Oy Vey! Folks If you have a moment, even though it is really hard to do, think a supportive thought for Anna Duggar

[BronzeTurtle]

38 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Let's not worry too much about tact, lol. Nobody would give me a job in HR. If you want me to delete this, say so.

I appreciate this post. I definitely don't feel like you need to delete it or that you're being condescending. i feel like my perspective is coming from a place where i know a little bit about women in these organizations, women who treat their kids a certain way, and certainly there is a matriarch culture where mom's domain is the home and she is expected to run a tight ship, or does so of her own accord in order to raise good little boys and girls for the world to see as obedient, respectful, etc.. anna does not fit the stereo type when you see her on tv the same as michelle duggar, i guess, but i don't see her as not knowing what's going on or not doing the things within her own household.

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

No, i don't agree that women are inherently more susceptible to any of this than men because I don't believe that women are inherently weaker minded, despite what they are taught growing up. 
 

I don’t think women are more susceptible but I do think women are far and away more often blamed by other women for it.  Because abuse makes use of a truth to twist and pervert it to evil ends. It is not weak to believe we can be and are loved by our spouse and the father of our children. It’s not weak or stupid, to believe them and to be convinced of their affection and good regard for us - even knowing a great betrayal has happened like infidelity  (most wives stay btw regardless of upbringing).   And our brains, like men’s brains, will strive to protect us from self-destructive thoughts we just literally cannot fathom and maintain our current mind.  It’s a survival technique to cope with our environment. Especially if it’s an environment we don’t feel we can escape. But also hindsight is always 20/20 and the outside perspective always sees the bigger picture.  But she has not lived this in 20/20.  She has not lived it from the outside.  She is in the thick of it and has likely grown so used to living in survival mode that it both made it easy for him to shift what she saw and hard for her to sort things like we all obviously think is so easy from where we are.  

 

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was asking for help. I just simply don't believe women are the weaker vessel when it comes to this stuff or deserve more sympathy. I don't think anna deserves sympathy for the way she is likely raising her own kids amidst all this. she has to teach her daughters and sons something.

if you hear someone in your life is watching babies abused for their jollies, no matter what, you don't walk out of that place with them holding onto them with two hands.

So says someone who maybe has never known life/core shattering pervasive years-long trauma.

I’m not excusing her.  I don’t know her and I doubt you do either. For all I know she may very well be a cold-hearted child abusing horrible women who deserves a cage right next to his.

But if that’s NOT who she is?  Then she is likely a women who has struggled every day for years to survive and what you see as holding on with both hands could just as easily be a terrified woman performing the role that’s kept her or her kids safe by her the best standards she could hope for with her situation. Life doesn’t look as seen on tv. Expressions and gestures often are not read correctly.  

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

And if this is true, then he is just as brainwashed about his own actions and can't be held responsible for his demented sexual ethic that was melded into his brain from the time he was a small boy. obviously I don't believe this, but if the argument is that he has been enable and rewarded and such, that's the same brainwashing she received, just the flip side of the coin. except everyone thinks he should be accountable and she was just going by her training. this is sexism played out!

It actually would not surprise me one bit to learn that he genuinely has seriously convoluted messed up thought progresses to convince himself that what he has done is not bad or as bad as it is so that he can live with his actions.  It does not make it okay.  But it wouldn’t surprise me at all. And actually, that would be the best case scenario. A person with a conscious at least has to play mind games with their own mind and lie to themselves. Without a conscious,  he just flat out wanted to and thinks he should be able to do such horrible things.  None of it makes it okay. 

6 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

I have a problem with telling kids they can be anything they want to be. I guess it works fine for those who really could be anything they wanted to be. I guess some people have that experience in life. Lucky them! But in reality, sometimes life puts us in positions where, even with the benefit of hindsight, you still can't find any way you could have made a better choice.

Um. Yeah. Gonna shut up now in case you all start thinking I think the whole world revolves around me. I know it doesn't because my mother told me so from a very young age. 😛

I’m right there with you. I have always loved that veggie tale scene:

Bob “With God, you can be anything!”

Larry “So I can be a chicken?! Wow! I wanna be a chicken!”

Bob “What?!  Well no. That’s not what it means…”

I have no idea why you think you need to stop or anyone would think that about you.  Nothing in your posts have ever come off as self-centered to me.  If someone said that - they need to go pee in their own Cherreos and leave your bowl alone. 

[MercyA]

29 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

in any case, i think the difference in my replies is that i think the whole method of 'discipline' in these families is abusive and she, as far as i can see, willingly participates in things like blanket training, paddling or using a literal rod, making kids beg for forgiveness for simple infractions, etc. i don't know why you say you 'can only assume she protects them within that household'. maybe i'm thinking of the wrong person and she has disavowed abusing kids in order to get them to be compliant a la gothard? if so i take back everything i've posted in this thread and apologize for being wrong. 

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Pearls' teaching? They are the ones who advocate blanket training, use of a rod, etc. I don't know if Gothardites teach all of that or not. I think at one point quite some time ago the Duggars mentioned the Pearls' books on their website, but do you have any evidence that Anna does these things? Honest question, I really have no idea.

[TravelingChris]

56 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

I have a problem with telling kids they can be anything they want to be. I guess it works fine for those who really could be anything they wanted to be. I guess some people have that experience in life. Lucky them! But in reality, sometimes life puts us in positions where, even with the benefit of hindsight, you still can't find any way you could have made a better choice.

Um. Yeah. Gonna shut up now in case you all start thinking I think the whole world revolves around me. I know it doesn't because my mother told me so from a very young age. 😛

Yep,  that is a total lie.  I couldn't have been an architect because I am awful with drawing and mechanics.  I coultn\t have been an athlete either.  I mean if you are 6'10, you can't be a jockey on a horse. And on and on and on

[Rosie_0801]

21 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

 i feel like my perspective is coming from a place where i know a little bit about women in these organizations, women who treat their kids a certain way, and certainly there is a matriarch culture where mom's domain is the home and she is expected to run a tight ship, or does so of her own accord in order to raise good little boys and girls for the world to see as obedient, respectful, etc.. anna does not fit the stereo type when you see her on tv the same as michelle duggar, i guess, but i don't see her as not knowing what's going on or not doing the things within her own household.

Abuse covers its tracks, especially a carefully constructed system of abuse like these nutjobs. 

