Jon and Kate Plus 8 Official Thread - Part 8

[OhMari]

Isn't it winter in PA and NYC?
The last couple of pictures I've seen of Kate,
she is never dressed for winter.
There were pictures of here coming out of a Club in NYC
and a freaking guy behind her with a hat, scarf and winter coat on.
Yesterday, they had a picture of Kate shopping and she was holding her coat.
Just how warm is it PA?

 

[DMRick]

Quick someone start a rehab for reality show stars, you'd make a fortune!!

And make the rehab a reality show! We could be rich.

I do have to say, that of all of those that have come before them, K & J seem to be the only ones that are still managing to make money off the show that isn't still on. Reality people have come and gone for several years, and we never hear about (or remember) them. TLC must know something..or tons of people are lying when they say they wouldn't watch Kate on anything. I mean, why would TLC bother if she isn't marketable?

 

[kidshop]

"I want them to know without a shadow of a doubt how much I love them and how much every sacrifice made was worth it for them."

Would they not know if she didn't keep publishing books? She said the same thing in 8 Little Bags of Money.

Actions speak louder than words. ahem.

I really can't think of any of Kate's sacrifices, but whatever....maybe it's in the book. Unless she still means the 30 weeks of bedrest.

 

[3prettyprincesses]

"I want them to know without a shadow of a doubt how much I love them and how much every sacrifice made was worth it for them."

Would they not know if she didn't keep publishing books? She said the same thing in 8 Little Bags of Money.
Actions speak louder than words. ahem.

I really can't think of any of Kate's sacrifices, but whatever....maybe it's in the book. Unless she still means the 30 weeks of bedrest.

I know you're being serious but that just made me laugh! The wording was too funny!

I think people really under-estimate the power of self denial. I truly, truly, truly believe that Kate 100% believes what she's saying. In her mind, this all makes sense. To us outsiders looking in, it looks like she's making money off her kids. But I really think she doesn't see anything wrong with what she and Jon have done regarding the kids and their privacy.

 

[DMRick]

I think people really under-estimate the power of self denial. I truly, truly, truly believe that Kate 100% believes what she's saying. In her mind, this all makes sense. To us outsiders looking in, it looks like she's making money off her kids. But I really think she doesn't see anything wrong with what she and Jon have done regarding the kids and their privacy.

I agree with you (are you shocked )

Look how many people don't think that the Duggars are doing anything wrong making money off their kids. Because they appear to be nicer. That same question..would people watch you if the kids weren't there? No..then you are using them for gain.

What will be intersting here, is if for some reason Kate's show is a success. Without the kids.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I know you're being serious but that just made me laugh! The wording was too funny!

I think people really under-estimate the power of self denial. I truly, truly, truly believe that Kate 100% believes what she's saying. In her mind, this all makes sense. To us outsiders looking in, it looks like she's making money off her kids. But I really think she doesn't see anything wrong with what she and Jon have done regarding the kids and their privacy.

I recall when all of this bru ha ha exploded about a year ago. When the Gosselin Dynasty was spontaneously combusting.

I cannot find this family now as I do not recall their name, but there was a sextuplet mom out there somewhere in the US who of course had her say on the...inappropriateness of the way the Gosselins used their kids for money.

What I found humerous--is this came from a woman with a blog and some books sharing some intimate details about raising her own brood. In fact one of her books had on the cover a referral to the trials and tribulations of potty training.

I found her extremely hypocritical--and a fine example about how we as parents have a right to share what we wish in regards to our children.

I just wish I could find her. But alas, I cannot remember the woman. But anyone who profits off of their child--loses their credibility when they accuse another parent of doing the same thing. Doesn't matter if the critic makes peanuts while the person whom they are criticizing makes millions.

It's either wrong--or it isn't.

To me--anectdotes about kids isn't off limits. Doesn't bother me one bit. An anectdote though is not the same as having cameras. They are two different things. But the day the woman who published about potty training her own sextuplets while criticizing Kate's antics--made me leary about those who are anti-Gosseline, pro-kid or whatever.

This is not the person--but an example of another sextuplet mom who makes money "off her kids". To me--totally fine.
http://www.incrediblebirths.com/Hanselman_Sextuplets_2004.html

It just doesn't make sense to me when any parent is criticized for "writing' about their children--especially before the book is even read.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I agree with you (are you shocked )

Look how many people don't think that the Duggars are doing anything wrong making money off their kids. Because they appear to be nicer. That same question..would people watch you if the kids weren't there? No..then you are using them for gain.

What will be intersting here, is if for some reason Kate's show is a success. Without the kids.

See my post above--

I find this amusing that it is considered bad to share a story about one's family.

I feel the same way about both's families actually. I feel they have a right to do as they please even if it is something I *personally* would not choose. It isn't a choice that I would make for my family, but I don't condemn those who would and I don't consider it "using" them.

The difference with the Duggars--they were trucking along just fine before cameras ever showed up on their doorstep. I think the differences in critque relate to the fact that Kate would not have her life without the camera....the Duggars would have been fine if a camera never showed up.

FWIW, I don't buy other of their books. They have/had plenty to see on teleision and I don't have to pay extra.

 

[DMRick]

See my post above--

I find this amusing that it is considered bad to share a story about one's family.

I'm not sure why it's amusing, but until I read her book, I can't really say if it's good or bad.
Up until the paps got so involved it didn't bother me at all that the kids were on the show. Once I started to think it was detrimental to them (because of the paps/divorce, and I do wish some of what they shown abut the kids was kept more private..but I can't say it really bothered me), I thought it was time to put a stop to the show, at least for now and what was going on mostly with Jon and the divorce. I just haven't seen the bad behavior others have on Kate's part. I still think she acts like she loves her children and she thinks she is doing what is best. Again, until the kids books come out, I won't know if I'm right or wrong.

 

[DMRick]

The difference with the Duggars--they were trucking along just fine before cameras ever showed up on their doorstep. I think the differences in critque relate to the fact that Kate would not have her life without the camera....the Duggars would have been fine if a camera never showed up.

Weren't they living in a really tiny house also? I would think the money helped them to get that new one built. I really don't know how well off they were before this. I know they had rental property, but wasn't Jim Bob a car salesman before he gave the biz to his son?

 

[3prettyprincesses]

See my post above--

I find this amusing that it is considered bad to share a story about one's family.

I feel the same way about both's families actually. I feel they have a right to do as they please even if it is something I *personally* would not choose. It isn't a choice that I would make for my family, but I don't condemn those who would and I don't consider it "using" them.

The difference with the Duggars--they were trucking along just fine before cameras ever showed up on their doorstep. I think the differences in critque relate to the fact that Kate would not have her life without the camera....the Duggars would have been fine if a camera never showed up.

FWIW, I don't buy other of their books. They have/had plenty to see on teleision and I don't have to pay extra.

There's a difference between sharing a story about your kids with a group of friends and publishing it for monetary gain. We've probably all told humorous stories about our little ones but I'd feel like it was violating their privacy if I published it for the world to see and then accepted money for it. It seems to me that Kate just doesn't fully understand what privacy means regarding her kids. She wrote all about them in Multiple Blessings, posted pics of them in her other book 8 Little Faces and now she's going to publish letters that she's written about her fears and dreams for each of them. We don't need to know that and Kate doesn't need to be telling it to the world, especially for monetary gain. These kids have been in the spotlight practically since birth but even more so since J&K+8 began. Is she so incapable of doing something that doesn't involve exploiting her kids? She says she loves (and for the record I believe she does) but she needs to stand on her own 2 feet and not use the adorable-ness of her kids as a crutch. Time to move on, you know?

I do think the Duggars were more financially stable before TLC came knocking. But they're doing the same thing and you can already see the differences in how they're dressing and styling themselves. It's like reality tv is cursed or something...J&K divorced and family mess, OCC cancelled due to family disputes, The Bachelor show hardly able to turn out a couple with a lasting relationship and the list goes on.

I'd really like to see Kate succeed apart from her kids. Do something that doesn't involve them.

