Josh and Anna 53: 151 Month Sentence

[waltraute]

I'll be surprised if the Duggar parents release a statement. I can't see that they would gain anything by doing so, unless they were to wholeheartedly embrace Josh's guilt and show support for the judge, which I don't see happening. Also, the JB that walked away from the sentencing hearing was not the same cocky JB that told the judge, "I'm not going to allow that". He might be hesitant to try to put his spin on this.

It's possible that they will, but I think it would be foolish. The public wants admittance of guilt from them, about Josh and about their parenting, so...

But then again, JB is delusional. He might give it a try. And maybe run for office at the same time.

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, Alisamer said:

I know this has been gone over and explained better than I could, but the simplest way I know to explain it is that "not like OTHER girls" is sexist in the same way "not like OTHER black people" is racist. It assumes that the person being talked about is a singular exception and all the others of that gender/race are all the same, in a bad way. Plus it's boring and bad writing. 

I totally agree.  But when people bring up Elizabeth Bennet or other characters from well-written novels, I have to remind them that any heroine (or hero, for that matter) needs to be a little different from others of her (or his) kind in order to be the heroine/hero.  In Elizabeth Bennet’s case I think she is not set against “other girls” so much as “the rest of her family.”  Whether or not her depiction is based on the sexism of patriarchal 19th century society is another matter.  

Some tropes become cliches and the “not like other girls” is such a cliche in a lot or romance or for that matter adventure fiction.  Yes, it is sexist. 

Edited May 27, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Typo/editing

[Freejin]

14 minutes ago, waltraute said:

I'll be surprised if the Duggar parents release a statement. I can't see that they would gain anything by doing so, unless they were to wholeheartedly embrace Josh's guilt and show support for the judge, which I don't see happening. Also, the JB that walked away from the sentencing hearing was not the same cocky JB that told the judge, "I'm not going to allow that". He might be hesitant to try to put his spin on this.

It's possible that they will, but I think it would be foolish. The public wants admittance of guilt from them, about Josh and about their parenting, so...

But then again, JB is delusional. He might give it a try. And maybe run for office at the same time.

They can’t stay away from the public eye though. They crave it. They’ll say something. 

[neuroticcat]

13 hours ago, Shrubbery said:

It’s been ages since I read the book, so I can’t say this with absolute certainty, but some of the examples you gave may not actually be in the book, just in the movies and/or fandom background. I might be wrong though.

Regardless, I would not see Elizabeth as an example of „unlike other girls.“ For one thing, even her more unusual pursuits are still well within the norm of what is considered acceptable behaviour by her social peers - they just don’t necessarily think it’s very fashionable behaviour. Caroline Bingley isn’t shocked because Elizabeth behaves like a man, she’s disgusted because - in her opinion - Elizabeth behaves like a country bumpkin. And Elizabeth does share quite a few traits and interests that read as definitely female -coded - she plays the piano, she participates in dances, she interacts with other women as equals without needing to stress her superiority, and while she is unwilling to just look for financial comfort, she is definitely aware that she will end up marrying someone sooner or later. 

Some of all this not reading  like the „unlike other girls“ trope may come down to Austen’s skills as a writer - under a lesser pen, Elizabeth might have ended up wearing breeches when the fancy caught her, riding her father’s horses across the country shooting guns and playing billiard with the Lucas sons just to underline thaz she is different from others.

But ultimately, what sets Elizabeth - and Darcy - apart from the other characters is not their willingness or unwillingness to conform to gender roles, but the fact that their ability to self-reflect and to improve their characters allows them to come together and accept each other as true equals in a partnership, outside of social factors such as gender expectations and financial standing.

That’s just my take on it, though, and it’s been ages since I did any sort of literature analysis, so you may all feel free to disagree

I also think Austen was an equal-opportunity social observer, so she's not so much elevating Lizzie as being "not like other girls" as exposing things that are societally ridiculous. She exposes Mr. Collins, the Bennett parents, Lydia, Wickham, the young soldiers, many other characters, too, so it seems to me Austen is more set on laughing at society in general in an honest, if sly, way. One reason she remains popular, I think, is that so many of her observations transcend the cultural trends of the day. Lizzie is a complicated character who recognizes the flaw of her pride and prejudice by the end.

