Razing Ruth's niece adopted by same sex couple

[PokaDot]

You know....real life can be more complicated than fiction. I linked to this satire piece about WW2 before, and I'll do it again: squid314.livejournal.com/275614.html

I'm not usually one to doubt on the "crazyness" of a story. It's inconsistencies I doubt, and we really haven't had any of those. Plus, this issue has been brought up time and time again. Ruth's identity is known to a handful of peolple....and I'm sure anyone who has any good googleskillz and too much time on their hand could probably put the bits of info we do know together and figure it out (I, for one, am too lazy to do that).

[FlorenceHamilton]

I think that the same sex couple thing is somewhat convienient. But that does not say to me that it did not happen that way. Here are my reasons why. Already mentioned are the big FU to Darth Daddy and Isaiah. Also already mentioned is the fact that a same sex couple is GUARANTEED to not ever become ATI. There are two other things to consider. First is that if Rachel is a girl who had sex with a boy in the environment where she did, then she has had a bit of rebellion in her for quite some time. But even more, kids raised in ATI don't have well developed critical thinking skills. They are easliy influenced by dominant opinion. After leaving ATI, Ruth has had most of her social influence from left-leaning social agencies and from a college campus. Oh...and US...the FJs and blog readers and exchristians and ex-ATI forum posters. So basically, both girls have been relieved of the burden of DD and Gothard by very, very liberal thinkers. If ATI is bad, then the liberals must be good.

I am not at all saying that it was bad decision-making to choose a same sex couple to raise Ella. I am just saying that it was influenced by the dominant forces in Rachel's life right now.

Is there a possiblity that it is all factitious? Sure.

It is still a good story.

Personally, I think it is true.

[Deleted03]

I'm a long-time lurker but a first-time poster. I too have grown increasingly suspicious of the Razing Ruth blog during the past few months. I'm not prepared to say that the author is lying; however, I am starting to have my doubts. Real life typically doesn't read like a scripted serial drama. Ruth's story has more cliffhangers and plot twists than a daytime soap opera.

About a month ago, Ruth said that she'd been quoted in an article about Bill Gothard and that she was worried about the unwanted attention it might bring her. When one of the commenters noted that the article to which she'd linked was more than a year old and asked for an explanation, Ruth never replied. Along those same lines, I recently spoke to an ATI survivor who said she reached out to Ruth and never got a reply. I've also been told that Ruth seldom acknowledges donations made through her PayPal link.

This is all far from conclusive, but coupled with the unnatural story arcs that make up Ruth's tale and the perfect timing of some of the plot twists, I'm considering removing the Razing Ruth link from my "The Duggar Cult" information page. Ruth's story is one of the most compelling anti-Gothardism stories on the Internet, but I'd hate for the entire push against Gothardism to fall apart simply because one popular blog is revealed to be a hoax/fraud.

Wow a very popular blogger does not take the time to answer every single email she recieves? it must be a hoax! A very popular blogger who works part time and studies full time, does not have the time to read every single email? It must be a hoax! A very popular blogger who is financially strapped does not have the time or energy to help someone who can contact others about this injustice says she was not answered, must be a hoax!

[Guest Anonymous]

Wow a very popular blogger does not take the time to answer every single email she recieves? it must be a hoax! A very popular blogger who works part time and studies full time, does not have the time to read every single email? It must be a hoax! A very popular blogger who is financially strapped does not have the time or energy to help someone who can contact others about this injustice says she was not answered, must be a hoax!

Our newbie wannabee writer/film-maker needs to polish up his story..... :lol:

[ElphabaGalinda]

Our newbie wannabee writer/film-maker needs to polish up his story..... :lol:

Also didn't Ruth write a post about not responding somone who was an ATI survivor who emailed her because she wasn't prepared for that and wasn't what she was intending to do with her blog? And she frequently acknowledges her paypall link, and even took it down at one point because of criticism she recieved. Not saying it's wrong to have doubts about if Ruth is real, but if you're going to provide evidence, you should make sure the evidence is real.

