Shiny Happy People: A Duggar and IBLP Documentary

[lumpentheologie]

10 minutes ago, OHFL2009 said:

Michelle also wasn't raised in it, she actively chose it. I extend some grace to the second generation as they become adults and parents themselves. As we're seeing with Jill, breaking out and deconstructing is not an overnight process when you've been brainwashed since birth to think this way. I will give them a little time to realize that how they were raised was wrong. But Michelle had what sounds like a fairly normal upbringing, and still chose to do this to her children. 

Exactly. After watching the doc I feel sorrier for Anna than I ever have before. Knowing all this abstractly is one thing, and seeing it is something else. It doesn’t excuse her failure to protect her kids, but damn, that woman has probably been abused almost every day of her life. 

Michelle went into this equally with JB. I don’t care what their teachings say about submission, if she hadn’t agreed it never would have happened. And she didn’t just choose this abuse for her own family, she chose to teach it, to spread it as widely as possible. She gave speeches and wrote books and had the show, and seduced people into abusing their own children from the time they were babies. She preyed on people’s fears to create countess more Annas, lifelong victims of abuse who will do their best to entrap their kids in the same. And she got rich doing it. 

Both Duggar parents are downright evil, IMO. They belong in the depths of their own hell right along with the Sackler family. Abuse isn’t the the exception in IBLP, it’s the rule. 
 

Edited June 5, 2023 by lumpentheologie

[noseybutt]

7 minutes ago, lumpentheologie said:

Exactly. After watching the doc I feel sorrier for Anna than I ever have before. Knowing all this abstractly is one thing, and seeing it is something else. It doesn’t excuse her failure to protect her kids, but damn, that woman has probably been abused almost every day of her life. 

Michelle went into this equally with JB. I don’t care what their teachings say about submission, if she hadn’t agreed it never would have happened. And she didn’t just choose this abuse for her own family, she chose to teach it, to spread it as widely as possible. She gave speeches and wrote books and had the show, and seduced people into abusing their own children from the time they were babies. She preyed on people’s fears to create countess more Annas, lifelong victims of abuse who will do their best to entrap their kids in the same. And she got rich doing it. 

Both Duggar parents are downright evil, IMO. They belong in the depths of their own hell right along with the Sackler family. Abuse isn’t the the exception in IBLP, it’s the rule. 
 

This is an excellent point. The first generation who chooses the life has a very different experience than the second generation born into it.

Not entirely related…but what is super interesting about this documentary is that it seems to draw a different response from people who have an academic interest in fundie world versus those who have first-hand experience with religious trauma. It’s easier to critique the film making (which should be critiqued) when the panic attacks are under control.

[hoipolloi]

7 minutes ago, lumpentheologie said:

And she didn’t just choose this abuse for her own family, she chose to teach it, to spread it as widely as possible. She gave speeches and wrote books and had the show, and seduced people into abusing their own children from the time they were babies. She preyed on people’s fears to create countess more Annas, lifelong victims of abuse who will do their best to entrap their kids in the same. And she got rich doing it. 

Exactly. Just like Doug & Beall Phillips. These are all people who absolutely knew what they were doing but the lure of money & power was more important to them.

I wonder what Michelle's role was in mounting Josh's legal defense. JB was the front man for it, in and out of court, but after seeing SHP I'd guess that Michelle did a lot behind the scenes.

 

[lumpentheologie]

4 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

Not entirely related…but what is super interesting about this documentary is that it seems to draw a different response from people who have an academic interest in fundie world versus those who have first-hand experience with religious trauma. It’s easier to critique the film making (which should be critiqued) when the panic attacks are under control.

That’s a very interesting take, and I’m sure some people on here fit in both those boxes. I have a degree in religious studies but also am an abuse survivor (although mostly not religious abuse — there was one year in an Assembly of God school where they beat us and yelled about witches and hell, but my parents never bought into that).

I think one of the reasons I became interested in studying religion is to understand how it can get people to do things that make sense to them but from the outside are terribly destructive. 