Personally I used to love the show. Then all the cheating scandals, magazine covers, nasty divorce proceedings and all came out and I felt like it was so wrong to be seeing these little kids on such a show. I felt like an intruder into their lives when I had no business being there. It made me uncomfortable especially when they aired the sextuplets b-day and the big divorce announcement. It was completely heartbreaking to see.

 

[talulabelle]

I agree with you (are you shocked )

Look how many people don't think that the Duggars are doing anything wrong making money off their kids. Because they appear to be nicer. That same question..would people watch you if the kids weren't there? No..then you are using them for gain.
What will be intersting here, is if for some reason Kate's show is a success. Without the kids.

I have really thought about the difference between the Duggars and the Gosselins, since I usually hold all people to the same standard... and for some reason, what the Duggars do just doesn't bother me, yet the Gosselins make me insane. I have really thought about why that is since I stopped watching the Gosselins around season 2 and I still love watching the Duggars. These are the reasons I see a difference: (besides the obvious which you stated is that they are nicer and pleasant to watch instead of how the Gosselins were like nails on a chalkboard)

1. The Duggars have proven they are more than capable of providing for their children without the TV show. They have never taken handouts. Althought the cameras are there, no one has quit their job. THey still have their business and cater etc. They haven't upgraded their lifestyle because of the check coming in from TLC. They have remanin the same. (THey do have a nicer house, but they were dong that on their own anyway, the show just made them be able to finish it faster) - they still had a place to live while they were building it. If the show ended tomorrow, their lives wouldn't change much. Dad would still have his business...Josh would still sell cars, Mom and girls would still cater. The Gosselins were NEVER able to care for their brood on their own and took handouts before they had a show. They upgraded their lifestyle based on what income they thought their kids could provide for them.

2. Where the Gosselins focus seemed extremely self-centered and self-absorbed, and self-indulgent - I feel the Duggars focus of the show is more about evangelization, spreading the word, showing that God provides, having faith. I feel the cameras are rarely on the little ones, where the little ones were the sole source of entertainment on J&K, and J&K were voice-overs for the main part - the cameras are usually one Michele, JimBob and the much older children on the Duggars....once in a while you get a flash of a little one playing.

3. I watched J&K because the kids were cute. I watch the Duggars,because I have learned so much from Michelle about meal planning, patience, teaching the kids responsibility, organization. Jeez, organization alone! - this woman is amazing to watch in and of herself. I would still watch her if there were no kids on the show. She is better than Martha Stewart! She is real. Kate seemed like a big fake to me. She really didn't have anything there to teach, she went on and on about cooking healthy for the kids, but other than use the word "organic" a thousand times, I really never learned anyhting from her, other than she is killing the planet with paper plates. Yeah, she was organized, but it was born out of control more than anything else.

So that is the difference to me. THe Duggars have some thing to offer, to sell other than their kids. Yeah, the kids are running around in the middle of it, but I just don't get the icky, "selling the kids feel" from them. I get the more of a feeling that they are proving to the world that the Lord provides when you trust in him and put everything in his hands even the number of kids you have. Michelle is piming any books with private info. They don't have nannies, cooks, and gardeners when the filming is being done. The kid is out on the tractor mowing. The show is truly about their real life. Not just selling how the kids are cute. Then selling and promoting their divorce for ratings. Then selling info that the kids are in counseling. Then selling private letter from their mother to them. The Gosselins are just plain icky. The Duggars aren't.

 

[DMRick]

I could go point to point on most of what you have written, but I won't, since this would just become a Duggar vs Gosselin thread. I will say that both are a TV show and we see just what TLC wants us to see. If they want you to see that meals are being made by Michelle, that's what you'll see. If you want to see a child praying, that's what you'll see. I think because my mom grew up as a child slave in a household bigger then this one, I may see things differently. My grandfather was truly a man of God..and they prayed, and took care of each other, and they took no money from outsiders and everyone pulled their own weight, with a younger child or two or three to take care of. Not one female was educated in that family..they were brought up to be mothers. My mom had a miserable live..but others looking in thought differently. I didn't hear this from my mom..my aunt told me shortly after my mom passed away (although my sisters and brother knew..I was the baby, so I just didn't pay attention to family talk). So for me, it always comes back to the same question. Would you be on TV if not for your kids. And while I like what it appears the Duggars stand for, it's still because of their kids they get to go on more and special trips (Dolly Pardon for one), and get free items (hence the placements on their show) so I just don't see much difference. If you don't like one using the kids, I don't understand thinking it's ok for the other.
I'm using the term 'using the kids' just because that's what so many thought was wrong with the Gosselins. I still don't know what I think..if it hurt them or not. But no matter what, I see all the family shows with a zillion kids the same, I just don't know if I think it's good for them or bad for them.

