Ballerina farm - just fell down a rabbit hole

[Mamabear04]

Just fell down a rabbit hole looking at this Instagram account. Of course it can't be true or surely even close to it? I feel so sorry for her, she seems too tired to even smile most of the time. She prides herself on being a servant to her family but it doesn't look like she enjoys it. Also 8 kids by 34? Anyone from or have a ginormous family - what's your experience of living with so many kids/siblings? Does it look like this? Surely the woman has cleaners and although she "helps out" on the farm, they will have a huge amount of staff no? I don't know why I'm obsessed with this this morning...maybe I'm bored of the Kardashians now!

Nope.

There's no reason to be concerned in the first place. People are projecting based on a set of preconceptions about her religion, her choice to work from home and the fact she has a lot of kids. There is no option where she is happy or has made her own decisions within that framework. That's the truth.

And even if all you think is happening/has happened is true, she will still be well.

All this hand wringing and concern about her is disingenuous fudge.

I'm just waiting for someone to admit it.

If she leaves a ‘godly marriage’, she won’t have the support of her parents or her community. She would be on her own with 8 children and minimal money (since it belongs to her husband’s family not her husband himself).

I agree there is nothing to suggest she wants to leave but pretending she has resources to do so that simply don’t exist is not helpful either.

I have no idea if this woman is abused or coerced but I have read this entire thread and you seem as determined to state she is fine as some people state she is not fine. We all are going on the same information - a carefully curated social media image. I don’t see how you’re certain you’re right any more than anyone else.

Well done for getting out.

Yup. All three of mine were three or fewer pushes.

I found the original article (the second one shared) disturbing. The journalist was definitely painting a picture of a woman who isn't happy with her situation.

As well as the bits already mentioned (giving up her ballet career, having children when he wants, her studio being turned into a schoolroom [they're rich enough they could have had a new room built for that], and the epidural situation), there was also that her things - her nice dresses etc - have been boxed up and put in the garage/barn. Her things. Not his.

Whether that's how it really is we can't know for sure. But her words, as quoted in the article, are certainly suggestive of a difficult life for her.

I agree with this. @DysonSphere - you seem very certain in your posts that your point of view is correct and that anyone who says anything different is wrong.

How can you know with such certainty that you are correct? Unless you are Hannah N, you cannot know this.

Your posts on here - and everyone else’s - are your opinion grounded in fact, but not purely factual. Your posts are no more or less correct than anyone else’s.

I agree with this. That article has formed the basis of my understanding of her situation.

As well as the bits already mentioned (giving up her ballet career, having children when he wants, her studio being turned into a schoolroom [they're rich enough they could have had a new room built for that], and the epidural situation), there was also that her things - her nice dresses etc - have been boxed up and put in the garage/barn. Her things. Not his.

I hadn't seen that - that's really unpleasant.

I genuinely don't understand how so many people can say that's okay. If their daughter was living that life, what would they say? Really?

Have you read the article I posted here about her? As @GrouchyKiwi says, that article suggests she’s not entirely happy. It also shows (and this is fact) how much she gave up for her husband and how few options she has.

You would truly tell your daughter that marrying a potential billionaire, trust fund son, is the lesser option than pursuing an uncertain, tough, highly competitive career that may be very short?

I'm sure some here would, those very strong in feminist ideals, but I wouldn't believe many would dismiss such an option and put it in the same category as Jason the Architect or John the graphic designer proposing after 3 months.

Let's be honest. Ultra rich men are perceived as a catch for women in society. Many parents care about their daughters financial security and the security of potential grandchildren. Money is a huge thing to turn down.

Even if he supposedly love bombed her - and on her live Q&A she puts it differently - do you think the possibility of not marrying into big money didn't influence her decision? She's not a weak woman, she is quite canny. If you spend real time on her account you'll see. I truly believe had a guy with lesser prospects asked her to stop Julliard her choice may have been different. She has ensured she gets to continue beauty pageanting.

I have a suspicion that she isn't as in control as the gloss makes out but my main feeling about the whole thing is annoyance. People with the fortune from an airline behind them playing at a rural idyll and pretending it's all fun, when a week in the early 19th C as genuine pioneers would have them running screaming back to reality.

