Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
samurai_sarah

Dillards 84: Craving Attention

Recommended Posts

Snarkasarus Rex

I’d be interested in how much revisionist history Derick employs. Jill wasn’t even on his radar when he first asked Boob to be his prayer partner...is that ‘first class’? Also atypical: asking someone to enter into a serious relationship on the same day you first meet them in person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TuringMachine
Posted (edited)
On 4/8/2020 at 8:09 AM, Pecansforeveryone said:

I think Jim Bob will avoid son-in-law with any real education and son-in-law not otherwise in their ATI circle. Ben, Jeremy, and Derick all had some degree of education and were outside ATI circles. JB has gotten lucky that Ben was borh so young and that Jessa wears the pants in the family. 

Is there a reason you don't think he likes Jeremy? I mean sure, they dress more mainstream, but Jeremy also preaches hate against LGBTQ people and said he wouldn't shake the hand of a Catholic, so I feel like he fits right in with the rest of the Duggars. Let us not forget he signed this

Edited by TuringMachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pecansforeveryone

Oh, I think Jeremy is 100% toxic with hateful views. He endorses John Marthur and John Piper who are as despicable as they come. I meant his and JBs personalities clash because they both want to be an alpha Male. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clueliss

I'm giving Jill a thumbs up - she went out - alone.  Her photo showed her in the car in a mask.  She bought a tree to bring home.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AprilQuilt
9 hours ago, MiddleAgedLady said:

Derick is on a podcast called First Class Fatherhood. 
 

 

ugh, for some reason I'm listening to this. This guy is a TERRIBLE interviewer. He lets Derick talk for minutes at a time on extremely open-ended questions and then just barks VERY COOL DERICK which... is it sarcastic? It's not but... is it? Anyway he's got a picture of a man with a really big gun on the wall behind him which I as a European find disconcerting in the context of a podcast about fatherhood.

Lucky Derick is a more fluent speaker than I realised, and has clearly had a lot of interview practice - he's saying a lot of on-brand nothing and he's saying it well given that he is receiving NO input or direction. On the other hand it's not like he's being dragged over the coals. I've done a lot of this kind of interview and it's often a relief to get a mediocre one like this that you can totally phone in.

Mind you, it's the sort of thing you usually only do if you have something to promote? So either the Dillards have got their heads together and decided to really push their social media presence, or DD is close to having a book. This new proactiveness makes me wonder if they've hired PR. If they have, this company's judgement is better than whoever the Vuolos are with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bazinga
5 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

I’ve followed Jill for a long time and I’m impressed with the steps she’s taken. I have noticed that Jill is becoming more independent. She’s less enmeshed and codependent. Yes, she still is enmeshed but she’s made progress.

Jill is (slowly) learning how to define herself outside of being a wife and mother. I think therapy is working.

She's in therapy? Was this confirmed by her or Derrick? I'm not always up to speed with these two. If you reply yes, I'm so pleasently surprised!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GuineaPigCourtship
7 hours ago, TuringMachine said:

Jeremy also preaches hate against LGBTQ people and said he wouldn't shake the hand of a Catholic

What a hyperbolic load of horseshit.  Aren't his grandparents Catholic?  Didn't they televise his grandmother teaching Jinger how to make sauce and meatballs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkAnts
1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

She's in therapy? Was this confirmed by her or Derrick? I'm not always up to speed with these two. If you reply yes, I'm so pleasently surprised!!

Derick made reference to getting professional help in his sex advice post. He specifically mentioned "daddy" issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad Wolf

How do you know someone is Catholic? Do they wear a aign? What if he shakes hands with someone and finds out later they're Catholic,  What if they're catholic with a small c? I need to know more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pecansforeveryone

Plus their whole schtick is converting people, including Catholics to their religious brand. What part of treating people like they have cooties would make people pause and say "hmm, I want to be just like the assholes who treated me like I was untouchable?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AussieKrissy

doesn't it/wouldn't it go against a jesus thing to refuse to shake a Catholics hand. 

Didn't Jesus wash some beggar persons feet to prove he was no different or some kind of lesson like that. trying to teach that you must love anyone prostitutes beggars etc

  • Upvote 12
  • I Agree 5
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkAnts
19 minutes ago, AussieKrissy said:

doesn't it/wouldn't it go against a jesus thing to refuse to shake a Catholics hand. 

Didn't Jesus wash some beggar persons feet to prove he was no different or some kind of lesson like that. trying to teach that you must love anyone prostitutes beggars etc

They don't follow Jesus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
marmalade
12 minutes ago, DarkAnts said:

They don't follow Jesus. 

Rather, they follow Jay-SOOS (that's how JereME pronounces it). 

Topic? Jill was confirmed to be in counseling with a "licensed therapist" per Derelict. Good on her for getting a therapeutic tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PennySycamore
1 hour ago, AussieKrissy said:

doesn't it/wouldn't it go against a jesus thing to refuse to shake a Catholics hand. 

Didn't Jesus wash some beggar persons feet to prove he was no different or some kind of lesson like that. trying to teach that you must love anyone prostitutes beggars etc

It's been years since I read the story , but the prostitute Mary Magdalene washed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair, but in the Gospel of John Jesus washes the feet of the 12 at the Last Supper and tells them to love one another.   It's a custom of the Catholic Church for the priest to wash the feet of 12 parishioners on Holy Thursday at that evening's Mass.   Even the Pope washes the feet of 12 of the faithful.  It's supposed to be symbolic of servanthood, IIRC.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
luv2laugh
5 hours ago, Bazinga said:

She's in therapy? Was this confirmed by her or Derrick? I'm not always up to speed with these two. If you reply yes, I'm so pleasently surprised!!

Derick told them Without a Crystal Ball YouTuber that Jill is in therapy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JordynDarby5
7 hours ago, Pecansforeveryone said:

Plus their whole schtick is converting people, including Catholics to their religious brand. What part of treating people like they have cooties would make people pause and say "hmm, I want to be just like the assholes who treated me like I was untouchable?" 

Between that and the fact everything about the rules and Fundie church seems like it would make your life worse I can't imagine their converting that many people. I'm not surprised that Derick or John Shrader or any of these people haven't converted anyone.  What exactly are they offering? Have more kids then you could ever support or care for, no your wife isn't allowed to work, no educated is bad you certainly wouldn't want that or to educate your kids even though doing so would actually improve your lives and so are doctors. But hey were do have a bunch of unqualified quacks to treat you and no shortage of shady people in our church. But hey you'll get preached to by a bunch of uneducated entitled white males who actually haven't done anything to qualify for being a preacher, help anyone or even held a job but will go on and on about how great they are despite having done absolutely nothing and won't do a single thing to actually help you. Gee, that sounds wonderful. Who wouldn't want to sign up for that? Especially since you could probably more easy find a church that actually will help you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glasgowghirl
11 hours ago, Bad Wolf said:

How do you know someone is Catholic? Do they wear a aign? What if he shakes hands with someone and finds out later they're Catholic,  What if they're catholic with a small c? I need to know more.

As Catholic growing up in the West of Scotland, I have this covered. Wear anything green and white, that might suggest you support a Catholic football team, such as Celtic or Hibernian. 

Joking aside Jeremy's comments were horrible, even people who I know who are members of organisations that are not that accepting of Catholic’s are still nice nice to Catholic’s they know. Same goes for ones that are members of Catholic organisations that do not welcome non Catholic’s. I have had sectarian stuff said to me grown up, it wasn't particularly nice and for someone who claims to be a Christian to say that shit, that validates that behaviour is wrong. 

  • Upvote 12
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FluffySnowball
4 hours ago, JordynDarby5 said:

Between that and the fact everything about the rules and Fundie church seems like it would make your life worse I can't imagine their converting that many people. I'm not surprised that Derick or John Shrader or any of these people haven't converted anyone.  What exactly are they offering? Have more kids then you could ever support or care for, no your wife isn't allowed to work, no educated is bad you certainly wouldn't want that or to educate your kids even though doing so would actually improve your lives and so are doctors. But hey were do have a bunch of unqualified quacks to treat you and no shortage of shady people in our church. But hey you'll get preached to by a bunch of uneducated entitled white males who actually haven't done anything to qualify for being a preacher, help anyone or even held a job but will go on and on about how great they are despite having done absolutely nothing and won't do a single thing to actually help you. Gee, that sounds wonderful. Who wouldn't want to sign up for that? Especially since you could probably more easy find a church that actually will help you. 

