Seewalds 36: Waiting for the Next Cute Kid Video or Photo

[just_ordinary]

5 hours ago, grandmadugger said:

Until FJ I didn’t realize that “be sweet” could be bad. Everyone says it around here. It really does just mean being nice. 

I think there is a distinction between „being sweet“ as in just being nice and „keeping it sweet“ as in suppressing emotions, not speaking up and being forced to act as if you are happy.

[VelociRapture]

I don’t know if that video is really the best example for the message she wrote. Spurgeon said no because he didn’t want to perform on camera the way his mom wanted and it’s great that Jessa didn’t push the issue (that we know of)... but I feel like it’s just a weird example to use for a “don’t want to condone certain behaviors” post. Standing up for himself and clearly stating his opinion is a good thing. Am I missing something?

[HerNameIsBuffy]

16 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

I don’t know if that video is really the best example for the message she wrote. Spurgeon said no because he didn’t want to perform on camera the way his mom wanted and it’s great that Jessa didn’t push the issue (that we know of)... but I feel like it’s just a weird example to use for a “don’t want to condone certain behaviors” post. Standing up for himself and clearly stating his opinion is a good thing. Am I missing something?

I could be wrong, but I took it as she was saying they don't need to be little robots and if they don't immediately obey sometimes it's just not a big deal - they are people.

Which, if I'm reading her correctly, is an absolutely fabulous statement from someone who was raised on blanket training.  

Nbd to most of us, but a huge thing for a Duggar to see their children as autonomous people in their own right and not merely possessions or extensions of the Borg.

[Mama Mia]

18 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I could be wrong, but I took it as she was saying they don't need to be little robots and if they don't immediately obey sometimes it's just not a big deal - they are people.

Which, if I'm reading her correctly, is an absolutely fabulous statement from someone who was raised on blanket training.  

Nbd to most of us, but a huge thing for a Duggar to see their children as autonomous people in their own right and not merely possessions or extensions of the Borg.

I agree, I think it’s a great, well worded, statement. Go to any cute kid video on the internet where a kid is doing something against what the parent said - at least half the comments will be irate know-it-all’s going on about how THEIR child would never DARE say No. and all the horrible things that would happen if they did. And the problem with the world today is kids who talk back and on and on and on. The commenters seem to be all ages, and certainly don’t all appear to be fundie. 

[Charliemae]

Thing is this isn't  Jane Smith posting this.

It is Jessa Duggar.  "Keeping sweet" is and was and is a huge part of their cult brain washing. 

I don't know what to make of this wording.  I do think it's okay to over analyze it.  

[Sis Robto]

I believe this has been discussed before. The Duggars use the word sweet all the time, but the phrase keeping sweet is from the FLDS. The Duggars practice JOY. Jesus first, others second an yourself last. Which is not all that different from keeping sweet.

[singsingsing]

I was just going to say, 'keeping sweet' entered vernacular because of the FLDS. The Duggars and their ilk definitely advocate repressing emotions and women being nice and 'meek', but it's not on the same bizarro level as the FLDS.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, singsingsing said:

women being nice and 'meek'

I still need someone to explain to me how meek is a compliment in any context.

I'm not encouraging being a ball-buster by any means, but if my daughter was what I consider meek I'd see that as something to help her with, not a positive attribute.  I'd be afraid her hypothetical meekness would get in the way of her voicing her opinion or advocating for herself when necessary.

Never mind, I just answered my own question.  Fuck these people.

[habert]

I think the message is good (balance between teaching them to listen to instructions/let them stand up for themselves or w/e) but it’s more weird because it seemed to me he thought she was taking a photo and not a video lol. 

[Rachel333]

@Sis Robto @singsingsing Thank you! I've gotten into this so many times but "keep sweet" has become such a part of the internet fundie watchers' vocabulary that a lot of people don't even believe now that it doesn't come from the Duggars or similar fundies, it comes from the FLDS.

