyland said:

Thank you for politely responding. Do  you realize that within in the movement THEY ARE 1000 x worse than the Duggars? In terms of IBLP continuing to be a thing Gil Bates has way more power than the doofus that is Jim Bob. If anything the healthier looking kids make 'the movement seem more appealing and less sordid. Even if Lawson, Erin, Alyssa amd Zack are all moving away.....it doesn't matter BECAUSE it makes GIL LOOK GOOD!

 

Right. And except for Zach, how are they doing so? Erin and Alyssa married ATI royalty. Jessa and Jill married Christian guys they could have met on a semi-normal mission trip or at your average Southern Baptist Church...now those guys might be abiding by JB rules, but Gil would never have approved of Derrick or Ben in the first place.

[VelociRapture]

1 hour ago, RoseWilder said:

Exactly.

When I first watched 14 Kids and Pregnant Again, it kind of appealed to the side of me that always loved the TV show Little House on the Prairie. Their lives seemed so simple and easy compared to the complications of modern life. I think it's appeals to the side of people who want to believe that we can recapture "the good old days" (which never existed but people still want to believe actually happened.) And then the Bates upped the ante by being more likeable than the Duggars. (Although I never saw the appeal of Gil. The only difference I see between Jim Bob and Gil is that Jim Bob is a smug, arrogant, grifter and Gil is a smug, arrogant, grifter who can cry on cue.) 

Or course then I started reading up on them and realized their lives are a clusterfuck of dysfunction and that my life is about 100 times better than theirs and I stopped seeing the appeal. 

Disclaimer: I was never a leghumper. I just thought there were aspects of their lives that seemed appealing. 

THIS!!!! Times a million! 

I first really started to pay attention to the Duggars after Jill got married. At first I thought they seemed like nice people who were kind of weird - but generally harmless. Wasn't until I saw how fast the Dills courted that I took a closer look and started to see how fucked up the beliefs are.

I think the same thing will eventually happen to the Bates family too if they aren't careful. Kelly and Gil are smart and good at marketing their family, but no one is perfect and "on" 24/7. They're bound to screw up at some point, just like the Duggars.

The issue is they really do seem much more likable than the Duggars ever did. Yeah, they had the "weirdos" angle via TLC for a season, but people have short attention spans and UP has done a fantastic job of rebranding them. They look nice, dress nice, and seem like nice enough people. It's easy enough to let them lull you into a false sense of security.

Personally, I like Whitney and Zach. Can't even explain why or excuse it away either - I know how messed up a family this is, but I'm drawn to those two because they do legitimately seem so incredibly happy and at peace spiritually. And that kind of happiness draws me in because I feel as if I'm missing that type of spiritual peace in my own life. It was the same draw the Duggars held formed at first too. I think you're completely right in saying that's part of their real draw and appeal for people - they appear to embody something missing from our own lives.

[formergothardite]

27 minutes ago, vienna said:

And within this movement they are the group I root for. To me a lot of their views have the potential to make a positive change from inside the cult.

Making positive changes, this is something people who support IBLP keep bringing up like there is an option to get rid of the bad parts and keep the good. There are no good parts. The whole thing is rotten. All those "little changes" you are talking about are all pretty much already a part of IBLP, so Gil and Kelly won't be making any new changes to the cult. Wearing pants and shorts, watching television, going to college, a more relaxed courtship model, getting into government positions like Zach, all that is already in IBLP. Gil and Kelly didn't pull it out of thin air. And you know what? All those little things haven't made IBLP any less awful. Don't buy into the delusion that they can make positive changes or that they will. History has shown that all Gil is willing to do is hurt people. 

27 minutes ago, vienna said:

I am just saying WITHIN THE MOVEMENT they have EG IN COMPARISION TO THE DUGGARS

Within the movement Gil has hurt more people. Compare them to the Duggars within the movement and they have caused more damage. And their show that sells a lie continues to cause damage. They should bother you just as much as the Duggars do because they are just as bad. 

So keep in mind you are rooting for the folks that are hurting the most amount of people and causing the most amount of damage. Looking at it this way do you still think they are better? 

