Josh Duggar in the news yet again

[Lang Syne Boardie]

JodiSue and Lucy Stoner, I am thrilled to be wrong about the ATI materials.

 

Not glad that they're out in circulation, of course, but that the strangehold has lessened to the point that people are no longer afraid of tossing or donating the materials as if they're not worth much.

 

(Rabbit trail: Which reminds me that Gothard, himself, is a very old man. And poster families like the Duggars are under scrutiny. And of course, it's not a sustainable system for newbies to join, anyhow. This lifestyle/cult can't go on forever.)

[HRAAB]

http://gawker.com/viral-christian-pregnancy-youtuber-sam-rader-had-a-paid-1725258643

 

Oh my!  

[LibraryLover]

Again, I get making judgements on things that are public knowledge. I don't understand the continued statements about what Anna knows or doesn't know, what she feels or doesn't feel, what she will do, what she must do according to various people on the internet (i.e. we will never know if she or her kids get tested for stds), what Josh thinks or doesn't think, where Anna's parents must be (example, how does anyone know she isn't on the phone with her mom daily for support? We'd never know that, and yet someone's asking where her parents are, as if they need to update publicly what they are doing). I just don't understand this aspect of the conversation.

They chose to make themselves public and pop figures. They chose to profit from a TV show by sharing nearly every intimate moment of their lives. They tweet, Instagram, blog, and FB constantly as a way to make a living. They have feverently invited - and profited- from public interest, speculation, and chatter. They chose this highly public life, with personal and titilating topics they eagerly share with the world. When it's good it is very, very good, but when it's bad it's horrible.

 

I have great sympathy for the children caught in this maelstrom.

[kahlanne]

Only speaking for my democratic self, I was absolutely disgusted by his behavior in the Oval Office.  Disgusted.  And I thought his wife should kick his ass down Pennsylvania Ave.  I remember pointing out to some politically like minded friends if it had been someone of another party in office, they would singing a different tune.

 

Wrong is wrong.  Or at least that is what I was taught.

 

eta:  I also hope Anna gets the help she needs so she can make the right decision for herself and her children.

 

I am not saying that everyone believed that way but if it is brought up today most will brush over it as something that he did as an adult that ultimately affected his wife/family and shouldn't have a large part in determining whether his policies/presidency was a positive or negative one. Ultimately he was a man that cheated not unlike many men/women do daily. His wife made a choice that she was most happiest with but it was a choice only she could make and ultimately would be faulted regardless of which one she chose. I don't see this so unlike Josh and Anna. Clinton was placed in authority by not only himself but as a representation of not only Democrats but the American people as a whole and he let people down by cheating whether we agree with his politics or not.

 

Josh was placed in a position of power and was outspoken about policies  while living a double life. I have no problem with people pointing out that he is not the person to be accusing people of moral faults. If I shared his beliefs about LGBT rights, which I don't,  I would not want him to be my spokesperson. However, when it comes down to it, the policies that he was trying to implement should be attacked on their own merits/faults not on his person. I understand there is some overlap but what happens when the next guy that steps up to the platform is of moral standing and doesn't share JD's faults? Are the policies then valid?  I hope I am making myself clear. 

[LucyStoner]

JodiSue and Lucy Stoner, I am thrilled to be wrong about the ATI materials.

 

Not glad that they're out in circulation, of course, but that the strangehold has lessened to the point that people are no longer afraid of tossing or donating the materials as if they're not worth much.

 

(Rabbit trail: Which reminds me that Gothard, himself, is a very old man. And poster families like the Duggars are under scrutiny. And of course, it's not a sustainable system for newbies to join, anyhow. This lifestyle/cult can't go on forever.)

I momentarily considered buying them to destroy them but it's not like I really have $$ to burn so they stayed at the thrift store. There was some irony in that they were at a Catholic thrift store. I think ATI tries to say they can't be resold but of course, they can't reasonably control for resale and handmedowns.

[Rosie_0801]

Again, I get making judgements on things that are public knowledge. I don't understand the continued statements about what Anna knows or doesn't know, what she feels or doesn't feel, what she will do, what she must do according to various people on the internet (i.e. we will never know if she or her kids get tested for stds), what Josh thinks or doesn't think, where Anna's parents must be (example, how does anyone know she isn't on the phone with her mom daily for support? We'd never know that, and yet someone's asking where her parents are, as if they need to update publicly what they are doing). I just don't understand this aspect of the conversation.

