Comments for Cracks in the Mirror http://cracksinthemirror.com Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:01:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on The need to control by Rena U. Maddox http://cracksinthemirror.com/?p=254#comment-320 Rena U. Maddox Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:01:53 +0000 http://cracksinthemirror.com/?p=254#comment-320 Many people have either experienced, or witness a controlling relationship in their lifetime and found that while in general, the dynamic is usually unhealthy; the relationship nevertheless, is in intriguing. Why is it that there are people who seek to completely dominate their partner? Perhaps even more perplexing for some, why are their people who would allow themselves to be controlled by a significant other? Our society frowns on actions such as these out loud, while at the same time in entertainment our culture has witness this kind of relationship again and again. In general, many relationships in the past were thought to be dominated by men, who for many years did indeed have more power both financially and politically. In recent years, with the onset of women’s rights and feminism, we have witnessed a flux in that power that in some cases, has turned completely around. The classic television couple, for example, is almost entirely dominated now by the female in the relationship while the male is commonly portrayed as somewhat of an idiot. In many ways it is if our society has condemned the idea of a male overpowering a female, while at the same time the female dominance is fully supported. Though the power has changed hands, or sexes, it remains the same dynamic of one person controlling another and shows how the consequences of such actions generally remain the same. Many people have either experienced, or witness a controlling relationship in their lifetime and found that while in general, the dynamic is usually unhealthy; the relationship nevertheless, is in intriguing. Why is it that there are people who seek to completely dominate their partner? Perhaps even more perplexing for some, why are their people who would allow themselves to be controlled by a significant other? Our society frowns on actions such as these out loud, while at the same time in entertainment our culture has witness this kind of relationship again and again. In general, many relationships in the past were thought to be dominated by men, who for many years did indeed have more power both financially and politically. In recent years, with the onset of women’s rights and feminism, we have witnessed a flux in that power that in some cases, has turned completely around. The classic television couple, for example, is almost entirely dominated now by the female in the relationship while the male is commonly portrayed as somewhat of an idiot. In many ways it is if our society has condemned the idea of a male overpowering a female, while at the same time the female dominance is fully supported. Though the power has changed hands, or sexes, it remains the same dynamic of one person controlling another and shows how the consequences of such actions generally remain the same.

]]> Comment on The Patriarchy Movement and the Quiver full Movement by Mamah http://cracksinthemirror.com/?p=174#comment-43 Mamah Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:42:23 +0000 http://cracksinthemirror.com/?p=174#comment-43 I have seen 2 or 3 episodes of each of the prgorams you mention. TO ME: The Duggars seem staged, only showing the roses and never the thorns reminding me of the stereotypical Christmas Letter. My husband calls them the Stepford Family. There is something about that family that seems off to mebut I am sure they are very nice people.Katie is bossy and they both have a maturity level befitting their age. They seem very real. Thorns and all. But each time I've watched the program I find myself talking to them on the television. They drive me nuts. Parenting skills have been lacking in each episode I've seen.The Roloff adults seem often in conflict with one another. They don't seem to understand they are raising children together and need a common/mutual plan not opposing plans. On the other hand, of the 3 families, were I to watch tv more than I do this would be the family I would watch. I have a cousin who is a Little Person as is his first wife and their daughter. They know the Roloffs and have for some time. I understand the struggles their size and physical differences can create. Watching them reminds me of growing up with my cousin. He was never treated differently and I see that in this family, too.Would I have displayed my family on TV for money? Maybe yes but maybe no. I can't say either way as I've never been in that position.Am I shocked that people are doing it? No. Children are expensive and someone has to figure out a way to support them.Large families have been doing this for years in other formats. Anyone else old enough to remember the Kienast Quints, born in 1970, and the contract their parents had with Good Housekeeping magazine allowing us the watch them grow up? Dateline does a similar thing with McCaughey sextuplets who were born in 1997. And what about commercials the Furtick quadruplets (born in 1990) have done over the years (Liquid Tide, Wendys, Levis, Nationwide Insurance)?In my opinion, the concept is the same in each case (Large Family seeks revenue to support children and make sure they have a college fund), only the forum has changed. I have seen 2 or 3 episodes of each of the prgorams you mention. TO ME: The Duggars seem staged, only showing the roses and never the thorns reminding me of the stereotypical Christmas Letter. My husband calls them the Stepford Family. There is something about that family that seems off to mebut I am sure they are very nice people.Katie is bossy and they both have a maturity level befitting their age. They seem very real. Thorns and all. But each time I’ve watched the program I find myself talking to them on the television. They drive me nuts. Parenting skills have been lacking in each episode I’ve seen.The Roloff adults seem often in conflict with one another. They don’t seem to understand they are raising children together and need a common/mutual plan not opposing plans. On the other hand, of the 3 families, were I to watch tv more than I do this would be the family I would watch. I have a cousin who is a Little Person as is his first wife and their daughter. They know the Roloffs and have for some time. I understand the struggles their size and physical differences can create. Watching them reminds me of growing up with my cousin. He was never treated differently and I see that in this family, too.Would I have displayed my family on TV for money? Maybe yes but maybe no. I can’t say either way as I’ve never been in that position.Am I shocked that people are doing it? No. Children are expensive and someone has to figure out a way to support them.Large families have been doing this for years in other formats. Anyone else old enough to remember the Kienast Quints, born in 1970, and the contract their parents had with Good Housekeeping magazine allowing us the watch them grow up? Dateline does a similar thing with McCaughey sextuplets who were born in 1997. And what about commercials the Furtick quadruplets (born in 1990) have done over the years (Liquid Tide, Wendys, Levis, Nationwide Insurance)?In my opinion, the concept is the same in each case (Large Family seeks revenue to support children and make sure they have a college fund), only the forum has changed.

