Mr & Mrs Jill Duggar 60: The Shilling Dillards

[just_ordinary]

Just popping in to say: Jill’s outfit is NOT revealing or inappropriate in Germany.

It is what most people who are not into fashion or are very Ecco-hipster wear in summer. Even my conservative, farmer grandparents from a Bavarian village wouldn’t mind it as long as it is not for church or eating out. It is really kind of normal almost default look.

I see lots of VERY short shorts right now where you can clearly see ass cheeks. Now that is definitely outside of the comfort zone (apart from pools or being naked at the sauna/nudity areas) of most people but those are mostly teenager so they will probably grow out of it.

 People are very much into functional sport clothes though, so hikers/biker and so on are often more covered up because we love to look like we are totally more than just amateurs.

[finnlassie]

Jill's outfit is a pretty chill one that isn't uncommon at all to see in the Finnish summer. It's actually pretty much what I wear, except add a hoodie and socks in sandals. Hell yes. Shiver before me. I fucking love socks in sandals.

[Lisafer]

@SapphireSlytherin just to horrify you a little further...my great-grandpa raised sheep on a ranch not far from where I live now. At sheep-shearing time, he would wear long underwear with tight wrists and ankles to cut down on the swarms of ticks...and still have hundreds of them swarming on him at the end of the day. He would strip and my great-grandma would pick them off by hand. My ancestors were tough people, lol.

[Georgiana]

I've been saying it for a while, but I think skirts-only was a fashion trend among "special" Christians that is now out.  The new fashion is to be a RELATABLE Christian insta-girl/woman/thot/mommy.  THAT's what the "Cool Christians" are doing now.  

But here's Jill's problem: she's NOT a relatable Christian insta-mommy type.  She's utterly uncharismatic on the internet.  She's often grating or boring.  She's never going to be able to compete with her sisters.  She would actually do better to stick to a hard line and draw that hard, Conservative audience that she already has.  

But if she keeps following the same path, she'll lose those followers who started following her for her "high standards" and she'll be unable to gain new followers who like her more relaxed style.  

[singsingsing]

1 minute ago, Georgiana said:

I've been saying it for a while, but I think skirts-only was a fashion trend among "special" Christians that is now out.  The new fashion is to be a RELATABLE Christian insta-girl/woman/thot/mommy.  THAT's what the "Cool Christians" are doing now.  

Yes. This. I also think that the ultra conservative courtship standards and strict quiverfull mentality are going out of style at the same time. I see pants, 'dating with a purpose', and NFP all coming into fashion for these folks at the same time, to be honest. Not for all of them, obviously, but for a certain set. I do think that's what Jill wants to emulate, but she's struggling for all the reasons you described.

[Meeka]

Jill is pretty much wearing what I wear for when I go in the woods for a walk or hike. Long slightly loose shorts, a loose tank top and sports sandals. I see nothing wrong with it.  It's pretty much what I see most people wearing around where we are. I live in Canada where we have the thick Canadian forest and around here people generally wear shorts and not pants in the woods unless they are going on unbeaten tales. Sure, you can scratch up your legs a little but it's really no big deal. We do have ticks here but not the lyme carrying ones, too far north, although I hear that they are gradually coming up this far due to climate change. 

[Georgiana]

10 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

Yes. This. I also think that the ultra conservative courtship standards and strict quiverfull mentality are going out of style at the same time. I see pants, 'dating with a purpose', and NFP all coming into fashion for these folks at the same time, to be honest. Not for all of them, obviously, but for a certain set. I do think that's what Jill wants to emulate, but she's struggling for all the reasons you described.

I agree.  I think ALL of that was some sanctimonious peacocking designed to "set them apart" and show the world how much HOLIER they were than your average Christian.  Or perhaps a desperate attempt to avoid common life problems by living a "set apart life".  Well, the first isn't getting much respect anymore and the second didn't pan out, so now those practices are really just creating more work for yourself.  