She's been taught that if she does x, y and z that she will be a good girl and her kids will turn out to be good boys and girls. She's got absolutely no evidence to the contrary, because her husband is an aberration and that's her fault for not being a good enough girl anyway. Then, all the people who don't do as she is expected to do are "worldly" and will be damned for all eternity, which is a pretty lousy thing to do to your kids. Better to thump them (or whatever, I don't know her) than have them burn for all eternity, right? That's a long time!

So, she'd have to just stop believing in their abusive crap and know that being nice to your kids is the better path, and she'd have to have the power (mentally, emotionally, financially and spiritually) to force the people who have contact with her kids to suddenly understand that the worldly mammas out there *have it right.* 

And that's giving her the benefit of the doubt. For all I know she's a horrid little sadist. But she probably isn't. She's probably just a person who has been raised to be an appearance/illusion of a person, with all responsibility and bugger all power. But abusers train their victims to be self abusive and flying monkeys they can outsource their abusing to, making their victims complicit. There's not a chance she'd be able to fight that for the same reason any other abuse victim becomes an abuse victim- we simply didn't have the imagination when we needed it most.

[MercyA]

Thinking out loud here. I've seen a lot of "it's rumored that..." in this thread and others re: the Duggars. I think we need to remember that we only know what we know.

A lot of things have been stated with certainty about Gothard's teachings, and that's perhaps fair enough; excerpts of his "teaching manuals" are online (although it's worth noting some of them are from the 70's). But we don't know for sure the extent that any of the family currently holds to those teachings. We *don't* know for sure that anyone in that family is blaming Anna for what Josh did, or that she will be in fear of hell if she leaves, or really what anyone's internal motivations are. We can only make guesses.

We also don't know for sure that she is leaving the children and spending every night with Josh. (Do we? I will stand corrected if I'm wrong.)

We *can* judge actions that have been made public knowledge and public statements but I think we should be careful otherwise. There is enough confirmed awfulness already.

Edited December 6, 2021 by MercyA

[bolt.]

20 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Maybe so, but MOTHERS, of which she is one, are involved here somewhere in all of this. at some point, women are still responsible for their actions in IBLP, the same as men. There are a lot of examples in history where people in what you call the servant class in your post ally with their abusers in order to exert power over their fellow servants. it happens all the time, in schools when there's a bully that gains a following, in places like concentration camps, in cults that have a guru, in homes where mom or dad is abusive. that doesn't make them less culpable or less able to to make the actual right choice in any given situation. they may be victims of something, but that doesn't preclude them from being abusers as well.

If anna is not one of these people who is blanket training her babies, making them be silent in church with physical discipline as toddlers, making them ask for forgivness for being kids, using a physical implement to instill fear and obedience, then again, I apologize for anything negative I've said about her here and I will delete all of it, or at least make a public post owning all my words as 100% wrong.

if she also truly doesn't believe josh did those things, or know it in her bones to be true, if she is really so naive to think he's innocent because of skillfully and masterfully being deceived i would be absolutely shocked. she would have to be truly without any kind of sense for that to be true, especially since she's been through all of this before with him. he has a porn problem she knows about, used an escort service to cheat on her, molested his kid siblings, but since he's saying that he didn't do THIS thing she believes him?  i find it so so so hard to believe that she didn't have an inkling and doesn't know it now to be true. by that logic, none of us can know either until he's convicted and pronounced guilty by the court.

I think I understand your point better now.

At first, it seemed like you were considering Anna somehow equivalently to blame or complicit somehow in what Josh did -- and that didn't make sense -- so I was writing about that.

Now that I see you holding her responsible for her own likely-actions in parenting her children (excessive physical punishment, spiritualizing infractions, etc.) I agree with you that, in spite of her upbringing, she 'joins the dark side' in an adult way when she does those things. Her parenting is an area of her life where she is given some measure of autonomy. I think of her as being largely responsible for those choices.

I see excessive physical punishment, spiritualizing infractions, etc. as a bad thing -- and people shouldn't treat kids that way. However, I'm not getting *any* sense of equivalency here with the way Josh went completely off the rails into taboo and disgusting criminality. Many parents choose corporal punishment and harsh words. I wish they would all stop that, for sure! But Anna's compliance just doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark, really as Josh's deviance.

(And I do think that it would take being hit by a truck full of evidence before any *one of us* would be truly able to believe our loved ones really might be evil consumers of CSA materials. I don't believe all predators give off signs. I don't believe good people can sense or smell them. I think every person who has found themselves married to a consumer of CSA materials has been shocked, and has spent at least a little time in denial (depending how plausible denial might be). As of Friday, she might be being hit by that truck. I hope so -- but that hurts. And I feel for her. It's going to be quite something if she and her kids make it through this kind of trauma intact. And if they do, Anna's IBLP style discipline will probably end too... so, that's a good thing.)

[fairfarmhand]

1 hour ago, Rosie_0801 said:

I have a problem with telling kids they can be anything they want to be. 

 

I totally agree with you. We don't know what we don't know.

[fairfarmhand]

1 hour ago, bolt. said:

Josh and Anna were raised very differently. Neither of them are responsible for that, and both of them were terribly susceptible to it during their childhoods. However there were differences in (a) the gender-defined intent of their abuse, (b) the gendered methods of their abuse, (c) the end point of their abuse and their transition to adulthood.

The gender-defined intent of the abuse was to make boys into strong independent men full of toxic masculinity and superiority, while making girls into self-abnegating weak women without the ability to respect themselves or make their own choices. Josh was built up: it was fake and toxic, with far too much sexual content -- but he was taught to take himself seriously and make his way in the world. Anna was torn down: she was made less and less capable on purpose.

The gendered methods of abuse were consistent with the intentions: for boys and girls, opposite things are applauded or punished.

The end point of the abuse for Josh was when he became an adult in his parents' eyes. He had autonomy, privilege, and pride as he got married and became a father. Anna, however, was never granted this transition. She passed from being put in her place by her family of origin to being subordinate to her husband, never having the opportunity to accomplish adulthood. Josh has had years of adulthood. Anna hasn't started yet.

It was *after* his freedom and *contrary* to the role his family had for him that Josh chose his crimes. He was rebelling not complying. Nobody tricked Josh into becoming a monster.

Josh took real actions. Actual criminal intentional actions as an adult, following up on his crimes as a minor. Anna didn't do those things. She was deceived and manipulated. Just because Anna wasn't able to believe the accusations doesn't make her equally culpable as the criminal himself. And she still might not believe the accusations. She is not knowingly standing by a person she believes to have committed these crimes. Or, at least, not so far. 

