Other TLC families, large families, and other multiples

With the ending of the show and the article in People this week about the McCaugheys, we thought we'd give people a place to talk about the other families and the comparisons and contrasts with the Gosselins. Normally off topic subjects such as the Roloffs and the marriage problems TLC is showing are welcome in this post.

We decided to start another blog to allow discussion about the other TLC shows. It's open for use and we'll begin adding to it. The link is in the sidebar if you need it. The location is here.

270 comments:

1 – 200 of 270   Newer›   Newest»
Jane in California said...

I used to watch a whole variety of TLC shows and enjoyed them all, including J&K+8. Back in my uninformed days, I thought it was a sweet show. I also watched Little People, Big World; the Duggars, and other one-time shows TLC had about unusual families. They were feel-good shows, people facing circumstances that would try most of us -- and seemingly finding a way to make it work.

Since having my eyes opened to the sad reality of how these programs operate -- I don't watch any of these shows now. I don't watch any TLC shows at all.

My thoughts about the families that participate in these shows is they are making a bargain with the devil. It's a form of selling your soul, even if you didn't mean to. I hope that people will become more aware of how they are signing their life and privacy away when they sign on for a reality tv show.

Most of all, I hope that all responsible parents would think long and hard before they would ever agree to expose their children to public scrutiny. It's one thing for an adult to choose to be on a reality show --- but children are put on these shows without having a real say-so, and that's just wrong.

One last thing - I did notice on the first season of LPBW, the youngest son didn't appear much on camera. I believe he didn't want to be filmed and they respected his wishes. It also seemed like the Roloffs' filming schedule was less than the Gosselins. I always viewed Amy as being a very involved mom, and protective when she felt it necessary. I think she made the best of the filming, but I'm not sure how much she really enjoyed the whole process.

Leigh Ann said...

Is that why my post about the McCaugheys in People got deleted from the other thread? Basically what I said was I think the Gosselins should spend some time with the McCaugheys and see how you can raise a family like they both have with normal-people jobs. It's hard to compare the Gosselins to the Duggars, even though the Duggars have so many more kids, because raising high-order multiples is a whole different challenge. You can't have sibling helpers or hand-me-downs when everyone is the same age and the same size! But the McCaugheys have been-there-done-that (since their kids are all older than the Gosselin kids) and have done very well. And they have two kids with cerebral palsey, which is a whole other challenge to deal with. You can raise a large family, even when all the kids ride the same size bike, on a couple of regular salaries. You just have to have realistic expectations.

Tbag said...

I watched the Roloff's Little People shows last nite. Both episodes were painful to watch, as it appears Amy and Matt are also heading for splitsville.

Is this a ratings ploy by TLC? They sure left it as a "cliffhanger", with Amy talking very negatively about Matt and their marraige. I've always felt that they had little in common besides the kids and wondered what they would do once the kids are grown and gone.

Amy has always sided with the kids against Matt and none of them seem to respect him. Its uncomfortable to watch and I don't think I will anymore....who wants to witness the disinigration of another family?

How does TLC seem to find these disfunctional-families in the making?

KatesNoMom said...

I didn't watch this week, but I saw the promos... and I can't tell you how much it bothered me to hear Amy Roloff say, "I can't say we are happy."

All I thought was - "Oh great, TLC ruins ANOTHER marriage." Then I shouted, "Get OFF the TV, for goodness sakes!" ::sigh::

qtrfan said...

I don't like the foreboding commercials for LPBW. The newest one starts with the couple bickering and then Amy says something to the effect of "I wouldn't say we are happy".

Did they not learn anything from the Gosselins? I can't understand how the money and fame apparently overcome the senses of these people.

hippie chick said...

I found it ironic that The G's were brought up as "living in a fishbowl", as the People article describes them.
The tups have no choice but to play along with their selfish parents. Same with any family on TLC. I wonder how the KIDS feel about being in front of the cameras.

Button Button said...

I hope I am wrong, but I think maybe TLC is telling them that family discord brings in the ratings, so go for it.

Maybe the Roloffs are doing okay, but are digging deep for ratings.

Who knows?

I thought in the earlier shows that Amy was always very rude and domineering to Matt, but then it kind of went away. So, I thought maybe Amy was turning over a new leaf and saw how disrespectful she treated Matt and was embarrassed by it, so quit it.

But who knows what is real at all with TLC.

The new show about the dwarf parents who gave birth to a normal sized baby look like the next Jon and Kate.

Now they are laughing about their situation, but in the beginning Jon and Kate also were laughing ... until it really was no longer funny.

dustilies said...

I'm sorry to hear about the Roloffs--haven't watched in a long time, but I always thought that Amy was a very interesting and strong woman. Matt's got an edge--sort of harsh and petulant at the same time.

When I last watched, they were doing a huge remodel on their house that seemed, under Matt's direction, to just keep ballooning and getting more elaborate.

I wondered at the time if they were wealthy from the farm? Or was that all TLC money?

LiLo said...

I wish the Haynes would get off TV. While they treat their kids better than Jon and Kate, they are just as hypocritical in terms of God, religion and fertility. They are almost worse - they went back THREE TIMES for high risk treatments.

dustilies said...

This thread prompted me to look at the Stansel family site. The three surviving girls are still struggling it sounds like, and may be blind. So, so sad.