Jill, IMO, will never be able to carve out a niche for herself until she is willing to think for herself, which she generally seems to try to avoid.  Everything she does is essentially a copy of someone else, from her fashion to her blog posts to her recipes.  And it's OK to copy other people, especially in things like fashion, but the fact that Jill NEVER does anything original means she also never does anything truly interesting.  Everything she posts is like an off-brand knockoff of something she's seen someone else do better.  

If she's not going to think for herself, she should set herself apart by going AGAINST the trend, but I don't think she's strong enough for that.  

So she's eventually just going to be your average, forgettable, Christian insta-mommy until either she or her husband put their foot in it yet again.  

[Palimpsest]

41 minutes ago, Georgiana said:

I've been saying it for a while, but I think skirts-only was a fashion trend among "special" Christians that is now out. 

Agreed.  It was a fashion trend that is now out of date.  Clothing was never a determining factor in the belief system anyway.

37 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

Yes. This. I also think that the ultra conservative courtship standards and strict quiverfull mentality are going out of style at the same time. I see pants, 'dating with a purpose', and NFP all coming into fashion for these folks at the same time, to be honest. Not for all of them, obviously, but for a certain set. I do think that's what Jill wants to emulate, but she's struggling for all the reasons you described.

And the ultra-conservative courtship standards are falling out of favor because, quite simply, they did not work.  The generation that grew up with those standards forced on them are divorcing at an alarming rate, or speaking out against the practice vocally.

NFP may be coming into fashion but I doubt that we will hear many of the scions of Quiverfull families admit to it openly.  That would provoke a family schism.

Seriously people.  Quite a few of us have been pointing out for years, and until our faces turn blue, that:

• Not all extreme Fundamentalists are skirts-only. 
• Not all Gothardites have ever been skirts-only.
• Not all extreme Fundamentalists are Quiverfull.
• Wearing pants ≠ uses birth control.
• Some extreme Fundamentalists drink alcohol.
• Some extreme Fundamentalists even drink alcohol to excess.
• Not all extreme Fundamentalists believe in the same doctrine.

Look to their core beliefs about the Patriarchy, the status of women, their anti-choice and anti-LBGQT rhetoric, their focus on theocracy, and their insistence on the importance of World Dominion. 

There is nothing "Fundie-lite" about Derick and Jill Dillard or Cross Church at the moment.  

[Georgiana]

9 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Agreed.  It was a fashion trend that is now out of date.  Clothing was never a determining factor in the belief system anyway.

And the ultra-conservative courtship standards are falling out of favor because, quite simply, they did not work.  The generation that grew up with those standards forced on them are divorcing at an alarming rate, or speaking out against the practice vocally.

NFP may be coming into fashion but I doubt that we will hear many of the scions of Quiverfull families admit to it openly.  That would provoke a family schism.

Seriously people.  Quite a few of us have been pointing out for years, and until our faces turn blue, that:

• Not all extreme Fundamentalists are skirts-only. 
• Not all Gothardites have ever been skirts-only.
• Not all extreme Fundamentalists are Quiverfull.
• Wearing pants ≠ uses birth control.
• Some extreme Fundamentalists drink alcohol.
• Some extreme Fundamentalists even drink alcohol to excess.
• Not all extreme Fundamentalists believe in the same doctrine.

Look to their core beliefs about the Patriarchy, the status of women, their anti-choice and anti-LBGQT rhetoric, their focus on theocracy, and their insistence on the importance of World Dominion. 

There is nothing "Fundie-lite" about Derick and Jill Dillard or Cross Church at the moment.  

Really, it was quite nice when they were "setting themselves apart" because it made them easier to identify and less palatable to the mainstream.  The ones that we ALWAYS needed to watch were those who were "blending in".  It's the Jessas and the Jingers who are dangerous because they AREN'T on the outside.  They're on the inside.  They appeal to people.  They make people think they are JUST like them, and then they slip in the religion or the politics.  And people don't think as critically about it as they should because they are people they respect and idolize.  Not some odd-balls.  

