Dillards 53: Making Assumptions and Indoctrinating the Children

[LacyMay]

Oh My Goodness. I want a Dillard Brown crossover. 

Just one episode, that would be one hot mess with so much snark potential. 

 

[Snarkasarus Rex]

7 hours ago, The limit does not exist said:

Why are they bringing Sam with them but not Izzy? If someone is going to steal Jill's gringo babies, age isn't going to matter... and if this is because she's breastfeeding there are plenty of alternatives, like pumping and freezing the milk for later, but that would require planning...

I'm a former exclusively pumping mother, and I can tell you putting a supply together for even a week takes *months* for some women, and some women are never able to achieve that.  Who knows how long they will be gone.  Pumping and breastfeeding are very different, and baby is much more efficient than a pump.  I never had more than a day's supply for my first kid...basically just enough to send to day care the next day.  I got lucky with the second one, and I actually bought a spare freezer because I didn't have enough room in my regular freezer for food.  

And as mentioned earlier, switching to bottle feeding can lead to premature weaning, and who knows, Sam may even refuse a bottle.  Basically, the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze.

However, I agree that it's ridiculous for her to bring Sam.  She should have just stayed at home.  

[Satan'sFortress]

I have developed an unreasonable hatred for the Tuttle Twins and all they represent.  While I joined FJ to educate myself about the fundamentalist world, this is just too much for me right now.  I have loved books from as far back as I can remember---loved reading and being read to---and the thought of someone writing these books to indoctrinate children into a strict (and in my opinion, warped) way of viewing economics and government is truly sad. 

[SapphireSlytherin]

6 minutes ago, Satan'sFortress said:

<snip> I have loved books from as far back as I can remember---loved reading and being read to---and the thought of someone writing these books to indoctrinate children into a strict (and in my opinion, warped) way of viewing economics and government is truly sad. 

These books are NO DIFFERENT from any other books written to persuade people that their way is best. Like, you know - the Bible, the Qur'an, Dianetics, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, The Communist Manifesto. Shall I go on?

Parents could (and do!) read these books to their children, insist their older children read them, and live their lives according to whatever it is those books say. The Tuttle Twins books are no different. Brainwashing does include mainstream religions, as well as fringe groups.

[livinginthelight]

20 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

These books are NO DIFFERENT from any other books written to persuade people that their way is best. Like, you know - the Bible, the Qur'an, Dianetics, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, The Communist Manifesto. Shall I go on?

Parents could (and do!) read these books to their children, insist their older children read them, and live their lives according to whatever it is those books say. The Tuttle Twins books are no different. Brainwashing does include mainstream religions, as well as fringe groups.

You are painting with a huuuugely large brush.

[Satan'sFortress]

29 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

These books are NO DIFFERENT from any other books written to persuade people that their way is best. Like, you know - the Bible, the Qur'an, Dianetics, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, The Communist Manifesto. Shall I go on?

Parents could (and do!) read these books to their children, insist their older children read them, and live their lives according to whatever it is those books say. The Tuttle Twins books are no different. Brainwashing does include mainstream religions, as well as fringe groups.

I don't disagree with that--and not just religious books, either.  There are a lot of (if not all) children's books that have some kind of an agenda: religious, political, social, or anything, really.  Many children's books reinforce values that most of us share---kindness, good manners, etc.  And then there are some that are more specific to the family's personal ethics---Veggie Tales, Heather Has Two Mommies, etc.  So, I can't pinpoint exactly why the Tuttles bother me so much.  I think because they feel SO forced to fit the agenda the espouse.  I also think that the illustrations are bizarre--the one of them looming like freakish giants over the tiny food trucks--and the writing seems subpar.  Jill's smugness about them doesn't help.

[VelociRapture]

3 minutes ago, Satan'sFortress said:

I don't disagree with that--and not just religious books, either.  There are a lot of (if not all) children's books that have some kind of an agenda: religious, political, social, or anything, really.  Many children's books reinforce values that most of us share---kindness, good manners, etc.  And then there are some that are more specific to the family's personal ethics---Veggie Tales, Heather Has Two Mommies, etc.  So, I can't pinpoint exactly why the Tuttles bother me so much.  I think because they feel SO forced to fit the agenda the espouse.  I also think that the illustrations are bizarre--the one of them looming like freakish giants over the tiny food trucks--and the writing seems subpar.  Jill's smugness about them doesn't help.

