Shiny Happy People Docuseries

[Southernmiss]

I disagree that Amy is looking for attention. She was featured a lot on the early shows as she was close to the girls and had the perspective of being raised 'normally' while interacting enough with the family to see the differences.

Her mom, Deanna, also has insights as an Aunt and sister to Jim Bob and being able to explain his parents and their upbringing and how he got involved in the cult.

 

[sk!mom]

I hope the girls are getting paid for this since they got nothing for the years of shows due to their father's handling if agreements with TLC, even after the kids were adults.

I wonder if they have any grounds for a lawsuit against TLC or Jim Bob? It’s such a crying shame that they were victimized yet again by not being paid.

That is another thing...Amy Duggar seems to be a huge attention seeker. I find it fascinating that only her and Jill Duggar went on to participate in the show. Even Jinger Duggar did not tear down her family in her new book. None of the kids really have, it's all outside people pulling assumptions.

I think a lot of this is clever marketing because people loved to hate the family even before all this came out. If people can cash in, they'll do and say anything.

Are you part of IBLP? Do you know the Duggars? You seem very invested in defending what seems so indefensible to me.

 

[DisneylandFreak2013]

I wonder if they have any grounds for a lawsuit against TLC or Jim Bob? It’s such a crying shame that they were victimized yet again by not being paid.

Are you part of IBLP? Do you know the Duggars? You seem very invested in defending what seems so indefensible to me.

No on both, but I'm curious on why you assume that anyone that has a different view is part of a conspiracy? You seem very invested on a very narrow view of a case that has a lot of depth.

BTW - it's a well known in the Fundie Snark community that Amy Duggar is an attention seeker. Like I said, I have followed this since the beginning.

 

[SirDuff]

The irony of calling Amy Duggar an attention seeker while supporting parents who literally sold access to their children’s childhoods is rather amusing.

 

[sk!mom]

No on both, but I'm curious on why you assume that anyone that has a different view is part of a conspiracy? You seem very invested on a very narrow view of a case that has a lot of depth.

BTW - it's a well known in the Fundie Snark community that Amy Duggar is an attention seeker. Like I said, I have followed this since the beginning.

“narrow view… lots of depth”

I fail to see the depth. Josh Duggar is a pediphile who abused his siblings and others. Where’s the depth?

Amy Duggar is attention seeking but the Duggar parents aren’t?

 

[BlueStarryHat]

BTW - it's a well known in the Fundie Snark community that Amy Duggar is an attention seeker. Like I said, I have followed this since the beginning.

I read that subreddit sometimes. They call her "Famy." She may be a little over-the-top, but it's mainly people who have that perception of her who are doing all the 'snarking' about her. I thought she came across just fine in the documentary. *shrug* Didn't get why she's so hated in that particular community.

And JimBob and Michelle not only threw their kids into the spotlight in the guise of 'this is a ministry,' he had them sign their financial lives away to keep them dependent upon him. Part of why Josh Duggar got to keep his awful secret was so that the family could be on TV as role models. He had already SA'd his sisters when their first special aired.

 

[DisneylandFreak2013]

The irony of calling Amy Duggar an attention seeker while supporting parents who literally sold access to their children’s childhoods is rather amusing.

I am so glad I could provide entertainment. Though - if your only argument is to put words in the mouth of the person you're disagreeing with, well...it's not a great argument.

“narrow view… lots of depth”

I fail to see the depth. Josh Duggar is a pediphile who abused his siblings and others. Where’s the depth?

Amy Duggar is attention seeking but the Duggar parents aren’t?

I'm glad everything in life is black and white to you, no gray area for anything. It takes some life experience to know that not everything in life is surface level. Where did I say the Duggar parents weren't attention seeking? Where did I say that Josh Duggar wasn't an abuser and a pedophile? Again, putting words in the mouth of others makes for a weak argument.

And it is pedophile, not pediphile... It seems like this particular conversation is going in circles, best of luck to you.

 

[DisneylandFreak2013]

I read that subreddit sometimes. They call her "Famy." She may be a little over-the-top, but it's mainly people who have that perception of her who are doing all the 'snarking' about her. I thought she came across just fine in the documentary. *shrug* Didn't get why she's so hated in that particular community.

And JimBob and Michelle not only threw their kids into the spotlight in the guise of 'this is a ministry,' he had them sign their financial lives away to keep them dependent upon him. Part of why Josh Duggar got to keep his awful secret was so that the family could be on TV as role models. He had already SA'd his sisters when their first special aired.

It seemed like she talked and talked but had nothing really to contribute. They should have just had Jill on to tell her story, there was really nothing but fluff from Amy and her husband. I think she even had more airtime than Jill did.

Absolutely - though I am curious on how this was allowed by TLC because of the child labor laws. I think TLC also bears some of the blame in that they should have put that money into a trust for each kid. Why rely on JB to do the right thing and put some of the money away for the kids? And then Jill was reliant upon food banks to feed her family? That's ridiculous after all the money they should have been getting.

And yes - you are correct, he had already sexually assaulted his sisters long before their TV debut. The officer who let is slide is also to blame. He was clued into the awful secret but nothing significant was done because they assumed the church program was going to set him on the straight and narrow. Obviously that didn't happen.

 

[NotUrsula]

FTR, the police report about Josh in 2015 was obtained by In Touch Magazine under a FOIA request. Josh was 18 when it was filed, so it was there for the asking. The sister''s names were redacted, but it mentioned that some victims were family members, so it was an easy to guess answer. JB & Michelle kept saying it was released illegally, but it wasn't; ironically, if they had actually reported it when it first happened rather than when he was caught again, it *would* have been sealed.

But, of course, that's JB; never closes the gate until the horse is already out of the barn & 5 miles down the road.

The nastiest new tidbit to come out of the documentary, IMO, was JB *admitting* to Jim Holt that he didn't plan to reveal Josh's proclivities until *after* he was safely married to the Holts' daughter. (At least the Holts loved their daughter enough to pull her out of that situation the minute that Josh's little secret got out of the bag.)

PS: the officer to whom JB forced Josh to confess while still a minor did nothing not because he believed the Church would handle it, but brcause he was also a member of the same tribe as Josh; that officer is also now serving time in prison after having been caught in possession of the same sort of material.

 

[sk!mom]

I am so glad I could provide entertainment. Though - if your only argument is to put words in the mouth of the person you're disagreeing with, well...it's not a great argument.


I'm glad everything in life is black and white to you, no gray area for anything. It takes some life experience to know that not everything in life is surface level. Where did I say the Duggar parents weren't attention seeking? Where did I say that Josh Duggar wasn't an abuser and a pedophile? Again, putting words in the mouth of others makes for a weak argument.

And it is pedophile, not pediphile... It seems like this particular conversation is going in circles, best of luck to you.

I’m so glad that you have so much life experience and can school the rest of us. For me, no gray area when it comes to abuse. I’m still dumbfounded that you continue to seem to defend JB, Michelle, and Josh.

Thanks for the spellcheck. Very mature and black and white.

 

[QueenIsabella]

We'll agree to disagree. Blanket training does not always involve hitting.

You're wrong--blanket training definitely involves hitting children. It sounds benign--teaching a child to sit quietly and play with a toy--but it's not. The child is watched, and then hit if/when it moves off the blanket. After a few times, the child learns to not leave the blanket. Similarly, when they ask a child if he/she needs "encouragement", what they mean is, the next step will be a beating.

Michelle actually admitted this on camera--I don't think it was in one of the shows, it was for a conference. But, I've seen her actually say this.

Because of the rampant parentification that goes on in the family, it's strongly believed that Jana is the one who did a lot of the blanket training and encouragement. The younger kids were very fearful of her.

 

[Southernmiss]

Didn't Jana get into trouble for how she treated children in her care?

 

[DisneyHardin]

Didn't Jana get into trouble for how she treated children in her care?

I believe what happened with Jana a year or so ago was that she was watching some of the younger kids and she fell asleep on the couch. One of the kids (I assume one of Anna/Josh's little ones) wandered off and was found down the road.

 

[monsterkitty]

It seemed like she talked and talked but had nothing really to contribute. They should have just had Jill on to tell her story, there was really nothing but fluff from Amy and her husband. I think she even had more airtime than Jill did.

Absolutely - though I am curious on how this was allowed by TLC because of the child labor laws. I think TLC also bears some of the blame in that they should have put that money into a trust for each kid. Why rely on JB to do the right thing and put some of the money away for the kids? And then Jill was reliant upon food banks to feed her family? That's ridiculous after all the money they should have been getting.

And yes - you are correct, he had already sexually assaulted his sisters long before their TV debut. The officer who let is slide is also to blame. He was clued into the awful secret but nothing significant was done because they assumed the church program was going to set him on the straight and narrow. Obviously that didn't happen.

Child labor laws at the time did not pertain to children in Reality TV shows. At that time, the parents were considered the focus of the show and the children were basically just there as a sidekick or character. The children had to be there because the parents were being filmed, it just so happened that the children became part of the scene.

When Dance Moms first started, it was the moms who were given the contracts and the show was supposed to focus on their drama. The moms were paid and the girls were not. Same with the children of John and Kate plus 8 - the parents were the focus and the children were the bonus characters.

Some states are now requiring reality TV shows to obtain the work permits for minors and to follow the child labor laws. Not all states are there yet.

 

[DisneylandFreak2013]

Child labor laws at the time did not pertain to children in Reality TV shows. At that time, the parents were considered the focus of the show and the children were basically just there as a sidekick or character. The children had to be there because the parents were being filmed, it just so happened that the children became part of the scene.

When Dance Moms first started, it was the moms who were given the contracts and the show was supposed to focus on their drama. The moms were paid and the girls were not. Same with the children of John and Kate plus 8 - the parents were the focus and the children were the bonus characters.

Some states are now requiring reality TV shows to obtain the work permits for minors and to follow the child labor laws. Not all states are there yet.

That's messed up. Thanks for the explanation, I had no idea how it all worked.

 

[tzolkin]

… but from my recollection none of the children ever said they were hit or physically disciplined. And Michelle Duggar never mentioned hitting the kids during blanket training. I feel like there are assumptions being made because of what the IBLP director did and assuming that the family followed it strictly. Unless I'm missing something?

No one is making anssump or jumping to conclusions without evidence. I really don’t understand why you find it so hard to believe that the Duggars spanked their children.

It’s literally in the 2015 written police report interview of one of the Duggar girls regarding Josh’s molestation. Pg 29, “Inv. Taylor asked [redacted] about getting spanked. [redacted] said that when [redacted] is bad that [redacted] mother and dad spank [redacted]. Inv. Taylor asked what they use to spank. [redacted] said they have a rod. Inv. Taylor asked if they do this to all the kids and [redacted] said yes. Inv. Taylor asked if they leave any bruising [redacted] said no.”

Since adulthood, I know at least Jessa, Jill, and Jinger have all stated publicly that their parents hit them as children. Some of these statements were negative, but some of them were actually defending their parents for spanking so I certainly don’t think they were making it up for attention.

In 2021, a family friend gave a detailed description about the “rod of encouragement” that both Michelle and Jim Bob used— plastic rod, approximately 2 feet long and the diameter of a glue stick, gray, with a little knob on the end to hold on to. Others have stated that the Duggars laid the rod on the dashboard when they went on trips.

All of these statements were completely unrelated (and years prior) to the documentary that just came out, but they all use the same phrases of needing “encouragement” and “loving correction” that Michelle uses as euphemisms for corporal punishment.

 

[nancipants]

It’s disturbing how many people have watched this documentary and their first reaction is to be mad that this documentary is making all Christians look bad. rather than be horrified about the realities of IBLP.

 

[tzolkin]

These shows present as if all religious people or homeschoolers are one way and that is just as false as assuming they are all good. It makes me crazy that people stereotype all as belonging to these abusive sectors when it is rarely true. Especially, since COVID, there are many families that have adopted a homeschooling program and have found it very beneficial for their children. Just as in any religion, there are good people and bad. Please refrain from lumping everyone together.

Would you mind elaborating on what about the documentary gave you this impression? I'm curious because I actually had the opposite impression when watching.

I felt that the show made a greater distinction between IBLP and "regular" Christianity than they perhaps should have. I thought they downplayed how prevalent similar teachings are within mainstream Christianity and made it seem like these things only happen within more extreme "cults" like IBLP.

Some of the Duggar children have left IBLP, but they are all still vocal, active Christians, so I'm not sure how they could be seen to be stereotyping ALL Christians as abusive but still follow the religion. Jill even stated, "IBLP teachings aren't Christianity. They're something entirely different" (I don't personally agree with that statement, so it stood out to me.)

Also, I grew up in a homeschooling family and my middle child was homeschooled for a few years. I did not find anything offensive or any generalizations/stereotypes about homeschoolers in the documentary at all.

It’s disturbing how many people have watched this documentary and their first reaction is to be mad that this documentary is making all Christians look bad. rather than be horrified about the realities of IBLP.

It's human nature to be defensive when you perceive something as challenging your beliefs or lifestyle. I think some people are seeing little elements of themselves in the Duggars or the IBLP followers so they are feeling personally attacked and need to express "hey, we are not all bad". For example, perhaps they are Christians who believe the husband is the head of the household or that spanking is encouraged in the Bible. So, any mention of those same beliefs within a cult makes them want to impulsively emphasize how different their own version is from this other abusive, cult-like group rather than do any critical examination or self-reflection.