[Guest Anonymous]

Also didn't Ruth write a post about not responding somone who was an ATI survivor who emailed her because she wasn't prepared for that and wasn't what she was intending to do with her blog? And she frequently acknowledges her paypall link, and even took it down at one point because of criticism she recieved. Not saying it's wrong to have doubts about if Ruth is real, but if you're going to provide evidence, you should make sure the evidence is real.

Yeah, I agree, I think newbie's news is old news, frankly.

Personally, I don't think we can know whether Ruth is real, and that is a simple consequence of the decisions "Ruth" has knowingly made to protect her identity. I am not in a financial position to donate, so I am not invested in her blog in that way. I'm inclined to believe, though I'm not sure I could articulate precisely why. :)

[Gizmola]

Why I Believe and Support Razing Ruth ('cause my opinion matters oh so much :roll: )

1. She is inconsistent about posting. I think someone running a scam would post a lot and all over the place to drive traffic to her blog. I think someone wrote this same thing above (but can't find the quote) - I agree with you, poster.

2. She doesn't take the bait to prove herself or come here (and we know she reads here) to try and "convince" us. She takes a very "believe me or not, I understand the skepticism and it's okay". I think someone who was running a scam would jump at every chance to "prove" herself.

3. She isn't destructive and she writes with kindness. Meaning? If it's a scam, it's not to make money but to reveal the inner workings and inherent evil of ATI. So even if "Ruth" isn't real, I think the situations are all too real, and probably much less dramatic than what actually goes on in that environment. So if she is just highlighting a real problem instead of revealing her real life, she does it with class and I think that makes a bigger impression for those looking for hope in getting out of ATI, etc.

In the end, I want to believe in the goodness of Ruth and her surviving such a fucked up situation. I like her writing, I like her gumption, I admire her grace and I just like her. So I support her and, even if I'm proved wrong, I support the intent, purpose and strength in her story. I say, Viva la Ruth!

[Boogalou]

You know....real life can be more complicated than fiction. I linked to this satire piece about WW2 before, and I'll do it again: squid314.livejournal.com/275614.html

I'm not usually one to doubt on the "crazyness" of a story. It's inconsistencies I doubt, and we really haven't had any of those. Plus, this issue has been brought up time and time again. Ruth's identity is known to a handful of peolple....and I'm sure anyone who has any good googleskillz and too much time on their hand could probably put the bits of info we do know together and figure it out (I, for one, am too lazy to do that).

I don't know if I am misremembering or not, but I seem to recall that quite a while ago Ruth's identity was leaked somewhere and then quickly taken down. I think it might have been through a comment on her blog but I cannot remember. In fact, I may be inventing this entire story in my mind, the details are pretty fuzzy. If it did happen I think that it was while we were still on Yuku. Does anyone else remember this? You said that her identity is known by a handful of people. Do you know who they are, and are they on here?

After I typed this out I found Ruth's blog post on it http://razingruth.blogspot.ca/2010/04/quick-update.html A blogger wrote about her identity then erased it 48 hours later. Did anyone here see this original identity revealing post?

What you said about her identity being easy to figure out, I really do agree, especially for people in ATI circles who are the least bit in the know. Find a family with a daughter who disappeared 10 years ago while breaking off a courtship, another daughter who just recently left due to pregnancy, combined with some of her other siblings rough ages and genders and voila! You have them figured out. Which is why I am a little suspicious of the whole thing. Ruth said she is staying anonymous in order to protect her siblings still at home but from the information she has given out it would be easy for people who know her family to identify her as Ruth.

I am always at least a little bit sceptical about every blog I read online and Ruth's is no exception. I read this one blog where the author is having quite a bit of money troubles and, from what I can tell, is just above the poverty line if she is above it at all. A while ago she bough her own domain name and then did a drive in order to incorporate the blog as a business or something (it was some tax-y thing that she needed about $150 to do). A commenter told her that was completely unnecessary and she never responded. Then, a month or two ago she made some vague comment about how she wasn't even sure if she would be able to afford to continue blogging in April. Well, April is here and she is still blogging without any explanation. It seems just a little odd to me, just like Ruth's blog. I chalk these odd feelings up to one of three things. 1. People don't share every single detail about themselves online so things that seem a little off on a blog would make sense if you knew every single thing about the blogger 2. People embellish and exaggerate online to make a better story or because it is easier than to get into long winded explanations 3. Everything is a gigantic lie

Or some combination thereof. I'm not saying I don't believe Ruth, but I am not saying that I do either. The internet is a crazy place which means Ruth could be 100% real or 100% not or somewhere in the middle, the latter of which is what I think is most likely. If people are willing to pluck out their own eyelashes in order to simulate chemo to blog and solicit donations then anything is possible.

