Escape From Duggarville

[gardenmom5]

I actually do have better things to worry about. If I shared them on here I think people would be very shocked at what my family has been through in the past month, but I'm not ready to talk about it here on the forums. I am killing a little time hanging out here to get my mind off those bigger issues, I noticed this topic again, so I made my little moan. So what? If people are enduring serious trials they can't have any thoughts about other issues or they're betraying their sick children or whatever? Nonsense.

 

The really weird thing is how people can be sitting with a child unexpectedly in the ICU, the snot scared out of them and surrounded by clergy and counselors, having cried themselves sick and collapsed from fear earlier in the day, and still find themselves chatting briefly with a nurse about a literal hangnail. The human mind is a really strange and wonderful thing.

 

In other words, this little jab sucks. It's never true that people don't have other things to worry about, just because they don't like something that doesn't bother you at all.

 

I hope things go well for whatever it is that is happening in your life.

 

sometimes the mundane is refreshing.

the morning a dear friend's husband unexpectedly died (with MUCH chaos of aid units, police, etc.) someone who hadn't yet heard, called her for some information.  she was so happy to just have a normal conversation, she said nothing about what just happened.

[Slartibartfast]

But people don't use it that way now. No one is accusing people of spacing children closely together as doing something wrong when they talk about "Irish Twins." They're making a matter of fact statement.  Tell me when you have witnessed it being used as an accusation of bad behavior.  Gypped is accusing someone of bad behavior. 

 

 

No, people don't usually intend it that way now and people don't usually mean to be racist when they say "gypped" but that is just where it came from.

[gardenmom5]

when we were going through a difficult period - I loved reading *very angsty fic* with a happy ending of course.  ;p  the more angsty the better (it had to be just to be more angsty than real life.)  and it was a distraction.   sometimes - distraction is a coping skill.

Sometimes it is nice to fight about the little things, it is distracting from the big ones.  :grouphug:

 

[ElizaG]

I'm part Irish, my grandmother is 100 percent Irish and the first of her family born outside of Ireland. We don't find it offensive, but most of the people I know have better things in life to worry about.

 

Not only that, but from the etymologies I've seen, it's likely that the Irish themselves invented the term "hooligan."  They certainly enjoy using it.  If you use Google to search for the word at boards.ie, there are almost 4000 results.   

 

I think "Irish twins" must be more of an American expression.  I don't remember hearing it before moving to the US, and searching .ie sites turns up a much smaller number of references.  But none of the ones I've looked at seems to find it offensive.  More just slightly amusing (and usually in the context of posts from mothers who are soon to be in that situation).   

 

The origin of Irish Twins is a slur on Irish Catholics. It was used as a derogatory phrase for Irish immigrants who did not use birth control.

 

As a practicing Catholic whose extended family is mostly ethnically Irish (including one close relative who's an immigrant), I find it derogatory that some people think it's "derogatory" to imply that the Irish weren't historically concerned with spacing their children.  This interpretation would only hold up if you assume that there's something wrong with that country's traditional attitudes to faith and family.   Otherwise, it could be seen as a neutral expression, or even a positive one.  

 

For instance, there's a well known Irish toast that includes the line, "Leanbh gach bliain agat" -- "A child every year to you."  It's meant to be a blessing, not an insult.   :001_smile:

[Free]

 I agree with what you are saying, but I have an honest question (not just to you, Joanne) that I think of when these type of threads come up: Do all non-Christians view all conservative Christians in this light - as dysfunctional patriarchal cults?  I just get the sense on this forum that non-Christians group ALL Christians in this way. When these threads come up I feel as though the OPs are stereotyping or have a narrow minded view of Christians.

 

Honestly, I don't know who a Conservative Christian is. Is she someone who holds to a literal reading of the Bible for example? Or are there any other universal markers for a Christian to be identified as Conservative? As a non-Christian, I can usually know a Conservative Christian from the views espoused on certain issues such as gender essentialism, patriarchy, birth control, homosexuality, feminism & women's rights, parenting & discipline, racism, science, environment and so on.

 

But then there are many Christians on this board who self-identify as Conservative, but may as well be liberal from what they express. Perhaps they are just fiercely protective of liberty for all and do not wish to see their personal beliefs imposed on others? I do not know.

 

As to your question, when one sees a certain set of regressive ideas get promoted again and again under the umbrella of conservatism, then yes it does tend to become a stereotype. Then again, how else does one define conservatism, if not for these specific (in many cases very regressive) values?

 

[SKL]

Look, being called Irish from 1860-1920 in the US was like being called a THUG here on this board in 2014 (oh wait the irish were called that too!).  It was an insult.  Whether or not the irish immigrant thought kids were a blessing or not is pretty irrelevant.  The basic belief was that the irish were ignorant, filthy, drunken, over sexed papists who couldn't control their immoderate behaviors.  No Irish Need Apply was often posted with job ads.  

Shanty irish.  lace curtain irish.  all sorts of fascinating history with being of irish descent in the US.

 

Maybe "Irish" should be the taboo term then.

 

Seriously, if we spent all our time researching which modern words originated in a not-so-auspicious way, we would never be able to have a conversation.

[Trish]

It's only offensive to slur someone and I have never witnessed it used that way.  Please describe in detail the times you have, I'd love to hear about it. Who said this in your hearing and what tone of voice were they using.  What wrong were they accusing the Irish or or what lesser state of value were they implying in using it.   In modern America it means two full term deliveries within 365 days.  It's isn't actually attributed to bad behavior by Irish people in particular or undesirable behavior in any way.  Just like the term "Mongolian Spots" isn't about people from Mongolia or used as a derogatory term.  It's an accepted medical term and it's perfectly neutral. I've met plenty of people who are "Irish Twins" who identify as such and I've never heard anyone use it in a derogatory way.

 

Being "gypped" is offensive because it means to have been treated cheated like Gypsies were accused of doing as group, not as individuals.  Cheating people is bad and associating a whole group of people with bad behavior is derogatory.  Being close together in age is not bad behavior on anyone's part.  There's a HUGE difference between the two.

