complaints, condescending twatbags, LDS, rants, slut shamers

Repost: Speaking of shameless shaming– Breastfeeding is not an act of public indecency!

Here’s a repost from July 27. 2018, inspired by the swath of people who seem to think that breastfeeding a baby is an act of public indecency and my recent post about the Duggars and “defrauding”. As you can see, the fundies aren’t the only ones who have screwy beliefs about modesty. I am posting it mostly as/is, as I consider what today’s fresh post will be. The featured image is in the public domain.

I would be remiss if I didn’t post about this news story I read last night about a Mormon woman who was shamed by her bishop and stake president for breastfeeding (link was removed because it no longer works).  According to KUTV, an unidentified LDS mom of four from northern Utah lost her temple recommend because she decided to breastfeed uncovered while she was in the foyer of her church.  Temple recommends are basically cards that identify worthy members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  One must have a valid temple recommend in order to visit the church’s temples, where “sacred” and secret religious ordinances, including many weddings, take place.  Temple recommends are very important to faithful Mormons.

A few weeks ago, the mother had gone to see her bishop about getting her temple recommend updated and signed.  The bishop told her that church members had complained about her openly breastfeeding her 18 month old baby.  LDS churches have “mothers’ rooms” where breastfeeding moms can go to privately feed their babies.  The bishop said she should either use the mothers’ room or cover up, since her decision to openly breastfeed might cause the men in the church to have “sexual thoughts”.  The bishop refused to sign the temple recommend and she had to get it signed by the first counselor instead.

Later, the mom visited her stake president so he could also sign her temple recommend.  The stake president also brought up the breastfeeding issue and quoted from a church pamphlet about the importance of modesty.  The pamphlet, “For the Strength of Youth”, is well-known to LDS church members and provides guidelines about how church members are to present themselves. 

The mother said that she got very upset during the meeting and had to leave the room several times to calm down.  The woman’s husband, who was also in attendance during the meeting, was told that he needed to “control his wife”.  The husband was also told that if he supported his wife’s decision to publicly breastfeed without a cover, he would also lose his temple recommend.

Some people may wonder why the woman didn’t simply use the mothers’ room.  Apparently, the room is off of the bathroom and this mother claims it’s too isolating for her.  Also, she says she can’t hear the service in the mothers’ room.  The mom warns that even after her child is weaned, she doesn’t plan to back down on this issue.  She correctly states that breastfeeding is not a sexual act and publicly feeding her child is not wrong.  She wants the church to be more accepting and sensitive toward mothers who choose to breastfeed in public.

As I read this story, I was, at first, very irritated on the mom’s behalf.  Fellas, if you’re turned on by a woman’s breasts, that is your problem.  It’s not up to women to protect you from your sexual thoughts.  You need to exercise more self control and realize that breasts are, first and foremost, intended to feed babies.  I realize that public breastfeeding is a somewhat new phenomenon in that, until recently, many women would feel uncomfortable exposing their breasts in public to feed their babies.  But dammit, breasts are not primarily for titillation.  They have a purpose.  A man’s sexual reactions to seeing a woman’s breasts are secondary to that very important purpose.  When it comes to embarrassment about breastfeeding, it’s the men who need to get over themselves, not the women.

Then, after reading about how this mom was treated by church leaders, I was irritated by her reaction.  I understand that the LDS church is the type of organization where membership is very important, particularly within family circles.  It’s not like it is in my family, where people attend different churches.  Most of my family members are protestants, but they aren’t all Presbyterians.  I have an aunt who is Episcopalian and a sister who is an atheist.  My mom played organ in Baptist and Methodist churches for most of my life.  Yes, many of my family members go to church, but there is no pressure to attend a specific church or practice a particular religion.  This is not necessarily true for Mormons.  To them, family participation is essential and in devout families, there is intense pressure to be Mormon and participate fully in the church.  Leaving the church can lead to a host of unpleasant consequences.

