Many people have talked about the Gosselins. Whether they are neighbors, former "helpers," voyeurs through the TV, whatever, there have been many points of view shown (not the Gosselins’, though). And many have talked about the inconsistencies about the family, as far as what is seen as truth of their situation and what is actually fact.
Submitted for publication by Cincymom.
A lot of the frustration seems to have stemmed from the family asking for help that may/ may not have been needed and then from not showing appreciation when help has been offered. There have also obviously been changes in the past year or two, with finances. However, I thought it would be helpful to try to showcase which inconsistencies (not things that just annoy) people have as problems from the show. Trying to focus on the kids becomes hard when there is such a gray area to their needs.
Let's try a number system to keep everything in check. Here are my first few below:
1. Helpers: Helpers are valuable. Then randomly disappear without further explanation.
2. College funds: Some argue about this with the speaking engagements and being upfront. As far as I understand it, this is the situation, but please feel free to clarify:
There is a Pennsylvania account set up for each child. This has been reported. However, the amount in the account is anyone's best guess. Anyone can set up an account--whether there is money in it is only known by the closest to the situation.
3. Work--Jon had a job, then a "work-from-home" job. As far as I know, there has been no acknnowledgement that "now that we are making so much money from the show, Daddy has been able to stay home and help Kate."
4. Situation change: We get it. The show has allowed the family more opportunities. However, it has only been cursorily referred to as "so and so "invited" us. In the beginning, we felt we were sharing in the situation with how hard things must be to have six kids the same age with an older set of twins. There has never been an acknowledgement as to how much things have changed.
........I only list these things because obviously Jon and Kate are polarizing figures. People feel invested with the kids, seeing them each week and watching them grow. There are websites set up to evaluate the parent choices. I have some questions about the choices, as I'm sure others do--and probably more eloquently voiced.
Any comments about my listed "inconsistencies?" Others? Wouldn't it be nice to have it all recorded in one place?
Let's try a number system to keep everything in check. Here are my first few below:
1. Helpers: Helpers are valuable. Then randomly disappear without further explanation.
2. College funds: Some argue about this with the speaking engagements and being upfront. As far as I understand it, this is the situation, but please feel free to clarify:
There is a Pennsylvania account set up for each child. This has been reported. However, the amount in the account is anyone's best guess. Anyone can set up an account--whether there is money in it is only known by the closest to the situation.
3. Work--Jon had a job, then a "work-from-home" job. As far as I know, there has been no acknnowledgement that "now that we are making so much money from the show, Daddy has been able to stay home and help Kate."
4. Situation change: We get it. The show has allowed the family more opportunities. However, it has only been cursorily referred to as "so and so "invited" us. In the beginning, we felt we were sharing in the situation with how hard things must be to have six kids the same age with an older set of twins. There has never been an acknowledgement as to how much things have changed.
........I only list these things because obviously Jon and Kate are polarizing figures. People feel invested with the kids, seeing them each week and watching them grow. There are websites set up to evaluate the parent choices. I have some questions about the choices, as I'm sure others do--and probably more eloquently voiced.
Any comments about my listed "inconsistencies?" Others? Wouldn't it be nice to have it all recorded in one place?
109 comments:
For me, I don't understand the point of listing the inconsistencies.
It's a TV show and I find it entertaining. It's about a family that is not my own and I don't think I have any business worrying about their consistency or inconsistency.
But that's me. To each his or her own.
I could care less if Jon and Kate are nice people, or they have college funds set up. It's there business and like any show on TV they get paid. So they didn't have money in the beginning and now they do. The show is entertainment and I enjoy what other people think surrounding the show. It makes good drama. The children are cute but my children are cutier:) I think someones success is another ones envy and it's easier to talk about the negative then the postive. Where's the drama without all the negative and then it's boring. Who wants boring?
Indianprincess, I bet my nephew is cuter than your kids :)!! hahah! Great statement though- and I agree with what you are saying. This is entertainment, and due to timing and editing there are bound to be 'inconsistencies' that are nothing more than misunderstandings.
I remember some people freaking out at one point about how Jon and Kate needed to get the tups into preschool, and we haven't heard where they were yet so *obviously* those kids were being sheltered from contact with other kids. Uhh... methinks they are now in school and seem to be enjoying it. So just because one thing may seem inconsistent does not at all indicate it actually is-- life changes but reruns stay the same. One big piece to this is we need to remember we see pieces spliced of single moments from their life, which is constantly changing.
(haven't = hadn't... its been a long day at work, obviously!)
We as viewer really don't know squat. I do feel as though, JMO, that J&K try and play down the fact that they have helpers and more money than the average "joe". I believe that they've made mention lately that they have been invited to many place in return for free advertisment, whereas in the past they tried to make us believe that it was coming from their pocket and a "rare treat". Remember - this is all JMO :-)
i don't have any problem with the free trips. if i were offered them, i would take them in a heartbeat. i also don't have a problem with the speaking engagements, in my opinion that is work they are doing without the children. the issue i have is that they attend these engagements, spin their sad story, and then collect alot of money. if you are able to live in a million dollar home, then you have alot of nerve selling pics of your kids while spouting that you can't afford college. YOU chose to have 8 children, therefore it is YOUR responsibility to send them to college. no one else's. it is not the governments responsibility to provide the money for their birth and care (medical cards) nor to pay for your nurse. as far as the mysterious disapearing helpers, they have a right to decide who does and does not have a part in their children's lives. my only beef is that they be honest about it. don't say you don't need jodi or beth or whoever on trips anymore because you can handle it, then bring jenny. just be honest. people don't need to hear all the "dirt", a simple " this person is not in our lives anymore so we hired a nanny" would suffice. just don't act like we're all stupid and believe that line. and dont go on and on about how unsatisfying your first wedding was when many of us could only dream of having a wedding of the scale your first one was.
If people want to give money to the Gosselin's then it's the individual persons choice. As for selling $20.oo pictures and IMO why would you want to buy one. Just download a picture off the internet and print it. I'm not analyzing the show to death of what they are doing behind the scenes to what I see on the show. I did buy the book because people spoke highly of it and I found it interesting but it doesn't change my mind if they lied to me in anyway. I don't IMO think we are entitled to know everything. If people who have met them in public said they are rude and didn't they didn't say hello. I look at it as they have 8 young children to keep track of and I would be rude too. If Jon and Kate came to my area I wouldn't go hear them speak because I know the whole story and other than reading comments around the show I'm not that invested in wanting a family to crash and burn.
oops..sorry miss wording. Oh no, now I think I'm a sheeple with No education. lol
I am posting the link where a person went to see Jon & Kate at a speaking engagement recently. It was on GWOP and they are having a field day with it. The only issue this person had was not having them personally say hi to her even though she did get a free autograph. Read what the haters wrote below it. Its insane. There were no inconsistencies, nothing bad written, just they were disappointed. Are you kidding me?
http://high-five.net/?p=421
honestly, most of the inconsistencies I see come from watching the show and then reading the blogs. There's "new" information all the time. I can't keep track anymore- not that I really want to, it's a show. I honestly don't care that much.
I just can't understand how/ why people give their hard-earned money to people who are now well off? And how do those people in good conscience take the money?
It's probably the only thing I really can't figure out.
Jon and Kate see it as a job and it's income to them. The same way people buy products from Celebrities. Some famous people are millionaires and they still plug their brand. It's how things work so if Jon and Kate want to cash in on this market so who cares? No one is forcing anyone to watch the show or buy their stuff. I think I'm over invested now..oh lordy be...lol
the issue i have is that they attend these engagements, spin their sad story, and then collect alot of money.
I've just not seen hard proof that they do this. That seems to be the impression some people have, but I wonder how many of these people really have evidence?
My impression is that the Gosselins used to be in a much less financially stable position and maybe they did talk about that in their speeches. I would think that now that they appear to be in a more set position (though of course we don't really know, not having access to the Gosselins' financial records), they do not talk about that anymore, at least not in the present tense.
I am not trying to "demand proof" - it just seems to be something that is continually brought up anecdotally, and I have seen scant evidence to back it up. It almost seems like a piece of received wisdom that people believe and pass on without questioning.
if you are able to live in a million dollar home, then you have alot of nerve selling pics of your kids while spouting that you can't afford college.
Again, I don't know that the Gosselins are still saying they can't afford college (although 8 kids x 10+ years of inflation - yikes!). I think the selling of pics is not so much nervy as slightly tacky. But I think it's kind of tacky when baseball players do it, too. I agree with those who have said - no one is forcing you to buy a picture.
YOU chose to have 8 children, therefore it is YOUR responsibility to send them to college. no one else's. it is not the governments responsibility to provide the money for their birth and care (medical cards) nor to pay for your nurse.
