Jump to content
IGNORED

Duggar Apologists


roddma

Recommended Posts

You know it's this attitude that burns me up sometimes. Many people who oppose welfare will willingly donate to a family at their church who is having hard times, but god forbid money is taken out of their tax dollars (which has never been in their pocket anyway) for someone less fortunate. These same people who will buy a ticket to a fish fry or chili dinner for the latest person in their community to be stricken with cancer are outraged at the idea for nationalized health care. I'd much rather pay a little more in taxes to ensure neither I, nor anyone else I know goes broke trying to pay medical expenses. It just seems so logical to me. Am I wrong?

No, you're not wrong. I suspect that a lot of the people who will willingly donate at the chili dinner but are horrified at the idea of taxes going toward welfare are mostly horrified about the idea of losing their "I'm a good person" warm and fuzzies. If everyone pays their fair share into a government system that reliably provides for those who need a hand, then no one will get to pat themselves on the back for being a Good Christian Who Cares For The Poor. Well, that, and then no one would be able to force poor families to take a side of Jesus before they get the help they need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Another defender line: "My great so and so had 12 kids'

Some fundies also say that often. I remember on the Bateses' Primetime special, Gil mentioned how in past eras, "large families had less and they were always happy". That annoyed me. My grandmother was a teenager when the Great Depression started. She was the oldest of seven kids and she said being apart of a big family at that time wasn't pleasant at times. She went on to have 8 kids of her own and her my grandfather struggled because they were ranchers. In the last years of my grandma's life, she said she loved her large family but she understood why her kids only had 2 to 4 kids.

I also hate when Duggar defenders bash on smaller families by calling them materialistic and saying that "the only reason they have small families is for material reasons". I once read a Duggar defender line that was something like this :"The Duggars don't hand their kids everything like parents of 2 kids do". We all know the Duggars have handed their sons businesses which they claim the boys started on their own. The previous comments irritate me for different reasons. Yes, some smaller families are very materialistic, but overall I think people have less kids more for financial security reasons. Fundie bloggers bash on small families or two income families, all the time and they always like say stuff how the kids in small families always have xBoxes, iPods, laptops, designer clothes and cars. I know several kids or adults from a small families who do or did have a lot of nice stuff, but they aren't a giant spoiled brats. Some of them earn some things through good grades, chores, or part time jobs.

There were four kids in my family and we did have a lot of have gadgets but my parents had no issues with buying video game consoles, stereos, or other things because the whole family enjoyed those things. My parents did buys their kids cars but they did that to help them start off in college. We had part time or summer jobs in high school in which we would buy school clothes or other things that we might have wanted. In college, all of us had jobs to pay for rent, food, and other living expenses. Our parents partially helped us with tuition, car insurance, and car payments. I know other people who were in a similar situations and pisses me off when some people assume that we were extremely spoiled because our families were smaller. There is one Mormon blogger that I follow who had subtly bashed smaller families a few times. But I get the vibe from this blogger, that she still isn't happy to have grown up in a large family. Her family wasn't a mega family like the Duggars. There were five biological daughters and her parents later adopted two kids from foster care. This blogger sometimes talks about how she didn't have everything she wanted, but had what she needed. Then there are blog postings about her how she hated Halloween because her family didn't buy nice costumes, she didn't have nice school clothes etc. She also bashed on some of her high school friends whose parents bought cars for them or whose parents helped them make payments. I can see one or a few of Duggar kids ending up with similar feelings later on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also hate when Duggar defenders bash on smaller families by calling them materialistic and saying that "the only reason they have small families is for material reasons"

Josh Duggar allegedly didn't grow up with many material things and and look at him. Maybe he was a tad spoiled since he was the first child and got more time with JB and Michelle. I point out how the Duggars have Iphones and wear name brand clothes. I have no problem with them splurging but it irritates me how they knock down smaller families like in the Letter to Jubilee and preached buy used for years. Chelsea Clinton is an only child and she seems to do well. there are perhaps others too. Yea they had access to a few more 'things' but are grateful. I guess you could count Elvis. There are his family lived in poverty much of the time. My grandmother was one of two and they were far form wealthy. My grandmother wore one dress to school all year. Perhaps there are others but I can't think of more now. Family size has nothing to do with material things. I find nothing positive or godly about ten kids living in a squalor.