Girls are not more susceptible to IBLP abuse than boys are. Girls are not being called weaker. They are intentionally more thoroughly and skillfully abused than the boys because they are being raised as the servant class rather than the master class. Can she break it? As an adult going through traumatic revelations about her loved ones? I hope so. It's not about blame. It's about hope.

This is very well explained.

[Rosie_0801]

I understand not being able to see abuse that you know is there. It's weird. I ended up deciding it wasn't my fault I couldn't see it, because the situation was too stupid for me to be reasonably able to understand. I didn't think I could be culpable for reality being beyond reasonable doubt, or something like that.

[BronzeTurtle]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Pearls' teaching? They are the ones who advocate blanket training, use of a rod, etc. I don't know if Gothardites teach all of that or not. I think at one point quite some time ago the Duggars mentioned the Pearls' books on their website, but do you have any evidence that Anna does these things? Honest question, I really have no idea.

I was going off of multiple articles I've read about them practicing it. I think one of the duggars left the family and talked about it at some point, but it has been awhile since I've looked any of it up.

[itsheresomewhere]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Pearls' teaching? They are the ones who advocate blanket training, use of a rod, etc. I don't know if Gothardites teach all of that or not. I think at one point quite some time ago the Duggars mentioned the Pearls' books on their website, but do you have any evidence that Anna does these things? Honest question, I really have no idea.

There are earlier interviews with the Duggars talking about how they blanket trained their kids.  And based on some of my own family members who are part of this cult, blanket training is very accepted among them.  This was how I was introduced to the Pearls.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Anna used blanket training. 

[ktgrok]

9 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

She farmed out all the kids so Josh can s ay with her during the trial.  including the baby, so she can't be b/f.

She has family members who understand her legal rights.  Derrick certainly should understand her legal rights (he's a lawyer - I saw his law school graduation pix.) - and where to direct her for help.

I book deal could be cathartic.  I think her own show would be a bad idea.

Her brother would probably have a better idea than her of where she could get help.  I would imagine she has zero idea - he knows there are local and state agencies that could help her.  

There are options - if IBLP likes their women uneducated, she doesn't know, but that doesn't mean family who escaped don't  know.

actually, some of her family that escaped came crawling back, I believe. And no, there are not resources from the state that can help a woman with 8 kids, no skills, and no acute threat at home. 

51 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I was going off of multiple articles I've read about them practicing it. I think one of the duggars left the family and talked about it at some point, but it has been awhile since I've looked any of it up.

You are thinking of Michelle Duggar, not Anna. There was a decade ago or so something about her using blanket training, but we have no idea if Anna uses it or not. 

[Farrar]

In terms of having sympathy... I think it's totally possible to have sympathy and still believe someone should be held accountable. I honestly do have sympathy for Josh on some level. He is a victim of abuse as well. He still should go to prison for a very long time and until he learns to take some real responsibility (something I don't know that he can do at this point) he doesn't deserve leniency. But I still find his situation sad. I think Anna (and a lot of the women in the Gothard cult) are also responsible for their actions. Like, a few pages ago people were talking about the possibility in a general sense of whether the children could ever be removed from her and I do think that it's possible that she is not a fit parent at this point and that it would likely be better for them. She is unlikely to change right now. The kids are at risk in a variety of ways. Just because I think she's been a long term victim of an abusive brainwashing cult doesn't mean I think she shouldn't have any consequences. Of course, in that context, the alternative was that maybe their grandparents would get them, which would be even worse.

[gardenmom5]

5 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 Gently said - It’s not misogynistic to point out the abuse works towards its aim of changing and molding the brain and personality of a person to be submissive, lacking confidence, uneducated, vulnerable to manipulation, self-sabatoage and perpetual survival mode making it hard to ever really move from trauma to true healing. That’s what that kind of abuse does. I absolutely think some people can walk from that and heal to the point they fully become who God made them to really be,  

This type of abuse *is* harder on women - because the abusers are misogynistic so females are attacked and undermined more than males.

as you said - women are to "serve" the man, and to subsume their own desires and thoughts.  

psychological abuse - changes the structure of the brain.  This is something that has only recently been discovered.  This is something I'm still trying to wrap my head around.  (EMDR was great.)

My grandmother (she's been dead for 30 years - ding dong the witch is dead.)  predated IBLP - but she and gothard probably came out of a similar background.   Above all - she was likely a covert narcissist. (there were rumors of s3xual abuse among at least some of her sisters.)

Religion was always used as a weapon - you will do what I say, or God will smite you to h3ll, etc.  don't read that science fiction book, it's not godly . . .  I understand why my mother rejected all religion.  

While I'm doing the best in my family (by far), and rejected her starting when I was 13, I still deal with the dregs.  I wasn't submerged in it the way Anna is - but my mother still supported her mother over her own children and it was a big deal to rebel.

[Janeway]

I have been hoping CPS would get involved to try to nudge/force Anna away from Jim Bob and Michelle.

[BusyMom5]

Anna has stood by Josh during 2 other big scandals.  Both times there were calls by people to help her escape,  surly she would leave- but she stayed.   The AM scandal, he clearly cheated on her, which is grounds for divorce.  She stayed.  He got sent to pray away camp.  Then came home to make more babies and live happily ever after.  But next came the abuse of his sisters- and they did not deny it!  For someone who made such a big deal out of purity, she just ignored it again.  Now the federal government seized computers with CSA on them, and she has known for about a year- she had ANOTHER baby with him!  It is mind boggling how much she has been willing to overlook.  At this point I have not scene any evidence that she wants to divorce him.  I'd place my bet on another M-Kid conceived during conjugal visits.  

As for who needs to help her- her own family.   Not other Duggar siblings and victims.  Ever since their courtship there was a strain between Anna and the older girls.  Knowing what we know now, I'm betting that had a lot to do with Josh.  She was not welcomed into the family like the girls welcomed all each other's spouses.  Imagine being Jill- the snitch- who told on Josh for touching her.  Do you want your kids playing with Josh's kids?  Do you want to be forced to be nice to the woman who chose to stand by his side when she found out he abused her?  I wouldn't.   I would feel badly for her, but none of the girls owe her or her kids a thing.  Kids are innocent,  of course, and they do need help.  I might send money, but no way am I taking their kids in!  It seems like all 4 of his victims are trying to move past what happened to them.   This has yo be bringing up horrible memories.  Anna is a victim,  too, but in another way- and she has repeatedly chosen to stay.   

(Personally I hope CPS steps in- are they all just unsupervised at the TTH?  Who is parenting Annas kids?  The entire situation is just sad.)