Many of the comments I saw on the Houston Chronicle site were really pretty harsh. Lots of hostility towards the "fertility industry" and the people who use it, and calls to regulate it to prevent higher order multiples and to tax it to pay for the costs of caring for medical issues with mother and babies.

I have two reactions:

1) China is a scary example of what can happen when the government gets the power to regulate how many children people can have, and when, and where. Yes, that's an extreme example, but the government of the PRC uses the same rhetoric of "protecting the greater good" that people who complain about big families who get public assistance do. IMHO, we just don't want to get into regulating family size. The AMA may need to create a "best practices' mandate for fertility clinics, but I really don't think we can make it a government matter.

2) That said, I am concerned with how quickly many couples now turn to complex fertility treatments(like in vitro). I think that many clinics advertise in ways that play on people's vulnerabilities. There is an alternative to the series of agonies that Amanda Stansel went through (miscarried twins, ectopic pregnancy, super-preemie multiples, half of whom died within weeks of birth). It's called adoption.

I'm an adoptive mom and certainly know adoption is not all hearts and roses. But I just wish more people would at least consider it as an option equal to invasive, expensive fertility treatments, instead of a last resort.

Let me add quickly that I respect anyone's choice to seek medical help if they want to get pregnant. Reproductive freedom and choice is what I'm trying to get at.

SeriouslySerious said...

I think Amy has had to put up with a lot from Matt. He seems very impulsive...has a lot of grandiose ideas...he always seemed to be implementing these 'grand ideas' without paying much heed to Amy's concerns. He seemed to be of the mind that a lot of his worth revolved around the next big thing and lost sight of what Amy was trying to get him to see...which was his family was the most important thing. A lot of husbands do this because they are programmed to be the 'bread winner' first.
Amy seems to have her hands full trying to balance two jobs, kids, marriage, speaking engagements, Matt's health concerns and his next 'over-the-top' project...I think it wasn't a matter that she was showing disrespect toward Matt or siding with the kids...I think she just got tired of fighting a losing battle.
Bottom line...like the Gosselins...there was a lack of communication on both sides.

redskiesatnight said...

I watched the Roloff's Little People shows last nite. Both episodes were painful to watch, as it appears Amy and Matt are also heading for splitsville.

I was reading Matt Roloff's blog on their personal website and he gives mention to the extreme stress and pressure the Roloff family has been under as a result of their 'reality show' film schedule (they have filmed over 200 episodes). Like the Gosselins, it appears the Roloff family are having difficulty balancing the obligations and responsibilities of REAL LIFE vs. the terms and conditions of being contractually obligated to a 'reality tv' show.

crabbygirl said...

I believe only 2 of the Stansel babies have survived, not 3.

dustilies said...

crabbygirl said...

I believe only 2 of the Stansel babies have survived, not 3.

----

You are right. In reading through the last couple of weeks on their blog, they only discuss two girls, both in the NICU, and it doesn't sound like any babies have gone home. What an agonizing situation--needing to stay positive for the two, but grieving the loss of the four.

Brummygirl said...

I only ever watched the Gosselins, after this continuing debacle, I would not watch any other family being thrown to the lions.
T.L.C. is off my list for ever.

GoPoshGo said...

Part 2:

Anyway, I agree with dustilies that it's dangerous for the government to get involved in legislating reproductive issues. However, I wish there were some ways to screen for the moral, ethical, and downright practical issues surrounding the procedures. I think it was Ohio Buckeye who posted on another thread about the issues of "selective reduction." I'm pro-choice, but I'm sorry, I just don't agree with the medical/fertility industry thinking it's okay to CREATE a situation that leads to the NEED for abortion(s) -- which is what "selective reduction" is, despite their euphemism.

I think the cost of fertility treatments might be one way to "legislate" the problems associated with the industry. From what I've read, it's not cost-effective for a woman to implant a reasonable number of embryos (i.e., one or two, so that you end up with a max of 2 kids). So, they end up implanting many in hopes that at least one "takes." This just seems like such a risky gamble; and in the end it's the kids who suffer -- whether they're selectively aborted, born with health problems, or made the subjects of reality shows.

As for Kate's situation ... I find it appalling that her doctor allowed a VERY young woman who hadn't tried very long to conceive to receive fertility treatments -- I forget the name of the process, but she did some type of gas-up-your-ovaries-until-they're-just-spitting-eggs. Completely irresponsible on her doctor's part.

I guess the politically incorrect question that weighs on my mind is: When do fertility treatments cross the line to selfishness on the part of the parent(s)? Because as dustilies pointed out, having your own biological children is NOT the only option for "parenthood." If you have serious fertility issues, but still want to be a parent, adoption is a wonderful, viable option.

Again, I have no experience with infertility, so I cannot understand the heartache and heart-wrenching decisions that go into the fertility treatment processes. And, I'm sure there are those who've sought fertility treatments who have done so in a responsible way. I just think that TLC and other exploitive media outlets have convinced a certain segment of the population that their quick route to fame and fortune is to spit out a litter of babies.