Another line is they would be fine with no show or were fine before the show. I respond by saying if it weren't for the show, they would be no where near living the current lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the huge families a few generations ago, a lot of the children did not survive. That combined with a lack of available birth control was the reason for the prolific baby-making. My paternal grandmother was one of three as far as anyone told me, until I was an adult and my great grandmother mentioned the eight children she had lost. Eight! Not bad at the time, because she still managed to get three of them to adulthood. I have had five births and I plan on keeping all of them. Ditto with my four stepchildren. I will most likely be keeping all of them alive and hopefully they will bury me rather than the other way around. We are no longer playing a numbers game with childbearing, so the larger numbers are not needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh Duggar allegedly didn't grow up with many material things and and look at him. Maybe he was a tad spoiled since he was the first child and got more time with JB and Michelle. I point out how the Duggars have Iphones and wear name brand clothes. I have no problem with them splurging but it irritates me how they knock down smaller families like in the Letter to Jubilee and preached buy used for years. Chelsea Clinton is an only child and she seems to do well. there are perhaps others too. Yea they had access to a few more 'things' but are grateful. I guess you could count Elvis. There are his family lived in poverty much of the time. My grandmother was one of two and they were far form wealthy. My grandmother wore one dress to school all year. Perhaps there are others but I can't think of more now. Family size has nothing to do with material things. I find nothing positive or godly about ten kids living in a squalor.

Another line is they would be fine with no show or were fine before the show. I respond by saying if it weren't for the show, they would be no where near living the current lifestyle.

I think they are different definitions of "spoiled" and I agree Josh is spoiled, but not in material way. It also irritates how they knock down smaller families and constantly preach about buying used. Buying certain things used isn't a bad thing, but there are times when people are better off buying certain things new. I have also seen the smaller families that struggle and you have gave some good examples. I agree there is nothing postiive about seeing double digit amounts of kids living in squalor or wearing used shoes.

I have also heard that the line about them being fine without the show and that they were fine before the show. Before the show, the Duggars weren't totally fine. The Duggar defenders still ignore the fact that the Duggars were getting food and clothes donations. If the Duggars didn't have a show, they would still be depending on donations. I think once the show is done, Boob and Mullet will be ok, but they won't be going on trips all the time. The Duggar defenders continue to ignore that the only reasons the Duggars can now afford name brand clothes and other nice stuff is because of TLC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a lot to take in, but primarily I was horrified when Michelle and Jim Bob told everyone that the baby was gone and then Michelle sat there, alone, weeping. No one, not one person got up to comfort her. Not even Jim Bob's mother.

I noticed the same thing. On the one hand, I was also horrified and didn't know how to take it (especially with JimBob walking around hugging/rubbing the heads of his children, who seemed far less upset about the situation than Michelle), but the more I think about it, it kind of makes sense. They have been 'trained' their whole lives to have a 'joyful countenance', they're not really supposed to express any other feelings but love and happiness. They probably have no idea what to do when someone around them has a legitimate emotional reaction to something, especially one of pain. Any other time I've seen Michelle cry it's been part of a speech or presentation, talking about the first miscarriage, and obviously those situations are very different because it's part of a performance and there is no expectation of the family members to comfort her then. But they've basically prevented their own children from knowing how to comfort someone who is suffering by teaching them that emotional suffering isn't supposed to be comforted, it's supposed to be controlled, leading to kids who pretend they're happy even if they're not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a leghumper on 19K&C FB claiming another dead baby by the name of Jesse.

What? How would this person know? Does anyone else know anything about this?