I have really thought about the difference between the Duggars and the Gosselins, since I usually hold all people to the same standard... and for some reason, what the Duggars do just doesn't bother me, yet the Gosselins make me insane. I have really thought about why that is since I stopped watching the Gosselins around season 2 and I still love watching the Duggars. These are the reasons I see a difference: (besides the obvious which you stated is that they are nicer and pleasant to watch instead of how the Gosselins were like nails on a chalkboard)

1. The Duggars have proven they are more than capable of providing for their children without the TV show. They have never taken handouts. Althought the cameras are there, no one has quit their job. THey still have their business and cater etc. They haven't upgraded their lifestyle because of the check coming in from TLC. They have remanin the same. (THey do have a nicer house, but they were dong that on their own anyway, the show just made them be able to finish it faster) - they still had a place to live while they were building it. If the show ended tomorrow, their lives wouldn't change much. Dad would still have his business...Josh would still sell cars, Mom and girls would still cater. The Gosselins were NEVER able to care for their brood on their own and took handouts before they had a show. They upgraded their lifestyle based on what income they thought their kids could provide for them.

2. Where the Gosselins focus seemed extremely self-centered and self-absorbed, and self-indulgent - I feel the Duggars focus of the show is more about evangelization, spreading the word, showing that God provides, having faith. I feel the cameras are rarely on the little ones, where the little ones were the sole source of entertainment on J&K, and J&K were voice-overs for the main part - the cameras are usually one Michele, JimBob and the much older children on the Duggars....once in a while you get a flash of a little one playing.

3. I watched J&K because the kids were cute. I watch the Duggars,because I have learned so much from Michelle about meal planning, patience, teaching the kids responsibility, organization. Jeez, organization alone! - this woman is amazing to watch in and of herself. I would still watch her if there were no kids on the show. She is better than Martha Stewart! She is real. Kate seemed like a big fake to me. She really didn't have anything there to teach, she went on and on about cooking healthy for the kids, but other than use the word "organic" a thousand times, I really never learned anyhting from her, other than she is killing the planet with paper plates. Yeah, she was organized, but it was born out of control more than anything else.

So that is the difference to me. THe Duggars have some thing to offer, to sell other than their kids. Yeah, the kids are running around in the middle of it, but I just don't get the icky, "selling the kids feel" from them. I get the more of a feeling that they are proving to the world that the Lord provides when you trust in him and put everything in his hands even the number of kids you have. Michelle is piming any books with private info. They don't have nannies, cooks, and gardeners when the filming is being done. The kid is out on the tractor mowing. The show is truly about their real life. Not just selling how the kids are cute. Then selling and promoting their divorce for ratings. Then selling info that the kids are in counseling. Then selling private letter from their mother to them. The Gosselins are just plain icky. The Duggars aren't.

 

[kidshop]

I could go point to point on most of what you have written, but I won't, since this would just become a Duggar vs Gosselin thread. I will say that both are a TV show and we see just what TLC wants us to see. If they want you to see that meals are being made by Michelle, that's what you'll see. If you want to see a child praying, that's what you'll see. I think because my mom grew up as a child slave in a household bigger then this one, I may see things differently. My grandfather was truly a man of God..and they prayed, and took care of each other, and they took no money from outsiders and everyone pulled their own weight, with a younger child or two or three to take care of. Not one female was educated in that family..they were brought up to be mothers. My mom had a miserable live..but others looking in thought differently. I didn't hear this from my mom..my aunt told me shortly after my mom passed away (although my sisters and brother knew..I was the baby, so I just didn't pay attention to family talk). So for me, it always comes back to the same question. Would you be on TV if not for your kids. And while I like what it appears the Duggars stand for, it's still because of their kids they get to go on more and special trips (Dolly Pardon for one), and get free items (hence the placements on their show) so I just don't see much difference. If you don't like one using the kids, I don't understand thinking it's ok for the other.
I'm using the term 'using the kids' just because that's what so many thought was wrong with the Gosselins. I still don't know what I think..if it hurt them or not. But no matter what, I see all the family shows with a zillion kids the same, I just don't know if I think it's good for them or bad for them.