@ dustilies: I was so touched to read that you're an adoptive mom. I want to share a little poem with you that I read over twenty years ago. As a college student, I babysat for a darling little girl who was adopted, and her parents had this poem hanging above her crib. Twenty years later, I still remember it, and it still makes me cry:

Not flesh of my flesh
Nor bone of my bone
Yet still miraculously my own.
Never forget for a single minute,
You didn't grow below my heart,
You grew in it.

Okay, I have to go find a tissue. Not joking.

GoPoshGo said...

dustilies said...
[snipped for space]
2) That said, I am concerned with how quickly many couples now turn to complex fertility treatments(like in vitro). I think that many clinics advertise in ways that play on people's vulnerabilities. There is an alternative to the series of agonies that Amanda Stansel went through (miscarried twins, ectopic pregnancy, super-preemie multiples, half of whom died within weeks of birth). It's called adoption.

*****************************

Okay, my post seems to be too long, so I'm posting it in two parts! Part 1:

I have to admit that I'm apprehensive to post on this topic as it is so emotionally, ethically and politically charged. But here I go anyway.....

I agree with you, dustilies, the Stansel's situation is so very sad. When I first heard about them and their website, I was quite frankly appalled -- it all seemed like a blatant attempt to be the next J&K, expecting a ton of freebies "just because" they're expecting higher-order multiples. There was a somewhat arrogant and expectant air to their website that made me feel like we were going to be treated to 6 more cash cows. Then the babies were born. And things turned really bad. I feel so badly for those little ones, both those who didn't make it, and the surviving ones who continue to struggle. And I just have to wonder, is it worth the risk???

I, too, respect everyone's reproductive rights. And I feel a bit guilty about commenting on fertility treatments, as I was blessed with two pregnancies that happened quite quickly and produced three kids (this, despite my later-in-life start of a family. My "diagnosis" for the ultrasounds I had with my daughter was actually "geriatric pregnancy." Jeez Louise, a bit harsh, don't you think???).

SeriouslySerious said...

Currently watching Table for 12 while completing a project (no, I am avoiding the task at hand ::smile::). I really like how the mom (Bettye) and dad (Eric) interact with their children. They actually interact. Gee, mom hasn't sat down in order to clearly state how exhausted she is in order to have a 'woe is me' party. Ok, I am sure she is justifiably exhausted but she hasn't uttered one complaint. How refreshing. Hey, mom is even in the kitchen (dad, too) and they are cooking (ok, it's not organic and without a recipe - guess she is not a REAL cook) but cooking real food and not crackers and yogurt.
Their living room looks REAL. Slipcovered couch, toys willy-nilly and kids being kids (and no yelling or screeching from mom). I think I saw one of the kids chewing gum. Oh my, now the kids are outside...mind you, they do not have on matching Gymboree outfits and they are having a blast getting dirty.
After there trip to the zoo the mom still has enough energy to to talk to each of her children about what they learned and liked about the zoo.
Best of all...the parents laugh with each other at the table. Mom and dad talk about each of their children's strengths and struggles. A lot of specific positive praise and they both try to treat each of their children as individuals and pay attention to each one. What I like most...they actually touch/hug/smile/nuzzle/cuddle with each other and their children. They are actually enjoying each other.
So far, the parents have a sense of humor with each other and the kids AND they communicate (one of the little kids was upset and dad was walking in...didn't hear mom say "You take him, I'm done"..mom said he was upset and why and dad knew just what to do to make his son smile).
I truly hope I don't see too much of this family but it is a nice change from the Gosselin train wreck to see a real family. Hopefully, they are keeping all of this in check for the sake of their kids.

GoPoshGo said...

SeriouslySerious said...
I think Amy has had to put up with a lot from Matt. He seems very impulsive...has a lot of grandiose ideas...he always seemed to be implementing these 'grand ideas' without paying much heed to Amy's concerns.

**************************

I haven't watched the show in a long time, but I have to agree with you, Serious. This might sound a bit crazy, but I've always seen Matt as sort of Michael Jackson-ish in his personality. In the older episodes I saw, he made numerous comments about being bedridden as a young child, and therefore missing out on many things. I've always seen his grandiose and somewhat child-like projects as his version of Neverland. There was the pirate ship on the property -- and the bungy swing thing. WTF?? It's like he was turning their property into an amusement park. But for who's amusement???

There also seems to be a stream of ADD running through his veins, as no project ever seems to be completed. At least not in a timely manner. Personally, that would drive me crazy.

Meanwhile, Amy always seemed to be the rational "adult" who sort of kept the household functioning. Like I said, I haven't watched the show in a long time, but I've always thought that Matt wants to "play" -- and now that they have some money, he's taking his crazy ideas to crazier levels.

Wasn't aware of the marital woes -- hopefully they self-destructed on their own, and aren't just more roadkill on the High Road that is TLC.

KT Warp said...

does anyone know if the article is online? Or what the actual name of the article is so i could search for it?
TIA

Leigh Ann said...

"I think the cost of fertility treatments might be one way to "legislate" the problems associated with the industry. From what I've read, it's not cost-effective for a woman to implant a reasonable number of embryos (i.e., one or two, so that you end up with a max of 2 kids). So, they end up implanting many in hopes that at least one "takes." This just seems like such a risky gamble; and in the end it's the kids who suffer -- whether they're selectively aborted, born with health problems, or made the subjects of reality shows.
"

Reproduction specialists are really working on this. Their goal is for a woman to come in, have one treatment, get pregnant with one baby and have that baby be born healthy. Any pregnancy that results in more than one baby (even twins) is considered a failure. But I don't see how we're ever going to have complete control over it, though.

