Jinger and Jeremy: She's in Shorts?!

[Shadoewolf]

I'm going to drift back to what "fundie" is for a moment. 

My ex's parents are what I call fundie Catholic. They go to church Wednesdays and Sundays, take Communion, pray at meals always and rosaries when needed, had their sons in private Catholic schools until 9th grade (what an awakening the boys had! Proud to have been part of that!). Fairly conservative in how they dress.  They do fasting and no meat throughout Lent. Don't drink. Are very active members of the Knights of Columbus and raised money for a 'crisis' pregnancy center to have an ultrasound machine so women could see their babies and be less inclined to pursue abortion. They've learned the hard way not to press religion on me or my kids and decided its easier to accept both their sons (and wives) being covered in tattoos than not see us.

I would consider anyone that devout to be "fundie" in practice. Wouldn't the Shaolin monks be considered fundie also?  Crunchy hippie types can be outrageous in their devotion to their ways, etc. I don't find the term fundie to be exclusive. 

On a side note, I do give the ex in-laws a ton of credit because my son is my current husband's but they treat him as one of their own grandkids with my daughters. Or may be it's because he's the only boy and the other grandkids (2 mine, 3 the BILs)  5 are girls? 

[PainfullyAware]

7 hours ago, unicorncastle said:

Then why is everyone up in arms about all these Duggar marriages? If we legitimately beleive that that is the type of man these women want, to the point that we think they would leave their husbands and go back home, then why do we care so much about the choices they are making about their lives? They think gay people/feminism/etc is wrong and we are clearly misguided and living our lives wrong.  We think fundamentalism is wrong and they are not living their lives the right way. Isn't it the same thing?

It depends if you think more in terms of moral relativism or universal human rights. I tend towards the latter in this case. I don't think it's the same thing as just different values (mainstream vs Duggar perspectives). These women are in an oppressive religious community and their values are determined by hegemony (they "choose" courtship, modesty standards, fundie partners because of cultural peer pressure). Their worldview is informed by these values and maintained by the threat of social exclusion if they don't conform. 

The mainstream is obviously also subject to hegemonic power too - the cultural peer pressure on body image for women is a good example. But it's much more diffuse and balanced with values around equality, individualism and freedom of expression. Women have a great deal more choice and power over decision making that affects their lives in the mainstream.

So a decision made by a woman in an intensely oppressive environment is much less free than a decision made by a woman in a more pluralistic, egalitarian environment. To be anti-oppression requires that you point that out.

On a bit of a tangent, that's where the whole Emma Watson vs Beyonce issue makes me conflicted. Clearly there is a pattern of female pop stars being pressured towards being sexy for the male gaze (the whole sexual objectification thing). There are too many tropes in music videos for it to be all individual choice. That's hegemony. But what happens if it is a personal choice about sexual empowerment? Beyonce might be more about a female gaze on sexuality?

[VelociRapture]

8 hours ago, I.SignedUpforthis said:

This is my problem, seeing the control aspect of man in Duggar or Bates relationships... Or using them as example when to me it's clear that ...

Jessa is more dominant personality than Ben 

Erin is more dominant than Chad (pink bedroom)

whitney over Zach

jinger over Jeremy or that's what I see 

Jill more dominant than Derick 

alyssa certainly over John 

only Michael may have hero husband Brandon and that seems 50/50 even

If that's true then all those couples are even bigger assholes than I previously assumed. Selling a dangerous and detrimental ideology to the general public while secretly not ascribing to it is about as shitty as it can get. I doubt that's the case though. Which is, I suppose, nice for them since they aren't quite the massive assholes this would make them.

I don't have time to really find threads for you to look at. Even if I did, I might not - because it could just be a big waste of time if you aren't actually interested in reading more on these people. But, just in case (or if anyone else wants to dive into old threads for a bit), here's a thread concerning Gothard and the horrific practices his followers believe:

Maybe not the best or most relevant example, but I have a three month old and I'm tired. So this is the best everyone is getting right now. 

[Iamtheway]

I do think many of us here treat the Duggars as a soap because that is really what it feels like. I have such a hard time believing that there are people out there that have these believes for real. I'm in a constant state of ”but they can't REALLY think that”. 