Jill and Derick have never wavered on their message.  They've just realized that more people will listen if they seem normal and cool.  They may even see the changes they are making as needed sacrifices to minister to a fallen world.  Who knows.  But the message is still the same, it's just wearing shorts now.  

It's the Christian version of this:

[formergothardite]

On 6/24/2018 at 5:46 PM, luv2laugh said:

The IFB fundies are isolationist types and hardcore skirts-wearers.

I grew up IFB and there were only a couple families who were skirts only in any of the churches I came in contact with. We wore shorts, pants and regular bathing suits. A good many of the women worked and a lot of the churches had schools that people sent their kids to. Maybe there are some IFB groups like that, but it is hardly true for all of them. 

We used to have a poster here who was skirts only(she had a blog) and looked very fundie, but was very liberal with her politics and beliefs. Just because someone puts on pants doesn't mean they aren't fundie. 

[VelociRapture]

1 minute ago, Georgiana said:

Really, it was quite nice when they were "setting themselves apart" because it made them easier to identify and less palatable to the mainstream.  The ones that we ALWAYS needed to watch were those who were "blending in".  It's the Jessas and the Jingers who are dangerous because they AREN'T on the outside.  They're on the inside.  They appeal to people.  They make people think they are JUST like them, and then they slip in the religion or the politics.  And people don't think as critically about it as they should because they are people they respect and idolize.  Not some odd-balls.  

Jill and Derick have never wavered on their message.  They've just realized that more people will listen if they seem normal and cool.  They may even see the changes they are making as needed sacrifices to minister to a fallen world.  Who knows.  But the message is still the same, it's just wearing shorts now.  

It's the Christian version of this:

I personally feel Alyssa and John Webster are the most dangerous of the second gen in either the Bates or Duggar families. Some of the others have some people who think they might ease up on their beliefs, but there have been posters who have honestly hard core believed that the Websters have actually left IBLP completely. If I had to rank these married couples on how dangerous they are...

1. The Websters: have had a history of inspiring posters here to think they left IBLP despite giving no concrete signs of doing so. 

2. Zach and Whitney: she works outside the home, they only have two kids (the youngest just turned 2), and they discuss their marriage as more of an equal partnership. One or two slip ups on social media (Whit’s Trump post) and a Uber-conservative political platform from 2014 don’t seem to have hurt their image much.

3. Jinger and Jeremy: they’re good looking, dress well, and know how to work social media like bosses. He also has an actual education, though his sermons bumped them down on the list a bit. 

4. Ben and Jessa: good looking and have adorable boys. They had a very rocky start on social media, but have since wised up and use it to their advantage.

5. Chad and Erin: appear to have a genuinely loving marriage and inspired much sympathy for their experiences with miscarriage. They got bumped down a bit because Erin is still skirts only, they’ve rapidly expanded their family, and both have fathers who are IBLP Board Members. 

6. Joseph and Kendra: come across as genuine believers, but they have no social media accounts to get them into trouble and they seem to genuinely love one another. 

7. Tori and Bobby: I honestly didn’t know where else to place them. They have a lower profile than a lot of the other couples, but I haven’t seen the same support inspired for them as I have some of the others. They haven’t been married very long though, so that may be why.

8. Michael and Brandon: he literally works for the cult. There’s no pretending that they’re escaping anytime soon.

9. Joy and Austin: anti-abortion pregnancy announcement is super classy AND super subtle about what you believe!

10. Jill and Derick: they just suck so badly at life. 

11. Josh and Anna: do I really need to explain this one?

The higher a couple ranks on the list, the better they are at not presenting clear signs of Fundiedom and tre better they are at using social media to present a good image. 

[pandora]

20 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

 

• Wearing pants ≠ uses birth control.

I was skimming the page and my eyes caught on this line, and for a second I was picturing fundies lecturing their children on the sin of pants as an actual method of birth control, a la the deplorable Rush Limbaugh and aspirin. 

On a more on topic note- back in one of the first episodes of 17 Kids and Counting, they did "Cheaper by the Duggar" and the girls were showing how they permed their hair. A crew member asked why they all liked having their hair the same way, and Jill giggled and said something about how everyone wants to look like their friends. Now lots of the people Jill interacts with most (at Cross Church) aren't skirts only, so of course she isn't either. As nice as it probably feels to finally wear shorts in hot weather, it might be even nicer to no longer get looks at the pool because of wholesomewear. 

[Pecansforeveryone]

I actually think Jill eating a civil meal with a Muslim woman is the most thoughtful thing she has done, especially in light in of the extreme, "oh my gosh cooties" xenophobia of the Trump administration. (Yes, I know she had a distasteful ulterior motive.) I was raised fundagelical. We could go to the beach and public swimming pools. I have even met a fundie girl who wears bikinis to the beach. Family planning in marriage was fine. Watching certain R rated movies, war and action,  as an adult was fine. (It's fundies who made the Passion of the Christ the highest grossing R rated movie of all time.) I graduated from a secular university with a degree in psychology. The fundies I knew were defined by:

1.) Abortion is murder

2.) Gay people are icky (I'm sorry)

3. ) Evolution is a liiiieeee!

4.) Bring back prayer in public schools 

5.) General santiouminious public displays of your faith whenever possible

6.) Evangelizing mind set (befriending people in order to convert them ) and mission trip central. 

[Palimpsest]

26 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

The higher a couple ranks on the list, the better they are at not presenting clear signs of Fundiedom and tre better they are at using social media to present a good image. 

I think that is a pretty good way of ranking them although I would probably put Jinger and Jeremy second.  He freaks me out, but then I have actually listened to some of his sermons.  Also, I'm still amused by the people who are convinced Alyssa not going to take all the children God gives her - against all the evidence to date.  

Where would you put Josiah and OfSiah on that list?  He's still gung-ho about Alert.

[VelociRapture]

7 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

I think that is a pretty good way of ranking them although I would probably put Jinger and Jeremy second.  He freaks me out, but then I have actually listened to some of his sermons.  Also, I'm still amused by the people who are convinced Alyssa not going to take all the children God gives her - against all the evidence to date.  

Where would you put Josiah and OfSiah on that list?  He's still gung-ho about Alert.

Hmm... I think somewhere around where I put JoKen and BoRi. Josiah is still involved, but it’s not super obvious if you aren’t looking into it closely and he hasn’t really had any major mess ups on his social media account. That said, theres the awkward as fuck first courtship announcement that counts against him, the fact that both Marjorie and Lauren were teenagers when they got together with him, and his appearance in those anti-abortion photos that Joy and Austin shared. 

So yeah. I’d probably place them between Bobby/Tori and Michael/Brandon. 

Josie and Kelton, who are newly engaged, would probably rank closer to Joseph/Kendra. They’re an attractive enough couple, they both have social media accounts that are generally harmless - besides Kelton making a post about voting for Trump - and they both have legitimate jobs. That said, Josie is only 18 and that’s pretty young for a serious commitment like marriage*. 

*And before anyone gets upset - yes, some 18 year olds are genuinely ready for marriage. It’s definitely not the norm in many areas of the US though and for these specific families it is another reminder that they likely aren’t as like the rest of us as they like to pretend. 

[Rachel333]

I think calling wearing  only skirts merely a fashion trend is very misleading. Of course it's a trend, but not in the same way skinny jeans or the curly hair the Duggars used to have are a trend. There are actual theological beliefs behind being skirts-only, related to modesty standards  and what they believe it means to dress like a woman as opposed to like a man. Many second generation fundies in the public eye  have been re-evaluating those standards,  but that doesn't make it nothing but a fashion trend. Again, yes it is a trend of some kind, but more in the way that  this form of fundamentalism itself is also a fairly recent trend.

It's also not really the same to compare fundies who never chose to adopt the skirts only belief/practice to those who grew up being taught that it was part of their modesty standards but are now changing. (Especially if it was something their family preached on a national tv show!)

It's also important to remember that people can genuinely change some of their beliefs and still stay fundamentalists. 

2 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

There is nothing "Fundie-lite" about Derick and Jill Dillard or Cross Church at the moment. 

Cross Church is very mainstream, definitely more so than Jill and Derick. It's literally one of the largest churches in the country and is the largest church in Arkansas. That doesn't make it not fundamentalist, but it does seem at odds with how "fundie"/"fundie-lite" are usually used around here. The distinction has never been clear, though, and I don't find it a particularly useful one. However you categorize these people, they're still harmful.

[singsingsing]

7 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

I think calling wearing  only skirts merely a fashion trend is very misleading. Of course it's a trend, but not in the same way skinny jeans or the curly hair the Duggars used to have are a trend. There are actual theological beliefs behind being skirts-only, related to modesty standards  and what they believe it means to dress like a woman as opposed to like a man. Many second generation fundies in the public eye  have been re-evaluating those standards,  but that doesn't make it nothing but a fashion trend. Again, yes it is a trend of some kind, but more in the way that  this form of fundamentalism itself is also a fairly recent trend.

I can only speak for myself, but I definitely didn't mean that it was only a fashion trend. If it were only a fashion trend, it wouldn't be interesting or even really worth thinking about.

[Rachel333]

1 minute ago, singsingsing said:

I can only speak for myself, but I definitely didn't mean that it was only a fashion trend. If it were only a fashion trend, it wouldn't be interesting or even really worth thinking about.

I do think it's equivalent to other trends you mentioned, like beliefs about courtship. I don't see it as the same as the Duggar girls all curling their hair, which is something I've also seen it compared to.

I just think people go overboard downplaying the significance of skirts/pants and in other threads I've often seen people come in and criticize posters for wanting to talk about the change to pants at all, which strikes me as unfair. It probably makes me a little defensive in the other direction! 

[finnlassie]

@formergothardite

Totally unrelated, but scrolling without glasses I thought your avatar was Michelle.

[Georgiana]

2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

We used to have a poster here who was skirts only(she had a blog) and looked very fundie, but was very liberal with her politics and beliefs. Just because someone puts on pants doesn't mean they aren't fundie. 

I'm essentially skirts only just for comfort reasons.  Even when I do wear pants, I generally wear them with a long tunic.  I think just because of my build, pants don't tend to fit my hip area well, so I prefer it to be covered by something loose.  I'm also chesty, so I tend to prefer "modest" necklines, or I feel like everyone just stares at my boobs.  

It's less religion and more anxiety with me, but the result is the same.  

1 minute ago, singsingsing said:

I can only speak for myself, but I definitely didn't mean that it was only a fashion trend. If it were only a fashion trend, it wouldn't be interesting or even really worth thinking about.

Right, it's a CHRISTIANITY trend.  We all know fundies cherry-pick the Bible.  Which Bible verses are "en vogue" to respect and which ones are fashionable to ignore is what changes.  Sure it's a Bible-based belief, but it's a bit of a stretch.  Their Biblical argument for "skirts only" was FAR weaker than an argument against eating pork or wearing blended fabrics, for example, but they threw those out while keeping the skirts.  So why THAT belief?  

It was fashion.  A group of people that they were following pushed THAT particular belief, and a lot of people jumped on so they could be part of the club.  Now, those people aren't cool anymore. No one WANTS to be part of that lame club. There's a new clique to join and a new queen bee to copy and a new group to fit in with.  

[Pecansforeveryone]

25 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

I think calling wearing  only skirts merely a fashion trend is very misleading. Of course it's a trend, but not in the same way skinny jeans or the curly hair the Duggars used to have are a trend. There are actual theological beliefs behind being skirts-only, related to modesty standards  and what they believe it means to dress like a woman as opposed to like a man. Many second generation fundies in the public eye  have been re-evaluating those standards,  but that doesn't make it nothing but a fashion trend. Again, yes it is a trend of some kind, but more in the way that  this form of fundamentalism itself is also a fairly recent trend.

It's also not really the same to compare fundies who never chose to adopt the skirts only belief/practice to those who grew up being taught that it was part of their modesty standards but are now changing. (Especially if it was something their family preached on a national tv show!)

