Thursday, October 9, 2008

Open Discussion

Paul Peterson has come out with another article which can be found Here

What do you think about the article? Do you think there is a double standard for other TV families such as the Duggars? Has your opinion changed at all about the situation over time? How so?

Have at it :-)


jamesthegirl28 said...

Yay! First comment! I don't watch J&K+8 or the Duggar show, but I don't think my opinion (I guess I really only have an opinion about J&K+8, since that's the only show of that "genre" that I've seen) has really changed, probably because I don't have much of an opinion. I do think children's time on reality shows should be regulated (and all that jazz), but I don't think the current lack of those regulations is irreversibly harmful (if it's harmful at all?) to the kids. I think J&K+8 will probably end within the next year or two, they will fade back into the fabric of regular folks, and the pro-Gosselin/anti-Gosselin world will be at peace. ;-)

PS. I'm formerly known as Bigsis88.

Midnight Ramblings said...

I think it probably looks like a double standard because emotions run so high either way where the Gosselins are concerned. But I don't think there really is when you keep the end in mind. My personal reason for being on these boards in the first place is to work to get the laws in place to protect the kids. These laws will protect the Duggar children, and all other children involved in "reality TV", as well as the Gosselins. I don't really care about their parenting, their squabbling, etc. although I can easily get into picking it apart like anyone else.

Whether this show ends and how soon makes no difference to me. I'm sure many will be happy if it does, and others if it doesn't, but until the laws are put in place it really doesn't matter. It needs to be done, regardless. At one time there were no child labor laws, either. If the show ends and this cause is forgotten, to me that would be a tragedy.

My mind keeps going back to the heartfelt letter written by the surviving Dionnes when the Macaughey septuplets were born...,9171,987457,00.html including:

"Multiple births should not be confused with entertainment, nor should they be an opportunity to sell products"

"Our lives have been ruined by the exploitation we suffered..."

And especially this one:
"We sincerely hope a lesson will be learned from examining how our lives were forever altered by our childhood experience. If this letter changes the course of events for these newborns, then perhaps our lives will have served a higher purpose."

These are the voices of experience, and it is my hope that we never have to hear them from any other children again.

MoreCowbell said...

Okay, can I say something about the Duggars? I know they are very religious and I've watched enough of their specials to know that they are a little "out there" with their strict, old fashioned beliefs. However, this week's shows about courtship and Josh's engagement with the "no kissing until your wedding day" and having chaperones on dates? SERIOUSLY? I can respect not having sex until your weeding night. More power to those who have hold off, but KISSING? Good grief. Not even the Ingalls Girls on the Prairie had to have chaperones and Laura kissed Almanzo for the first time on the night he proposed to her. And that was what, the 1880's?

Sorry, but that no kissing thing is creepy. Especially considering Jim Bob and Michelle sat there and said that they didn't follow that rule when they were dating, so why should their kids have to?

Oh, back to the topic at hand. Peterson's comments. He's right, there should be some regulations put in place for the protection of the kids involved. I also admire that he brought the other families into the argument, something that GWoP in their all-consuming Kate Hate, neglects to do (which is what makes their "advocacy" tainted and suspicious). I like that he addresses what he sees as a problem, but doesn't give the GWoPpers the pat on the head that they crave, or call J&K "bad parents."

Ductape said...

I think it's too soon to make comments about the Duggars. (About how the show will be)

I think that in regards to "regulating" the Duggar children have such "rigid" parents, I think they will be alright.

Having only seen two shows, I appreciate that Duggars are shown openly praying and really seem true to form. What you see is what you get.

In the New York episode, the two Duggar girls that had packing as their "jurisdiction" - had their work cut out for them.

I liked how they had the clothes in grocery bags - it just seemed like a tip that was "genuine".

They used to creep me out, but they are "real" to me. They were very country mouse meets city mouse in New York, but their actions and reactions were not contrived.

For some reason Jim Bob (?) and the chicken at the gas station made me laugh.

The Duggars just don't come off as the type of parents who will sell their kids off for some Juicy Juice.JMO.