I’m definitely reacting to the show as an abuse survivor though, having to space out watching over several days. And even with that I had nightmares after the second episode. 

[Coconut Flan]

When Bobbye said that at the trial it wasn't news to me and I somehow already knew it was Jill.  

[Laura2730]

3 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

When Bobbye said that at the trial it wasn't news to me and I somehow already knew it was Jill.  

I just remembered that Bobye’s mother was ‘Alice’ who emailed Oprah and in the email I think she said that; had totally forgotten about that. I don’t think the email mentioned kicking though.

[rebeccawriter01]

On 5/25/2023 at 12:49 PM, Bluebirdbluebell said:

I'm disappointed the documentary allegedly won't talk more about IBLP and it's other members. Gil Bates and Dr. Charles Paine both deserve to be mentioned as long-time board members. Theoretically it's all about the Duggars.

Having watched it now, I think they left the doors open to do another part that looks more at the "leadership." But there are reasons they didn't go there yet.

1. The producers/documentarians were limited with the time allocated to them by Amazon and the overall format. Because they are more of a household name and the team was able to get actual Duggars (and the Holts) to speak (Jill, Amy - she's a pain but she is inside enough to have witnessed things - and Deanna), it was natural to go with the Duggars. There wasn't anyone interviewed who could dive deeper into the Bates without confusing the narrative. The intended audience wasn't those of us who snark and know all the rumors, stories, etc. To add in the Bates, Paines, Plaths, Rodriguezes, Kellars, etc. is to add 100 more people into the narrative. The average person would need a diagram and charts.

2. The format of it was not narrated. It relied on first person accounts of IBLP and the players involved. The Bates suck, especially Gil, but they have managed not to create the enemies that Jim Bob has created. Other than Jill or Amy snarking on the Bates old outfits, there wasn't anyone interviewed who could have spoken directly about them. They have to find someone adjacent - maybe a failed courtship woman? Imagine if they could get interviews with either or both of the women who Kelly Jo's mom adopted.

3. Legalities...Josh is convicted of a crime and in a round about way confessed to others. Gothard has been accused in court of his behavior. The board was sued but it didn't get that far and didn't individually place blame on board members. It's a little harder to publicly do a documentary or docuseries about accusations that don't have a great legal foundation. Look at the Larry Nassar and USA Gymnastics. There have been multiple well done documentaries on this case because it was so public and insane how one man could harm that many girls. Each one had to tiptoe around USA Gymnastics. They could name the head of the organization because he spoke out about it and made himself the spokesperson - Steve Penny. They were able to show emails where he was aware of the situation and chose to cover things up. The board was more than likely aware too but the documentaries are careful not to name them or accuse them. Legally that is smart because it muddies the issue and presents a threat to credibility. If the documentary creators were to get sued by a board member for defamation or whatever, then there is a credibility problem for the work as a whole. 

My hope is that Amazon sees good numbers and asks for more that could feature the Bates and even more about shadiness with the Duggars. For example, they left out things like SOS Ministries with the Duggars and the family trips to Central America. Diving deeper on the Kellers who managed to get two daughters married into higher ups in the fundie land though one of those crashed and burned. The Kellers are nobodies but managed to do that while living in a trailer in Florida. There has to be a story there. They talked political involvement but what about Josh's one on one time with elected officials still in office. 

[CanadianMamam]

16 minutes ago, rebeccawriter01 said:

Having watched it now, I think they left the doors open to do another part that looks more at the "leadership." But there are reasons they didn't go there yet.

1. The producers/documentarians were limited with the time allocated to them by Amazon and the overall format. Because they are more of a household name and the team was able to get actual Duggars (and the Holts) to speak (Jill, Amy - she's a pain but she is inside enough to have witnessed things - and Deanna), it was natural to go with the Duggars. There wasn't anyone interviewed who could dive deeper into the Bates without confusing the narrative. The intended audience wasn't those of us who snark and know all the rumors, stories, etc. To add in the Bates, Paines, Plaths, Rodriguezes, Kellars, etc. is to add 100 more people into the narrative. The average person would need a diagram and charts.