I think Shrubbery is right that the examples given are from the more modern interpretation given by the movies. I mean, in the books, Mary is bookish and speaks her mind, Lydia (and Kitty) act unbecoming and unladylike, and the womanly ideals of Jane are exemplary not eye-roll-y. 

One of the things I think Austen did brilliantly is character development, so even though we have a family with five young women, and Austen is writing from the point of view of a woman in that society, we get vibrant individual characters, all with strengths and weaknesses, and all exposed to her brilliant wit.

Contrast this to say, Twilight (if you dare), where Bella seems to me the classic cardboard stereotyped "not like other girls" character. 

Edited May 27, 2022 by neuroticcat
edit out nonsensical phrase

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, Alisamer said:

[Re the M kids and family kids in their age group.]

I think they should be given more info than "he watched a movie that wasn't legal" or whatever.

I don't think the children need to hear the filthy gory (literally) horrible details. (I do think the adults in the family should absolutely know exactly what sort of things he was looking at, because they have or likely WILL have children who will need protecting. And because the details will likely shock any of them still thinking he's just being wronged.)

But I think the children should be told that the "bad stuff" he was watching involved children being hurt and touched inappropriately, and should know what inappropriate touching IS. They need to know that, in an age appropriate way. And continue to have that taught and explained as they age, to make sure they continue to understand what is OK and what is not.

Kids can't report inappropriate behavior if they don't understand it's inappropriate. And even kids who KNOW what is OK and what is not can have things happen to them that in the moment seem OK or accidental, and only are apparent as molestation long afterward. Hopefully there's nothing else to know, but the Duggar children of all people definitely need to be taught about that sort of thing.

Madison is not going to be allowed alone with her father when he gets out. She's going to need to understand why. It's likely Mack will have a kid of her own by the time Josh gets out of prison, she needs to know what he did because she will need to protect her own children. 

We may be saying things differently but I think that we agree on the whole.  

My position is that you tell children the truth but that you tell it gradually.  Not only does the explanation need to be age-appropriate, it should come slowly. I suggested a simple, generally truthful statement followed by time for the child to process it and ask questions. 

One thing to keep in mind is that what Mackenzie and Michael need to be told now is different from what Madyson will need to be told 10 years from now.  The kids who have a relationship with Josh now will need to be eased into understanding what their father has done in a way that the three youngest won’t.

In any case, the sad thing is that probably none of them will hear the truth from Anna or their grandparents.  We can talk among ourselves all we want about how and how much they should be told when, but you know Anna is pushing the “poor victimized Daddy” narrative.

[neuroticcat]

Re: Will it be had to not have a cell phone? Not really. I've done it for different reasons in recent years. There are certain things that are inconvenient, but I just googled statistics and only 85% of adult Americans currently own a smartphone. Sure, it's harder to order grocery pickup or get google directions, but you figure out other ways.

Re: sitting in the courtroom and pleading innocent, I don't know the psychology of it, but I know offenders like this have to have been living with a deeply divided sense of self for a long time. 

Have been following a lot of online discussion about the SBC release of info this week, and I think this is especially true within Christian communities that expressly teach otherwise. People have to lie to themselves for forever and figure out ways to carry on doing horrible behaviors and hiding. So it's got to be second nature by the time they're finally caught and convicted. 

From Diane Langberg who writes about survivors in general, but especially in church contexts: "We get good at what we practice. The more we practice something, the more we’re able to do it without conscious thinking. We can do it while thinking of other things. That works great for tying shoes. It’s terrifying when it comes to deceiving ourselves and others...Though the fruit of deception can be quite apparent, deception is by its nature often difficult to see. Deception starts with the self, not others. We find ways to tell ourselves things that are not true so we can believe them and act on them without internal conflict."

 

[EmCatlyn]

13 hours ago, GreenBeans said:

I was wondering about the “no photo stories by devices or access to the internet” condition. I mean, how is this even going to work in today’s day and age (or well, in 12 years when he gets out)? People need their phones and the internet for just everyday life. How are you supposed to comply with that for 20 years (!) in life outside of prison? It just doesn’t seem realistic, even from today’s experience, and I think it will be even less possible between 2035 and 2055.