I can understand that perspective. I'm a little more...socialist in my outlook on health care, but I respect that other people see it differently.
The paying for the nurse business seems to be, as far as I can figure, one of the first things that put some people off of the Gosselins. I guess I can't judge them too harshly (I know, surprise, surprise), because if I put myself in their shoes, with six infants for whom they still had some pretty serious health concerns, I can imagine panicking and doing whatever I needed to in order to ensure the childrens' health and safety. Was it selfish? Maybe, to some degree. But I also think it can be viewed as the behavior of parents who really were concerned about their children and were putting that concern first, before the interests of society as a whole or the thought of how they'd appear to others.
If Kate really said what she was rumored to have said about it being the state's responsibility to pay for her childrens' care - I can't remember if that was a wild rumor or a rumor that had at least a little basis in fact - then it strikes me as a rather obnoxious thing to say. But Kate can be obnoxious and ungracious at times. But I can still sort of understand the impetus behind the lawsuit.
as far as the mysterious disapearing helpers, they have a right to decide who does and does not have a part in their children's lives. my only beef is that they be honest about it. don't say you don't need jodi or beth or whoever on trips anymore because you can handle it, then bring jenny.
Have they said that? I totally don't remember that. Was it on the show or in an article?
I just can't understand how/ why people give their hard-earned money to people who are now well off? And how do those people in good conscience take the money?
It's probably the only thing I really can't figure out.
Are you talking about the love offerings? Because I don't see those as contributions given on the basis of need. In a sense they seem to be payment for a service (public speaking) rendered. How well off the Gosselins doesn't figure into it under those circumstances.
I wouldn't say that you have the right to sneak into a movie (not quite the same thing, I realize; the love offering is voluntary and people aren't forced to pay it) because the stars, director and producers are well-off enough.
Of course, I was never one of those music fans who thought that artists like Metallica who fought against illegal downloading of their music were being "greedy". Not that I think illegal downloading is the biggest deal ever, but the argument that it's okay because the artist is rich enough is not one that works for me.
ok, i'll clarify a few of my statements... (which BTw, Guin, i really appreciate that you and i can discuss and disagree :) without being rude, insulting or snarky! that's probably the biggest thing i appreciate about this site)
anyways....
1. on the point of the speaking engagements, you are right. i don't have proof that they say these things and maybe i've just heard it said so many times i'm accepting it as fact. thank you for pointing that out. i'll def think about that.
2. as far as selling pics, i've heard many first hand reports that they state the selling of those pics is for a college fund. i do think that is really tacky. i guess i'm of the mindset that if you need money so badly for college funds, stop pimping out your kids and don't move into a very expensive house.
3. as far as the nurse is concerned, that was a direct quote from a reading eagle interview that kate did. she flat out said that the state "owed" that to her. in the next breath she admitted that the tups did not have any medical problems to warrant the nurse (which is why the state was discontinuing the nurse) but that there was no way she could take care of all those babies alone. while that is certainly true, they had LOTS of help and that is all where my thought is "you chose to have eight kids so it is your responsibility to care for them." if a woman on welfare chose to have eight kids and have them on government assistance, people would call her trash and complain that she shouldn't have had them if she can't care for them. the two are the same in my eyes. i chose to have a big family, therefore it is my husband and my responsibility, no one elses. they chose to have fertility treatments, knowing there was a risk of multiples. if they were not financially able to take that risk, then they shouldn't have. that being said, i have no problem with all those from their family and church that helped them during that time. we've helped many people who were in a jam and we've been helped ourselves. thats the beauty of generosity. what i have a problem with is the "entitlement" attitude that it is the government's responsibility to bail you out of your own choices.
I think we'll probably never know the whole truth!
Is there anyone that doesn't have some inconsistencies in their life?
My kids are pretty darn cute. If I offered pictures of them for $20 and people bought them would I be dishonest or inconsistent because we don't need the money?
People do have inconsistencies in their lives. The difference is: most people did not go on a national television show. Yes, finances do change. I understand that. BUT please do not tell me how bad your first wedding was to justify a second very, very expensive one in Hawaii. The Gosselins are the ones that put everything out there. They are the ones who talked about how great Beth & Bob were and even introduced them to everyone. How they had helped them, yada yada yada and then ZAP**no more of Beth & Bob. So yes in a way the Gosselins DO OWE an explanation.
I just feel like the tups are working so their parents can afford a lifestyle that THE PARENTS themselves could not afford. Sorry but that is a fact.
No matter how you slice it or dice it, if it were not for those children, J&K would not have the lifestyle that they have. Both would be working outside of the home! Remember, both were working outside of the home UNTIL the show started. And it started because of their children.
I think the thing that really gets to me about the Gosselin family is that so many are willing to support this family by buying the book, contributing to the love offering etc. Would everyone be so will to contribute to an unmarried woman with 8 kids, how about a struggling drug addicted woman with 8 kids? What about a high school unmarried girl having child after child? Society would say how dare them and my tax dollars should not have to pay for that.
Why is it that Jon & Kate aren't viewed the same way? Just because they appear middle class doesn't make the actions any less white trash. Sorry I know some will disagree but I think we should hold everyone accountable for the choices they make. I say Jon & Kate should pay back the GREAT state that provided so much for them now that they are doing well. They have used every service available and yes we all payed for that. WIC program, free nurse, all medical paid by medicaid(gee I'm still paying bills from my last daughters birth), Salvation Army for heating(as per book). These people had money in the bank from Jon's father's death and they said we shouldn't have to spend OUR money? Not to mention that at the time of the Tups birth they had 100,000 equity in their first house(that was the house that was remodeled for free for them).
The point is they should he held up to the same accountability that any other person would be. I'm sure we all have had difficult times in our lives but we don't all run to our local or state to give us handouts.
Just my thoughts and I really think if they were so upstanding then they would pay back all the state money they have used up!
if a woman on welfare chose to have eight kids and have them on government assistance, people would call her trash and complain that she shouldn't have had them if she can't care for them.
Well, I wouldn't call her trash. I'd think she was kind of messed up. But I'm a big old bleeding-heart. I do see where you're coming from; it can be irritating to feel like you're supporting people who aren't working as hard as you. But in the end I just see that as being part of a society, and "no man is an island...ask not for whom the bell tolls", yadda yadda yadda.
BUT please do not tell me how bad your first wedding was to justify a second very, very expensive one in Hawaii.
Well, to be fair, I don't think they said their first wedding was bad. They said that they wanted to get married in Hawaii the first time, but they couldn't get their families to agree to travel there for it, and so they bowed to their wishes and had the ceremony in Pennsylvania.
The whole vow renewal thing has had some weird aspects, to be sure. The repeated statement that it was to show the kids that mommy and daddy would be together forever was a little odd, to say the least. I thought the idea of doing it so that they could have all of their kids there was a much nicer explanation.
I wondered if the memory of the first wedding didn't have some bittersweet aspects IF Kate is truly estranged from as many relatives as some people claim she is. The second ceremony was definitely different in a lot of ways, I would imagine.
I think the thing that really gets to me about the Gosselin family is that so many are willing to support this family by buying the book, contributing to the love offering etc.
I bought the book because I wanted to read it. It wasn't a charitable act on my part. I would guess (though of course I have no way of knowing) that this would be the case for most readers.
Would everyone be so will to contribute to an unmarried woman with 8 kids, how about a struggling drug addicted woman with 8 kids? What about a high school unmarried girl having child after child? Society would say how dare them and my tax dollars should not have to pay for that.
Some people would have that attitude, and some people wouldn't. I said in my last post that I don't tend to feel that way (not that I don't ever get annoyed about people on welfare; I just think I'm being petty when I do so).
Why is it that Jon & Kate aren't viewed the same way? Just because they appear middle class doesn't make the actions any less white trash.
At the risk of coming off like the PC police, I really don't like the phrase "white trash" - it implies that the fact that non-whites are trash goes without saying (sorry, that's a tortured sentence; I can't think of a better way to put it). Of course, I don't know if Jon considers himself white, anyway.
Sorry I know some will disagree but I think we should hold everyone accountable for the choices they make. I say Jon & Kate should pay back the GREAT state that provided so much for them now that they are doing well. They have used every service available and yes we all payed for that. WIC program, free nurse, all medical paid by medicaid(gee I'm still paying bills from my last daughters birth), Salvation Army for heating(as per book).
Presumably, they have also paid taxes, so they've paid into the system as well as taking out of it. Do you think everyone who uses government services should be required to pay the money back? Why pay taxes, then?
These people had money in the bank from Jon's father's death and they said we shouldn't have to spend OUR money? Not to mention that at the time of the Tups birth they had 100,000 equity in their first house(that was the house that was remodeled for free for them).
Where on earth did you get access to J&K's bank records, if I may ask?