 

[NotUrsula]

I suppose that it might be possible to blanket-train a baby without using physical pain, but the alternatives I could think of are not too great, either. Blanket training is exactly the same principle as teaching a dog to "stay", and is meant to be even more simplistic, because usually dogs are at the adolescent stage when they get that concept, so their brains are more mature in relative terms. You might be able to do it with rewards rather than aversion, but what would that be? Candy? An actual hug? With dogs, a training reward has to be something that is never made available under any other circumstance, and it has to be something REALLY compelling, which is a really tough choice when it comes to human infants, because there is almost nothing that they want that badly that they won't drop it instantly in favor of the next new thing, at least for a while. To be honest, the only thing I can think of that might consistently work as that kind of positive reinforcement for a child that young is maternal touch, but you would have to withhold it at other times in order to make it effective in this context. We know that all of the Duggar children were weaned at 9 mos, so obviously she held them often until then. I think that striking the child is really the most likely effective scenario.

Note: I reread the book passage in which Michelle described her blanket training method, and the mention of a toy is a bit confusing in context of the usual method that the Pearls taught. What she meant about the toy was that she allows the child to have one quiet toy while on the blanket, and the toy is not taken away or used as an off-blanket object of desire. The toy is the consolation object, if you will, the one thing they are allowed to control while there (though she does say that if the toy is thrown off the blanket it will not be retrieved that session.) However, the child can only play with the toy quietly and in a seated position. They are also not allowed to stand or crawl within the border of the blanket -- that also earns "correction" (which is described as mother's voice, but different than usual and unpleasant.) "Encouragement" is used only when or if the child fails to respond to verbal "correction".

PS: Let me be clear, I think blanket training is an abomination. This post was an exploration of whether it was even plausible that it could be accomplished without corporal punishment, and the conclusion that I came to is that it wouldn't be possible without inflicting even more damaging mental harm through parental withholding of affection. I certainly never meant to suggest that as a workable alternative. FWIW, I managed a public library in a community that had a lot of religious homeschoolers back when the Pearl book was a hot seller. I literally had hundreds of requests for it, so I obtained a review copy and evaluated it for our collection. Honestly, I've never been so sickened in my life as I was after reading that thing. However, in my profession I am not allowed to refuse materials just because I personally find them distasteful; I have to use an objective measurement when deciding against a purchase. That one I refused on the grounds that the content advocated commission of crimes.

 

[DLgal]

I suppose that it might be possible to blanket-train a baby without using physical pain, but the alternatives I could think of are not too great, either. Blanket training is exactly the same principle as teaching a dog to "stay", and is meant to be even more simplistic, because usually dogs are at the adolescent stage when they get that concept, so their brains are more mature in relative terms. You might be able to do it with rewards rather than aversion, but what would that be? Candy? An actual hug? With dogs, a training reward has to be something that is never made available under any other circumstance, and it has to be something REALLY compelling, which is a really tough choice when it comes to human infants, because there is almost nothing that they want that badly that they won't drop it instantly in favor of the next new thing, at least for a while. To be honest, the only thing I can think of that might consistently work as that kind of positive reinforcement for a child that young is maternal touch, but you would have to withhold it at other times in order to make it effective in this context. We know that all of the Duggar children were weaned at 9 mos, so obviously she held them often until then. I think that striking the child is really the most likely effective scenario.

Note: I reread the book passage in which Michelle described her blanket training method, and the mention of a toy is a bit confusing in context of the usual method that the Pearls taught. What she meant about the toy was that she allows the child to have one quiet toy while on the blanket, and the toy is not taken away or used as an off-blanket object of desire. The toy is the consolation object, if you will, the one thing they are allowed to control while there (though she does say that if the toy is thrown off the blanket it will not be retrieved that session.) However, the child can only play with the toy quietly and in a seated position. They are also not allowed to stand or crawl within the border of the blanket -- that also earns "correction" (which is described as mother's voice, but different than usual and unpleasant.) "Encouragement" is used only when or if the child fails to respond to verbal "correction".

Blanket training a baby is cruel. Straight up cruel. It's their way to teach compliance at such an early age that it's ingrained into their psyche, so that they never even think to question what they are being told to do in the future. It sets them up to be brainwashed and abused and to think it's all normal. And using physical pain to accomplish this is no better than torture.

Jail is too good a place for people who do this to babies and young children. It's abuse.