 

Because lots of us here have experience with cults or abusive marriages and are therefore able to discuss the options Anna has and the likelihood of her pursuing any of them.

 

Because lots of us have those experiences, other people in similar situations matter to us. We can't actually go to the rescue, so we have to discharge the frustration by talking.

[mommaduck]

Because lots of us here have experience with cults or abusive marriages and are therefore able to discuss the options Anna has and the likelihood of her pursuing any of them.

 

Because lots of us have those experiences, other people in similar situations matter to us. We can't actually go to the rescue, so we have to discharge the frustration by talking.

 

This...and by educating others.

 

So, yes, I will climb on any thread mentioning ATI, CGM, Ezzo, Pearls, etc.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I momentarily considered buying them to destroy them but it's not like I really have $$ to burn so they stayed at the thrift store. There was some irony in that they were at a Catholic thrift store.

 

I was part of the Babywise Buying Cadre, years ago, but stopped for the same reason.

[HRAAB]

 

Josh was placed in a position of power and was outspoken about policies  while living a double life. I have no problem with people pointing out that he is not the person to be accusing people of moral faults. If I shared his beliefs about LGBT rights, which I don't,  I would not want him to be my spokesperson. However, when it comes down to it, the policies that he was trying to implement should be attacked on their own merits/faults not on his person. I understand there is some overlap but what happens when the next guy that steps up to the platform is of moral standing and doesn't share JD's faults? Are the policies then valid?  I hope I am making myself clear. 

 

I do agree with you here.  His own moral failings do not invalidate his position.  That needs to be argued on its own merits/failings.  It does make him a hypocrite, and I tend to quit listening to hypocrites.  He has also hurt his cause.  To be totally truthful, that doesn't sadden me because I find his position abhorrent.  

[Mimm]

People on here just seem to look for reasons to bash Christians and especially ones like the Duggars.  I guess they don't have a life otherwise.  I don't understand it.  If you don't like them, then just ignore them.  That isn't that difficult.  If they were telling the people on here how to live their lives, they would be furious.  I guess it only goes one way.

 

This happens in every Duggar thread. People criticize the Duggars for specific beliefs and actions and then other peoples get all offended and claim that Christians as a whole group are being bashed. This simply isn't true. Many if not most of the people criticizing the Duggars are Christians. This is pointed out again and again. This isn't about Christianity. It's about a small sub group of Christianity which is has a lot of publicity and is very harmful. And no, we won't be quiet about it. As long as people are being harmed by something, it is worth speaking out against it.

 

With regard to the bolded, you should take your own advice. If you don't like these threads, you should just ignore them.

 

You can't just make a blanket statement assuming that all people involved in ATI are cultish. 

 

You CAN make a statement that ATI is a cult and people involved in it are at great risk for being cult like. Furthermore, you can know enough about a family who intentionally lives in the public eye and makes tons of money from sharing their beliefs for years and years to make an educated statement about how cultish they in particular are.

[EmseB]

JodiSue and Lucy Stoner, I am thrilled to be wrong about the ATI materials.

 

Not glad that they're out in circulation, of course, but that the strangehold has lessened to the point that people are no longer afraid of tossing or donating the materials as if they're not worth much.

 

(Rabbit trail: Which reminds me that Gothard, himself, is a very old man. And poster families like the Duggars are under scrutiny. And of course, it's not a sustainable system for newbies to join, anyhow. This lifestyle/cult can't go on forever.)

I was mainly mentioning it in case you meet someone who says they use the stuff that it doesn't necessarily mean they are hardcore wackadoos. They might be, but not necessarily.

 

I think it's been dying for a long time. There were more reasonable people using it 15-20 years ago because they wanted to homeschool but didn't think they could do it without support like ATI. It was the best option because it was one of the only options. That's just not the case anymore, thank goodness.

[Cindy in FL.]

albeto., I edited my previous post to say that you consider things/ideas that Christians believe to be unintelligent, irrational, illogical, immoral, and unethical and not Christians themselves. And deleted the part where I called you offensive. The rest I left as originally posted. I get your point that I had crossed the line with regard to making it personal, which was not my intent.

 

I do think, though, that it is difficult to separate the person from their beliefs. If I am a member of a group which eats cupcakes and someone states that eating cupcakes is disgusting.... Well, I am pretty much going to believe that they think I am disgusting.

[EmseB]

Because lots of us here have experience with cults or abusive marriages and are therefore able to discuss the options Anna has and the likelihood of her pursuing any of them.