And yet… here is this nice couple doing absolutely nothing wrong, sitting there listening to church officials berate them for doing something totally natural and necessary for their baby’s health, and threatening them with eternal damnation for not conforming to their stupid rules about modesty.  I realize I’m not Mormon and never have been, but it’s inconceivable to me that these people tolerated those shameful remarks from church leaders.  They should have told both the bishop and the stake president to go fuck themselves (sorry, I’m in a mood this morning), gotten up, and walked out, vowing that their children would not grow up to be tithe payers.  I may be very cynical or even naive, but I think that’s ultimately a response that would get church leaders to listen.  Seriously, fuck those guys.  They are just regular men put into positions of leadership in a manmade religious organization.  They only have as much power as their members are willing to give them.  As long as church members allow them to talk to them in that way, the abuse will continue.

I do think it’s abusive to subject breastfeeding mothers to shame, scorn, or ridicule for daring to feed their babies in public.  If you think the church is right about this, the next time you have a meal, put a blanket over your head or go sit in the bathroom to eat.  Tell me, is that a pleasant way to dine?  Why should mothers and babies have to tolerate that?

It seems to me that this mom is very faithful to her beliefs.  She is exactly the kind of member the LDS church would not want to lose.  She cares enough about the church to want to hear what is said during meetings, even when she’s nursing her child.  While I personally think Mormonism is bullshit, she clearly doesn’t.  I don’t think she’s the kind of church member they’d want to alienate, since she has clearly had several children who will one day pay tithes… that is, if the church doesn’t one day drive them out with their outdated and anti-woman policies.

Churches are definitely losing members lately.  Nowadays, many people are abandoning religion or attending churches that offer more in the way of personal enrichment or entertainment.  I have never attended a Mormon church service, but Bill has.  He tells me they are extremely boring, except perhaps on fast and testimony days, when members get up to testify that the church is true.  I have heard that a number of colorful testimonies have been offered on those Sundays, although in order to enjoy them, you have to be fasting…  I’m not sure that’s a good tradeoff.

I’m sure the church is very important to this mother and her husband.  It’s a pity she didn’t just tell her leaders that she’d find a church where breastfeeding mothers are more respected and men are taught that they need to control their lust.  The onus should not be on women to protect men from “falling”.  The men should be taught to self-regulate.

And… for the last time, breastfeeding babies isn’t sexual.  If you think it is, you’re the one with a problem.

Standard
bad TV, Dress codes, Duggars, slut shamers

More Duggar deception– “Nike!” No “defrauding” allowed!!!

Yesterday, I was watching more old episodes of the Duggar family’s reality show, when I came across an episode from about 14 years ago or so. In that episode, little Joy Anna Duggar was at home in Arkansas, watching her parents and sisters (Jessa, Jinger, and baby Jordan) on The View, with several of her brothers. Suddenly, she nonchalantly got up and blocked the television.

A producer asked what Joy Anna, who was probably about ten or eleven years old at the time, was doing. Grandma Duggar was looking after most of the Duggar kids while Ma and Pa, and two of the big girls, who usually had child rearing duties, were away in New York City. Grandma calmly explained that Joy Anna had been trained to prevent her brothers from seeing females who were considered “immodestly dressed.”

This was a weird episode anyway, as James Duggar was running around singing “In the Sweet By and By…”

The producer asks Joy to explain why the boys aren’t allowed to see women who show skin, but she’s clearly at a loss as to why that was wrong. I remember watching this episode back in the day and not thinking too much of it, given that they were fundies. This was long before we knew what a perverted creep Josh is, and what he had already done to his sisters– including little Joy Anna– by that time. But now that everything has come out about the Duggars, I see this particular episode in a different light. In some ways, it’s kind of horrifying. The hypocrisy and deception is astounding.

Below are a few screenshots I took of this episode. The pictures reveal a lot, but the video reveals even more. We’ll see how long the above clip stays available.

As the Duggar girls try to explain the idea of protecting the boys from “de-frauding” to the male producers, the shot then pans to Michelle Duggar, who explains that the boys, as they grow into manhood, need to learn “self-control”. Then she says “Their eyes are the door to their hearts. And if they can’t control their eyes, they’re gonna struggle with ‘other things’.” Indeed… and that truism has become especially clear in the last six weeks or so.

When this episode aired years ago, I thought Michelle’s explanation seemed reasonable enough, although I wasn’t onboard with the whole “slut shaming” attitude the Duggars seemed to have. But now, I watch and listen to this, and I wonder why Joy Anna, who was at such a tender age and clearly had no idea of why she was being tasked with protecting her brothers from “filth” on TV, should have had this duty to shield her brothers from temptation. At this point in her life, Joy Anna had already been victimized by her brother, Josh, from whom her parents did NOT protect her! Why weren’t Ma and Pa Duggar more diligent in protecting their own daughters from their eldest son’s obvious lack of self-control?

I guess by 2009 or so, Michelle Duggar knew that at least one of her sons had a problem with being unable to control himself. So, instead of handling that BIG problem herself, with Jim Bob’s and a qualified mental health professional’s help, the parents relied on their children. Also, it seems to me that if the boys need to learn “self-control”, they shouldn’t have to rely on their sisters hiding scantily clad women from them on TV or out in public. The won’t always have “minders” around, will they? And why should little girls be asked to “mind” their brothers, protecting them from other females? This should NOT have been their job, at all. Especially not when they were as Joy was in the above clip.

If “self-control” is what the Duggar parents really wanted to teach, then they should have taught their sons to control themselves without their sisters help… and without acting as if a woman dressed in a revealing outfit is something they need to be shielded from. Simply teach boys to control themselves and behave appropriately, without all of the theatrical bullshit designed to show everyone what “great” Christians they are for going to these ridiculous lengths to be “pure”.

Of course, by now, we all know that the above shenanigans were 100% ineffective bullshit anyway. At least in the case of Josh Duggar, one of the boys didn’t learn self-control, nor did it matter that one of his victims was well-trained in the art of protecting her brothers from sensual temptations. It’s a real tragedy that the Duggar daughters had to help raise their own brothers, even when it comes to teaching them to keep their eyes and hands to themselves. But, at least some of the brothers seem to have turned out alright.

I read that Jeremiah Duggar is now planning to marry Hannah Wissmann. Their engagement was posted on People.com. I don’t know much about Jeremiah, except that he’s Jed’s twin, and he likes to play chess. Or, at least that was claimed on one of the old episodes. He’s seems quieter and less cocky than Jed is. To me, Jed seems very smarmy, destined to pick up the political mantle where Josh left off when it became obvious that he wasn’t as good as he claimed he was.

I don’t know much about Hannah, except that I think she’s pretty, and I read that she comes from a very large, musical family. I saw the obviously staged engagement photos, in which she appears to be surprised, yet wears a long, pale pink gown that is reminiscent of the pink dresses all the sisters and in-laws wore when the Duggars were expecting a bumper crop of girls in late 2019 and early 2020. She probably raided the Duggar laundry room. In any case, she obviously knew he was going to propose, yet still acted “surprised”. Jer is also wearing what looks like sneakers with his suit. I guess that’s not a big deal, although it surprises me that he’d get dressed up for an obviously staged photo shoot, but wouldn’t bother to wear dress shoes. Go figure kids these days.

Anyway, I wish them luck. Jer doesn’t seem too obnoxious, as Duggar males go. And at least he’s been well protected from “de-frauding”, right? And he knows to dutifully bow his head when he hears someone say “Nike!” At 26 years old, Hannah is also probably not that meek and submissive, although she did grow up “fundie”. So we’ll see what happens. At the very least, it’s a somewhat happy distraction from Josh’s jailing, and Jim Bob’s political failing…

Standard