It's good that we have people here that reminds us that this is for real and that there are no writers we can influence with our wishful thinking. (I'm sure there are writers though, if you read this you can let JB know that all of us would watch a breaking free show. He'll make lots of money if he lets a couple of them go! And he'll still have heaps to continue building his army.)

It is so irresponsible of TLC to make these people look all mainstream and just a bit conservative. They should air each show with a huge warning sign. 

[Snarkle Motion]

6 hours ago, Shadoewolf said:

I would consider anyone that devout to be "fundie" in practice. Wouldn't the Shaolin monks be considered fundie also?  Crunchy hippie types can be outrageous in their devotion to their ways, etc. I don't find the term fundie to be exclusive. 

Monks are typically looking for personal spiritual enlightenment and not forcing random other people to live by their rules. I think devotion to ones faith or personal seeking spiritual enlightenment can be totally healthy endeavors part of the human experience. But they should be freely chosen and pursued not forced on people. They can also go to unhealthy extremes under influence of cults or during times of mental illness. People get excessive or cult like in devotion to non religious things too (exercise, wellness coaches, essential oils, etc). 

[SilverBeach]

8 hours ago, nausicaa said:

 

Hell, there are Fundies who don't even think women should be able to vote or hold any type of position over a man.

Lori Anderson, ugh. She's horrible.

[louisa05]

7 hours ago, Shadoewolf said:

I'm going to drift back to what "fundie" is for a moment. 

My ex's parents are what I call fundie Catholic. They go to church Wednesdays and Sundays, take Communion, pray at meals always and rosaries when needed, had their sons in private Catholic schools until 9th grade (what an awakening the boys had! Proud to have been part of that!). Fairly conservative in how they dress.  They do fasting and no meat throughout Lent. Don't drink. Are very active members of the Knights of Columbus and raised money for a 'crisis' pregnancy center to have an ultrasound machine so women could see their babies and be less inclined to pursue abortion. They've learned the hard way not to press religion on me or my kids and decided its easier to accept both their sons (and wives) being covered in tattoos than not see us.

I would consider anyone that devout to be "fundie" in practice. Wouldn't the Shaolin monks be considered fundie also?  Crunchy hippie types can be outrageous in their devotion to their ways, etc. I don't find the term fundie to be exclusive. 

On a side note, I do give the ex in-laws a ton of credit because my son is my current husband's but they treat him as one of their own grandkids with my daughters. Or may be it's because he's the only boy and the other grandkids (2 mine, 3 the BILs)  5 are girls? 

Your ex in-laws sound like normal practicing Catholics. Maybe slightly conservative. By that criteria, my in-laws are apparently fundies. Most Catholics I know are apparently fundies.

I'm apparently a fundie. We go to church every weekend and teach religious ed on Wednesday night. We follow the prescribed lenten fasts and abstinences. We donate to Catholic Relief Services when we can. We attend fish fries and other events at our parish. We both attended Catholic school from 7th-12th grade. If we had had children, we likely would have considered Catholic schools. 

I don't think that is fundie. Sorry. By your definition, anyone who practices a faith is a fundie. Not so. 

There are people I call fundie Catholics. On the far right end of that are traditional Catholics who eschew Vatican II and insist on Latin mass. On the more liberal end of that is the diocese I grew up in where women are limited in participating in ministries (no female altar servers, lectors or EMHCs, only female cantors when a male is unavailable, limited participation in leadership roles such as being religious ed directors, etc....), some priests enforce dress codes at mass, and most parishioners regard other dioceses as "less" Catholic than them. But Catholics who are regularly at church, involved in parish activities  and pray before meals and sometimes say the rosary--those are just practicing Catholics. 

Also, just a note, Knights of Columbus is a fraternal order for men only, so your ex-MiL is not a member (if their local Knights are allowing female members--well, that is a very liberal parish, so your fundie label is really off). And truly "fundie" Catholics probably would have had more than two children. I would also say that I don't know too many people with grown children who don't dress fairly conservatively. That is more likely just an age thing. And also "fairly conservative" is a vague description--what does that mean? My mother never wears shorts or sleeveless shirts--does that make her a fundie? She is 72. She used to wear both, but hasn't for 10 or 15 years. She doesn't regularly attend church. But I guess since not wearing shorts or sleeveless shirts is "fairly conservative" dress, not going to church, voting for  Democrats all her life, and basically being a liberal is negated and she is a fundie? 

Please, people, let's not define this so broadly. 