 

My SIL calls their 3 closely-spaced boys her "Irish Triplets," haha.

 

I have heard the term plenty since I come from an ethnically Irish area, and it is not something anyone regards as offensive, just sort of a synonym for close in age.

 

[Joanne]

 I agree with what you are saying, but I have an honest question (not just to you, Joanne) that I think of when these type of threads come up: Do all non-Christians view all conservative Christians in this light - as dysfunctional patriarchal cults?  I just get the sense on this forum that non-Christians group ALL Christians in this way. When these threads come up I feel as though the OPs are stereotyping or have a narrow minded view of Christians. That's what is insulting to the Christians on this board. I know people who have never used BC and have many children yet have no problems when others use it, their husbands aren't tyrants, the wives and daughters have freedom to pursue educations and careers. I've also heard of tyrant, abusive, controlling patriarchal husbands who aren't Christian.

 

I can't, as you know, speak for all non Christians on this board.

 

More accurately, I speak as a former Christian. That is important, to me, in terms of these discussions. I am not judging from theory, but offering my perspective and experience based on having lived as a Christian until over the age of 40. I literally struggled to stay a Christian - I tried.

 

I do think that the Abrahamic religions are inherently on a continuum of misogynist, bigoted (LGBTQ, for example). The QF/Vision Forum/ATI subculture is admittedly a small percentage of the Christian faith, but there are elements to Christianity, the Bible, doctrine, sacraments, culture, etc that I feel are problematic. Even something that seems grace-filled and innocuous to many self-identifying Christians as "hate the sin, love the sinner" when applied to sexual minorities is on the continuum of concern and hate for me.

 

I feel your frustration and concern about anti-Christian posts being insulting. I have felt the same way for years on posts that assert that Christianity can only be expressed through various forms of literalism rather than metaphor, literature, intentional hyperbole, and parable. Or, in another active thread on this board that only Christians can understand forgiveness as a spiritual principle because you have to "be forgiven before you can understand forgiveness."

 

Of course there are persons who are " tyrant, abusive, controlling patriarchal husbands who aren't Christian." But *this* thread is about QF.

[SKL]

In the context in which it was used here - IIRC a mom talking about her own fertility with which she appears pleased (and I don't know if she is Irish or not) - I can't see how that would offend anyone. 

 

I mean, we're about to enter "Indian summer" which is my favorite time of the year.  Should I avoid that term because there have been people who disparaged Native Americans?  What term should I use instead?  Is there an alternative term that everyone accepts to mean the same as "Indian summer" or "Irish twins"?

 

And then there are "French fries."  I'm sure that one offends some people.

 

What about German measles - that is surely a no-no.

 

I don't go out of my way to offend people, and I'm sure very few people do so on purpose.  I think it is appropriate to extend the benefit of the doubt and save the fussing for things that really matter.

 

Of course, I'm the person who pointed out that many don't like the use of sayings like "OMG" and "jeez" and many related ones.  It didn't stop people from saying them around here.

[CaffeineDiary]

 

I also think there are some people on this board who see misogyny everywhere they look.  

 

It's like you're standing right on the edge of an epiphany.

[ElizaG]

Shameful, derogatory words were coined for every immigrant wave America has been through. That's a fact. Irish twins is just one of them. Describing certain groups as less than human is an extremely successful way of creating prejudices. Irish Twins promoted the idea of animal sex, giving birth to children repeatedly.

So, when the Irish wished each other "a child every year to you," they were describing themselves as less than human?   

 

This is what I mean.  It's the modern attempts to label this as an "insult" that are themselves the most blatantly insulting.  

 

Speaking of which, Cassell's Dictionary of Slang lists the term as originating in the 1960s.   [ETA:  Caution if opening this link with children around; this being a slang dictionary, there's graphic language on the same page.]  This does make some historical sense, as in the early part of that decade, the Irish were well established in America, but still stood out because -- unlike Protestants, who had taken enthusiastically to birth control since the 1930s -- many of them were still having lots of children.   On top of that, mothers in the 1930s-60s were probably the most likely of any era to have babies 10 or 11 months apart, because formula had become such a popular option.   (In the 19th century, nursing typically spaced children at least 15-18 months apart, and often farther, as it does for many families today who don't use birth control.)

 

FWIW, the author of the above book is described as "Britain's leading lexicographer of slang," and the first Amazon editorial review is from the Irish Times, which describes it as "mightily impressive."  

 

If anyone actually has documentary evidence of this term being a common epithet from the era of mass immigration in the 19th century (i.e., not just speculation from random etymology sites that it "must have" originated that way), you might want to share it.   Otherwise, I'm going to assume that this is as questionable as the claims about "hooligan" being an ethnic slur.  

[CaffeineDiary]

I'm part Irish, my grandmother is 100 percent Irish and the first of her family born outside of Ireland. We don't find it offensive, but most of the people I know have better things in life to worry about.

 

Just a small correction - do you mean "My grandmother is Irish-American?"

 

If you weren't born in Ireland / holding an Irish passport / living there, you're not "Irish", you have Irish ancestors.  It's an important distinction, and one many Americans miss.  An Irish person wouldn't consider you Irish, because you're not (Unless I'm misreading you).  Same for Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans, etc.

[maize]

Just a small correction - do you mean "My grandmother is Irish-American?"

 

If you weren't born in Ireland / holding an Irish passport / living there, you're not "Irish", you have Irish ancestors.  It's an important distinction, and one many Americans miss.  An Irish person wouldn't consider you Irish, because you're not (Unless I'm misreading you).  Same for Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans, etc.

 

Um, if both parents were Irish, they likely considered their daughter Irish too. 

 

Passports...well, they're not everything when it comes to identity, and a person can identify with more than one ethnicity/nationality. I know people who are naturalized US citizens (passport holders!) who still also identify with their country of origin. And I know many people who consider themselves American because they were born into an American family even though they lived the majority of their lives in another country. 