]]> Comment on The Patriarchy Movement and the Quiver full Movement by Aarohi http://cracksinthemirror.com/?p=174#comment-40 Aarohi Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:46:13 +0000 http://cracksinthemirror.com/?p=174#comment-40 before, I haven't seen any of these programs. But one thing that comes to mind is to reemmber that the families are at the mercy of the editors. Kate might be a completely different person in totality and in complete context, but the producer/editor/whoever can make her out to look like a snarky, domineering woman. The family could have one really bad stretch in a day or a week and that might end up being the most prominently featured aspect on that episode. I have no idea if that is the case, but I know there is NO WAY I would allow the makers of a TV show to present my family to the world. There is just no possible way for them to do it in an authentic way that truly reflects who we are. We have great days and we have less than great days. Sometimes I have enough problems sorting out my own motives and such. I can't imagine having someone (especially if they aren't a brother or sister in Christ) trying to present an accurate picture to the world.Re: other families of multiples and their publicity. I guess I see the situation with the McCaugheys differently than what is apparently done on these shows. In the situation with the McCaugheys it seems like they have agreed to do a yearly magazine interview in order to keep the peace most of the rest of the year. So everyone who wonders how the children are doing can find out, but you rarely hear anything else much about them except around Thanksgiving time. I don't think that is exploitation, at least from what I have observed.But we definitely have a growing problem in this country when women or couples think they can crank out a huge litter of babies (sorry to be so crass) and then expect every company to fall at their feet for umpteen years with freebies. When it happened with the McCaugheys it was such a relatively novel and miraculous thing that I think a lot of people were captivated by it. Now births of multiples has become almost hohum, but I think the parents are still expecting the complete package of everyone else meeting all their needs. Rather than having the babies out of a conviction of the sanctity of life (like the McCaugheys) we get women like Octomom (what a horrible name) who I think are primarily in it for the perks. I could be wrong, but that is how I see it with the little I have read about her (not much). before, I haven’t seen any of these programs. But one thing that comes to mind is to reemmber that the families are at the mercy of the editors. Kate might be a completely different person in totality and in complete context, but the producer/editor/whoever can make her out to look like a snarky, domineering woman. The family could have one really bad stretch in a day or a week and that might end up being the most prominently featured aspect on that episode. I have no idea if that is the case, but I know there is NO WAY I would allow the makers of a TV show to present my family to the world. There is just no possible way for them to do it in an authentic way that truly reflects who we are. We have great days and we have less than great days. Sometimes I have enough problems sorting out my own motives and such. I can’t imagine having someone (especially if they aren’t a brother or sister in Christ) trying to present an accurate picture to the world.Re: other families of multiples and their publicity. I guess I see the situation with the McCaugheys differently than what is apparently done on these shows. In the situation with the McCaugheys it seems like they have agreed to do a yearly magazine interview in order to keep the peace most of the rest of the year. So everyone who wonders how the children are doing can find out, but you rarely hear anything else much about them except around Thanksgiving time. I don’t think that is exploitation, at least from what I have observed.But we definitely have a growing problem in this country when women or couples think they can crank out a huge litter of babies (sorry to be so crass) and then expect every company to fall at their feet for umpteen years with freebies. When it happened with the McCaugheys it was such a relatively novel and miraculous thing that I think a lot of people were captivated by it. Now births of multiples has become almost hohum, but I think the parents are still expecting the complete package of everyone else meeting all their needs. Rather than having the babies out of a conviction of the sanctity of life (like the McCaugheys) we get women like Octomom (what a horrible name) who I think are primarily in it for the perks. I could be wrong, but that is how I see it with the little I have read about her (not much).

]]> Comment on The Patriarchy Movement and the Quiver full Movement by A.Roddy http://cracksinthemirror.com/?p=174#comment-17 A.Roddy Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:54:45 +0000 http://cracksinthemirror.com/?p=174#comment-17 The Duggars are a prime example of this though they never expressly say on the show. Note how the defenders keep stressing debt-free, fine financially before the show and well-behaved kids. They stayed debt-free by living near poverty in cramped houses, denying educations,and generous donations. Now figure in the salary from TLC and yea fine before the show if you call 10 living in 900 sq ft home living large. I don't think the Duggars kids are more behaved than other kids on reality tv. The Duggars are a prime example of this though they never expressly say on the show. Note how the defenders keep stressing debt-free, fine financially before the show and well-behaved kids. They stayed debt-free by living near poverty in cramped houses, denying educations,and generous donations. Now figure in the salary from TLC and yea fine before the show if you call 10 living in 900 sq ft home living large. I don’t think the Duggars kids are more behaved than other kids on reality tv.

]]> Comment on The Patriarchy Movement and the Quiver full Movement by FreddieB http://cracksinthemirror.com/?p=174#comment-16 FreddieB Sun, 17 Jun 2012 00:19:31 +0000 http://cracksinthemirror.com/?p=174#comment-16 Is this year 2012 or 1812? Time has indeed stood still for many involved in religion. How these people can justify the teaching of rules/laws that are 6000 years old, the thinking of Bronze-Age nomads, amazes me. Let's just hope that these idiotic ways die out quickly and that sanity will prevail. Is this year 2012 or 1812?

Time has indeed stood still for many involved in religion.

How these people can justify the teaching of rules/laws that are 6000 years old, the thinking of Bronze-Age nomads, amazes me.

Let’s just hope that these idiotic ways die out quickly and that sanity will prevail.

]]>