There isn't much, if any difference anymore. The Duggar's turned the corner into "we will do anything TLC wants for a tv show" when they filmed a life or death birth of a 25 week preemie, and THEN did 2 People magazine spreads to sell the story of the struggling baby.

Kids lives should not be chronicled on a weekly show. Period.

(did we just agree a little bit? )

 

[madge]

I agree with you (are you shocked )

Look how many people don't think that the Duggars are doing anything wrong making money off their kids. Because they appear to be nicer. That same question..would people watch you if the kids weren't there? No..then you are using them for gain.

I don't get the Duggar phenomenon, either. They're no different than the Gosselins with using their children for financial gain. I wonder if the tide is turning on them, though. I saw a not so favorable People magazine cover of them last week. I used to think they're brilliant with their use of PR, but saying they'd have more children while the baby is still in the hospital? I'm not sure that was a smart thing to say, even if it is what they believe. But that's a topic for the Duggar board. LOL.

What will be intersting here, is if for some reason Kate's show is a success. Without the kids.

I predict it will be successful in it's first few weeks, and interest will fade quickly. People's attention spans aren't very long. By the time the show airs, Kate won't be the flavor of the month anymore.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

There's a difference between sharing a story about your kids with a group of friends and publishing it for monetary gain.

Absolutely.

I was simply sharing that my opinions pretty much were modified when there are other sextuplet mothers who claim they feel they can respond and would NEVER do that to their kids--indeed are doing just that. As I said, I cannot find the blog--but when the folks protesting are doing it on a smaller scale, it weakens the whole argument on whether or not it is truly inappropriate or are the observers being petty.

In the case of authoring a book--I found it petty a year ago and I find it a bit...wrong now...to judge someone before reading their book and then objecting on the premise that there would be no book without the kids and that parents should not profit off the kids.

It really just doesn't set well with me--b/c our kids do affect our lives and our lives as parents are often shaped by our kids. If we wish to share our story for profit--there is nothing wrong wtih that.

We have a parenting column in our paper and the author is constantly writing about the antics of her kids and parenting in general.

Could she have a job unrelated to that column--SURE. But her sole purpose as an employee of that paper is to write about her kids.

It isn't fair to enjoy such pieces and then condemn KAte b/c she has a larger platform to share.

I personally think her book will flop. They jumped the shark and the story has been told.

Condemning her for it in the name that she is sacrifciing her children's privacy--it happens in parenting magazines, newspapers and blogs worldwide. It is nothing new.

To me--we just don't like that "Kate" is the one doing it.

Thus the reason I brought up the other sextuplet moms and their books and can laugh when Nadia Suleman acts as though she is a saint protecting her kids and isn't a Kate--when she truly is in it for the money.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I'm not sure why it's amusing, but until I read her book, I can't really say if it's good or bad.
..... Again, until the kids books come out, I won't know if I'm right or wrong.

What the book contains is irrelevant...what I find amusing is that other mothers out there do write about raising their children when they are young or when they are old.

One sextuplet mom (whom I cannot recall nor can I find her blog) wrote a very condemning article about KAte about a year ago that was praised by "the other website". But when I looked at that mom's website with a critical eye--I found she was no different from Kate. She was advertising the several books she had written about raising her kids--including the topic of potty training and had plans to write more. And you could purchase them on her website. While what she does is on a much smaller scale--it was ironic that she didn't feel she was harming her kids b/c she'd never put them on camera, but if her cover jackets to her books were a clue--likely she was writing about things in her book that later on her kids might find a bit embarassing.

