[CW: Child Sex Abuse] Josh & Anna 32: So There Was this Cat Who Knew A Squirrel Who Knows Anna...

[Italiangirl]

Wait you mean you don't apologize to your cat if have to disturb them when they are sleeping on you, your bed, etc? ? I guess mine has trained me very well then. We currently have five cats and a dog, my sister will be away for work this summer and she has chosen to leave her two with us since we live in the country and they can be out whenever they want if they choose. They also have her old room reserved for them, the only problem is that they are more city cat (she has a little garden so they are used to be outside but not as much as ours that in summer basically live outside), are nicknamed Prince Cat and Little princess, they don't like the idea to have an outside bathroom and have two reserved litter, one covered in her room and one open in the closet near the broom and all. Little princess hate competition so she will eat only if she is alone or hidden under the table 

Spoiler

Then we have Hector who believes is his duty to check on what we are eating and also check what the cats are eating (you never know they have some better food than him) he loves to put his snout next to your elbow and long like he is a poor poor dog. Luckily he is happy with some hard sound-making bread, but his so funny we call him Darth Vader dog sometimes 'cause he makes this sound from deep inside and cracks of us

 

[Alisamer]

10 hours ago, AliceInFundyland said:

@Alisamer

On one of the last "interesting" bits of the show I remember catching, Jana  had gotten the chance to hang out with Abbie and JD. They all expressed enthusiasm for that dynamic and that the twins hadn't really gotten to hang out together much before.

Planned Activity: DiY Woodworking Signs-like staining and assembly and some paint. Jana was much better than JD. He freely admitted to her skills with tools. And she mentioned off-handedly that she'd thought of selling her stuff online.

The authenticity of that series of talking heads struck me as maybe 50-60% more genuine/believable than many of them.

 

Something about Jana reminds me a bit of my middle sister. My sister is single, is an accountant making good money, recently built her "dream home" which will be paid off within the year, drives a new car (also paid for), is a prolific crafter, and is highly independent. She travels when and where she wants, enjoys working on the landscaping for her house, and (like all of us in my family) can use any power tool you hand her. We used to camp in a travel trailer (that she owned), and frequently when checking in the person would ask her "Is your husband going to back in the trailer for you?" and her go-to response was always "Well, if I ever find one I guess I'll teach him how."

I'm sure a lot of that sort of independence has probably been trained out of Jana, but she still reminds me slightly of my sister. She just seems like she could be so much more than just sister-mom if she wanted to.

I've watched very little of the Duggars, though, and what I have seen is more entertainment news type stuff. So I've seen little of Anna. I hope she strengthens under pressure rather than falling apart, for the kids' sake. 

[Flossie]

On 5/24/2021 at 2:09 PM, Howl said:

years ago I was at the gym on an elliptical trainer, cranking along for 45 minutes.  There were movie options but I had no headphones, so I ended up watching a Chinese (I think) movie that was roughly contemporary but had a LOT of magical elements (how DID she suddenly end up high in a tree?), so I just went with the flow. There are worse things. 

Probably "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon".

Shot in China, set in the mid-1600's, the characters spoke Mandarin.  It took the world by storm, but when I watched it I was disappointed because I couldn't keep up with the subtitles and soon I lost the story.  The plot is involved, there are a lot of characters to keep up with, and most of the names weren't obvious as to if they were a male or female name, so I spent a lot of time trying to figure out who people were talking about if the character wasn't right in front of me.  About half-way through I gave up and just watched the beautiful scenery and the excellent fight scenes.  In the end I was baffled, and annoyed when I was told that to really appreciate the story, most people had to watch the film several times and absorb the story that way.

I suspect that a lot of the people who gushed about the film didn't understand it either, and just gushed about it because everyone else was.

I went to Wikipedia to read up on the plot, hoping to condense it for this post, but noped out.  Too much work for something that wasn't that interesting in the end.

[ADoyle90815]

I saw "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" with my ex in the theater, and he ended up falling asleep because he couldn't keep up with the subtitles, but I just focused on the scenery and fight scenes so from that aspect, it was worth seeing on the big screen. Other than that, it's not something I remember for the plot, and I haven't taken the time to sit down and actually watch it when it's been on TV.