He can have phones, tablets, computers and electronic whatevers.  They just need to be approved of by his PO who will be allowed to inspect and monitor his devices.  10 years from now that monitoring may be easier to do at a distance without needing regular in-person inspections of the devices.

[Giraffe]

Imo there’s a good chance the M kids will learn more info about their sperm donor’s abuses from various cousins than they will from JB, M or Anna. 

[Dandruff]

10 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

In any case, the sad thing is that probably none of them will hear the truth from Anna or their grandparents.  We can talk among ourselves all we want about how and how much they should be told when, but you know Anna is pushing the “poor victimized Daddy” narrative.

Maybe there's some narrative she can reuse from the Ashley Madison/Jesus Jail incident.

[EmCatlyn]

Here is a good report on the “special conditions” for Josh’s 20 year probation after release.  Notice that he can go places where there are children and even access the internet, but his PO has to approve and keep informed.  I quote some of the more interesting material below.

Special Conditions

Quote

Duggar “shall have no unsupervised contact with minors.” The judge specifically stated that Duggar must “proceed with caution” regarding any event that might include minors. He needs to receive prior approval from the U.S. Probation Office before “attending any such place, function, or event.”

Duggar must submit his person, residence, place of employment, vehicles, papers, computers and any other electronic devices or storage media for search “at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner” any time there is suspicion that he may have violated any condition of his supervised release.

“The defendant shall not possess, use, or have access to a computer or any other electronic device that has Internet or photograph storage capabilities without prior advance notice and approval of the U.S. Probation Office,” the sentencing document says. Duggar must also pay for internet-monitoring software to be installed on any approved devices. Judge Brooks voiced specific concerns about Duggar potentially having such devices if he returns to working in a self-employed capacity. The defendant must submit to random searches of any devices.

(C.C. McCandless, reporting for KNWA/FOX24 May 27, 2022..
 

 

[quiversR4hunting]

I actually hope that Anna doesn't get divorced because I think she is very steeped in the kool-aid and her getting divorced will just set her up quick like they did with kelly bradrick. The kids might be in a more harmful situation. A man in their world wanting to take on a woman with 7 kids, I don't trust that to be a good outcome. The only way I would like to see her divorced if she actually gets secular counseling and the kids get it and she moves away from the Duggars and her parents. I don't see any of that happening. 

As for the statement from Jason, I think it is showing a chink in the armor. The lost boys and the girls younger than Joy are seeing and exposed to things far more than the oldest 6 were exposed to in the outside world. As the saying goes "fame is a double-edged sword." in the Duggar case, I see the other side of fame as good for the kids to realize that people out in the world isn't as bad as their parents try to say. I hope Jason and the others not married (or engaged) still living at home move out before they get married. 

Even though the oldest are still fundie to some degree, I hope they keep questioning their upbringing and keep moving further away from gothard and ibc ideals. 

[Rosie]

1 hour ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

I'm a little shocked by how many people thought Anna might be pregnant. 

She gave birth to Madyson in October. All of Anna's kids are at least 18 months apart and most of them are more than 18 months apart. Josh has been in lock-up since November/December so she would have to be at least 6 months pregnant, which means she probably would have said so by now.  Most humans I know tend to pack extra weight in the stomach and she's had 7 babies!

It just feels like this is unnecessary scrutiny of her body and some irrational speculation. 

It was certainly not my intent to engage in unnecessary scrutiny of her body or irrational speculation.  I hadn't realized that she hadn't been able to be alone with Josh for that ong.

[Mama Mia]

41 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

Imo there’s a good chance the M kids will learn more info about their sperm donor’s abuses from various cousins than they will from JB, M or Anna. 

There’s a good chance Mack will learn all the horrifying details by lifting  a phone from mom/grandma/aunt and doing a two minute search. And may have already done so.  Which is the main reason the older ones need some unfortunately advanced explanation. 