 

Because lots of us have those experiences, other people in similar situations matter to us. We can't actually go to the rescue, so we have to discharge the frustration by talking.

I understand this sentiment and I don't disagree with it. Maybe when I'm off my phone I can find some quotes of what I'm talking about, which is not what you're speaking of here.

[Cindy in FL.]

Because lots of us here have experience with cults or abusive marriages and are therefore able to discuss the options Anna has and the likelihood of her pursuing any of them.

 

Because lots of us have those experiences, other people in similar situations matter to us. We can't actually go to the rescue, so we have to discharge the frustration by talking.

Chances are that Anna will never know what was said on this board, but someone here who is struggling might find help that they need in their own situation because this was discussed.

[kahlanne]

He owes all of society an apology. He owes me an apology for trying to turn society against my innocent daughter. He owes me an apology for trying to torn society against my son. He owes them not only an apology, but he should be on his knees in front of them personally, taking personal accountability for trying to use them as pawns in his delusions for creating a xian utopia in our backyard and in foreign lands. I don't care what every other xian thinks of him. I care what he's trying to do about my family, and about my community, and about humanity in general, and how he works to achieve his goals. 

 

 

The topic is one in the same. He peddled himself as an example, not just a loudspeaker. He capitalized on fear-mongering and promoting lies for the sake of oppressing certain people on the grounds that they deserve it because of sexual immorality. You cannot get more directly related than that, unless we find out he had gay lovers as well. 

 

 

Please link or quote the comment on this thread that states everyone who is in opposition to giving equal rights the LGBTQ community is the same despicable character as Josh Duggar.

 

You ignored my last request. I wonder if you'll ignore this as well. 

 

Of course you'll have to because no such post exists. 

 

Unless I'm wrong.

 

Please, prove me wrong.

 

 

Leave the Duggars alone because Monica Lewinski? Really?

 

The Duggars have been a topic of conversation, inspiration, affection, entertainment, and yes conflict since I've been around these boards. Now people should shut up because they embarrassed themselves?

 

Because other people have embarrassed themselves? 

 

No I don't care that you don't leave the Duggars alone. I actually understand the thought of relishing in their demise especially considering you are one that are greatly affected by their opposing views.  There are many times that I see someone that I am opposed to fall and I am instantly happy or I just like to daydream about them getting knocked off their high horse. I understand. During those times it is difficult to pull that side back and  take a step back and see that it isn't that simple. When this happens others get hurt.

 

As for the apology, I can only say that I disagree with you on that one. There are many that feel as he does in regards to LGBT rights and has every right to that belief. (Let me say that I don't share his beliefs completely and am appalled by many of them.)  His failing as a moral standard doesn't necessarily imply his policies were wrong and therefore doesn't owe an apology to LGBT supporters. If he had decided that his views and policies that he wanted to implement were  wrong then he would owe an apology. I don't believe he has changed his opinion on that aspect nor have many of his supporters. Basically I am saying  the policies merits should be judged on them alone and not the moral code of the person in charge or pushing for these policies. Otherwise what happens if a person of upstanding moral character arrives to step into JD's position? Does the policy of death or life in prison then become a valid punishment for same sex relations because the person promoting it is a person of upstanding character?  I hope i am making myself more clear.

 

[mommymilkies]

Ishki, he "claimed" to have stolen his wife's urine. It's believed to be a stunt and the miscarriage is also believed to possibly have been a stunt.

Totally shocked.  Ok, not really. 

[zoobie]

http://gawker.com/viral-christian-pregnancy-youtuber-sam-rader-had-a-paid-1725258643

More Christian persecution! Gag. (That was what they whined the backlash against the fake toilet water pregnancy was based upon.)

[Guest]

He was caught on AM.

This is why I tell people to check. You just never know. Religion isn't inoculation from sinning.

[kahlanne]

I do agree with you here.  His own moral failings do not invalidate his position.  That needs to be argued on its own merits/failings.  It does make him a hypocrite, and I tend to quit listening to hypocrites.  He has also hurt his cause.  To be totally truthful, that doesn't sadden me because I find his position abhorrent.  

 

YESSSSSSS! This is what I was trying to say. Thank you.

[kahlanne]

For some reason I can't quote.

 

Albeto,

 

I wanted to address this....

 

You asked me to link where you said everyone in opposition to LGBT rights is of the same character as JD.

