Joy and Austin: Back in Arkansas?

[Cheetah]

1 minute ago, Mayluka said:

I think the timing of the interview may have been between Switzerland and Israel. The interviewer mentioned that Joy and Austin had been married 26 or 27 days, which puts the interview around June 21 (and they mentioned having been home from Switzerland for only 3 days). The One For Israel trip they were speculated to be on took place from June 22 - July 3. It would be a lot of traveling and cutting it close, but it seems like J&A must have home for about 4 days before going to Israel, possibly just for the interview.

That timing makes sense, but how crazy to fly back to Arkansas for a couple of days and then back again to Israel.  Maybe making the reunion show meant a good chunk of change, but otherwise, just stay in Europe a few more days and meet your group in Israel.

[marmalade]

I timed this out the same, and recognized that Jill and Derick couldn't get their lazy asses back from Branson and their #babymoon to participate in this, which if it happened on the 21st, was their anniversary. 

Wake UP, Dillards! I think everyone other than these people have actually had to put in a day's work on their anniversary if it fell on a day you were supposed to work, unless you put in for the day off. I just can't believe they threw away an easy paycheck to stay in Branson for an extra day. 

[So-Virgin-It-Hurts]

2 hours ago, marmalade said:

I timed this out the same, and recognized that Jill and Derick couldn't get their lazy asses back from Branson and their #babymoon to participate in this, which if it happened on the 21st, was their anniversary. 

Wake UP, Dillards! I think everyone other than these people have actually had to put in a day's work on their anniversary if it fell on a day you were supposed to work, unless you put in for the day off. I just can't believe they threw away an easy paycheck to stay in Branson for an extra day. 

Seriously! Who the hell DOESN'T work on their anniversary?  We're not even talking about your birthday, husband's birthday, kid's birthday, etc.  You're just not all that special Duggars.

[unicorncastle]

3 hours ago, marmalade said:

I timed this out the same, and recognized that Jill and Derick couldn't get their lazy asses back from Branson and their #babymoon to participate in this, which if it happened on the 21st, was their anniversary. 

Wake UP, Dillards! I think everyone other than these people have actually had to put in a day's work on their anniversary if it fell on a day you were supposed to work, unless you put in for the day off. I just can't believe they threw away an easy paycheck to stay in Branson for an extra day. 

I mean, to be fair, she was super pregnant. We don't know if she had any medical issues that prevented her from doing the interview. Or she could just have felt like complete shit and decided it wasn't worth it. 

[marmalade]

17 minutes ago, unicorncastle said:

I mean, to be fair, she was super pregnant. We don't know if she had any medical issues that prevented her from doing the interview. Or she could just have felt like complete shit and decided it wasn't worth it. 

She was vacationing in Branson. There are pictures of her at the amusement park, so she was doing pretty well then. This is all based on Joy saying they'd been married 26/27 days and had just gotten back from Switzerland, but hadn't left for Israel yet; they left on the 23rd. SSD didn't arrive until 7/8, two weeks later. 

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

I'm going to give the Dillard's a pass this time, Jill was super pregnant and it was their anniversary I'm guessing that whole process took a good 5/6 hours for 2 hours of "interviews"  "games" and other fluff.  I know in the days before I gave birth, (my last child was 10 days early) I was big uncomfortable, and it was February in Iowa not July, in Arkansas. She may not have had the energy to "keep sweet" for the cameras and I wouldn't blame her. 

[2manyKidzzz]

12 hours ago, So-Virgin-It-Hurts said:

Seriously! Who the hell DOESN'T work on their anniversary?  We're not even talking about your birthday, husband's birthday, kid's birthday, etc.  You're just not all that special Duggars.

But..but....if you don't have a JOB you don't work on your anniversary. Ha ha. 

[louisa05]

14 hours ago, So-Virgin-It-Hurts said:

Seriously! Who the hell DOESN'T work on their anniversary?  We're not even talking about your birthday, husband's birthday, kid's birthday, etc.  You're just not all that special Duggars.

I have worked on my birthday exactly once in my entire life. And I have never worked on my anniversary or Mr. 05's birthday (which is today, btw) since I've known him. Because I am an educator with a summer birthday who got married in the summer to someone else with a summer birthday. 

OTH, Mr. 05 is normally working on our anniversary and is at work today. 