The point is they should he held up to the same accountability that any other person would be. I'm sure we all have had difficult times in our lives but we don't all run to our local or state to give us handouts.
If you don't mind my asking, are you by any chance a Libertarian?
Regarding the renewal of vows, I have to wonder if Kate craves romance and just hasn't had much since the kids were born. They were both young and got busy quick.
Some of the Kate's comments throughout the series about Jon and their marriage could show that she is insecure and needed reassurance.
I have to add my two cents on this house equity thing.
Personally, I don't get it. I keep hearing they shouldn't have been crying poor when they had 100,000 equity in their home.
What does that mean exactly? They should have borrowed against their house for food and support? What would Suze Orman say about that?
At the risk of coming off like the PC police, I really don't like the phrase "white trash" - it implies that the fact that non-whites are trash goes without saying.
I've always felt EXACTLY that way too!
Thanks, Samantha. I'm glad it's not just me.
About the house and money thing that keeps getting thrown out there, we don't have privy to their finances so it gets to be aggravating when it keeps coming up like its fact. Maybe it's just me being pissy today.
I feel the truth on what is the facts is someplace in the middle.
In other words - we don't know what is really going on.
So Jon and Kate arn't the perkiest when meeting and greeting "fans" - so what. would you rather they be fake - let's face it, after the last few years they are still overwhelmed and tired.
So what if they are doing public appearences for the money - what you think they should appear for free? It's not like they are draging all the kids to them either.
The haters make me laugh - they are just so full of hate - right or wrong, Jon and Kate are still people - just human - not better or worse,or perfect,than the rest of us.
I went to that page about that person who went to see an appearence by Jon and Kate. i'm sorry she didn't have the experiance she expected. I've been disapointed seeing some of my 'heroes' in public,too.
What's funny are the posts of people who used to live next to Jon and Kate saying they always hit the kids,etc. Talk about fake!
Denny,
What do you see funny about the posts of Jon and Kate's neighbor's saying that they saw the children being hit? Kate has admitted on national television that she does spank (hit) the children. Why would you say "talk about fake"?
This is a good idea. I agree that there needs to be one place for differentiating the fact from the fiction.
Things I accept as fact:
They have help. We see Jenny on the show and Nana Janet folds laundry.
The kids have college accounts set up from the state. That was in an article.
Some friends and family who were on the show are not anymore.
Things I don't accept as fact that people keep bringing up as fact:
They have a personal chef and all sorts of help therefore Jon and Kate do not care for their children at all.
They have enough money in the kids college accounts that they should not be asking for love offerings anymore.
They have had major falling outs with every person they were ever close to and that's why no one is on the show. Other than Julie's one sided account, I haven't seen anything else that would prove this.
Anything Pennmommy said is not a fact yet I've seen people refer to the Wal-Mart clothes donation story. And sadly, even though people have accepted that it was all a lie, her story planted seeds in people's heads and contributed to the whole Gosselin greed mentality.
As for the inconsistencies, I don't find them as important because people's situations change over time and everyone contradicts themselves.
In response to one of Indianprincess's comments about the fact J&K don't have to be friendly to fans, and if she (princess) were them, she would probably be rude also. Sorry. Just don't buy it. Because they have lots of kids to look after that gives them the right to be rude? Hate to tell ya...the Duggars have, what? over twice the amount of kids as J&K, yet in NYC they were so friendly, from the cab drivers to the policeman, to total strangers on the street, even handing out (free I might add) photos of their family. If Kate is all about "doing unto others" and teaching their kids how to be kind and follow God's teachings, well then J&K better step up and SHOW them how it's done. Actually, I take that back..someone needs to show J&K how to do it first.
MelB,if you want to talk about the Dugger's they lost one of their children in the airport on the first episode so maybe if they were not chatting with people they may not have lost him. Jmo! oh how tacky is handing out pictures of your family to complete strangers. how safe is that?
MelB,
Yes, I agree with you. "Doing unto others" is what the children need to see Kate doing to learn from it. Just saying it but not doing it, doesn't teach the children anything.
Regarding being rude, I see it as a matter perhaps of being a friendly person v. not being friendly. I'm not rude (I don't think) but if some stranger starts talking to me on the street, I'm also not necessarily hugely friendly. Maybe people feel it should be different if you're a "celebrity", but your personality is your personality. I don't feel like J&K "owe it" to anyone to be friendly just because people feel like they know them.
Kate has admitted on national television that she does spank (hit) the children.
I don't remember this at all. Was this in the discipline episode?
I don't believe in spanking but I know of people who do, and I don't think I can say outright that spanking=abuse. The thing that bothers me about it is that I think it's absolutely wrong to hit your child in anger, and I can't imagine choosing that way of discipline if you're *not* angry.
But I swear, I don't remember Kate saying anything about spanking.
The claim that the Gosselins had $100,000 in home equity is from a 2005 article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review about whether or not the Gosselins should be able to keep their Medicaid-funded nurse for an extra year. In the same article Kate admits that there was no medical need for a nurse, she just needed the extra pair of hands.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_334106.html
I was wondering what show Kate was on that she said they spanked the kids. I do remember reading this before, but I thought someone said that they had mentioned it at a speaking engagement. I don't remember ever seeing Kate quoted on this in an article or hear her say it on a TV show. I am not saying she didn't, I just don't remember it.
I think this post is important in that it allows us to see how important it is to back up statements with facts. If one states that Kate admits to spanking on national TV, they should add what program it was and when it was on.
MommyZinger-- I just mentioned one of your comments in another post, and wanted to thank you for the way you kinda opened my eyes to it. You said...
"And sadly, even though people have accepted that it was all a lie, her story planted seeds in people's heads and contributed to the whole Gosselin greed mentality."
This has really become a serious issue-- and I hadn't thought of it till you mentioned this. I think this is a toxic trend and many posters are unaware of how not factual things actually are. I noticed other things on GWoP about Jenny, how Jon and Kate have no other adults around, etc, which we know are false... yet being taken as gospel truth because "it just seems like something KON (icky phrase!!) would do"...
As far as I am concerned, if people assumed everything that was spread third or fourth (or seventeenth, etc) hand about me and my family, then added to it for dramatic appeal, we would be... well... I'm not sure where we would be :). I just know that I have more respect for Jon and Kate who are aware of all that is going on, yet seem to have taken the high road. As I said before, you don't see Kate blogging to 'set the record straight' or watch videos of them talking to the 'haters' about how wrong everyone is (this is not something I have seen anywhere, so if I am wrong, please correct me and share the links!). You see them going about their lives, and at least in my view they are doing right in seemingly letting many hateful, slanderous things roll off their backs.
LoriNJ70..having a problem logging on sorry.
I think the issue regarding Kate and or Jon being less than friendly is this...people invite them into their living rooms every week and begin to feel like they know them. What they forget is that to the Gosselins they are a total stranger.
Now I'm not excusing rudeness (if it was) and I think knowing someone has taken the time to hear them speak they should make every attempt to be cordial.
The new NE article is ridiculous. It's based on a blogger's report and reads like they want J&K to do all their speaking engagements for free. It even states they don't talk about being broke anymore.
As far as the blog of the fan who attended in PA and was disappointed at their rudeness, I think people have too high of an expectation. It did not read that would be available after their first talk. They had two different presentations. One offered FREE during the normal service where you MAY give just to hear them speak, the other was a paid event. I'm sure they needed to go and eat after the first talk. Also, I think $7.00 is a reasonable price for the second event.
Well, there's a new National Enquirer article. Apparently they have moved into their new house. Mostly, it's just a rehash of the same old same old.
Has there ever been a source other than Jodi for the oft mentioned "personal organic chef, nannies, housekeepers, personal assistants, gardener"?
I know Kate has said they have food provided on shooting days, and we've seen Jenny and various other babysitters.
If people believe they have no friends or family left, and the kids aren't allowed to have friends because we don't see these people , then why should anyone believe they have this huge staff when we don't see them either?
I dont remember ever hearing Kate say she spanks her children? What article or tv appearance was that on? If it was on the TLC show, which episode?
Some of my favorite shows to watch are ones like Jon and Kate, Then Came Six, Quintessential, etc. I don't know why, I just enjoy watching them. The thing is, all of these people, and most with high number multiples, at some point have to ask for help. On the show Then Came Six, they went to ABC and asked them to build them an Extreme Makeover Home- that costs over 2 million dollars!! Why aren't people badgering them? I will admit, if I were to give birth to 6 babies at once I would probably be begging for help! But none of these families is innocent of doing that, why do we always just badger the Gosselins?
Another thing, when the couple on "Quintessential" came home from the hospital, they asked for no help at all. None. And they still had people writing hate mail to them saying how dare they ask people to pay for their children.
I just think that when people give birth to high number multiples they ALL expect help to some extent.