[AliceInFundyland]

@SweetFellowshipper i can't tell if you're saying it's better that the duggars are on air bc jb wouldn't pick high-ranking muckity-mucks. My point is that is nauseating that either family remains on television. And i am not breaking that down 

[felinefundie]

2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I think people want to believe that there is this "ideal" family out there. They want to believe that while their life might be a mess, there really is the large, happy family that would be a joy to be a member of. Some of the fans on the Bringing Up Bates twitter post things like "I wish I could have had parents like you" or "I wish I could have had a family like this". The Bates and UP are selling a lie, but it is a lie that people want to believe. People want them to be what they appear to be on Television and social media and so they try to reject the reality that this family has some major issues. 

I really think this is so true. I was pretty young when the Duggar specials came out. I loved watching them because I was a lonely only child with working parents. I dreamed of having tons of siblings and my mom home with all of us. The horrific lives these people lead look so desirable from the outside. 

[SweetFellowshipper]

21 minutes ago, AliceInFundyland said:

@SweetFellowshipper i can't tell if you're saying it's better that the duggars are on air bc jb wouldn't pick high-ranking muckity-mucks. My point is that is nauseating that either family remains on television. And i am not breaking that down 

No, I'm not. I'm just saying that what each family is "lenient" about varies. The Bateses appear to be stricter about who their daughters marry and ATI establishment rules, while the Duggars are stricter about modesty, TV, and dancing. Neither matters much. I'm just not sure why people are making a distinction between the families. Both covered up sexual abuse. If Zach had done what Josh did, I can only guess that Gil and Kelly would have done the same. Kelly seems a bit brighter than the rest. Her writing is a lot less pat and silly than Michelle's. Gil, JB, and Michelle don't seem overly bright. Perhaps that's why Kelly is able to spin things more attractively.

[Melissa1977]

That courtship and texting rules are absolutely ridículous. My grandparents married in 1954 in a deeply catholic country governed by a dictator, and even in that situation, young couples were allowed to walk unchaperoned, to kiss and to send private letters.

It's hard to imagine that a person can be mentally healthy when raised that way. So if Erin, Alyssa, Zach, are the nice happy people they seem to be, good for them, they are lucky. But I think there must be lots of Josh Duggars hiden in these kind of families, and lots of depressive people.

[RoseWilder]

What I want to know is how can you ever know what someone really thinks and believes when your family members are reading your texts. You would have to toe the party line to avoid angering Mom and Dad. So you would arrive at your wedding day with no idea what the person you're really marrying thinks, feels, believes about anything. That sounds like a recipe for a disasterous marriage. I guess they might get lucky and end up with someone who actually does have the same beliefs - but there's an ever greater chance you will end up married to a stranger. Fundies are really flying blind when it comes to choosing a marriage partner (oops, I meant when choosing between the 2 possible courtship partners their parents have predetermined they are allowed to court.)

[justmy2cents]

1 hour ago, ElegantMajesticPearls said:

How would TLC know when Erin would announce?

TLC told the blog that Erin's due date is end of July/ beginning of August, not when she would announce.  Sorry If that wasn't clear.

[Jana814]

When I was younger I wished I had a lot of siblings. Now I'm glad I don't. I also wished I had a lot of first cousins and we were super close. I only have 2 (my mother was an only child) I still wish for that (I can't stand my first cousins). 

[QuiverDance]

@ElegantMajesticPearls  I assumed jm2c meant UP, not TLC.

[Whoosh]

I have never really watched much of either family on television.  A friend of mine gave me her tapes of the Duggars to watch.  Yes, I am that old and also am unwilling to contribute in an way to any measure of "viewership" for these toxic people, so I am watching on VHS 

So far, I have just barely made it into the first season.  One thing that stood out quite clearly to me after reading the recent conversations in this Bates thread is that way back in the specials which aired in 2004 and 2006, it was pretty clear that the Duggar kids had at least some exposure to television/video watching and worldly children's characters.  At some point, Michelle mentions that they watch very little TV (which means they do indeed watch some TV).  Then, when they go on their cross country family vacation, they meet a fellow very different than they are at the Cadillac Ranch.  Josh Duggar says the guy reminds him of Peter Pan.  You know - Peter Pan the good, instantly obedient fundie character.  NOT.