 

I misspoke. I actually meant that everyone that shares some of his beliefs in regards to LGBT rights are not automatically wrong in those beliefs because JD is not moral character to be an example or spokesperson for those beliefs. He is a hypocrite but that doesn't mean our shared beliefs are wrong. (Again, I don't share all his beliefs...many are only slightly similar.)

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

This is why I tell people to check. You just never know. Religion isn't inoculation from sinning.

 

If you don't trust your husband or your marriage, YOU check.

 

If anyone else stops short of putting a tail on their spouse every time they're reminded that people cheat and marriages fail, it's probably not because they're banking on their religion.

[MSNative]

I don't know whether anyone else has already said this, but I will. Although I don't consider myself a mean or vindictive person, I always feel a little vindicated when people who have made a life of being judgmental of others get their comeuppance. As a non-Christian, I am so incredibly tired of constantly encountering Christians (in real life and in the culture-at-large) who are eager to tell me all about how sinful I am and the damnful hell that awaits me should I choose to continue turning my back on god. I am sick to death of these people acting like they have all the answers and are better than I am because they are Christian. A tiny part of me is a little bit happy when it turns out that, whoops, those people are just as flawed as I am.

 

 

People only have the opinion that Christians "should" be perfect because so many of them make a habit of telling us how they are and how dreadfully the rest of us fall short. Of course these things happen in non-Christian families. But a non-Christian has never called me names, refused to talk to me, walked away from me in disgust, or refused to be my friend because I am not Christian and am therefore an immoral person.

 

Imo, many Christians need to take off their blinders and accept the fact that the reason a lot of people have a negative opinion of Christians and Christianity is because of the way some Christians behave.

 

For the record, I don't dislike any specific Christians just because they are Christians. If there is any disliking on my part, it's because of the way they use their religion as a weapon against other people. As long as you don't do that, I don't care what religion you are.

 

I am sorry you and many others have had that experience. My pastor just discussed that this past Sunday. He said that Christians are having the wrong conversations with the wrong people. With non-believers, we should be sharing the Gospel message - grace, God's love, etc. (And he meant sharing in the friend to friend loving way, not yell on a street corner and force your views on people.). Then Christians should help exhort other Christians to live biblically. Doesn't make sense to ask someone who doesn't believe in God or the Bible to live by those standards right? And all Christians will fall short and fail. That's why we should be humble.

 

Anyway, I know that is an aside from the topic of the thread. I hope this came across ok. I usually re type and delete these responses several times before generally deciding not to post. ;).

[mommaduck]

Unless you have a reason, I do not think it is healthy to feel one needs to constantly check up on their husband. I also do not think it is healthy for men to constantly check up on their wives, unless they have reason to. I could not imagine being in a marriage or relationship with that kind of mistrust or paranoia.

[Guest]

I hate the tone of the gawker article, as though just because these men claim to be Christians they are even worse than every other schmoe using that site. Christians fail too, and all sorts of people claiming Christianity. That's my objection. As though it's better to have zero moral absolutes and thus not be guilty of possible hypocrisy.

 

Fortunately my husband is faithful to a fault. We have access to each other's location, all accounts and passwords, etc. there's never been a problem or even a need to check. But I'm not foolish enough to believe cheating is absolutely impossible, even for a good, faithful, hard working, God honoring guy like him. Neither one of us is perfect, or even close.

[OnTheBrink]

So, now raising your children in a Christian home is brainwashing them in a cult?  Seriously?  It is easy to see who does and doesn't know the truth.

 

 

OH. My. Gosh. Please go google Bill Gothard and ATI before you make such statements. Seriously. 

[Joanne]

Unless you have a reason, I do not think it is healthy to feel one needs to constantly check up on their husband. I also do not think it is healthy for men to constantly check up on their wives, unless they have reason to. I could not imagine being in a marriage or relationship with that kind of mistrust or paranoia.

 

I was running a therapy group once, and the topic was Healthy Boundaries in relationships. I was talking about partner's cell phones and I had at least one (young, male, gang affiliated) who was absolutely convinced that checking his partner's phone was not only healthy "but love."

[mommaduck]

I was running a therapy group once, and the topic was Healthy Boundaries in relationships. I was talking about partner's cell phones and I had at least one (young, male, gang affiliated) who was absolutely convinced that checking his partner's phone was not only healthy "but love."

 

*sigh*

[Joanne]

So, now raising your children in a Christian home is brainwashing them in a cult?  Seriously?  It is easy to see who does and doesn't know the truth.