Sorry, I feel like I'm blowing up this discussion with my thoughts...last one I promise.
The National Enquirer?? Really? I saw an article a few months back in there that said "Bill Clinton cheats on Hillary again, this time with 3-breasted intern."
I don't see what everyone's getting so bent out of shape about, it's not exactly a reputable source.
Tricia said...The National Enquirer?? Really? I saw an article a few months back in there that said "Bill Clinton cheats on Hillary again, this time with 3-breasted intern."
I can't let that one go, sorry! LOL The mental image is going to stay with me all day.
If that man screws up Hillary's chances for SOS, I am writing him off!
Sorry, I know I am as off-topic as one can be....!
Kikibee said:
If people believe they have no friends or family left, and the kids aren't allowed to have friends because we don't see these people , then why should anyone believe they have this huge staff when we don't see them either?
I couldn't agree more with this statement!
Kikibee,
Great post.
Jennifer said...
What do you see funny about the posts of Jon and Kate's neighbor's saying that they saw the children being hit? Kate has admitted on national television that she does spank (hit) the children. Why would you say "talk about fake"?
Because I believe those posts are fake and not from real neighbors.
What I find ironic about the new NE article is that Bohemian Moon has gone to great lengths to yell at people who associate her with GWOP, and then GWOP links her blog to their site with the article.
I thought the "spanking" comment came from someone who attended one of J&K's speaking engagements at a church.
As I recall, Kate was asked if they spanked the kids and her reply was that they did. I would assume they spank, based on their beliefs ("spare the rod", etc.) but who knows what the true story is.
I don't remember anyone mentioning spanking on any of the episodes. I wouldn't think that would be something that Figure 8 would like to highlight, if true, given the number of people today who oppose spanking, no matter how minor.
Has there ever been a source other than Jodi for the oft mentioned "personal organic chef, nannies, housekeepers, personal assistants, gardener"?
Is Jodi the source for this?
I think the Gosselins are already paying back the state of PA in the form of income taxes.
From the original post #3: Jon needs to acknowledge that he isn't working outside the home anymore. That does not make sense to me. Why? Is it such a big secret that they do the show, speaking engagements, and advertisements? Same response for #4: situation change. I don't think they should have to say what we can see. They show us that on TV every week.
If Jon announced that he doesn't have to work 9 to 5 anymore and that they're rich, rich, rich, then he'd be accused of bragging.
Not sure if it's been mentioned but there is an article on J&K in Redbook. Here's the link:
http://www.redbookmag.com/kids-family/advice/big-family-raising-eight-kids?click=main_sr
I was amused by Jon's reply to the question of Mady and Cara helping.
Guinevere I know for a fact that elderly people who receive state medical aide Medicaid not Medicare, are required to pay this back. This happens when they pass away and the state comes in and takes the funds if available from the estate. My wifes grandmother passed away and my mother-in-law was required to sell her home and only allowed to keep 6% for administrative fees. Not suggesting the Gosselins pay this back just curious if it applies to minor care.
Thanks Nina Bell and lulabae!
Saint-
I should have said Julie was the source, but she would have gotten it from Jodi. Anyway, I know the organic chef tidbit came from Julie and I thought most of the other stuff,too. Has anyone else with any credibility ever talked about the "staff' they supposedly have?
Seriously, I can't remember anymore.
Not sure if it's been mentioned but there is an article on J&K in Redbook. Here's the link:
http://www.redbookmag.com/kids-family/advice/big-family-raising-eight-kids?click=main_sr
You know, I don't really like the "supermom" tag being applied to Kate. First of all, it's just grist for the haters, and second of all - mothering isn't a competition; I don't think Kate Gosselin or any mother should be held up as an example of a "supermom". It just doesn't quite sit right with me.
The NE spoke of those things Saint pointed out. Since that paper also wants me to believe I might be an alien I take it with a grain of salt.
Kate was the first I saw that spoke of "craft services" on the days they film. 3-4 days a week I guess she can request organic.
An attorney with the Gosselin name says the most googled question is where Jon works. LOL Alot of people do not believe he worked for Bob and quit his state job to do the speaking tour.
Help, we see bits and pieces but early on Kate did laundry, another folded it, put it away and yet another ironed.
J&K had the home nurse until the kids were 1yr old. Also alot of volunteers but they stated on the show they decided to do it on their own.
Finances, I think they have been comfortable for a while. At least since shortly after the show began. The book certainly generated an advance. Much of what they do and wear, as well as soaps, shampoos and some food has been in exchange for advertising.
I am only saying these are some things I see as being inconsistent.
NC Resident,
What is inconcsistent about the laundry? Kate narrated who did what on the show while they showed the various stages of laundry being done by a series of women. How is that inconsistent? If she said she did all the laundry, then showed the helpers, that would be inconsistent.
Here, I would like to add that this was an example Kate's accepting help that I found 'tacky.' When I saw this, I thought that people who offer to help are not offering to do your laundry. Also, by the time the tups were potty trained, why would anyone do her laundry for her? Tacky. I would take the free trips, but not the laundry help.
You said Kate told us about the "craft services." So how could she be inconsistent when she's telling the truth? I don't get this point.
I don't want to go off on an anti-Kate rant here, but there's plenty I don't like about her. I just don't see the "inconsistencies" between her words and deeds to be the problem.
NC resident
Not suggesting the Gosselins pay this back just curious if it applies to minor care.
Not in my state. I think parents would avoid seeking care and make unwise choices for their children's health care needs if that was the case.
In the very early episodes I thought she did it all. Not until later episodes did we see people folding laundry, one trip a lady was ironing. All Im saying early on I thought she did it. People emailed Kate and asked if she had a personal chef. She said yes and her name is Kate. I thought early on she cooked every day. She did but not on days they filmed. Nina I never suggested they pay back, I am telling you as a first hand knowledge that elderly people that obtain Medicaid have to pay this benefit back. Each state has various rules but the program is based on federal guidelines. Ohio make my mother-in-law pay her mothers expenses.
Nc Resident
No I knew what you were saying, I was just responding to your question about minors and explaining why states would not have parents pay back state aid. I actually work in this field so I felt I could respond.
Im glad Nina I thought because the kids needed medical help and finacially J&K couldnt afford it that is why Medicaid helped out. Im glad they did they needed help for sure.
Saint said...
Has there ever been a source other than Jodi for the oft mentioned "personal organic chef, nannies, housekeepers, personal assistants, gardener"?
Is Jodi the source for this?
My post was meant to show only that I found out Kate didnt cook every meal from Kate. But for two seasons they have filmed "craft services" has been available according to Kate. Not until season 3 was this revealed correct?
NC Resident,
Yes, now I understand what you mean...that viewers early on were under a different impression on these issues that you mentioned, but bit by bit the corrected version came out. Some viewers felt a bit deceived. It was "inconsistent" with their first impression. That makes sense to me. I am a little slow today.
I confess that I just started watching this show in May of this past year, all episodes during one of those weekend marathons, then stopped until after Labor Day when my family was discussing the show and Aunt Jodi. I haven't seen all the early episodes.
Coincidentally, there was an earlier episode that I saw about them visiting the Jersey Shore just tonight. I didn't see it before. Jon's aunt and uncle stroll by. The kids were screaming about the wind and the sand (my kids did that when they were two years old.) The show had a different feel to it than these later "wealthier-looking" episodes. It did seem simpler and more realistic.
They weren't at the Jersey shore. They were in Florida and it was part of their Disney vacation. It is a shame they don't go to the Jersey shore, it is/was a couple of hours from their home and there is alot for the kids to do if they don't like the beach. We go to Ocean City and there are shops, food and amusement rides for the kids. I think they would like it. I think they were at the beach while a hurricane was passing thru - not a good first time experience for kids.
Guinevere
Yes I think Jon & Kate could well afford to pay back the fine state of PA for all that they have received. The money used on this family could help so many other families.
In answer to your statement about they pay their taxes....yes I pay mine also but that doesn't mean that I can count on the state to support my children. The money they pay in taxes is what supports the roads they drive on, police that protect them and provides the schools to operate. Although I think you probably already new all of this and you were trying to make it seem like Jon & Kate should be held to a different standard than anyone else.
Sorry it doesn't matter who you are, for all I care if you use the state system, especially to the extent that they have used it and 4 years later you can afford to live the lavish lifestyle that they live than I think they owe it to the state to give back.
There are numerous people everyday who go without medicine, food and basic needs and do not qualify for assistance because they own a home, car or even make just alittle to much money. Doesn't matter that they aren't making it. Than you have people like Jon & Kate who come along and milk the system for all they can and have no regard for the money they have used up in the state budget.
Everyone pays taxes and the taxes Jon & Kate do pay are for the services they are currently using just like everyone else. In no way are they paying back by currently paying their taxes.