Ruth, if you are real and are reading here I still wish you, your sister, and the rest of your siblings all the best in life.

[Oddeverything]

A riveting tale, full of intrigue and fan-pleasing plot twists.

Burris, are you saying that you don't believe Razing Ruth is real or that she is an ATI-escapee who embellishes her stories? Asking from a place of curiosity because I at times question what I am reading about her life but also admit I don't know enough to make a knowledgeable decision.

[QAF_Rocks]

I don't know if I am misremembering or not, but I seem to recall that quite a while ago Ruth's identity was leaked somewhere and then quickly taken down. I think it might have been through a comment on her blog but I cannot remember. In fact, I may be inventing this entire story in my mind, the details are pretty fuzzy. If it did happen I think that it was while we were still on Yuku. Does anyone else remember this? You said that her identity is known by a handful of people. Do you know who they are, and are they on here?

After I typed this out I found Ruth's blog post on it http://razingruth.blogspot.ca/2010/04/quick-update.html A blogger wrote about her identity then erased it 48 hours later. Did anyone here see this original identity revealing post?

I think I may have seen it. The commenter didn't mention names, but he said that a picture of Ruth's family could be seen on the TLC slideshow of the Duggars' home. He said to look for a family with a large age gap and a lot of older children and a baby. The only picture I found that contained pictures of other families was their wall plastered with Christmas cards, but they were too small to read most of the names. One looked promising (even had children named Rachel and Ruth), but after googling, it didn't appear to be the right family.

[ShadowyOne]

I think I may have seen it. The commenter didn't mention names, but he said that a picture of Ruth's family could be seen on the TLC slideshow of the Duggars' home. He said to look for a family with a large age gap and a lot of older children and a baby. The only picture I found that contained pictures of other families was their wall plastered with Christmas cards, but they were too small to read most of the names. One looked promising (even had children named Rachel and Ruth), but after googling, it didn't appear to be the right family.

I'm under the impression that all of the given names in this blog are expressly pseudonyms. I think they usually have quotation marks around them when first introduced, but don't thereafter for convenience's sake.

[bananacat]

I've had my doubts about Ruth but I'm back in the camp of believing her. I haven't scoured over her blog for inconsistencies, but I haven't noticed any glaring ones either. I think a fake pregnancy would be sped up in the style of a soap opera for someone who is just attention whoring. And is it really plausible that she started her story years ago and planned to have one fictional sister, and then wait a few years until the fictional sister was just the right age to get pregnant while courting? That's pretty elaborate. I also think we see the worst of her life because it's pointless to write about mundane things. Her day to day life probably isn't as weird and hectic as it seems.

In this case, I suspect that the baby went to a lesbian couple rather than a gay male couple. Lesbians are much less of a target in that community so I could see her being comfortable with them even if she just recently left the movement.

[devilsadvocate]

I've been on the internet long enough now that I take all this stuff with a grain of salt. People will fake all kinds of crazy things on the internet. I'm sure some of you remember the Kaycee Nicole hoax from years ago.

I too find it very hard to believe that someone who JUST escaped from Gothardism would be comfortable placing her child with a gay couple. It would be very touching if what Ruth posted about the adoption was true, but it just doesn't seem authentic to me.

It seems unlikely to me that a girl in that situation would do a total 180 immediately on beliefs about homosexuality when many people raised in less restrictive environments are not completely accepting of gay people, and it also seems unlikely to me that she would "just happen" to find a gay couple that was perfect when gay couples are a fairly small percentage of adopting couples (even though it's more common now than it used to be).

[QAF_Rocks]

I'm under the impression that all of the given names in this blog are expressly pseudonyms. I think they usually have quotation marks around them when first introduced, but don't thereafter for convenience's sake.

