Saturday, May 2, 2009

"Jon and Kate find a welcoming crowd, unwelcome paparazzi"


"Though rumors of infidelity -- a few paparazzi -- swirled outside, Jon and Kate Gosselin, the stars of the wildly successful TLC show "Jon and Kate Plus 8," found a welcoming, enthusiastic crowd at Pennsylvania Women's Show in the Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex this afternoon. "

Click here to read the full story.

Thanks Quiltart for sending this in.

67 comments:

CincyMom said...

Wow, must have been hard to show up for them. the whole situation must be hard (whether he caused it or not, there must be some friction from the outcome and publicity).

Would be harder probably in the long run to have changed plans for the speaking.

If you look at comments, I don't know if the person was right, but lists about 2 weeks of book signings in about 3 weeks of time with no time off in between. THAT would be extremely difficult for my husband and I to agree to.

nomoredrama said...

I agree Cincymom, that is a lot of book signing.

Its been said before, but, so much for being at home with the kids.

SamanthaNC said...

I can't imagine how uncomfortable that must have been. Cringe worthy, at least for me.

indianprincess said...

I guess I have to give them credit for showing up and speaking.

Anya said...

indianprincess said...
I guess I have to give them credit for showing up and speaking.


I agree Indianprincess. I guess my feeling is if there were true diva behavior going on, it would have been easy to withdraw at the last minute. They showed up.

As Woody Allen says: "Eighty percent of success is showing up."

Saint said...

Its been said before, but, so much for being at home with the kids.Well, it's been said before but one parent is able to stay home with the kids when the other is on a book tour.

It's not 2 weeks of signings in 3 weeks. The trips look like they are 4 days at a time (not a week,) many of the signings are on one day, and some are close to home and do not require travel. It's important to represent the facts when we are discussing these issues.

I noticed that Kate is cramming as much as she can into one trip as some of the signings are on the same day. I might be tempted to call it hard-working and exhausting, and not just a nice gig sitting and signing.

Book tours are temporary, and in the big scheme of things, the show will allow both parents to remain home with their children. Perhaps though, TLC should have qualified the statement with, "The show allows two parents to stay home with the children, though of course they are free to explore other opportunities such as the speaking engagements they have been doing for years, or promoting books." Opportunities arise in life, as do problems, and parents must reassess the family needs. It would be irresponsible of the G's not to do so, despite their detractors' rules that they may not leave home without their children because of the TLC statement.

I am sure an argument can be made to say that mothers in general should not travel for work, or they should have to stay home a certain number of days a year. I won't be making it though. People have to make the decision for their own family IMO.

I may not think the show is wise because of the children's time in front of the camera, but I do think the book and speaking tours and the TV appearances are smart and legitimate work. After months of reading that Kate and Jon need to get off their butts and make money without the kids, I am reading that they should have to do so without leaving home, but without cameras in the home.

CincyMom said...

Saint--I understand your position. My comments on the speaking were just to say it would be hard for my husband and me. My SIL has a husband who travels and it works for them.

We have rejected jobs because of travel commitments because we just don't like it.

Maybe this doesn't sound believable but I'm not saying what Kate should do (this is harder to write what I mean than if I could say it face-to-face). I'm saying if the opportunity was presented to me, I would probably have parameters scheduled such as 3 or 4 days gone, 2 days home, etc. And for me, it's a non-issue who brings in the bacon, husband or wife.

What Kate chooses to do, is obviously their families' choice and I don't have an opinion in the long run if it is right/ wrong. It is what they choose.

It seems like actors always have the flexibility to include family priorities. Maybe there isn't that opportunity here. Or maybe they are fine with the scheduling.

I am looking at this very generically, such as some people don't mind 1-1/2 hour commutes. It's fine for them, but I think it would suck for me. That's all. Don't really feel high and mighty over Kate.

Saint said...

Oh, I know you don't CincyMom! I agree with you! It would be hard for me, too. I bet it's hard for Kate, if she's really like her TV persona. I was disagreeing with the sentiments behind NMD's "Well so much for being home," which is commonly expressed in the Gosselin blog world. I am sure she doesn't mind the disagreement (we both like debate!) That statement by TLC was about the parents not having to go to a "regular job" every day spending 8 hours at an office/hospital/whatever. But it's been used against the G's to show that they are liars about their motives for doing the show, or to play "gotcha" when they do work away from home, as Kate has been doing.

Your point is great. I'd be miserable travelling that much. (Though I'd sooner travel than have TV cameras around.) Also, if you look closer, I think you'll see that Kate may have better parameters than the ones you stated. She travels in chunks. Then there is time off when both parents are at home.

nomoredrama said...

Saint,
Even if she is trying to cram everything together and the locations are close to home, it doesn't negate that fact that the book tour dates and coinciding with taping schedules. How do I know? One has to assume that (per Kate and Jon) if the cameras are in the home 3-4 days per week and taping is underway (per TLC) for Season 5 then taping is going on and Kate might be home to tape but how much quality time is the family getting alone, without cameras and with both of their parents?

To me it's more than just someone traveling for work because there is travel and then at home is work. It's so much....when is there ever down time? The "down time" between seasons consisted of about 2 or 3 weeks tops away from the cameras. In that time, Kate traveled and did book signings.

Plus, I'd love to be a fly on the wall and know how many hours the not-a-nanny is there.

CincyMom said...

I think the not-a-nanny name is funny. It always makes me laugh!

Saint said...

Nomoredrama,
That's a different position (amount of quality time) than the one usually meant behind, "so much for being at home with the kids." Usually that statement is used to indict Kate as a liar who shouldn't travel away from home since TLC issued the statement. You know, two parents have to be at home because TLC said that the show allows two parents to be at home.

Do I understand your position to be that her travelling would be OK if they weren't doing season 5?

marci said...

NMD & Saint,

I'll just throw into the mix the possiblity that they're filming the show whether Kate is present or not. There were several episodes filmed at the end of last season where Kate was out of town.

But, in general, I agree. Kate appears very busy right now. But, like Saint, I don't think her work out of town, under the present circumstances, will keep up at this pace for too much longer. I think the release of the new book, the book tour, Women's Show appearances, etc., are happening to help promote the new season, and vice versa.

We'll have to see how Season 5 pans out to get a better idea how crazed this period really is in their lives. The summer months with the kids out of school should open up opportunities to spend more time with the children as well.

Cindy said...

I'm going to post this comment here because I know it won't automatically be deleted.

I just visited the GWOP site. My goodness these people need to get a life! They scrutinize every detail of every show. They complain and complain about child exploitation but fail to take into consideration that the Gosselin children have clothes on their back, a roof over their heads, food on the table and two parents who are alive. Regardless of whether or not any of these accusations against Jon and Kate are true, I think there are other causes that these people should be devoting their time to. There are plenty of children who have it way worse than the Gosselins. Instead of obsessing about the 8 Gosselins, they should devote their time to the thousands of children without parents or good meals or a home.

Saint said...

I think the not-a-nanny name is funny. It always makes me laugh!I think it's a passessive-agressive way of calling the Gosselins liars, especially convenient if you want to imply they are lying about whether they've hired a nanny but actually have no proof. It makes me cringe. But that's just another perspective.

Momof2 said...

Jon admitted to them hiring a Nanny..and then added they have 3 that work in 8 hour shifts each.

Saint said...

Momof2 said...
Jon admitted to them hiring a Nanny..and then added they have 3 that work in 8 hour shifts each.
I hadn't seen that. I must be wrong. I wonder what "not-a-nanny" means then?

marci said...

When did Jon say they had three nannies that work in 8 hour shifts (I assume you mean round-the-clock nanny care when you say this)?

All I recall about their latest "helper" is Jon mentioned her in his PennState speach, as being Vietnamese and won't be seen on camera. And then Kate mentioned her and stated she wasn't a nanny, they would never have a nanny, etc.

Momof2 said...

I will try to find the link...someone in my bookclub sent it to me a while back. I think it's when Jon was spotted somewhere while Kate was on tour, so who was with the children was in question.

..and I don't see whats wrong with calling a "helper" a nanny...lots of celebrities have nannies. Just because you call it something different doesn't mean it isn't what it is.

I think more fans would be comfortable knowing the kids were with someone nurturing when the parents were out and about...but it seems like Kate wants everyone to think that they do everything alone.

marci said...

Momof2,

Thanks. I've seen the 3-nanny comment come up randomly and it would be interesting to see where Jon was quoted saying it. As controvercial as the nanny comments from J & K have been, I would think Jon being quoted as saying they have 3 nannies would have saturated the Gosselin blogosphere by now.

And, I agree, there is no big deal saying you have a nanny...it's just become the en vogue way of saying babysitter these days, IMO.

And whether Kate lied about there being a "nanny" or not....I'm not sure when that interview was filmed, but perhaps Kate hadn't envisioned how much Jon might be using the nanny when she wasn't around. So, in this instance, I think it's a stretch to say she out-and-out lied about it.