SamanthaNC said...


My first reaction to the duggars no kissing/courtship thing was to be creeped out to. But the kids insist that this isnt being forced on them and that this is something they want because they want to save sex for marriage.

I know that its a big jump from kissing to sex.... but usually when things go to far for teens and adults- it started with a kiss. There are probably people reading this blog, myself included, that could've been saved a lot of heartache bc things that they now regret doing (with people we wish we had never done it with!) started with a few kisses. I think while not at all a mainstream concept its very wise of Josh at 20, to know that he has such strong feelings for this girl that kissing will eventually lead to more (lost in the moment, hormones, whatever)and that "more" is something he wants to save for marriage. His fiance is one lucky girl to have someone that respects her enough to say- as much as I want to, we're not going there.

Again my gut response is to think.... weird, ick, why? Christian or not its very hard for us as a culture to grasp the whole courtship thing, that God could say "she's the one" so look no further. They definitley put it all out there, they put their beliefs first knowing a lot of people will find it extreme- and I commend them for being unwaivering.

merryway said...

The regulations are interesting. I didn't know the SPCA was originally supposed to protect children as well as animals.
I wish it wasn't “to be continued” because he's not stating what they want / solution or how to help. Directing some of that energy in the right place would be a breath of fresh air. They way I see it, privacy, working hours and a guaranteed % saved for each of the children should be the main concerns. So in CA, children the tups ages can be at work six hours and and not actively working more than three. This episode would have exceeded these hours. I wonder about the other shows. We probably only see fifteen minutes of them a week (that's my guess). I don't know how travel time and vacations figure into all that. I wonder if they try to use these as guidelines in their filming.
I'm glad he calls out TLC. But the tone in his opening paragraph is too sarcastic and not to my taste in an editorial or a report.

merryway said...

I have to say that given their situation, being filmed for the show while working for someone else is a real good way to bring it in. Getting paid twice for the almost the same amount of work. That's pretty slick.
I was guessing that this show exceeded the guidelines because of the GH time involved. But, now that I'm thinking about the show, I'm not sure. Have we ever been told how much camera time is given to the kids each day? They might already be within the hours guidelines.

MonicaW42 said...

I have a feeling there will be somewhat of a double standard of the Duggars and Gosselins. It will probably come down to the fact that the Duggars are more simple in life.
The Duggars have only had a few shows and not a series like they are doing now, so things may change on views of them.

My personal view is again middle of the road except for the whole "Josh and Anna" engagement show. I know its their ultra conservative beliefs not to kiss as it can lead to other things, however I believe in passion. You can have whatever kind of marriage but IMHO I feel that you have to have that connection with your spouse. What if on your wedding night you kiss and all the chemistry is just NOT there. Then you are stuck in that marriage. Again, maybe their beliefs don't allow that to enter into the picture. I just know if I had waited till my wedding day to kiss and whatever and it "sucked" it would have been "peace out" annulment time.

They do seem like a genuine and caring family though. The children are so well behaved. I give them kudos for keeping their large family so well taken care of in that sense. It was also nice to hear Michelle and Jim Bob state they give their children choices.

I also feel the Gosselins love those children. I wish they weren't filmed so often and that there should be restraints (possb in child laws) to protect them, however I do not see abuse. I think they take a beating.

Regardless, both families have beautiful children to be proud of.

MoreCowbell said...

Oh, I think the Duggars did more than just sell out their kids for Juicy Juice. See that huge house? They may have started it by hand and bought the steel fabrication to begin the home, but after three years of working on it alone and only having a skeleton of a house to show for it, the finishing of the home was all TLC. All that beautiful designer furniture was TLC/Discovery contributed, as was the decorator who arranged it. The only thing the Duggars claim to have bought was the industrial kitchen equipment, second hand.