 

That is a tremendous leap and demonstrates that you do not see ATI as a distinct, extreme, or outlying entity from mainstream Christianity.

 

Or you don't know about it.

[Mimm]

albeto., I edited my previous post to say that you consider things/ideas that Christians believe to be unintelligent, irrational, illogical, immoral, and unethical and not Christians themselves. And deleted the part where I called you offensive. The rest I left as originally posted. I get your point that I had crossed the line with regard to making it personal, which was not my intent.

 

I do think, though, that it is difficult to separate the person from their beliefs. If I am a member of a group which eats cupcakes and someone states that eating cupcakes is disgusting.... Well, I am pretty much going to believe that they think I am disgusting.

 

I think cupcakes are disgusting. I don't think people who eat cupcakes are disgusting people. I'm just not that fond of frosting...

[Mimm]

My husband and I have access to each other's cell phones. I don't think either of us check up on them.

[Guest]

My husband and I have access to each other's cell phones. I don't think either of us check up on them.

I can't say I ever have, either. We have access to location services so that I can check if he is stuck on the drive home and he doesn't have to try and call while driving, and vice versa. But if he did feel the need to check up on my I have nothing to hide. *shrug*

[Joanne]

Am I the only one who is annoyed by the assumptions that Anna is stupid, immature, helpless, and hopeless?

 

 

 

Some people speak of misogyny, and then turn around and speak of grown women as if they were less than full humans.  I call that misogyny.

 

Can you please point to the poster(s) who said sentence # 1? Because I am not finding it. Not by a stretch.

 

And patriarchy and misogyny created the prison in which Anna (and hundreds of other women who have not been given autonomy due to this particular cult) now lives.

[mommaduck]

I think cupcakes are disgusting. I don't think people who eat cupcakes are disgusting people. I'm just not that fond of frosting...

 

I just like the frosting...I don't want to eat my cupcake, too.

[Audrey]

Nope, not even a tiny bit.  Sorry he got caught though.

 

I bet Jim Bob is furious.

 

 

Furious?  You bet!  But, more than that, I'll bet he's scared sh!tless.  All that money... POOF!  

[Mimm]

I just like the frosting...I don't want to eat my cupcake, too.

 

It sounds like we'd be good cupcake buddies. ;)

[mathnerd]

Besides. Who would want to admit they were with Josh? He's not exactly a great prize. He seems like the guy you kiss in high school and then when people ask, you deny it ever happened and when he calls again you say you have to wash your hair.

 

I am willing to bet $5 that National Enquirer or TMZ are digging up JD's hookups and we will hear from them sooner rather than later. The funniest thing about this is that JD says that he is looking for affairs with "professional" women who are the "take charge" type in his dating profile. I thought that their patriarchal lifestyle frowns upon women educating themselves, pursuing a profession, being aggressive or "taking charge" etc. Which means that he does not believe in what his parents, himself and his community has been upholding for so long.

[Mimm]

Furious?  You bet!  But, more than that, I'll bet he's scared sh!tless.  All that money... POOF!  

 

Josh Duggar just messed up the financial future of like 30 people if you count his sister's husbands and kids and his own kids and all his siblings and his parents. The Duggar family has an image that they sell, and Josh killed that image.

[SparrowsNest]

I am willing to bet $5 that National Enquirer or TMZ are digging up JD's hookups and we will hear from them sooner rather than later. The funniest thing about this is that JD says that he is looking for affairs with "professional" women who are the "take charge" type in his dating profile. I thought that their patriarchal lifestyle frowns upon women educating themselves, pursuing a profession, being aggressive or "taking charge" etc. Which means that he does not believe in what his parents, himself and his community has been upholding for so long.

 

I'd bet it just means he's seen a lot of submissive, quiet women, and he is excited by the idea of a powerful woman who calls the shots in the bedroom.  

[Guest]

Can you please point to the poster(s) who said sentence # 1? Because I am not finding it. Not by a stretch.

 

And patriarchy and misogyny created the prison in which Anna (and hundreds of other women who have not been given autonomy due to this particular cult) now lives.