4MoreBeers said...

I used to enjoy watching the annual updates on Primetime about the Dilley Sextuplets. Curious about them after the Gosselin debacle, I checked out YouTube and found a couple of videos showing yearly photos of them. They are now sixteen and apparently living a low-key, normal life somewhere in the Midwest. It just seems a shame that Kate and Jon never reached out to them, or any other families with higher order multiples, for advice. I can't imagine the Dilley family every consenting to selling out their private lives for a weekly show, no matter how sweet the price tag. Nor could I envision them quitting their jobs and rationalizing that managing their reality career was more than a full-time occupation. It really hit home for me to see the pics of the Dilley kids looking so happy and ordinary and contrasting that with what I think we will see of the Gosselins at sixteen.

Ellas Mum said...

To GoPoshGO

1. I'm intrigued. What age is a pregnancy considered "A Geriatric Pregnancy"

2. Why the name "GoPoshGo"??

Love all ya posts btw

tuesday said...

agree button button that amy was quite harsh in the beginning. I couldn't stand her behaviour then and turned off the show for a very long time. (same reason I turned off the G$)

IMO there have been many instances of 'parent alienation' at the hands of Amy. Complaining to her children about their father, putting him down in front of her children, and making continuous snide and sarcastic remarks for all to hear.

The most heartbreaking episode for me was a certain Thanksgiving where Matt discussed his hopes and dreams for the property and showed the progress that had been made on the farm since its purchase. He seemed very proud, as well he should be--His "crazy" ideas resulted in a dream place to raise children.--- Next in the episode was Amys father touring the property with not one kind word to say about all the work that had been done. Amy must get it from somewhere, huh?

I'm glad this subject was brought up. I watched last nights episode also and Matt tried to set up a date night with her.... more smart ass comments from Amy-televised-who knows whats going on behind the scenes.

Lets not jump on the Matt hating bandwagon just yet, we saw how tlc portrayed Jon.

WallyWinnie said...

I am not a LPBW expert, since I have only seen about 20 or so shows, but must ask a few questions regarding Matt.

Why does he always leave a vacation early? I know they say it is because he misses the farm or he needs to get back to work.

I have always wondered if he doesn't have some phobia about being away from home? Surely he does not have some girlfriend on the side. Is that why Amy is so withdrawn? It doesn't seem like they are very intimate. Is Matt OK in that department?

Just a creepy feeling is all. I'd hate to see them break up because I adore that they have 4 children together.

Natalie said...

My husband and I watched LPBW tonight and at the end I decided to not watch it ever again. I told my husband that I would not watch another marriage unravel. I am hoping these TLC families will wise up and realize they are being destroyed.

Uh Oh said...

I know Matt has big dreams, but he's made it clear he wants to do all he can before he becomes too debilitated from his disability to do it. It's a shame Amy has to nag him about every little thing he does. He can do nothing right in her eyes. He tried to take her on a little romantic ride in the golf cart to see the scenery ( in Utah ) and she bitched and complained the whole time. Every nice gesture he makes toward her is met with sarcasm and she rarely ever has anything kind to say to him.

I think Amy is trying to follow in Kate's shoes, to tell you the truth. She's not as grateful as she used to be.

Can't See Sheep said...

GoPoshGo said...
Anyway, I agree with dustilies that it's dangerous for the government to get involved in legislating reproductive issues. However, I wish there were some ways to screen for the moral, ethical, and downright practical issues surrounding the procedures.
----------------

I know I'm going to get crucified for this but anyway, here goes & this is just a starting point, one aspect, there would of course have to be MANY aspects to the entirety of making the end decision.

What about starting with income, such as if you don't make enough income to look after children you don't get the fertility treatment. Start with a CONSERVATIVE base cost for a child & if people don't have the money they don't get the treatment.

Make sure anyone coming in for the treatment can afford to look after at least 2 children. If they already have children & their finances show that another child would be a financial burden then they're told to come back for reevaluation when they get a raise, because currently they're not making enough money.

Yes, the problem does lie in the officials not fudging things & making it up as they go along. Maybe in SOME ways it should be treated more like adoption.

May sound harsh, but I know or at least it used to be that finances were considered in part when adopting. It's far from the only aspect considered, but it is considered nonetheless. If you didn't make money you didn't adopt children.

I've pointed out a dozen times that Jon stated money was going to be tight with the addition of a third child, had that been a consideration then they would have told kate to come back when one of them had received a raise.

It should not cost a fortune to get these treatments done, but they should be making sure you have the money to provide for the children you're going to bring into the world.

Like many of the other poster's I wish there was a to screen for the moral, ethical & practical, I wish there was a way to screen for good parents & bad ones, at least those who are delusional, toxic & harmful, because those kate would have certainly failed.

Toxic people are my pet peeve, I don't believe they should be allowed to have children because all they do is try to destroy them & bringing a child into the world so you can attempt to destroy them seems pretty perverse to me.