One thing people don't talk about when they look at the past through rose-tinted glasses and speak rapturously about large families is the lack of welfare and other safety nets. My grandmother had 6 kids and probably would have had more but her husband developed brain cancer and died young. She was left with 6 children and a teeny-tiny pension (he had been a minister.) She had to go to work full time and the oldest boy had to quit school and go to work full time. They had to leave their home, of course, and rely on other people's charity. It was pretty terrible for all concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the Duggar defenders out there are those people who haven't delved deeper, so to speak. When I first heard of the Duggars, my astonishment at the size of the family, and watching them on the tv, I did think they were quite harmless and set in their own ways. However, because they were so different and unlike anything I had heard of personally (and me being British, their lifestyle isn't really something prominent in my country), only then did I search things online about them, and I soon learned the real truths behind the Duggars. Some people just form opinions without looking into things further, whether they want to or simply can't be bothered to research things before they make up their minds. It's like watching Big Brother; everything is heavily edited, and we only see what the producers want us to. It's up to ourselves to go and look it up further if we think something is amiss, and in the case of the Duggars, something just didn't feel right for me in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. They had those same big grins at their sister's funeral. Obviously they have been trained to turn on the joy whenever a camera is present. Also, the parents advocate parenting books that say to punish a child until they learn to act happy all the time. Many cult members look happy; anyone seen pictures of the Manson family?

Those smiles in the funeral photos were creepy. It was painfully clear how well they'd been trained to hide emotions and to just smile smile SMILE for the cameras.

2. They receive donations and have for a long time. There is some evidence that JB received a lot of his start in life with a ton of help from his parents; some of their property in fact belongs to Grandma Duggar. Not everyone has a few businesses handed to them and a steady flow of donations (not even to mention a TLC show that pays millions every year).

Yup. They also had help with going through college for fields that would benefit them in what they wanted to do. They've had so much handed to them that it's sickening how much they pretend like it was all due to their own labor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read they stopped claiming the house as a church because of the flack over it. Another defender line: "My great so and so had 12 kids'

Yeah, and back in those days, there was no birth control, and with how many kids died before adulthood, having just a couple children was a risk. Also help was needed around the farm. It's easier to run a farm for 10 people with the hands of 10 people than it is to run a farm for 4 people with the hands of 4 people. Let's not forget that once upon a time, parents relied solely on their kids for care in their advanced years because saving for those years was rarely possible.

Times. They change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they are different definitions of "spoiled" and I agree Josh is spoiled, but not in material way. It also irritates how they knock down smaller families and constantly preach about buying used. Buying certain things used isn't a bad thing, but there are times when people are better off buying certain things new. I have also seen the smaller families that struggle and you have gave some good examples. I agree there is nothing postiive about seeing double digit amounts of kids living in squalor or wearing used shoes.

I have also heard that the line about them being fine without the show and that they were fine before the show. Before the show, the Duggars weren't totally fine. The Duggar defenders still ignore the fact that the Duggars were getting food and clothes donations. If the Duggars didn't have a show, they would still be depending on donations. I think once the show is done, Boob and Mullet will be ok, but they won't be going on trips all the time. The Duggar defenders continue to ignore that the only reasons the Duggars can now afford name brand clothes and other nice stuff is because of TLC.

I read they still got donations as recently as 2010 because people think they don't make money from the show. I can't imagine Boob doing a show free. Why even pretend to be frugal when you make 40K-75K an episode? Defenders tlak abut them not being like the Kardashians or Gosselins but I see no difference if Boob inherited land and they get donations. Jim Bob and Michelle admitted to donations once but the first book contradicts some things.

There is some evidence that JB received a lot of his start in life with a ton of help from his parents; some of their property in fact belongs to Grandma Duggar. Not everyone has a few businesses handed to them and a steady flow of donations (not even to mention a TLC show that pays millions every year).