I did work with a woman who took her birthday, husband's birthday and anniversary as personal days every year. She also brought up every single negotiation year that we should request paid leave for birthdays and anniversaries.  Everyone thought it was kind of ridiculous and it was never requested. 

[VBOY9977]

http://www.duggarfamilyblog.com/2017/07/new-season-summary.html?m=1

 

per this new season summary that TLC released l, Austin found a house for him and Joy and started renovating it before they got married. I wonder it it's already finished or if they're living somewhere else right now...

[jqlgoblue]

On 7/16/2017 at 1:38 PM, Queen said:

@allthegoodnamesrgone You do have a point in supporting other women's choices! I try to do so too, for example there's nothing wrong with being a stay at home mom or dad if the individual chose it freely  

There are some things though that I find suppressing or harming, and I do not support those, no matter how gladly and willingly a person chooses them. A really extreme example would be a woman (or anyone, really) wanting to go through genital mutilation, I'm not gonna support that! It's not like I'm gonna dictate what everyone does, but still, I'm not going to support pathriarchy in any form  Just my two cents!

This.

I agree that people should be able to do what they choose. e.g. it was odd when my last boyfriend basically said to me that of course the woman works, as if his future wife MUST work. Coming from the midwest that flipped the script and I was like, no I want the choice... and then I remembered how expensive it is here.

That said, I have HS friends who chose to be Teachers / mothers BUT the households they grew up in success was viewed VERY differently for a daughter vs. a son. One particular friend is a VERY successful teacher / now mother. To her/her mother am a VERY UN-successful career woman (with a Masters in Engineering and MBA from tippy top schools ... I say this not to brag, but to highlight how manly and therefore UN-successful I am.). So.... even though my friend chose her life, it was based on "separate but equal" view of what it means to be a "good" man or "good" woman. I also chose my life based on the construct my parents set for me. In this case neither are particularly dangerous so I guess it is OK but I'd like for everyone to have/consider/take seriously a full spectrum of choice.

[MotherOfDragons]

Okay, please don't attack me for asking this. I genuinely don't know.

What exactly is the difference between appreciating/admiring a culture and appropriating it? 

[Four is Enough]

16 minutes ago, MotherOfDragons said:

What exactly is the difference between appreciating/admiring a culture and appropriating it? 

I'm sorry. I don't know, and I'm exhausted trying to figure it out. What is wrong with me wearing fabrics that were made in South AFrica? They're colorful and lovely. Why shouldn't I?  I'm white, yes, but I wouldn't turn a hair if an African woman wanted to borrow my plaids.

[backyard sylph]

I spent my early school years in the 70s. Fashion was all about celebrating the whole world. A lot of music was, as well. TV shows tried to encourage people to set aside their differences. I get a little confused these days knowing where all these new lines are drawn.

Some of it seems obvious, like if it's ever done in parody or to mock, obviously that's gross. Those ching-chong accents people used to put on, ridiculous. A lot of the jokes people used to tell should definitely be left in the past.

If you're using someone else's culture to attain power for yourself in some manner, that's not cool. If you're pretending to belong to a culture in order to be celebrated or something, that's dumb and you should be hit with a stick.

But like, wearing scarves, which all women used to do at times, should still be okay to do and not seen wholly as a strict religious practice. Enjoying certain fabrics and styles that feel good on you, or I don't know, lots of little things, those still feel like an honoring of the world, not a grabbing, grasping thing. Eating at a North African or Indian restaurant, or buying a sushi roll at a little bar, etc., I don't get why some people are against that. They're against all the fusions now, too. It makes me sad.

[seraaa]

50 minutes ago, MotherOfDragons said:

Okay, please don't attack me for asking this. I genuinely don't know.

What exactly is the difference between appreciating/admiring a culture and appropriating it? 

It's a biiiiig topic, and cultural sharing in and of itself is not the problem. 

My understanding is that the problem is when things are lifted from one culture without credit, or when they are used in a new context which is disrespectful, without consent.

Or it's when fashions and music are elevated to the mainstream and become popular, but  the originators are not given credit, or when said originators viewed differently or pejoratively for doing the same things.

It's not the melding of cultures that is the issue, it's the manner in which it sometimes occurs. 

[Bethella]

44 minutes ago, MotherOfDragons said:

Okay, please don't attack me for asking this. I genuinely don't know.