Look at what kate did to have children, paying for fertility treatments & all they entail, the bed rest, shorter than she claims, but still, all the medical expense involved in having the children & for what, so she could play favourites, alienate some, emotionally & mentally harm all, make her sons feel inferior, seems damn sick to me.

Jane in California said...

After reading this thread earlier today, I broke my self-imposed ban on TLC shows and watched one episode of Little Couple. The episode I saw involved the fact they are considering having a child, and a pulmonary test to check her lung capacity, etc.

My main thought after sitting through 30 minutes was this is a rather boring show. It was repetitive, in that the wife talked at least three separate times about having this appointment, why she was having the appointment, how they are faced with the decision - have a baby, hire a surrogate, adopt. Lather, rinse, repeat, lather, rinse, repeat.

They seemed like a nice enough couple, bland and boring except for the fact they are both little people.

The husband took a flight in a Cessna with a friend to see a (football?) game. They went to a tailgate party. Then they flew home. Safely. He made a silly call to his wife about blood everywhere. She didn't laugh, she was in the middle of a 24-hour shift.

If this is the type of excitement this show generates, I'll tape a few episodes for the nights when I have trouble falling asleep. No disrespect intended to either husband or wife. I'm sure my life would be a snooze-fest to anyone else watching from the outside too.

include the disabled don't blame them said...

Does anyone here have a spouse with a disability that requires them to be essentially wheelchair bound? Matt has complained for years about the fact that it is disappointing to him to not be able to participate in certain aspects of the "adventure bound" vacations that are continually planned. On the riverboat thingy I remember him just wishing to sit and relax. I'd be bummed too if every family vacation was planned around things I had a difficult time participating in.

Why not plan a vacation for all that would include handicap accesible activities?

Great, another episode that shows us what a strong tall guy Jeremy is while leaving Amy, Matt, Zach and Molly in his wake.

Pre-planned division by a network, seen it before. boring.

Can't See Sheep said...

Natalie said...

My husband and I watched LPBW tonight and at the end I decided to not watch it ever again. I told my husband that I would not watch another marriage unravel. I am hoping these TLC families will wise up and realize they are being destroyed
-----------------------

YAY Natalie! I think it would be great if they all banded together & sued TLC for the breakdown of their relationships or for contributing to it. Yes, I know, they're all consenting adults & everything else, I just think it would serve TLC right if they did it.

It'd be even better if they won & it sent TLC into bankruptcy, so that by the time they're back up, this silliness about reality families & multiples is dead & gone leaving them with no reason to look for more families to wreck. TLC need to change to THWC, The Home Wrecking Channel, currently with ms. o'neil in the starring role as head home wrecker.

Can't See Sheep said...

I used to watch LPBW off & on. I was always left with the impression that Amy was angry or mad about something the viewers aren't seeing. She's always struck my as a strong, intelligent & private woman who's really irritated about something that's not being made known to the viewers. She had said she's not happy with all the people roaming the farm when they rent it out, but they need to, to keep the farm going. Maybe she's frustrated with the camera's being there, the money's good, but as we've all read there are reason's you don't want this stuff going on in your house. Maybe that's what she's at odds with Matt over. Maybe she only wanted to try a few, who knows, it could be anything. Personally I can't imagine having a crew of these people in my house because it would drive me bonkers.

Jane in California said...

And since we can talk about other shows on this thread, I'll throw in my two cents about the Roloffs.

Matt: This guy has energy and ideas flying out of his head at an amazing rate of speed. While I can see how he would grate on nerves, I can't help but like him and I certainly admire him. No, he's not perfect and I think he's the driving force for having the show, but he has truly overcome adversity in his life and he inspires others. For that alone, I have respect for him.

Amy: Very down to earth, and also a very reserved sort of person. I think a lot falls on Amy's shoulders. Matt is the dreamer, and Amy gets stuck dealing with the practical. So it's made her a little sharp tongued around Matt? I totally understand. The episode where we see a little bit under that capable exterior of Amy's, is when Mike passes away unexpectedly. All of the family mourns his loss, but I think it hit Amy the hardest -- he was someone she could count on, day or night. She says at one point, off camera, something like "what am I going to do without you Mike?"

The children -- I like them all. I think they all have good hearts.

The worst thing about the show -- the mess! I simply had to close my eyes sometimes.

I will never again think it's a good idea for any family to be on a reality tv show, exposing their lives for the camera. I think the bad far outweighs the good (and the only good seems to be the financial end). Family is too precious to risk this way. Annual specials would be a much safer middle ground.

I am thankful that now I at least ask these questions -- why do I want to peer into someone else's life once a week? Is that okay? How does my watching them change and blur the lines between reality and scripted television? Is it ever right to take away our children's privacy, even under the guise of bettering their lives? How much is okay, and when does it cross the line? Can parents always be trusted to do the right thing for their children? (Clearly not!)

pogo said...

Tbag you are right about the Roloff's, they look as if they are headed for splitsville, I too find that show hard to watch. As for the Hayes are like a breath of fresh air. The parents interact with their kids, don't yell at them every 2 mins, don't dress them and parade them like freaks, or like dolls. The kids act like kids. And the parents like parents, not a mom who only thinks of herself, a mom with a sense of humour(parents who don't be-rate each other). I like this show I hope TLC doesn't ruin it. I also like the fact that at the Zoo there were other people and it was not shut down cause the Hayes were there, unlike the JK8. I'm sure if one of Khate kids was handicap she would make a fuss. Bette did not at the Zoo. I also notice that the Duggars are doing that now(not clearing the place so they can visit it).

dustilies said...