 

 

[albeto.]

I agree, I was using it as an example. People my age might bear those scars but their grandkids likely will not.

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/evangelicals-gay-marriage-108608.html#.VB-05vldWHM

 

"About a quarter of evangelicals now support same-sex unions, the institute has found, with an equal number occupying what researchers at Baylor University last year called the “messy middle†of those who oppose gay marriage on moral grounds but no longer support efforts to outlaw it."

 

Interesting statistic. I'm not surprised at all. Surely it wouldn't be hard to find the moment in time when a quarter of Christians didn't support women voting on moral grounds but no longer supported efforts to outlaw it. Interestingly enough, today those who don't embrace this "messy middle" ground either cling to the claims and hopes of the faith more (like the Duggars), or reject them altogether. A greater percentage of younger people have rejected the claims of the religion of their upbringing than any other generation that we know of. The Young Turks offers a bit of news with its customary opinion. This clip is only 4 minutes long, and while it's not at all flattering to Christianity as an ideology, I think it's worth watching for the sake of understanding not only why the Duggars are so readily targeted in society, but why you might find more and more people speaking up ("new atheists"). 

 

 

(edit: No idea why that photo is used for the still pic for the video - it is completely unrelated. It's added for shock value, I can only guess.)

[CaffeineDiary]

Um, if both parents were Irish, they likely considered their daughter Irish too. 

 

Meet some more first generation immigrants and then circle back to this question and see if you still agree.  In every first-generation family I've personally known, the fact that their children were American was of great importance to the born-elsewhere parents.  My Italian grandfather was very vocal about it.  Did he want us to know our heritage?  Of course!  But his family becoming American was just as important to him.

 

I called it out here not to be rude, but because it was clear to me that the person VeritasMama was replying to was using "Irish" in the sense of "Irish national", not in the sense of "Irish descent," and VeritasMama misread it.  At least, that's how it looked to me.

 

[unsinkable]

Irish car bomb cupcakes are really delicious. Did they offer an alternative name?

 

http://www.browneyedbaker.com/irish-car-bomb-cupcakes/

 

Eta: I guess we could call them Irish boilermakers?

That blogger changed the name of those cupcakes on the page. The URL still has Irish car bombs, but not her actual recipe page.

[umsami]

Meet some more first generation immigrants and then circle back to this question and see if you still agree.  In every first-generation family I've personally known, the fact that their children were American was of great importance to the born-elsewhere parents.  My Italian grandfather was very vocal about it.  Did he want us to know our heritage?  Of course!  But his family becoming American was just as important to him.

 

I called it out here not to be rude, but because it was clear to me that the person VeritasMama was replying to was using "Irish" in the sense of "Irish national", not in the sense of "Irish descent," and VeritasMama misread it.  At least, that's how it looked to me.

 

Ah this depends.  At least in the circles I travel on, there seems to be great emphasis on claiming both countries.  So, DH would insist that DD is both Egyptian and American.  DH is quite proud to be American, but also very proud of his country of birth and Egyptian culture.  The kids are all dual citizens.  It was important enough to him to register them at the Egyptian Embassy.  

 

I've seen similar things among other families I know.  They are extremely proud of their heritage, and claim both.

 

I think it may have been differently in earlier times.  My Mom's family is German, French, and Italian…and came over in the 1800s.  There was a strong desire among her family then to assimilate and not even speak the "old" languages…to be 100% American.  

[maize]

I know you can't know this, but you don't need to tell Maize about immigrants. She could write a book if she were so inclined. Just fyi.

 

Thanks, I was trying to figure out how to formulate a reply to that post.

 

Mostly, I just wanted to say that identity is complicated, and place of birth or citizenship held aren't always the most significant factors.  :)

[Hope44]

I just want to reply back about the title "Escape from Duggarville."  I'm an evangelical Believer who has had their entire world ROCKED by Duggarville, ATI, and all things Gothard.  How?  We never bought one item from ATI; eschewed the whole worship of Bill; encourage and insist upon highest educational callings possibles; encourage community involvement from our children in multiple facets; did not associate nor had any opportunities to associate with Quiverfullers.  

 

In my opinion, it is a cultish group.  I, unfortunately, have been forced to learn and glean information about this subculture due to one of my close relatives recent brainwashing into the cult.  

 

No, I've found they MAY not all dress in long dresses or denim skirts with ked tennis shoes, but most do.  Almost ALL do have VERY little to no regard to the professional medical field and stay as far away from it as possible...even if their children are showing signs of illness or injuries that requires a physician.  Almost ALL completely and fervently insist upon midwife birthing (opting for home birth as the best possible choice, a midwife clinic if they have to, and hospitals and doctors are to be feared).  There are a few who now even are going further pushing for "unattended births."  

 

People look at the Duggars and think "Well, at least they aren't on government assistance." or "People should decide how many kids they want and that is their own business.  They just want to see how many the Lord will give them."  or now that some of the older ones are married and getting married "At least Jill's husband has a degree and seems like a normal guy.  He didn't grow up Gothard."

 

That's true.  Derrick didn't.  He DID, however, become a close prayer partner of JimBob's and then requested to "court" Jill.  I believe he began attending their home church services?  Now, they are expecting their first child fulfilling the no birth control status that has been set by Bill Gothard.  This family IS completely Gothardites.  They hide it.  They deceive.  Their income depends on those deceptions and they do it to make themselves and their direction from Gothard seem far more palatable and normal.

 

You don't have to read too much about the doctrine of Gothard to understand that outward successes indicate you are right and everyone else is wrong.  So, since it seems to all of us on the outside watching the Duggars their family is intact, and the show continues to be successful, both Gothard, the Duggars, and all of the other Gothardites become more entrenched in that they indeed have discovered the umbrella protection of Bill is the highway to earthly and spiritual success.

 

That is why this group is so insidious.  It is now presented as a normal and fairy tale life to those of us who absolutely eschew the legalistic philosophy and now some of grown children look at these grown Duggars who have no education and think that it will just work for them that way too and having as many children as possible is just the sweetest and neatest thing. 

