Dillards 46: Now with Pants and a Possible Nose Piercing

[Seculardaisy]

5 hours ago, KnittingOwl said:

I’d be concerned about the impact of the weight on the child carrying the baby. I think kids are only supposed to carry 10% of their body weight when they carry backpacks. It’d be one thing to do it for a few minutes in the house, but it would be another thing entirely to be carrying your sibling around Target. 

I see your point, the rule of thumb is a backpack shouldn’t be more than 10-15% or a third of their body weight but I think you also have to consider that this is because they wear their backpacks every single day and the long term use of a heavy backpack could cause damage. 

Then you have to consider, how big is the baby, how big is the child, and how often are they actually baby wearing. One thirty minute Target trip isn’t likely to cause any issues (which is what the original post was about) or at least I didn’t see any studies that covered this.

If the child is baby wearing their sibling every day for an extended period of time, that’s going to be different than a one off thing. 

[LovelyLuna]

helping with a younger sibling is far different from being a sister Mom.  A sister Mom is a child that has been given responsilites they should never have. My niece is fundie light and her parents use her as a third guardian her two brothers age 4 and 2 1/2.  She is 10 years old and dose not deserve to be responsible for children she had so no say bringing into this world. 

[sophrosyne]

Is cause of Derick's mystery retching condition here? 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/health/vomiting-illness-marijuana-partner/index.html

 

[snickers34]

Considering that the conversation here has been around Jill's pants and nose ring of late, and because that sort of thing always brings out the questions around fundie status, is there a thread somewhere that explains how exactly people define fundie vs fundie light? Like people wanting to know if said clothing item officially puts someone into fundie light or just regular conservative christian category. I've always thought it was a silly conversation to be happening at all, honestly, so I know it seems dumb to even ask when I don't prescribe to the whole idea. But I'm just curious...

[Georgiana]

On 12/3/2017 at 10:49 AM, LovelyLuna said:

helping with a younger sibling is far different from being a sister Mom.  A sister Mom is a child that has been given responsilites they should never have. My niece is fundie light and her parents use her as a third guardian her two brothers age 4 and 2 1/2.  She is 10 years old and dose not deserve to be responsible for children she had so no say bringing into this world. 

Absolutely agree.  A child should not be the PRIMARY caregiver to their younger sibling.  They also should not be spending unreasonable amounts of time caring for the child.  Watching the kids while mom makes dinner?  Reasonable.  Watching them in the middle of the night?  NOT reasonable.  It's babysitter vs nanny.  A child may be reasonably expected to babysit a younger sibling, but when it moves into nanny territory, they should AT LEAST be getting compensated.

Also, the child needs to be able to say no or put their life first.  PARENTS need to sacrifice for their kids, but a child should not be expected to put their needs behind the needs of their sibling.  This means the elder child should be able to get out of watching the younger child in order to complete their own tasks (such as school work)  or attend social events occasionally.  

When a child is expected to help out so much with a younger sibling that they are essentially an unpaid nanny and/or their own interests suffer, THAT is when it crosses the line.  

[karen77]

Ha! now there is a picture out there of Jill with Henna on her hand/wrist, too funny (since someone brought it up recently)

[singsingsing]

3 minutes ago, karen77 said:

Ha! now there is a picture out there of Jill with Henna on her hand/wrist, too funny (since someone brought it up recently)

Where was this posted?

[karen77]

11 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

Where was this posted?

Lily and Ellie blog... don't want to link it though

[VelociRapture]

2 minutes ago, karen77 said:

Lily and Ellie blog... don't want to link it though

Here you go:

[SassyPants]

18 minutes ago, Georgiana said:

Absolutely agree.  A child should not be the PRIMARY caregiver to their younger sibling.  They also should not be spending unreasonable amounts of time caring for the child.  Watching the kids while mom makes dinner?  Reasonable.  Watching them in the middle of the night?  NOT reasonable.  It's babysitter vs nanny.  A child may be reasonably expected to babysit a younger sibling, but when it moves into nanny territory, they should AT LEAST be getting compensated.

Also, the child needs to be able to say no or put their life first.  PARENTS need to sacrifice for their kids, but a child should not be expected to put their needs behind the needs of their sibling.  This means the elder child should be able to get out of watching the younger child in order to complete their own tasks (such as school work)  or attend social events occasionally.  

When a child is expected to help out so much with a younger sibling that they are essentially an unpaid nanny and/or their own interests suffer, THAT is when it crosses the line.  

When your family is divided into "buddy groups,"  and children have so many other youngsters to oversee that their own primary/secondary education is turfed and replaced with childcare duties, the line has been crossed, and IMO, borders on the need for legal intervention.

Harsh, yes, but damn I think it should be illegal for parents to place child rearing on their older kids, because they, the parents,  have too many children to adequately care for all on their own. 

[VelociRapture]

38 minutes ago, snickers34 said:

Considering that the conversation here has been around Jill's pants and nose ring of late, and because that sort of thing always brings out the questions around fundie status, is there a thread somewhere that explains how exactly people define fundie vs fundie light? Like people wanting to know if said clothing item officially puts someone into fundie light or just regular conservative christian category. I've always thought it was a silly conversation to be happening at all, honestly, so I know it seems dumb to even ask when I don't prescribe to the whole idea. But I'm just curious...

It’s been discussed off and on throughout various threads. The definition varies depending on the person. Personally, I define it more by how rigid a person is when it comes to their beliefs or views than I do by things like fashion choices.

[12 Hungry Safety Pins]

5 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

Here you go:

The Dillards always "receive" stuff! God forbid they should ever give anything!