That is what amuses me.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Weren't they living in a really tiny house also? I would think the money helped them to get that new one built. I really don't know how well off they were before this. I know they had rental property, but wasn't Jim Bob a car salesman before he gave the biz to his son?

They were constructing their home before TLC ever stepped in to "help".

I'm not sure with the car salesman part.

What I do know is that they purposed to be debt free and they pay cash for everything.

They moved into the Tiny house--b/c they thought they'd have their regular house built in time--so they transitioned. I don't recall why. But that wasn't the house they had been living in long term. They had to expedite consruction when that house had to be torn down due to land development.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I predict it will be successful in it's first few weeks, and interest will fade quickly. People's attention spans aren't very long. By the time the show airs, Kate won't be the flavor of the month anymore.

I am honest to goodness not interested in the show.

No idea why--but Kate really is not my cup of tea anymore even though I defend her choices.

 

[DMRick]

One sextuplet mom (whom I cannot recall nor can I find her blog) wrote a very condemning article about KAte about a year ago that was praised by "the other website". But when I looked at that mom's website with a critical eye--I found she was no different from Kate.

Yes, I remember thinking the same thing.

They were constructing their home before TLC ever stepped in to "help".

I'm not sure with the car salesman part.

What I do know is that they purposed to be debt free and they pay cash for everything.

They were in construction, but definately it went a lot faster once TLC was in the picture. I don't think most people would have watched the show for that long, if they hadn't had the bigger house.

Yes, they do say they are debt free. But in this economy, with that many children, it wouldn't take much, without the show, to find supporting that many children a big challenge. It just always gets me when people think there is much difference about these shows. There isn't..it's all about the amount of children. I do wonder if their children have their own bank accounts, or again, do the parents get all the money for the show.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Yes, I remember thinking the same thing.



They were in construction, but definately it went a lot faster once TLC was in the picture. I don't think most people would have watched the show for that long, if they hadn't had the bigger house.

Yes, they do say they are debt free. But in this economy, with that many children, it wouldn't take much, without the show, to find supporting that many children a big challenge. It just always gets me when people think there is much difference about these shows. There isn't..it's all about the amount of children. I do wonder if their children have their own bank accounts, or again, do the parents get all the money for the show.

That I do not know--

but they are extremely frugal--so that certainly helps from a budgetary standpoint.

With no mortgage and no debts--it certainly frees up the budget to allow the needed items to have a larger budget such as food, utilities, and clothing.

One thing is for certain--Michelle isn't hanging out in spa's getting her massages or her nails colored. They aren't buying flashy new vehicles. So they would most certainly have an easier transition away from the show than Jon and Kate are.


Oh--before I forget. Someone asked about health insurance and in the people article, they did say that their insurance is covering Josie's care. So what type of insurance--I don't know...but it seesm they do have medical coverage.

****

I know they get criticized from covering Josie's birth. But it is their story and their choice. We cannot predict what would have happened had Josie died in birth--b/c it didn't happen. Scrutinizing them for a decision that never had to be made doesn't make sense.

TLC and DHC have been covering births for well over a decade now. They've also been coverig morbid things such as Trauma in the ER and those types of shows. OFten it is with or without the consent of the patient. When there is no consent, they will block out the face and we don't really get an identity of the patient. In any case--they've been doing it for a very long time.

TLC hasn't "sunk to a new low"--if it is low to show Josie--well, they've been low since the start. It is part of their and DHC's overall model to air such programming.

I know that is unrelated to the Gosselin's--but since TLC gets criticized as an entity--I feel that is an important observation.

Even on the Little Couple--pretty much every episode we get a visit in the NICU b/c that is what Jen does for a living. So we see many preemie babies and though we never have seen any die--many are in critical condition when we meet them and on some occasions, we are seeing them as they are about to graduate from NICU.

I wouldn't necessarily call those parents awful for allowing their sick babies to go on the air and I don't find TLC to be evil for doing such a thing.

(not saying you do Doris--just random thoughts attached to a response to your post)