ext_85184 ([identity profile] oslo.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] politicartoons 2015-05-30 05:08 pm (UTC)

I think this is an excellent point.

The vilification of Duggar we're seeing in liberal quarters may end up just serving the underlying Christian-serving narrative. The question we're asking is framed as one of sin and atonement; it's framed as though Duggar was a corruptible human, capable of making mistakes, and the only question now is whether his actions were properly addressed then and whether he should answer for them now.

But, as you note, that causes us to overlook the true victims here, and the true victimizers. We ask whether Jim Bob Duggar did the right thing, when he learned of Josh's actions, rather than whether the entire environment he was instrumental in creating was inherently abusive and corrupting. So maybe we should "defend" Josh Duggar. Not for the way he's trying to escape his past actions as an adult, and not for how he might be serving to protect his father's reputation, but for his original actions - as a way of highlighting the deeper problems in how the Duggars have raised their children (and in how we think about their arrangement).

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting