I wrote this post for the original Overeducated Housewife blog in November 2017. I am reposting it as/is, so pretend it’s five years ago.
We got snow this morning and it’s been flurrying all day, so we decided to stay in and watch TV. I recently read Elizabeth Smart’s comments about the Lifetime movie that was made about her experiences in captivity after she was kidnapped from her bed on June 5, 2002. I still remember Bill telling me about the kidnapping. We were engaged at the time, living in Fredericksburg, Virginia. His daughters are a few years younger than Smart, and they are also Mormon. They were in Arizona. I remember Bill was concerned.
Well, we all know what happened to Elizabeth. She was eventually found and reunited with her family. She went to college, went on a mission, and got married to a returned missionary from Scotland. They have two beautiful children and Elizabeth’s work is about helping victims. While I would never wish what happened to her on anyone, I think it’s laudable that she’s been able to turn her ordeal into something good.
As for the movie… I have to admit, it made me a bit emotional. I read Elizabeth’s book a few years ago, so I knew she was raped repeatedly, starved, forced to eat garbage and drink alcohol, and kept shackled to a tree out in the wilderness. The movie featured Smart narrating while an actress portrayed her.
I saw the first TV movie about Smart’s case; it aired in 2003, just nine months after she was rescued. I remember it was on TV the same night a movie about Jessica Lynch aired. I was interested in both movies, so I flipped back and forth. The first Smart movie was more from her parents’ perspective; it was based on the book Bringing Elizabeth Home.
In I Am Elizabeth Smart, there seemed to be much less emphasis on Smart’s family and the LDS church. In fact, I noticed when the actors portraying Barzee, Mitchell, and Smart didn’t even pray the way Mormons do, with their arms crossed. The church wasn’t even really mentioned, which is kind of a pity, since I think Mormon teachings are, in part, to blame for Smart’s trauma. The film is instead kept sort of blandly religious. Smart speaks of her faith in God and in how she saw God in everyday miracles, like when it would rain. Smart explains that she was always thirsty, because they never had enough water. It was very hard to get water. When they did get it, Mitchell would make her work for it. Basically, that meant submitting to his repeated sexual assaults.
Smart says in the film that when Mitchell raped her, she felt shattered into a million pieces. In speeches she’s given, she’s mentioned that she learned object lessons in the church about the importance of being “pure”. She learned that having sex before marriage made her akin to a chewed up piece of gum, worthy of being thrown away. Although she did mention feeling “shattered” in the film, she did not provide the context that made rape even more horrific for her.
The actors in the film were very good, although the part of the movie that I found most compelling was when Elizabeth spoke. It seemed almost like she wanted to set things straight with the public. She addressed the many cynical comments she must have read or heard from people over the years, including the claim that she had Stockholm Syndrome. Toward the end of the film, she has a glint in her eye and a victorious edge to her voice when she tells viewers that Mitchell had raped her for the last time. I also noticed that Elizabeth looked really pretty. I have seen her wear very heavy makeup, but whomever did her makeup for the film did a really good job. She looked natural and beautiful, not garish.
By the time the movie ended, I was feeling pretty verklempt. She was so incredibly lucky to survive and not endure years with those people. And, honest to God, while I’m not generally someone who enjoys violence, I do hope Mitchell gets the shit beaten out of him regularly for what he did to Elizabeth… and frankly, Wanda Barzee, who is also horrible, but was his victim for over fifteen years.
I think I Am Elizabeth Smart is pretty decent, especially for a Lifetime film. It is ultimately a triumphant film. I’m not sorry I watched it. I’m sure they deliberately downplayed Smart’s LDS beliefs for many reasons. Maybe it was to make it appeal to a larger audience or give more time to the story of Smart’s captivity. But personally, I think the church helped traumatize Smart when it taught her that sex outside of marriage makes someone worthless. As horrifying as rape is, it’s got to be much worse when the cornerstone of one’s spiritual beliefs teaches that a woman who has sex before marriage is akin to a licked cupcake or chewed up piece of gum.
Last night, as I was preparing to go to sleep, I took a look at the Recovery from Mormonism messageboard to see if anyone had posted anything interesting. Sure, enough, someone posted a link to an article about a Republican from Michigan who hopes to be the next governor.
The man in question, Garrett Soldano, is facing some heat because of a comment he made regarding sexual assault survivors who get pregnant. Mr. Soldano, obviously rabidly pro-life, said to April Moss on her conservative Face the Facts podcast:
“And so what we must start to focus on is not only to defend the DNA when it’s created, but, however, how about we start inspiring women in the culture to let them understand and know how heroic they are? And how unbelievable that they are?”
“That God put them in this moment and they don’t know that little baby inside them may be the next president, maybe the next person who changes humanity, may get us out of the situation in the future,” Soldano added, per a video of the conversation that Heartland Signal tweeted Monday. “We must always, always protect that DNA and allow it to have a voice.”
Sigh… I wonder if it’s ever crossed Garrett Soldano’s mind that telling people that their developing fetus might grow up to be a President of the United States might not be a comfort? Especially since some presidents turn out to be corrupt, cruel, and power mad, and they openly try to overthrow the government… Also, while a pregnant person may very well be gestating someone great, the opposite could also be true. What if, for instance, Charles Manson had been aborted? Or perhaps Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot… or Vladimir Putin?
Of course, even if those infamous men had been aborted, it’s likely that other people just as horrible might have been born in their places. The truth is, every person is unique, and you just never know what you’re going to get when you make a baby. But one thing is for certain. A fetus conceived in rape can, and probably will, traumatize its mother. I might be able to agree that it’s not the fetus’s fault it was conceived in an act of violence, and there is the potential that the fetus may wind up being a blessing to all. However, I still maintain that Soldano, as a cisgender male, will never have to worry about the burden of gestating a baby, so he probably ought to be much quieter about this particular issue.
Apparently, Soldano the 100 percent “pro-lifer”, decided to open his mouth about how pregnant rape victims should not get abortions because his mentor, who was adopted, found out that his birth mother had been gang raped in a subway station. According to NBC News:
It kind of like tore out his heart when he found that out, but then he started to really appreciate and understand what his birth mother went through, that she had the courage to deliver him,” Soldano said, adding that his mentor went on to help thousands of people improve their lives.
Given Soldano’s brand of “help”, I wonder if everyone agrees that his mentor had helped people improve their lives. And also, I wonder if the reason his mentor’s birth mother was so “courageous”, was because she couldn’t access abortion services. Abortion wasn’t legal everywhere when I was born in 1972. It wasn’t until the following year that Roe v Wade was decided by the Supreme Court. I’m not even in menopause yet, so I assume it’s likely that Soldano’s mentor’s birth mom might not have had the option to terminate. Not surprisingly, a lot of people are truly “sickened” by Soldano’s comments, which come across as very Handmaid’s Tale.
State Senator Erika Geiss rightly responded:
“We should be inspiring women who’ve been raped to press charges & we should have a system that takes them seriously,” Geiss tweeted. “We should have a world where men don’t think they’re entitled to women’s bodies. We should have a world where ppl respect #ReproRights.”
Word. Guys like Garrett Soldano are surprisingly, and apparently hopelessly, out of sync with the other half of the population who can get pregnant and don’t want to be forced to birth for any reason, but ESPECIALLY after a sexual assault. I don’t think Mr. Soldano has even considered just how truly horrifying and devastating sexual assault is. He’s never even thought about it, has he? I’ll bet he’s one of those guys who think that women should just lay back and relax when they are attacked by men, since sex is supposed to be “fun”. I’m just shaking my damn head at this… I’ll never understand the psyche of some men. It’s just revolting. He probably also thinks that rape doesn’t often result in pregnancy, since, as the late Representative Todd Akin once said during his 2012 Senate campaign that “legitimate rape” rarely results in pregnancy. Akin said “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
I’m so sick of clueless men running for office and getting elected. I would be grateful that I don’t live in Michigan, but alas, I am a Texas resident, and the stupidity of male conservative politicians regarding abortion is even worse down there…
Just for shits and giggles, I turned on Ms. Moss’s video. April Moss is a former meteorologist who left her job at CBS 62 Detroit last year because she disagreed with pandemic mitigation measures. Right off the bat, she thanks Mike Lindell, the famous drug addict turned My Pillow Guy. Lindell is a hero to Trump supporters, of course, and he was all about keeping Trump in power, even though Trump tried to overthrow the government. But then Moss brings on Garrett Soldano, her super conservative guest, who says that the liberals are ruining the country and he wants to fix that.
Soldano says that Gretchen Whitmer “must be stopped”, and that “critical race theory” is “absolute hot garbage”. He wants to “take our schools back”… and it sounds a lot like Mr. Soldano is all about freedom, as long as it’s freedom for white, conservative, religious (Christian) people like him. I should mention that his family homeschools, so obviously his children aren’t being “poisoned” by their teachers’ influences. (eye roll) It sounds to me like he’d prefer children to be taught by robots.
So then I visited Garrett Soldano’s official Web site, where users are invited to text “Freedom” to 33339 to join. Next, I see he’s modeling himself after Donald Trump, with a “drain the swamp” promise. I think Mr. Soldano would do well to realize that Trump was defeated and impeached twice. Some people still think Trump is awesome, but a lot of people think he’s a dangerous psychopath. Maybe it would be better for up and comers to present themselves as a bit less like Trump. But also… it’s disingenuous for a politician to use the word “freedom” as he proposes that pregnant people should be forced to birth.
In April Moss’s podcast, Soldano mentions that he doesn’t care if people get vaccinated against COVID-19, and he wants to get rid of the mask and vaccine mandates. So he’s yet another one of those conservative “freedom loving” guys who cares a hell of a lot about freedom, but only as it applies to people like him. And he conveniently ignores that the COVID-19 mandates aren’t just an issue in the United States. The pandemic is a worldwide thing that has nothing to do with conservatives or liberals in the United States. Unfortunately, I don’t think the average Trump lover thinks about issues beyond his or her own backyard.
Garrett Soldano who waxes poetic about his impoverished upbringing as the son of a school bus driver and an Army dad, is a chiropractor. He’s also written a book called God’s True Law, which is a guide to raising successful children. I wonder what qualifies him to write such a book. It doesn’t sound like he’s a very experienced or evolved person, and he’s just parroting the same shit we’ve heard from all of the other Trump clones. But at least he hasn’t yet bragged about grabbing anyone by the pussy…
Well… I suppose I’ve complained enough about this. Time to get on with the day. It’s Thursday, which means I have to vacuum. But my copy of Maus arrived yesterday, so maybe I’ll start reading that. Hope everyone has a good day. Tomorrow, my sweetass will be home again. I just hope Garrett Soldano doesn’t get elected, but given that the Michigan race for the governor’s seat is so crowded, he’s probably going to be left in the proverbial dust. But then, I thought the same thing about Donald Trump, back in 2015…
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 freshpost 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.
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.”
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…
Once again, I’m struggling to decide what to write about today. I have a few topics in mind, but I wonder if want to go there so close to Christmas. Maybe I’ll wait until the first week of 2022. I’ll probably be extra cranky, since that’s when I plan to get my Moderna booster. I suppose it could end up being a Pfizer booster, too.
Anyway, I was happy to see that Brady Brandwood, who rescued Leon the Lobster from the grocery store, has posted a brand new video. I just discovered Leon on Sunday, so it was nice to get this update while he was still fresh in my mind (see yesterday’s post).
Brady still doesn’t know if Leon is a girl lobster or a boy lobster. Brady is planning to get a new aquarium soon, so when it comes time for Leon to move to a new tank, Brady will find out what team Leon plays for. He does say that he will keep the name Leon, regardless. But if it turns out Leon is female, he says maybe he’ll call Leon “Celene Leon”, instead. I watch this, and now I want to rescue a lobster, too, but I don’t have easy access to lobsters, nor do I have the equipment or know how. So I guess I will just be content with watching Leon’s progress.
I’m astonished by how much I enjoy YouTube, especially some of the more creative original content. Who would have thought videos about a grocery store lobster would be this interesting? And, as I pointed out yesterday, I even went to the point of learning a little more about the bizarre mating rituals of lobsters! Who says you can’t learn new things as you get older? Brady does say that he can’t take Leon back to the wild, since he doesn’t live near the right habitat for lobsters. Maybe he’ll get him a friend soon.
Last night, as Bill and I were about to tuck in to our salmon filets, I noticed a photo in the Duggar Family News group. Someone had shared a potentially scandalous picture of a family at a Christmas tree farm. The dad and toddler aged son were smiling, and dad was holding up a chalkboard that read “Peace on Earth”. Mom and two little daughters were “gagged” with bright green tape and “tied up” with Christmas lights.
Naturally, there were a whole lot of comments about this photo. I will admit that I was shocked when I first saw the photo. I figured it was probably a joke, though, and didn’t take it too seriously. Other group members were a lot more outraged than I was, claiming that the photo was sick and abusive.
I decided to go Googling, and sure enough, I found out more about the source of the photo, which went viral in 2015. It seems this family had posed for photographer, Hannah Hawkes, who was based in Rosephine, Louisiana, and used the image for their 2015 Christmas card. The image promptly went viral, with many people seemingly very upset because they claim the picture promotes domestic violence, misogyny, and overall devaluation of females.
Personally, I would not go that far… I mean, yes, it’s a shocking image and, on some levels, I would call it potentially very offensive and problematic. But I can’t conclude that “the Johnsons” are necessarily a family in trouble, simply due to the controversial photo that floated around in 2015 and has now resurfaced in the Duggar Family News Group. I would need more information to come to that definitive conclusion. What I will state is that I think the picture is tone deaf, and it wasn’t a smart idea to put it on social media. Even if it was meant jokingly, supposedly as a dig at the stereotype of women nagging too much, when it comes to these kinds of images, particularly when children are involved, people are going to get upset.
There were also some responses to the photo back in 2015. For example, I found this blog post written by a woman named Deborah Cruz. Her opinion was titled “Why the Peace on Earth Holiday Photo Doesn’t Infuriate Me”– clever enough, I guess, since the photo did infuriate a lot of people. People, no doubt, eagerly clicked on that post just to read about, and indignantly comment on, what a misogynistic jerk Deborah Cruz really is (for not being infuriated)… only to find out that Cruz was on the negative side of the issue. She wasn’t “infuriated” about the photo; she was “saddened”, because she couldn’t imagine how anyone would think taking that photo was okay.
Again… I don’t think I would necessarily jump to negative conclusions about this family based only on the photo. It could have simply been posted due to ignorance or a serious lapse in judgment. But, the fact is, this joking image is reality for a lot of women in the world. There are many out there who are literally or figuratively bound and gagged, and they have no voice, because of their personal circumstances, bad luck, or even voluntary choices.
On the other hand, there are also women out there who actually enjoy this sort of thing– seriously— and are enthusiastic participants. But then, that particular “kinky” lifestyle choice does not seem to be what the photo is about. It seems to be about the joys of silencing women and girls, and that’s not cool, or politically correct, even in jest. I am not a big fan of PC culture, but I understand that it’s kind of the way of the world nowadays. If you don’t want to be PC, you can expect that a bunch of people will pile on you, especially on social media. Unfortunately, a lot of people have a tendency to react first and think later.
Regardless, I do not think it was a good idea to involve children in staging that photo. I’m not really a fan of kids being in a lot of photos online, anyway, but to show little girls being depicted as bound and gagged, even as a “joke”, is just a terrible idea on many levels. Especially when their little brother is not bound and gagged, and is shown seemingly cheering on his mother’s and sisters’ “predicament”.
It seems clear that the family was trying to make a lame joke and it really flopped, big time. I’m not sure I would make the automatic leap to domestic violence that some people made in 2015, and are now making since the photo resurfaced, at least not without more information. One person commented that it looked like this family kept having kids until they got a boy. I don’t know how that person jumped to that conclusion, not knowing anything about this couple. It’s entirely likely they always planned for three kids. Or maybe he was an “oops”, like I was. There’s really no telling, and I can’t make the leap based on one tacky holiday photo.
I have a friend who had two sons from her first marriage, then got remarried and wanted to have just one more baby with her second husband. Surprise! She got pregnant with twin girls, then in the six months after they were born, she got pregnant again with a son. She had her tubes tied when he was born, because she certainly never planned for five kids, and definitely didn’t want any more babies. But, based on that one commenter’s observation of that photo, my friend might have been trying for a boy. Even if it that were true, what’s wrong with it? Sometimes, I think people really go too far with the armchair analyses, although I suppose I am as guilty as anyone is when it comes to that.
A lot of people reacted to the photo with extreme negativity, and claimed that it “promoted abuse”. Even from a money making standpoint, it was a pretty bad idea. I don’t know if Hannah Hawkes is still in business, but it does look like her Facebook page is deleted. Based on her comment, it sounds like she got a whole lot of heat and the wrong kind of attention for taking that picture.
It may have gotten to the point at which Hawkes was canceled, or she may have decided to cancel herself. If that’s what happened, I think it’s a shame. I’m not a big fan of “canceling” people, since canceling people can have devastating effects on people’s lives that might not fit their “crimes”. I also dislike mob mentality, since I don’t think it should be up to private individuals to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Hawkes is probably a perfectly nice person who had a lapse in judgment. Hopefully she learned from it, and didn’t let this setback derail her career.
But yes, just for the record, I don’t think the photo was in good taste at all, and regardless of the family’s intentions, I agree with whose who deemed it a very bad, or at least unwise, concept. However, as shocked as I was when I first saw that photo last night, I can see on Pinterest, that it wasn’t even an original idea. Other families have posted similar photos of wives and daughters bound and gagged during the Christmas season, along with a sign reading “Peace on Earth” or “Silent Night”. And in one photo, the child is the one who has bound her parents in Christmas lights, but everybody’s smiling.
I guess this situation just goes to show that one bad idea preserved online can last forever…
AND FINALLY, ONE LAST TOPIC…
Sorry I didn’t mention this in the post title, but yesterday, I watched this outrageous video by Mama Doctor Jones, aka Dr. Danielle Jones, OB-GYN… She’s being taken to task in Alaska for her so-called “racy” content that “promotes abortion”. I’m not going to opine more about this video in this post, since I think this topic deserves its own post and plenty of rantings from yours truly. However, I did want to share the video with the interested, to give you all a chance to see it before I go off about it. I’ll probably write about it later today or maybe tomorrow, because people are just plain stupid. Especially conservative white men who have an anti-woman/pro-life/pro-gun agenda to push as they claim how much they “love freedom”.
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.