Juicy Juice, Fisher Price and GAP clothes vs. a humongous professionally decorated home full of furniture and toys? The Duggars made out quite well with their TLC deal. Even their grand piano is bigger than the Gosselin's. So, I don't think they can play "holier than Jon and Kate" when it comes to freebies. I doubt the Disneyland vacation they got in "On the Road with 16 Children" came out of JB's pocket, either. They've profited off their unique family situation just as much as the Gosselins and the Roloff's have.

I still think the "no kissing" thing is weird, though. Kissing was always the deal breaker (or sealer) for me. If the guy can't kiss....buh-bye. I'm also picky about nice teeth and smoking. I've never kissed a guy with bad teeth or smoker's breath! So, I guess with me, the kiss is a huge part of the evaluation process and I'd hate to find out after the wedding that Junior can't hang! *grin*

Saint said...

My negative opinion of the Gosselin parents is shaped by their TV interactions, the failed family relationships that I haven't seen denied, and the website A Minor Consideration. I find Mr. Peterson to be credible because he lived the childhood star experience. It was his links to the Dionne quintuplets story that really made me squeamish about TLC's Gosselin show. I really don't see how Jon and Kate Plus Eight is all that different than Quintland (except the showering/potty/underwear scenes make it a bit worse.) I've read lots of support for the show here and elswhere, but nothing that changed my mind that Jon and Kate Gosselin are very, very unwise.

I have thoughts on the Duggars, too...but just impressions at this point, from seeing a special about moving into their new big double-house. My general impression is that their series is also a mistake, though their family interactions are far more pleasant.

One favorable shared impression I have of both families: the little boys in these two families are some of the cutest little guys I have ever seen!

erin said...

morecowbell said: Oh, I think the Duggars did more than just sell out their kids for Juicy Juice.

Yeah, no juicy juice in sight but there is the insane pantry full of Campbell's Soup. I do think they are doing exactly the same thing Jon and Kate have done, just on a smaller scale. But if you recall, Jon and Kate started out with the same number of shows, started with specials, etc.--it was when there was demand that more shows were produced. I think there is a HUGE double standard here, and I think the reason is Kate. I think lots of women dislike women with strong personalities (like Kate). Other people feed off that and it becomes a pile on. For the record, I like Kate a hell of a lot more than Michelle Duggar, and I like the Gosselins better than the Duggars. The Duggars creep me out and seem like they are brainwashed.

Saint said...

I want to add that after rereading the most recent Peterson article, I do not see any double standard. Just the opposite. This new article seems to have been written in response to the new Duggar series, and he seems to be pushing for laws to protect all children in reality TV, regardless of whether their mothers are like Kate or Michelle. He wants an advocate for all of the children. I agree with him. He referenced the "Photo Shoot" episode because it was obvious that the children were "working."

Anya said...

I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but is Paul Peterson really powerful enough to be able to lead a movement to "protect" reality tv kids? I looked through his website. I see he has posted a lot of articles on there and I know he has been interviewed on daytime tv, etc. Beyond that, I am not really famiilar with what he has really accomplished in the past to justify being looked on as a leader in this field.

I also don't know that there is as big a groundswell movement to begin regulation as one would think solely by reading this board or GWoP.

My own opinion - pretty in the middle. I can't say I am against making sure that children have some sort of legal protection in place, but it also seems to me to be much more problematic than regulating children acting in films or tv. For example, would the amusement park trips always fall into the category of "working" if the camera is there even if they spend quite a bit of time riding rides and having fun?

And this is a bit off topic from my post, but I just want to say I agree with Erin and others and their impressions of the way that many put the Gosselins in one category and all the other reality families in another. I do think Kate's strong, take-charge personality is at the heart of why many regard the Gosselins differently.

ceciliaky said...

Long time reader ... first time commenter ...

I think there are several differences between the Duggars and the Gosselins.

With the Duggars, it's been a slow progression. They've had the annual shows for a few years(since 2004?) while now. By the time they started their shows, they'd been married and parents for quite a while. The Duggars are who they are. The earliest shows were a little creepy, IMO .. but, I tink that the Duggars have remained true to their family ideals throughout this process. I believe Jim Bob Duggar and has chosen their media opportunities carefully and Jim Bob spent time in state politics, he was used to and understood the media circus involved with that. Of course the house, vacations, etc. are funded by TLC. The Duggars have also thanked their sponsors on their website. They appear gracious and thankful when in the media. Almost too good to be true, LOLOL. Until recently, there hasn't been a Duggar saturation in the media. A show or two a year.