I’ve been thinking about that, too. Why the hell (pun intended) do people join such oppressive churches, ones utterly devoid of liberty, respect, and actual love and compassion?! It seems so odd to me. But I reckon that’s exactly the point! 

For most of us, living such lives sounds horrific, but to some, it might actually seem secure. There are hardly any decisions you can make, be it about your fertility, the books you read or how you dress. Everything is already decided and outlined for you. While cults suck, they might also give their members a sense of safety. And don’t forget that members also feel special and superior. All that adds to why some people feel drawn to them. 

I also think that for the most part (obviously I’m generalizing right now), the prosperity gospel movement and the ideas many American fundamentalist hold (e.g. that women aren’t allowed to work outside the house, that education is to be avoided, etc,) are “products” of a certain level of financial stability and wealth. Now, of course many fundies in the US are super poor (just think of the Bates family before they were on TV!), but the concepts themselves come from a so-called  first world country. In Zambia, for instance, I can very well imagine that even among people who are very religiously conservative, the notion that education is something suspicious doesn't resonate well. There, people experience poverty more than in the US, so flossing over hardships with prayers and inaction isn’t glorified.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BullyJBG
On 4/22/2020 at 7:56 AM, MiddleAgedLady said:

Derick is on a podcast called First Class Fatherhood. 
 

 

That was very well-done. He said he would not say "one way or the other" whether he and Jill are "done" or "hoping for a girl" or however the quiverful concept has been processed by them over the years. He praised Jill's studying midwifery which she was doing when they met, how his dad's death affected him, and keeping the short-term and long-term thoughts in mind when it comes to discipline. Nothing specific on how they correct; if they spank, blanket-train, time-out, or even how he or Jill got disciplined as a child. He barely even went into the show or TLC.

  Jon Gosselin was on this channel too; very thought-provoking. We'll see who's next; Jeremy, Ben, Austin, John-David, or any of the Bates sons or Zach Bates. I'm pretty sure Jimbob and Josh won't be.......but we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone Out There
8 hours ago, FluffySnowball said:

I also think that for the most part (obviously I’m generalizing right now), the prosperity gospel movement and the ideas many American fundamentalist hold (e.g. that women aren’t allowed to work outside the house, that education is to be avoided, etc,) are “products” of a certain level of financial stability and wealth. Now, of course many fundies in the US are super poor (just think of the Bates family before they were on TV!), but the concepts themselves come from a so-called  first world country. In Zambia, for instance, I can very well imagine that even among people who are very religiously conservative, the notion that education is something suspicious doesn't resonate well. There, people experience poverty more than in the US, so flossing over hardships with prayers and inaction isn’t glorified.  

Interestingly I was listening to something on the radio last night that was saying that (at least in the UK) the notion of women not working outside of the home was due to industrialisation and the variability in wages that brought.  Pre-industrialisation there were a few rich people up the top but everyone else was essentially earning the same amount (which was stuff all) so everyone needed to work.  After industrialisation there was the expectation that you had a man of the house who was the breadwinner and would share the finances with the rest of the house (apparently this was the case in only about 50% of households).

The audio is here if your interested. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/the-victorian-economy/12178446

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
livinginthelight
Posted (edited)

The concept that women should stay at home partly originated after WWII, at least in the USA. Women had become quite empowered during the war years, because they were needed in the factories and as pilots and other skilled and unskilled professions. Think Rosie the Riveter. During the war there had been this huge push for women to turn out to help the country. But after the war, all the men who had been stationed overseas came home to find the women quite competently working outside the home. There are only so many jobs, and it was important to give the men something to do. What was to be done?

The answer? A huge public relations campaign about the value of the woman as wife and mother in the home. There were commercials in which women fell in love with their dishwashers and washing machines and vacuum cleaners. There were television shows in which men came home to their beautiful wives who happily cooked and served their lords and masters.

