Whitney and Zach Bates - Part 3

[catlady]

1 hour ago, SassyPants said:

..... and at Disney my daughter wore a black and white striped tank top and jeans and C. wore a black and white pin striped tee and jean shorts. 

matching and/or coordinating is a good idea in a crowded place like Disney; if someone gets separated, you won't forget what they're wearing, and you might spot them in a crowd faster.  when Mr. CL and i take my cousin to the fair, etc., the 2 of them wear matching tees, and i wear the same color (cousin is special-needs); we usually pick something bright like pink or yellow.  we also take photos of each other with both phones before leaving the house; we've never needed to use them, but we feel better for having done so.

[Melissa1977]

22 hours ago, Carm_88 said:

I don't know how I feel about matching with your baby, but to each their own. It feels odd to me. Whitney looks very nice though and Kaci Lynn is cute. 

I'm ok with matching but I don't like Kaci's outfit. The black flowered fabric does not look nice in a baby. And the mix of flowers, big bow and jewerly makes the baby less cute than she would be in a plain baby dress. Whit is exaggerating this girly thing. I hope Kaci is not a tomboy because it'd be a hard childhood for her.

Maybe Whit suffered the lack of nice clothes as a kid and she's doing her best with Kaci, but gives me a suffocating vibe.

[nausicaa]

3 hours ago, actuallyjessica said:

The bows get just as much talk as pants, haha. Often the people who have an issue with the pants talk are the ones complaining about the bows. I think it's hilarious

If you want to convince people that you're not a troll and that your against the grain opinions have merit, you might want to tone down the bitterness and shit stirring a bit. 

I disagreed with the troll accusations against you because of your beliefs for a long time, but you've pretty much done your best to cast yourself as one at this point.

[actuallyjessica]

34 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

If you want to convince people that you're not a troll and that your against the grain opinions have merit, you might want to tone down the bitterness and shit stirring a bit. 

I disagreed with the troll accusations against you because of your beliefs for a long time, but you've pretty much done your best to cast yourself as one at this point.

My post was in jest, not at all bitter. I'm surprised that people seem to keep tabs on my posts enough to think I come here with some altera motive other than to contribute to the conversation. Not everyone agrees with my posts, and that's ok. I like democracy. I can assure you though, I'm not a troll. If I were, I'm not doing a very good job at being one. I rarely post. :)

[singsingsing]

3 hours ago, actuallyjessica said:

My post was in jest, not at all bitter. I'm surprised that people seem to keep tabs on my posts enough to think I come here with some altera motive other than to contribute to the conversation. Not everyone agrees with my posts, and that's ok. I like democracy. I can assure you though, I'm not a troll. If I were, I'm not doing a very good job at being one. I rarely post.

I don't think anyone has to keep tabs on your posts to notice this pattern, to be honest. I have nothing at all against you, but it's very obvious that you think the Bateses are criticized too harshly and that you have an issue with the majority of things that are posted here. You post enough for that to come across loud and clear, and I have noticed at least a few of your comments seem to verge on purposeful shit-stirring.

Honestly, if you want to consistently go against the prevailing viewpoint of the majority on FJ and sort of be a Bates apologist / devil's advocate, you'll attract a lot of criticism and some anger and scorn, but it's not (as far as I know) against the rules. The problem is when you put on the innocent act and play dumb. You know what you're doing, we know what you're doing. If you're going to do it, just own it. It becomes trolling when you do it, and then deny you're doing it.

[actuallyjessica]

1 hour ago, singsingsing said:

I don't think anyone has to keep tabs on your posts to notice this pattern, to be honest. I have nothing at all against you, but it's very obvious that you think the Bateses are criticized too harshly and that you have an issue with the majority of things that are posted here. You post enough for that to come across loud and clear, and I have noticed at least a few of your comments seem to verge on purposeful shit-stirring.

Honestly, if you want to consistently go against the prevailing viewpoint of the majority on FJ and sort of be a Bates apologist / devil's advocate, you'll attract a lot of criticism and some anger and scorn, but it's not (as far as I know) against the rules. The problem is when you put on the innocent act and play dumb. You know what you're doing, we know what you're doing. If you're going to do it, just own it. It becomes trolling when you do it, and then deny you're doing it.

thanks for your response.

after reading your observations, this could go around and around in circles as to what people perceive my intentions to be. the majority of FJ members are american, and i am not. so maybe my attempt at humor or casual comments don't translate very well sometimes?

i'm not intentionally trying to get a rise out of people. in fact, it upsets me to know i have obviously rubbed certain members the wrong way. i've noticed that it is usually the same couple of people that respond to my posts in a negative tone, even though we have clashed in the past and i have their posts hidden, so i'm not sure why some go out of their way to engage with me.

i'm not very familiar with trolls, but if i am perceived as a troll, surely i would be treated like one, and that is to 'never feed the troll'?  because that would be what a troll would want, wouldn't it?
with me, it does the opposite. my heart pounds and i get a huge lump in my throat because i don't like conflict - online, or offline.

and as for the bates... yeah, sure, i'm partial to some of the bates kids, but it's because i hold out hope that they'll be the ones to lead their children and siblings out of the cult, even if it is unlikely. even then, i don't really post positive things, just observations.

i think gil and kelly are assholes, just like jim bob and michelle, and all the other parents that have led their families like sheep to slaughter.