[refugee]

On 5/24/2021 at 9:45 AM, nokidsmom said:

I imagine it depends on which side wins the argument over whether they should speak or don't want them showing up.   I always felt there were / are conflicting views of the family even in their own circles, meaning there will be people who will still buy into "the godly parent, it was Satan who got to him" narrative and others who will want nothing to do with them (and perhaps never wanted to).   In the latter group, if they always wanted them gone, here's the big opportunity. 

Yes. I heard almost these exact words from a mom in an ATI family (she was in our homeschool support group some decades ago, but I still saw her posts on Facebook for some time after we moved away) after the previous scandal. I’ve cut contact with members of our former homeschool group, but it wouldn’t surprise me if she still felt this way.

“Wholesome” is all about appearances and a fantasy that is carefully constructed and conveyed to a gullible, wishful audience who don’t know (don’t want to know?) about the stinking garbage pile under the shiny veneer of smiles.

[Satan'sFortress]

4 hours ago, Flossie said:

I suspect that a lot of the people who gushed about the film didn't understand it either, and just gushed about it because everyone else was.

Oh--I loved it!  I saw it when it first came out, and then again, about a year ago--still loved it, as did my teenage son.  I do not think that I am particularly artsy-fartsy, either. Yes, I thought it was beautiful, but we loved the story too.

Not matter, really, but I to put in a good word for it!

[AliceInFundyland]

2 hours ago, Satan'sFortress said:

Oh--I loved it!  I saw it when it first came out, and then again, about a year ago--still loved it, as did my teenage son.  I do not think that I am particularly artsy-fartsy, either. Yes, I thought it was beautiful, but we loved the story too.

Not matter, really, but I to put in a good word for it!

This has been on my "rewatch" list forever. I remember the beautiful choreography and soundtrack too. Good to know it holds up. You don't have to be artsy-fartsy, but subtitles are subtitles and that usually means no double screens or activities, which can push it out for a rescreening.

[EmCatlyn]

18 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

I also think there's this: 5. She can't imagine how she could support seven children.  ...

In those rare moments when she allows herself to consider separation or divorce, I think she feels trapped. These cults DO try to trap women and make them helpless, and we are seeing the result in a very public way. I'm just glad her husband will be in jail for a while, and she can raise them without having to deal with him, or "submit" to his ideas. Maybe after a few years of running her family alone, she'll see she doesn't need him.

I agree that she has no idea how she would support seven children. (Heck, I wouldn’t have had an idea how I would support 7 children when I was her age, and I had a master’s degree and a teaching career.) However, I am not sure that she has really “considered separation or divorce” even in rare moments. This is why I say she can’t imagine any other life.

When divorce has been suggested to her, Anna has put it aside and declared that it would only make things worse. (I am thinking of what she said in an interview after the AM scandal.)  I doubt she has ever thought of divorce as “gaining freedom” as opposed to “losing the little she has.”

No one can know what Anna is really feeling or how she might react if (when?) Josh goes to jail for a few years.  But we can judge from her actions and statements so far that she has chosen to stand by Josh.  She has given no sign that she recognizes the strength of the evidence against him. She does not seem to have any hesitation visiting him and bringing their children to spend time with him.

You are probably right that having him in prison for a few years may give her a chance to see how nice it is to live without him — unless she is brought to live in the TTH again.?

[Jackie3]

13 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I agree that she has no idea how she would support seven children. (Heck, I wouldn’t have had an idea how I would support 7 children when I was her age, and I had a master’s degree and a teaching career.) However, I am not sure that she has really “considered separation or divorce” even in rare moments. This is why I say she can’t imagine any other life.

When divorce has been suggested to her, Anna has put it aside and declared that it would only make things worse. (I am thinking of what she said in an interview after the AM scandal.)  I doubt she has ever thought of divorce as “gaining freedom” as opposed to “losing the little she has.”

 

I remember when Anna said that. She said "divorce would turn a mess into a disaster," or something similar. It sounded so neat and pat, so lacking in depth, compassion and complexity, that I thought it was a standard fundy line  told to a betrayed spouse (to keep them in the marriage).

Edited May 26, 2021 by Jackie3

[AussieKrissy]

3 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

I remember when Anna said that. She said "divorce would turn a mess into a disaster," or something similar. It sounded so neat and pat, so lacking in depth, compassion and complexity, that I thought it was a standard fundy line  told to a betrayed spouse (to keep them in the marriage).

a mess into a disaster, I remember thinking ohhh honey it is already a disaster.....