True, that's one of the reasons I figured it couldn't be the one. If Rachel and Ruth are pseudonyms, then there's no way those people could be Razing Ruth's family. However, I do find it surprising that no one from the ATI world has visited her blog and revealed her identity. You'd think they might do so with the intention of shaming her and/or defending her family.

[roddma]

It sounds as though they have no kids. Many times, childless couples are overlooked in adoptions because the other wants them to have siblings or people with experience raising kids. I am glad Rachel saw past that if this is the case. Whatever the , i hope Ellie grows up happy.

[PokaDot]

True, that's one of the reasons I figured it couldn't be the one. If Rachel and Ruth are pseudonyms, then there's no way those people could be Razing Ruth's family. However, I do find it surprising that no one from the ATI world has visited her blog and revealed her identity. You'd think they might do so with the intention of shaming her and/or defending her family.

Anyone who had google alerts on RazingRuth apparently got her real name (I did not). I think NLQ's Vickie knows her real name, and a handful of other people?

The only people from ATI commenting is Daddy Darth, right? Everyone else was told to stay away lest they by swayed. I highly doubt Darth would out himself, and anyone who defied being told to stay in their corner would probably do so....

A message board I was a part of many years ago (like 10 at this point) was duped by someone claiming to be a DV victim. They posed as a sister of a member. I (and the rest of the board-we were a close community) bought that hook line and sinker. In the end, everything blew up. It took about 3 months. Ever since then I've been very suspicious of people online...but I do believe Ruth. Mostly because she's been telling her story consistently for years.

As for the same sex couple? They do live in California, and if they are anywhere close to San Francisco I wouldn't be surprised if a same sex couple made the short list.

[Kitchen Princess]

I've been on the internet long enough now that I take all this stuff with a grain of salt. People will fake all kinds of crazy things on the internet. I'm sure some of you remember the Kaycee Nicole hoax from years ago.

I too find it very hard to believe that someone who JUST escaped from Gothardism would be comfortable placing her child with a gay couple. It would be very touching if what Ruth posted about the adoption was true, but it just doesn't seem authentic to me.

It seems unlikely to me that a girl in that situation would do a total 180 immediately on beliefs about homosexuality when many people raised in less restrictive environments are not completely accepting of gay people, and it also seems unlikely to me that she would "just happen" to find a gay couple that was perfect when gay couples are a fairly small percentage of adopting couples (even though it's more common now than it used to be).

Unless Rachel never believed what she was spoon-fed in the first place. I remember having very serious doubts and very strong 'bullshit' reactions to certain dogmas I was taught from a very young age. No one knew, because if I disagreed I would be shouted down, no matter how logical my arguments. But I thought about them, and studied them, and never conceded their illogical opinions in my mind. Then I was grown and it didn't matter.

[divadivine]

Anyone who had google alerts on RazingRuth apparently got her real name (I did not). I think NLQ's Vickie knows her real name, and a handful of other people?

The only people from ATI commenting is Daddy Darth, right? Everyone else was told to stay away lest they by swayed. I highly doubt Darth would out himself, and anyone who defied being told to stay in their corner would probably do so....

A message board I was a part of many years ago (like 10 at this point) was duped by someone claiming to be a DV victim. They posed as a sister of a member. I (and the rest of the board-we were a close community) bought that hook line and sinker. In the end, everything blew up. It took about 3 months. Ever since then I've been very suspicious of people online...but I do believe Ruth. Mostly because she's been telling her story consistently for years.

As for the same sex couple? They do live in California, and if they are anywhere close to San Francisco I wouldn't be surprised if a same sex couple made the short list.

I was thinking the same thing- California is quite diverse, more freethinking, accepting and having a same sex couple on the short list of candidates is probably very common. Now, I would not say the same for Indiana where I live.

[QAF_Rocks]

I was thinking the same thing- California is quite diverse, more freethinking, accepting and having a same sex couple on the short list of candidates is probably very common. Now, I would not say the same for Indiana where I live.