What exactly is the difference between appreciating/admiring a culture and appropriating it? 

26 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

I'm sorry. I don't know, and I'm exhausted trying to figure it out. What is wrong with me wearing fabrics that were made in South AFrica? They're colorful and lovely. Why shouldn't I?  I'm white, yes, but I wouldn't turn a hair if an African woman wanted to borrow my plaids.

I agree with @backyard sylph and @seraaa Being against all fusions is taking it too far. Respect is definitely a big part of it for me. I think the line is somewhat subjective and depends on both the context and the people involved. While I'm white and probably don't have the same views as Africans or African-Americans, I don't see anything wrong with using fabrics that were made in South Africa. But if it was a special textile that was reserved for a specific religious/cultural ceremony, I would have a problem with it being used for everyday clothing here in the States. I have a problem with the faux-Jews taking parts of Judiasm without respecting the original religion. But I don't have a problem with my church putting on a Seder dinner every couple of years, we have the local rabbi come and talk to us about the traditions and what they would have meant during Jesus' lifetime.

This is mostly taken from wikipedia: cultural appropriation refers to the adoption of these cultural elements in a colonial manner: elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of representatives of the originating culture. Often, the original meaning of these cultural elements is lost or distorted, and such displays are often viewed as disrespectful by members of the originating culture, or even as a form of desecration. Cultural elements which may have deep meaning to the original culture may be reduced to "exotic" fashion or toys by those from the dominant culture.

[backyard sylph]

1 minute ago, seraaa said:

It's a biiiiig topic, and cultural sharing in and of itself is not the problem. 

y understanding is that the problem is when things are lifted from one culture without credit, or when they are used in a new context which is disrespectful, without consent.

Or it's when fashions and music are elevated to the mainstream and become popular, but  the originators are not given credit, or they are viewed differently or pejoratively for doing the same things.

It's not the melding of cultures that is the issue, it's the manner in which it sometimes occurs. 

You are making this seem very sensible, and I have no doubt many sensible people would say just this same thing. They have valid concerns. But here on the internet, people will berate others constantly to the level of, and I'm not actually making this up, though paraphrasing, "you shouldn't even be eating fried chicken because you don't know how to cook it right since you aren't a person of color." As if the whole entire world doesn't enjoy chicken parts breaded and cooked in oil.

There are lots of little examples like that, and it gets crazy. Who invented donuts? Only where they're from are donuts correct. I heard one something like that once.

I have a friend on Facebook who devotes herself to sharing with us posts from several people with large followings who do nothing but criticize people not of their background for one thing after another. My friend is not of this background, but has made it her interesting cause. 

@Bethella that wikipedia entry makes good sense. If people are turning something that is every day for someone else into exotica, that's gross; it suggests they don't see that someone else on the same plane. But a lot of this other stuff obfuscates that real concern. How can people take someone's sincere values seriously when they are mashed into many other petty complaints? The answer is that they don't; they get defensive, instead. I hope I put that well enough.

[MotherOfDragons]

So in very basic terms, it's okay to appropriate culture/customs as long as it's done respectfully and with proper reverence to its historical context?

A lot of things and trends I see in pop culture these days seem racist, disrespectful, and/or largely ignorant rather than being improperly appropriated (if that makes sense). I hope this doesn't offend anyone, and if it does, I apologize. 

[seraaa]

@backyard sylph Like with a lot of things on the internet, I think the best thing to do is to discern the signal from the noise on this issue. It can be a pain to wade through reams of irrelevant bickering, but the core principles are valuable imo. Personally and as a rule of thumb, I approach it pretty much as I've outlined in my post. I think it is mostly an issue of respect, attribution and context.

[Four is Enough]

43 minutes ago, seraaa said:

It's a biiiiig topic, and cultural sharing in and of itself is not the problem. 

My understanding is that the problem is when things are lifted from one culture without credit, or when they are used in a new context which is disrespectful, without consent.

Or it's when fashions and music are elevated to the mainstream and become popular, but  the originators are not given credit, or when said originators viewed differently or pejoratively for doing the same things.

It's not the melding of cultures that is the issue, it's the manner in which it sometimes occurs. 