Jon & Kate, on the other hand, have literally changed before our eyes over the course of their series. When Kate went in for the tummy tuck and left the salon with a new haircut? You could see the transformation happening in 60 minutes, it was amazing. It seems to me as if they were (and are) making very immature decisions about the show and their future. Thinking of the bigger picture, financially (?), and not so much on the 8 individual pictures .. the kids. These are young people who, by all accounts, didn't have much of a support system other than Jon's dad. They've taken on this huge undertaking of a show without the advice of trusted family. They have a PR firm representing their interests ... but, is it the interest of JK8 or the PR firm? This fame has come fast and furious for the Gosselins, and they haven't really handled it very well. It seems like someone with a clear head should step in and tell them to take a small step back and look at what's happening around them. It's become too much. I have a feeling this is only the beginning, especially with the book coming out soon.

Just some ramblings on a Friday afternoon, LOL

MoreCowbell said...

I really don't see how Jon and Kate Plus Eight is all that different than Quintland

The major difference is that the Dionne quints were taken from their parents by the Canadian government and placed in a "home" that was actually a tourist attraction that you paid for admission and got to walk through and watch the kids through glass. The Gosselin kids aren't on display seven days a week. Yes, they're filmed, and the crew is there three days a week at the most (according to J&K) but not at all times and most important is that they are with their parents and siblings. Plus, the cameras do not go to school with the Gosselin kids. I believe the Dionnne's were tutored at Quintland and did not interact with other children. The Dionne quints were taken from their home, parents and siblings and raised by strangers. They didn't profit from Quintland, and neither did their parents. The Canadian government did.

So, I see a big difference between the Dionne's and the Gosselins (or Duggars or Roloff's or Harris')

Kuromi said...

The fact that the American Humane Society was originally created to advocate for both children and animals brought back a memory.

I used to work for a daily newspaper in a small city. When I covered the court system in that area, I noticed that while there were a heck of a lot of child abuse cases (both physical and sexual), it seemed the animal abuse cases garnered much more public outrage (except for one or two crimes against children that went well beyond the category of heinous).

So I decided to write a feature story about this. I interviewed prosecutors and judges and they upheld my belief. One SA told me he received numerous letters of outrage in a dog sex abuse case (which was only covered as a short news brief)--and ZERO letters about an infanticide case (on which had been written several news stories). I'd hoped, with my feature, to create more awareness in the community about crimes against children.

I received one letter from a person who was quite intelligent. He said that in Victorian times, child welfare was reformed greatly, in terms of parental treatment as well as work conditions. Meanwhile, he noted, there was still some acceptance of animal abuse (dog fighting for example is popular in some circles even today). Thus, people felt more compelled to step in to protect animals.

While he gave me food for thought, I got another letter--and a phone call. From a man whose first words were: "You obviously hate animals." For 20 minutes I conversed with this guy, and just when he seemed to see reason he would instantly degenerate into "you hate animals." There was no reasoning with a myopic fanatic.

And that's what I think is the case with the anti-Gosselin population. I liked Petersen's treatise because it called for ALL families to be scrutinized the same. But just like that person who was unable to look at abused children and abused animals with the same critical eye (and could only see favoritism of one group over the other), I think there are a few people who let their hate of Kate/Jon color their perception of the Duggars. Even though the latter family is essentially on the same path as the Gosselins.