Sexism in the church has of course been around forever. But Headship theology, which explicitly talks about the chain of command God>man>woman, started in the 60s and developed further in the 70s and 80s. It's easy to see how women being pushed back into the home post-WWII created fertile soil for this toxic type of theology.

Edited by livinginthelight
  • Upvote 15
  • I Agree 1
  • Thank You 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marionette
18 minutes ago, livinginthelight said:

The concept that women should stay at home partly originated after WWII, at least in the USA. Women had become quite empowered during the war years, because they were needed in the factories and as pilots and other skilled and unskilled professions. Think Rosie the Riveter. During the war there had been this huge push for women to turn out to help the country. But after the war, all the men who had been stationed overseas came home to find the women quite competently working outside the home. There are only so many jobs, and it was important to give the men something to do. What was to be done?

The answer? A huge public relations campaign about the value of the woman as wife and mother in the home. There were commercials in which women fell in love with their dishwashers and washing machines and vacuum cleaners. There were television shows in which men came home to their beautiful wives who happily cooked and served their lords and masters.

Sexism in the church has of course been around forever. But Headship theology, which explicitly talks about the chain of command God>man>woman, started in the 60s and developed further in the 70s and 80s. It's easy to see how women being pushed back into the home post-WWII created fertile soil for this toxic type of theology.

That is so interesting! I knew a little bit about this, being a history buff myself, but I would have a hard time explaining it as well as you did. Do you have any further resources on this? I’d love to learn more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
livinginthelight
8 minutes ago, Marionette said:

That is so interesting! I knew a little bit about this, being a history buff myself, but I would have a hard time explaining it as well as you did. Do you have any further resources on this? I’d love to learn more. 

It's been maybe 20 years since I studied up on the topic. I remember there was a video which was really helpful but I'm sorry I don't remember the name of it. But I agree it's a fascinating topic. So many of our views are actually shaped by the media. This is one reason why international travel is so important, IMO. We have the tendency to think our views are shared by everyone, until we see that other people groups think entirely differently.

  • Upvote 3
  • I Agree 3
  • Thank You 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JordynDarby5
2 hours ago, livinginthelight said:

The concept that women should stay at home partly originated after WWII, at least in the USA. Women had become quite empowered during the war years, because they were needed in the factories and as pilots and other skilled and unskilled professions. Think Rosie the Riveter. During the war there had been this huge push for women to turn out to help the country. But after the war, all the men who had been stationed overseas came home to find the women quite competently working outside the home. There are only so many jobs, and it was important to give the men something to do. What was to be done?

The answer? A huge public relations campaign about the value of the woman as wife and mother in the home. There were commercials in which women fell in love with their dishwashers and washing machines and vacuum cleaners. There were television shows in which men came home to their beautiful wives who happily cooked and served their lords and masters.

Sexism in the church has of course been around forever. But Headship theology, which explicitly talks about the chain of command God>man>woman, started in the 60s and developed further in the 70s and 80s. It's easy to see how women being pushed back into the home post-WWII created fertile soil for this toxic type of theology.

That probably makes sense. I've always wondered where that idea came from. That's never been true for women in my family as far back as we can go. My mom worked since she was sixteen. Her mother worked as a nurse during the 50s when supposedly these women, wives weren't working. Ah, she did while her husband was carpenter with her father. Her own mother worked tons of different times. She certainly worked after she divorced her first husband, took the kids and moved to another state. When she married my great-grandfather she still worked various different jobs. Cause you know money. My other grandmother was a housewife until her youngest started school and then got a job in a store. Her kids worked from delivering paper to helping out on her parents' farm. Her mother worked on the farm. Not working was never really an option or a choice because they needed money. Working in stories, factories, on farms, maids, seamstresses, laundry, basically where ever they could get a job whether they were married, single or widowed. So the stories of women never working never made any sense to me. Who were these women who never worked? Aside from the rich. Also, who do they think were running farms and businesses when men were off fighting in the Civil War? Or Revolutionary War? Because her husband was away Abigail Adams took over their financial matters. She was far from the only woman. 

Although I will completely buy women falling in love with a washer. My grandmother pretty much did when they finally able to afford one. Washing clothes was long pain in the butt before then. She was so happy. All you had to do was throw the clothes in, put soap in, start and walk away.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.