[snickers34]

7 hours ago, actuallyjessica said:

My post was in jest, not at all bitter.

If this was the case, the message was lost. What I'm trying to say is that, if you are for real and not just a troll, you might want to be more thoughtful about your words and tone. Online forums generally are incredibly difficult to navigate in that regard. Although I spend a good amount of time editing posts to ensure my intentions are accurately conveyed, I still slip up from time to time and occasionally apologize and re-explain. I'd encourage you to work on that, especially if you are going to criticize the forum and very people you are trying to engage with.

[snickers34]

Getting back to Whitney, man oh man! I didn't know any of this either. This whole adoption thing, in my mind, could explain a lot. There seems to be a pattern (though the data set is small) of men outside of the fundie world ending up with fundie women, in contrast to non-fundie women marrying in. Whitney, however, is the only woman willing to join this lifestyle (from what I can tell?). Anna & Kendra have inhaled the kool-aid their whole life. Again, data set being Bates and Duggars, so grain of salt.

Sadly, I can imagine enough men in the world loving the idea of a submissive wife, but women who aren't previously brainwashed actively joining this shitshow? Seems less prevalent. Whitney having family issues, whatever they might be, could explain her draw towards this whole sterile, picture perfect family situation.

[Carm_88]

13 hours ago, snickers34 said:

Seems less prevalent. Whitney having family issues, whatever they might be, could explain her draw towards this whole sterile, picture perfect family situation.

Cults do tend to attract the vulnerable. So, it's not shocking that seeing the perfect family and maybe having stability herself would appeal to Whitney. 

[VelociRapture]

15 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

Cults do tend to attract the vulnerable. So, it's not shocking that seeing the perfect family and maybe having stability herself would appeal to Whitney. 

Exactly. Whitney is one good example. The Duggars are another. We've discussed it before, but I think it's important to emphasis they were emotionally vulnerable and taken advantage of by their Doctor after suffering a miscarriage early in their marriage. They could still have wound up Fundie, but it's equally possible that the Doctor's bogus birth control claims sent them further down that road. 

The ones who really confuse and scare me are the ones who seem perfectly normal, but get sucked in anyways. Like Gil and Kelly. Sure, they may have been conservative Christians already. But how the fuck do you out from being college-educated with  good job to leading a freaking cult and raising 19 kids to basically be live-in servants until they're sold off in marriage?

[lizzybee]

@VelociRapture that is something to get the microscope out over. What the heck is going on with the Bates? What's this whole "we are clearly in a cult but the rest of our family isn't but seems fine with it, now let's play football!" dynamic. How did we get here? 

I know Kelly's parents got divorced and she and her siblings were split up between them if I remember the story correctly so maybe an overreaction to that and wanting to make sure her family was different? Didn't she say her older brother was killed young too? 

[infooverload]

[mention=18856]VelociRapture[/mention] that is something to get the microscope out over. What the heck is going on with the Bates? What's this whole "we are clearly in a cult but the rest of our family isn't but seems fine with it, now let's play football!" dynamic. How did we get here? 
I know Kelly's parents got divorced and she and her siblings were split up between them if I remember the story correctly so maybe an overreaction to that and wanting to make sure her family was different? Didn't she say her older brother was killed young too? 

Hmm for some reason I didn't realize her parents had divorced. I definitely think Kelly was the driver into fundamentalism. If you look at Gil's parents both worked and strike me as run of the mill conservative Christian's. Gil if I remember correctly changed from being a Methodist to a Baptist as a teenager. Kelly was the one according to their narrative to bring up not using birth control. This was less than a month into the marriage and it sounded as though still being in the honeymoon phase Gil agreed and things progressed from there.

[lizzybee]

In the episode of BUB last season where Kelly visits her childhood home with her sisters and their friend she talks about her parents divorcing and her staying with her mom and that her sisters went with the father, I believe. I'm going to go check and will return. 