 

[VineHeart137]

9 hours ago, I.SignedUpforthis said:

This is my problem, seeing the control aspect of man in Duggar or Bates relationships... Or using them as example when to me it's clear that ...

Jessa is more dominant personality than Ben 

Erin is more dominant than Chad (pink bedroom)

whitney over Zach

jinger over Jeremy or that's what I see 

Jill more dominant than Derick 

alyssa certainly over John 

only Michael may have hero husband Brandon and that seems 50/50 even

You lost me at "Jill is more dominant than Derick." I would really like you to explain that one.

The only one of these couples that I could see you being right about is Jessa and Ben because it's long been established that Jessa is naturally bossy, plus Ben is younger. The others? No. Some of them, like Erin and maybe Whitney, may have more personality and louder mouths than their spouse, but that doesn't equal "dominant".

[AlternativeVoice]

8 hours ago, Chicken bones said:

Actually, it was @AlternativeVoice who had the "facts" about Jeremy. But @I.SignedUpforthis had some...interesting... insights on the dominant players in each relationship.  Can't say i particularly agreeon all those.

I don't have anymore of a window into their lives than anyone else who watches the show. My posts are just simply my opinion on what I see. Nothing else to it. We all process things differently. No harm in that. 

[singsingsing]

4 minutes ago, AlternativeVoice said:

I don't have anymore of a window into their lives than anyone else who watches the show. My posts are just simply my opinion on what I see. Nothing else to it. We all process things differently. No harm in that. 

There is harm in it when you state your opinions/speculations/fantasies/daydreams as fact, other people who are perhaps not very knowledgeable or discerning read it and think that what you're saying has a basis in reality. Obviously it's every individual's responsibility to exercise critical thought, but I think we also have a responsibility to not state opinion as fact.

12 hours ago, AlternativeVoice said:

Jeremy doesn't believe that be "fruitful and multiply " means having a ton of kids. He thinks u can be fruitful by reading and preaching God's word and multiply by converting people. Completely different than what Gorthars teaches. Jeremy isn't following any religious headcase. He wants to be the leader. The next Joel Olsteen if you will. His babies are his congregation. Jinger would never go for a guy that expected a dozen or more kids. She wants to see the world. At first I thought maybe a handful of kids like 5 or 6 but now I doubt they will have more than 4 tops. No real spacing. She's gonna crank them out fast only because she wants to get the baby years out of the way while she is young. Definitely homeschool.

I counted ten assertions in this paragraph that are stated as absolute fact, when in reality they are at best speculation, at worst actually contradicted by some of Jinger/Jeremy's actual statements or known beliefs. 

Please don't post what basically amounts to completely baseless fan fiction and then try to backtrack and say you were only giving your opinion. If it's just your opinion, make that clear. Words matter. Meaning matters. Clarity matters. Truth matters. Enough already with the alternative facts.

[AlternativeVoice]

12 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Genuine questions, because apparently you are privy to information I am not:

1. Where has Jeremy stated that he is not Quiverfull?

2. When did Jinger state that she would never go for a guy who wanted a dozen or more kids? She is one of nineteen, was raised Quiverfull, and to my knowledge has never rejected Quiverfull teachings (which clearly state that birth control in any form is a sin).

3. When did Jinger state she wanted to see the world rather than be a mother?

I understand people feel for the Duggar daughters after all these years of watching them grow up. I also understand being hopeful and I understand seeing small changes as positives and speculating. But I do not understand this wild fan fiction people are writing and putting on here as Gospel truth with zero evidence to back it up (unless these questions have been answered on the show or in an article and I and FJ at large managed to completely miss it.)

If I remember correctly it was on his website or sermon where he said what being fruitful and multiply mean to him, I could be wrong or I could be mistaking him for his dad but I do believe I read it somewhere. My head is such an exhaustive fog these days. So I took that as him saying he sees the world differently and he's not about to have a boat load of little ones based on that sole scripture as if it were commandment. Jinger kept saying that Jeremy and her had the same goals during the show. I could be wrong about that too but I'm sure I heard her say it a few times. It is just my opinion but she seems the least anxious to start a family immediately and never stop until she's in her 40s. I just get the travel vibe from her that's why I said she wants to see the world. Like someone itching to discover new places. 