Well, not all of California, but certainly many of the major metropolitan areas. I grew up with two lesbian moms near San Francisco. If that's where they live, little Ellie will have lots of peers with two moms or two dads.

I'm enjoying the idea of Darth Daddy and company's reaction to this news. :lol:

[Kitty]

Unless Rachel never believed what she was spoon-fed in the first place. I remember having very serious doubts and very strong 'bullshit' reactions to certain dogmas I was taught from a very young age. No one knew, because if I disagreed I would be shouted down, no matter how logical my arguments. But I thought about them, and studied them, and never conceded their illogical opinions in my mind. Then I was grown and it didn't matter.

That, and she actually tried to leave before but got sucked back in.

[Serious_News_Junkie]

Yeah, I agree, I think newbie's news is old news, frankly.

Personally, I don't think we can know whether Ruth is real, and that is a simple consequence of the decisions "Ruth" has knowingly made to protect her identity. I am not in a financial position to donate, so I am not invested in her blog in that way. I'm inclined to believe, though I'm not sure I could articulate precisely why. :)

AnnieC, I'm not sure why you're targeting me. I didn't start the discussion about the veracity of Razing Ruth; I simply added my own concerns to the growing list. You're obviously entitled to question and challenge my concerns, but your petty jabs are completely unwarranted.

I watched my wife go through grief counseling in order to accept her ATI family's decision to disown her for choosing to abandon Bill Gothard's teachings. And on those nights when she couldn't accept her family's decision, I sat up with her and held her while she cried. Since then, I've spent countless hours researching Bill Gothard, IBLP, ATI, etc. Every morning, I look for news articles about the Duggars and reach out to those publications--both in the comments section and by emailing the authors--trying to open people's eyes to the reality of this misogynistic cult. As much as anybody on this forum, I WANT to believe Ruth's story, if for no other reason than it lends so much credence to my case against Gothardism. However, for the reasons I've already stated, believing Ruth's story is not always easy.

We've all seen legitimate causes seriously damaged by charlatans who, for whatever reason, chose to manipulate the genuine compassion and legitimate concerns of others. We've also seen causes damaged by well-meaning activists who, with the best intentions, chose to bend the truth just enough to effect the desired result. I chose to contribute my own concerns to this discussion because I hoped to engage in an intelligent discourse on the matter. Because I frequently cite Razing Ruth when arguing against Gothardism, I feel compelled to vet it. I want to be judicious in the argument I use, so that my arguments are not easily discredited and dismissed.

I want to be very clear that I am NOT calling Ruth a liar--I currently have no way of knowing whether or not her story is true. I do, however, have concerns, and it's clear that I am not alone in my skepticism.

Rather than getting your hackles up that I, as a "newbie," would have the gall to question Razing Ruth, and rather than trying to reveal my identity to the public (something I'm sure would play very well with my in-laws), why not focus your snark on the people who truly deserve it--the Bill Gothards, Michael Pearls, and Jim Bob Duggars of the world?

[BravaAmica]

How do you know these things? They are not on the blog, that I can see.

I interpreted them from what Ruth said, that Issiah knew where to go so he and Rachel could be alone and not be caught. And that he's been to a lot of ATI conferences. Also, he's from a culture where men don't take responsibility for getting someone pregnant outside of wedlock [sex outside of marriage is always the woman's fault, you know]. So he can get his jollies without consequence [Exhibit A: His parents' denial that their precious son would have sex at an ATI conference. Exhibit B: Darth Daddy blaming Rachel for getting pregnant & never said a word against Issiah.]. Ergo, Rachel was not the first, she won't be the last.

[Deleted03]

AnnieC, I'm not sure why you're targeting me. I didn't start the discussion about the veracity of Razing Ruth; I simply added my own concerns to the growing list. You're obviously entitled to question and challenge my concerns, but your petty jabs are completely unwarranted.

I watched my wife go through grief counseling in order to accept her ATI family's decision to disown her for choosing to abandon Bill Gothard's teachings. And on those nights when she couldn't accept her family's decision, I sat up with her and held her while she cried. Since then, I've spent countless hours researching Bill Gothard, IBLP, ATI, etc. Every morning, I look for news articles about the Duggars and reach out to those publications--both in the comments section and by emailing the authors--trying to open people's eyes to the reality of this misogynistic cult. As much as anybody on this forum, I WANT to believe Ruth's story, if for no other reason than it lends so much credence to my case against Gothardism. However, for the reasons I've already stated, believing Ruth's story is not always easy.

