As I watched the interview it struck me that these two adult women were very immature and acted like 14 yr olds instead of mature young women. Obstructed development IMO.
Funny!
I am curious as to why you thought they were so immature? I think I am never a good judge of people so I am interested in what you saw.
Posters on here are so good at analyzing. I learn things I would have never thought about
I watched the girls interview last eve-- and thank you to whomever posted the Youtube link.
I have only watched the show maybe once or twice, and not a whole episode. I don't think I've ever heard the older one speak before (Jill). I had a certain impression of her as an apprentice midwife, etc.
I was also rather stunned at her level of immaturity, or perhaps socially/emotionally stunted is a better description. If I had not known it was a 24 year old woman speaking (one who is a celebrity and accustomed to cameras and public speaking), I would have guessed she was an awkward middle school student-- same for the younger girl, Jessa. Jessa is the more confident of the two, but sounded quite coached to me-- and quite determined to get her "talking points" in. She wasn't listening and empathizing with her sister's tears and anguish-- she was waiting her turn to blurt out her coached/ rehearsed phrases, IMO, with indignance.
I'm very sorry for what they went thru (and are still going thru) in that family, but this interview was pure exploitation, IMO. Perhaps they chose to exploit themselves-- but FOX/ MK should have morally and ethically declined to interview them about this, IMO. But the potential notoriety/ ratings was just too much temptation for the network, the reporter, and the celebrities.
Certain key phrases ("talking points") emerge and become apparent, IMO, in the interviews and public statements of the girls, as well as their parents. This family clearly has handlers and crisis management professionals shaping their language and their message, IMO. I don't think they should have given these 2 interviews-- their own words and mannerisms are much worse for their image than when they were not speaking publicly about it, IMO.
1. Josh was "a child", a "curious child/ adolescent/ boy". No mention of Josh as a MAN is ever made now, not any mention of him going public to explain himself or express public remorse, repair the family's image, defend his parent's actions, nor how he is dealing with this privately right now. The emphasis continues to be on protecting and excusing the BOY. The MAN apparently doesn't exist at all at the moment. He is an invisible coward, IMO-- content to let mama, papa, and his sister victims defend him.
2. The persistent use of the word "mistake" to describe Josh's actions. Many families of criminals use this term to defend or support their criminal loved one. "Mistake" deflects any personal responsibility, or ability to exercise self control, or project consequences, or empathy for victims. Things just "happen". Though situations and crimes sometimes happen over and over, they are still just "mistakes." And the most important thing about characterizing intentional acts as "mistakes" is that
they should be forgiven, because they "just didn't mean to hurt anyone." Poor Josh-- he is the real victim in all this-- that is the message.
3. The terms "handled", "handling it", "when it was being handled", etc. It was "dealt with", handled, and over. No recognition or reflection that the WAY it was "handled" was less than ideal.
4. The not-so-subtle shifting of the molestation issue, to the issue of requesting and the RELEASE of the information, and the blame for that occurring, is painted as MUCH WORSE than what Josh did, or how JB & M chose to "handle it." Slipping in the Bauer companies, etc. The family is definitely shifting from defending Josh and deflecting the behavior, to full on "righteous indignation" toward the ones who requested and publicized the information. The can salve their wounds with the righteous indignation of pointing their fingers at the media and those who released the information. They can be righteously sanctimonious up on their high horse again, united in their anger against "them" who embarrassed the family (and cut into their $$$ flow). Nice distraction and deflection of the real issues, which are just too painful to face while wearing the scratchy and uncomfortable haircloth cloak of hypocrisy.
5. The extreme efforts to minimize and deflect-- "it wasn't THAT bad", "Josh isn't a rapist", many other families deal with this, it was only a few seconds, the girls were clothed, the under clothes was brief, the girls were asleep/ don't remember it/ didn't understand any of it, JB & M put locks on the doors and set new rules, etc.
6. The odd preachy references to Josh's "heart". As in, "his heart was still soft". I'm aware that this is religious speak/ religious colloquialisms, but it's odd in regular conversation, nonetheless. It's preachy. The kind of thing a priest/ pastor/ reverend would phrase in their sermonizing, IMO.
eace:
