Shiny Happy People Docuseries

[sk!mom]

I don't think spanking is the same as being hit with a rod, but I know many are very against spanking. I am not one of those people. I think spanking, when used very sparingly and for only extreme circumstances, can be a useful tool in child rearing. Not with a belt, not with a paddle, but with a hand and done with not a heavy hand.

There is a literal mountain of evidence that speaks to just how detrimental corporal punishment is.
At this point (actually long before this point), it’s not “many people” it’s many many long term studies on the negative impact.

 

[DisneylandFreak2013]

There is a literal mountain of evidence that speaks to just how detrimental corporal punishment is.
At this point (actually long before this point), it’s not “many people” it’s many many long term studies on the negative impact.

The negative effects of physical punishment are regarding prolonged and excessive use of the punishment, not in conditional spanking or authoritative parenting (Chigbo, 2004; Baumrind, 2010; Guarendi, 2012; Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005).

The American College of Pediatrics stated, "There is no established causal link between a parent's use of ordinary nonabusive spanking and the occurrence of physical child abuse, or the development of childhood aggression. There is evidence of short-term effectiveness and positive long-term outcomes when parents use disciplinary spanking for persistent defiance within a nurturing environment" (2021).

As stated in the post you quoted, I am not opposed to spanking when done very sparingly and only in extreme circumstances.

 

[sk!mom]

https://publications.aap.org/pediat...ffective-Discipline-to-Raise-Healthy-Children

“Aversive disciplinary strategies, including all forms of corporal punishment and yelling at or shaming children, are minimally effective in the short-term and not effective in the long-term. With new evidence, researchers link corporal punishment to an increased risk of negative behavioral, cognitive, psychosocial, and emotional outcomes for children.”

 

[Forevermarypoppins]

After watching I've gone down a rabbit hole. The Holts oldest daughter ending up marrying a man that molested his little brother and she defends him. Her mother now has a 10 year protective order against her husband. Their son also filed a protective order against his father for his daughter.

This family is just as jacked up as the Duggar’s.

I just read this today. Unbelievable and yet not surprising at all.

 

[kymom99]

For a lot of converts (which Michelle is) the appeal is in being taken care of. (There is a strong youth ministry so these converts are often older teen girls.) The pitch of the "umbrella of authority" is that along with being the authority within the household, comes full responsibilty for being the provider and "protector"as well. Some women are really attracted to the idea of that trade-off; they are in love and believe that "of course he would never hurt me", while getting the perceived prize of being a SAHM who can devote herself to raising choldren and never having to work outside the home. We know that's a load of claptrap in the long run, but that's the scenario they sell.

PS: My comment re: the Holts wasn't meant to hold them up as great examples. I was just commenting that at least that one time they did manage to do the right thing in spite of themselves.

Agreed, and the documentary showed that Michelle was *gasp* a cheerleader and was made to believe this was sinful. So Jim Bob was her savior. You get ahold of a girl young enough and you can sell them a bill of goods.

I don’t believe the duggers or those like them homeschool for educational reasons. They do it to control their children.

 

[DLgal]

100%, well said.

So many fail to see the circumstances leading up to it and are just have such exhilaration to see a family they heartily disagree with (politically/religiously/philosophically) in trouble with the law and getting dragged down. I don't agree with the Duggars and never watched because I thought the whole thing was stupid (same as the Jon and Kate plus 8). But I think it's too easy to demonize people we disagree with. Everyone wants to feel morally superior. I hope that everyone saying there is no gray and only white/black reflect on what might be a gray area in their own life.

Sorry, but no. There is no gray area with sexual assault, ESPECIALLY when the victims are your other children! Are you being serious here? No. If my son did that to my other child, I'd turn him in so fast his head would spin. He'd be dead to me. He would be never welcomed back into my house again. He would not be part of our family anymore. I would not be happy about it. It would be absolutely terrible, but I would mourn him as though he died. I am 100% serious about this. Sexually assaulting a child is unforgivable to me. It is the most heinous act imaginable and there is no situation where I would protect my child if he victimized a child (or anyone, frankly) in that manner.

 

[QueenIsabella]

Sorry, but no. There is no gray area with sexual assault, ESPECIALLY when the victims are your other children! Are you being serious here? No. If my son did that to my other child, I'd turn him in so fast his head would spin. He'd be dead to me. He would be never welcomed back into my house again. He would not be part of our family anymore. I would not be happy about it. It would be absolutely terrible, but I would mourn him as though he died. I am 100% serious about this. Sexually assaulting a child is unforgivable to me. It is the most heinous act imaginable and there is no situation where I would protect my child if he victimized a child (or anyone, frankly) in that manner.

I think it's important to remember that this was not a case of similarly-aged children being curious. This was a predator with several victims--one was 10 years younger than he was.