Can I ask you a question? Are we sure that Anna, or any of the kids, actually lives affirming ATI and not just mainstream conservative evangelical Christianity? I ask this seriously, because it seems like such a non sequitur to me. I can point to multiple people in my life whose parents raised them with ATI principles, some casually (as many churches got caught up in the seminars) and some rather seriously. But I can only think of maybe two families where the second generation has continued on espousing ATI. Most of the time the husbands have settled into a more relaxed, gentle headship model and the wives are equal partners in their marriage and fully aware of and agreeing with biblical complementarianism. They're Christians, and not of any culty variety, even though they were raised in it.

 

For as many women as seem to hit these sites having 'escaped' literally or figuratively, it seems a solid portion of them just drive away to something else once they're adults. What sticks in my craw is this assumption that just because her parents were ATI, means that she is as well and hasn't grown or purposely moved away from that, herself. Are we sure? Have we seen any evidence pointing solidly to the fact of even Josh still being aligned with them? For al the activism he has done I haven't see anything definitively linked with ATI, but I also haven't been looking.

 

This gets discussed like it is a forgone conclusion. Why? That hasn't been my personal experience. But I could be missing information on this, too. Any insights?

[mommaduck]

I am willing to bet $5 that National Enquirer or TMZ are digging up JD's hookups and we will hear from them sooner rather than later. The funniest thing about this is that JD says that he is looking for affairs with "professional" women who are the "take charge" type in his dating profile. I thought that their patriarchal lifestyle frowns upon women educating themselves, pursuing a profession, being aggressive or "taking charge" etc. Which means that he does not believe in what his parents, himself and his community has been upholding for so long.

 

Basically, he wanted the opposite of what he has at home. His family insisted he marry someone that would represent his mother.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Can I ask you a question? Are we sure that Anna, or any of the kids, actually lives affirming ATI and not just mainstream conservative evangelical Christianity? I ask this seriously, because it seems like such a non sequitur to me. I can point to multiple people in my life whose parents raised them with ATI principles, some casually (as many churches got caught up in the seminars) and some rather seriously. But I can only think of maybe two families where the second generation has continued on espousing ATI. Most of the time the husbands have settled into a more relaxed, gentle headship model and the wives are equal partners in their marriage and fully aware of and agreeing with biblical complementarianism. They're Christians, and not of any culty variety, even though they were raised in it.

 

For as many women as seem to hit these sites having 'escaped' literally or figuratively, it seems a solid portion of them just drive away to something else once they're adults. What sticks in my craw is this assumption that just because her parents were ATI, means that she is as well and hasn't grown or purposely moved away from that, herself. Are we sure? Have we seen any evidence pointing solidly to the fact of even Josh still being aligned with them? For al the activism he has done I haven't see anything definitively linked with ATI, but I also haven't been looking.

 

This gets discussed like it is a forgone conclusion. Why? That hasn't been my personal experience. But I could be missing information on this, too. Any insights?

 

If you don't know that Anna lives affirming ATI to the HILT with every move she makes and every word she says in public, then you do not follow this family and their agenda. She either believes it or has her own reasons for faking it.

 

In other words, if you haven't been looking and don't know why people are saying these things, then just know that we're saying these things because we have been looking.

 

:)

[Guest]

I know a fair bit about the Duggars, but I don't seek gossip. So what I know was from watching the show. I haven't followed the family since those two married.

[Luckymama]

http://gawker.com/viral-christian-pregnancy-youtuber-sam-rader-had-a-paid-1725258643

wth?

 

I just don't understand some people.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I know a fair bit about the Duggars, but I don't seek gossip. So what I know was from watching the show. I haven't followed the family since those two married.

 

Well, yeah, you do, because you participate in these threads that are gossip about the Duggars. :)

 

There was kind of implied insult, there, but you're doing the same thing when you get your information here. No biggie.

 

I'm going to go have a weekend now.

 

[Mimm]

Jeez, the toilet pee guy now? I guess I shouldn't be surprised every single time someone is revealed. It's probably going to be happening a lot in the coming weeks...

[Katy]

I am willing to bet $5 that National Enquirer or TMZ are digging up JD's hookups and we will hear from them sooner rather than later. The funniest thing about this is that JD says that he is looking for affairs with "professional" women who are the "take charge" type in his dating profile. I thought that their patriarchal lifestyle frowns upon women educating themselves, pursuing a profession, being aggressive or "taking charge" etc. Which means that he does not believe in what his parents, himself and his community has been upholding for so long.

 

 

I'd bet it just means he's seen a lot of submissive, quiet women, and he is excited by the idea of a powerful woman who calls the shots in the bedroom.  