We've all seen legitimate causes seriously damaged by charlatans who, for whatever reason, chose to manipulate the genuine compassion and legitimate concerns of others. We've also seen causes damaged by well-meaning activists who, with the best intentions, chose to bend the truth just enough to effect the desired result. I chose to contribute my own concerns to this discussion because I hoped to engage in an intelligent discourse on the matter. Because I frequently cite Razing Ruth when arguing against Gothardism, I feel compelled to vet it. I want to be judicious in the argument I use, so that my arguments are not easily discredited and dismissed.

I want to be very clear that I am NOT calling Ruth a liar--I currently have no way of knowing whether or not her story is true. I do, however, have concerns, and it's clear that I am not alone in my skepticism.

Rather than getting your hackles up that I, as a "newbie," would have the gall to question Razing Ruth, and rather than trying to reveal my identity to the public (something I'm sure would play very well with my in-laws), why not focus your snark on the people who truly deserve it--the Bill Gothards, Michael Pearls, and Jim Bob Duggars of the world?

that you started an account with an email entitled go fuck yourself is not working in your favor. It,s no about you being new, it's about you could be... hmmm let's say Isaiah! Plus you're not answering our answer to your concern... so read your email name!

[BravaAmica]

that you started an account with an email entitled go fuck yourself is not working in your favor. It,s no about you being new, it's about you could be... hmmm let's say Isaiah! Plus you're not answering our answer to your concern... so read your email name!

I don't think Isaiah is educated enough to know about things like story arcs. Also, there are no grammatical errors, rantings or misspellings that Gothardites educated at the dining room table are prone to when they post on FJ. So it's not Isaiah.

[Beeks]

AnnieC, I'm not sure why you're targeting me. I didn't start the discussion about the veracity of Razing Ruth; I simply added my own concerns to the growing list. You're obviously entitled to question and challenge my concerns, but your petty jabs are completely unwarranted.

I watched my wife go through grief counseling in order to accept her ATI family's decision to disown her for choosing to abandon Bill Gothard's teachings. And on those nights when she couldn't accept her family's decision, I sat up with her and held her while she cried. Since then, I've spent countless hours researching Bill Gothard, IBLP, ATI, etc. Every morning, I look for news articles about the Duggars and reach out to those publications--both in the comments section and by emailing the authors--trying to open people's eyes to the reality of this misogynistic cult. As much as anybody on this forum, I WANT to believe Ruth's story, if for no other reason than it lends so much credence to my case against Gothardism. However, for the reasons I've already stated, believing Ruth's story is not always easy.

We've all seen legitimate causes seriously damaged by charlatans who, for whatever reason, chose to manipulate the genuine compassion and legitimate concerns of others. We've also seen causes damaged by well-meaning activists who, with the best intentions, chose to bend the truth just enough to effect the desired result. I chose to contribute my own concerns to this discussion because I hoped to engage in an intelligent discourse on the matter. Because I frequently cite Razing Ruth when arguing against Gothardism, I feel compelled to vet it. I want to be judicious in the argument I use, so that my arguments are not easily discredited and dismissed.

I want to be very clear that I am NOT calling Ruth a liar--I currently have no way of knowing whether or not her story is true. I do, however, have concerns, and it's clear that I am not alone in my skepticism.

Rather than getting your hackles up that I, as a "newbie," would have the gall to question Razing Ruth, and rather than trying to reveal my identity to the public (something I'm sure would play very well with my in-laws), why not focus your snark on the people who truly deserve it--the Bill Gothards, Michael Pearls, and Jim Bob Duggars of the world?

I tend to stay away from the RR threads because her story sends up a LOT of red flags to me. I clicked on this one because when I read about the same-sex couple my first thought was simply "how convenient."

You're definitely not alone in your skepticism but I think the people who support RR have their points as well and none of us will really know for sure until her identity becomes public.