Honestly, though, whatever title you give the person who is left in charge of the kids when the Gosselin parents are out, whether that person is "caring" or not, I think any speculation (not saying you said this) that the Gosselin kids are being left alone or with someone who "doesn't care" when Jon has gone out at night is just more hot wind to fan the current rumor flames.

Momof2 said...

I just looked for it on youtube, it was actually an interview with Jon outside on the actual slopes in Utah..when I originally saw it I thought he was caught offguard. Now I can't find it but I will continue to search.

I don't think the Gosselins would ever leave the kids alone, I don't see how anyone would ever assume that.They obviously love their kids.

Saint said...

Maybe the G's have define "nanny" as someone who resides there and watches the children the bulk of the daytime. Maybe they define "babysitter" as someone who watches the kids while mom and dad are both away for an evening or afternoon. Maybe they define "helper" as someone who comes over three/four days a week for three to six hours a day and helps watch the kids while mom is busy or with one or two other children and dad is dropping picking up girls from school or cutting the grass or starting dinner. The helper might even help with light housekeeping, school work, groceries, laundry. Of course, I have no idea, but that's what they mean to me.

merryway said...

Saint, when I saw the episode where Kate was talking about the new helper/sitter/nanny. She was saying she wasn't a nanny, they'd never have a nanny, etc. I think she was referring to someone who would live-in vs. someone who comes and goes from their own home. I thought Kate was implying she wouldn't want someone to live-in.

Illinois Mom said...

I just was wondering why my comment wasn't posted? Oh well, I guess.

Nina Bell said...

Illinois Mom

It is on the post below this unless you mean a different comment.

Nina Bell said...

Merryway

Great avatar. Great episode this week.

merryway said...

I usually think Kate's schedule is comparable to an avg 40 hr work week. The next few weeks look busier due to the book signings which should be a spurt. I think Kate's entitled to pursue her career and this is what she thinks it takes. I like that she has the opportunity w/Jon being at home. To me, it seems like she's taking advantages of all the good opportunities she can. I wouldn't be surprised if Jon does has three helpers to do various tasks. It's so much work w/the kids and the house. J&K have been able to spend more quality and quantity time w/their kids than the avg parent with some pretty amazing experiences for all. As far as parenting time, I think that it evens out w/Kate being gone more here and there.

I also think that the couple needs to be strong in their relationship to handle these situations. Time away and the hectic schedule can put a strain on the marriage. I'm not sure if they are up to the challenge. I remember in earlier episode(s)? Kate saying they knew how they were (as a couple), they just didn't have the time to work on it. It's been awhile and imo, it would be a good idea for them to take some time to do that now.

merryway said...

Nina, I've watched the last episode twice, the show just gets funnier every week.

Saint said...

Merryway,
Was that not THE funniest moment of that episode? We laughed so hard. I love Thursday nights.

OhioMom53 said...

Don't give them credit for showing up together. It is all for their upcoming Season 5 to show a "united front". I'm sure it was very uncomfortable for both of them. I'm sorry but my gut feeling says that they have been separated for awhile and they are just "keeping up appearances" to keep the money train running. Kate's upcoming book tour dates are away from home alot. So when is she loving those 6 beautiful children of hers? Who is the stable influence in their lives? It is certainly not Mom & Dad. What will Season 5 bring? A bunch of lies and charade of a happy family. It is time for this husband and wife to come clean and admit their lies for their children's sake. The twins are old enough to know what is going on and it is extremely stressful for them to keep up the appearances of a "happy" family. But, Jon and Kate have repeatedly shown their selfishness and nothing (even their children) will get in their way of achieving their goals. It is a tragic situation. Tragically no one will stand up and make the right and honest decision.

Theresa said...

Saint said...
Maybe the G's have define "nanny" as someone who resides there and watches the children the bulk of the daytime. Maybe they define "babysitter" as someone who watches the kids while mom and dad are both away for an evening or afternoon. Maybe they define "helper" as someone who comes over three/four days a week for three to six hours a day and helps watch the kids while mom is busy or with one or two other children and dad is dropping picking up girls from school or cutting the grass or starting dinner. The helper might even help with light housekeeping, school work, groceries, laundry. Of course, I have no idea, but that's what they mean to me.

May 3, 2009 1:38 PM
Yeah, I see it that way too Saint.

In regards to the article...great...they both showed up and didn't talk about the Jon fiasco. And really, why should they? Glad this isn't affecting their lives like blogland thinks it is.

I think it's funny how there are so many theories as to what goes on at that house, how both J&K feel, are doing,observations of their behavior from tv (yeah, that tells us the whole story, right) etc., that we all in blogland tend to forget that they are living their daily lives and who gives a rat's patooty what we think.

nomoredrama said...

So someone who is in the home daily and apparently sleeps over sometimes (or who was watching the kids while Jon was at his moms or partying at Legends?) is not a nanny? A nanny is someone who's primary job is to provide care to children in a home.

There are full-time nannys, part-time nannys and live-in nannys. A babysitter is someone that comes in a few hours a week. Maybe someone that watches kids after school until parents are home or for a few hours on an evening.

I think calling people in your home that often (and people who travel with you) helpers or babysitters is disingenuous. I'm not saying they are liars but they might be in denial.

I would say that I wouldn't mind the travel as much if it was sans the television show. That much travel will be hard on the kids too but if when mom and/or dad came home and they got to hang out and be a family, it seems like it would be better than what is going on now.

Saint said...

How often is the woman in the home? How often does she sleep over? Is there only one woman who ever does this for the G's or do they have other "helpers/sitters/nannies?"

My daughter just babysat and slept over the house. She is not a nanny. She's a kid who goes to school and occasionally babysits.

My neighbor watches an infant in her own home four days a week during the work days. When the parents have a wedding to go to the baby stays overnight. She is not a nanny. She is "the sitter."

What des "nanny" mean to Kate when she says she doesn't have one and would never use one?

It doesn't matter how any of us define nanny. It matters how the G's define it when they are the ones responding. Kate clearly sees a distinction between helper and nanny (so do I.) Since no one knows how often the helper/sitter/nanny is there (including me...and I don't even want to be a fly on the wall to find out) why assume she is lying/in denial and use the term "not-a-nanny?"

Guinevere said...

Just a thought: maybe Kate would not be wary of using the word "nanny" (assuming she is) if her every statement were not parsed and picked apart and held up as evidence that she is the worst mother ever. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a nanny, as others have said. The Gosselins may or may not have one, but their own or other peoples' definitions. But I can see that given how harshly they are judged, they might not want to use the word.

Theresa said...

I can see that too, Guin.

Good point.

indianprincess said...

Mother's Helper (helper for short) http://childcare.about.com/od/inhomecareglossary/f/motherhelper.htm

It's a real job title. I'm sure Kate says she doesn't have a Nanny but a helper like she said. It doesn't mean she is lying.

dee said...

There was a quote from saint about proof of them hiring a "not-nanny", Jon said they hava an asian nanny when he was at Penn State speaking.

indianprincess said...

Jon said they hava an asian nanny when he was at Penn State speaking.
So Jon may call this person a Nanny and Kate can call her a Helper but it doesn't mean they are lying. When I was a kid we had a housekeeper and you would assume housekeeper means someone comes in to clean the house. No, she was a non live in Nanny. All her duties were to take care of "us" kids and nothing more but my mother said she was her "childrens housekeeper" and we had to use her term. Just because someone used a term it's not normally used doesn't mean the person lied.

Liza Beth said...

Wow. So much splitting of hairs on whether Kate was lying about having a nanny. First, does it honestly really matter that much? I mean this is really just semantics. Whether the person is there 20 hours one day and then not at all for 2 days before coming back for 8 is not really something any of us have a way of knowing.

I was a nanny-- the difference between that and a babysitter (which I have also been) is the mentality. As a nanny I actually did a curriculum with the baby and taught baby sign language, had art projects (yes, I was stupid enough to let a one and a half year old play with finger paints!) and was more a part of the family. As a babysitter-- you watch the baby. There are some aspects of playing and doing crafts that are involved but its not the same. Nanny means you help raise the child- babysitter means you keep an eye on them while the parents are gone.

Because of that I think these are babysitters that Jon and Kate have helping out when Kate is on trips. We all know Kate well enough to know she has a bit of a controlling streak- do you really think she would want someone watching her kids who was taking her place (as a nanny would) or that she want a babysitter who would just be there for an extra set of hands and eyes when they have things going on?

From what I can see it seems like a babysitter-- based solely on my experience and what we have seen Kate do. But again, does it really matter? Most of us here agree the show should end soon and that Kate's work schedule (while at times grueling) is a way for her to make money without the kids being on TV. We know they have help with the kids and that the help does not want to be on TV-- so can't we just leave it at that?

CincyMom said...

