Joy & Austin 28: loss and mourning

[SassyPants]

1 hour ago, luv2laugh said:

Why aren’t people able to speculate and give opinions anymore on Freejinger without policing? Have I missed something? I’ve always thought people were able to discuss the Duggars and the harmful views of fundamentalism based off of their own opinions?

Honestly? I do not trust anything the Duggars do. The Duggars have not shown themselves to be trustworthy.

The Duggars are not honest with their audience about their beliefs as they would rather either follow or act as a PR team and profit from the secular public than tell them they’re going to hell.

I think the trouble many are having is in the timing of some of the speculation. Most grieving people are extended a grace period in terms of speculating regarding behaviors exhibited or decisions made. Personally, I have questioned the public nature of the decisions made, and I will always do that. where minors or other vulnerable people are involved. Of course the pictures are appropriate and how the family has chosen to grieve is appropriate, but do I need *to open up a People magazine, or my FB page and see those photos? Personally, no I do not. But, I feel this way about any minor child who is being used by a family for financial gain, especially those with zero protections in place.

IMO, it’s a timing thing-

need= it is not my business at all. Need does not mean that I am offended by the pictures, rather I consider those private materials for those who actually know the family to view and cherish.

Edited July 6, 2019 by SassyPants

[Sullie06]

19 hours ago, feministxtian said:

For the record I lost a wanted baby 11 days after his birth at 26 weeks. I wish I had pictures of him. 

I’m sorry for your loss! My mom says the same thing about my older sister. She often says her biggest regret is not taking a single photo of her during the two days she was alive. She said that everything was such a blur that my parents never stopped to think about preserving thy memory. My mom said some days it feels like she never existed at all outside of her own mind. Especially because my father is very very tight lipped about it.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Sullie06

[Beermeet]

@shock928  That is exactly why we call our lost baby #2.  I didn't know the sex but that was my second child. My living boy is #1, my living girl is #3. It may seem strange or robotic or something to some but, to us #2 is just that. Our Child, #2.  Wishing you a healthy pregnancy with as little stress as is possible.  ❤

[Hisey]

5 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

People really need to stop. We have no evidence at this point that they are exploiting their legitimately tragic situation for financial gain or to promote their pro-life views. Speculating that they’re somehow profiting off of the loss of their daughter right now, when we have no tangible proof to back that speculation up, is inappropriate. I really thought FJ was better than this. 

People has a ongoing cash-for-news relationship with the Duggars. People does not want to jeopardize this relationship. There are a lot of future births, marriages and deaths coming up.

For this reason, People is not going use Duggar Instagram photos without providing compensation. Maybe they dont' have to, technically, but they will.

If they don't, JB Duggar is going to give the next piece of news to US Magazine or Radar Online. People doesn't want to risk this. Why would they? It's easier to pay for the use of the photos and continue their good relationship.

So, yes, it's extremely likely that the Duggars received compensation for this news.

[SassyPants]

In terms of photos...many hospitals have and have had policies in place that include post passing photos of infants and children as part of protocol. These photos are offered to families ( even photos that do not include the parents). Even if the parents Initially decline the photos, the photos are maintained in a hospital file as part of the record. Photos are also taken if babies are going for adoption. People can enquire with the facility to see if such photos exist. Photograph permits are often part of the admissions process, allowing facilities to take these photos.

29 minutes ago, Hisey said:

People has a ongoing cash-for-news relationship with the Duggars. People does not want to jeopardize this relationship. There are a lot of future births, marriages and deaths coming up.

For this reason, People is not going use Duggar Instagram photos without providing compensation. Maybe they dont' have to, technically, but they will.

If they don't, JB Duggar is going to give the next piece of news to US Magazine or Radar Online. People doesn't want to risk this. Why would they? It's easier to pay for the use of the photos and continue their good relationship.

So, yes, it's extremely likely that the Duggars received compensation for this news.

Accepting that there is a financial relationship between PM and the Duggars, such that PM has first rights, I can’t imagine that there would not eventually be some financial compensation as this is a business relationship. 

[luv2laugh]

For the Duggars, who are ardently pro-life, it’s only a matter of time before they make this political as the show is the “family’s ministry”, per Austin. Politicians are setting abortion up to be an issue in the 2020 election. The question below is part of what makes suffering a miscarriage or having a stillbirth very hard:

Why should a woman be able to have an abortion at 20 weeks when it’s killing a baby? 

Edited July 6, 2019 by luv2laugh

[HarleyQuinn]

3 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

It still works like that. And you can still be told off for being as tacky and inappropriate as a Duggar when you post speculation that is also in bad taste.

ETA not without policing, but with community self policing.

To piggyback off this - I think the user policing is getting excessive. This is a forum that allows thread drift in every topic, but when users stay on topic they're consistantly policed on how they choose to snark on the Duggars, not by staff but by other members. I feel like we're getting dangerously close to fundie gatekeeping at this point. 