When they finally get to their destination - FREAKING DISNEY - the tiny Duggar tots start talking about meeting Micky Mouse in excited voices.  They all go in and HUG the Mouse and his gal, Minnie (did Micky and Minnie ever marry or did they just date long term without chaperones?  I can't recall).  Micky Mouse, the chap that is the main deal for that company that owns Pooh Bear and his buddies.  The kids all bought souvenir clothing and there is a clear as day shot of Ms. Jinger Duggar herself wearing a - GASP - Pooh Bear sweatshirt.

So, in terms of allowing the kids to watch TV or know about a seedy character like Pooh, while people may be right that Zach has taken baby steps away from his father's crazy position on those things, to me it seems clear that the plans he is making will put him about where JB and Michelle were in 2004-2006.

I'm not trying to knock people who honestly believe there is something better or more attractive about the Bates family.  I just think that people need to do so in an honest fashion (including NOT glossing over the fact that at least the father is involved in a massive and very sordid sex abuse scandal and none of these people have said boo in terms of standing up against that or admitting that is just wrong).

[justmy2cents]

32 minutes ago, QuiverDance said:

@ElegantMajesticPearls  I assumed jm2c meant UP, not TLC.

Lol, thanks for catching that.

[vienna]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

Making positive changes, this is something people who support IBLP keep bringing up like there is an option to get rid of the bad parts and keep the good. There are no good parts. The whole thing is rotten. All those "little changes" you are talking about are all pretty much already a part of IBLP, so Gil and Kelly won't be making any new changes to the cult. Wearing pants and shorts, watching television, going to college, a more relaxed courtship model, getting into government positions like Zach, all that is already in IBLP. Gil and Kelly didn't pull it out of thin air. And you know what? All those little things haven't made IBLP any less awful. Don't buy into the delusion that they can make positive changes or that they will. History has shown that all Gil is willing to do is hurt people. 

Within the movement Gil has hurt more people. Compare them to the Duggars within the movement and they have caused more damage. And their show that sells a lie continues to cause damage. They should bother you just as much as the Duggars do because they are just as bad. 

So keep in mind you are rooting for the folks that are hurting the most amount of people and causing the most amount of damage. Looking at it this way do you still think they are better? 

Thanks for your inside info (taking your name literally).  I really get what you stated in you first para. As an honest question: Why did Gil hurt more People? How have they caused more damage? Again this is a real question out of interest.

2 hours ago, vienna said:

 

 

[formergothardite]

2 minutes ago, vienna said:

Thanks for your inside info (taking your name literally).  I really get what you stated in you first para. As an honest question: Why did Gil hurt more People? How have they caused more damage? Again this is a real question out of interest.

Gil has been helping cover up a heck of a lot of abuse and protect an abuser. The amount of victims is larger than the number with Josh. More people have been hurt by the actions of Gil. 

These are just a small bit of the damage that Gil has helped cover up. There are lots of stories that haven't been told or haven't made it into the lawsuit.

http://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/02/19/second-amended-complaint-filed-in-bill-gothard-iblp-sex-abuse-lawsuit-18-victims-in-lawsuit/

[vienna]

36 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

 

I am having some technical Problems with the quotations; I hope it will work out.

Her it is: I know about the lawsuite and checked your link as well. What I do not know is about the personal responsibilty and fault of Gil Bates. Now please everyone do not Quote this single last sentence from me. I knoW it will cause Trouble. And since I do not want to be put in a Position where I defend Gil Bates, because I have no reason to do so and I personally believe he has to be at fault I want to post again what I actually stated again:

18 hours ago, Exjw2015deed said:

      15 hours ago, AliceInFundyland said:

You are sickened by the Duggars return to tv but yet the Bates staying on tv leaves you stomach at ease? ( And yes, I know you did not say this, but you have made a number of comments leading me to believe you think, mostly, that it is okay for them to have a televison show) If i am mistaken and you don't think the Bates should be on tv either, my apologies, please correct me.

To some extent you are right. The Bates do not bother me as much as the Duggars. Patriarchy, Anti gay Propaganda ect should not have any platform to be promoted. None.

JUST in comparison to the Duggars, they seem so much better to me. But what I really like about them being on TV is the idea of how much it does/would bother the Duggars if the Bates Show became more popular than their own.