This prettified paradise insults the struggles of the real women of the past, doing backbreaking work in precarious, gruelling environments and risking death every time they gave birth.

We are all affected by our upbringing and the values and models we were raised with. If we had a positive experience then we might choose to build a similar family life. If we had a negative experience then we might choose to do things differently. Or we might end up simply reproducing whatever was modelled to us for good or for ill.

We all make choices within a framework. There seems to be an assumption that because she is at home and is religious, her choices are less freely made than a woman who chooses to work full-time and not believe in God.

You would truly tell your daughter that marrying a potential billionaire, trust fund son, is the lesser option than pursuing an uncertain, tough, highly competitive career that may be very short?

If he was pressuring her to get married and have babies after only three months (which is what happened to Hannah), when she'd said that's not what she wanted, then absolutely I would. 100%.

It's nothing to do with feminist ideals and everything to do with being able to spot the flying red bunting of a controlling abuser.

You clearly think Hannah is fine - great - I don't, so I don't see any benefit in going round and round in circles all afternoon.

@sunsetsandboardwalks a few weeks ago there was an article about tradwives featuring a young woman who was essentially a domestic slave. Her "D"H wouldn't even allow her to have a washing machine, she did all their laundry in the bath. People were posting how marvellous it is to see "traditional values", her kids will benefit so much from a "proper family", good for her making her own decisions etc. All I saw was someone under severe oppression with a plastered on smile that never reached the eyes. I got pasted for saying it was 100% religiously motivated, a form of control and not a true choice. Looked them up and sure enough they were in the US and some kind of cult like church. SAHM as an equal partner and mutual choice is one thing but these submissive slave wives are not healthy.

Unlikely to happen but I would definitely not be thrilled to hear my daughter was marrying a billionaire. They're generally not the most moral of people, they do not operate like us little people. Find a guy with a modest $5m fortune. Or better still, make your own money!

That's horrific @DrCoconut - do you have any links or anything? I'd love to read it.

I agree.

To be a millionaire is one thing. You either need a wealthy family to start you off (like Donald Trump or Elon Musk), incredible drive and ambition, intelligence and a lot of luck or, preferably, all of these things.

A billionaire is a whole other level. To achieve that, I think you probably need to make a lot of morally questionable choices. The reality is that you will end up with the lion’s share of your country’s - and the world’s - wealth, which means that for you to be rich, many other people will go without.

You've said nothing here.

I believe my assessment of the situation is right others don't. Stalemate. Of course SM can be fake. It can also be reflective of a persons life.

But what I have, that the others criticising here don't, is considerable time on her SM without the inherent biases being already expressed at the very beginning revealed in such expressions as 'deep dive' overly dramatic concerns about otherwise normal phenomena ie 'home births' and not have epidurals (I bloody wish I had had mine at home and many, many women have their children at home, plus requested no epidural with my second as I hated the side effects) concerns about someone having the choice of choosing between two privileged lifestyle options. I mean really.

When one has to do things like that straw men etc it usually means it's not genuine.

If Hannah was a girl boss (which I would say she definitely is anyway, she is doing it all) but let's more specifically say 'corporate girl boss' working in a patriarchal capitalist system, with an unhelpful husband who expected her to work at home after a full week of overtime and who was not religious but fully signed up ideologically to all the hip identity profiles, who had no kids and surrendered her fertility due to the hard demands of her job this thread would not exist.

Since she puts her energy into her own home and business, is focused on and has a lot of children and is a Mormon, there's 'pressing concern' about her.

The reality of farming in America (or anywhere these days) is that it requires huge money and results in years of loss for many. It's a rich person's occupation.

Small homesteaders are very open about the challenges of making even small holding profitable.

Actually they both work very hard. If Hannah's husband is a trust son, he's not lying back doing nothing.

I find your post here quite dismissive and aggressive - e.g. ‘you’ve said nothing here’ and ‘I believe my assessment of the situation is right - stalemate’. That’s very rude and it’s actually wrong. I think my posts have substance to them and they clearly express my point of view.

I think you and I are agreeing more than you realise. In my post that you’ve quoted here, I agree with you that you have one view of this situation and almost everyone else has a different view.

My view of Hannah’s situation is that the fame and economic privilege she has gained through her marriage and her Instagram account is hard-won. To achieve that fame and economic success, she has sacrificed her own career aspirations and her personal freedom and future options.