I just thought the not-a-nanny phrase was simply funny. I don't care if they have a host of Asian employees or a 14-year-old kid helping occassionally.

I simply thought it was funny. Does anyone watch the recaps on tvgasm.com for shows. They are just funny, especially the names used for the people, like on Rock of Love Bus.

MommyZinger said...

So someone who is in the home daily and apparently sleeps over sometimes (or who was watching the kids while Jon was at his moms or partying at Legends?) is not a nanny? Did they confirm that the kids were with a nanny those times? It could've been a friend or a relative.

I assumed it was a nanny, too.

Saint said...

I just thought the not-a-nanny phrase was simply funny.Lots of people think it's funny. Nothing wrong with a different perspective. It's been interesting to me to see how everyone speculates about the helper differently. I also wonder if the "nanny" definition is a regional thing. Lizabeth made a distiction (using a curriculum) that I had never heard before.

"Not-a nanny" is a new term applied only to the Gosselins, though, isn't it? Maybe nomoredrama can explain how it's not meant at as a swipe at the Gosselins. I have been called out on the pig blog as being "upset" by the term (poor perception) and this discussion is seen as bickering (again, poor perception.) I understand they are troubled by disagreement over there, and it gives Peri a headache, so I would never presume to disagree with any of the more tender souls over there. Nomoredrama, were you bothered by my observation about the term "not-a-nanny?" If you were, I sincerely apologize.

I would think that if you thought they had a nanny based on Kate's schedule and what's been said by whomever, you would have just called her "the nanny," as in, "I'd love to be a fly on the wall to see how often the nanny is there."

Illinois Mom said...

I agree, it is just semantics, anyway you look at it, someone else is other than the parent(s) is spending more time with the kids. And maybe even more quality time.

If a parent is groucy, mad, hungover etc, no quality time is being had.

This is where I think things may be with the family dynamic now.

I also think it is terribly naive to think that Jon's partying and being photographed is not affecting the family dynamic. How could it not?

Don't you think Kate is pissed? Do you think the big girl's have gotten wind of this?

Theresa said...

I understand they are troubled by disagreement over there, and it gives Peri a headache, so I would never presume to disagree with any of the more tender souls over there. Saint, who gives a flying (fill in the blank) about what Peri or the pigs think or anybody who doesn't agree with you? They thrive on what we have to say and quite frankly, you have some great wisdom that you pass along in your posts. Don't hold back or apologize (to a pig)because you think you're going to give disgruntled people who just cut down this blog any way a headache. They can take two aspirin for it. That's not your worry.

That's what makes a true discussion blog...like what we have here...is the fact you can have both sides debated in a mature way, without holding back your thoughts.

nomoredrama said...

Didn't Kate get her not-a-nanny through Nannies4Hire?

Jon and Kate may define a nanny one way and a helper another but their definition is irrelevant, IMO.

One of my closest friends worked with a family where the mother was a "SAHM" and the job title was "Mother's Helper." Well, the "mothers helper" spent the majority of time with the kids during their waking hours. Do you that using a different title to the same job really means it's a different job?

You can be a janitor or an Environmental Management Consultant and you're still picking up trash and sweeping floors.

Same with being a "nanny" or a "helper" the job is the same, hence the snark. I think that parents sometimes prefer phrases like "Helper" to assuage a sense of guilt they feel for needing/having a nanny. I'm not saying it's malicious, I think it's normal to want to do it on your own but the reality is that they have help (and likely lots of it).

I wonder sometimes why there is a protectiveness towards Jon and Kate and what they say. If the person we were talking about was Angelina Jolie (and we know how often Angelina and Brad have to be away from home because of their work) and Angelina insisted that she didn't have nannies, only "helpers" she would be subject to snark as well. I get the sense that most people wouldn't have a problem with snark against Angelina Jolie because she feels so far removed from our own lifestyles.

Jon and Kate were 'one of us' so to speak and now maybe there is a resistance to seeing them as celebrities/entertainers seeking to appeal to a certain demographic.

nomoredrama said...

You all know I like to debate. This isn't bothersome...

lulubae said...

I agree, it is just semantics, anyway you look at it, someone else is other than the parent(s) is spending more time with the kids. And maybe even more quality time.Do you know, for a fact, that someone IS spending MORE time with the children than the parents? I have a problem accepting a generalization such as that one without some sort of evidence that proves the fact.

I'm in the camp that thinks the parents love their kids, Jon is immature, Kate can be annoying, but at the end of the day, it's their marriage to decide how to conduct. Not mine. They don't have to answer to me. My only concern is for the care and well-being of the children. And I haven't seen the kids scream bloody murder when their parents are around so I am under the *assumption* that even if they are crummy husband/wife, they are decent parents to their children.

