Bates Family Part 13: Like Lipstick on a Pig

[lascuba]

3 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

To me, it doesn't matter if she doesn't support him "in her heart" because nobody can see her heart. It's what she does that matters.

Exactly. And I even agree that just based on their sheer numbers and what a lot of ex-fundies say, there must be at least one in the whole brood who secretly believes their parents are full of shit about everything and might even be flaming atheists in their heads, but...who cares? It's certainly interesting, and when or if they come out with it I'd be as sympathetic and fascinated as the next person, but to make the leap into assuming that about specific people, and then getting mad at posters who judge them *on the things they say and do,* is ridiculous. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

39 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

To me, it doesn't matter if she doesn't support him "in her heart" because nobody can see her heart. It's what she does that matters.

This. If what is apparent is your support what you think doesn't matter, you are supporting a candidate with hateful and dangerous beliefs. Here there's a say "chi tace acconsente" loosely translated as "who doesn't speak up is in agreement". Imho if you are present at political public events aimed to gather consensus for a candidate and you are seen partecipating all smiling and happy then you are endorsing that candidate and you should be held responsible for it (if you're an adult). If your political ideas are different either stay at home or campaign for your opinions. I admit that there's a big cultural difference in this regarding family members of politicians. In Italy there was outrage when the Prime Minister's wife took part in state trips or other official events. She isn't an elected representative of our State (nor is him technically, but that's another story) and if she was there only as a decorative piece for photo op with koalas she had better stayed at home. Same thing when the Husband of the President of Camera dei Deputati went with her on a State trip. We don't presume a spouse has the same beliefs or the same political opinions of the other spouse, same with other family members and friends. Also it happened more than once that husband and wife were elected to the Parliament for completely different parties. Private life and public held positions don't overlap most of the time.

[Tiny Bubbles]

I saw my first Bates episode just now - the baby shower for Bradley. 

Yep, I agree with many posters that the Bates come off as warmer and more engaging than the Duggars.  

Based on my limited viewing, Gil and JB strike me as two of a kind. Kelly might be a more effective marketer for the lifestyle than Michelle because she presents as more friendly, stable and competent. Kelly appears to have held onto her marbles somehow.  Michelle always just seemed so damaged to me.  I could never imagine her calling all the older girls together and in a straightforward way parcelling out jobs in preparation for a baby shower, like I just saw Kelly do. (Who knows what they do and how they act in real life, of course.)

Anyway, I have been so curious after reading all your comments that I just finally had to check out BUB for myself.   Thumbs down on the phoney Bates from me-- altho darned if I don't find myself with a mild soft spot for Erin and Chad..!?!

 

[feministxtian]

The married Bates kids have been out of the house for what? Three years max? They're still trying to figure out their own adult selves. We don't know what's in their heads or hearts at this time. If they're still firmly entrenched in the cult in 10 years, then yes, the criticism would be justified. Until then, it's a wait and see game. 

Whitney's birth parents: Maybe she got removed from the home because her birth parents had drug/alcohol issues. Maybe they're clean, straight and sober now and safe for Bradley. My daughter and her partner lost their kids due to just that. No abuse to the kids, a whole lot of neglect. Dad got his shit straight, finished college, remarried and could then provide a stable home for the girls. So, we gave them back. If we thought the girls were going back into a shitty situation, we wouldn't have given them back. 

So...again, it's a wait and see game. I was 18 in 1982. Up until 2008 I voted republican. So I was what? 44? It took me THAT long to pull my head out of my ass. 

[what the heck]

15 hours ago, JemimaPuddle-Duck said:

Seriously. That becky m lady posts on all of their instagram accountsand she's kinda nuts. She made a comment about how she has to remind herself not to get impatient or upset when they don't respond to her comments in a timely manner. I'd be genuinely concerned about her if I was them  

She has stated on a bates fan page that she "knows" that Nathan and Ashley will get married bc of how they look at each other! Umm ok!

[refugee]

On April 1, 2016 at 8:43 AM, formergothardite said:

It isn't a prophet in the sense that the word is often used. Gothard had his own definitions of words. But yes, lots of women were said to have the gift of prophecy. People who had that gift could get away with a whole lot more because it was expected that they would be blunt, in your face, and would stand up for themselves(and their friends/family). 

Oh lord. Maybe that's the gift of the person who blindsided me last week and sent me into a tailspin. Whereas my gift is/was mercy (compassion, understanding, to a fault really).