5 minutes ago, AlternativeVoice said:

If I remember correctly it was on his website or sermon where he said what being fruitful and multiply mean to him, I could be wrong or I could be mistaking him for his dad but I do believe I read it somewhere. My head is such an exhaustive fog these days. So I took that as him saying he sees the world differently and he's not about to have a boat load of little ones based on that sole scripture as if it were commandment. Jinger kept saying that Jeremy and her had the same goals during the show. I could be wrong about that too but I'm sure I heard her say it a few times. It is just my opinion but she seems the least anxious to start a family immediately and never stop until she's in her 40s. I just get the travel vibe from her that's why I said she wants to see the world. Like someone itching to discover new places. 

He said that to be fruitful and multiply isn't the essence of marriage but children are to be enjoyed based on that scripture. 

[AlternativeVoice]

9 minutes ago, AlternativeVoice said:

If I remember correctly it was on his website or sermon where he said what being fruitful and multiply mean to him, I could be wrong or I could be mistaking him for his dad but I do believe I read it somewhere. My head is such an exhaustive fog these days. So I took that as him saying he sees the world differently and he's not about to have a boat load of little ones based on that sole scripture as if it were commandment. Jinger kept saying that Jeremy and her had the same goals during the show. I could be wrong about that too but I'm sure I heard her say it a few times. It is just my opinion but she seems the least anxious to start a family immediately and never stop until she's in her 40s. I just get the travel vibe from her that's why I said she wants to see the world. Like someone itching to discover new places. 

He said that to be fruitful and multiply isn't the essence of marriage but children are to be enjoyed based on that scripture. 

I believe it's one his website under goals of marriage. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

1 hour ago, Iamtheway said:

I do think many of us here treat the Duggars as a soap because that is really what it feels like. I have such a hard time believing that there are people out there that have these believes for real. I'm in a constant state of ”but they can't REALLY think that”. 

This happens very often lately. I just can't understand how anyone could believe that his orangeness was a good choice for a president. And yet. 

[nickelodeon]

I'm not finding a "goals of marriage" section on the GCL site, except for the 90000-page long Statement of Faith which has a bit about the marriage covenant, something something the only alternative to heteronormative marriage is celibacy, something something "redemption and restoration to sinners guilty of desecrating God’s holy standard of marriage and sexual intimacy" etc.

[AlternativeVoice]

10 minutes ago, nickelodeon said:

I'm not finding a "goals of marriage" section on the GCL site, except for the 90000-page long Statement of Faith which has a bit about the marriage covenant, something something the only alternative to heteronormative marriage is celibacy, something something "redemption and restoration to sinners guilty of desecrating God’s holy standard of marriage and sexual intimacy" etc.

It's on Jeremy and Jingers website ! Sorry !

[elliha]

"In Genesis 1:28 God tells Adam and Eve, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Thus, one of the clear purposes of marriage is to enjoy the delight of children! This is not itself the essence of marriage but is often a beautiful gift within the covenant union." http://www.jingerandjeremy.com/courting/

Well, I would not say that this is a definite no to quiverfull but at least a no to the most extreme forms so I guess this could be a suble f- you to JB and Michelle. I am not going to say anything drastic but this is actually quite promising. In 5-10 years we will see what this means when it comes to family size. I love that he says "often a beautiful gift" and is not proclaiming that it is a beautiful gift.

 

[Palimpsest]

 

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

Please, people, let's not define this so broadly. 

I agree.  However, I always find discussions about how people define "fundamentalism" interesting.  I think they can be very informative.

As we seem to have quite a few new members here, and we know not everyone reads the rules, I'll just draw attention to the Guidelines:  http://www.freejinger.org/resources/free-jinger-rules/

And the Welcome New Members section http://www.freejinger.org/resources/welcome-new-members/

From the latter, this seems to be relevant to a few rather baffling recent posts from one new member:

Quote

* Words have meaning on FJ. The majority of members are going to take what you say in the plain English meaning of the words you use.  You will not be able to "baffle them with bullshit" here.  Use "word salads," mansplaining and your own definitions of words at your own risk.

And this to the fact versus opinion debate.

Quote

* If you state something as a fact (rather than your opinion), you should expect that someone will ask you for sources to back up your claim. 

Yes.  And I always appreciate when people can give exact sources.