Saint said...

ceciliaky, I agree with your observation that the Gosselin's have had a fast transformation. I had seen only a few episodes in the past years. Then, I was put on medical bedrest in May and watched a marathon of J&K+8 with my daughter (hours and hours of episodes.) We went from loving them to being disgusted by them in one day. Very early on, I thought Mady was a brat, but by the end of the day, I thought she was being edited that way, and that she was very stressed by the presence of cameras. The "gumgate" incident ended with my daughter and me having a real heart-to-heart about letting "strong women" walk all over you. My daughter is, shall I say, "Jodi-like," kind, gentle, feminine, loving. I told her I never wanted her to be like Jodi as an adult--letting a sister-in-law take advantage of her nature, making condescending remarks. We had a second talk when I read Julie's blog explaining why Jodi let Kate take advantage of her. I admire people who submit "like the lamb to the slaughter" to help out someone with less power. It requires a quiet strength. I admire Jodi for putting up with her humbling role on the show and in real life, to maintain her relationship with the Gosselin children, and try to give them a peaceful get-away within their family and neighborhood.

I realize that my opinion is not shared by most of the posters here. I do not object to Kate because she is a "strong woman." I have other objections that would be inappropriate to post here b/c they are off-topic.

Saint said...

Yes, morecowbell, those a very good, very fair points (about Quintland.) Being removed from home is much worse. I have reconsidered that post! Well said. Thanks!

Kikibee said...

Although I can understand where the remaining Dionne's were coming from when they wrote that letter, I don't think it's fair to compare them to the Gs or anyone else. That was such an extreme situation and, really, it took place in a different world.

Nowadays people meet their mates, date, get married, give birth, have plastic surgery, etc., on television all the time. J&K may be on tv more than most, (for now) but they aren't the only ones. Reality tv is cheap and popular so there is just going to be more of it in the future. When the Gosselin kids get older they'll blend into the crowd.

And, I do think there should be some kind of protection for kids in these situations, especially regarding money. But I don't think it'll happen in time to affect the Gosselins.

Anya said...

Saint said...
"The "gumgate" incident ended with my daughter and me having a real heart-to-heart about letting "strong women" walk all over you. My daughter is, shall I say, "Jodi-like," kind, gentle, feminine, loving. I told her I never wanted her to be like Jodi as an adult--letting a sister-in-law take advantage of her nature, making condescending remarks. We had a second talk when I read Julie's blog explaining why Jodi let Kate take advantage of her. I admire people who submit "like the lamb to the slaughter" to help out someone with less power. It requires a quiet strength."

Saint, I realize I getting off-topic here, but first I want to say I admire you watching and discussing the show with your daughter and, in particular, having a discussion about women's roles in society. It sounds like you are doing what a momma should - recognizing those good traits in your child, but also trying to prepare her for the real world.

You lose me a bit, however, with what I perceive as over-simplification of what it means to be a female in society. Yes, there is a spectrum. I guess you can put "kind, gentle, feminine, loving" on one side and label it Jodi and put "mean, tough, not feminine and cold" on the other and label it Kate, but I think that reality is really a bit different, for both Kate and Jodi and all women.

I have seen Kate be gentle and loving. Yes, her way may not be the more traditional Jodi way, but it's there.

When you refer to Jodi as "kind", you are referring to someone who has unleashed her sister on the internet to gossip about the Gosselins and make pals with all their haters. I don't think that is especially kind.

I guess what I am saying is I think when we talk about differences between Kate and Jodi, we only see a small portion of who they really are (the surface, if you will) and while labels can sometimes be useful, they are sometimes limiting too.

By the way, I actually have always liked what I have seen of Jodi on the show. And, I have already established that Kate can be annoying, but there are things I like about her, so I am not trying to say one is 'better' than the other.

erin said...

Saint said "The "gumgate" incident ended with my daughter and me having a real heart-to-heart about letting "strong women" walk all over you. My daughter is, shall I say, "Jodi-like," kind, gentle, feminine, loving. I told her I never wanted her to be like Jodi as an adult--letting a sister-in-law take advantage of her nature, making condescending remarks."