[VelociRapture]

2 minutes ago, 12 Hungry Safety Pins said:

The Dillards always "receive" stuff! God forbid they should ever give anything!

They did give stuff though! A box of free donuts, unsolicited Twitter advice, banana bread and horribly acted religious plays to captive audiences.... 

[singsingsing]

1 minute ago, VelociRapture said:

They did give stuff though! A box of free donuts, unsolicited Twitter advice, banana bread and horribly acted religious plays to captive audiences.... 

I was literally just writing almost the exact same thing.  "Banana bread! Pinata-making lessons! Their twisted, uneducated, ass-backwards version of Christianity!"

[12 Hungry Safety Pins]

2 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

banana bread

Made from fruit "received" from the locals! :-D

[onekidanddone]

24 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

Here you go:

I noticed the ad for Devil Dogs first. 

Oh and ewww, is that Smuggar in the background?

[LovelyLuna]

They have a group photo up with Smugger in it. With henna, pants and nose rings, how am I supposed to spot a fundie now?  I like the advanced warning so I can avoid and watch from afar. 

[onekidanddone]

42 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

They did give stuff though! A box of free donuts, unsolicited Twitter advice, banana bread and horribly acted religious plays to captive audiences.... 

Didn't they once give a box of food 'away' for a photo op and then take it back? Or is that juts Duggar lore? 

[Carm_88]

Henna eh?  I would say congratulations in learning about other cultures, except I don't think she learned anything except that it's called henna. 

[VelociRapture]

37 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Didn't they once give a box of food 'away' for a photo op and then take it back? Or is that juts Duggar lore? 

I think that was Jill’s parents. I vaguely recall some sort of story about them donating stuff on camera and then taking it back later, but I’m not sure. I wouldn’t hold the Dills accountable for that though because I don’t think they were married at the time (meaning they didn’t have the ability to decide to donate and then take it back.)

The Dills did give a homeless couple a box of Krispy Kreme Donuts they got for free though. They took a super awkward photo of it and I don’t think they got permission from the couple to share it, which was pretty shitty.  

[HarleyQuinn]

I remember that. They had to take a photo because then how could they brag about it on the internet without proof?

[VeryNikeSeamstress]

I want to be excited about Jill's henna and nosering, but when I think about the fact that she may not actually respect the culture the came from (and may have preached to the piercer and henna artist), all I see is cultural appropriation.

1 hour ago, VelociRapture said:

They did give stuff though! A box of free donuts, unsolicited Twitter advice, banana bread and horribly acted religious plays to captive audiences.... 

Not to mention countless headaches and black eyes as a result of the facepalming to Dwreck's twitter feed.

[seashell1025]

2 hours ago, singsingsing said:

2 hours ago, karen77 said:

Ha! now there is a picture out there of Jill with Henna on her hand/wrist, too funny (since someone brought it up recently)

 

I was just coming here to hope that someone had mentioned this! lol. too good! Very ironically funny indeed!

[HarryPotterFan]

2 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

It’s been discussed off and on throughout various threads. The definition varies depending on the person. Personally, I define it more by how rigid a person is when it comes to their beliefs or views than I do by things like fashion choices.

I agree. I have a friend who I would say is fundie lite, because although she is very religious she doesn't use it as an excuse to judge or preach at others, is liberal, and is flexible when needed. For example, she dresses modestly (long skirts, arms covered past the elbows, head covering). In Orthodox Judaism there is a concept called shomer negiah, which means you can't touch the opposite sex. If a man she doesn't know extends his hand to shake hers, she shakes it because she doesn't want him to feel bad or awkward. She's also studying to become an occupational therapist, and told me that helping others comes before adhearing to shomer negiah. 

She also became religious by choice, and was raised more secular. One time her brother told her, "HPF has news!" And apparently she excitedly asked, "is she pregnant?" Girl, I gotta have sex to get pregnant. Anyway, I'm glad if I got pregnant and wasn't married she'd be happy for me and non-judgenental 

[Georgiana]

41 minutes ago, VeryNikeSeamstress said:

I want to be excited about Jill's henna and nosering, but when I think about the fact that she may not actually respect the culture the came from (and may have preached to the piercer and henna artist), all I see is cultural appropriation.

I don't think there's any evidence of appropriation here.  LOTS of cultures have nasal piercings, and it's really never been owned by one group.  Now, if she was wearing a nath, there might be something.  But her nose piercing with a small jewel is pretty common in lots of different cultures.  I'm pretty involved in the piercing scene around here, and if Jill got her nose pierced in a shop, her piercer was more likely to be a heavily tattooed white guy than anyone else.  

Also, partaking and experiencing another culture that is being freely shared by a member of it is not appropriation.  Jill getting henna from a friend who offered to share it is fine.  It can be FUN to share your culture if you are in a foreign country, and if someone WANTS to share it, that is their prerogative.  

Appropriation is when you forcibly take something from another culture without consulting the originators(or in spite of objections), especially with attempts to own it, profit from it, or use it in a way that is inappropriate according to its initial context.  So, for example, MAC's use of sacred Navajo patterns on their Vibe Tribe line, wearing warbonnet headdresses at festivals, or using cultures as costumes.  A good example of this is the Kardashian/Jenner family who often appropriate Black culture and fashion in order to profit themselves as they sell it to a white market.

Participating in freely shared culture is NOT appropriation.  Examples of this are things like supporting traditional artisans by purchasing cultural goods directly from them and giving them all due credit, me wearing Indian jewelry/clothing gifted to me by my boyfriend/his family when we go out or attend Indian celebrations, or getting henna done by a friend or at a cultural event that you were invited to.