2. The format of it was not narrated. It relied on first person accounts of IBLP and the players involved. The Bates suck, especially Gil, but they have managed not to create the enemies that Jim Bob has created. Other than Jill or Amy snarking on the Bates old outfits, there wasn't anyone interviewed who could have spoken directly about them. They have to find someone adjacent - maybe a failed courtship woman? Imagine if they could get interviews with either or both of the women who Kelly Jo's mom adopted.

3. Legalities...Josh is convicted of a crime and in a round about way confessed to others. Gothard has been accused in court of his behavior. The board was sued but it didn't get that far and didn't individually place blame on board members. It's a little harder to publicly do a documentary or docuseries about accusations that don't have a great legal foundation. Look at the Larry Nassar and USA Gymnastics. There have been multiple well done documentaries on this case because it was so public and insane how one man could harm that many girls. Each one had to tiptoe around USA Gymnastics. They could name the head of the organization because he spoke out about it and made himself the spokesperson - Steve Penny. They were able to show emails where he was aware of the situation and chose to cover things up. The board was more than likely aware too but the documentaries are careful not to name them or accuse them. Legally that is smart because it muddies the issue and presents a threat to credibility. If the documentary creators were to get sued by a board member for defamation or whatever, then there is a credibility problem for the work as a whole. 

My hope is that Amazon sees good numbers and asks for more that could feature the Bates and even more about shadiness with the Duggars. For example, they left out things like SOS Ministries with the Duggars and the family trips to Central America. Diving deeper on the Kellers who managed to get two daughters married into higher ups in the fundie land though one of those crashed and burned. The Kellers are nobodies but managed to do that while living in a trailer in Florida. There has to be a story there. They talked political involvement but what about Josh's one on one time with elected officials still in office. 

All of this. They had people on the inside with the Duggars, I am not sure Gil has alienated anyone like that. And Josh"a crimes are on the record. 

Plus, documentaries have to tell a story. The Bates (or other families) didn't fit into this story. I actually thought the documentary did a good job with the comparisons between JB and Gothard and the large/small scale format that everything JB was doing to his family Gothard was doing within this massive organization. 

[Giraffe]

2 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

 

I wonder what Michelle's role was in mounting Josh's legal defense. JB was the front man for it, in and out of court, but after seeing SHP I'd guess that Michelle did a lot behind the scenes.

 

It’s interesting you bring this up. I’m even more disgusted at Michelle after SHP for not attending the trial. 

[clueliss]

Well that's interesting. People are making the connection regarding the direction the Vuolos went in.  And associated toxicity.

 

 

[zeebaneighba]

15 hours ago, Katzchen24 said:

I wonder if the documentary makers etc are waiting to see what the reception is like for the show and then based on that maybe move forward with another series. There's certainly a lot more material to cover, and if they were thinking of doing a follow up then the deliberate exclusion of the Bates and other themes within IBLP/ATI make sense. 

 

I was wondering that because the email I got from Hulu  Prime said this was "season 1."    I have not had a chance to watch yet, but I am seeing a lot of comments referring to it on SM.  It was trending on twitter this morning.

Edited June 5, 2023 by zeebaneighba
Got my streaming services mixed up!

[lumpentheologie]

I’d love for them to do another show on Gil Bates and the current leadership but I don’t know if that’s going to happen. As @rebeccawriter01 mentioned, there might be good legal reasons not to. 

But with the Bates show getting canceled once it was already filmed, I wonder if there’s something going on we don’t know about. Something that UP got wind of and was bad enough to drop them over, but it’s just allegations at this point. Maybe the doc wanted to include it but the Bates threatened to sue? Or they settled with an NDA? They do have a lot of money at their disposal these days. 

[Loveday]

26 minutes ago, clueliss said:

Well that's interesting. People are making the connection regarding the direction the Vuolos went in.  And associated toxicity.