This to me is the crux of the situation, as I said before. This is not directed at you, but since the example is before me I'll use it. Our society is incredibly hard on "strong women," somehow if you aren't "quiet, feminine, and kind" you are somehow not treated as a woman. I agree with Anya that this is an oversimplification of what it is to be a real woman in this society. This coming from, by the by, a woman who wears skirts suits not pant suits, always wears make up, has her hair fixed, and is very quiet and timid. I am also a woman in a male dominated profession where if you are assertive you are termed a bitch and generally hated.

This goes back to the double standard, as I mentioned before. You could compare Aunt Jodi to Michelle Duggar, both quiet, shy, seemingly submissive paragons of femininity. But again, both have some behaviors that in Kate have been crucified (vanity--Aunt Jodi went and got her hair and nails done when she knew she was going on Oprah, cruelty--let her sister loose on the internet and then aided her crusade by video, selling out the kids--Michelle allowed the kids to be filmed in specials and in an actual series). I truly believe that the backlash against Gosselins (which is more often than not personal attacks against Kate) is in response to not only a double standard against the Gosselins and in particular Kate as a strong woman, but is also a larger double standard society has concerning the way women are perceived.

Saint said...

I think I have been misunderstood...which can easily happen on the Internet. I might have unintentionally hit a raw nerve by describing Jodi as "feminine." I did not mean to imply that that means submissive or even quiet. I was thinking of my daughter, not as compared to Kate, but just 'like Jodi.' I meant "feminine" as a shorthand for using make-up, wearing her hair long, doing her nails, dressing up. I do not enjoy these feminine pursuits myself. By my definition, Kate Gosselin, is definitely feminine. She, unlike me, goes to the salon, paints her nails, spends time on looking good, as, I believe does Jodi. At this point I would like to declare that I admire these feminine traits, and encourage them in my daughter. They are part of who she is. I do not require them of my "less-girly" daughter though, since I am not interested in that, either. "Feminine" was just a description of my oldest daughter, not a judgment of anyone else. I just wanted to paint a very pretty, lovely picture for you.
I could not have meant "submissive" when I wrote "feminine," because I don't believe submissiveness is a feminine trait. I think Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are both feminine. I also think they are both very strong, and not particularly submissive or quiet women.

Saint said...

I have re-reread my original post and I see why I have been misread. I wrote strong women then seemed to contrast it with my description of my daughter as kind, gentle, feminine, loving. No, I didn't intend that at all...

Strong women can be kind, gentle, feminine, loving, AND strong. In fact, I meant to imply that Jodi appeared submissive (and weak) during "gumgate." After reading Julie's blog though, I changed my mind. I saw Jodi as having a special inner strength required for public self-sacrifice that I hope my daughter will have.

erin said...

Saint: I want to stress that that was not specifically addressed to you, merely the example presented itself and it was exactly what I was talking about. I didn't mean to imply feminine as submissive only, or that you said that, more as an indictment of the idea that to be "feminine" is in society is to be the very things you point out: kind, quiet, etc. My point is that Kate's behaviors (loud, abrasive, opinionated) are seen as less feminine and "bad." Aunt Jodi on the other hand is seen as a paragon of virtue, despite doing some of the same things Kate has done. I think the reason for this is that Jodi is more feminine, nice, and sympathetic whereas Kate is seen as the opposite.

As I stated in my first post, it is those traits in Kate that I believe make the Gosselin's such a target where women like Michelle Duggar are not. Strong women are often a target for other women, which is in my mind largely what happens on anti-Gosselin sites. You'll notice that most of the comments are directed at Kate, and many are about how she is castrating her husband with her behavior, how loud she is, that she isn't kind and loving enough to her kids, and on and on.

My point is not about submissive females, but about the fact that "strong women" like Kate are often treated badly. Again, it is a double standard in our society. In my field if a guy is aggressive, strong, and fights for his client he is a good lawyer; if a woman does the same thing she is a ball-busting bitch. I think this double standard is unfair, is often applied to Kate, and worst of all is perpetrated very often by other women.

Saint said...