OK, I'm thinking here of music. Early rock and rollers took much inspiration from the bluesmen of the 30s and 40s. Some were listed as inspiration for them; some were celebrated; some experienced a new revival of  fame. Some did not. Blues itself has its roots deep in African cultures. 

Musicians have used blues as basis for many compositions.. and blues themselves have evolved into something amazingly complex and wonderful as the years have passed. 

I can see that the "blackface minstrel shows" of pre-vaudeville and vaudeville days are wrong, wrong, wrong, examples of cultural appropriation and denigration of what was beautiful music by beautiful people.

But can the same be said for Rudee Vallee, who brought America's attention to "Swanee", increasing the  appreciation to that style of music?

Or can Eric Clapton, who alone has elevated and broadened the spectrum of blues music, be called a "cultural appropriator?"

Eric Clapton has mentioned specific bluesmen as big influences on his life. But how many times, how many concerts, how many listings of them as inspirations to his style are enough?

What about a Jazz-fusion-punk-put any name here musician who uses blues riffs to make the music something totally different? Sometimes, these compositions work, sometimes they fail. Is that construed as being disrespectful?

 

My points are I know, TL;DR:

Music. Culture. Fashion. Food. These are living, evolving things. The use of a part of someone's culture isn't necessarily taking it to be demeaning or disrespectful.

That is not to say that certain things aren't off limits. I would never wear eagle or turkey feathers, or shamanic devices or masks. I would never wear a priest's soutane. I would not take part or use  part of a ritual that is important to someone's beliefs, unless I was doing it to support the person. 

I do believe people, for the most part, will do better when they know better. So if I saw someone wearing a specifically precious item that was not specifically precious to that person, I'd let them know, so they could change their behavior.

And who gives consent? Someone may be miffed by me wearing sari fabric made into a jumper; someone else may like the garment.

I agree we need to be respectful of other cultures, and to be sensitive to other's ideas about what is "theirs".

[SweetFellowshipper]

 One of the problems is that cultural appropriation began as a sophisticated and nuanced scholarly term. Now it's bandied around a lot by a lot of folks who don't understand what it means and either assume it's "stupid" and "doesn't exist" or that any kind of cultural exchange is "appropriation." Often people focus on what's "respectful" or "disrespectful" about cultural practices when initially, the notion of cultural appropriation didn't have much to do with that.

To my understanding (which is not a complete one!), and what I teach my students, is that the main things that separates appropriation from fusion/exchange are 1) the legacy of colonialism and the power dynamic between the groups involved; for example, it would be difficult to "appropriate" white or Christian culture in the U.S. because it is dominant and thus considered 'mainstream' and 'the norm' rather than exotic or 'other,' and those who might want to would not have the cultural/socioeconomic power to do so if they tried; 2) often, the ability to commodify and financially benefit from said cultural object, practice, or artifact while simultaneously denigrating that practice, artifact, etc., and claiming it as one's own. For example, hip hop began as a medium of resistance for and by primarily black American groups. It's since largely been commodified and reclaimed by primarily white-owned record labels, depoliticized, and oversimplified to represent dominant white supremacist ideas of black American culture (sexual objectification, the media idea of "thugs" and "gang culture," etc). Now it is sold back to the public as "black culture" when 1) primarily whites are listening to it and financially benefiting from it and 2) it is a defanged, degraded version of what hip hop originally was, which included quite a bit of social justice work and pushback against media stereotypes, poverty, unfair treatment by the government and police, etc. Other examples are, of course, a dominant group taking credit for the creation of a practice, genre, or object; think of rock and roll or the history of vaudeville and blackface, the latter of which was begun by black artists as a theatrical form and then reclaimed and commodified by white artists to degrade the very group that actually started the practice.

Finally, one marker of cultural appropriation is that practices that are considered stereotypical or degraded in a minority group, or even weaponized against them in racialized ways, can be used as a costume or a money-making practice by a dominant group. For example, geisha outfits, which carry with them a long history of casting Asian women as hypersexualized, submissive, and dependent, are often used by white artists like Katy Perry as a "fun, sexy" costume. A white artist doesn't run the risk of being considered hypersexualized, submissive and brainless if she wears such an outfit; for her it's just "fun" and she can put on and take off that "character" as she wants, because whiteness is considered a blank slate onto which anything can be mapped.

[seraaa]

39 minutes ago, MotherOfDragons said:

So in very basic terms, it's okay to appropriate culture/customs as long as it's done respectfully and with proper reverence to its historical context?

