Two Ashley Madison accounts for reality TV's Josh Duggar?

boing
85

Found this on Facebook, and thought it was worth sharing:

I know everybody is laughing about this Josh Duggar story. Oh, a DUGGAR on Ashley Madison, it’s so rich! I wish more people would talk about Anna. I normally keep things light on Facebook, but let’s talk about Anna. Let me tell you: Anna Duggar is in the worst position she could possibly be in right now. Anna Duggar was crippled by her parents by receiving no education, having no work experience (or life experience, for that matter) and then was shackled to this loser because his family was famous in their religious circle. Anna Duggar was taught that her sole purpose in life, the most meaningful thing she could do, was to be chaste and proper, a devout wife, and a mother. Anna Duggar did that! Anna Duggar followed the rules that were imposed on her from the get-go and this is what she got in reward- a husband who she found out, in the span of 6 months, not only molested his own sisters, but was unfaithful to her in the most humiliating way possible. While she was fulfilling her “duty” of providing him with four children and raising them. She lived up to the standard that men set for her of being chaste and Godly and in return, the man who demanded this of her sought women who were the opposite. “Be this,” they told her. She was. It wasn’t enough.

What is Anna Duggar supposed to do? She can’t divorce because the religious environment she was brought up would blame her and ostracize her for it. Even if she would risk that, she has no education and no work experience to fall back on, so how does she support her kids? From where could she summon the ability to turn her back on everything she ever held to be sacred and safe? Her beliefs, the very thing she would turn to for comfort in this kind of crisis, are the VERY REASON she is in this predicament in the first place. How can she reconcile this? Her parents have utterly, utterly failed her. Think of this: somewhere, Anna Duggar is sitting in prayer, praying not for the strength to get out and stand on her own, but for the strength to stand by this man she is unfortunately married to. To lower herself so that he may rise up on her back.

As a mother of daughters, this makes me ill. Parents, WE MUST DO BETTER BY OUR DAUGHTERS. Boys, men, are born with power. Girls have to command it for themselves. They aren’t given it. They assume it and take it. But you have to teach them to do it, that they can do it. We HAVE to teach our daughters that they are not beholden to men like this. That they don’t have to marry a man their father deems “acceptable” and then stay married to that man long, long after he proved himself UNACCEPTABLE. Educate them. Empower them. Give them the tools they need to survive, on their own if they must. Josh Duggar should be cowering in fear of Anna Duggar right now. Cowering. He isn’t, but he should be. He should be quaking in fear that the house might fall down around them if he’s in the same room as she. Please, instill your daughters with the resolve to make a man cower if he must. To say “I don’t deserve this, and my children don’t deserve this.” I wish someone had ever, just once, told Anna she was capable of this. That she knew she is. As for my girls, I’ll raise them to think they breathe fire.

-Jessica Krammes Kirkland

11 Likes
86

Was she raised into the same quiverful household as the Duggars?

87

Not the same household, but yes, in a Quiverfull family.

2 Likes
88

So if someone who was not a sex-negative homphobe, say… Richard Dawkins (just as a fer instance, you can throw whoever you like in the blank) was on Ashley Madison, this site would have no problem with a right-wing site revealing that they were cheating on their spouse? It’s arguably relevant if Dawkins talks about being good without God, and then turns out to be an unfaithful spouse.

I’m just saying, it’s piss-easy to justify your own actions. If you’re cool with that (and not based on some phony hypothetical where the person was on Ashley Madison but also somehow ethical,) fine. If not, you should revisit your justification.

1 Like
89

Seriously, I would just once, love to see someone caught in one of these “scandals” just stand up with their spouse and say “Yeah- It’s not cheating. We have an arrangement that’s really nobody else’s business.”

My guess is that Dawkins would be more likely to do something like that than say, your average Christpublican.

4 Likes
90

He is a mysogynist creep, but this is a pretty poor line of reasoning. If Dawkins was trying to promote denying the human rights of others, you might have to something.

2 Likes
91

But that’s not the line of reasoning here. The line of reasoning is that he is a hypocrite, and therefore it is in the public interest. Not that he is an asshole and deserves… what? Vigilante justice? I’m not sure what else you could argue. This is (*sigh*) genuinely about ethics in journalism. Not about whether a creep needs comeuppance.

1 Like
92

Sure it is.

93

Then that makes it easy: It’s, “I’m right, therefore I’m right to do harm” reasoning. Let’s have everyone do that and see where it takes us.

1 Like
94

Then he is unfaithful with his spouse, but that is a betrayal between him and his spouse (or not, I have no idea, he has never really made that his defining characteristic).

And yes it would be newsworthy, and yes it would be reported.

1 Like
95

Which is not the only criteria for ethical journalism.

1 Like
96

538 likely agrees with your position, AP does not.

SPJ says to use caution, which I think has been used by BB and others.

Journalists should:

Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

Consent is likely the trickiest, since lack of consent is generally what drives the most important stories (Watergate, snowden, wikileaks, etc). So do we relegate consent to only stories about national security? (No)

Or also about charlatans in the public eye? (I think yes)

3 Likes
97

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.