@ GoPoshGo,

Thanks for reminding me about that adoption poem--it's really popular in the adoption community, and for good reason. It makes sense to kids and to adults as we try to parse out what expressions like "blood is thicker than water" mean for us.

I totally agree that this is a charged subject--almost didn't publish my post, but I'm glad now I did. As Leigh Ann also pointed out, the recent practice of implanting several embryos at once or power-stimulating the ovaries now needs to be re-examined by professionals in the field--maybe because the procedures are more refined than a decade ago and work better.

Also on "Geriatric Pregnancy," I also suffer from late-onset parenthood (was 39 when we adopted our first, 42 for the second). What is it, someone asked?

1) Your children accept as normal the request "please ask me that question again after I've had my first cup of coffee." Note: they don't have to BRING the coffee with lots of skim milk and four splendas (four?!), they just have to let me get the coffeemaker going before they lay out the sixteen playdates they'd like me to arrange on a Saturday morning.

2) You announce before you get down on the floor to play games or watch TV, "does anyone need anything before I sit down--because I won't be bouncing back up again for a while."

3) You abandon all pride and make a middle-aged fool of yourself teaching your kids how to dive (see, your geriatric body has to be in a bathing suit and above the water line to do so), how to turn a cartwheel, and how to squat down low to find the first crocuses of spring (see bouncing back up again, above).

4) Oh, and that line about older parents having more patience (a positive trade-off for having less energy than a twenty-something)--total crock. All we want is peace and quiet to sort our meds, take our fiber supplements, and listen to NPR.

dustilies said...

Can't See Sheep said,


May sound harsh, but I know or at least it used to be that finances were considered in part when adopting. It's far from the only aspect considered, but it is considered nonetheless. If you didn't make money you didn't adopt children.

--

A prospective adopter or adoptive couple still has to prove both present means and long-term prospects for financial stability. You don't have to be rich, but you do have show that you can provide for the child/ren you seek to adopt.

You also need to be evaluated over several visits by a social worker, write your own autobiography and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your relationship if you have a spouse or a partner. You need to have letters from your parents or other kin about how they feel about the adoption. (yes, so far Kate and Jon would be batting about .75) You undergo state and federal criminal/sex offender background checks. You need a physical exam. You have to explain any arrest or traffic stop, no matter how old.

There are moments in the process where all would-be adoptive parents get resentful about the level of scrutiny we have to suffer, when bio parents don't need anyone's permission or approval to have a baby. But we all realize we are dealing with precious, vulnerable children who need protection from exploitation.

Maybe the social workers should start asking, "are you, um, planning to pitch a reality show based on your crazy adoptive life to any cable networks?"

Button Button said...

4MoreBeers said...
I used to enjoy watching the annual updates on Primetime about the Dilley Sextuplets. Curious about them after the Gosselin debacle, I checked out YouTube and found a couple of videos showing yearly photos of them. They are now sixteen and apparently living a low-key, normal life somewhere in the Midwest. It just seems a shame that Kate and Jon never reached out to them, or any other families with higher order multiples, for advice. I can't imagine the Dilley family every consenting to selling out their private lives for a weekly show, no matter how sweet the price tag. Nor could I envision them quitting their jobs and rationalizing that managing their reality career was more than a full-time occupation. It really hit home for me to see the pics of the Dilley kids looking so happy and ordinary and contrasting that with what I think we will see of the Gosselins at sixteen.

12/01/2009 6:52 PM

..............................

I thought Kate was in touch with the McCaugheys while she was still pregnant.

konhasyoufooled said...

dustilies said...

This thread prompted me to look at the Stansel family site. The three surviving girls are still struggling it sounds like, and may be blind. So, so sad.
************************

I too read up on those poor Stansel babies. There are only 2 babies left. Haley and Rachel. I remember back when I 1st heard about the high risk pregnancy and what the mother had already been thru trying for a baby. Well I certainly wasn't surprised to read that they were also looking for donations. I was quite upset that yet another family was putting the fate of their babies in their own hands. I read part of their blog when seeking out help and the 1st thing that came to mind was OMG another Jon and Kate how selfish. Did they really think they could carry 6 babies full term when she couldn't carry 1? That is SELFISH in my book.

Well somebody wrote on the blog what they thought of their decisions and his reply was *who are we to judge* I thought what an attitude for a God fearing man. My reply to that would have been to him *we are the very same people you are begging from so we have every RIGHT to judge. Now they are left with 2 very ill babies that are going to be special needs children thanks to the greedy parents.

I am sure some of you will disagree with my thinking but it is just my opinion. I am waiting for the day they take those 2 babies home and exploit them just like Jon and Kate are doing. I don't think they are going to just drift off into the sunset. They already have pics of those babies up on the web. Not a good idea.

Can't See Sheep said...

include the disabled don't blame them said...
I'd be bummed too if every family vacation was planned around things I had a difficult time participating in.

Why not plan a vacation for all that would include handicap accesible activities?