Blunt, in my face, totally legalistic and without compassion. Everything is black and white, there is no gray.

I stayed home from church today actually to avoid this person, can you believe it?

It's hard for me to go to church with spouse and eldest as it is, even though it is a different and more loving church than what we left.

Maybe I'm the one being judgmental, but I just don't have the emotional energy to socialize with judgmental people right now.

[lascuba]

2 hours ago, feministxtian said:

The married Bates kids have been out of the house for what? Three years max? They're still trying to figure out their own adult selves. We don't know what's in their heads or hearts at this time. If they're still firmly entrenched in the cult in 10 years, then yes, the criticism would be justified. Until then, it's a wait and see game. 

Whitney's birth parents: Maybe she got removed from the home because her birth parents had drug/alcohol issues. Maybe they're clean, straight and sober now and safe for Bradley. My daughter and her partner lost their kids due to just that. No abuse to the kids, a whole lot of neglect. Dad got his shit straight, finished college, remarried and could then provide a stable home for the girls. So, we gave them back. If we thought the girls were going back into a shitty situation, we wouldn't have given them back. 

So...again, it's a wait and see game. I was 18 in 1982. Up until 2008 I voted republican. So I was what? 44? It took me THAT long to pull my head out of my ass. 

Many if not most people are not the same as they were 10 years ago. What does that matter in the context of this discussion? We can only judge based on what we know. No one is saying that these people are irredeemable and there's no hope of change. But until that change happens, it downright dishonest to ignore that harm they do in the presesnt. 

[VelociRapture]

20 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Many if not most people are not the same as they were 10 years ago. What does that matter in the context of this discussion? We can only judge based on what we know. No one is saying that these people are irredeemable and there's no hope of change. But until that change happens, it downright dishonest to ignore that harm they do in the presesnt. 

I can't like this enough.

I see what the other poster was trying to say because I used to think the same thing about the Duggar kids. It's really easy to feel sympathy for a lot of the second generation because they had no choice in how they were raised - and especially for the Bates offspring because they are extremely charismatic and PR savvy people.

Over time though, I'm changing my opinion on that. It doesn't mean I don't feel sympathy for the fact that they're born into shitty families or that I think they are beyond helping - it just means that I acknowledge they are legal adults now who have the choice to stay or leave. The fact that they may not realize they have a choice is, of course, important to acknowledge, but it doesn't absolve them of responsibility for the beliefs they actively or passively promote.

[refugee]

1 hour ago, refugee said:

Oh lord. Maybe that's the gift of the person who blindsided me last week and sent me into a tailspin. Whereas my gift is/was mercy (compassion, understanding, to a fault really).

Blunt, in my face, totally legalistic and without compassion. Everything is black and white, there is no gray.

I stayed home from church today actually to avoid this person, can you believe it?

It's hard for me to go to church with spouse and eldest as it is, even though it is a different and more loving church than what we left.

Maybe I'm the one being judgmental, but I just don't have the emotional energy to socialize with judgmental people right now.

Tried to edit this, but the time limit passed as I was typing my edit, so here's another post on spiritual gifts, since a couple of people asked about online tests.

The whole spiritual gifts phenomena, as I was introduced to it, was popularized in a couple of books by Don and Katie Fortune, Discover Your God-Given Gifts and Discover Your Children's Spiritual Gifts, published (I think) in the 1980s. I don't know if the authors were influenced by Gothard, or if he and his people were influenced by the Fortunes, or if they came up with their stuff independently.

ETA: One thing I do remember is a chart that showed each gift and its spiritual and carnal applications. That is, everyone has a spiritual gift that they might use in the world, not just for spiritual life, and also has its downside if not properly channeled (so if your gift is administration, you might be really good at organizing -- the downside to this gift might be becoming a control-freak, or OCD). Charts are not just a Gothard/ATI thing. The chart I remember bore little resemblance to the ATI charts I've seen, which have a distinct style of their own. (very 50s in their "feel" to me)

The gift of mercy, as it was explained to me, was a matter of empathy and compassion; I don't remember "prayer" being mentioned as a part of it but I suppose that if you felt empathy for someone you might be inclined to pray for them, I don't know. Of course, we were never in ATI or attended IBLP, we were just heavily influenced by the Gothardites who surrounded us and infiltrated our state homeschooling organization.