[Jackie3]

7 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

My position is that you tell children the truth but that you tell it gradually.  Not only does the explanation need to be age-appropriate, it should come slowly. I suggested a simple, generally truthful statement followed by time for the child to process it and ask questions. 

 

Spoiler

"Your dad likes to watch babies being b***ed and r**ped !" The "naughty pornography" explanation won't help them deal with that.

"Telling them slowly" would be ideal, if the kids lived in a box. They don't.

Honestly, I can't think of anything that would confuse a kid more than the phrase "Naughty pornography." A five year old wont' know what pornography is. A ten year old won't know what's "naughty" and what's not. That's not simple, truthful or honest. Unfortunately, they'll get the truth from the kids around them, or the tabloid they find in a friends bathroom.

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Coconut Flan

[Jrodseyeliner]

The thing that pissed me off about Jason’s statement is his use of the words Josh’s choices… No Jason, your brother committed disgusting vile crimes and enjoyed doing them. 
 

Choices are done all day, do I go left or right. Do get a sandwich for lunch or buy something??? 
 

But then at least he is starting to plant the seeds of some reflection in his brain I suppose. 
 

The M kids will learn about Josh one day and soon and hopefully they will start to wonder why didn’t Mum do anything about this and stay married to this vile criminal. 
i wish that the M kids would have to be monitored or at least evaluated by health professionals during this process. 

[Freejin]

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

He can have phones, tablets, computers and electronic whatevers.  They just need to be approved of by his PO who will be allowed to inspect and monitor his devices.  10 years from now that monitoring may be easier to do at a distance without needing regular in-person inspections of the devices.

I thought it said no internet. 

[Satan'sFortress]

5 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

Weird diarrhea lady

It is my sincere hope that my life choices will never lead me to be referred to thusly.

[apiscue]

JimBob writing the statement.

Spoiler

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Coconut Flan
Spoiler for animated gif.

[Galbin]

18 hours ago, Bethella said:

I’m guessing Anna (or some fans/groupies) will put plenty of money in his commissary account so he can purchase lots of unhealthy snacks. I can easily see his weight ballooning with lots of empty calories and not much exercise. 

There's a limit to how much you can spend on commissary each week/month in prison though. So he doesn't have full control of that either. Literally nothing is under your control in American prisons, which is IMO a big part of the violence/gang culture. Human beings need autonomy to stay mentally healthy. 

[Bad Wolf]

When someone leaves, there is a huge hole in your life, and all you want is that person back to fill the hole. Eventually, you have to keep going. You have to go through the motions, making meals, shopping for food, etc. Slowly, the hole closes a bit, especially if you can find outside support. Years later, if that person returns, they don't fit as well. They come back expecting things to be the same, and they're not. Even if Anna stays fundie with the Duggars, she will change, and Josh ill have a hard time reasserting himself as lord and master.

This happened to many families during the Vietnam war. The POWs returned to a different family dynamic. Ten years is a long time to wait and not change.

[sndral]

18 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

You need to take off the time served from the day he was found guilty until the day he was sentenced. And another 15% for presumed good behavior. Someone came up with a projected release of June 2032. Which sounds right.

Plus he’ll get a couple days pretrial credit for the time he was in jail from his arrest to when the Judge released him to live with the Reibers.

[Jana814]

I don’t think Jim-bob & Michelle will ever say a statement about what happened to Josh.  

[Freejin]

2 minutes ago, Jana814 said:

I don’t think Jim-bob & Michelle will ever say a statement about what happened to Josh.  

I think they won’t be able to help themselves 

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, Jrodseyeliner said:

The thing that pissed me off about Jason’s statement is his use of the words Josh’s choices… No Jason, your brother committed disgusting vile crimes and enjoyed doing them. 
 

Choices are done all day, do I go left or right. Do get a sandwich for lunch or buy something??? 

That pisses you off? Why? 

Josh did make choices, terribly ones. No one forced him to download those videos. It was his choice to commit disgusting vile acts.

[Mela99]

4 hours ago, Freejin said:

They can’t stay away from the public eye though. They crave it. They’ll say something. 

I agree with this. They're also the consummate aggrieved martyrs. The rest of their lives will be how unjust they were treated, and their poor golden boy.