[Joanne]

I tend to agree that some people paint Christians with too broad a brush.

 

 

 

 

 

I also think there are some people on this board who see misogyny everywhere they look

Or maybe those people (me, and others) simply show up on topics where misogyny is part of the content.

 

Maybe Rachel Held Evans holds more weight with you.

 

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/mark-driscoll-culture

[Reefgazer]

Off topic, but it seems like every immigrant group here gets thought of this way until a few generations passes...it seems like a right of passage when you look at it historically.  The Irish in 1870, the Polish in 1890, the Jewish in 1940, Mexicans now....  I wonder who's next?

Look, being called Irish from 1860-1920 in the US was like being called a THUG here on this board in 2014 (oh wait the irish were called that too!).  It was an insult.  Whether or not the irish immigrant thought kids were a blessing or not is pretty irrelevant.  The basic belief was that the irish were ignorant, filthy, drunken, over sexed papists who couldn't control their immoderate behaviors.  No Irish Need Apply was often posted with job ads.  

Shanty irish.  lace curtain irish.  all sorts of fascinating history with being of irish descent in the US.

 

[Orthodox6]

Continuing with the interesting, albeit fully OT from the initial thread post, this links to an article in which one of my favorite professors from graduate school is quoted.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/12/30/242429836/why-being-gypped-hurts-the-roma-more-than-it-hurts-you

[Mrs Mungo]

It's like you're standing right on the edge of an epiphany.

 

(not disagreeing with you on this point, CD, just a jumping off point)

 

A good friend of mine posted on her Facebook warning younger women about taking naked photos (which has to do with the recent hacking/theft of photos issue). Here is her reply to one of the responses:

No argument from me that this is gendered violence. But here's my POV. I've been working to eliminate patriarchy for a long time. I would say that, mostly, women have fewer rights and protections now than I did at 20. So a major part of my attention is on helping other women, young and older, to survive, under conditions that are designed to prevent that. Does that place the blame on women for their oppression? Absolutely not. But it acknowledges the reality of it, and, potentially, it protects the generations of women coming after me so that they may continue the struggle.

Misogyny IS everywhere. It is tolerated, laughed at, encouraged and made into legal precedent.

 

From this movie that implies that you can't possibly leave your husband with his own children without them being lost and getting yourself tasered:

 

to recent SCOTUS decisions.

 

And you can CERTAINLY find misogyny in doctrines of Gothard. Many of his doctrines are also anti-adoption and anti-child.

 

My eldest dd is taking a women's studies class in her first year of college. Only two of the girls (including dd) identified themselves as feminists, even when the professor wrote the dictionary definition of feminism on the board: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

 

There is no doubt that misogyny is everywhere.

 

That blogger changed the name of those cupcakes on the page. The URL still has Irish car bombs, but not her actual recipe page.

 

I linked the recipe just a couple of weeks ago with its original name. So, it must have been changed recently. Interesting. Clearly, some people did find the name offensive. She thought better than to leave it that way and changed it.

 

 

Regarding the word "gypped":

 

I posted an explanation of the origin of the word on this forum back on December 27, 2010.  (Thread title: "Words that hurt")  In a nutshell, it is not a derivative of the word "gypsy".  It is a derivative of the Greek word for vulture, which is "gyp".  There's a background story as to why and how this term started being used, but it has absolutely nothing to do with so-called gypsies.  I'd copy my response to that thread onto this thread, but for some reason my computer isn't allowing me to do so. Sorry.

But there are other words like that. People think the word "p***y" to call someone weak or wimpy is sexist. But, it is a shortened version of "pusillanimous." It's still better not to use it though, IMO.

[SKL]

Meet some more first generation immigrants and then circle back to this question and see if you still agree.  In every first-generation family I've personally known, the fact that their children were American was of great importance to the born-elsewhere parents.  My Italian grandfather was very vocal about it.  Did he want us to know our heritage?  Of course!  But his family becoming American was just as important to him.

 

I called it out here not to be rude, but because it was clear to me that the person VeritasMama was replying to was using "Irish" in the sense of "Irish national", not in the sense of "Irish descent," and VeritasMama misread it.  At least, that's how it looked to me.

 

I don't know what the law is in Ireland, but if two US adults have a baby that happens to be born outside the US, that baby is automatically a US citizen.  The child might also be a citizen of the country in which he/she is born.

 

[SpecialClassical]

Or maybe those people (me, and others) simply show up on topics where misogyny is part of the content.

 

Maybe Rachel Held Evans holds more weight with you.

 

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/mark-driscoll-culture

Personally I think Rachel held Evans is an authentic voice providing thoughtful discussion points. I'm not sure how to say the following without sounding antagonistic, but I will try and would like a logical answer to my question.

 

What I don't understand is how you can repeatedly reject the opinions of those who have had very different Christian experiences than you and then turn around and try to influence someone with a piece written by a Christian. What I mean is that you have said over and over that all Christianity is on this continuum that encourages abuse of women. If that is so, why should anyone trust a Chrisitan writer who addresses these issues? If one believes all Christian doctrine is flawed and dangerous it makes no sense to point someone toward Held-Evans, even if the person you are trying to influence is a Christian.

 

The fact is you and I cannot know the complete experience of everyone in Christianity and we also cannot completely understand the heart of God and the Word of God. I am genuinely sad and sorry for the pain you have experienced. It must have been agonizing to go through that process.

 

But I do know this, Jesus loved women, he loved those who were seen as outsiders and He rejected the self-righteous, he loved children, and He loved the despised. Just this morning as I was thinking about racial prejudice I have experienced I was thinking of the verse that says, "if I understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, and have not love, I am nothing." That is a familiar passage, but so powerful when really considered by a Christian.