I also find it interesting that they owned a house and could even receive the benefits they did receive because I also work in the state goverment and to receive numerous services you are required to disclose if you own a home, car or have money in savings or checking. The goverment doesn't care what Suize Orman thinks about selling your home. The goverment says if you have these things you should use them first and after you have done that then they will help you. I'm wondering if they disclosed the correct information since they received all of this.
I think that the "inconsistencies" between old and new episodes isn't something that was thought-out and carefully executed. It was only after the first specials and episodes aired that the Gs started to receive all the endorsement deals (for that is what the "freebies" are--they get free trips/products/admission to events and in turn must plug them heartily). Considering the debates surrounding the show, there was no need to "announce" changes in circumstance--they are obvious to everyone watching! If they were to say, "we are richer now, nya nya" then the haters would have more fuel than ever :)
And anyway, I think they DO acknowledge their change in circumstance. Almost ad nauseum, J&K state how "grateful" and "blessed" they are. To me, this addresses the family's change in circumstance quite nicely.
Regarding the wedding vows and being "ungrateful" for their first wedding: We don't know, really, what was going on. The question reminds me of things I've heard from friends about how family/friends "turn selfish" when it comes to their loved one's wedding.
I once had a friend whose wedding ideas were all vetoed by her family--from having beer at the reception to the very dress she wanted to wear. Her parents (and grandparents) told her: "We're the ones paying for it--if you don't want it our way, you can pay for it yourself." Another friend had her maid of honor quit in a huff at the last minute, because my friend asked her why she was charging people to attend the bridal shower.
Now, none of us know for sure if J&K had similar issues during their original wedding. But with tales of Kate's father's control issues, it would not surprise me. J&K might have had their hearts set on Hawaii, and might have had most guests on board with the idea, until a strong-willed family member forced them to change their plans.
Then again, stories about Kate's dad might be rumours, too, so there goes that whole theory!
Sorry about that Jerzey...I was cooking while it was on and heard Jon mention the Jersey shore. He must have been talking about trying again another time. Ocean City is our favorite beach in NJ. We get a house there every year with family.
Alice, we have an income tax here in PA, and I am sure the Gosselins pay it. They look like they make plenty of money, so they'd be paying plenty in taxes. I hope they don't have to pay anything back, except to go on and do well, earn or gernerate more income from their show, and pay those taxes.
Listen, if I had to give a yes or no answer to whether I think they should do this show, I'd say no. However, they should not have to live by different rules than everyone else regarding their financial success.
Indianprincess: Yes, giving away pics of your kids IS tacky and unsafe, selling them is tackier though. Personally, I would neither want to buy or be given for free a picture of any celeb/psuedo celebrities children in the first place.
Melb: I think Jon and Kate selling photos of there family is tacky too. I think it's not safe.
IndianPrincess: What do you suppose people who buy (or are given) pics actually do with them anyway? Like, do they frame it and put it on the wall next to their photos of great aunt Gretchen and little Billy's soccer team? lol
Melb: lol. I don't know and maybe that's a good question to ask someone who bought one.
Regarding spanking -- I have read in many places that Kate does spank the kids, but what I have SEEN is in the episode when Jon and Kevin(?) are putting up shelves in the garage. Kate is hauling Aaden in from the driveway to make him apologize to Collin for something. She's got him by the arm and in the other hand she has what looks like a cardboard paper towel roll (only much thinner). Whatever it was, she actually bopped Aaden over the head with it! I watched it multiple times to be sure of what I was seeing. In my opinion, there is NO reason to EVER hit anyone ON THE HEAD!!!
ncresident said:
Guinevere I know for a fact that elderly people who receive state medical aide Medicaid not Medicare, are required to pay this back. This happens when they pass away and the state comes in and takes the funds if available from the estate. My wifes grandmother passed away and my mother-in-law was required to sell her home and only allowed to keep 6% for administrative fees. Not suggesting the Gosselins pay this back just curious if it applies to minor care.
November 21, 2008 2:01 PM
_________________________________
I don't know if this varies by state, but I know for sure that where I am (MA) Medicaid is repaid from someone's estate if they die *over age 55*. I don't know if it's only for expenses incurred after that age or if it's for everything, even before that age, if the money is there. It's very frustrating - I'm on Medicaid because of disability and I have a little bit of money I would like a friend to have when I die, but apparently that won't be possible. Anyway, I'd be surprised if any expenses for children have to be repaid.
In answer to your statement about they pay their taxes....yes I pay mine also but that doesn't mean that I can count on the state to support my children. The money they pay in taxes is what supports the roads they drive on, police that protect them and provides the schools to operate. Although I think you probably already new all of this and you were trying to make it seem like Jon & Kate should be held to a different standard than anyone else.
Not at all. Are you saying that you think there should be a law that anyone who has used certain government services in times of need should be required to pay back what they were given (even if their taxes went into paying for all of the services all along)? How would such a law work? If someone is on welfare for a year at age 20 and wins the lottery at 60, should the government have some way of finding that out and demanding their money?
Sorry it doesn't matter who you are, for all I care if you use the state system, especially to the extent that they have used it and 4 years later you can afford to live the lavish lifestyle that they live than I think they owe it to the state to give back.
Are you talking about something other than the nurse? I wasn't aware that the Gosselins had taken *so* much from the state of Pennsylvania.
There are numerous people everyday who go without medicine, food and basic needs and do not qualify for assistance because they own a home, car or even make just alittle to much money. Doesn't matter that they aren't making it. Than you have people like Jon & Kate who come along and milk the system for all they can and have no regard for the money they have used up in the state budget.
What do you consider "milking"? I can't tell if you're against anyone turning to the government in times of financial need, or just the Gosselins.
Everyone pays taxes and the taxes Jon & Kate do pay are for the services they are currently using just like everyone else. In no way are they paying back by currently paying their taxes.
My point is that it's not like that money doesn't come from somewhere. It comes from taxpayers; presumably the Gosselins are and were taxpayers. I don't understand why you feel that they uniquely should not be eligible for state services that they help pay for.
I also find it interesting that they owned a house and could even receive the benefits they did receive because I also work in the state goverment and to receive numerous services you are required to disclose if you own a home, car or have money in savings or checking. The goverment doesn't care what Suize Orman thinks about selling your home. The goverment says if you have these things you should use them first and after you have done that then they will help you. I'm wondering if they disclosed the correct information since they received all of this.
Well, by all means, accuse them without any evidence. It's not like you'll be the first.
Alice said...
I also find it interesting that they owned a house and could even receive the benefits they did receive because I also work in the state goverment and to receive numerous services you are required to disclose if you own a home, car or have money in savings or checking. The goverment doesn't care what Suize Orman thinks about selling your home. The goverment says if you have these things you should use them first and after you have done that then they will help you. I'm wondering if they disclosed the correct information since they received all of this.
November 21, 2008 6:54 PM
______________________________
Different types of assistance have different requirements. Some are income-based only; some also take your assets into account. Then the amount of benefits you receive will depend on the criteria for each form of aid.
In fairness I feel the kids needed medical help and the state provided it. Medicaid rules do vary somewhat per state as it is a federal-state program.
It was only when Kate requested the nurse after the one year period that some residents balked. That is when some statements made by Kate were detailed in the Reading Eagle and even in a Pittsburgh paper. It was then that people began to detail the equity of there home as stated by J&K and ask them to borrow against it to pay the nurse. Personally Im glad the kids got the medical help they did.
Generally, I object to this show because the kids are on display too much. I don't understand the resentment about their financial success, though. I may not care for how Kate comes across, but why do people feel so strongly that they resent her lifestyle? This country is full of people who do well financially without great talent/skills/contributions to society. At least Kate Gosselin isn't pretending to be anything more than what she is: an imperfect wife and mother who won the baby lottery because she has an unusual combination of adorable children TV viewers want to see.
They were financially strapped because of the circumstances surrounding the tups' births. Now they're not. Good for them.
I also want to add: the best way to pay back government help you received is to do well, and contribute by paying taxes. That's EXACTLY what we ask those of you who went to public school to do: learn something, get a job, and pay back into the school tax system so society can educate the next generation. Everyone, everyone benefits.
Saint,
Well said....
Saint, from what comments I've read people feel their financial success is due to the kids. And since they don't actually do a 9-5 job they do not deserve success. I do not feel that way many do. Many just don't like Kate one bit. So they wish her the worst. The claims the kids are being used and exploited is the biggest excuse and lie in my opinion. Getting the show cancelled only helps these kids, if they feel that way. The way to change this is by writing a state legislator and asking for laws to be changed regarding reality show filming.
I apologize in advance for saying what im about to say but I was reading the NE/Redbook article at gwop and its amazing how many of their readers have/their kids have/relitives have ect... their RN licence or better. I call bullshit.