I am seeing the Bates not in comparison with the rest of the world and all religions and world views you can have but as a Group within the fundamental conservative quiverfull movement. And within this movement they are the group I root for. To me a lot of their views have the potential to make a positive change from inside the cult. I am not seeing that it will all be great than and that no abused wife will ever be told again that it is her duty to forgive the bastard and to be submissive no matter what because if she does HE will come through and make her husband see the light and become a better man....

I am just saying WITHIN THE MOVEMENT they have EG IN COMPARISION TO THE DUGGARS  in some points healthier views leading to mentally healthier more self-determined Kids/People and hopefully influence totally damaged Kids like Duggar Kids to be brave and find their own views and opinions even if the differ from their parents. Small Baby steps.

[formergothardite]

16 minutes ago, vienna said:

I know about the lawsuite and checked your link as well. What I do not know is about the personal responsibilty and fault of Gil Bates

Gil was one of the few people in the position to protect victims of abuse in IBLP. That was pretty much what his job was. When the accusations of abuse became so wide spread that he and the rest of the board were forced to respond they conducted a sham investigation and claimed that all the victims were basically lying EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW THERE WAS ABUSE. I want to make sure you understand.  Gil and the rest were very aware of abuse, they just chose to cover it up and protect the abuser and IBLP money instead of abuse. Gil did what the Duggars did except on a larger scale. He knew of abuse and instead of doing the right thing, he tried to hide it. In the movement, he is responsible for inflicting more harm than the Duggars because he tried to cover up more abuse than they did. Does this help you any in understanding why the Bates aren't any better?

[VelociRapture]

28 minutes ago, vienna said:

I am having some technical Problems with the quotations; I hope it will work out.

Her it is: I know about the lawsuite and checked your link as well. What I do not know is about the personal responsibilty and fault of Gil Bates. Now please everyone do not Quote this single last sentence from me. I knoW it will cause Trouble. And since I do not want to be put in a Position where I defend Gil Bates, because I have no reason to do so and I personally believe he has to be at fault I want to post again what I actually stated again:

      15 hours ago, AliceInFundyland said:

You are sickened by the Duggars return to tv but yet the Bates staying on tv leaves you stomach at ease? ( And yes, I know you did not say this, but you have made a number of comments leading me to believe you think, mostly, that it is okay for them to have a televison show) If i am mistaken and you don't think the Bates should be on tv either, my apologies, please correct me.

To some extent you are right. The Bates do not bother me as much as the Duggars. Patriarchy, Anti gay Propaganda ect should not have any platform to be promoted. None.

JUST in comparison to the Duggars, they seem so much better to me. But what I really like about them being on TV is the idea of how much it does/would bother the Duggars if the Bates Show became more popular than their own.

I am seeing the Bates not in comparison with the rest of the world and all religions and world views you can have but as a Group within the fundamental conservative quiverfull movement. And within this movement they are the group I root for. To me a lot of their views have the potential to make a positive change from inside the cult. I am not seeing that it will all be great than and that no abused wife will ever be told again that it is her duty to forgive the bastard and to be submissive no matter what because if she does HE will come through and make her husband see the light and become a better man....

I am just saying WITHIN THE MOVEMENT they have EG IN COMPARISION TO THE DUGGARS  in some points healthier views leading to mentally healthier more self-determined Kids/People and hopefully influence totally damaged Kids like Duggar Kids to be brave and find their own views and opinions even if the differ from their parents. Small Baby steps.

Long story short -

Gil, as far as we know, didn't actually sexually abuse anyone. Bill Gothard did.

Gil did, however, conceal the abuse he knew was happening. And he blamed the victims brave enough to speak up too. All to protect his job and the cult he works for.

He is both better and worse than JimBob Duggar. As far as we know, he didn't conceal sexual abuse among his children - but the abuse he did conceal involved far more victims than were involved in the Josh Duggar assaults.

All these adults in all these situations are equally disgusting. Arguing otherwise is pointless. 

(And I also want to point out that the Bates hold the same disgusting views on abortion and LGBTQ rights as the Duggars - so far they've just been far more careful about promoting it as openly as the Duggars.)

[nastyhobbitses]

2 hours ago, RoseWilder said:

What I want to know is how can you ever know what someone really thinks and believes when your family members are reading your texts. You would have to toe the party line to avoid angering Mom and Dad. So you would arrive at your wedding day with no idea what the person you're really marrying thinks, feels, believes about anything. That sounds like a recipe for a disasterous marriage. I guess they might get lucky and end up with someone who actually does have the same beliefs - but there's an ever greater chance you will end up married to a stranger. Fundies are really flying blind when it comes to choosing a marriage partner (oops, I meant when choosing between the 2 possible courtship partners their parents have predetermined they are allowed to court.)