 

 

Or maybe he's bought into some propaganda that all feminists are sexually loose.  I'm pretty sure I've heard that from several conservatives before.

[zoobie]

Can I ask you a question? Are we sure that Anna, or any of the kids, actually lives affirming ATI and not just mainstream conservative evangelical Christianity? I ask this seriously, because it seems like such a non sequitur to me. I can point to multiple people in my life whose parents raised them with ATI principles, some casually (as many churches got caught up in the seminars) and some rather seriously. But I can only think of maybe two families where the second generation has continued on espousing ATI. Most of the time the husbands have settled into a more relaxed, gentle headship model and the wives are equal partners in their marriage and fully aware of and agreeing with biblical complementarianism. They're Christians, and not of any culty variety, even though they were raised in it.

 

For as many women as seem to hit these sites having 'escaped' literally or figuratively, it seems a solid portion of them just drive away to something else once they're adults. What sticks in my craw is this assumption that just because her parents were ATI, means that she is as well and hasn't grown or purposely moved away from that, herself. Are we sure? Have we seen any evidence pointing solidly to the fact of even Josh still being aligned with them? For al the activism he has done I haven't see anything definitively linked with ATI, but I also haven't been looking.

 

This gets discussed like it is a forgone conclusion. Why? That hasn't been my personal experience. But I could be missing information on this, too. Any insights?

Anna attends (perhaps not this year) the ATI family conferences, uses the homeschool curriculum, and professes quiverful beliefs. They scrubbed all the links to everything off their blog (except to link to the main Duggar blog) after the molestation scandal hit. I don't think anyone wants their affiliation at the moment. I guess she could be secretly Hindu in her heart, but for all appearances, she still buys in to the ATI system.

[LucyStoner]

I am willing to bet $5 that National Enquirer or TMZ are digging up JD's hookups and we will hear from them sooner rather than later. The funniest thing about this is that JD says that he is looking for affairs with "professional" women who are the "take charge" type in his dating profile. I thought that their patriarchal lifestyle frowns upon women educating themselves, pursuing a profession, being aggressive or "taking charge" etc. Which means that he does not believe in what his parents, himself and his community has been upholding for so long.

Or it means that he is titillated by the idea of the verboten. He could very well believe as his parents but be drawn to something else. He may think that "those women" are more experienced in bed or whatnot. It's far more likely that he thinks these types of women are sexier because they are "bad" than that he rejects his entire upbringing or would want his wife to wear jeans.

 

I had a couple of boys at church camp who were interested in me because they thought liberal feminist in a tank top with no bra would put out. Um, no. Trust me when I say I was not the type of girl they wanted to marry.

[Guest]

If you don't know that Anna lives affirming ATI to the HILT with every move she makes and every word she says in public, then you do not follow this family and their agenda. She either believes it or has her own reasons for faking it.

 

In other words, if you haven't been looking and don't know why people are saying these things, then just know that we're saying these things because we have been looking.

 

:)

No implied insult. What I meant was that I haven't been in the loop on anything unsavory except through this place. And much of that is extrapolation. So if gawker or people did stories on them I mostly missed it. Free Jinger isn't bookmarked for me,

 

 

Maybe this is where I am hung up - I also had four children by my mid twenties. Married young. Never finished college. Submit to my husband. Believe in courtship as a great relationship model. Won't divorce except for abandonment or the safety of myself and my kids. I even have enormously long hair and, for a time, wore almost exclusively skirts.

 

And I have had almost zero ATI exposures. It's all been second hand and in recent years, especially online. I'm a Christian, simple enough. A lot of the folks I know who have been involved in ATI are Christians, too. And again, not of the culty variety.

 

Where is the line you all see between someone like me and them? Why are we sure Anna is on the other side of it? I'm just not understanding why it is a forgone conclusion she is in a cult. Several of the other adult family members are going to reputable, normal Christian churches. Are they just gaslighting?

 

There must be dog whistles I'm missing that definitively indicate ATI cult crap. What are they?

[Audrey]

This...and by educating others.

 

So, yes, I will climb on any thread mentioning ATI, CGM, Ezzo, Pearls, etc.

 

 

I'm glad you and others do.  When I first came to the boards (around 2002), I'd never heard of that stuff, but someone had given me an Ezzo book when my ds was a babe.  I'd not taken to it, but there were things that sounded okay -- but not quite.  Education is a very, very good thing.  You never know who is out there reading and thinking.  You may just save some families a lot of heartache without ever knowing about it.