 

 

I had to scroll through the list of signers. Over 17000 of them, and of course Ken Alexander is one.🙄 I checked to see if a couple of my extended family members who are steeped in fundamentalism had signed, but so far they aren't there. I guess theirs is a different brand of fundie.

[noseybutt]

32 minutes ago, clueliss said:

Well that's interesting. People are making the connection regarding the direction the Vuolos went in.  And associated toxicity.

 

 

Hallelujah.

 I know that (academically) JMac has different beliefs than Gothard and (academically) he fits in the Calvinistic and reformed world of conservative Christianity.

But my experience trying to find a support group in homeschooling world is that the 2 worlds overlap more than not. 

Draw a Venn diagram with IBLP, John Piper, and JMac and label the overlap with HSLDA. 

Boom.

There you have it.

 

 

[clueliss]

Note, prime lists season 1 on things that only have a single season.  I wouldn’t read the season 1 label as an indicator alone that there will none another season.

[CTRLZero]

I was watching a YouTube video of two former members of the FLDS and The Order groups.  The two women had just binge watched Shiny Happy People and were describing how similar some of the rules were (i.e., umbrella of authority and physical discipline).  Amanda Rae commented that at one time, she thought the Duggars were a breakaway polygamous group!  Anyway, it was interesting to hear former cult members discussing current cult members.

(Amanda Rae, Culty Cup of Coffee #77 is the episode, starting around minute 50.) 

[Dandruff]

3 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

I’d love for them to do another show on Gil Bates and the current leadership but I don’t know if that’s going to happen. As @rebeccawriter01 mentioned, there might be good legal reasons not to. 

But with the Bates show getting canceled once it was already filmed, I wonder if there’s something going on we don’t know about. Something that UP got wind of and was bad enough to drop them over, but it’s just allegations at this point. Maybe the doc wanted to include it but the Bates threatened to sue? Or they settled with an NDA? They do have a lot of money at their disposal these days. 

Maybe the answer is as simple as UPTV knowing that the documentary was in progress, and worrying that more than a superficial exposure of the Bateses connection to IBLP might not be uplifting for viewers or advertisers.

[Cheetah]

Heads up - I know not everyone here is a fan of reddit but there's going to be an AMA (ask me anything) with the exec producers of Shiny Happy People tomorrow (Tuesday June 6) at 2pm Pacific on r/DuggarsSnark.   Announcement here (announcement says PST, I assume they mean PDT).  

 

Oh update, only one of the 2 producers (Cori Shepherd Stern) will be at the AMA tomorrow. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

2 hours ago, CTRLZero said:

I was watching a YouTube video of two former members of the FLDS and The Order groups.  The two women had just binge watched Shiny Happy People and were describing how similar some of the rules were (i.e., umbrella of authority and physical discipline).  Amanda Rae commented that at one time, she thought the Duggars were a breakaway polygamous group!  Anyway, it was interesting to hear former cult members discussing current cult members.

(Amanda Rae, Culty Cup of Coffee #77 is the episode, starting around minute 50.) 

I have a feeling that many different fundie groups will watch this and see a lot of similarities. Because fundies of different groups usually have patriarchy, sexism, homophobia, purity culture, modesty, and large families in common. 

[Pecansforeveryone]

The TV adaptation of Under the Banner of Heaven had Qndrew Garfield saying so many mainstream Mormons told him "I feel so heard." The tv adaptation has Andrew Garfields LDS detective having a faith crisis. So many ex-Muslims and ex-Baptists were also writing in to say the same. 

[Smee]

11 hours ago, Cam said:

 

* Jill doesn’t say the word therapy. She says, someone in IBLP usually “has to go thru help” to sort things out. It sounds like she still feels some stigma for doing so (which she shouldn’t.) I’m proud of and impressed with her for getting the help she needed.

She’s talked about therapy before and “our therapist”… I actually think it was a typo in the subtitles/an error in the editing and she said “unfortunately you have to go through hell because it’s not until then that you would risk everything to get out of those situations”. 