I agree/disagree.
I agree that women in the business world who are strong are often cast as b****es. Men get away with aggressive behavior when women get called names for it. An example: a woman who is tough about enforcing HR rules where I work is often called a b****. It's unfair b/c she is just doing her job, and she's just a bit cold and matter-of-fact about it. She isn't a "sweet-natured" person. I have no problem with her. No man in her position would draw the same reaction. Does this happen with Kate Gosselin?

Yeah...I've seen that. Kate is mocked for her hair cut or for yelling and jumping around when she's happy about something Jon did. I don't agree with that. She's mocked for talking over him and 'running that house' from the TV viewers perspective. I think that criticism is unfair (since I talk 100 x more than my husband, and I pretty much make the everyday "house decisions." I also think there are other unfair criticisms not on topic here.)

But I also disagree. You mention a list of traits: kind, quiet, abrasive, opinionated, loud, sympathetic. Some of these are neutral traits (quiet/loud.) But some are virtues. Kind is better than not kind. Sympathetic is better than not sympathetic. Maybe we don't agree. Maybe I'm reading you wrong on that.

I do see things in Kate that draw her fans. I liked her at first. I also see why her detractors think she's the wrong person to call "supermom" or whatever. Honestly, my position on the show is probably colored by my feelings about Kate's personality. But Michelle Duggar (the little I've seen of her) isn't as abrasive to me, and I still think she's made the wrong decision about that show. For me, it will depend less on whether she is quiet or entertaining, and more on whether the kids seem stressed by the cameras or if unflattering "warts and all" children's moments are shared with the world.

One more thing about Kate's personality. I want to be honest about this. I saw a more recent show...Sight and Sound. I felt they really were trying to respond to the criticism. I heard Kate "shush" Mady when she started to complain. I thought that was really great. I believe she was trying to shield Mady from the "bratty" edits I think Mady unfairly got (in the past.) Good for Kate! Here's MY dilemma. The show is boring when the Gosselins are calm. That's why I don't watch the Duggars. They're nice--they SHOULD be nice. But they're boring.

Guinevere said...

I've never watched any of the Duggar shows; everything I know about them is second-hand. They don't seem like my kind of people, but live and let live. I may have opinions about some of the things they say and do, but I'm trying not to be too judge-y; the whole Gosselin blogosphere business has made me more aware of the judgments I make about people.

I feel for the Dionne quintuplets and what they went through. I respect Paul Peterson and think his heart is in the right place. But ultimately I question whether the Dionnes or Peterson *know* what the Gosselin children are living. People say, "they know because they've been there", but the Dionnes' situation was not the same as the Gosselins'. Peterson's was not the same as the Gosselins'. Even if the circumstances were more analogous than they actually are, it wouldn't mean that the situations are really the same, or that the outcomes would be the same. What I'm trying to say is that if experience brings knowledge, it can also bring prejudice. It's my understanding that the Dionnes had bad childhood experiences that were unrelated to being quintuplets or being marketed and used the way that they were (not that what was done to them wasn't wrong; it obviously was). Paul Peterson had bad experiences and now he kind of obviously has an axe to grind. I don't know that he's the most impartial observer. That said, as I've said before, many times, I have no issue with the idea of some laws governing children in reality tv being enacted.

FIONA said...

I definitly to believe that children on reality shows need to be protected, from their earnings, to hours on set, etc...

That being said, the Gosselin's were asked to be on the cover of a very famous magazine. Several different poses were taken, inside the home, outside, and at a studio.

Whether this is a reality show family, or any other large group of people, these pictures will require alot of time to create a good photograph.

From what I observed, it was clearly broken wasn't like the kids were standing for hours at a time...I bet they weren't outside on the deck in the 95 degree heat for more than 30 minutes, and I would bet that it was less.

They were not dressed until the last minute. They had fans. They got their pictures taken.

It takes time to get even a teenager's senior pictures taken, and BTW, he/she will get hot and grumpy as well.

I don't think that the shoot was abusive or mean. It was what it was.

And the outcome are some nice pictures. So what if they were photoshopped? I don't think that makes the photgrapher bad at his craft. He is simply using the technology available to create the best photo possible. No big deal.