And just had a thought. I guess Madonna's children should be taken away, or Britney Spears', or heck three quarter parts of Hollywood actors for that matter. I mean many are divorced, have nannieS and they travel CONSTANTLY for extended periods of time therefore rendering completely incapable parents.

I may not agree with everything about the Gosselin world but I think they get scrutiny and hate ONLY because they are the Gosselins. Many people forget their is a monumental bigger picture outside of the Gosselin world.

Just my $0.02

CincyMom said...

Lulubae said: And just had a thought. I guess Madonna's children should be taken away, or Britney Spears', or heck three quarter parts of Hollywood actors for that matter. I mean many are divorced, have nannieS and they travel CONSTANTLY for extended periods of time therefore rendering completely incapable parents.
______________________

I don't think parents with nannies should lose kids. On the contrary, I said earlier I thought celebs had some flexibility and got to include the kids or their schedules in their jobs, probably much more than us regular folks. The kids travel with them....(which I sort of wish the kids had a home base and school and weren't wandering, but lordy, so many others would view it as an opportunity--a whole other debate topic where I don't see winners or losers).

Is there no one else out there that is not advocating for kids or defending Gosselin people or just think the "not-a-nanny" comment was funny, in no way regarding the Gosselins? That's all I meant!

Nina Bell said...

Cincy Mom

I thought the "not a nanny comment" was funny.

I think at this point people are just responding to the discussion that developed, not to your comments specifically.

Nina Bell said...

"I wonder sometimes why there is protectiveness towards Jon and Kate and what they say."

I actually wonder more why there is a need to dissect everything they say and hold them to a different standard than we hold ourselves or our family members. It they say they don't eat fast food; they may never ever eat fast food. Ever. Period. Case closed. Even if the children are starving and they are on vacation and it is perhaps the best choice at the moment.

I think both the "protectiveness and the dissecting" are ways of people just defending their stance or opinions regarding the Gosselins. And sometimes it reaches extremes on both sides.

Saint said...

Thanks, nomoredrama. I knew you could take it! Thanks, Theresa, good advice, goo points. Thank you for the support. CincyMom, I appreciate your perspective, too. Lulubae, I agree with your take on the Gosselin's.

Saint said...

"I wonder sometimes why there is protectiveness towards Jon and Kate and what they say."

Nina, I agree with your response to this statement. They are constantly called liars for what I think are ridiculous reasons. The first time on this thread that I defended Kate Gosselin (can't remember about what) I thought to myself, "I can't believe I am defending Kate Gosselin again!" Lol! I went ahead and did so because I really believe what I wrote. I am saying that as someone who is not impressed with her "super-organized, everything perfect, organic-eating, non-dirty, indoors-only" persona. I just truly think she gets criticized for so many wrong reasons. She has characteristics I like, and some I don't. She has fans, and I can see why. She may not be my type, but I certainly don't mind that she has a successful book and is therefore travelling to promote it.

lulubae said...

Cincy Mom, I totally thought the comment was funny!

And I guess I should have clarified my comment about celebrities was sarcasm at its finest! I tend to be quite sarcastic, but I guess on the internet, that gets lost in the writing ;) I just meant it to say that sometimes people forget to look at the bigger scope of things and how annoying it is (to me anyways) how these people, although not saints, are vilified as if they were Satan spawn or something like that!

That's my $0.01 on my $0.02 :)

Kuromi said...

RE Kate's jam-packed touring schedule: The show is on hiatus right now isn't it? So of course it would make sense to pack in these appearances while no show-filming is going on.

RE nanny vs. helper vs. babysitter: Kate should just come clean and admit that what she has is a... governess! :)

CincyMom said...

Lulubae--you're right. Sometimes the simplest comment spoken is just never said right in writing.

I struggle with that a lottttt.

Kuromi--re: the governess. Maybe we'll have a modern-day Jane Eyre?
(kidding people, just have to say that in case!)

Does anyone else think that sometimes comments on this show are personally taken because half the people view it just simply as TV entertainment (many shows to watch, picking a few) and others are very invested in the personal lives of the Gosselins and keep the perspective about they are real people with real lives? I don't even know where I'd count myself.

Cathleen said...

Does anybody feel like TLC exploited this family?

I do.

I wonder if they are feeling bad about what has happened.

I hope so.