A lot of things and trends I see in pop culture these days seem racist, disrespectful, and/or largely ignorant rather than being improperly appropriated (if that makes sense). I hope this doesn't offend anyone, and if it does, I apologize. 

As a general rule of thumb, I'd say it's a good guide! Depending on context, attribution to the source may be more or less important also.

I think what people call 'cultural appropriation' may sometimes coincide with what is disrespectful, ignorant etc, but it depends.

Some people talk about cultural appropriation vs cultural exchange, where the latter term is meant to convey cultural blending but on more equal terms. "Appropriation" is reserved for scenarios where there is a clear power differential, and where the blending or exchange has occurred by force or yielded some kind of undesirable consequences (e.g. stereotyping) 

@Four is Enough Hah, I think music is the most interesting  example. I lack the knowledge to make a super in-depth argument, but my instinct says you could probably argue it both ways; that the record industry itself has both erased the background of particular musicians and styles and elevated others simultaneously, often in a piecemeal fashion.

31 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

And who gives consent? Someone may be miffed by me wearing sari fabric made into a jumper; someone else may like the garment.

 

I think it can be both a personal judgement, and subject to the relative collective power a particular group has in shaping what is going on. 

 

 

[Four is Enough]

39 minutes ago, SweetFellowshipper said:

Finally, one marker of cultural appropriation is that practices that are considered stereotypical or degraded in a minority group, or even weaponized against them in racialized ways, can be used as a costume or a money-making practice by a dominant group. For example, geisha outfits, which carry with them a long history of casting Asian women as hypersexualized, submissive, and dependent, are often used by white artists like Katy Perry as a "fun, sexy" costume. A white artist doesn't run the risk of being considered hypersexualized, submissive and brainless if she wears such an outfit; for her it's just "fun" and she can put on and take off that "character" as she wants, because whiteness is considered a blank slate onto which anything can be mapped.

Dunno much about Katy Perry, but I guess I considered many artists nowadays as "hypersexualized, brainless".... after seeing her writhing on a dinner table on SNL, I'd definitely put her in this category...

So.. can she wear a kimono or not? What's going too far? The whiteface? The shoes and stockings?

[Lurky]

So, 2 separate things re cultural appropriation:

1.  Wearing symbols of a religion from a culture that's not yours, as a throwaway fashion thing - for example, a non-Hindu wearing a bindi, a non-native American wearing a feathered head-dress, as these are real symbols of living religions/cultures that are deeply serious.  To note - NOT the same as Madonna and crucifixes, as Madonna was raised in Catholicism, so was responding to something she knew intimately.
more: http://apihtawikosisan.com/hall-of-shame/an-open-letter-to-non-natives-in-headdresses/

2. There are issues where, for example, white people can sell things from other cultures because they're white, while the Black/Minority Ethnic people they're taking it from, can't, because of endemic racism, while the white people are using it to make money. 

For example, a lot of white performers will use signifiers of Black music, because they know they can sell it, and will accessorise with fashions from the Black community, and then move on to the next trend when they think that will sell records instead.  Miley Cyrus, for example, was happy to pillage hiphop culture for musical and fashion references when she wanted to be perceived as "no longer innocent" (which is an issue in itself) and have more musical credibility - and then, when she had a new single to promote, got headlines by saying  all rap was misogynistic, and she was more mature now.  So she'd used the trappings of a culture, and then, when she wanted a different audience, threw it away and stomped on it.

More: http://uk.complex.com/music/2017/05/miley-cyrus-appropriating-hip-hop-culture

[SweetFellowshipper]

44 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

Dunno much about Katy Perry, but I guess I considered many artists nowadays as "hypersexualized, brainless".... after seeing her writhing on a dinner table on SNL, I'd definitely put her in this category...

So.. can she wear a kimono or not? What's going too far? The whiteface? The shoes and stockings?

To the first part--maybe, but not specifically due to her race, and not as a representative of "what white women are like" as a collective group. That's the issue.

As for the rest--I don't know about specifics, that would be a longer debate better argued about by someone part of the minority culture being co-opted. @Lurky gave another good example of this phenomenon in the form of Miley Cyrus.

[Italiangirl]

So they are back from israel in a while now do we have and idea where Joy and Austin live?