[DundeeUnFundie]

I definitely understand where everyone is coming from with 'keep sweet'... But a lot of people are talking about keeping sweet and silent in terms of daughters and women, and I thought it was for exclusively females. Spurgeon is a little boy, is it then for all children? Wouldn't teaching boys to keep silent and meek undermine their whole idea of men being strong leaders since shy boys might struggle to be assertive when grown?

[patsymae]

On 10/18/2018 at 8:03 PM, Georgiana said:

I think that the point is that while it DOES happen, it does not ALWAYS happen.  So while abuses of the adoption system are very real, that doesn't give people the right to dump ALL adoptions into the same bucket and make generalizing statements that then hurt already vulnerable people.  That is harmful, and should not be done.  That's I think the point @Hisey was making: people make these comments about adoption in very sweeping terms, sometimes in places where they may be overheard by adoptees, without concern as to whether they are factually accurate or without bothering to consider the emotions of those bundled up in that statement.  

SOME adoptions are problematic.  SOME adoptions should not have happened.  But that does not mean all, and we should not pretend like it does or seek to create a stigma surrounding private adoption.  The issues stated in this thread are very real things that happen, but they did not happen in all cases or to all adoptees, and the best response is to tackle those problems at the root as opposed to demonizing an entire process that has touched many lives in a deeply personal (and sometimes positive) way.   

"Not all" is almost a joke response. Of course it's "not all." nothing is "all." That doesn't change the fact that domestic infant adoption is a multi-million dollar industry that exists because those involved in it make money by providing poor people's babies to people who are willing to pay. It doesn't change the fact that international adoption is so connected with deceit and trafficking that until "provider" countries shut down children who are not orphans are sold to Western people who are willing to pay for them, and that in any place where US or other Westerners are willing to pay thens of thousands of dollars for children, some "adoption professional" will find a way to provie them.

Foster care is the area where the "not all" meets the "huh"? Clearly there are children who have been horribly abused and need to be away from their natural parents. No one, at least not me, is disputing that these children need a safe haven. Clearly, also, there are children who have not been abused but by our cultural standards appear neglected, and our society prefers to donate them to more affluent people who want kids rather than provide social support for families. And then there are, documented at least in Kentucky and Arizona, cases in which vulnerable familes were targeted in order to provide children for adoption, and thus get--oh, guess what?--money.

Of course there are people who were adopted who love their adoptive parents--but "not all"--of course there are children who cannot be with their natural parents for what are sometimes horrific reasons. Nut if we're gong to use "not all," not all children removed from their homes were removed for abuse. Odds are they were removed because of neglect and made available for adoption because the state gets money for having them adopted.
"Not all"--who of all us us doesn't believe we're the "not" part of "not all"?

[nst]

On 11/16/2018 at 6:16 PM, Daisy0322 said:

 

since i entered peri menopause I am more manic...keeping sweet is something of the past. 

[viii]

7 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I still need someone to explain to me how meek is a compliment in any context.

I'm not encouraging being a ball-buster by any means, but if my daughter was what I consider meek I'd see that as something to help her with, not a positive attribute.  I'd be afraid her hypothetical meekness would get in the way of her voicing her opinion or advocating for herself when necessary.

Never mind, I just answered my own question.  Fuck these people.

Meek is considered a compliment because it is one of the beatitudes - blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. 

The Bible doesn’t mean meekness as in submissive or quiet, but rather meekness that does not identify the weak, but more precisely the strong who have been placed in a position of weakness where they persevere without giving up... hence the complimentary nature of it. 

[AussieKrissy]

17 hours ago, singsingsing said:

I was just going to say, 'keeping sweet' entered vernacular because of the FLDS. The Duggars and their ilk definitely advocate repressing emotions and women being nice and 'meek', but it's not on the same bizarro level as the FLDS.

Why is my brain telling me some one had keep sweet over their bed? Maybe I am thinking escaping polygamy.... 

[Reo]

15 hours ago, patsymae said:

 

Foster care is the area where the "not all" meets the "huh"? Clearly there are children who have been horribly abused and need to be away from their natural parents. No one, at least not me, is disputing that these children need a safe haven. Clearly, also, there are children who have not been abused but by our cultural standards appear neglected, and our society prefers to donate them to more affluent people who want kids rather than provide social support for families. 