Side note: Heather Has Two Mommies is a really sweet book. I love the illustrations and the message it sends that it doesn’t matter what a family looks like as long as there’s love present. Just a mini shout out in case anyone is looking for a quality childrens’ book.

I do agree with you though. Pretty much anything ever written has some sort of agenda attached to it. These books bug me for the reasons you listed, but also because they seem to send the message of, “I got mine so fuck you.” Plus the racist imagery is all kinds of messed up. And those twins are just creepy af. 

[viii]

Thanks for the book rec. My sister is married to a woman and it’s hard to find their twins quality books that show a family like theirs. 

[JDuggs]

Can anyone recall a situation in which a married Duggar girl has spent a night apart from her husband? It doesn’t seem that strange to me that Jill would pass up a missioncation opportunity with Derick since the program doesn’t seem to object. She loves this stuff and it’s totally her speed. Why should Derick have all the fun? 

[HurricaneBells]

On 16/03/2018 at 12:49 PM, SapphireSlytherin said:

Or mayyyybeeeeee.... That's why he "left" WM? Maybe Cathy kept emailing Derick's boss, telling him that Derick wasn't making mistakes, and that Boss was making a lot of assumptions about Derick's work? 

I am dying here thinking of the scene from Everybody Loves Raymond where Marie calls the FBI chief LMAO

[Bad Wolf]

We spent a couple of weeks in Guadalajara, and loved it. Every evening there was music in the town square. On the weekends the women would sit out and do crafts. I joined them and made sandals. It was one of my favorite vacations. The people were really friendly.

They don't need Derick and his religion.

[LacyMay]

54 minutes ago, JDuggs said:

Can anyone recall a situation in which a married Duggar girl has spent a night apart from her husband? It doesn’t seem that strange to me that Jill would pass up a missioncation opportunity with Derick since the program doesn’t seem to object. She loves this stuff and it’s totally her speed. Why should Derick have all the fun? 

I think for me it's a few things combined
1) We don't know how the program or team felt. Maybe they didn't object but they didn't encourage it? maybe they objected and Derelict just pushed for an exception to be made until they gave in. 
2) Even if the people running the program didn't object we don't know how his peers felt, tbh I would probably be a little annoyed, I'm sure some of them have spouses etc who they will miss. But they didn't bring them along. 

3) This isn't supposed to be a missioncation for Derrick. This is supposed to be school (or work) He's supposed to be learning and training. I think this is the biggest thing that bugs me from my POV is that this isn't supposed to be a vacation or leisure trip he's going as part of what should be a targeted experiential learning experience and if his wife and child are there his attention is going to be split. 

 

As for the part about it being stuff that Jill loves and just her speed that's true I'm not denying it, but Jill is not (to our knowledge) a registered member of the program and thus should not be participating in parts of the program that are meant for the benefits of it's students. 

I know I sound harsh but it's just frustrating, if this was like a business trip and Jill was tagging along paying her own way etc but where it's a huge group I don't think it's fair. I would also be worried about her and Sammy being a distraction to all the other people who are paying and trying to get the most out of the opportunity. 

[The limit does not exist]

7 hours ago, JDuggs said:

Maybe you can back off on the judgment of a breastfeeding mother. I breastfed my three kids from somewhere between nine and twelve months each and I attempted to pump less than a handful of times. I thought it hurt and wasn’t worth the effort. So Jill brings her nursing baby on a trip. So what? If Izzy is staying with Cathy, maybe also leaving Sam with her is too much.

Yeah... no. I have nothing against women that breastfeed and understand it can be difficult (My actual job deals with scheduling and I get that FMLA doesn't really cover it and I know he ADA limitations, etc).

That being said...

If it's difficult for Jill to pump and be away from Sam then maybe she should STAY HOME since she isn't part of the program!

If Jill MUST go on this trip, maybe it's time to move Sam on to other foods so Jill can go on missioncations with groups she isn't actually a part of.

My ire has much less to do with breastfeeding and more to do with Jill not only having no reason to be there and even less reason to bring a child along.

[feministxtian]

6 hours ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

Parents could (and do!) read these books to their children, insist their older children read them, and live their lives according to whatever it is those books say. The Tuttle Twins books are no different. Brainwashing does include mainstream religions, as well as fringe groups.