Jim Bob mentions Grandpa Duggar was terrible with money. Maybe Grandpapa was terible with money but it says he made wiser investments and a there is a posisbility Jim Bob inheirted land. Even with the low cost of living in Arkansas, it owuld be hard to buy as much land as Boob who started as a grocery stocker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I always see "Well the kids are happy, healthy, and well-fed. Leave them alone!"

-The kids have pretty much been trained to put on happy faces for the cameras. We've caught occasional glimpses of some of the older ones looking glum or frustrated, then when they notice the camera's on them, they immediately switch to happy.

-We know Josie's been struggling with health problems and I don't think we ever got an official diagnosis except "oops, lactose intolerance!" this whole time, right? Obviously, I can't speculate on health problems, but that leads me to...

-Well-fed? That family eats CRAP! All processed, from a box or can or premade. They put together a measly garden and mention that the kids loooooooove fruit or show them buying cans of corn as a way of saying "Shut up, internet," and it's obviously damage control. I don't want to know how much sodium they take in daily.

I've also heard "At least they aren't getting drunk every night and listening to pop music like OTHER teenagers!" Which makes it sound like if you drink and listen to Lady Gaga or something, you're obviously a bad person who's on the path of destruction and will soon be doing coke and murdering people. It's possible to imbibe and listen to music and still be a good person! And like someone else said, the Duggar kids don't drink or listen to popular music because they aren't allowed access to it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never understood why the Duggars never claiming government welfare somehow makes them better than everyone else.

They may not accept welfare or food stamps but they never turn away donations of free clothing ,TLC finishing their house for free,free trips from being on the show,or gifts from fans none of which are turned over to charity .I am sure People send them food donations but we would never know.Their house won't have been finished before they had to move out their rental but TLC saved them from homeless them and then 15 almost 16 kids.They act the act and walk the walk but when comes down to it they take charity just like next person only in different ways

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking of common things Duggar defenders say 1) but they look so happy 2)they are self-sufficient 3)the kids aren't on drugs 4)if we had more peopl like them 5)they are well-behaved

Those are the ones I can think of right off hand. It has been a slow day at the content mills so needed to fill time lol

My sister is a Duggar defender and we've had to agree *NOT* to discuss them anymore. Sister thinks that they are the bomb, and that they are 100% genuine.

She's gone so far as to refer to their chores (which she rotates monthly) as jurisdictions. I thought she was teasing me.

At least she gives her boys the same chores as the girls. She is starting to buy into the purity BS too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, somebody I know is the same way. But I keep arguing with her just to piss her off.

ETA grammar corrections

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the Duggar defenders out there are those people who haven't delved deeper, so to speak. When I first heard of the Duggars, my astonishment at the size of the family, and watching them on the tv, I did think they were quite harmless and set in their own ways. However, because they were so different and unlike anything I had heard of personally (and me being British, their lifestyle isn't really something prominent in my country), only then did I search things online about them, and I soon learned the real truths behind the Duggars. Some people just form opinions without looking into things further, whether they want to or simply can't be bothered to research things before they make up their minds. It's like watching Big Brother; everything is heavily edited, and we only see what the producers want us to. It's up to ourselves to go and look it up further if we think something is amiss, and in the case of the Duggars, something just didn't feel right for me in the first place.

Some of the Duggar defenders are like that. The Duggars have fans from fundie/fundie lite circles who know about their affiliations with Gothard and other fundie organizations. The non-fundie Duggar defenders are the ones that haven't delved deeper and some refuse to do so. Diane Standherr on the 19kac FB page is like that, an FJ member posted links about Gothard/ATi and Standherr refused to read it. There were some defenders on IMDB who also refuse to dig deeper. There was one Duggar defender who flounced from IMDB when people were discussing the Keller family rift and the fact that the Duggars lied about the car lot ownership. I guess her image of the Duggars got shattered and I hope she ended up doing her research.