Yes I know, ignore lists exist and what not and I mean no offense but that's been on my mind recently as it's been really noticeable .

[Smee]

One of the reasons my husband and I are very careful about what we post on social media regardless of “friend only” settings is that technically, part of the user agreement for Facebook and Instagram says that when photos are posted to those platforms, the copyright belongs to FB/Insta. There have been numerous news articles about local tragedies or whatever with ordinary people, where the photos that go along with the article are credited to Facebook. It’s particularly unsettling to me to see a picture of a murder victim in a news article and know that there’s no guarantee the family gave permission for it to be shared, much less received compensation.

I think in this particular instance, People probably have a pre-existing contract for how much they pay when re-posting news and pictures from the Duggars’ public social media, because they’ve done it many times before with less sensitive topics. I doubt JB was getting a phone call to ask permission every time someone had a birthday or whatever. And dozens of other media sites have done the same thing, “articles” that basically quote what Joy & Austin themselves put on Instagram.

At a later date, after a funeral and some time to grieve, there may very well be a “People Exclusive! Joy-Anna Duggar and Husband Austin Open Up About Their Loss” with an actual interview, at which point all aboard the snark train, but that’s not what we’re seeing right now and we shouldn’t be talking as if it is.

5 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

The photo of Joy crying over her lifeless baby/fetus with Austin looking empty along with Jill and Michelle looking over made me tear up. The raw, deep pain depicted in their faces stuck with me and I can’t stop thinking about how they’re suffering right now.

However, did that one specific photo need to be shared? I found it triggering. I’d imagine many followers and fans are feeling triggered from that specific photo.

That photo was very powerful and heartbreaking. However, it was the third?  in the Instagram post, so followers and fans had to scroll across to see it. We knew what the pictures were when we made the choice to look at the next one and the one after that. 

[luv2laugh]

7 minutes ago, Smee said:

At a later date, after a funeral and some time to grieve, there may very well be a “People Exclusive! Joy-Anna Duggar and Husband Austin Open Up About Their Loss” with an actual interview, at which point all aboard the snark train, but that’s not what we’re seeing right now and we shouldn’t be talking as if it is.

I don’t believe anyone here is snarking on their loss as many have cried and sympathized with the Duggars. Although, some are questioning what the Duggars may do to profit and/or promote a political agenda from the loss.

You have a fair point that I can understand but I’ve put in bold the portion of which I consider to be policing. I’m not sure why some posters are telling others what should and should not be discussed regarding the Duggars...

Edited July 7, 2019 by luv2laugh

[Smee]

2 minutes ago, luv2laugh said:

I don’t believe anyone here is snarking on their loss as many have cried and sympathized with the Duggars. Although, some are questioning what the Duggars may do to profit and/or promote a political agenda from the loss.

You have a fair point that I can understand but I’ve put in bold the portion of which I consider to be policing. I’m not sure why some posters are telling others what people should and should not discuss regarding the Duggars...

My point is discuss what you want, but be accurate about it. If you have a problem with Jessa sharing photos of Ivy on a public social media where she knows they’ll be picked up by a magazine, fine, say that. If you have a problem with Joy sharing photos of Annabell on a public social media platform where she knows they’ll be picked up by a magazine, fine, say that too. But if you say Joy is profiting off her tragedy and the pictures were taken by a photographer from People magazine, then I’m going to call you out on your lack of evidence.

I think inaccuracy hurts the FJ purpose, because it creates opportunities for strawmen. If we’re seen as a site full of BEC and hyperbole, the serious and accurate discussions of the dangers of fundamentalism get written off as exaggerations too.

[Beermeet]

1 hour ago, HarleyQuinn said:

To piggyback off this - I think the user policing is getting excessive. This is a forum that allows thread drift in every topic, but when users stay on topic they're consistantly policed on how they choose to snark on the Duggars, not by staff but by other members. I feel like we're getting dangerously close to fundie gatekeeping at this point. 

Yes I know, ignore lists exist and what not and I mean no offense but that's been on my mind recently as it's been really noticeable .

The difference to me ( and my opinion plus $2.50 will get you some coffee) is that unlike say, JRod, is that JRod practically writes her own snark. Joy losing her baby is mirroring many women's experience with miscarriage/stillbirth.  She's not acting extra. Normal. Identifiable.  Is it possible selling their story is happening? Maybe. But, People mag did not break this story. They are gleaning pics like pecans. That and sensitive subject/not wanting to be like a certain fermented veggie, gets us here I suppose.  