[ktgrok]

18 minutes ago, BusyMom5 said:

Anna has stood by Josh during 2 other big scandals.  Both times there were calls by people to help her escape,  surly she would leave- but she stayed.   The AM scandal, he clearly cheated on her, which is grounds for divorce.  She stayed.  He got sent to pray away camp.  Then came home to make more babies and live happily ever after.  But next came the abuse of his sisters- and they did not deny it!  For someone who made such a big deal out of purity, she just ignored it again.  Now the federal government seized computers with CSA on them, and she has known for about a year- she had ANOTHER baby with him!  It is mind boggling how much she has been willing to overlook.  At this point I have not scene any evidence that she wants to divorce him.  I'd place my bet on another M-Kid conceived during conjugal visits.  

As for who needs to help her- her own family.   Not other Duggar siblings and victims.  Ever since their courtship there was a strain between Anna and the older girls.  Knowing what we know now, I'm betting that had a lot to do with Josh.  She was not welcomed into the family like the girls welcomed all each other's spouses.  Imagine being Jill- the snitch- who told on Josh for touching her.  Do you want your kids playing with Josh's kids?  Do you want to be forced to be nice to the woman who chose to stand by his side when she found out he abused her?  I wouldn't.   I would feel badly for her, but none of the girls owe her or her kids a thing.  Kids are innocent,  of course, and they do need help.  I might send money, but no way am I taking their kids in!  It seems like all 4 of his victims are trying to move past what happened to them.   This has yo be bringing up horrible memories.  Anna is a victim,  too, but in another way- and she has repeatedly chosen to stay.   

(Personally I hope CPS steps in- are they all just unsupervised at the TTH?  Who is parenting Annas kids?  The entire situation is just sad.)

Anna is in a situation where she doesn't have to consent in order to have more kids. In their world, wives are not allowed to say no to intimacy, ever. 

And there are plenty of adult siblings, spouses, etc at the main house to supervise kids. Jessa/Ben and Jana at minimum. 

[Faith-manor]

29 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Anna is in a situation where she doesn't have to consent in order to have more kids. In their world, wives are not allowed to say no to intimacy, ever. 

And there are plenty of adult siblings, spouses, etc at the main house to supervise kids. Jessa/Ben and Jana at minimum. 

This.

There is no consent, and men are encouraged in IBLP to rape their wives if they do not present "joyfully available" at a moment's notice. Women do not have any say in their own body. Men have it all.

If there is an M8, it will be conceived before he goes to prison. Federal prisons do not allow conjugal visits.

[BusyMom5]

1 minute ago, Faith-manor said:

This.

There is no consent, and men are encouraged in IBLP to rape their wives if they do not present "joyfully available" at a moment's notice. Women do not have any say in their own body. Men have it all.

If there is an M8, it will be conceived before he goes to prison. Federal prisons do not allow conjugal visits.

Oh, thank goodness- I assumed there would still be visits!  I know Anna doesn't feel she has a choice.  I was referring more to how we've almost assumed she would be leaving, and who should help her.  I don't think she has shown any signs that will happen.  She is still drunk on the Kool-Aid.   She might be getting to the hung over part, but she is a long way from leaving it.  I would love to see her reach out to her sibling that have left,  and decide to break away and raise her kids on a different path.  This one is so destructive!

[Faith-manor]

Anna's family will not help her. They were told about the molestations, and that Josh had been betrothed to Kaeleigh Holt, but that the courtship was disrupted because of his deeds, and for his porn use during the Holt political campaign or at least that is how the people that know them have indicated the timeline. And they made Anna marry him anyway. In IBLP, women/girls don't really have a say in that either unless they have a readily available means of fleeing the family and starting a new life. So these are NOT good people, and they don't want a tainted woman.with a scandal plagued marriage back in their midst. They are also a huge family, pretty poor, and live in a tiny place. They can't take 8 people in even if they wanted to do so.

The people best equipped to help her are her sister and brother who have escaped the cult, and Jill and Derrick. But she has to have the courage. I have my doubts. CPS needs to be involved because I think just maybe the scare of losing her children might be enough to get her to take that step especially if they can offer any services that might make it seem possible.

[BronzeTurtle]

5 hours ago, bolt. said:

Many parents choose corporal punishment and harsh words. I wish they would all stop that, for sure! But Anna's compliance just doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark, really as Josh's deviance.

 

I think that if you are talking about simple harsh words and corporal punishment as is commonly understood we are coming from different perspectives on what is happening in this cult all together. 

the fact that people here think she may not be doing that to her kids and if she is it is just simple compliance to her values that she can't escape is really confusing to me. 

and comparing it to josh's deviance is neither here nor there. if the kids are being abused by him that's bad. if they are being abused by her in a different way it doesn't matter if it's not as bad. but for some reason it seems not allowed to suggest that anna might actually believe what she was taught in IBLP and practice in her own family because she thinks it's the right way to raise her children. but at the same time, what she learned in IBLP was so abusive and compelling there's no way she could resist it because she was trained to be weak and comply. complying in order to punish a toddler for toddler things is still very wrong no matter what the other guy is doing.
 

3 hours ago, ktgrok said:

 

You are thinking of Michelle Duggar, not Anna. There was a decade ago or so something about her using blanket training, but we have no idea if Anna uses it or not. 

I am not thinking of Michelle. She wrote a parenting book that had blanket training in it. I am supposed to believe that Anna is so whole hog brainwashed into the cult and the duggar family that she can't do anything to betray her husband and his values despite everything she knows happened up to this point (even if she doesn't believe in the CSA accusations) and still think that maybe she isn't inflicting the IBLP standards of discipline on her own kids? That doesn't make any sense.

32 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Anna is in a situation where she doesn't have to consent in order to have more kids. In their world, wives are not allowed to say no to intimacy, ever. 

And there are plenty of adult siblings, spouses, etc at the main house to supervise kids. Jessa/Ben and Jana at minimum. 

This is what I'm talking about. Wives can't say no, and up to this point anna's been totally loyal to Josh through no fault or thinking of her own, but we have no idea if she's blanket training her kids and using abusive 'discipline' as described and proscribed by senior duggars? I don't get it.

[Resilient]

I haven't been in any of these cults, not even close.  I've been in 6 degrees of separation, if you get what I mean...and even so...there are scars and regrets. It is hard to describe how great it is to think that if you do THIS, then THAT will happen.  If you do THIS, you will have a loving and faithful husband.  If you do THAT, your children will all be perfect.  You'll have the Norman Rockwell Thanksgiving and alll the grandchildren and and and.