I know a couple of Duggar defenders through friends of mine who really buy into the "happy family who completely supports themselves" image. They ignore the obvious sexism that goes on and they really believe everything TLC presents. This woman likes the Duggars because she seems them as this loving family that never has problems. She comes from a broken family, her parents were Russian immigrants who divorced. She and her mom struggled financially for years and this woman has an hearing impairment as well. To her, the Duggars seem like they have the happy family/childhoods she didn't have. She ignores the fact the Duggars struggled years ago. My friend once told her about Boob and Mullet admitting to getting donations in the past and she ignored her. I kind of laugh at the defender because is agnostic and was raised by a divorced mom. The Duggars would never care for someone like her. Some of the people are the Duggars' biggest fans are people that family wouldn't befriend. I have seen working moms on different sites talk about how they like the Duggars. I laugh when I see that stuff. There was also a working mom blogger who talked about she liked them. I remember she was discussed here a few times. I can't remember her name.

Some Duggar defenders also don't know or realize how twisted the reality TV show business is. Some of the "happy events" the Duggars do are staged and sometimes it is easy to spot. Some of the things about Jackson's birthday party from last year looked staged. TLC has been smart at times to edit out or tell the Duggars not to say certain things on camera. Their ATI related trips are always edited well to never mentioned Gothard or ATI. The Chicago trip was edited to look like the J'Slaves were on their own, but the chaperones were shown in one scene. I remember when Dianne Standherr tried to say the girls were alone on the trip and someone mentioned the chaperone couple. TLC also made it seem like Joshie boy owns the lots, but in the episode about the zoning board, Jim Bob's name was visible on a sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sister said it best. Anybody who thinks these reality shows are real or have even the faintest touch of reality to them are bat-shit crazy and needs to turn off the TV. There was one point when my youngest niece wanted to be like the Duggar girls. The she is no longer allowed to watch the show because sis wants her to have a normal life, go to a real public school, etc. Anyway, she got over that very quickly. She came home the other day beaming with happiness. She made the honor roll, which qualifies her for the Honor Society and she made the JV cheerleading squad! I'm so happy & proud of her! All of that comes with a price tag, but we as a family will chip in and help. And my oldest niece graduated HS Friday! So proud of her too!

ETA: Hit "Submit" button too soon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sister said it best. Anybody who thinks these reality shows are real or have even the faintest touch of reality to them are bat-shit crazy and needs to turn off the TV.

When you've got 250 hours of combined footage with which to make a 22-minute episode, you can make anything. If you were to film me all day today and make a 22-minute episode, even though I'm in bed sick as a dog, you could make it seem like I've been busy all day by showing me making breakfast and lunch, changing my daughter's stinky diaper, making tea, making the bed, etc., things that take a couple minutes each (except lunch, frying potatoes takes longer). It wouldn't be an accurate representation.

"Reality" TV need to be renamed what it is, semi-unscripted TV. Situations are set up and often discussed in advance. Conflicts are created or intentionally avoided or edited out or edited in. (Anyone remember the Omarosa debacle on an earlier season of The Apprentice? Apparently she's not a bitch at all, but editing was done to make her look like one so that everyone would have someone to talk about. She was a local to me at the time, and it was a bigger deal that her rep was trashed than in the mainstream media.)

There is no journalistic integrity or documentary integrity to these shows. The selling point is fantasy, not reality. Filming is done and a story cobbled together with the usable scraps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sean Overbeeke and his crew have pretty much edited the Duggars to look like a loving family at face value, but there have been some things that they haven't been able to manipulate more. The Duggars' annoying sanctimonious attitudes come out often on the show and some viewers catch onto it. Boob got bashed on message boards because of his comments towards the agnostic or atheist street performer in Scotland. Some of the editing makes Michelle look like a hard worker, but we still see shots of J'Slaves carrying toddlers around and helping with the homeschooling.