It's also important to remember that people can genuinely change some of their beliefs and still stay fundamentalists. 

Cross Church is very mainstream, definitely more so than Jill and Derick. It's literally one of the largest churches in the country and is the largest church in Arkansas. That doesn't make it not fundamentalist, but it does seem at odds with how "fundie"/"fundie-lite" are usually used around here. The distinction has never been clear, though, and I don't find it a particularly useful one. However you categorize these people, they're still harmful.

I also know Oneness Pentecostals/ Holiness Pentecostals were staunch for years about skirts only. They are generally considered questionable by other Christians not because of skirts only, but because they don't believe in the Trinity. Even when they were officially skirts only, I don't think the Duggars would have forgiven other fundie sects for denying the Trinity or practicing infant baptism. So no Oneness Pentecostals or Fundie Lutherans/Presbyterians better come a court in. Denied! 

[NakedKnees]

2 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I personally feel Alyssa and John Webster are the most dangerous of the second gen in either the Bates or Duggar families. Some of the others have some people who think they might ease up on their beliefs, but there have been posters who have honestly hard core believed that the Websters have actually left IBLP completely. If I had to rank these married couples on how dangerous they are...

1. The Websters: have had a history of inspiring posters here to think they left IBLP despite giving no concrete signs of doing so. 

2. Zach and Whitney: she works outside the home, they only have two kids (the youngest just turned 2), and they discuss their marriage as more of an equal partnership. One or two slip ups on social media (Whit’s Trump post) and a Uber-conservative political platform from 2014 don’t seem to have hurt their image much.

3. Jinger and Jeremy: they’re good looking, dress well, and know how to work social media like bosses. He also has an actual education, though his sermons bumped them down on the list a bit. 

4. Ben and Jessa: good looking and have adorable boys. They had a very rocky start on social media, but have since wised up and use it to their advantage.

5. Chad and Erin: appear to have a genuinely loving marriage and inspired much sympathy for their experiences with miscarriage. They got bumped down a bit because Erin is still skirts only, they’ve rapidly expanded their family, and both have fathers who are IBLP Board Members. 

6. Joseph and Kendra: come across as genuine believers, but they have no social media accounts to get them into trouble and they seem to genuinely love one another. 

7. Tori and Bobby: I honestly didn’t know where else to place them. They have a lower profile than a lot of the other couples, but I haven’t seen the same support inspired for them as I have some of the others. They haven’t been married very long though, so that may be why.

8. Michael and Brandon: he literally works for the cult. There’s no pretending that they’re escaping anytime soon.

9. Joy and Austin: anti-abortion pregnancy announcement is super classy AND super subtle about what you believe!

10. Jill and Derick: they just suck so badly at life. 

11. Josh and Anna: do I really need to explain this one?

The higher a couple ranks on the list, the better they are at not presenting clear signs of Fundiedom and tre better they are at using social media to present a good image. 

I LOVE your list. I would probably move JinJer to #2, and I do think ChErin should be higher. I believe they posted misleading stuff on Instagram toward the end of the fall of Gothard. It was something to the extent of "Our family is not using ATI" when their children were babies and presumably not using homeschooling materials at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong- I could just be thinking of Alyssa and John.

I know I harp on this a bit, but I think Chad gets a pass on this forum all the time. We're always reminding each other that we don't really know these people but just see them through the filters of reality TV and social media when it comes to other fundies and issues. We honestly don't know how kind/loving Chad is, or how many of these other husbands would care for their wives (as reality TV showed it, at least) if they went through the same struggles (I'd even say traumas) Cherin went through. They're still young IBLP royalty, and to me, that may be big (if the organization survives).

To me, Chad and Erin, Alyssa and John, and Jinger and Jeremy are the most insidiously attractive couples.

19 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

I can only speak for myself, but I definitely didn't mean that it was only a fashion trend. If it were only a fashion trend, it wouldn't be interesting or even really worth thinking about.

I agree. The "skirts-only" question is certainly blown out of proportion in its value sometimes, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless. 

I always thought that the goal of skirts-only was to address a biblical concept that men and women cannot wear the same types of clothes? Maybe a better Bible scholar can help me with that.

I consider being skirts-only very similar to being head-covering at the end of the day. It certainly has a religious basis (unlike skinny jeans, or ugg boots, or crop tops), but that doesn't mean it has any reliable relationship with bigotry and other important stuff.

[VelociRapture]

27 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

I think calling wearing  only skirts merely a fashion trend is very misleading. Of course it's a trend, but not in the same way skinny jeans or the curly hair the Duggars used to have are a trend. There are actual theological beliefs behind being skirts-only, related to modesty standards  and what they believe it means to dress like a woman as opposed to like a man. Many second generation fundies in the public eye  have been re-evaluating those standards,  but that doesn't make it nothing but a fashion trend. Again, yes it is a trend of some kind, but more in the way that  this form of fundamentalism itself is also a fairly recent trend.

It's also not really the same to compare fundies who never chose to adopt the skirts only belief/practice to those who grew up being taught that it was part of their modesty standards but are now changing. (Especially if it was something their family preached on a national tv show!)

It's also important to remember that people can genuinely change some of their beliefs and still stay fundamentalists. 

Cross Church is very mainstream, definitely more so than Jill and Derick. It's literally one of the largest churches in the country and is the largest church in Arkansas. That doesn't make it not fundamentalist, but it does seem at odds with how "fundie"/"fundie-lite" are usually used around here. The distinction has never been clear, though, and I don't find it a particularly useful one. However you categorize these people, they're still harmful.

Personally, when discussing the Bates and Duggars specifically I’m of the belief that wearing pants is in no way a sign that they’re moving away from their harmful fundamentalist beliefs. It’s absolutely a sign that they disagree with their parents’ on that specific issue, but I don’t think it indicates anything more than that - especially since skirts only was more of a suggestion from IBLP leadership than an actual requirement (for everyday life at least.) It could be a completely different story with another flavor of fundamentalists though. It really depends on the specific beliefs and teachings of the group in my opinion. 

21 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

I do think it's equivalent to other trends you mentioned, like beliefs about courtship. I don't see it as the same as the Duggar girls all curling their hair, which is something I've also seen it compared to.

I just think people go overboard downplaying the significance of skirts/pants and in other threads I've often seen people come in and criticize posters for wanting to talk about the change to pants at all, which strikes me as unfair. It probably makes me a little defensive in the other direction! 

I don’t mind if people want to discuss the fashion changes. It’s normal to be curious, especially when the person comes from a reality tv family known for only wearing skirts. I do mind when people start claiming that someone is 100% escaping from IBLP because they wear pants or sleeveless tops though, especially when there is little to no other supportive evidence they can cite. That’s likely why you see such pushback in some threads, especially the one for Alyssa Webster.

[Rachel333]

12 minutes ago, NakedKnees said:

I always thought that the goal of skirts-only was to address a biblical concept that men and women cannot wear the same types of clothes? Maybe a better Bible scholar can help me with that.

That's definitely part of the reasoning, which I find kind of funny since it's purely cultural and there's nothing inherently feminine about skirts or masculine about pants. I guess though if you do view that cultural distinction as important then it would make sense that since pants are now seen as female attire then it's no longer "cross dresssing" for women to wear pants. There would be some logic there, but it does seem weird to put so much importance on something that is just a cultural trend.

2 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

It’s absolutely a sign that they disagree with their parents’ on that specific issue, but I don’t think it indicates anything more than that

I agree, and I have always said something similar. I think it in no way means they're moving away from fundamentalism, but it does mean they're rethinking their beliefs/standards somewhat. I just get really tired of people saying it means nothing whatsoever. It doesn't mean much, but that doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything.

[formergothardite]

31 minutes ago, finnlassie said:

@formergothardite

Totally unrelated, but scrolling without glasses I thought your avatar was Michelle.

Jill Rod. would probably take that as a compliment!