Great, another episode that shows us what a strong tall guy Jeremy is while leaving Amy, Matt, Zach and Molly in his wake.

Pre-planned division by a network, seen it before. boring.
-------------------

You know, I've been wondering about this every time I've seen it. For heavens sake why aren't the vacations oriented towards the whole family? Is TLC purposely trying to cause friction between all of them. After seeing what's been going on with j&k, it wouldn't' surprise me, because nastiness & unpleasantness seems to be what this channel peddles. It's like Jeremy is featured because he's the one that young female viewers will be interested in.

nanb said...

KT Warp said...
does anyone know if the article is online? Or what the actual name of the article is so i could search for it?
TIA
*****************************************************
The scans are up just google "gosselin scans" then go to the first site listed. They are in the Gosselin topics.

WorkerBee said...

I quit watching J&K earlier this year. I've never watched the Hayes nor will I b/c I refuse to contribute to the continuation of the exploiting of the families. I did watch LPBW early on but haven't watched it since before the remodel began. While I agree with whomever said that no one in the family respects Matt, I also feel like he doesn't respect them. I think he tries to one-up Amy all the time. She basically handles everything with the kids and he'll come in at the last minute and try to go over her head and do things the way he wants to do it. As a mom, that would annoy the heck out of me. They definantly do not present a united front to the kids and they know that and take advantage of it. So I find that they have little respect in that house between all of them.

Mary said...

They are now sixteen and apparently living a low-key, normal life somewhere in the Midwest. It just seems a shame that Kate and Jon never reached out to them, or any other families with higher order multiples, for advice. I can't imagine the Dilley family every consenting to selling out their private lives for a weekly show, no matter how sweet the price tag. Nor could I envision them quitting their jobs and rationalizing that managing their reality career was more than a full-time occupation. It really hit home for me to see the pics of the Dilley kids looking so happy and ordinary and contrasting that with what I think we will see of the Gosselins at sixteen.
______________________
Kudos to Becky and Keith.
What little we know of the kids shows that they have interests and hobbies with plans for college.
They were all well posied at the Cake Challenge where they got a cake for their 16th b day.

Gosselins at 16? Hmm....

Anonymous said...

I've seen three episodes of Table for Twelve, and I really connected much more with that family. The parents truly seem to care for each other, and you can tell in their tone of voice, physical interactions, and comments. It's a "real" relationship, and I so hope that the people who thought Jon and Kate were "just like us" in their relationship would watch these parents and their relationship with each other. THAT's the type of couple you should empathize with!

Geez... I really hope three years from now they aren't getting a divorce and making me regret these comments. However, I doubt it. From the first episode I watched of Jon and Kate, I just cringed at how they talked to each other and the "faux" romantic gestures/comments they would make toward each other.

TBag said...

I am positve that Matt and Amy Roloff are the exact same people that they were the day they married. Matt has probably always been an ADD dreamer and Amy has probably always been practical and grounded.

It happens in most marriages....you look at the thing you found so endearing in the other person in the first few years and now it annoys the heck out of you.

The difference is that it's being played out on TV and in the public, which amplifies and accelerates the situation. Imagine having to live with your annoying husband and/or wife and then having to watch it all over again and again. (and see snarky comments they make behind the scenes).

The sad part is that the Roloffs have now created a lifestyle that they can only sustain by staying on TLC.....one good thing is that it looks like they are only going to have to worry about paying for college for Molly....jury is still out on Jacob.

junebug said...

I stopped watching TLC all together awhile ago.

But when I did...I liked the Roloff's. Their farm is beautiful and it looked as though everyone pitched in to keep it going. I hope they do their time that they have left with TLC and get out. Kind of sounds like jail, hmmmm.

Louise B. said...

Just because the other TLC stars are still working their day jobs and not buying mansions and fancy cars doesn't mean they aren't making just as much money off their shows as Jon and Kate did, and that it can't eventually corrupt them and destroy their marriages.

Marianne said...

Natalie said...

My husband and I watched LPBW tonight and at the end I decided to not watch it ever again. I told my husband that I would not watch another marriage unravel.

---------------

What happened? Did Amy and Matt hint that there might be a divorce coming? I used to watch LPBW regularly but just became absolutely disgusted with the whole network after the implosion of the Gosselin Family.

BarbMae said...

I taped LPBW and watched last night. I would not have wanted to ride in the sunset w/Matt the way he was driving the ATV. But, they did hold hands. IMO Matt and Amy are both going through mid-life wondering what the future holds when the kids are out on thier own. Matt is facing in the near future health problems and is trying to come to terms of life on the farm since he won't be as mobile as he once was. His body is telling him to slow down but he can't. He has the farm just the way he wants it and IMO wants to sit in a rocking chair on the porch and survey his land. Amy, is facing a new life where she wants to travel and see the world now that the kids are growing up. She is much more mobile than Matt and wants to spread her wings which she hasn't been able to do for 20 years raising kids. They are both at different crossroads in their life and not sure which road is best to take. I seriously don't think that divorce is in the cards, but can totally agree w/where they both are having lived much of the same circumstances. The family does split their filming time where they don't film 40 episodes all at once. Pumpkin season (which includes Thanksgiving filmed early), May-June summer vacations, beginning of school year which probably the Gosselins should have done. All in all, I enjoy the Roloffs cause I can relate in many ways w/them and their trials w/teenagers.