8 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

When Bobbye said that at the trial it wasn't news to me and I somehow already knew it was Jill.  

Yes, I thought this was well known… I don’t remember what it was in but I picked it up on here somewhere along the way, possibly it was the police report? When people did the sleuthing and figured out which victim was who. 

[SassyPants]

Just some thoughts on the documentary:

From the outside looking in, Gothard, the Institutue and all the teachings and outside businesses present as crazy, awful, irresponsible and down right criminal. But I can see how the actual people who were drawn in, were drawn in.

Think about the lives these woman, in particular, were (are) living. They have mega families, mega responsibilities, are isolated and for many, little money. Or freedom to use what they do have.  Going to the cult gatherings was probably like going to Disneyland for these women. 

Maybe the cult offered these women some degree of support.

Yes, I feel dirty and gross typing any on these. It is so twisted. 

The kids probably liked seeing other kids beyond their own siblings. 

TL:DR- the ideals, values, BS taught at these gatherings was/is awful. Maybe the friendships were good for the people involved. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

They said that of course they couldn’t cover everything about IBLP in the docuseries and are open to diving further into the topic. Although nothing specific about a second season. 
https://people.com/tv/duggar-family-docuseries-producers-reveal-most-shocking-thing-they-discovered-what-didnt-make-the-cut-exclusive/

[Smee]

I'm rewatching SHP because I feel like it was so busy I missed stuff the first time through. Anyway, as I'm watching Michelle and Jim Bob tell their story for the zillionth time and Jim Bob says she went back on the pill and got pregnant on the pill and had the miscarriage that started* it all, it occurs to me that the fact that Michelle got pregnant on the pill was a bit of a warning sign of her hyper fertility to come. Both sets of twins are fraternal, right? This woman was just releasing eggs left right and centre even when on medication that's supposed to prevent ovulation. 

*I say started but if JB was involved in IBLP before he even met her and his best friend was Jim Holt who had 11 kids, I suspect they would have gone quiverfull sooner or later regardless of the J'Caleb thing.

Also, I get that Jill didn't want to talk about the Josh stuff but there are so many other things I'd love to hear more of her perspective on about then vs now. Stuff like Josie's birth and then the Jubilee pregnancy, the "midwife" training she did, the buddy groups and parentification, the courtship rules and her dad's relationship with Derick, the way boys vs girls were treated in her family, what it was actually like living in the small house. I hope she goes into some of that in her book.

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

10 hours ago, noseybutt said:

Not entirely related…but what is super interesting about this documentary is that it seems to draw a different response from people who have an academic interest in fundie world versus those who have first-hand experience with religious trauma. It’s easier to critique the film making (which should be critiqued) when the panic attacks are under control.

I have serious religious  and family trauma but it doesn't really fit into this particular category. So that said, I didn't feel a direct personal connection to this documentary the way I'm seeing many others have.

It seems to me that many people are getting strong validation from seeing their story/part of their story represented in an undeniable negative light in the documentary and that makes sense to me.

I do think it's unfortunate that the technical aspects of the documentary are not great. Because looking for greater impact - it would need to make sense to the uninitiated. It would especially need to resonate with conservative leaning viewers who don't immediately think there's a problem with spanking, "man of the house," christian homeschooling, etc. These people vote in the average looking joe shmoe white guys who "have the same values" as them without really considering that these men might be far more extreme than they realize. Case in point, most people in America support some level of abortion rights and contraception. And yet, extremists are now making these policies that severely restrict all sorts of access  because people voted for "family values" sorts of seemingly inoffensive white guys.

So, I feel like there's a big missed opportunity here which did make me disappointed. America needs some level headed analysis of how these behind the scenes people are manipulating the general public through "schools" and churches, seminars, etc. My general take away from the documentary was that everything they talked about was past tense, what this gothard dude did, but he's resigned now, what this josh guy did but he's in jail now, how the duggar show was misleading but it's canceled now. So there was a sense of all this stuff is mostly  resolved right? ( I know it's not, but as a lay person watching this).