Even being NEAR it can have way too much influence.

Alas.

Alas.

 

[ktgrok]

8 hours ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I think that if you are talking about simple harsh words and corporal punishment as is commonly understood we are coming from different perspectives on what is happening in this cult all together. 

the fact that people here think she may not be doing that to her kids and if she is it is just simple compliance to her values that she can't escape is really confusing to me. 

and comparing it to josh's deviance is neither here nor there. if the kids are being abused by him that's bad. if they are being abused by her in a different way it doesn't matter if it's not as bad. but for some reason it seems not allowed to suggest that anna might actually believe what she was taught in IBLP and practice in her own family because she thinks it's the right way to raise her children. but at the same time, what she learned in IBLP was so abusive and compelling there's no way she could resist it because she was trained to be weak and comply. complying in order to punish a toddler for toddler things is still very wrong no matter what the other guy is doing.
 

I am not thinking of Michelle. She wrote a parenting book that had blanket training in it. I am supposed to believe that Anna is so whole hog brainwashed into the cult and the duggar family that she can't do anything to betray her husband and his values despite everything she knows happened up to this point (even if she doesn't believe in the CSA accusations) and still think that maybe she isn't inflicting the IBLP standards of discipline on her own kids? That doesn't make any sense.

This is what I'm talking about. Wives can't say no, and up to this point anna's been totally loyal to Josh through no fault or thinking of her own, but we have no idea if she's blanket training her kids and using abusive 'discipline' as described and proscribed by senior duggars? I don't get it.

 I think that if we want to have a thread about how every person in this cult should lose their children, we can do that. I just don't think saying Anna should lose her kids because her husband was viewing CSA material makes any sense, which is what it seemed was being said. Also, if she is doing these things she is doing them because she thinks her children will suffer eternal pain in hell if she doesn't. I think anyone who thinks Jesus wants you to hit babies is delusional, but that is the motivation - to protect the children long term/for eternity. Josh watching CSA has no such motivation. I can sympathize with a person I think is wrong much more easily if I know their motivation to be good, even if the actions are very misguided. That applies to her, not to him. 

[Pam in CT]

re "not allowed to suggest" / "supposed to believe"

9 hours ago, BronzeTurtle said:

...the fact that people here think she may not be doing that to her kids and if she is it is just simple compliance to her values that she can't escape is really confusing to me. 

and comparing it to josh's deviance is neither here nor there. if the kids are being abused by him that's bad. if they are being abused by her in a different way it doesn't matter if it's not as bad. but for some reason it seems not allowed to suggest that anna might actually believe what she was taught in IBLP and practice in her own family because she thinks it's the right way to raise her children. ....

?

I don't understand this language.

You ARE suggesting exactly this.  Repeatedly.

 

and

9 hours ago, BronzeTurtle said:

...I am not thinking of Michelle. She wrote a parenting book that had blanket training in it. I am supposed to believe that Anna is so whole hog brainwashed into the cult and the duggar family that she can't do anything to betray her husband and his values despite everything she knows happened up to this point (even if she doesn't believe in the CSA accusations) and still think that maybe she isn't inflicting the IBLP standards of discipline on her own kids? That doesn't make any sense....

?

you clearly do NOT believe this construct. And have said so, repeatedly.

Which is FINE. 

That is what discussion and parsing and sifting and sorting, and swapping the differing perspectives of different people, look like.

 

What you are encountering is differing perspectives than your own.

Differing perspectives does not mean there's some sort of mandatory "not allowed to" or a "supposed to" or dogpile or whatever.

It just means: different people have differing views.

Which is FINE.

 

 

 

[BronzeTurtle]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

 I think that if we want to have a thread about how every person in this cult should lose their children, we can do that. I just don't think saying Anna should lose her kids because her husband was viewing CSA material makes any sense, which is what it seemed was being said. Also, if she is doing these things she is doing them because she thinks her children will suffer eternal pain in hell if she doesn't. I think anyone who thinks Jesus wants you to hit babies is delusional, but that is the motivation - to protect the children long term/for eternity. Josh watching CSA has no such motivation. I can sympathize with a person I think is wrong much more easily if I know their motivation to be good, even if the actions are very misguided. That applies to her, not to him. 

wait, what? people in IBLP have good intentions to keep their kids out of hell so it's easier to sympathize with them? they subjugate girls and women under male headship and teach demented sexual ethics and brainwash their children from an early age with harsh "discipline" techniques so that they don't go to hell. i mean, the whole cult, by this logic is based in good intentions and they are all, none of them, wanting their kids or themselves to face eternal pain in hell. from JB on down, they all have good intentions.

by this logic we could suppose that josh had 'good intentions' in trying to shield his wife and kids from his problems by hiding them and lying about them, and that he was trying to avoid harming people in real life by taking his deviance to an online outlet.

there is literally nothing that can't be rationalized with good intentions. you can, in actuality, think it's best that your son be sent to pray away camp with good intentions. or you can think it's best that he not get real treatment for his problems because real treatment will damn him to hell. you can think it's best he stay in the family home after he molested his sisters, or with his wife and kids after fooling around with escorts so that he has a 'healthy' family unit. all of that is good intentions. there was no one there in any of the situations with josh saying, well, this is the worst thing for him and his family so that's what we should do!

i never said anna should lose her kids because her husband was viewing csa. my contentions are that a woman who decides to stay with a man who views csa should not have children in the home, absolutely not and that there should be no sympathy for that position, at least not the kind of sympathy that leads to letting her continue to care for young children. that a woman, any woman, who uses harsh discipline with toddlers shouldn't get a lot of sympathy. even if she stays with 'good intentions', even if she's been taught her whole life that she shouldn't divorce him, even if she's been taught her whole life that she can't make her way without him. And i think it is condescending and infantalizing to suggest she cannot make these choices with a sound mind because she's a woman in the cult and doesn't know what she's doing or can't say no or whatever. my contention is that she should be treated the same as any adult when it comes to these things. if she can't be expected to know what to do because she so brainwashed that she doesn't know what to do when it is revealed her husband watched babies being abused, then a)she actually needs some kind of guardian figure to make choices for her, which ironically is what her cult tells her!, and b)she shouldn't be caring for young children.