I get the vibe that some of the crew members and editors don't like the Duggars that much. There have been times we have seen closeup shots of some of the kids sleeping on the floor, the girls wearing flip flops in inappropriate situations, and similar things. I think the editors and crew members probably loathe having to work on a reality show because they know how twisted it is. They will show small things that prove the Duggars don't have the perfect lifestyle. Some of the crew or editors probably hate seeing footage of young women in their late teens and early 20's having to constantly care for their younger siblings. Sean probably instructs them to edit out certain things or to make it appear that they enjoy being sister moms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality TV isn't reality at all. I have a friend who appeared on and MTV Reality show years ago, and they painted her as an almighty bee-ahtch. In real life, she was a wonderful, caring person who was always homecoming royalty and one of the most popular girls in school (for all the right reasons...not b/c she was a mean girl). However, she took shit from no one, and if confronted she had no qualms standing up for herself or others - I believe MTV found ways to provoke her and edit film to look like she was a really horrible person. At least she was only on that show (and I believe a few other guest appearances) for a few seasons and now lives a normal life. She was smart enough to know the gravy train wouldn't last forever, unlike the Duggars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I always see "Well the kids are happy, healthy, and well-fed. Leave them alone!"

-The kids have pretty much been trained to put on happy faces for the cameras. We've caught occasional glimpses of some of the older ones looking glum or frustrated, then when they notice the camera's on them, they immediately switch to happy.

-We know Josie's been struggling with health problems and I don't think we ever got an official diagnosis except "oops, lactose intolerance!" this whole time, right? Obviously, I can't speculate on health problems, but that leads me to...

-Well-fed? That family eats CRAP! All processed, from a box or can or premade. They put together a measly garden and mention that the kids loooooooove fruit or show them buying cans of corn as a way of saying "Shut up, internet," and it's obviously damage control. I don't want to know how much sodium they take in daily.

I've also heard "At least they aren't getting drunk every night and listening to pop music like OTHER teenagers!" Which makes it sound like if you drink and listen to Lady Gaga or something, you're obviously a bad person who's on the path of destruction and will soon be doing coke and murdering people. It's possible to imbibe and listen to music and still be a good person! And like someone else said, the Duggar kids don't drink or listen to popular music because they aren't allowed access to it!

But, in the fundie world, music IS perceived to lead to the path of destruction:

http://www.av1611.org/crock/crockids.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I finally watched the Jubliee episode last night.

There was a lot to take in, but primarily I was horrified when Michelle and Jim Bob told everyone that the baby was gone and then Michelle sat there, alone, weeping. No one, not one person got up to comfort her. Not even Jim Bob's mother.

Nor did she reach out to seek and offer comfort. It was astonishing. I wanted to reach throught the tv screen and wrap my arms around her. As much as she drives me up the wall, my compassion for her knew no bounds at that moment.

How telling is that her children felt no connection to her, nor she to them. Jim Bob went to each of them and offered a hug and a word of comfort. She just sat there alone, silently weeping. At that moment, my heart broke for her. Even as I realized that it was of her own making. She is not a mother. She is a child bearer.

I said exactly this same thing on an earlier thread. In fact, even now, reading your comment, I remember how ASTONISHED I was at this. No one comforted her. She comforted no one. There is something significantly, seriously wrong with that family. Whether it's a function of its size, or whether Jmichelle would have been that way with two kids, I'll never know. But I do know this: I showed more sympathy to the supermarket check out clerk who was obviously going through chemo than Michelle did to her family on this occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said exactly this same thing on an earlier thread. In fact, even now, reading your comment, I remember how ASTONISHED I was at this. No one comforted her. She comforted no one. There is something significantly, seriously wrong with that family. Whether it's a function of its size, or whether Jmichelle would have been that way with two kids, I'll never know. But I do know this: I showed more sympathy to the supermarket check out clerk who was obviously going through chemo than Michelle did to her family on this occasion.

I think it really brought to light that affection is not an ordinary occurrence in their household, and the fact that none of those kids, young adults included, are particularly close to their mother. Comforting someone can be an awkward experience, but from what I recall, Michelle received not even a comforting hand on her back, or a silent hug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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