Ok, I really want to correct a few things from the original article and the proceeding discussion.
I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has been to a speaking engagement (in fact, the one mentioned in the NE) and someone who lives in the state of PA, has a job that is funded by federal dollars and knows a thing (or a million things) about the system and services in PA.
from the original post
Helpers: There is no reason that the Gosselins need to explain where there helpers are. Especially in the case of Jodi, to do so would invite further questions from those people who are not members of the blogging community. It's smart PR to not mention it. Do I approve of the way they handled the situations (if we even truly know what is going on?) no...but the viewing audience is not owed an explanation about the ups and downs of their relationships.
2. College funds: At the speaking engagement I went to, there was not a single mention of the pictures going towards college funds. In subsequent events that have been reported online, there is still no mention. If they said this in the early days, it may have been true. However, they are not claiming this now. Their financial situation has drastically changed.
3. Work: Actually, Jon and Kate have mentioned at speaking engagements and other interviews that their job is the show and that having the job has allowed the kids to have 2 parents at home. There has been plenty of acknowledgment of this, and plenty of balking from those who have heard this.
4. Situation Change: They have acknowledged in several mediums that they are "blessed." They've talked about how the trips are given to them in return for free advertising. They haven't disclosed salary amounts but they are not obligated to do this. Anyone watching this show does not think that this couple is struggling.
Love Offerings: I cannot even count how many times I (and others) have tried to explain that love offerings are not given based on need. They are given in return for speaking. There may (or may not) be other speaking fees paid to the Gosselins (or other speakers) but the love offerings are part of the package. They are meant to be a tangible display of appreciation for coming to speak at a church. There is no great conspiracy here. They are not charging these churches 25k to speak. There is no evidence of it and the churches they are visiting could not afford such a hefty fee.
Bottom line: No one is obligated to give a love offering. There are no guns held to your head. You pass the bucket on down the row if you don't want to give. Your (and by you I mean those who are angry not anyone specific) anger at them still receiving love offerings is really anger that people are still giving to them. Guess what, some people will give to them no matter what. Do you know how many wealthy celebrities receive gifts from fans? These celebrities are not crying poor mouth, but people want to show their appreciation and admiration. People will continue to give to the Gosselins because they think the children are adorable.
One more thing...in response to this comment
I also find it interesting that they owned a house and could even receive the benefits they did receive because I also work in the state goverment and to receive numerous services you are required to disclose if you own a home, car or have money in savings or checking. The goverment doesn't care what Suize Orman thinks about selling your home. The goverment says if you have these things you should use them first and after you have done that then they will help you. I'm wondering if they disclosed the correct information since they received all of this.
In the state of PA, you can own 30 houses and make 6 million dollars a year and still be eligible for certain services. For instance, any child with a disability (and the disability could be something as simple as ADHD) is eligible for medical assistance. The reason being that there are certain services that can only be obtained through MA (such as therapeutic services). I cannot tell you how many wealthy (I mean WEALTHY) clients I have. I also have impoverished people and everything in between. All of whom are eligible for my services through medical assistance.
Besides, they were absolutely eligible for the services they received at the time. It doesn't matter that you own a home when you have a family of 10 on Jon's income at the time. They needed the help and, as mentioned before, they were (and continue to be) tax payers.
It really gets me fired up when people balk at them for their use of public funding. Though Kate's attempt to keep the nurse was overreaching, it doesn't even come close to audacity others have who play the system in PA (and everywhere) EVERY DAY. Bottom line: She was DENIED! She didn't get the nurse for extra time. She had the right to appeal the decision just was much as everyone else does.
IMO, Jon and Kate used the system for its intended purpose. A temporary aid to get back on your feet. They spent a few years tops getting help and have paid the state of PA back in SPADES. If their income is even close to what has been reported by those on the internet, they have paid hundreds of thousands in taxes.
There are those receiving services who never paid a dime in taxes and will never pay a dime. If you want to talk about the problem in the system it is people like that not people like the Gosselins. They took their difficult situation and found a way to make money. Whether or not you agree with themn having a show is irrelevant. Your disapproval of the way they've earned the money doesn't negate the fact that they have earned it and have paid taxes. Period.
They owe the taxpayers NOTHING. I can't say the same for the able bodied people who have children continuously in order to keep their benefits instead of getting a job. Call me mean and callous but this happens every day.
Ok, sorry for the novel but this obviously touched on a nerve.
nomoredrama,
Thank you for your common sense post.
The whole idea that it is somehow unfair that they received services back then is sort of one of those grandstanding points that people go off on to prove how Jon and Kate are frauds or something. Hopefully, you cleared some things up for folks.
"I thought the "spanking" comment came from someone who attended one of J&K's speaking engagements at a church.
As I recall, Kate was asked if they spanked the kids and her reply was that they did."
Good for Kate. I don't have a problem with whatever methods of discipline these parents use, as long as they are used CONSISTENTLY.
I don't have a problem with their use of Medicaid or any other government service either, because they were evidently in NEED of the service. The request for more time with the nurse was denied.... good; there was no longer a NEED... just a WANT.
My problem is with what appears to me to be Kate's sense of entitlement. However, it doesn't impact me personally, so let Kate be Kate and let me poke fun at her.
I just have to say that I have never been able to understand the logic behind spanking. When a parent spanks a child, that instills fear and pain in that child. Why would a loving parent want to do that when there are so many other forms of discipline available? I never have spanked my children and I myself was never spanked. I talk to adult's who were spanked as children, and they tell me that they remember it like it happened yesterday. That to me, is so sad.
Happymama,
I too can not see why parents spank. I think that when they spank their child, they release some anger along with the spanking. How does a parent feel after they have spanked their child? It can't be a good feeling, so what do they feel? In this day and age, I don't think parents spank as much as they did years ago. But still, it's being done, and that's not a good thing. =(
Seeing the light, I liked your comments and agree. Couldn't have said it better. They should have been honest from the beginning and I believe most of this would have been avoided. But maybe TLC didn't see it that way and this was the drama they needed to keep ratings up even at the expense of this family, especially these eight little ones.
Granny,
Most of what would have been avoided?
Lizabeth said... You see them going about their lives, and at least in my view they are doing right in seemingly letting many hateful, slanderous things roll off their backs.
Or they have no honest answers to give to the many accusations being made to them or could be a variety of other reasons they haven't responded in a public venue concering all the accusations. My point is this, that just because they are quiet about it all doesn't nessecarily mean it is all rolling off their backs as they move foward in their lives. Seems to me that they have taken some of it to heart by the things that have been changed on the show and even in re-runs where words were re-edited. We have shows taped from earlier on and some of the re-runs they now play, some of Kate's words or actions have been changed and put into a better light. To me that is phony. You can't do that in real life, go back into the past and change something you've done or said to make it as if it didn't happen, no, you have to accept your error, admit it and make amends for it the best you can. Would be so much better for them if they would just do that. We all make mistakes and say things we regret and most ppl understand this and are forgiving if one can be humble enough to just say, hey I messed up by saying this or doing that, I'm sorry and am willing to change this in myself. True Humility goes a long way.
quote:
[Y]ou have to accept your error, admit it and make amends for it the best you can. Would be so much better for them if they would just do that. We all make mistakes and say things we regret and most ppl understand this and are forgiving if one can be humble enough to just say, hey I messed up by saying this or doing that, I'm sorry and am willing to change this in myself. True Humility goes a long way.
It’s not a given fact that Jon and Kate buy into the criticisms that are registered against them on the internet, and that they are making changes in response to them. That’s speculation. It could just be that the producers/editors of the show make calculated decisions about how to edit the shows to keep just enough controversy brewing. They mix in a little too much ‘bad Kate’ one week, then they have to use a little ‘good Kate’ the next week to keep people intrigued, maybe disgusted, but not so disgusted that they won’t be glued to the tv the following week.
Even though, as many internet posters like to constantly reiterate, Jon and Kate offered up their lives for public scrutiny, I see them still making a choice (and having the right to do so) not to volunteer to be ‘the accused’ in the online court of public opinion. People can voice whatever opinions they want if they can find a platform, but Jon and Kate don’t have to respond or participate. They make the same choice that the rest of the 'celebrity' world makes, which is to keep their distance. For good reason.
I’m puzzled by the extra hate that the Gosselins garner, when plenty of celebrities ‘exploit’ their children, like Brangelina and the rest selling photo shoots of their children to People magazine , which is a direct use of the children to make money, or just ‘using’ them for the articles that tout the celebrities as great moms and dads, thereby keeping their images polished and pretty. Lots of celebrities have shared tidbits of their children’s lives (including potty training stories). The public consumes them, enjoys them for a fleeting moment, then moves on, with the child having no say in what the parent has shared with millions of people for their throwaway entertainment.