[Faith-manor]

To be honest, I have seen a lot of horror perpetuated " for the eternal salvation of souls" by non-mainstream Christianity. Many groups, not just the Gothard one advocated beating the Jesus into kids among other terrible things. Think about alk of the harshness as well as corporal punishment prescribed by James Dobson for every little infraction a kid made because the will had to be broken or they would not submit to god. This really isn't unique and I know of a local Wesleyan churches that used to give out copies of the Pearls' book to each new parent.

There are a crap ton of unfit parents out there. A ton. My niece, who never lays a hand to her kids, is one. Her delusions are dangerous, and one of these days she is going to snap. But CPS is not going to take those kids until something utterly mind bogglingly awful happens. She has a parental right to traumatize the hell out of the kids or this at least appears to be the legal case even though not great but not dangerous fathers have sued for custody of their kids. 

[BronzeTurtle]

2 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re "not allowed to suggest" / "supposed to believe"

?

I don't understand this language.

You ARE suggesting exactly this.  Repeatedly.

 

and

?

you clearly do NOT believe this construct. And have said so, repeatedly.

Which is FINE. 

That is what discussion and parsing and sifting and sorting, and swapping the differing perspectives of different people, look like.

 

What you are encountering is differing perspectives than your own.

Differing perspectives does not mean there's some sort of mandatory "not allowed to" or a "supposed to" or dogpile or whatever.

It just means: different people have differing views.

Which is FINE.

 

 

 

I don't know if it's the spacing, or the bolding, or the italics or what, but I can picture a someone talking to me in the way this is written and it gave me a good laugh. I'm okay, i know it's fine to express my views on a message board, haha. or it is FINE. 😄 believe it or not, i started commenting and responding because i like that different people have different views. well, actually I came here for homeschooling latin advice and then if you happen to try to find board activity, these types of chat threads show up far more often in the latest posts than anything related to homeschooling.

the "not allowed to suggest" is a figure of speech, that's all. i didn't mean i literally couldn't suggest it because obviously...here i am typing it out in multiple responses to people that have responded to me. i will try to be less hyperbolic next time so as not to confuse.

[MEmama]

13 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

wait, what? people in IBLP have good intentions to keep their kids out of hell so it's easier to sympathize with them? they subjugate girls and women under male headship and teach demented sexual ethics and brainwash their children from an early age with harsh "discipline" techniques so that they don't go to hell. i mean, the whole cult, by this logic is based in good intentions and they are all, none of them, wanting their kids or themselves to face eternal pain in hell. from JB on down, they all have good intentions.

by this logic we could suppose that josh had 'good intentions' in trying to shield his wife and kids from his problems by hiding them and lying about them, and that he was trying to avoid harming people in real life by taking his deviance to an online outlet.

there is literally nothing that can't be rationalized with good intentions. you can, in actuality, think it's best that your son be sent to pray away camp with good intentions. or you can think it's best that he not get real treatment for his problems because real treatment will damn him to hell. you can think it's best he stay in the family home after he molested his sisters, or with his wife and kids after fooling around with escorts so that he has a 'healthy' family unit. all of that is good intentions. there was no one there in any of the situations with josh saying, well, this is the worst thing for him and his family so that's what we should do!

i never said anna should lose her kids because her husband was viewing csa. my contentions are that a woman who decides to stay with a man who views csa should not have children in the home, absolutely not and that there should be no sympathy for that position, at least not the kind of sympathy that leads to letting her continue to care for young children. that a woman, any woman, who uses harsh discipline with toddlers shouldn't get a lot of sympathy. even if she stays with 'good intentions', even if she's been taught her whole life that she shouldn't divorce him, even if she's been taught her whole life that she can't make her way without him. And i think it is condescending and infantalizing to suggest she cannot make these choices with a sound mind because she's a woman in the cult and doesn't know what she's doing or can't say no or whatever. my contention is that she should be treated the same as any adult when it comes to these things. if she can't be expected to know what to do because she so brainwashed that she doesn't know what to do when it is revealed her husband watched babies being abused, then a)she actually needs some kind of guardian figure to make choices for her, which ironically is what her cult tells her!, and b)she shouldn't be caring for young children.

Because I also have no experience with cults and therefore have no true understanding how manipulative they are, I am listening to those who do. There are women on this board who—horror of horrors— have firsthand knowledge what the situation looks like from the inside, and have bravely and graciously shared their knowledge so the rest of us can learn. 
 

You can “think” or “feel” all you want and of course you are entitled to your opinion, but when women who have lived through and escaped deeply abusive and cultish realities are telling us it is not so simple, that it is not “regular” abuse, we ought to take their words to heart. Otherwise the discussion becomes yet another each chamber, where lived realities are being shared but some are deciding in advance not to truly listen. 

[Pam in CT]

10 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I don't know if it's the spacing, or the bolding, or the italics or what, but I can picture a someone talking to me in the way this is written and it gave me a good laugh. I'm okay, i know it's fine to express my views on a message board, haha. or it is FINE. 😄 believe it or not, i started commenting and responding because i like that different people have different views. well, actually I came here for homeschooling latin advice and then if you happen to try to find board activity, these types of chat threads show up far more often in the latest posts than anything related to homeschooling.

the "not allowed to suggest" is a figure of speech, that's all. i didn't mean i literally couldn't suggest it because obviously...here i am typing it out in multiple responses to people that have responded to me. i will try to be less hyperbolic next time so as not to confuse.

Gotcha, thanks.

[MercyA]

Can I just say, people who are into this type of stuff can change?

I was spanked once in a while growing up, but my parents were super loving and not what I would call strict. But at some point, after we all left home, my parents were introduced to the Pearls via their magazine and were hooked. They even gave my siblings and me Pearl books for Christmas. Unfortunately I bought into some of it and Gary Ezzo's writing as well and I regret that more than I can say. Probably one of my top two regrets in life. 

I actually do think there is some good teaching among the dross and that makes the books more dangerous. That said, I would never, ever give someone one of their books--I try to obtain them just to dispose of them at library sales, etc.

We all eventually started to become disillusioned with the Pearls for various reasons, but the final straw for my parents was when a young couple we know spanked a foster child bloody when she was under a year old. They were in the process of adopting. I think they said something about wanting to train the rebellion / sin out of her. (As if a toddler can sin.) Someone turned them in, thank God. The couple both did time in jail and will never be allowed to foster again, and mom is infertile. We suspect very much that they were influenced by the Pearls. 

My mom was going to have a book burning after that but decided to recycle the books instead.

I do still believe in male leadership in the home because I believe that is what the Bible teaches. If my husband is loving me as Christ loves the church, as he is clearly instructed to do (and as he does), then it is a privilege to follow his lead and part of my spiritual practice. It probably helps tremendously that we rarely disagree about anything.