[SassyPants]

1 hour ago, AlternativeVoice said:

I don't have anymore of a window into their lives than anyone else who watches the show. My posts are just simply my opinion on what I see. Nothing else to it. We all process things differently. No harm in that. 

Add IMO (In my opinion)- very easy.

[Lurky]

12 hours ago, unicorncastle said:

They think gay people/feminism/etc is wrong and we are clearly misguided and living our lives wrong.  We think fundamentalism is wrong and they are not living their lives the right way. Isn't it the same thing?

This is insane.    Of course it's not the same thing, because in no way am I, a gay woman, trying to curtail the rights of the Duggars to change their religious views. 

LGBT people are not actively campaigning for legislation to limit Fundamentalists' rights, or preaching that their relationships are less than ours, or actively try to allow people to deny us every kind of service based on who we love. And in Jeremy's very specific case, we are not running pseudo-therapy sessions to try to make them change their religion, and preaching they'll be damned for eternity if they don't change.  Snarking on FJ is not equivalent to Michelle Duggar's anti-Trans robocalls, Jeremy Vuolo's church anti-gay "therapy", Josh Duggar's work in Washington & hundreds of other examples of the Duggars and Duggar-adjacents actively trying to deny people like me our basic human rights.

I am assuming you're enjoying yourself trolling, because I can't for the life of me believe a real LGBT person doesn't understand this simple fact.

[Fundie Bunny]

10 hours ago, Shadoewolf said:

I'm going to drift back to what "fundie" is for a moment. 

My ex's parents are what I call fundie Catholic. They go to church Wednesdays and Sundays, take Communion, pray at meals always and rosaries when needed, had their sons in private Catholic schools until 9th grade (what an awakening the boys had! Proud to have been part of that!). Fairly conservative in how they dress.  They do fasting and no meat throughout Lent. Don't drink. Are very active members of the Knights of Columbus and raised money for a 'crisis' pregnancy center to have an ultrasound machine so women could see their babies and be less inclined to pursue abortion. They've learned the hard way not to press religion on me or my kids and decided its easier to accept both their sons (and wives) being covered in tattoos than not see us.

I would consider anyone that devout to be "fundie" in practice. Wouldn't the Shaolin monks be considered fundie also?  Crunchy hippie types can be outrageous in their devotion to their ways, etc. I don't find the term fundie to be exclusive. 

On a side note, I do give the ex in-laws a ton of credit because my son is my current husband's but they treat him as one of their own grandkids with my daughters. Or may be it's because he's the only boy and the other grandkids (2 mine, 3 the BILs)  5 are girls? 

That's not fundamentalist catholic, that's called being conservative. Have you Heard about the Opus dei? Or the Neocatechumenal way, which is Just weird as hell? Those are fundamentalist catholic denominations. By your definition the tenth part of my country would be a fundie

[RosyDaisy]

The only dominate woman in the Duggar or Bates is Kelly Bates. That's based solely on the show. She barks orders and dominates pretty much every conversation and TH.

[actuallyjessica]

well may she continue 'barking orders', eh?

[Pukingpearl]

11 hours ago, I.SignedUpforthis said:

This is my problem, seeing the control aspect of man in Duggar or Bates relationships... Or using them as example when to me it's clear that ...

Jessa is more dominant personality than Ben 

Erin is more dominant than Chad (pink bedroom)

whitney over Zach

jinger over Jeremy or that's what I see 

Jill more dominant than Derick 

alyssa certainly over John 

only Michael may have hero husband Brandon and that seems 50/50 even

So I don't disagree with some of those. I think this is one of those sticky issues with fundamentalism. Even if you believe the man has authority in your family ordained by God, you might get lucky and marry someone who's a loving spouse, kind, considers your opinion, etc. It's the women who didn't get lucky who suffer most in patriarchal systems. As weird as they all seem to us sometimes, the Duggars, Bates, and Paynes are the families selected by IBLP to be the face of their beliefs, and I certainly think that having men who give off some appearance of being loving husbands no fathers plays into that. I'd be willing to be that's not the norm. 

[nausicaa]

29 minutes ago, Lurky said:

I am assuming you're enjoying yourself trolling, because I can't for the life of me believe a real LGBT person doesn't understand this simple fact.

I'm beginning to wonder the same thing. Good to know I'm not alone.

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, SassyPants said:

Add IMO (In my opinion)- very easy.

Even opinions should be backed up by something that vaguely resembles evidence.