The kids of celebrities have to get used to competitive and aggressive paparazzis crowding around doorways and chasing them to their vehicles because average joes & janes enjoy looking them over in the pages of entertainment magazines. Most of us have seen plenty of pictures of Suri Cruise, or Violet Affleck, or whoever. They’re cute, we’re curious. How many times do we stop and think about the conditions under which that photograph was taken, whether it bothered (or scared) the child, how it affects their view of the world? What about how the fishbowl they have to live in for security’s sake makes them grow up to be different people than they would have otherwise?
Looking at celebrity kids in a magazine is a fleeting past-time for us, but it creates a marketplace demand which sets up a regular aspect of the celebrity kids’ life that is strange at best, could be harmful at worst. I just think if the Gosselin kids’ situation bothers so many people, why is there no deeper examination on their part in how other children are affected by similar on-public-display situations? A bigger question for me is: Why isn’t there any self examination at all by the people who claim to care so much about ‘the children’?
I think that’s a reflection of deeper thought; it usually involves some honest self reflection. Wouldn’t some of the Gosselin ‘advocates’ start to find some hypocrisy in themselves, and honestly admit it? If a GWoPPer has written complaining letters about the Gosselins, and then flopped on the couch to relax from their advocating duties, flipping through a People magazine, and saying ‘Awww, how cute,’ when they see the pictures of Suri and all the rest, and never bothering to question that... how is that not hypocrisy?
We have shows taped from earlier on and some of the re-runs they now play, some of Kate's words or actions have been changed and put into a better light. To me that is phony. You can't do that in real life, go back into the past and change something you've done or said to make it as if it didn't happen, no, you have to accept your error, admit it and make amends for it the best you can.
Can you give an example? I vaguely remember this being brought up before, and I think it turned out that an episode had been edited down from an hour to half hour, or maybe it was the episode with the "music video" attached and some stuff had been cut to make it a half hour show. I don't think I've heard of any concrete examples of shows being edited otherwise. I believe that would be the producers' call, in any case.
Nomoredrama
It really gets me fired up when people balk at them for their use of public funding. Though Kate's attempt to keep the nurse was overreaching, it doesn't even come close to audacity others have who play the system in PA (and everywhere) EVERY DAY. Bottom line: She was DENIED! She didn't get the nurse for extra time. She had the right to appeal the decision just was much as everyone else does.
Audacity of others???? Aren't Jon & Kate held to the same standard as others? Why would others offend you so for using state aid but not Jon & Kate?
nomoredrama,
I am wondering what they said about their present financial state, and if as the other blog states they refused to answer certain questions. Having been raised in church I understand Love offerings. In our church it was done for singing groups and visiting ministers and missionaries. Many times it was not in addition to pay but was the only payment.
My point simply being this. If J&K were to reveal how they were financially do you honestly think people would feel as compelled to donate as much as if the individual were actually struggling. Maybe I'm wrong but if I heard someone speak that just revealed to me they had returned from Hawaii to renew their vows and just completed purchase of an expensive home, I would not be that generous. To me it speaks of stewardship.
Gunievere,
earlier this year they did a marathon with the old show introduction. The corn maze being the last scene. In previous episodes Kate is yelling hello to Jon. This was removed and she says its a crazy life but its our life. This might be the editing Granny was speaking of or one example.
Granny,
In more recent episodes and even on their website they *have* shown humility in admitting their faults.
On their website when asked "What is your favorite episode so far (Kate & Jon) and your least favorite episode?" in part of their response it states
"Our least favorites are the ones where there are painful scenes…we are too harsh to each other or the kids or we don’t react as we should have to a situation. However, that is why our show is a reality show…you get the good, the bad and the ugly and we are determined to be the exact same people that we are when the cameras aren’t there. Many people have been helped by our honesty…so are we “sorry” that certain things are aired? Never."
I know they have also stated in some of the FAQ shows as well as the one regarding discipline that they cringe at times seeing how they have reacted to situations. This is part of why I was impressed at the changes they have made, and the vows they said when renewing their marriage commitment. I agree-- true humility goes a long way. At least from what I have seen, it appears that they show has allowed Jon and Kate to see themselves differently and change for the better.
My post was regarding the blatant hate sites, posts, and harsh lies being spread. I feel that it *is* taking the high road to respond as they have instead of openly talking about it, issuing press releases, and making a huge show of how people choose to react negatively.
tyra said...
I’m puzzled by the extra hate that the Gosselins garner, when plenty of celebrities ‘exploit’ their children, like Brangelina and the rest selling photo shoots of their children to People magazine , which is a direct use of the children to make money, or just ‘using’ them for the articles that tout the celebrities as great moms and dads, thereby keeping their images polished and pretty. Lots of celebrities have shared tidbits of their children’s lives (including potty training stories).
i think there is a difference between sharing a potty training story in an interview and showing actual video of your children on tv. a big difference. i also don't have a problem with the gosselins (or any celeb) selling pics. it's the constant real life footage that bothers me. brangelina don't have cameras in their home recording thier kids in the bath or on the toilet. i have no problem with J&K doing speaking engagements, writing a book or selling pics. those are all ways to make money without showing private moments with the kids. there's also a big difference in seeing a celeb kid being carried to or from a car and seeing their at home meltdowns or running around in their underwear.
as far as the paparazzi is concerned, i agree that it is invasive and most likely scary to celeb kids. i feel sorry for them. i'll never forget that pic of britney spears with one of her boys sitting in a corner at some shopping center holding her crying baby and sobbing. she looked terrified and so did her child. it broke my heart. i think all parents deserve the right to make their parenting mistakes privately, and we all have them. there are many moments that i'm at my worst and thankful that no one is there to critique. but when you put your life out there, that's part of the package. the G's can pull the plug at any time and say "enough is enough". no one forced them to put their life on display.
Lizabeth, I hope you dont mind me adding this. But admitting your mistakes might be one sign of humility. There are several others, they dont seem to me to be humble people. I suggest that some viewers were upset with Kates actions, such as slapping Jon. To the young viewers this can't look good. A humble person does not wait for 9 yrs to hear the words how can I help you. IMO.
Tyra said..."I’m puzzled by the extra hate that the Gosselins garner, when plenty of celebrities ‘exploit’ their children..."
Tyra, I always walk away with something to think about after reading your posts. Thanks for that.
I do believe that there is a healthy dose of classism (something you referenced previously, I believe) going on. Since I would imagine most of the posters come from the same class as the Gosselins originally did - your average paycheck-to-paycheck middle class family - it is interesting to think about what exactly is driving the intense hatred of a family that has "made good." And I am not buying the "making money on the backs of their children" argument anymore. Sorry. There is something more at play here, I believe.
The world is full of wackos, if I had 8 famous kids I'd have a hard time with TOTAL strangers approaching me in public too. Why do people think "celebrities" owe them something? If you're a fan send them a letter or an e-mail, get out of their faces. Real people having real life in real time don't always get everything right.
Anya, thank you, and I return the compliment to you. Thank you for all the times you've made me think.
Yeah, I definitely think classism plays a part, as in: How dare they act above themselves?'
I also think it's part of the old 'mom wars'. One way of getting validation as a mom when you're not getting it from husband or kids (or society), is to compare yourself to Kate, or some other 'reprehensible' example of motherhood. Does that make it a kind of reverse sexism, women vs. one particular woman?
Quote:
it's the constant real life footage that bothers me.
I see your point, seeingthelight, that the extent of the exposure in the Gosselin's case can make one uncomfortable. For me, the Gosselins and all their specific potty-training, melting down scenes aren't the point, because they don't register as any great revelation to me. All kids poop and cry, so my response is, so what? I don't personally feel like I have any 'power' over Collin just because I know of one occasion when he had constipation. So has just about everybody else now living.
I just sometimes feel uncomfortable with how much of other people's lives (ex: celebrities) I'm consuming, via tv or magazines, or the internet. If 'Jon & Kate + 8' is exploitation, then it's all exploitation, isn't it? It consists of consuming someone else's images, anecdotes, and activities, at least part of their personal life, as my entertainment. Aren't I part of the exploitation equation? That's what I don't see being discussed on blogs where Kate Gosselin is the succubus supreme.
tyra- i totally agree with you about "consumption for entertainment". i used to be addicted to celeb gossip mags. i loved them. then one week US weekly had a cover shot of britney spears and her son, the one i talked about in my earlier post. it was a wake up call for me. i never bought another one of those mags. i realized that as long as people keep buying those mags and clicking on their websites, etc the paps would continue stalking those people. i don't want any part in a woman with a baby being chased by strangers with cameras. it makes me ill. i think the difference to me though is that actors put themselves in movies for a living, not their kids. i feel the same way about all the other "reality families" that have young children, not just the G's. i think if a family has older children who are truly able to decide they want to do and consent, more power to them. my problem is with putting young children on that really don't have a choice. i know the G's said their kids want to do the show, but they really are not old enough to understand the repercussions. i hope that when they get older they are not haunted by the footage that was shown of them. let me put it this way: would J or K let the camera men film them using the bathroom or when they have the stomach flu and have just vomited? i don't think they would. so what is the difference between that and allowing their kids to be filmed that way?