I think it depends on whether or not the kids are given books that espouse different viewpoints. My kids were homeschooled or went to a Catholic parochial school...HOWEVER...the books they read at home were all over the map. Yes, we did religious education BUT...they also read Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr. Seuss, The Dragonriders of Pern and a multitude of other books, up to and including things like The Hunt for Red October. (I did put my foot down for Raise the Titanic...the scene with Dirk Pitt and Dana Seagram is NOT for the younger set). 

So...I think it depends more on the "agenda" the parents have...is it indoctrination or is it exposing the kids to different literary genres, ideas, worldviews or whathaveyou? I may have done WAY too good a job raising independent thinkers though...

[LurkerOverThePond]

Wanna bet Derdick is going to act superior on this "mission trip"? I can see his smug face going on and on about his experiences as a white savior in SCA, being so superior and experienced compared with other students. Mr Been-There-Done-That. 

[Nargus]

5 hours ago, feministxtian said:

they also read Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr. Seuss, The Dragonriders of Pern and a multitude of other books

Dragonriders of Pern are among my FAVOURITE books ever. When I was in my early teens my mom gave me her copies of Dragonsong and Dragonsinger (I was never as interested in Dragon Drums as a teen but that’s probably because I identified better with a teen girl than a teen boy) 

The Tower and the Hive series I found interesting too 

[SapphireSlytherin]

5 hours ago, feministxtian said:

I may have done WAY too good a job raising independent thinkers though...

I seriously doubt that. The best thing you can do for your children is to allow them to know, understand, and follow their own lead. <3 

GryffindorDisappointment definitely knows her own mind. It took me a few minutes to figure out she's actually living her authentic life, and has, from her mid-teen years. She's healthy. She's happy. She's out there killing it every day. 

[Drala]

12 hours ago, Satan'sFortress said:

I have developed an unreasonable hatred for the Tuttle Twins and all they represent.  While I joined FJ to educate myself about the fundamentalist world, this is just too much for me right now.  I have loved books from as far back as I can remember---loved reading and being read to---and the thought of someone writing these books to indoctrinate children into a strict (and in my opinion, warped) way of viewing economics and government is truly sad. 

I've felt unusually bothered about indoctrinating a 2-year-old with the Tuttle Twins, also, and I've wondered what it is about this particular episode of many in DerJill's bonzo parenting history that irks me so much.  If Izzy were 8 or 9 (age appropriate) and was being exposed to a wide range of books, I might not feel as strongly.  

When I read Jill's post touting the book series, it felt like SHE was getting a lot out of reading them.  I can see how these books reinforce her belief in free-market capitalism and self-reliance, which isn't in itself necessarily a bad thing.  What bothers me is that Jill doesn't appear to see any daylight between an economic and political philosophy that blames the poor for their lot in life and the teachings of the man she calls the Son of God.   As someone on her IG commented, Jesus wasn't a capitalist or a libertarian.  The Dillards continue to conflate their politics and religion in an uncritical way I find disturbing.   Their big message seems to be, "Believe in Jesus and he'll give you the bootstraps you need to pull yourself up."  This message is particularly irksome coming from a family where the headship feels entitled to beg for charitable support and whine about unfair deals with corporate media.       

        

[Flossie]

17 hours ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

...gate passes are generally reserved for 1)  parents who are putting their children on/picking them up from a plane alone (as an unaccompanied minor) or 2)  for people helping a disabled relative to/from a plane.*

* Bolded italics have been added by me and are not a part of the original post.

1)  Well, Derick is definitely immature, but his Mommy isn't pictured so she probably wasn't there.

2)  I'm not sure if being an immature, entitled, narcissistic asshat with a religious-based superiority complex counts as being disabled, though.

[Cleopatra7]

13 hours ago, Satan'sFortress said:

I don't disagree with that--and not just religious books, either.  There are a lot of (if not all) children's books that have some kind of an agenda: religious, political, social, or anything, really.  Many children's books reinforce values that most of us share---kindness, good manners, etc.  And then there are some that are more specific to the family's personal ethics---Veggie Tales, Heather Has Two Mommies, etc.  So, I can't pinpoint exactly why the Tuttles bother me so much.  I think because they feel SO forced to fit the agenda the espouse.  I also think that the illustrations are bizarre--the one of them looming like freakish giants over the tiny food trucks--and the writing seems subpar.  Jill's smugness about them doesn't help.