Imagine the wedding day: how nerve-wracking it must be to go from never being alone with someone, never getting to know them, and then having sex with them in the span of a few hours. There was one girl I was talking to about this particular issue, and she said "well, that's what we do in one-night stands", but at least with a one-night stand who turns out to be a dud/not who they say they are, you can just slither out of their bed and not return their texts. Can't do that in a marriage.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, vienna said:

I am having some technical Problems with the quotations; I hope it will work out.

Her it is: I know about the lawsuite and checked your link as well. What I do not know is about the personal responsibilty and fault of Gil Bates. Now please everyone do not Quote this single last sentence from me. I knoW it will cause Trouble. And since I do not want to be put in a Position where I defend Gil Bates, because I have no reason to do so and I personally believe he has to be at fault I want to post again what I actually stated again:

      15 hours ago, AliceInFundyland said:

You are sickened by the Duggars return to tv but yet the Bates staying on tv leaves you stomach at ease? ( And yes, I know you did not say this, but you have made a number of comments leading me to believe you think, mostly, that it is okay for them to have a televison show) If i am mistaken and you don't think the Bates should be on tv either, my apologies, please correct me.

To some extent you are right. The Bates do not bother me as much as the Duggars. Patriarchy, Anti gay Propaganda ect should not have any platform to be promoted. None.

JUST in comparison to the Duggars, they seem so much better to me. But what I really like about them being on TV is the idea of how much it does/would bother the Duggars if the Bates Show became more popular than their own.

I am seeing the Bates not in comparison with the rest of the world and all religions and world views you can have but as a Group within the fundamental conservative quiverfull movement. And within this movement they are the group I root for. To me a lot of their views have the potential to make a positive change from inside the cult. I am not seeing that it will all be great than and that no abused wife will ever be told again that it is her duty to forgive the bastard and to be submissive no matter what because if she does HE will come through and make her husband see the light and become a better man....

I am just saying WITHIN THE MOVEMENT they have EG IN COMPARISION TO THE DUGGARS  in some points healthier views leading to mentally healthier more self-determined Kids/People and hopefully influence totally damaged Kids like Duggar Kids to be brave and find their own views and opinions even if the differ from their parents. Small Baby steps.

The bolded for me is the biggest problem I have with your point of view.

That's like rooting for Jeffrey MacDonald as being a better parent than Andrea Yates because he 'only' killed his 2 daughters and pregnant wife where as she killed 5 of her children.

Hyoerbolic example to make a point - sometimes there is no better, or even 'less bad' and counting victims doesn't matter...the fact that there are victims at all is reason enough not to be rooting for anyone.

And it's not just the victims of sexual abuse, as much as that sickens me.  What about all the families being 'encouraged' by the Bateses, right now, to have kids they can't afford?  Whats he doing to prevent all of those arrows (or as I like to call them, children) from growing up in poverty with too little food and their only medical care the ER?  What's he doing to help the next generation of blessings he's 'encouraging' others to create to financially survive with subpar educations?

What about his daughters?  What if one of the Bates girls had a real aptitude for math, tech, wanted to become a pilot, or an attorney?  Or a doctor?  Run for office?  Would he even know?  Have they been allowed to dream or explore enough to know themselves?  

I'm sorry...when you see your daughters as completely lacking potential outside of help meeting and birthing babies and keeping sweet that's a tragedy - not something to root for.

[crazysnark]

It's a girl. Kaci lynn Bates

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

13 minutes ago, crazysnark said:

It's a girl. Kaci lynn Bates

I think I see a pattern here. Zachary, Whitney, Bradley, Kaci... 

[crazysnark]

Like Addallee ellie Callie Bradley Allie kaci..... I like kaci though. It's a hell of a lot better than Israel or spurgeon. 

[season of life]

Kaci is not so bad as the other names fundies have given their children. I was convinced she was going to have another boy.

[singsingsing]

Kaci Lynn's not a bad name. It seems sort of southern-circa-the-year-2000, but it fits with their style.