Here's one version I found (don't know who put it together):
http://giftstest.com/allgifts

I found a number of websites with free tests:
http://giftstest.com/

https://gifts.churchgrowth.org/cgi-cg/gifts.cgi?intro=1

http://www.spiritualgiftstest.com/test/adult (has a registration form but allows you to take the test as a "guest" without registering, it appears.

http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/spiritual-gifts-online-assessment (The Methodist Church's version)

http://mintools.com/spiritual-gifts-test.htm

[roddma]

The talk of escaping reminds me of how some fans brag how the kids aren't part of gangs and blah blah In the DUggar's 20 and Counting book, I recall a part where the kids say "Look at all those people dressed alike or wearing nose rings ". They go onto say they dress alike because of the Bible and not peer pressure. Excuse me, a legalistic system as theirs uses a gang like mentality to keep everyone together.

[nastyhobbitses]

5 hours ago, roddma said:

The talk of escaping reminds me of how some fans brag how the kids aren't part of gangs and blah blah In the DUggar's 20 and Counting book, I recall a part where the kids say "Look at all those people dressed alike or wearing nose rings ". They go onto say they dress alike because of the Bible and not peer pressure. Excuse me, a legalistic system as theirs uses a gang like mentality to keep everyone together.

It reminds me of the fans bragging about how they're so much better than the Kardashians. Yeah, one's a family who sells their adult daughters' personal lives to the highest bidder and pimps out their minor children to television while neglecting their education, and the other one lives in LA.

[Melissa1977]

15 hours ago, Tiny Bubbles said:

I saw my first Bates episode just now - the baby shower for Bradley. 

Yep, I agree with many posters that the Bates come off as warmer and more engaging than the Duggars.  

Based on my limited viewing, Gil and JB strike me as two of a kind. Kelly might be a more effective marketer for the lifestyle than Michelle because she presents as more friendly, stable and competent. Kelly appears to have held onto her marbles somehow.  Michelle always just seemed so damaged to me.  I could never imagine her calling all the older girls together and in a straightforward way parcelling out jobs in preparation for a baby shower, like I just saw Kelly do. (Who knows what they do and how they act in real life, of course.)

 

 

It's my opinion too. I will never defend Kelly, but she seems mentally healthy (well, considering she has had 19 kids) and Michelle doesn't. Michelle is like a robot, to me she's always acting, she's disconnected of her feelings or thoughts. Kelly is real, she can be an abuser with her training methods, and I'm not saying she's the lovely mum she tries to show. But she's not mad.

And I think this is why Bates older children are (or seem to be) more normal than Duggar's older children. Duggars not only have been raised in lack of freedom, badly homeschooled and beaten (like Bates), but also have been raised by a mother who seems to be menthally insane. So Bates have had better luck.

Just my opinion watching their videos. I can be absolutely wrong, of course.

[SweetFellowshipper]

On 4/3/2016 at 1:09 AM, colors_outside15 said:

i just had a thought i can't shake off.

from what very, very little scripted shit we see about zach and whitney, they seem to love bradley very much and to have a healthy relationship with him. however, whatever whitney's reasons are for reconciling with her birth parents: they HAD to do something horrifically heinous to lose her. i don't care how brainwashed she is, she remembers. another man walked her down the aisle to zach. she created bradley with zach. if she loves her son, why would she have him pack a suitcase to spend the night at the house with parents who lost custody of her? i know i know because ... jesus. and forgiveness. 

but i don't care. bradley is a baby. protect him. it's your only god damn job, and if you're going to suck at it, stop having kids and get an actual job. 

/yes i'm angry tonight. but seriously. you don't do that to your baby. YOU DON'T!!! how do i know? i spent my life keeping mine away as much as humanely possible. even when that meant throwing myself over them to take the beating. even when that meant running away carrying a couple of them because the house was so dangerous, and figuring i wouldn't be missed, and they wouldn't notice the lack of little ones. it was worth it every single time if it saved them even an ounce of pain. and technically, i'm not a mom. and that actually hurts because it would be easier to say that i'm so sad because i miss my children. so yeah, hug your belly on instagram, and then hand over your children to zach's abusive parents and your abusive parents, so you can sweet fellowship and make more babies. jesus isn't real. and if he is, i hate him, and i'll him that to his face. sorry, to everyone who is religious, but if a guy in the sky has the power to stop evil, he should. so, frankly, i'd rather there be no one in the sky, keep taking care of myself as always, and shut everyone out until my buddies find me. and they'll never get out and find me. if there's real hell, i'd take it over this.

ps - not suicidal. just. damnit.