They both appear to work very hard and farming is a rich person’s occupation. I think Uricon2 is saying that it shouldn’t be this way as that is unfair. It shouldn’t be something that is only available to rich people.

I think Uricon2 is actually agreeing with you, in some ways - as are a lot of people on here, myself included. Yet I think you’re choosing to ignore that and instead to attack our posts and dismiss what we’re saying.

We’re all entitled to different opinions, however we all deserve respect. I don’t think you’ve been respectful towards me or anyone else, yet I think we’ve been respectful towards you.

@BeautyPageantDropout

did you get married and have children young? that must make it difficult for many mormon women to extricate themselves from the church and the lifestyle.

Yes, I had four children and married young. We all left though. my husband left with me. The culture is quite damaging, I write letters to my "future husband" from aged 12. We weee groomed to be wives and mothers.

I've taken a quick look at some of Megan Agnew's previous articles and many have a certain "flavour" to them as if she has constructed them to confirm a predetermined viewpoint or agenda. Now all journalists do this to a certain extent, but it is always good to keep in mind that journalistic motivations may not be as straightforward as some readers might expect. With a US election on the horizon there might be a vested interest in presenting the "traditional conservative family" so beloved of the Trump team in an unflattering light. Now once again that is not to say that Hannah is not a coerced or controlled wife, but bear in mind that both Hannah and Daniel must have agreed to the interview. For what reason? And did they understand how their words might be interpreted?

I take issue with PPs assuming that Daniel prayed for guidance on when to have another child. It was Hannah who does this. Daniel quipped that this curiously occurred when the previous baby was 9 months old. This could equally be seen as him jokingly acknowledging that Hannah is in control of reproductive spacing. We don't know "how" this was said because Megan Agnew doesn't say explicitly.

Hannah's lovely clothes are boxed up and stored? Well she still wears some lovely outfits, even on normal farm days. On church days she projects a pretty and wholesome image. When they go out to events she gets very dressed up in beautiful gowns and shoes. She even does make up and skincare videos as part of her brand image. None of this is by chance - she took social media courses and clearly curates her whole image online. Maybe Daniel forces her to do so. Maybe it is how she helps monetise Ballerina Farm.

I am suspicious as to the engineering and timing of this sudden media spotlight on Ballerina Farm. Why Hannah, why now? These events do not happen by chance.

He may very well work physically hard, but it doesn't mean that he isn't doing it with a very big safety net, unlike I imagine most small homesteaders. It makes a difference. They are in no way comparable to eg a Welsh hill farmer hanging on by their fingertips and dreading the summons from the bank. My argument is that they are idealising a lifestyle that when done without said safety net is very difficult and making it look Insta perfect.

See this is my underlying problem with this thread too.
Obviously there are many women who are in religious sects that may be forced into having so many babies and caring for their husbands etc.
But the fact that so many women here say ballerina farm is without a doubt abuse, she has no choice, she's been coerced feels so anti-feminist.
It's the age old problem we see with modern feminists.
'we support women's choices!'.'you can be anything you want!!'
Ehhm expect if it doesn't for into our narrative. Do you want to stay at home, have loads of babies and cook for your husband? NO, just NO. That's not empowered! You can't choose that! And is you did -we know it was really the patriarchy brainwashing you.
And that's my problem, people make women who choose to stay at home and do 95% of childrearing and domestic duties out as some dumb, brainwashed woman with no agency.

I feel it in real life, how other woman look down on me for staying at home. They think I lack ambition and are prob a bit dull. They need the 'stimulation' of a 9-5 job. Always implying I don't need stimulation(ie must be pretty unintelligent to be able to be happy to stay at home and do laundry and not say no to sex and cook meals FOR my husband)

To me it's not even about the BF case, it's the fact that once again people are putting us down for choosing that lifestyle.

"There is no way she would have chosen that." No woman in her right mind would ever choose to be subservient in that role.
And we can't convince you that some of us did choose it. Because of some opinion of some journalist whose probably also one of the I'm- a -feminist- as- long -as- you- choose-working- outside -the-home types.
That's what is a bit infuriating at least to me. Like how do I convince you guys that I LOVE what I do??