Of course, Kate's personality was a bit obsessive and narcissistic to begin with, but money sure was their down fall, it seems.

I think she loves what she is doing, she said she did. But I don't think Jon or Kate really care about the show on TLC anymore.

What she loves is making her appearances. She is hardly the same person she was when the show began.

They are ready to move on. They seem to have abandonded their website.

I am just sick about what this has done to these children.

Imagine what Mady and Cara are going through at school, possibly even the little kids get teased and harassed.

AAP said...

NMD -

I thought that when Kate clarified the difference between a helper and a nanny, it was to emphasize that a nanny is live in help, and they (J&K) would never have live in help. I think they did it because Kate's current speaking career depends on her ability to relate to other mothers.

Do you think most people (mostly women) would rather listen to Kate talk about her life as a mom, viewing her as a working mom with a SAHD, with some outside help, or listen to Kate talk about child rearing when she is never home, has 3 nannies around the clock, and a gardener, maid and personal chef?

I think they are trying to package Kate as the every day relatable mom to advance her career, and they will say what ever to support that image.

nomoredrama said...

I would never jump to saying that the kids need to be taken away. I do not see abuse/neglect at all. So I want to say that straight out.

That being said, I don't think all decisions are made with the children's best interest in mind, otherwise Jon wouldn't be out gallivanting with college girls or hanging out at clubs. That doesn't make them monsters....there are things in all of our lives that people could point to and say "there...this is where you need work." Jon and Kate need to work on things as parents, I need to work on things as a person. If I didn't have good friends in my life calling me on the carpet, I don't know where I'd be.

As for holding Jon and Kate to a higher standard than I (or anyone) hold themselves or family or whomever, I don't agree. In fact, I think if Kate were your sister or mine and none of the concerns were addressed and the attitude of "well, she's the parent and it's her decision" was taken, you might be remiss in your duty as sister.

If your friend was wealthy, lived in a huge home, had help with the kids whenever needed, could travel (Oh my word, how many parents would love to go to the supermarket by themselves, let alone L.A.?) and constantly complained about how hard life is because of the size of her family...I guarantee there would be some snarky water cooler talk.

I actually think the opposite of what you said is true. I think people hold Kate and Jon to a standard that they DO hold family and friends to. Though they are "celebrities" most people don't necessarily see them in that light. I mean they do to an extent but a lot of women feel like Kate Gosselin is their girlfriend or someone who "gets it." Angelina Jolie with Nannies is no big deal but Kate Gosselin, well, she is supposed to be the average woman. It's almost a betrayal of sorts.

This post is rambling so I hope it makes sense....

Nina Bell said...

Well Nomoredrama, I disagree.

I was referring to your statement about why people have a protectiveness about what Jon and Kate say.

If my sister said her family only eats organic food and one time they ate at Burger King, I would not bring that up 1000 times and remind her that she said that they only eat organic food. I think you knew that is what I was referring to.

I do have friends that live in large homes and have nanny's and do not work and complain about how busy they are. That is human nature and that is life. I continue to be friends with them because they have so many other positive qualities that I appreciate. I know this because they are my close friends.

I would not really be able to say the same for Kate one way or another. I don't know her. Only what I have watched on a TV show.

AAP said...

Nina -

The food issue is something I have a problem with because I think that Jon and Kate do say things for show purposes that haven't been factual in nature, but they say it because it enhances their image.

If Kate wasn't so adamant about them never eating fast food (and in some interview, I think it was Oprah but I'm not 100% sure, where she made a point of saying "...and they never will."), it wouldn't be a big deal to me at all. However, they have made a public stand and yes, I expect them to live up to it. It's like if you have a friend who is a strict vegetarian who gives her kids meat, even if it is only 1 time. Unless you and your family are dying on an island, and meat is the only thing available, then maybe it might be acceptable (I do have 1 friend who would rather die, but as the same time she doesn't have kids.)

Someone who is well versed in living the lifestyle Kate says she does should have no problems finding a healthly alternative. If there's a McD's there should also be a grocery store and hummus, grapes and pita bread is just as fast as a happy meal.

Nina Bell said...

AAP

I agree that Jon and Kate probably say some things for show purposes. I am not sure about the food. Maybe it morphed into that.The food to me is just not an issue.

However, I will say that my husband and I are very careful about making statements like that. We have learned never to say never. Especially when it came to child rearing. You find yourself allowing your children to do a few things that five years earlier you would have never dreamed you would have.

lulubae said...

Nina, your post reminds me of a saying I often use with my patients, "nothing is ever always". It helps to kinda remember that it's impossible to be depressed/anxious/happy/insert whatever here, all of the time. In life, there will always be exceptions.

nomoredrama said...

I actually was in no way thinking about the food when I replied. I could care less about the organic food/McDonalds issue. I was talking about the overall statement. I don't think Jon and Kate are held to a higher standard than someone's family/friends.

I didn't say I wouldn't be friends with the person who lived in a large house, etc...I said that there would be snark. Now, if you don't roll your eyes or talk about people who complain all of the time, that makes you a better person than me. I do, I'll admit it.

I also know for a fact that if I claimed to be, say a vegetarian and then my friends found me secretly eating meat they wouldn't let it die. I would literally never hear the end of it.

As I said, I could care less about the food thing but I still stand by my position that family/friends are held to a higher standard than celebrities (at least in my experience) and that Jon and Kate are held more to the level of family/friends vs. random celebrities. Of course, that is how I see it only.

AAP said...

Nina -

The point I was trying to get across is that when Jon and Kate talk about never eating fast food, it's comment on the way they want to live their life, as opposed to just making a statement. Even when talking about organic food (which I think is a separate issue from the fast food) they have said it is impractical to have everything they eat organic. I understand your point about never saying never, but in the Utah interview, Jon was able to remember the one time they took Mady to Red Robin, but can't remember that the younger kids have had McD's when he was the one who bought it? To me, he's omitting it because the party line is "no fast food", and that's the story they are sticking to. Besides, we just saw them have it on TV 1x - who knows if they've had it more?

Nina Bell said...

Hopingalliswell

If you want to email me, I can give you that information.

Guinevere said...

I wonder sometimes why there is a protectiveness towards Jon and Kate and what they say. If the person we were talking about was Angelina Jolie (and we know how often Angelina and Brad have to be away from home because of their work) and Angelina insisted that she didn't have nannies, only "helpers" she would be subject to snark as well. I get the sense that most people wouldn't have a problem with snark against Angelina Jolie because she feels so far removed from our own lifestyles.Well, I love Angelina so I would *definitely* defend her against snark.

But as for having a "problem with snark" - I think it depends on how you look at it. So many haters seem to conflate simply reality ("they're on TV; they're going to be criticized") with some sort of moral imperative or at least a get-out-of-jail-free card protecting their own behavior ("they're on TV; I can say whatever I want about them, no matter how vicious or untrue it is! My bad behavior is not my fault or responsibility, it's J&K's, because they are on TV!").

I've said it before, but if it were just a case of people "snarking" on J&K, I probably never would've gotten involved in blogging about them. I expect a certain level of bitchiness and cattiness on television and celebrity message boards. What I saw when I first started watching the show and reading online about it went way beyond that: people trying to interfere with the Gosselins' lives (calling CPS on J&K), people lying about the family (Penn Mommy being just one example of this), women coming up with the most vicious and slanted interpretations of fairly benign behavior (e.g. "cupcakegate"). I saw children as young as 4 years old being insulted and maligned. This behavior is not the exception but the rule on the anti-Gosselin boards I've seen - there is no room for fairly harmless "snarking", much less a nuanced discussion of the show and the issues around it.

So I think if there is any "protectiveness" on the part of fans or just anyone who is interested in discussing the show and doesn't hate the Gosselins, it's a result of the extreme vitriol those of us who have been following the online discussion have witnessed. It's made balanced discussion almost impossible, at least across the full spectrum of viewers.

Theresa said...

What I saw when I first started watching the show and reading online about it went way beyond that: people trying to interfere with the Gosselins' lives (calling CPS on J&K), people lying about the family (Penn Mommy being just one example of this), women coming up with the most vicious and slanted interpretations of fairly benign behavior (e.g. "cupcakegate"). I saw children as young as 4 years old being insulted and maligned. This behavior is not the exception but the rule on the anti-Gosselin boards I've seen - there is no room for fairly harmless "snarking", much less a nuanced discussion of the show and the issues around it.I felt the very same Guin. I thought it was extremely unfair for people to want to destroy this family in such a way that would be most detrimental to the children.

Saint said...

Good point Guin. The nature of the snark against the Gosselins is amazing. Then there is the response against people who hold a different opinion on the show. "Why are you in love with child exploitation?" is a recurring response to a fan's opinion. Just questioning whether PennMommy was imaginary (she was) merited some mods here a "special place in hell." There is a reason people who are not Kate fans ended up here and not on the other "non-fan" sites. So there are defenders and dissecters here. Fair and balanced, as they say.