Similarly, the type of porn that he chose to download was NOT a case of "Gee, Officer, I didn't know she was 14, she looked 18!" He deliberately downloaded material that contained images of infants and toddlers being tortured. Dr. Freud would have a field day with that, but the point is--Josh has a seriously messed-up psyche. I don't know if he was ever redeemable. "Hope and prayer" have their place, to be sure, but they're no substitute for therapy and medical intervention. And the Duggar girls were never made to feel safe, protected, valued, or heard.

 

[mjkacmom]

Sorry, but no. There is no gray area with sexual assault, ESPECIALLY when the victims are your other children! Are you being serious here? No. If my son did that to my other child, I'd turn him in so fast his head would spin. He'd be dead to me. He would be never welcomed back into my house again. He would not be part of our family anymore. I would not be happy about it. It would be absolutely terrible, but I would mourn him as though he died. I am 100% serious about this. Sexually assaulting a child is unforgivable to me. It is the most heinous act imaginable and there is no situation where I would protect my child if he victimized a child (or anyone, frankly) in that manner.

My child would not be dead to me, but I don’t think he’d be welcome in my home, and would definitely be getting therapy (which sadly I doubt would help). It would be the same for other horrible mental illnesses that aren’t really able to be cured. Pedophile, serial killer, rapist - I don’t think that’s a choice, but society needs protection from them.

 

[CdnCarrie]

As Jeffrey Dahmer's father once said (paraphrasing) - I can hate what he did but still love him. He's still my son.

I have no idea how I would react if my child did something so horrific but I would still love him and try to help him. But not shield him from justice.

 

[kymom99]

My neighbor across the street tragically lost their son to suicide. He had been sexually abused by a relative for 7 years before the truth came out. He developed a severe eating disorder and was treated in a number of different programs for trauma. In the end he just couldn’t live with it. The relative was never tried because the young man would not testify. However, the family knew what happened and it’s the parents hope that their son broke the cycle of abuse by speaking out.

The family no longer has contact or a relationship with the abuser.

 

[brockash]

Sorry, but no. There is no gray area with sexual assault, ESPECIALLY when the victims are your other children! Are you being serious here? No. If my son did that to my other child, I'd turn him in so fast his head would spin. He'd be dead to me. He would be never welcomed back into my house again. He would not be part of our family anymore. I would not be happy about it. It would be absolutely terrible, but I would mourn him as though he died. I am 100% serious about this. Sexually assaulting a child is unforgivable to me. It is the most heinous act imaginable and there is no situation where I would protect my child if he victimized a child (or anyone, frankly) in that manner.

Well I'll just say you are NOT the norm...if in fact that's how you would react/behave. As I said it's really difficult to truly put yourself in those shoes if you haven't been there. I will also remind those reading your post that the son in question was he himself a minor. Certainly not excusing any of it, but it's very difficult for most loving parents to throw their minor child to the wolves so to speak in a situation such as this. - Most loving parents feel a sense of responsibility are generally drowning in guilt wondering what they did wrong. - Any reasonable/truthful person also understands that it's a slippery slope and the lines can certainly get blurred as to what is a child making a wrong decision out of curiousity and a true child sexual predator and again most people who care about the child abuser naturally want to err on the side of it was them being curious and making a mistake. - Again I'm not advocating that this is how it should be, but I do have the capability to put myself in others shoes most times and in my experience of dealing with kids and families in these situations (which unfortunately is not that uncommon) this is the reality for 99% of them. It is NOT black and white.

 

[brockash]

I think it's important to remember that this was not a case of similarly-aged children being curious. This was a predator with several victims--one was 10 years younger than he was.

Similarly, the type of porn that he chose to download was NOT a case of "Gee, Officer, I didn't know she was 14, she looked 18!" He deliberately downloaded material that contained images of infants and toddlers being tortured. Dr. Freud would have a field day with that, but the point is--Josh has a seriously messed-up psyche. I don't know if he was ever redeemable. "Hope and prayer" have their place, to be sure, but they're no substitute for therapy and medical intervention. And the Duggar girls were never made to feel safe, protected, valued, or heard.

The porn stuff was way after and when he was an adult (also after his brain was fully developed). Those are very different things. I am no Duggar fan, but those acting like they have no idea as to why his parents made the choices they did and why they didn't immediately banish him and throw him out of their house (which would have been illegal without waiting for the proper authorities and processes to happen) regarding the inappropriate sexual contact of their minor children and wanting to scream that they are monsters solely due to that specific situation are out of touch with reality. Surely they did not handle it well, but most people don't. There is way more blame to be put on law enforcement than anyone else for that specific situation.

 

[BlueStarryHat]

What he did to his youngest victim, who was five at the time and sitting on his lap for 'bible study' was horrific, and precludes any notion of 'curiousity.' It was much more than inappropriate. He is a sick person, both in mental terms and moral terms. Even if his parents had gotten him intensive therapy outside of their cult, his prognosis was poor. He should have been removed from the home for good to protect all the little ones still living there. He was not, and the result was a five-year-old who had something done to her that I cannot say here.