Way to down play something fold it away into something smaller to better rationalise and cope with it.

[libgirl2]

5 minutes ago, AussieKrissy said:

a mess into a disaster, I remember thinking ohhh honey it is already a disaster.....

Way to down play something fold it away into something smaller to better rationalise and cope with it.

Yes, I would take a mess (simple cheating) over the disaster is CSA. 

[JDuggs]

Starting a thread drift here because Quiverfull of TV gets no traction. Has anyone seen Mrs. America on Hulu? It’s a limited series drama about the women’s liberation movement in the ‘70’s showing all the famous “libbers” Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, Betty Friedan and the notorious anti-ERA villain Phyllis Schlafly. It was such an interesting look at that time period and a depressing reflection on how little progress we’ve made and have actually regressed in many ways (like abortion.) I think most FJers would really enjoy watching.

[libgirl2]

16 minutes ago, JDuggs said:

Starting a thread drift here because Quiverfull of TV gets no traction. Has anyone seen Mrs. America on Hulu? It’s a limited series drama about the women’s liberation movement in the ‘70’s showing all the famous “libbers” Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, Betty Friedan and the notorious anti-ERA villain Phyllis Schlafly. It was such an interesting look at that time period and a depressing reflection on how little progress we’ve made and have actually regressed in many ways (like abortion.) I think most FJers would really enjoy watching.

I REALLY want to see that but I don't have Hulu. 

[Pecansforeveryone]

@JDuggs, I second the recommendation of Mrs. America. Phyllis Schafley was very savy in her own way. An upper-class fundamentalist Catholic, she learned how to forge alliances with Evangelicals, Mormons, Jewish women, etc in attaining a common goal. Like so many of our fundies, she wasn't above a little "I got mine" in appearing on tv shows to debate foreign policy and longing to attend law school. 

[AliceInFundyland]

I think it’s not a huge purchase (via Amazon or anywhere else) if anyone felt like buying it, because it was only 8? episodes. I second the sentiment that it's good tv and made for many an FJer. ?

[Mela99]

On 5/22/2021 at 9:38 PM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

What if the cat in question was being bribed with food to spill the dirt?  Any self respecting cat would make it up just to get what they want...what ever keeps that bowl full!

I have ALL the shredded cheese. Cats do anything for cheese.

[Whipple]

On 5/25/2021 at 12:04 PM, EmCatlyn said:

It was also a different time. Even among Protestants or secular people, divorce was relatively infrequent, and adultery in men was looked at with some tolerance. (More in Rose’s day than in Jackie’s.)  

I come from a family -- they were paupers by the late 1800s -- who were very, very wealthy in the 1600s-1700s. The men who were often wealthy judges, often had more than one divorce. In elite circles, even in the US, if a man was rich enough, he could get his wife committed. And that's what those SOBs did. Women couldn't get one but to wealthy, connected men who didn't want to run for office, it's always been an option. Women had to put up.

[Mrs. Kravitz]

50 minutes ago, Whipple said:

I come from a family -- they were paupers by the late 1800s -- who were very, very wealthy in the 1600s-1700s. The men who were often wealthy judges, often had more than one divorce. In elite circles, even in the US, if a man was rich enough, he could get his wife committed. And that's what those SOBs did. Women couldn't get one but to wealthy, connected men who didn't want to run for office, it's always been an option. Women had to put up.

Depending on where she lived, the woman may not have even been able to represent herself in court. So a husband could go to court and sue for divorce himself but a woman would need a man to represent her and do it on her behalf. 

[AprilQuilt]

7 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

I remember when Anna said that. She said "divorce would turn a mess into a disaster," or something similar. It sounded so neat and pat, so lacking in depth, compassion and complexity, that I thought it was a standard fundy line  told to a betrayed spouse (to keep them in the marriage).

It's funny because for me althought it does definitely sound like a pat phrase, I thought it was super illuminating of her point of view. That the worst thing that could happen is not that your husband sexually assaulted his pre-adolescent sisters; nor that his family and potentially your own parents either minimised this or entirely kept it from you; the worst thing that could happen is not that that said husband then goes on to actively seek out opportunities to cheat on you once you are married and have small kids and live far from home... nope, all that is just 'a mess'. The disaster, the worst thing that could happen, is if you choose to divorce him for it.