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Beermeet

[luv2laugh]

1 hour ago, Smee said:

My point is discuss what you want, but be accurate about it. If you have a problem with Jessa sharing photos of Ivy on a public social media where she knows they’ll be picked up by a magazine, fine, say that. If you have a problem with Joy sharing photos of Annabell on a public social media platform where she knows they’ll be picked up by a magazine, fine, say that too. But if you say Joy is profiting off her tragedy and the pictures were taken by a photographer from People magazine, then I’m going to call you out on your lack of evidence.

I think inaccuracy hurts the FJ purpose, because it creates opportunities for strawmen. If we’re seen as a site full of BEC and hyperbole, the serious and accurate discussions of the dangers of fundamentalism get written off as exaggerations too.

I don’t think anyone stated that as a fact. Most users are posting their own opinions. 

I’ve seen a lot of BEC in the Jill Dillard forum and it not being called out yet when someone’s criticizing a user’s favorite Duggar/Bates, they claim it’s BEC.

In fact, over the past year I’ve noticed more users claiming someone’s criticism of a Duggar or Bates is BEC and try to police them.

Before the older Duggar sisters married, members routinely criticized JB & Michelle’s fundamentalism and desperation forbfame. Users could be ruthless when discussing Michelle Duggar. However, once the older Duggars married, I’ve observed a pervasive trend where more members have become sympathetic to certain adult Duggar kids and defensive over how they are criticized.

Edited July 7, 2019 by luv2laugh

[viii]

I thought the Duggar’s have been going to US Weekly for scoops lately; not People. 

[SassyPants]

45 minutes ago, Smee said:

My point is discuss what you want, but be accurate about it. If you have a problem with Jessa sharing photos of Ivy on a public social media where she knows they’ll be picked up by a magazine, fine, say that. If you have a problem with Joy sharing photos of Annabell on a public social media platform where she knows they’ll be picked up by a magazine, fine, say that too. But if you say Joy is profiting off her tragedy and the pictures were taken by a photographer from People magazine, then I’m going to call you out on your lack of evidence.

I think inaccuracy hurts the FJ purpose, because it creates opportunities for strawmen. If we’re seen as a site full of BEC and hyperbole, the serious and accurate discussions of the dangers of fundamentalism get written off as exaggerations too.

I think Joy and Austin ( as well as their deceased daughter) are in a  very vulnerable position. I am far more worried about them being coerced and exploited by others attempting to make a buck off this tragedy than I am at them  (Joy and Austin) personally profiting.

[AtlanticTug]

2 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

To piggyback off this - I think the user policing is getting excessive. This is a forum that allows thread drift in every topic, but when users stay on topic they're consistantly policed on how they choose to snark on the Duggars, not by staff but by other members. I feel like we're getting dangerously close to fundie gatekeeping at this point. 

Yes I know, ignore lists exist and what not and I mean no offense but that's been on my mind recently as it's been really noticeable .

I agree with this. Sometimes it borders on woke Olympics tbh.

[AliceInFundyland]

9 minutes ago, AtlanticTug said:

I agree with this. Sometimes it borders on woke Olympics tbh.

I think it's a percentage of this and a percentage of certain users getting  frustrated with their negative reputation votes.

There is a distinct difference.

@Smee

made a great post above.

One possible solution might be to make a Duggar political thread. I don't see that element going away anytime soon. And they will likely start up with a deluge of abhorrent social media posts. We could make a place for this whole thing to go. People can avoid/rant whatever.

[SilverBeach]

7 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

This was a completely unworthy discussion

I disagree. Many were educated about stillbirth (me included). The unworthy part, if there was one, was when people got exasperated with an inflexible poster who started the whole thing and who became very nasty. I did eventually put that person on ignore and the thread too (wonderful FJ features). But I don't blame those who felt compelled to respond to an attempt to turn very sad losses into the suffering olympics. 

[luv2laugh]

Leghumping used to be “called out” years ago on FJ, from what I remember. For some reason, I haven’t seen that anymore. 

Before the Duggars married, users constantly ripped on Michelle Duggar.

Now that the Duggar sisters are married, I’ve noticed more “leghumping”. Perhaps this may be because users from an older demographic feel maternal over certain Duggars because they watched them “grow up” on TV? I don’t know.

Edited July 7, 2019 by luv2laugh

[TheMustardCardigan]

25 minutes ago, AtlanticTug said:

I agree with this. Sometimes it borders on woke Olympics tbh.

I think part of that is the fact that, when someone doesn’t like the way someone snarks, some people jump right to wanting to shut down the conversation instead of just putting in their two cents of disagreement and moving forward. I’ve seen multiple disagreements go down on here, sometimes about mundane things, and when people start saying “wow, I thought FJ was better than this, so sad” it feels like a guilt tripping shutdown rather than a conversation.