Of course there are people who were adopted who love their adoptive parents--but "not all"--of course there are children who cannot be with their natural parents for what are sometimes horrific reasons. Nut if we're gong to use "not all," not all children removed from their homes were removed for abuse. Odds are they were removed because of neglect and made available for adoption because the state gets money for having them adopted.
 

I’ve avoided the adoption thread, but the idea that neglect is not a legitimate reason to remove children got me going.

Prolonged neglect is abuse that does not come with external bruises and can interfere with development in ways beyond a single act of abuse. We are in Canada and there is no financial aspect to foster care adoption. We adopted my daughter at 14. She and her 3 siblings had 8.5 years of services in the home before finally being removed (started when she was ~6 months old). She was then in foster care for 3.5 years as they first worked on reunifying the family (she actually only fought to get back the oldest child) and then tried to find a home that could take all 4.

My daughter’s emotional scars run deep. Her brain definitely is wired differently as a result of the prolonged neglect. http://developingchild.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/The-Science-of-Neglect-The-Persistent-Absence-of-Responsive-Care-Disrupts-the-Developing-Brain.pdf 

We were lucky to have professionals in our area that have experience with treating kids who have experienced long term neglect. They saw us through the most challenging years as she learned new responses to situations and to trust and to learn to live in a functioning family.  

Part of the neglect was extreme poverty. More extreme than necessary with the social nets that Canada has in place because of the choices her mother made. But most was just the lack of a caring mother willing to actively parent her kids and manage a household. My daughter and her 2 younger sister slept on a bare mattress surrounded in filth ( multiple cats, no money for animal care). Three times. Social Services brought a team in to declutter and clean the house and she was not willing to maintain it.  The kids were left to fend for themselves and a 3 and 5 year old took care of their infant twin siblings. My daughter spent her childhood being the responsible one. There was medical and dental neglect in a system where healthcare is free.  My daughter has huge abandonment issues because they were often left alone for days or dropped off at a relative for the night only to have their mother stay away for a couple of weeks. She has extreme food issues because they often didn’t have refrigeration and would blow their monthly food allowance at McDonalds in a few days and then live on rice and potatoes for the rest.  We have later found out that the 3 of the 4 children were sexually abused by at least two friends of their mothers (disclosed during therapy), who likely had an easy time of it due to the lack of parental oversight. In hindsight, my daughter ‘s social workers wishes they had removed the children earlier, but it was “just neglect”

We are still working with my daughter on relationships. She had a hard time keeping friends because of her hyper vigilance and extreme reactions to small triggers. She has sworn off a romantic relationship for now after a couple of toxic ones in high school and falling prey to an online pedophile at 14.

We are so proud of the young woman she has become, but she still has a long way to go. Her life is so much harder because of the neglect in her early years.

TL,DR neglect can be just as damaging as physical abuse

[WiseGirl]

19 minutes ago, Reo said:

neglect can be just as damaging as physical abuse

Absolutely.  I too have a child from foster care that suffered years of negelect.  It is a hard row for both the child and us, the parents. I wish you and your daughter well on your journey. I know it well. IMO neglect cases need to be removed earlier. It is so hard to overcome.

[BernRul]

6 hours ago, Reo said:

I’ve avoided the adoption thread, but the idea that neglect is not a legitimate reason to remove children got me going.

Same here. I have seen many young children who were neglected, and those children are damaged for life. Some part of them knows that they should be loved and nurtured like other children, but they are too young to comprehend why their parents don't love them and it makes them act out against themselves and others. The emotional and mental damage is devestating.

Sorry, but I don't see it as a tragedy that children are removed from neglectful parents. I think it's a tragedy that more aren't, and that somehow their suffering is not viewed as being as serious as physical abuse. The idea that it's always preferable for children to be with their bio parents is bull. I wish more neglected children could be adopted by loving parents. I have no sympathy for parents who chose to neglect their children. 

[justoneoftwo]

The problem is that neglect is nebulous. And often it is because of poverty or because of a lack of understanding of what babies need. Sometimes things are considered neglect that are simply trying to survive in a property situation.

On the other hand some situations are horrible neglectful and children should be removed immediately. The issue is finding the line between the two and nobody gets it right 100% of the time

 

[BernRul]

1 hour ago, justoneoftwo said:

And often it is because of poverty or because of a lack of understanding of what babies need.

I'm not talking about that kind of neglect. There was a period where I worked with children ages 3-5 who came from a deeply impoverished background. Most parents still loved their children. They might spank their children, threaten to hit their children with shoes, curse in front of their children, smoke in front of their children, and model inappropriate behavior in front of their children, but they still loved their children. When they picked up their child, their child ran to them, hugged them, and they returned the hug. When the child was hurt or sick, the parent was concerned. They may not have been perfect parents due to poverty and lack of education, but their children didn't suffer under their care. 

But then there were other parents. I saw a mother who always yelled at her son. He would try so hard to get her to love him--always called her mommy, always tried to make things for her--and all she did was insult him, ignore him, or scream at him. The look on his face still haunts me to this day. He tried so hard to win her love, and he tried so hard to be a good boy in class (I felt so awful every time I even corrected his behavior, because he just wanted to be good so badly) and it was never enough for her. She treated him like dogshit that she stepped in that wouldn't come off. He'll probably spend his whole life in and out of prison. 

I knew a girl whose mom was so addicted to drugs that she once went out to get high, leaving her toddler and baby home alone all night. They were give to the grandma and they did better, but whenever the mom came back in their lives the child acted out violently. The mother wouldn't leave her daughter, but she wouldn't parent her either, and it destroyed that child mentally. She was a people pleaser too, but the mother's damage eventually gave her huge behavior problems. She'll likely still have those problems throughout school, which puts her on the path of getting poor grades, dropping out, and continuing the cycle of substance abuse and teen pregnancy. She'll probably die young. 

I love those kids, and it kills me to see what's become of them. It kills me that no matter what I tried, it's not enough to overcome that massive handicap. I called CPS on the girl with behavior problems (because the change in personality was so stark that the staff all thought she was being physically or sexually abused) but they didn't consider the neglect enough to remove the mom from her life. Yeah, lack of education was partly responsible, but I've seen a lot of uneducated parents, and even addicted parents who at least tried to be there for their kids. Personally I think the appalling, deepseated and permanent damage to those kids outweighs the parents' excuses. To be blunt, those kids will be fucked up for the rest of their lives, and if the parents couldn't even try for them than they should've give up their rights.

Sorry for my tone, but I'm really bitter and jaded. 

[nst]

On 11/17/2018 at 6:48 PM, nst said:

since i entered peri menopause I am more manic...keeping sweet is something of the past. 

manic is the wrong word i am going for. 

more in a wave that goes up and down like in maui which i leave for in three weeks....

[Carm_88]

Hopefully the kitty cat stays far, far away from Derick Dillard.

[singsingsing]

Spurgeon looks more and more like Ben as he gets older. 

[SorenaJ]

Run cat, run! 

[nolongerIFBx]

On 11/17/2018 at 1:32 PM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I still need someone to explain to me how meek is a compliment in any context.

I'm not encouraging being a ball-buster by any means, but if my daughter was what I consider meek I'd see that as something to help her with, not a positive attribute.  I'd be afraid her hypothetical meekness would get in the way of her voicing her opinion or advocating for herself when necessary.

Never mind, I just answered my own question.  Fuck these people.

My fundie churches taught that meek meant "strength under control" with Moses being the Biblical character who exemplified meekness. Surprise! The meaning of words has changed since 1611.

Here's a few examples that I Googled:

http://theexaminer.com/features/commentary/meekness-strength-under-control

https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/grace-to-you/read/articles/restoring-the-virtue-of-meekness-11247.html

https://www.heraldcourier.com/community/meekness-is-not-weakness-but-strength-under-control/article_62b99d41-1542-5989-bf11-b70cd4e6924d.html