I agree that most works of art do have an “agenda” of sorts. This is especially true with media aimed at young children, since they are focused on teaching social norms and the general formation of character. I think what gets me about the Tuttle Twins is that they teach children the sorts of lessons that seem to go against everything that would make for a moral compassionate person: people who are poor are lazy and morally inferior, selfishness is a moral good, compassion is for chumps, and money and material possessions count more than persons.

I’m also amazed that so many ostensible religious people claim to be acolytes of Ayn Rand when her atheism was foundational to her philosophy. Rand had very negative experiences as a Jew growing up in Czarist Russia, which gave her a negative view of Christianity that lasted her entire life. Not only did she despise the “mysticism” of the Russian Orthodoxy Christianity she encountered as a child, but she hated the Christian idea of the golden rule or that you should be kind to your enemies or give money to the poor. For Rand, the individual self was the only thing that mattered, and any philosophy that tried to bring in ideas of compassion or concern for others was monstrous. Thus, Rand believed that Christianity and communism were two sides of the same coin, since both tried to force superior individuals to give money and/or emotional energy to the undeserving masses. Rand would even scoff at the idea that Prepper Fred should share some of his stash with the down and out, since she would probably say that the masses desire to starve for not doing their own prepping (I think this detail was more indicative of Boyack’s Mormonism than what Ayn Rand herself would say, which is “let them eat cake”).

[justmissedquiver]

For as much time as Jill has been "sister-momming", how she thinks these books are in any way developmentally appropriate for her littles is astonishing. How clueless and ignorant.

[Audrey2]

2 hours ago, Drala said:

When I read Jill's post touting the book series, it felt like SHE was getting a lot out of reading them.  I can see how these books reinforce her belief in free-market capitalism and self-reliance, which isn't in itself necessarily a bad thing.  What bothers me is that Jill doesn't appear to see any daylight between an economic and political philosophy that blames the poor for their lot in life and the teachings of the man she calls the Son of God.   As someone on her IG commented, Jesus wasn't a capitalist or a libertarian.  The Dillards continue to conflate their politics and religion in an uncritical way I find disturbing.   Their big message seems to be, "Believe in Jesus and he'll give you the bootstraps you need to pull yourself up."  This message is particularly irksome coming from a family where the headship feels entitled to beg for charitable support and whine about unfair deals with corporate media.       

        

I just can't, because the cognitive dissonance is too unreconcilable for me. How can you spout such Libertarian ideals when your husband is always "fundraising" for his next missioncation or other excuse not to work. He's not a real minister, who should be paid by his congregation, he's a professional grifter and flimflam artist. Derick and Jill, stop asking other people for money and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, since that's a cause you're promoting.

Rant over.

[singsingsing]

If Josh is the (self-proclaimed) Biggest Hypocrite Ever, Derick and Jill are definitely giving him a run for his money.

[Cleopatra7]

12 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

I just can't, because the cognitive dissonance is too unreconcilable for me. How can you spout such Libertarian ideals when your husband is always "fundraising" for his next missioncation or other excuse not to work. He's not a real minister, who should be paid by his congregation, he's a professional grifter and flimflam artist. Derick and Jill, stop asking other people for money and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, since that's a cause you're promoting.

Rant over.

I think the libertarian would say that it’s okay if private individuals want to support Derick of their own accord and if he turns out to be a scammer, that’s the fault of his donors for not doing their homework. The more extreme objectivist would say that giving to Derick is wrong because he’s engaging in pointless mysticism and not doing anything productive (ie being moocher and a taker). This is another point where a Christian perspective clashes with an objectivist perspective, since the former believes that winning souls is a good unto itself whereas the latter believes that anything that inhibits selfish pursuits is a waste of time. Consequently, the objectivist would also take issue to Christian patriarchy, since it requires women to serve men, rather than pursue their own self-actualization. Conversely, objectivists tend not to be in favor of laws against sexual harassment and the like because it restrains the will to power of strong individuals (Ayn Rand’s writings are rather notorious for glorifying rape and sexual aggression).

[AtlanticTug]

2 hours ago, justmissedquiver said:

For as much time as Jill has been "sister-momming", how she thinks these books are in any way developmentally appropriate for her littles is astonishing. How clueless and ignorant.

Where was she supposed to learn what's developmentally appropriate? At the dining room table? These people didn't have the benefit of going through school where you progress along in math and reading and are taught critical thinking at age-appropriate levels. She sees a cute cover and her MIL buys it so it must be good for Israel. If Israel was in preschool like most of his peers she'd quickly catch on that it's an inappropriate series.