All it would actually take would be alcohol/drug abuse or an arrest, especially in such a conservative area. 

Also, a family member who doesn't support their family member running for office has no obligation to do so "quietly" or not run around stating their views. I understand the sense of betrayal, but what about how a candidate betrays their family member if they run on an anti LGBT platform and that person is gay, for example?

[just...sare]

14 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I can't like this enough.

I see what the other poster was trying to say because I used to think the same thing about the Duggar kids. It's really easy to feel sympathy for a lot of the second generation because they had no choice in how they were raised - and especially for the Bates offspring because they are extremely charismatic and PR savvy people.

Over time though, I'm changing my opinion on that. It doesn't mean I don't feel sympathy for the fact that they're born into shitty families or that I think they are beyond helping - it just means that I acknowledge they are legal adults now who have the choice to stay or leave. The fact that they may not realize they have a choice is, of course, important to acknowledge, but it doesn't absolve them of responsibility for the beliefs they actively or passively promote.

I think... it might be the difference between sympathy and empathy. Sympathy allows us to say "They grew up in a lousy situation that was out of their control, and that's terrible... but they're still responsible for their thoughts and actions now," while empathy makes us want to believe that each little thing they do is a quiet rebellion because we are projecting our sympathy for their "situation" onto their actions. "If I was in this situation, that's one of the subtle ways I would show that I was breaking away."

 

I don't know if that makes sense outside of my head.

[season of life]

This has nothing to do with the Alyssa debacle, but holy cow, I feel like Becky M needs her own thread! In her Instagram bio, she claims she has been a Duggar supporter for 10 plus years. She follows fundies as closely as we do.

[iweartanktops]

WHY do people think the Bates kids have so much freedom? I don't get it. Since when is it "freedom" to go confess to kissing your partner in your twenties (or ever)? This is just one example of the lack of freedom in this family. 

[nokidsmom]

Quote

On 4/3/2016 at 8:38 PM, Palimpsest said:

Ron Reagan, Jr. definitely disagreed with his father's politics.  He kept quiet and did not actively go on the campaign trail, unlike Maureen and Michael.  

23 hours ago, withaj said:

I love, love, love the irony that the literal Junior ended up being the one with diametrically opposed political views to his father's. You're right that he was tactful in not speaking openly about it until later.

I thought it was great irony too but tactful as well.   IIRC there was an article a few years ago where he discussed why he kept quiet.  He answered he didn't want the political differences known at the time because he didn't want to create the impression that he and his dad were on bad terms because they were not.

 

[THERetroGamerNY]

11 minutes ago, iweartanktops said:

WHY do people think the Bates kids have so much freedom? I don't get it. Since when is it "freedom" to go confess to kissing your partner in your twenties (or ever)? This is just one example of the lack of freedom in this family. 

Right?!?!

It's like some sort of slippery slope with these families. You start to soften in regards to them. Then you start to think "Aw, look at the cute babies!" Yeah... lots and LOTS of cute babies.

Then you start to think "Heck, compared to the Duggars, they are not so bad!"

Next thing you know, you're considering entering that stupid "Be the 20th Bates for a Day" contest UPtv is doing, because you want to meet them.

They should be treated as a radioactive hazard at ALL times.

[nokidsmom]

1 minute ago, THERetroGamerNY said:

Right?!?!

It's like some sort of slippery slope with these families. You start to soften in regards to them. Then you start to think "Aw, look at the cute babies!" Yeah... lots and LOTS of cute babies.

Then you start to think "Heck, compared to the Duggars, they are not so bad!"

Next thing you know, you're considering entering that stupid "Be the 20th Bates for a Day" contest UPtv is doing, because you want to meet them.

They should be treated as a radioactive hazard at ALL times.

To the bolded: thank you.  I posted in an earlier thread that the family should be considered like kryptonite.  Especially around here.