I read a comment earlier today that the G's are losing their crowd and popularity. I disagree. I think they are gaining momentum and I don't think they are going to be stopping anytime soon, despite what the bloggers feel about them.

But to snark for the sake of snarking, I am personally so tired of it. The pictures are nice and the kids are cute. And if the haters want to point out that one child looks like an alien, (which I thought she looked pretty BTW)...or someone's dress is not lined up, well ok-but seriously give the picture a rest, and go get some excerise or something.

FIONA said...

Why do some people think it is ok to pick on the Duggar's because they choose to live a very conservative Christian life?

Are we so bitter and beaten down that we have to go after a couple of young people because they chose not to kiss before their wedding?

My word, you would think they were selling crack to the local elementary kids or something worse.

They are different. And really, in today's society, I think different is not a bad ting. How far can going along with the crowd get you?

Look around at the teens today, the music, the values, the way they dress. Parent's today have put their blinders on more than any other generation, I believe.

I don't begrudge anyone for homeschooling. Take a few miunutes and tour thru the best public highschool and you will be shocked.

Parent's who make the committment to homeschool should be spplauded for their efforts.

I don't think the Duggar's are "creepy". I think they look like a very happy and peaceful family.

I think Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar would unequivocally agree, they don't need anyone's pity.

erin said...

Saint: I apologize for the late response, I have been very busy at work and spent most of my morning and afternoon at the office. Here is my response, but to be entirely honest I don't feel like fighting this out any more. You and I clearly disagree on this issue, but you have been respectful so I do really appreciate that.

Sympathetic is a judgment call. If I look back over my clients, I see many that I found to be sympathetic but if you met them you might not see them that way. Kindness is a virtue, but here, I don't see Kate as not kind. I don't see her as exceptionally kind either; to be honest I don't really care. My issue has always been, and will probably always be, that the backlash agains the show seems to be directed at Kate, from other women who attack her for being mean, abbrasive, loud, then attack her looks with fat, stupid hair, etc. Many of the attacks against Kate, by the way, could be considered pretty mean, which I have always thought was kind of funny (that people hate on Kate, then engage in the same behaviors they claim to hate in her). Other women are held up as "that's a real mother, that's a real woman" compared to Kate. I hate that we have developed into a culture where it is okay to beat up on other mothers. I have mentioned that on this blog before. I also hate that there is a backlash in our society against women who are strong personalities, like Kate. It is insulting, honestly, and probably it is my semi-militant feminism showing through. I just feel like the reaction to Kate is an illustration of the larger problems with views on women within our society.

By the way, the point of my original post was that the double standard is applied because people don't like Kate. Since you admitted that your view of the show is colored by your impression of Kate (which is probably not favorable) it kind of proves the point BUT you are the first person I've ever engaged with who has actually stepped up and admitted that, so in all honesty I really don't have any problem with you. My problem is mostly with people who say "I don't hate the show because I hate Kate, I hate it because I want to protect the children" then proceed to spend all their time talking about "Kate's ever expanding ass," doing an armchair diagnosis of her as NPD or some such.

Hope this made sense, and sorry it was so long. My brain is scrambled after work.

Saint said...

Thank you for the discussion. I didn't feel we were fighting...just disagreeing. I am happy to hear others out. I do appreciate the chance to speak a different viewpoint without a great deal of hostility.

erin said...

Saint said: "erin, Thank you for the discussion. I didn't feel we were fighting...just disagreeing. I am happy to hear others out. I do appreciate the chance to speak a different viewpoint without a great deal of hostility."

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. I have so much contention in my daily life I guess I get a little riled up when it happens other times. Also, I had really bad experiences with "disagreements" on GWoP, so it is no reflection on you. I actually don't love Kate, for the record, but I always think about what people would say about me if I had a camera on me all the time. I venture to guess I would be called a bitch, not nice, not a real woman, and etc.

Nancy said...

Fiona, I agree with everything you said! I don't think the Duggars will ever "exploit" their kids, and I like the parents a lot. I admire the family's faithfulness to their beliefs.