 

As I've said before, I attend a very conservative church and yet our elders are always examining scripture to make sure their traditional beliefs line up with the true meaning of Scripture. I was so pleased that my pastor took an unusual stand on divorce after considering what the Bible really says about it. Also, I recently spoke with a former elder who spoke with compassion about a member who is gay. Love is how we will communicate the Gospel. Truth about sin must be spoken because it is wrong and destroys lives. But the Gospel message is about conquering sin and the love God has for His people.

 

And for the record, I think of the whole sinner/sin thing more like, "Love the sinner, of whom I am one, and forgive the sin as I hope others will forgive me."

[SKL]

My kids are citizens of two countries, actually.  And they identify as same.

[Reefgazer]

Here's a worse one:  I'm Polish, as is my DH.  We have a house in an ethnically Polish neighborhood at the top of a hill.  All the Polish I know (and many others in the town also) call this "Pollack Hill".  It's been used that way as long as I can remember and since no one has told anyone that it's an insult, they seem not to be upset about it. 

My SIL calls their 3 closely-spaced boys her "Irish Triplets," haha.

 

I have heard the term plenty since I come from an ethnically Irish area, and it is not something anyone regards as offensive, just sort of a synonym for close in age.
 

 

[Reefgazer]

Perhaps the young women in class feel that the definition has additional hidden meaning and has informally come to mean more than the words written on the chalkboard/whiteboard and they don't wish to be associated with that.  I am old enough to remember serious, blatant, and real discrimination against women.  I used to identify as a feminist, but no longer do for those reasons.

 
(not disagreeing with you on this point, CD, just a jumping off point)

A good friend of mine posted on her Facebook warning younger women about taking naked photos (which has to do with the recent hacking/theft of photos issue). Here is her reply to one of the responses:

Misogyny IS everywhere. It is tolerated, laughed at, encouraged and made into legal precedent.

From this movie that implies that you can't possibly leave your husband with his own children without them being lost and getting yourself tasered:

to recent SCOTUS decisions.

And you can CERTAINLY find misogyny in doctrines of Gothard. Many of his doctrines are also anti-adoption and anti-child.

My eldest dd is taking a women's studies class in her first year of college. Only two of the girls (including dd) identified themselves as feminists, even when the professor wrote the dictionary definition of feminism on the board: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

There is no doubt that misogyny is everywhere.
 
 
I linked the recipe just a couple of weeks ago with its original name. So, it must have been changed recently. Interesting. Clearly, some people did find the name offensive. She thought better than to leave it that way and changed it.

 

But there are other words like that. People think the word "p***y" to call someone weak or wimpy is sexist. But, it is a shortened version of "pusillanimous." It's still better not to use it though, IMO.

 

[gardenmom5]

Ah this depends.  At least in the circles I travel on, there seems to be great emphasis on claiming both countries.  So, DH would insist that DD is both Egyptian and American.  DH is quite proud to be American, but also very proud of his country of birth and Egyptian culture.  The kids are all dual citizens.  It was important enough to him to register them at the Egyptian Embassy.  

 

I've seen similar things among other families I know.  They are extremely proud of their heritage, and claim both.

 

I think it may have been differently in earlier times.  My Mom's family is German, French, and Italian…and came over in the 1800s.  There was a strong desire among her family then to assimilate and not even speak the "old" languages…to be 100% American.  

 

I was recently conversing with dd's bff parents.  his family is ethnic german, he grew up speaking german in a german settlement in Kansas, where a group had immigrated enmasse from a german settlement in what was then (russian) Georgia (germans had been settling there since the 18th century.  there's a reason they're called 'germans from russia'), etc.. - but even his parents were born in the US.  that changed with hitler/lead up to WWII - when ethnic germans did lots of changing their names and started speaking English to emphasize they were Americans first. 

 

in the 19th century - those who assimilated, at least linguistically, did better financially and had more opportunities than those who held their first language.  that wasn't just because of prejudice (though sometimes it was) but a simple language barrier limited them to more menial physical jobs that did not require being able to speak English.  still - there's a reason there were little Italys and Chinatowns, Norway (ballard in seattle . . . ) etc.  people could live while still speaking their first language and the immigrating generation didn't have to learn English.

[VeritasMama]

If someone is not having children due to selfishness, who is the crime of selfishness against? It can't be against unborn children because there are uncountable potential people who will never be born and non-existent people don't have rights. It can't be against oneself because if one doesn't want children and doesn't have them, there is no crime being committed. I don't suppose it can be against an omnipotent god either since omnipotent gods can do more or less as they please.

 

This is not about whether or not you judge anyone. This is about your earlier statement that some people's choice not to have children, or more children can be due to selfishness. I can't work out who this sin of selfishness is begin committed against. If there is no victim, there isn't a crime, is there? :confused1:

My point was that some people are twisting the definition of selfishness, I was trying to give the Christian definition of the word. There are valid reasons not to have children and according to Orthodox and other Christian groups that doesn't make you selfish.

 

But Christians believe that any sin will hurt the person commiting the sin, so in that regard there is always a victim, even if it is not another person and is simply yourself. For a Christian, sins come between you and your relationship with God. Venial sins, small less serious sins, put a strain on that relationship. Mortal, or serious sins, such as murder, can sever that relationship all together. A huge part of Christianity is the relationship we have with God the Father, most other religions do not include a paternal view of the creator. So the emphasis on avoiding sin in order to maintain our relationship with God is a central aspect of the faith. It's just like any parental relationship we get along with our parents and have a better relationship with them when we are following their rules and showing proper love and respect. Of course God always leaves the door open for the prodigal sons and daughters to return when we do sin.

 

The issue here with cults, fringe groups and sects is that they have all kinds of different and sometimes strange interpretations as to what constitutes a sin, what is selfish, and they come up with rigid rules that often contradict orthodox Christianity. The groups like the QF group that the author was in have very legalistic and strict rules that most other Christians would find baffling at best and abhorent, sinful and abusive at worst.

[Guest]

 I don't know why that matters, though. We are discussing an article titled "Escape from Duggarville," which is what I was referring to.