[GreenTea]

So a Bates Blog accounted that Trace Bates (19 years old) and Carlin Bates (17 years old) are graduating from high school this year (2016) and the Bates family is hosting a graduation party on Saturday, April 30th. Gil and Kelly Bates will announce the details of the party in the coming weeks. http://www.batesfamilyblog.com/2016/04/youre-invited.html#comment-form

Are they really inviting the public to the kid's high school graduation party? That could turn out to be a big mess. Why did Trace graduate two years after Carlin? If she completed her studies at 17 and him at 19. Was he just a slacker? I wonder if they are going to go to college. Or be allowed to go somewhere other then Clown College. 

[Dandruff]

This has probably been asked before, but I wonder how UP TV feels about the IBLP lawsuit/Gil being a defendant.  From the UP TV website (What is UP?):

"We present original movies, dramatic and reality series, comedies and specials filled with inspirational stories and characters with character. That’s why we are one of the most trusted Networks in Cable."

What if the details of the lawsuit become more public and/or Gil is found guilty?

[withaj]

1 minute ago, GreenTea said:

Who lives close by the Bates (same state) and wants to go and report back what happened there? 

I believe it's been established that seeking out any of these folks in Real Life is discouraged, but if members choose to do so on their own time, they shouldn't do so as representatives of FJ and they shouldn't discuss it here.

I just checked the ToU and don't see anything that speaks directly to this, but @Curious, can you chime in here? 

[GreenTea]

2 minutes ago, withaj said:

I believe it's been established that seeking out any of these folks in Real Life is discouraged, but if members choose to do so on their own time, they shouldn't do so as representatives of FJ and they shouldn't discuss it here.

I just checked the ToU and don't see anything that speaks directly to this, but @Curious, can you chime in here? 

Didn't mean to break any rules. I was just curious as to what the turn out would be if the Bates invite the public and how they plan to handle that. If it's not something to post I can rephrase or take if off. 

[Palimpsest]

I spent too much energy yesterday calling out Batesesses lovers.  I enjoyed one status update after my little rampage though.  Something about FJ being all about ass pats and hand slaps.  Glad she noticed.  

On a lighter note: I was curious so I decided to do the spiritualgiftstest.com test mentioned above.  I tried to be honest - but it took far too long for me to be completely accurate.  There are 105 different questions!  Once I started I had to slog through it all - because I'm persistent like that.  There are 15 gifts on this test.

My results - Top 3:  

Discernment 31:  Apparently I have the gift to recognize and distinguish between the influence of God, Satan, the world, and the flesh.  Very odd.  I answered the questions as honestly as I could given the fact that I don't believe in God.  Or Satan.  I do believe in living an ethical life and think I know right from wrong.  

Administration 29:  Apparently having a tidy desk is very important when you are organizing, directing and implementing plans to lead others in the various ministries of the Church  my professional field.

Mercy 28: So I have the gift to love and assist those who are suffering and walk with them until The Lord allows their burden to be lifted they feel better.  Or not.

I only scored 24 for Wisdom and that pissed me off.

The bottom three were:

Evangelism 0

Faith 0

Prophesy 0

Well they got those right!

[HerNameIsBuffy]

8 minutes ago, GreenTea said:

So a Bates Blog accounted that Trace Bates (19 years old) and Carlin Bates (17 years old) are graduating from high school this year (2016) and the Bates family is hosting a graduation party on Saturday, April 30th. Gil and Kelly Bates will announce the details of the party in the coming weeks. http://www.batesfamilyblog.com/2016/04/youre-invited.html#comment-form

Are they really inviting the public to the kid's high school graduation party? That could turn out to be a big mess. 

Who lives close by the Bates (same state) and wants to go and report back what happened there? Why did Trace graduate two years after Carlin? If she completed her studies at 17 and him at 19. Was he just a slacker? I wonder if they are going to go to college. Or be allowed to go somewhere other then Clown College. 

Or you could not be completely creepy and show up at a graduation party with the sole intent of mocking it.  The fuck?

As has been stated ....repeatedly....we have no desire to control what people do on their own time.  

I'm sure others will disagree but to me this is very different than attending a Maxwell Seminar of Boredom or an Arndt Classic.  Maxwells are making money and trying to convert people to their weird scheduling and teach people how to use an internet browser cult...and doing public presentations.

Arndts have had proball players there and events for the kids...it is an activity put on for the general public and advertised as such.

This is a couple of idiots Gil and Kelly being completely reckless IMO and clearly opened it up for their fan and humpers.  

I'm not even talking about the rules in this post - just about being a decent human being and not crashing an event where morons stupidly issued an open invite just to be an asshole.