 

[QueenIsabella]

The porn stuff was way after and when he was an adult (also after his brain was fully developed). Those are very different things. I am no Duggar fan, but those acting like they have no idea as to why his parents made the choices they did and why they didn't immediately banish him and throw him out of their house (which would have been illegal without waiting for the proper authorities and processes to happen) regarding the inappropriate sexual contact of their minor children and wanting to scream that they are monsters solely due to that specific situation are out of touch with reality. Surely they did not handle it well, but most people don't. There is way more blame to be put on law enforcement than anyone else for that specific situation.

That's true about the porn, for sure. A couple other points on that, though:

--his parents allowed him a great deal of unfettered access to computers from a pretty young age. I don't think they had a clue as to what he was doing. Other families that received "hand-me-down" computers from the Duggars said that they had porn on them (NOT CSAM). So, he was seeking it out from a fairly early age. That alone doesn't make him so different from an average teen. But I find it interesting in light of how sheltered the children are in so many ways--not reading certain books, not watching certain movies, etc. So, Harry Potter is banned, but Josh is alone in his computer room for hours a day?

--I find his choice of porn fascinating, for lack of a better word, given his family's lifestyle. Did growing up with so many younger siblings make him fantasize about infants and toddlers being tortured?

I realize that the "Josh issue" is but one small, icky part of the list of things wrong with the Duggar family.

 

[rigs32]

Sadly, most of these women have bought into this hook, line, and sinker. They WANT to be trad wives. Which, fine, if that makes you happy. But they're not happy with making those choices just for themselves; they want to turn women backwards.

And this is the exact problem. You do you, but you don't get to impose your values on me.

I really wish that people would remember that freedom OF religion should also include freedom FROM religion. Many of the people who rallied against sharia law seem to be A-OK passing laws to control the behavior of others based on the values of Christian fundamentalism. Especially when the people being controlled by said laws weren't hurting anyone.

 

[DLgal]

And this is the exact problem. You do you, but you don't get to impose your values on me.

I really wish that people would remember that freedom OF religion should also include freedom FROM religion. Many of the people who rallied against sharia law seem to be A-OK passing laws to control the behavior of others based on the values of Christian fundamentalism. Especially when the people being controlled by said laws weren't hurting anyone.

Yup.

My husband watched this documentary with me. He kept saying "this is exactly what the Taliban does, but I guess it's okay when it is done by white people in America under a Christian God."

 

[Worfiedoodles]

I am absolutely not defending the Duggars.
I am thoroughly sickened.

But I wanted to share this thought which occurred to me to see what people think —

Because of the emphasis on the purity culture, is it plausible they thought if it came out the girls would not be marriageable and therefore would not have good lives? No excuse at all, but I’m wondering if that was part of their reasoning. Or maybe they just wanted to protect their creepy and dangerous son

I do think it’s interesting that at one point Jana said she thought he left her alone because he thought John David would actually kill him. He knew his parents wouldn’t really do anything that would seem harmful to him no matter what he did. That’s telling, too.

 

[QueenIsabella]

I am absolutely not defending the Duggars.
I am thoroughly sickened.

But I wanted to share this thought which occurred to me to see what people think —

Because of the emphasis on the purity culture, is it plausible they thought if it came out the girls would not be marriageable and therefore would not have good lives? No excuse at all, but I’m wondering if that was part of their reasoning. Or maybe they just wanted to protect their creepy and dangerous son

I do think it’s interesting that at one point Jana said she thought he left her alone because he thought John David would actually kill him. He knew his parents wouldn’t really do anything that would seem harmful to him no matter what he did. That’s telling, too.

This may well have been a factor. Remember the Elizabeth Smart case? One of the reasons she was with her captor for so long was that she didn't try to escape at the first opportunity. She thought that, since she was no longer "pure", her family wouldn't want her back. It's sad that a child can think that they have less value after being raped.

 

[AppleDumpling]

Haven’t seen the documentary, but I used to watch the Duggars’ show from time to time and always felt sorry for those kids. They were harmed on so many levels, especially the girls.

I give Jill a lot of credit for courageously speaking out. So glad she is free of her parents’ control and has a supportive husband. I hope more of the adult children leave the fold, but I’m sure it’s difficult when you’ve been indoctrinated since birth. Jinger has written a book and talked about overcoming the fear and anxiety she felt throughout her childhood.

I worry about Jana, the youngest kids still living home with JimBob and Michelle, and also Josh’s kids and any of the other grandchildren being raised with IBLP teachings. It’s a lifestyle that promotes abuse and neglect.

 

[QueenIsabella]

I do think it’s interesting that at one point Jana said she thought he left her alone because he thought John David would actually kill him. He knew his parents wouldn’t really do anything that would seem harmful to him no matter what he did. That’s telling, too.

I wanted to add--as to this part, it's nice that Jana felt that at least one male in her life had her back. You go, John David! I also think Josh left her alone because it wasn't about curiosity--it was about power and control. Jana was the closest girl to Josh in age--biggest, and most likely to fight back. Plus, she had John David in her corner.