 

It really doesn't, other than the fact that the author of the article has been around awhile, which some of the members of this board who haven't been homeschooling for 10-20+ years may not be aware of, and that the title of the article seems rather sensationalized and tabloidish to me and apparently there has been a history of Duggar-bashing here the predates my TV-illiterate overly chatty self. ;)

 

No offense was intended and I hope none was taken.

It seems to me that it does not hurt anyone to avoid the phrase whereas it can be offensive to use it.

 

I feel similarly about "broken home" and "gypsy."

 

THANK YOU!!!! When the grownups started saying that my home was broken, I think I was about six and I looked and looked for the cracks in the walls so I could glue them back together but I never found any and Mommy got mad when I moved the furniture to see if the cracks were behind it. I was always afraid that if I didn't find the cracks and glue them back together in time, the roof would cave in while we were sleeping and crush us all. The grownups didn't care if I was mad because the other kids took my lunch or sad because they wouldn't play with me, they just told me I was crying because my home was broken and that I was naughty to lie.

 

I had NO IDEA the "broken home" thing had something to do with my dad writing me a fun story on the back of a pretty postcard every day instead of lying on the couch yelling at my Mom that my bedtime should be before he got home from work because I gave him a headache.

 

It was late '60s early '70s and I didn't know any other single parent families, but still......

[gardenmom5]

The fact is you and I cannot know the complete experience of everyone in Christianity and we also cannot completely understand the heart of God and the Word of God. I am genuinely sad and sorry for the pain you have experienced. It must have been agonizing to go through that process.

 

But I do know this, Jesus loved women, he loved those who were seen as outsiders and He rejected the self-righteous, he loved children, and He loved the despised.

 

. Truth about sin must be spoken because it is wrong and destroys lives. But the Gospel message is about conquering sin and the love God has for His people.

 

And for the record, I think of the whole sinner/sin thing more like, "Love the sinner, of whom I am one, and forgive the sin as I hope others will forgive me."

 

I agree with all these points (I had to shorten the post. ;p).

My grandmother used religion as a weapon for control.  I used to joke she worshipped a god of death, hell, fire, brimstone and destruction.  she was very manipulative. (and she took pleasure in her sneers)  I now understand how people can grow up and abandon the religion they were reared with.  I'm sorry they don't have hope the actual teachings really are that much better.  I do understand the pain involved.

 

I sometimes marvel that my grandmother had so much influence upon me - but I was able to completely reject her version of God.  when she'd be particularly nasty while pontificating from her high horse, there was always a part of me that believed God wasn't like that.  There was a part of me that "knew" God loved me.  I didn't know why - the message from my grandmother was I was worthless, but He did.   it's no longer part, but all of me that now *knows*, and has only a cherished small child's inkling of how much I *am* worth.  

[Catwoman]

Just a small correction - do you mean "My grandmother is Irish-American?"

 

If you weren't born in Ireland / holding an Irish passport / living there, you're not "Irish", you have Irish ancestors. It's an important distinction, and one many Americans miss. An Irish person wouldn't consider you Irish, because you're not (Unless I'm misreading you). Same for Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans, etc.

All of the Irish people I know -- and I know plenty of them -- consider Irish-Americans to be Irish.

 

Perhaps things are different where you live, but you certainly aren't speaking for all Irish people. Ditto for the Italians. If you're "of Italian descent," you are considered to be Italian.

 

Perhaps you consider these things to be "an important distinction," but I don't know anyone IRL who does. And thank goodness for that. I get so tired of all of the political correctness and nitpickiness I see on internet forums, and I'm glad the people I know IRL are a whole lot more laid back.

[Mrs Mungo]

Perhaps the young women in class feel that the definition has additional hidden meaning and has informally come to mean more than the words written on the chalkboard/whiteboard and they don't wish to be associated with that.

Would you not call yourself a Christian because you disagree with some Christians and their definition of the word (in theory)? Or would you not identify yourself as a teacher because you disagree with the manner in which some people teach?

 

 

 

 

I am old enough to remember serious, blatant, and real discrimination against women.  I used to identify as a feminist, but no longer do for those reasons.

There is still very serious, blatant and real discrimination against women.

 

Have you missed the recent news stories on sexism within the halls of Congress?

 

What about news stories like this?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/justice/montana-teacher-rape-sentence/

 

Or this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/10/sexism-military_n_4574500.html

 

Or this?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/09/us/nfl-players-domestic-violence-accusations/

 

Or this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oscar-pistorius-free-to-run-again-south-african-olympic-committee-says/

[abba12]

I just want to reply back about the title "Escape from Duggarville."  I'm an evangelical Believer who has had their entire world ROCKED by Duggarville, ATI, and all things Gothard.  How?  We never bought one item from ATI; eschewed the whole worship of Bill; encourage and insist upon highest educational callings possibles; encourage community involvement from our children in multiple facets; did not associate nor had any opportunities to associate with Quiverfullers.  

 

In my opinion, it is a cultish group.  I, unfortunately, have been forced to learn and glean information about this subculture due to one of my close relatives recent brainwashing into the cult.  

 

No, I've found they MAY not all dress in long dresses or denim skirts with ked tennis shoes, but most do.  Almost ALL do have VERY little to no regard to the professional medical field and stay as far away from it as possible...even if their children are showing signs of illness or injuries that requires a physician.  Almost ALL completely and fervently insist upon midwife birthing (opting for home birth as the best possible choice, a midwife clinic if they have to, and hospitals and doctors are to be feared).  There are a few who now even are going further pushing for "unattended births."  

 

People look at the Duggars and think "Well, at least they aren't on government assistance." or "People should decide how many kids they want and that is their own business.  They just want to see how many the Lord will give them."  or now that some of the older ones are married and getting married "At least Jill's husband has a degree and seems like a normal guy.  He didn't grow up Gothard."

 

That's true.  Derrick didn't.  He DID, however, become a close prayer partner of JimBob's and then requested to "court" Jill.  I believe he began attending their home church services?  Now, they are expecting their first child fulfilling the no birth control status that has been set by Bill Gothard.  This family IS completely Gothardites.  They hide it.  They deceive.  Their income depends on those deceptions and they do it to make themselves and their direction from Gothard seem far more palatable and normal.