Edit: Okay yes, she says she was in the 3rd grade when her parents got divorced and her siblings went with her father to living in Tenn and she stayed in SC with her mother. She says it was really hard and owing to all the tears from herself and her sisters/friend I'm guessing it was super tough. Divorce usually is, unfortunately. 

In that episode, KJ also goes back to her school and she talks about how strong of a student she was. I wonder how being near the top of her class/devoted student translated to her being attracted to IBLP. 

[Lurky]

What I'm wondering is what age they stop putting ridiculous bows on their daughters?  Or is it not age-related, but dependent on hair length?  I find it completely incomprehensible how Fundies need to gender-identify the babies with giant bows, flowers, fake pigtails etc, down to one of the Bateses (Whitney?) having flowers on her baby's socks, but I'm wondering how extreme it'll get before the pendulum swings back.....

[Carm_88]

1 hour ago, Lurky said:

...down to one of the Bateses (Whitney?) having flowers on her baby's socks, but I'm wondering how extreme it'll get before the pendulum swings back.....

It was Whitney, at Tabitha Paine's wedding. 

[bal maiden]

Most of the actual sociological and anthropological research into who joins cults/religious movements, and why they do so, is a bit more nuanced than 'vulnerable people get sucked in'. Yes, there are plenty of groups who do prey on people in vulnerable situations (looking at you, Jehovah's Witnesses...), but actually the profile of a joiner is best described as someone who is a 'spiritual seeker' of some kind, and that 'seeker' type of behaviour can be driven by a number of factors. Not all vulnerable people join a religious movement, and not all joiners are traumatized and vulnerable. There is something else there which is a (the?) major factor involved.

To put Kelly Jo joining IBLP as down to her parents' divorce is a bit of a reductive narrative, and when we insist on seeing all cult membership as a factor of trauma, it can obscure other reasons and mechanisms by which people become involved. 

[MistofRain752]

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 2:34 PM, Lurky said:

What I'm wondering is what age they stop putting ridiculous bows on their daughters?  Or is it not age-related, but dependent on hair length?  I find it completely incomprehensible how Fundies need to gender-identify the babies with giant bows, flowers, fake pigtails etc, down to one of the Bateses (Whitney?) having flowers on her baby's socks, but I'm wondering how extreme it'll get before the pendulum swings back.....

Dang I thought I was the only one that HATE the bows on the little girls!  I told my niece when she started to put one on her baby girl, I said your mother and I said before she passed that if we ever caught one on her little girl we would both yank it off!

[VelociRapture]

5 hours ago, MistofRain752 said:

Dang I thought I was the only one that HATE the bows on the little girls!  I told my niece when she started to put one on her baby girl, I said your mother and I said before she passed that if we ever caught one on her little girl we would both yank it off!

A lot of us aren't big fans. Welcome to the club. 

I don't use them for Velocibaby. The only time I have a real problem with it is when the kid clearly does not like the bow and the parent doesn't care. Otherwise, I won't tell other parents how to dress their kid if they extend the same courtesy to me.

[VineHeart137]

6 hours ago, MistofRain752 said:

Dang I thought I was the only one that HATE the bows on the little girls!  I told my niece when she started to put one on her baby girl, I said your mother and I said before she passed that if we ever caught one on her little girl we would both yank it off!

I'm not a big fan of giant bows either, but if it's not my child I don't really think it's my place to say anything. People can dress their kids however they want as long as it's not hurting the kid.

[picklepizzas]

Did we ever get any hard evidence that whitneys parents lost custody (and, if another family was able to legally adopt her, they must have not only lost custody but also their parental rights), as opposed to her just living with (and "being adopted by") another family for a time bc of trouble/disagreements with her parents? My instinct is it's the second... Bc if her parents lost their right to be her parent that's a pretty big screw-up. It's one thing to think of her reconciling with parents she just couldn't get along with as a teen...a whole mind blowing different thing to think of her reconciling with people who did something bad enough to lose parental rights (mind blowing enough that I'm not inclined to believe it unless there's evidence she was legally adopted.)

[Carm_88]

Kaci Lynn seems to be quite the happy baby. 

[Hmmm_idolatry]

@Carm_88

OMG...that little girl is really cute.  It sounds like she's saying "baby".  What a shame that her cute little personality will be crushed by the disgusting beliefs held by her paternal side of the family (and sadly, by her parents).  

[Pasta]

Here's hoping there's a future full of religious and mental freedom for the second gen (third gen?). 

[Carm_88]

21 hours ago, Pasta said:

Here's hoping there's a future full of religious and mental freedom for the second gen (third gen?). 

Third. Zach is the second generation. *Fingers Crossed but staying skeptical*

[Pasta]

23 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

Third. Zach is the second generation. *Fingers Crossed but staying skeptical*

I like to be surprised haha