I personally don’t have an issue with Joy posting this stuff even though we know the Duggar anti-choice beliefs and we know in the past they have politicized their experiences. I personally wouldn’t snark on her sharing pics or them being in People magazine.  But I see where people are coming from when they say they think this is heading down a road of Duggar anti-choice rhetoric. I personally don’t get that feeling yet and wouldn’t say it myself but it’s not unreasonable. So I have just moved on without comment. If I felt strongly in my disagreement I would’ve explained why. But I don’t think it’s my place to tell people on here what they can and cannot say and close off a whole topic of conversation, I’m just a regular user.

[viii]

23 minutes ago, luv2laugh said:

Now that the Duggar sisters are married, I’ve noticed more “leghumping”. Perhaps this may be because users from an older demographic feel maternal over certain Duggars because they watched them “grow up” on TV? I don’t know.

It’s always selective leghumping, too. I find that Jessa and Abbie receive FAR more grace than Jill or Lauren do. 

[luv2laugh]

Part of it may be the question of whether or not the adult Duggar kids are vulnerable adults or are they responsible for their fundamentalism?

Will Austin and Joy exploit her still birth for the camera as Michelle did with Jubilee? Will they bite the hand that feeds them or take the high road? Why is it “I hope TLC won’t film this” and not “I hope Joy & Austin take the high road and say ‘No’ to TLC like Jill & Derick instead of pulling a Michelle Duggar (Jubilee)?’ “

Why does Jill receive BEC when, whether voluntarily or not, she took her kids off TV? Jill said “No” to TLC filming her traumatic birth with Sam... Will Joy say “No” to TLC filming her traumatic still birth and the funeral?

Edited July 7, 2019 by luv2laugh

[SilverBeach]

35 minutes ago, luv2laugh said:

Leghumping used to be “called out” years ago on FJ, from what I remember. For some reason, I haven’t seen that anymore. 

Very recently, Duggar posters were admonished not to use the Duggar threads for scrapbooking. There is still very much an awareness of leghumping type activity, although many of us have just about given up the fight.

[Hisey]

2 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

You have a fair point that I can understand but I’ve put in bold the portion of which I consider to be policing. I’m not sure why some posters are telling others what should and should not be discussed regarding the Duggars...

Some posters think that because Joy has suffered a terrible loss, this means the Duggars are incapable of doing anything mercenary or exploitive. Unfortunately, that's not true.

In particular, posters who have suffered miscarriages get reminded of their own pain, and they assume that Joy Anna and Austin think just like they do. That may or may not be true. But they rush to silence anyone who dares to criticize the Forsyths, because it feels like a criticism of themselves. (This reminds me of how fundies try to silence people who don't say the right things.)

Frankly, I suspect that Joy and Austin have no interest in capitalizing on their tragedy, but they are part of the Duggar machine. Joy Anna is conditioned to obey her parents, she's been doing so long time, and she can be pressured into agreeing to things she really doesn't want.

I think JB thinks it's sad Joy Anna lost her baby but he also has a compulsive drive to earn money at any cost. The same compulsiveness that caused him to exploit his father will cause him to exploit this tragedy. He still has a lot of influence over Joy Anna, who  is only 20. 

[luv2laugh]

3 minutes ago, Hisey said:

Some posters think that because Joy has suffered a terrible loss, this means the Duggars are incapable of doing anything mercenary or exploitive. Unfortunately, that's not true.

In particular, posters who have suffered miscarriages get reminded of their own pain, and they assume that Joy Anna and Austin think just like they do. That may or may not be true. But they rush to silence anyone who dares to criticize the Forsyths, because it feels like a criticism of themselves. (This reminds me of how fundies try to silence people who don't say the right things.)

Frankly, I suspect that Joy and Austin have no interest in capitalizing on their tragedy, but they are part of the Duggar machine. Joy Anna is conditioned to obey her parents, she's been doing so long time, and she can be pressured into agreeing to things she really doesn't want.

I think JB thinks it's sad Joy Anna lost her baby but he also has a compulsive drive to earn money at any cost. The same compulsiveness that caused him to exploit his father will cause him to exploit this tragedy. He still has a lot of influence over Joy Anna, who  is only 20. 

I agree. Although, will it be Joy being exploited or Joy “pulling a Michelle Duggar”?

Was Michelle Duggar exploited by TLC for taking pictures of Jubilee and filming the aftermath and funeral?

Edited July 7, 2019 by luv2laugh

[Hisey]

Just now, luv2laugh said:

I agree. However, is it Joy being exploited or Joy “pulling a Michelle Duggar”?

Was Michelle Duggar exploited by TLC for taking pictures of Jubilee and filming the aftermath and funeral?

I didn't watch the Jubilee episodes. But couldn't Michelle just have said "no" to the whole thing? Refused to have a funeral? Had a private funeral without telling TLC? Obviously, I haven't seen their contract, but no one forced Michelle to get dressed, go to church and be filmed that day. I don't see how she was exploited if she had the right to refuse.