 

You don't have to read too much about the doctrine of Gothard to understand that outward successes indicate you are right and everyone else is wrong.  So, since it seems to all of us on the outside watching the Duggars their family is intact, and the show continues to be successful, both Gothard, the Duggars, and all of the other Gothardites become more entrenched in that they indeed have discovered the umbrella protection of Bill is the highway to earthly and spiritual success.

 

That is why this group is so insidious.  It is now presented as a normal and fairy tale life to those of us who absolutely eschew the legalistic philosophy and now some of grown children look at these grown Duggars who have no education and think that it will just work for them that way too and having as many children as possible is just the sweetest and neatest thing. 

 

 

I think it should be noted that ATI, Gothard etc is a cult, a creepy scary one, and yes, one the duggars belong to. This is why I don't support the Duggars, nothing to do with their number of kids, everything to do with their involvement with ATI.

 

While all ATI adherents are quiverful to my knowledge, NOT all quiverful families follow ATI. This is an important distinction. You'll find many of the stories of abusive QF homes involved Bill Gothards beliefs, another case of blame being misdirected by people who don't want to acknowledge their choice and personal belief in Gothards teaching being their downfall, or that others held similar beliefs without ATI's added crap and made it work.

[unsinkable]

 

(not disagreeing with you on this point, CD, just a jumping off point)

 

A good friend of mine posted on her Facebook warning younger women about taking naked photos (which has to do with the recent hacking/theft of photos issue). Here is her reply to one of the responses:

 

Misogyny IS everywhere. It is tolerated, laughed at, encouraged and made into legal precedent.

 

From this movie that implies that you can't possibly leave your husband with his own children without them being lost and getting yourself tasered:

 

 

to recent SCOTUS decisions.

 

And you can CERTAINLY find misogyny in doctrines of Gothard. Many of his doctrines are also anti-adoption and anti-child.

 

My eldest dd is taking a women's studies class in her first year of college. Only two of the girls (including dd) identified themselves as feminists, even when the professor wrote the dictionary definition of feminism on the board: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

 

There is no doubt that misogyny is everywhere.

 

 

I linked the recipe just a couple of weeks ago with its original name. So, it must have been changed recently. Interesting. Clearly, some people did find the name offensive. She thought better than to leave it that way and changed it.

 

 

 

But there are other words like that. People think the word "p***y" to call someone weak or wimpy is sexist. But, it is a shortened version of "pusillanimous." It's still better not to use it though, IMO.

Re the recipe...I was pointing out that she did indeed change it. Dear God, I would hope people would find it offensive. Hundreds of people were killed and maimed by car bombs in Ireland, as well as other countries.

[gardenmom5]

.

 

But Christians believe that any sin will hurt the person commiting the sin, so in that regard there is always a victim, even if it is not another person and is simply yourself. For a Christian, sins come between you and your relationship with God.

A huge part of Christianity is the relationship we have with God the Father, . It's just like any parental relationship

 

and unlike too many mortal parents - God *really does* know what is best for our long term happiness, He *really does* want us to have as much long term happiness as possible.  He *really does* love us more than we can comprehend. 

[Joanne]

Personally I think Rachel held Evans is an authentic voice providing thoughtful discussion points. I'm not sure how to say the following without sounding antagonistic, but I will try and would like a logical answer to my question.

 

What I don't understand is how you can repeatedly reject the opinions of those who have had very different Christian experiences than you and then turn around and try to influence someone with a piece written by a Christian. What I mean is that you have said over and over that all Christianity is on this continuum that encourages abuse of women. If that is so, why should anyone trust a Chrisitan writer who addresses these issues? If one believes all Christian doctrine is flawed and dangerous it makes no sense to point someone toward Held-Evans, even if the person you are trying to influence is a Christian.

 

The fact is you and I cannot know the complete experience of everyone in Christianity and we also cannot completely understand the heart of God and the Word of God. I am genuinely sad and sorry for the pain you have experienced. It must have been agonizing to go through that

I can respect and even agree with Held-Evans and still hold my opinion precisely because I don't have a scripted view of Christianity.

 

I am not "here" psychically due to my pain - I am here spiritually because the pain was caused by doctrine I don't believe in. To me, reducing my opinion to a reaction of pain is to dismiss my points regarding the absurdity of Christian doctrine.

 

That said, I am doing a meditation daily on the Prayer of St. Frances. Because I am not a Christian, I disregard the everlasting life part (or meditate on how aligning with the spirit of the prayer creates everlasting life through a legacy.) when I was a Christian, I had to believe certain things to qualify for "the checklist". For example, I could not both question doctrine and yet use RHE as support - but the fact is I can.

 

I am not simply using her to possibly prove my point with Christians but because I agree with her in many respects.

[Mrs Mungo]

Re the recipe...I was pointing out that she did indeed change it. Dear God, I would hope people would find it offensive. Hundreds of people were killed and maimed by car bombs in Ireland, as well as other countries.

But, it is a drink commonly found in bars (even Irish pubs) across the USA. Plenty of people think the name is harmless. Plenty of people think other slurs are harmless. One would hope that when someone says, "hey, that is a slur, let's not use that," then people wouldn't brush the slur off as harmless. The blog author clearly changed it for just that reason. But, some people obviously do brush it off as harmless, as some posts in the thread prove. That was the point I was getting at.

[Hope44]

I think it should be noted that ATI, Gothard etc is a cult, a creepy scary one, and yes, one the duggars belong to. This is why I don't support the Duggars, nothing to do with their number of kids, everything to do with their involvement with ATI.

 

While all ATI adherents are quiverful to my knowledge, NOT all quiverful families follow ATI. This is an important distinction. You'll find many of the stories of abusive QF homes involved Bill Gothards beliefs, another case of blame being misdirected by people who don't want to acknowledge their choice and personal belief in Gothards teaching being their downfall, or that others held similar beliefs without ATI's added crap and made it work.

 I guess I just don't know ANY Quiverfullers who also did not delve into ATI/Gothard or some other patriarchy leader espousing Bible verses out of context about family size, women's roles in the family, man's headship in the family, etc.  But at the same time, I DO know large families that aren't Quiverfull.

 

I may be wrong, but I believe Quiverfull movement has these things in common: 1) Not just no contraception, but an actual driven directive to TRY to have as many children possible (this is different than just being against birth control); 2) A fervent desire for alternative medicine in almost EVERY circumstance (not just as holistic, preventive medicine) 3) A shunning of real, higher education and an embracing or mostly rural, physical labor jobs 4) Children are seen as an embellishment of the parent, and not as individual human beings (especially females) 5) As time goes by, extreme tighter and tighter concentric social circles (distrust of other churches - even those in the same denomination; no socializing with any neighbors; no community involvement)

 

Again, I know large families who are NOT Quiverfull, but do not use birth control.  There is a difference.  I also know large families that DID use birth control, but I digress...

[VeritasMama]

Just a small correction - do you mean "My grandmother is Irish-American?"

 

If you weren't born in Ireland / holding an Irish passport / living there, you're not "Irish", you have Irish ancestors. It's an important distinction, and one many Americans miss. An Irish person wouldn't consider you Irish, because you're not (Unless I'm misreading you). Same for Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans, etc.

My grandmother and her family just say they are Irish. I suppose she was Irish American, but honestly in my family we were raised to be Irish. I am only 1/4 Irish, but it's the heritage that was held up above all others, and my mother's siblings always refer to themselves as Irish, even though my grandfather was a kilt wearing Scot, lol.

 

They are also a very patriotic bunch, my Grandfather retired as an officer from the Air Force as did my aunt, uncle and my mother. My other aunt and uncle served for a time in the Army. My own brother served in the Air Force and I have a cousin who served in the Navy and another cousin who is an Army Ranger.

 

Sorry for the thread derail.

 

ETA: my mother is actually in Ireland this week with her siblings, and they are going to visit my grandmothers cousins and their families. My grandmother and grandfather went over to Ireland several times in their younger years to visit family. So the fact that the familial ties are still upheld may be part of the reason for identifying so strongly as Irish.

[unsinkable]

But, it is a drink commonly found in bars (even Irish pubs) across the USA. Plenty of people think the name is harmless. Plenty of people think other slurs are harmless. One would hope that when someone says, "hey, that is a slur, let's not use that," then people wouldn't brush the slur off as harmless. The blog author clearly changed it for just that reason. But, some people obviously do brush it off as harmless, as some posts in the thread prove. That was the point I was getting at.

Or perhaps, they are unaware of the significance. Maybe if those ignorant of the origins are given the facts about the history of car bombs in Ireland, they will stop using it.

 

I've heard people think the name had something to do with being bombed, as a synonym for being drunk.

[Mrs Mungo]

Or perhaps, they are unaware of the significance. Maybe if those ignorant of the origins are given the facts about the history of car bombs in Ireland, they will stop using it.

 

I've heard people think the name had something to do with being bombed, as a synonym for being drunk.

Actually, I think they probably think it has more to do with how the shot is dropped into the beer, like a bomb dropping from a plane. Hence, Jagerbombs.

 

And my point is that even when people are told that it is considered offensive by some, they brush it off. This has happened several times within this thread.

[VeritasMama]

Actually, I think they probably think it has more to do with how the shot is dropped into the beer, like a bomb dropping from a plane. Hence, Jagerbombs.

 

And my point is that even when people are told that it is considered offensive by some, they brush it off. This has happened several times within this thread.

I think is it because it would be impossible to eliminate all offensive speech, people simply find new words and "dog whistles" to become enraged over.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't try not to offend, but political correctness has reached a point where it's impossible not to offend someone.

[unsinkable]

Actually, I think they probably think it has more to do with how the shot is dropped into the beer, like a bomb dropping from a plane. Hence, Jagerbombs.

 

And my point is that even when people are told that it is considered offensive by some, they brush it off. This has happened several times within this thread.

Perhaps you misunderstood: People have TOLD ME they thought it had something to do with being bombed as a synonym for drunk.

[happi duck]

Or maybe those people (me, and others) simply show up on topics where misogyny is part of the content.

 

Maybe Rachel Held Evans holds more weight with you.

 

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/mark-driscoll-culture

Thanks for the link...this blog post is very helpful to me.

[ElizaG]

The term Irish twins is an american term so it may not really be well documented in a British reference book.  I can turn up about a million sites which say it originated in the US during Irish immigration waves of the 19th-20th c.

I've seen a number of those, but the way things travel around the Internet these days, it could easily just be someone's conjecture that's gone viral.   The vast majority of the posts are using very similar phrasing.   And from all the ones I've seen, there's not a reference in sight.   

 

Even if one million people are repeating the same unsubstantiated claim, that doesn't make it substantiated.

[Mrs Mungo]

Perhaps you misunderstood: People have TOLD ME they thought it had something to do with being bombed as a synonym for drunk.

Sorry, my response was meant to indicate where *I* thought the name had more likely probably originated, nothing more.

[ElizaG]

Call A Way with Words. 

No, this is backwards.  It's the people who are saying that the term originated in 19th century bigotry who need to call them, or come up with evidence in some other way.   They're the ones who are trying to get people to stop using it.   

 

Besides, the lexicographer who didn't find evidence of it before the 1960s most likely has access to the same sources that the hosts do, if not more.  His life has been devoted to researching the slang of the entire English-speaking world.  That's reliable enough for me, given my very slight interest in the subject.

 

But you can call them if you like.  

[Mrs Mungo]

I think is it because it would be impossible to eliminate all offensive speech, people simply find new words and "dog whistles" to become enraged over.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't try not to offend, but political correctness has reached a point where it's impossible not to offend someone.

It certainly is easier to brush people off as overly sensitive than to be more careful with our speech.