The Bible also clearly teaches, however, that when there is a conflict between obeying man and obeying God, we are to obey God. And that's what Anna needs to do now--protect her children and keep them away from danger. We know what the Bible says about those who offend little ones.

Edited December 7, 2021 by MercyA

[BronzeTurtle]

10 minutes ago, MEmama said:

Because I also have no experience with cults and therefore have no true understanding how manipulative they are, I am listening to those who do. There are women on this board who—horror of horrors— have firsthand knowledge what the situation looks like from the inside, and have bravely and graciously shared their knowledge so the rest of us can learn. 
 

You can “think” or “feel” all you want and of course you are entitled to your opinion, but when women who have lived through and escaped deeply abusive and cultish realities are telling us it is not so simple, that it is not “regular” abuse, we ought to take their words to heart. Otherwise the discussion becomes yet another each chamber, where lived realities are being shared but some are deciding in advance not to truly listen. 

i have to say that it is an odd thing to me, and you are the second person now who has done it, to be reassured that i can think and feel what i want as long as i realize other people have different lived experiences. wouldn't that go without saying on a message board? also i'm confused about what it means to take things 'to heart'. does taking something 'to heart' mean i have to take their opinions above my own thoughts and feelings and lived experiences? what happens if two people came out of the same lived experience with different views? surely that is a thing that happens? wouldn't an echo chamber be if we put someone's lived experience above everything else and only 'truly listened' to that and discounted everyone else?

maybe i've just been reading about cultish things too long yesterday and today but it reads like 'yes you can think however you want and feel whatever you want but if it doesn't align with X then you don't really know what you're saying,' which is pretty much the iblp playbook where X is scripture or gothard manuals, but in this case X is someone on an internet message board with a different experience than myself. it seems strange but i probably need a break from the thread.

oh and this post assumes a lot about my own lived experiences. which i guess is fair since i'm unwilling mostly to share them on a board that isn't at all private. did you all know that you don't have to be logged in to read here and posts show up in general search results on google? it is very un-private even by a lot of message board standards. that require log ins to read and such.  i was a mod of a board many ages ago and mods and administrators could see edit history and deleted posts too so even if you deleted something it wasn't ever really gone from the board, just sort of hidden. maybe things have changed since then. i don't suspect the mods of anything nefarious just to say the internet is forever and with the lack of privacy controls here i guess that puts me at a real disadvantage in any discussion where personal experience trumps anything else as far as what people should 'truly listen' to or 'take to heart'.

[BronzeTurtle]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

To be honest, I have seen a lot of horror perpetuated " for the eternal salvation of souls" by non-mainstream Christianity. Many groups, not just the Gothard one advocated beating the Jesus into kids among other terrible things. Think about alk of the harshness as well as corporal punishment prescribed by James Dobson for every little infraction a kid made because the will had to be broken or they would not submit to god. This really isn't unique and I know of a local Wesleyan churches that used to give out copies of the Pearls' book to each new parent.

There are a crap ton of unfit parents out there. A ton. My niece, who never lays a hand to her kids, is one. Her delusions are dangerous, and one of these days she is going to snap. But CPS is not going to take those kids until something utterly mind bogglingly awful happens. She has a parental right to traumatize the hell out of the kids or this at least appears to be the legal case even though not great but not dangerous fathers have sued for custody of their kids. 

I also think it isn't relegated to religion either. there was a movement a long time ago that was called 'taking kids seriously' or something like that, definitely secular from what i recall, and i'm sure it was well intentioned and probably not all bad but the way i saw it play out was basically no boundaries for kids and no coercion whatsoever to do anything. it was very dangerous for the kids themselves with parents who were true believers (if you could call them that) because there was no sense a kid ever had to do anything they didn't want to do and anything they wanted to do was, as the name implies, taken seriously. it was the opposite end of whatever duggars and pearls and ezzos do.

like mercy said people tend to change when they see bad results from ideas that are played out to their full logical ends. anything from spaking a toddler for 'sin' taken all the way to the end of that, or never restricting a  toddler or child from any behavior at all in any way.

[Roadrunner]

Realistically she isn’t going to leave. With seven kids, her priority will be a roof over her head and food on the table. I can’t imagine her saying no to free housing, food, and babysitting his family provides. I think the best case scenario will be for her to be smart enough to figure out a way to get some sort of a certificate (dental assisting or something like that) over the next 5 years, so once all her kids are in school, she can have some  sort of a skill set to support herself and possibly escape. With kids all in school and older kids able to watch the younger ones after school, her reality will change somewhat in time, but she needs to get ready for that. But for now, I just don’t see a way out for her. 
 

edited to correct the number of kids

Edited December 7, 2021 by Roadrunner

[freesia]

5 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Realistically she isn’t going to leave. With eight kids, her priority will be a roof over her head and food on the table. I can’t imagine her saying no to free housing, food, and babysitting his family provides. I think the best case scenario will be for her to be smart enough to figure out a way to get some sort of a certificate (dental assisting or something like that) over the next 5 years, so once all her kids are in school, she can have some sort of a skill set to support herself and possibly escape. With kids all in school and older kids able to watch the younger ones after school, her reality will change somewhat in time, but she needs to get ready for that. But for now, I just don’t see a way out for her. 

If he ends up in prison, I don't see why she would try to "escape."  Her kids would be safe from him and provided for without her having to put them in school and juggle working with raising 8 kids.

[Roadrunner]

2 minutes ago, freesia said:

If he ends up in prison, I don't see why she would try to "escape."  Her kids would be safe from him and provided for without her having to put them in school and juggle working with raising 8 kids.

It can’t be fun being under the thumb of of “wonderful” in-laws. Maybe you are right, but I hope she will want to have a life of her own at some point. 

[Spryte]

I only know what I’ve read here, sporadically, about the Duggars (had never heard of them till coming here), but I do have a long-term friend who left a different cult. She was single, no kids, when she did it. It was grueling, and frightening. She needed years of intense therapy, and she had to move cross country secretively several times, keeping her details as private as possible—there would be random threats left on her voicemail, and frightening letters in the mail out of the blue, for years. I cannot imagine how she’d have done it with no degree, with kids—worse yet, kids who are the grandchildren and nieces and nephews of current cult members who might reopen contact at any time.

As much as I’d like to see Anna leave with her kids, I think she may lack the skills and support to do so. 
 