The past weekend they replayed the episode of FAQ and I actually recorded it because they talk about their wedding ALOT. And show people not blurred out. How beautiful it was at a stonehouse (circa 1920) that J&K paid for everything and it was BEAUTIFUL - couldn't stop saying how everything was perfect. The only thing Kate said negative was that she wished she had hired a harpist. Now fast forward to the wedding episode we sat through for "about a month" - they did nothing but complain that their first wedding was ruined because nobody else apparently wanted to go or could afford to go to Hawaii and that Kate has always wondered what it would have been like had her dream been realized in her first wedding. Crock or Not - that's what ticks me off so much with them. You get freebies, we know - don't come up with these awful stories to cover for it. Own it - you get freebies, it wasn't 'cause you first wedding was suppose to be there. Don't treat the viewers like we're idiots. They do repeat episodes so watch what you say 'cause it might come back to bite you in the rear. On Thanksgiving Day it will be a whole day of J&K
Sorry I've been slow to respond...Here goes:
Audacity of others???? Aren't Jon & Kate held to the same standard as others? Why would others offend you so for using state aid but not Jon & Kate?
I am not offended by people using state aid. That was not what I was talking about. I was talking about the griping and whining over the fact that Jon and Kate at one point used aid and requested a nurse for extra time when, #1. They were entitled in the state of PA to the aid that they received at the time and #2. Despite their rather inarticulate efforts to get the state to pay for the nurse they failed.
What aggrevates me is that people suggest that they should have to pay back the aid they've recieved when they have payed it back over and over and over. They payed for it prior in their taxes and continue to "pay it back" in the high tax bracket that they are in. If the estimates about their income are correct, then, since the show, they have paid 100s of thousands in taxes.
My aggrevation is at the fact that many people who use government aid have never paid taxes and, as long as they can get away with it, will never pay taxes. I know that is not a politically correct view to have but I work in the field every day and I see what goes on and how people play the situation.
In my opinion, your anger is misplaced because Jon and Kate used the system for what it is intended to be, a temporary aid to needy families (not a lifetime income generator).
NC Resident said:
I am wondering what they said about their present financial state, and if as the other blog states they refused to answer certain questions.
They stated that they were blessed in a lot of ways. I think people can gather from that what that means. They also talked about in the first 2 years of the kids lives vs. now. They made what was, in my mind, a clear distinction. There were also media things such as the People Magazine article which informed the audience that the Gosselins were very well off.
I think churchgoers who attend speaking engagements are not morons. Since they are fans of the show, I think they are well aware of the trips the family has been on. Their show is the highest rated show on TLC. That means people are watching it. This notion that there are unsuspecting people being duped into giving to this family is, to me, preposterous.
Secondly, let me emphasize again, they IN NO WAY presented themselves as needy at any point during the event.
If you don't believe me, I encourage you to attend an event. You might have the opinion that they are rude (frankly, I like Kate less and less as time goes on) or ungrateful but I guarantee that you will not come off with the impression that they are needy.
I am sorry for the rant but I've been hearing this spouted for months and it gets to me. No one is being duped, IMO. If people give, they give of their own free will. Don't you think that if the were duping and conning people (legitimately duping people, not talking about the K-Mart ads where Kate is an obvious spokesperson) they'd be in a heck of a lot of trouble right now. Especially, given the fact that GWoP has pretty much contacted every single news medium or any authority they can about this family?
Now fast forward to the wedding episode we sat through for "about a month" - they did nothing but complain that their first wedding was ruined because nobody else apparently wanted to go or could afford to go to Hawaii and that Kate has always wondered what it would have been like had her dream been realized in her first wedding.
You know, I really don't think they did nothing but complain that their first wedding was ruined. I don't recall seeing that at all. I recall a couple of comments to the effect that they had wanted to get married in Hawaii but had been overruled by their families. I've seen it commented before that J&K talked very negatively about their first wedding, but unless I'm forgetting something, I really never saw them say anything negative about it at all.
Okay - ruined was the wrong word. But please - that was the whole Hawaii episodes - to have their renewal ceremony there because they couldn't do it the first time. They said that various family members wouldn't/couldn't go to Hawaii, expensive, etc. But if you watch the first episode - all nicey, nicey. But you do have to admit that the premise on which they went to Hawaii was bull - yes the Hotel did invite them, sratch my back - I'll give you free advertisement, but I think it was wrong to comment that because of your family you had to settle for a beautiful wedding in PA instead of your original dream wedding in HA. I'm sorry - we'll probably just have to agree to disagree. If I had been at the first wedding I probably would have been upset to hear those comments.
Guinevere said... "I recall a couple of comments to the effect that they had wanted to get married in Hawaii but had been overruled by their families."
Same here. If there was more than that, I missed it too.
I understand to some the idea of a second wedding was stupid, greedy, unnecessary, etc, but in terms of concrete things that J&K said negatively about their first wedding, I just don't remember them. Maybe someone will weigh in on that with some actual quotes that bothered them?
I'm not coming up with any "quotes" other than they originally wanted their wedding in HA - not PA and that it bothered Kate and she always wondered what if, that I do remember. I'm just saying that the whole premise of the show was bull-hicky. Facts and Inconsistencies are the Post I'm replying to and I think this was an inconsistency 'cause the way they went on about their vow renewal being in HA and if it was that big a deal, why was nothing ever mentioned when they went on and on about the beautiful wedding they had in PA. IMO - i would have thought Kate would have said something then - come on, when something bothers Kate - she doesn't hold back. And after all these years we finally see that she wanted her wedding in HA, just inconsistent IMO. She was offered a freebie and used the vow-renewal to promote a show. I honestly don't think it had anything to do with originally wanting a Hawaian (spelling) wedding. Hey, they got what they wanted and what the heck - I didn't mean to create any problems. It's just a show - I'm not hanging on the edge of my seat for the next episode. I'm neither a hater or lover - just some of the things they say really pluck my nerves. Thanks for letting me vent.
Can I state some inconsistencies that are driving me batty? Not about the show, or J&K but about a blog we all know so well (NOT this one)?
How about saying you won't post the Gosselins' new address in the interest of protecting their privacy, which is supposedly the whole "mission" of your blog, then linking readers to an article where the street they live on is listed in the comments?
How about doing everything short of taking a DNA sample from Julie to prove that she is Jodi's sister so you can link readers to her diatribes, only to later say that it is not your responsibility to verify the identities of so-called "insiders" after liars start crawling out of the woodwork?
Sorry, I just had to rant. You don't even have to post this. I was just so mad.
well said rachel107, If I remember correctly when Kate and Beth were at the spa in Utah she said something along the lines if she could ever afford to go to Hawaii she would re-new her vows because she wanted her first wedding there. Don't quote me because I don't typically analyze the episodes to death so I could be mistaken. I need to watch that episode again.
Weed and Rachel, vent and rant away. :-) We all need to from time to time.
Weed, I understand what you are saying. Rachel, I agree with you. The position of that blog is quite disingenuous.
@happymama Nov 23, 2008 1:03 PM
@peanutbutter Nov23, 2008 1:16 PM
What dont you understand about spanking. It is a form of discipline.
1yr olds dont speak clearly, so telling them stop or no doesnt get a response.
But if you hit their hand or butt they will stop and understand.
What it is instilling is that the baby must listen.
@ tyra Nov 23, 2008 9:56 PM
The Gosselins get hate
-bc they arent honest
-bc of the sense of entitlement
-bc of the lies.
In the beginning they said they had church help but that stopped
when in actuality Kate's meanness drove them away. They had monetar donations bc they said they were broke when they had $ saved up as well as the $ from Jon's dead PEDIATRIC DOCTOR father. They has plenty of donations but Kate
rejected it bc she got 8 outfits from Target instead of getting
8matching GAP outfits.
Entitlement: Kate claims the US govt encourages fertility treatments so the US govt has a responsibility 4 them. This sounds so wrong. The govt doesnt
encourage it. Drs being paid by pharmaceutical companies do.
Fertility treatments ARE AN OPTION. Kate chose her treatments, and she did receive help, but she wanted more & more help when it wasnt any longer neccesary.
Brangelina sell photos of their kids & then use the $ 4 charity. What charity does j/k advocate for other than themselves? A Dr gave her a tummy tuck and she wanted breast implants too! Jon got a hair transplant! How do these surgeries help their 8 kids?
Post a Comment