Josh is permitted to transgress. He can't help it. Satan! So Anna has to work extra hard to ameliorate those transgressions, and keep their family together no matter what. A divorce, to her or to her community, is far worse than a festering, toxic, unhappy marriage. I guess it's a JOY thing isn't it? Josh can pursue his satisfaction but Anna absolutely cannot pursue hers. Josh must be forgiven, but Anna can't.

[Whipple]

17 minutes ago, AprilQuilt said:

It's funny because for me althought it does definitely sound like a pat phrase, I thought it was super illuminating of her point of view. That the worst thing that could happen is not that your husband sexually assaulted his pre-adolescent sisters; nor that his family and potentially your own parents either minimised this or entirely kept it from you; the worst thing that could happen is not that that said husband then goes on to actively seek out opportunities to cheat on you once you are married and have small kids and live far from home... nope, all that is just 'a mess'. The disaster, the worst thing that could happen, is if you choose to divorce him for it.

Josh is permitted to transgress. He can't help it. Satan! So Anna has to work extra hard to ameliorate those transgressions, and keep their family together no matter what. A divorce, to her or to her community, is far worse than a festering, toxic, unhappy marriage. I guess it's a JOY thing isn't it? Josh can pursue his satisfaction but Anna absolutely cannot pursue hers. Josh must be forgiven, but Anna can't.

Satan took over her hand  and caused her to sign the divorce papers but now she has been redeemed and now can pursue her own life cleansed of sin. See how well that goes over. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

7 hours ago, Whipple said:

Satan took over her hand  and caused her to sign the divorce papers but now she has been redeemed and now can pursue her own life cleansed of sin. See how well that goes over. 

You're a fundy life coach in the making.  

[Jackie3]

16 hours ago, AliceInFundyland said:

This has been on my "rewatch" list forever. I remember the beautiful choreography and soundtrack too. Good to know it holds up. You don't have to be artsy-fartsy, but subtitles are subtitles and that usually means no double screens or activities, which can push it out for a rescreening.

I love this movie, too, and have seen it several times. The choreography is beautiful!

[EmCatlyn]

13 hours ago, Whipple said:

I come from a family -- they were paupers by the late 1800s -- who were very, very wealthy in the 1600s-1700s. The men who were often wealthy judges, often had more than one divorce. In elite circles, even in the US, if a man was rich enough, he could get his wife committed. And that's what those SOBs did. Women couldn't get one but to wealthy, connected men who didn't want to run for office, it's always been an option. Women had to put up.

Well, I wasn’t going as far back as the 17th century, but in general, I agree.  Men have generally had more options within marriage (more tolerance if they strayed) and also more options getting out of marriages, though divorce was never as easy as it is now for both men and women.  

Within the 20th century, which is what we are talking about mainly, women in the first half of the century dealt with more of a social stigma in a divorce than men, even if the men were the “guilty party.”  This was in addition to the economic disadvantages.   

[bal maiden]

Watch out for Tico, he loves children! 

Spoiler

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy
animated gif behind spoiler

[EmCatlyn]

19 hours ago, Mrs. Kravitz said:

Depending on where she lived, the woman may not have even been able to represent herself in court. So a husband could go to court and sue for divorce himself but a woman would need a man to represent her and do it on her behalf. 

In England, even men could not sue for divorce in court until 1857, when the Matrimonial Causes Act was passed.  Before that, powerful and wealthy men could get divorces through Parliament (essentially each divorce was a little act of parliament).  Most men, and all women did not have that option.  Women could appeal for annulment though ecclesiastic court. But it only happened in extreme cases where the woman had been the victim of some fraud and she had family motivated to get her out of the marriage. (Usually this implicitly involved protecting the woman’s property.)   

When the 1857 act passed, women could not sue for divorce on the grounds of adultery alone, but men could.  Women had to prove either desertion or cruelty in addition to adultery/infidelity.  

All the revisions of the act in the 20th century allowed the woman to sue for divorce based on adultery only, but not only financial considerations but fear of social stigma made many women reluctant to divorce well past the 1960s.

In Most of the US, divorce tended to be more accessible (for women as well as men) than in Britain, but the financial disincentive and the fear of social disapproval made divorce only a last-ditch alternative just as it was in Britain.