 

[freesia]

15 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

It can’t be fun being under the thumb of of “wonderful” in-laws. Maybe you are right, but I hope she will want to have a life of her own at some point. 

I agree.  I would hope that,too.  I just can't see her (or most women in her situation) making that choice.  I don't think I necessarily would have even with "just 4."  My plan if dh died was to move in with his mom so I could have another adult around.

[freesia]

1 minute ago, Spryte said:

I only know what I’ve read here, sporadically, about the Duggars (had never heard of them till coming here), but I do have a long-term friend who left a different cult. She was single, no kids, when she did it. It was grueling, and frightening. She needed years of intense therapy, and she had to move cross country secretively several times, keeping her details as private as possible—there would be random threats left on her voicemail, and frightening letters in the mail out of the blue, for years. I cannot imagine how she’d have done it with no degree, with kids—worse yet, kids who are the grandchildren and nieces and nephews of current cult members who might reopen contact at any time.

As much as I’d like to see Anna leave with her kids, I think she may lack the skills and support to do so. 
 

 

I can only see it happening if she goes to live with someone.  If he doesn't get convicted, I hope and hope she has the courage to do so (although he'd have access to the kids without her there). If he does get convicted I don't see it happening unless a family member lets her move in and is willing to support them as she's gaining skills and even after to provide other adults around.

[bluemongoose]

Even if she physically leaves the cult, the thinking of the cult and the trauma of the cult will go with her. It will be something she has to unwrap, detangle, and heal. That takes YEARS. Maybe even a lifetime. Every time you think you have unwrapped it and healed, you stumble on another painful thing. IME the healing needed after leaving a cult takes every bit as long and is as damaging to recover from as abuse and being parented by narcissistic parents is. To do this while also parenting 7 kids (who themselves might have been abused and certainly have to deal with their own issues from being raised in the cult), having 0 educational benefits, and being completely sheltered and snowed your whole life. It is going to be very hard. I hope she can do it, but she will have to be very very strong.

Edited December 7, 2021 by bluemongoose
clarity

[freesia]

8 kids is A LOT especially with a newborn and homeschooling.  I know I just said this in another way, but I'm sitting here thinking more about it.  I have a close friend with 9 and she was totally underwater for years when her kids were that age and she had a spouse who was working.  He wasn't the most helpful, but he was around and she could leave the house to do errands.  Really, she's not going to leave the Duggars.  I can't see it happening.

[Faith-manor]

To be accurate, Anna has seven children. Speculation is that since she is now six weeks post partum, she may end up pregnant with number 8 soon. That is of course just conjecture.

[bluemongoose]

 

7 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

To be accurate, Anna has seven children. Speculation is that since she is now six weeks post partum, she may end up pregnant with number 8 soon. That is of course just conjecture.

Fixed it in my post. Thanks for correcting me.

[HS Mom in NC]

My church in AZ was a small start up, and ended up serving a couple of women leaving patriarchal craziness. They were offered assistance in securing legal help leaving, and we helped with plans to assist  in practical ways like being on call 24/7house the women, finding a pro bono volunteer that her husband didn't know to secure and care for horses, the moment they decided to leave.  One did. Her husband didn't attend church with us. Her children were adults to rejected her because of it. So it really is unusually high stakes for some.

That woman wasn't from an IBLP background, but the other woman and her husband were and he attended too with their, then, 6 children. It really is a toxic psychological state people are immersed in.  At one point the one from IBLP responded to Bible discussion about how we think through issues biblically with a very frustrated, "People say think it through, but what does that even mean?  How does thinking work?" It was an eye opener. She never did leave him.  When the pastor started confronting the husband about his distorted views of marriage and parenting (in private, not publicly, a little at a time) the husband finally got fed up, took his family, their 6 kids, (she just had her 7th child who was a surprise later in life baby) and left the church. It's really tricky for church leadership to deal with it, and they have to tread lightly because nothing is forcing them to stay and take the correction. If he isn't beating them, there's nothing law enforcement can do. It's maddening. And that wife seems so  similar in temperament to Anna Duggar: a pleaser, passive, not analytical by nature, etc. I think those women are even more vulnerable than the harder personality types.

It would take years of intensive, specialized therapy to make progress.

[Rosie_0801]

I watched my daughter become a passive people pleaser.
She wasn't born that way.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Resilient said:

I haven't been in any of these cults, not even close.  I've been in 6 degrees of separation, if you get what I mean...and even so...there are scars and regrets. It is hard to describe how great it is to think that if you do THIS, then THAT will happen.  If you do THIS, you will have a loving and faithful husband.  If you do THAT, your children will all be perfect.  You'll have the Norman Rockwell Thanksgiving and alll the grandchildren and and and.

Even being NEAR it can have way too much influence.

Alas.

Alas.

 

I copy. I think my mother very much thought that way, and I was fairly susceptible to it in my early parenting too. 
My parents, though poor, sent us to a “Christian” school (an ACE school with Gotthard influence.) They had us in church every time the doors were open, they were both in important positions in the church. They didn’t nurture friendships with other families if the parents smoked, drank or were divorced. I didn’t see my own grandparents or aunts and uncles from one side of the family; they smoked and were Catholic, which was the wrong belief system. 
My mom even said once, within the past fifteen years, that she “failed” at the only thing she wanted - to raise kids who would “embrace the Church.” Literally, she didn’t even say, you know, follow Jesus, or would be humanitarians or even that we would be the nebulous “good people.” Her major fail, in her eyes, is that none of her kids are very invested in the Church and one or two are atheists. 
 

Kids aren’t recipes. Darn it. 

[Catwoman]

1 hour ago, Rosie_0801 said:

I watched my daughter become a passive people pleaser.
She wasn't born that way.

I'm sorry, Rosie. That must have been very hard to watch. 😞 

[Rosie_0801]

8 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I'm sorry, Rosie. That must have been very hard to watch. 😞 

I'm watching her unlearn it.
It is hard and takes a long time to teach someone to be who they can't remember being.

[Catwoman]

40 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

I'm watching her unlearn it.
It is hard and takes a long time to teach someone to be who they can't remember being.

I'm sure it is hard! I'm glad she has your support. I'm sure it means a lot to her.

[Harriet Vane]

2 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

I watched my daughter become a passive people pleaser.
She wasn't born that way.

I’m so sorry, Rosie.

Similar here—we watched a child that we love dearly bloom, and then withdraw into total fearful passivity due to a custody change. It IS heartbreaking.

May your sweet daughter rise like the phoenix.