BarbMae said...

I took the step last night and watched the Hayes family and didn't enjoy it at all. Maybe cause in the back of my mind I was thinking of the Gosselins. I don't particularly find the children cute and entertaining (my opinion only). Mom just looked tired. It just seemed to me that the episode was just what TLC wanted to film. I can't believe the family has never been to the zoo. What? IMO I was uncomfortable watching and hope this family stops filming soon.

BarbMae said...

I'm on a high horse I guess... He! He! I also found it uncomfortable to watch the risks that the cowboy at the ranch had the family take. I ride horses and would never think of having someone who has not rode ride up and down steep hills w/o proper instruction. IMO there were several no-nos that the ranch employees did. Amy should have been guided down the steep hill. Horses are unpredictable and safety didn't seem a big issue. You lean back going down a hill and forward going up. It was difficult for Amy to manage this. Seeing the dangers of this ranch (my being a horse lover) I would not go for fear of my safety.

silimom said...

There's been a lot if talk about adoption which I am a huge supporter of. Just wanted to remind people that Jon and Kate had an opportunity to adopt a child but it didn't work out (someone feel free to step in with the particulars - I never read MB nor shall I). That's when Kate pushed for "just one more". I suppose it could be that thecreal reason the adoption fell through was that they failed their social services interviews.

As for regulating fertility, I understand the desire but in the end don't feel it's a good thing. There should be greater regulation of the industry, and yes, IMO it's an industry. Good comes out of it but bottom line it's a very lucrative field of medicine to go into. Our uncle and aunt went into debt doing two years of treatments before finally adopting. I agree that I hope people take all the factors in to account -financial, emotional, societal - before having children, naturally artificially or through adoption.

Leigh Ann said...

"
I thought Kate was in touch with the McCaugheys while she was still pregnant."

From what I've read she contacted them early on about practical things like who to call at Pampers for diapers. While Pampers will provide diapers to families like that, you have to ask them. Same with formula, I'm sure. I'd ask those questions, too! But as far as I know Kate has never actually sought advice from anyone in their unique situation. It it were me I'd be on the phone with the Dilleys or McCaugheys saying "how do you do it!" But Kate never seems to need advice on anything.

Rose said...

Well, I don't think I can write all this again because I've written it three times already and had it deleted by the moderators. That's my own fault, though, because I kept putting it in the wrong place. Thank you for adding an off-topic discussion where we could talk about other families with multiples. I feel that a lot of it relates well to the discussion of the Gosselins.

In short, I just really admire Kenny and Bobbi McCaughey for keeping their feet on the ground, maintaining real-world jobs, and raising their children privately. Those kids will thank them for it one day. All eight of them seem very happy and well-adjusted, and they are fortunate to have two parents who have kept the family together all these years. Surely it wasn't easy, but somehow they did it, which proves that it is possible.

What irks me about Kate is the same thing that's bothered me all along about her: the fact that she continues to claim that this is the only way she can provide for her kids. If she wants to say "This is the choice I've made as a way to provide for my family," then I'd at least respect her for being a little more honest. But it would not be impossible for her to do it on a normal job salary - the proof is there with people like the McCaugheys! You just have to humble yourself and do the work. You probably wouldn't be able walk around in high heels and a different designer outfit every day if you were out working in the real world, but you'd probably be a heck of a lot happier, and I know your kids would be happier - not to mention safer.

I'm not saying that every family is the same and that the exact same rules should apply to each of them, but when you have kids, you need to consider a variety of factors, and Kate only seems concerned about the money at this point. Ten or twenty years down the road, though, she is going to want a happy relationship with her kids, and I just can't picture her having anything resembling a healthy bond with them. That's not something that any mother should have to go through, but it's all in the choices she has made.

I just wish she understood that she could have made different, better decisions for her family, and more importantly, that it's not too late. Sure, they're insanely recognized at this point, but there's a lot Kate could do to protect the kids from here on out. Soon those tups are going to be 12 years old, just like the McCaughey tups are now, and it's horrible to think about where they might be if Kate doesn't turn things around now. She's their mother, and it's in her power.

Pamela Jaye said...

I'm a bit behind here but there are two things on the fertility side that come to mind
1. I read an article which said that the Gosselins went for IUI, not IVF. It postulated that with IVF, the number of possible babies is more tightly controllable (is that true?) but that their insurance would not pay for it (it pays for IUI?) because it is more expensive.

The other thing some have mentioned - this may have been in regard to Katherine Heigl's adoption of a baby from Korea - mothers in the US can come bak any time and demand their child back. I don't know about the "at any time" but I know this almost happened to a friend of mine back in 84.

I think adoption is a good thing, but I think people should be sure (I'm sure the maternal pull is very strong. wonder what became of baby M) and that people should make sure (also with sperm banks) there's some sytem for passing on medical history and preventing half siblings from dating each other unknowingly (perhaps parents and sperm donors could have numbers). I'm assuming that if it's happened on Boston Legal, it's happened in the real world.

pogo said...

I get the impression from watching it once in a while,that Amy Roloff, was never great on the filming idea in the first place and is getting tired of it, as is the kids. Matt is full of ideas, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I think he does not know when to quit(I also think if he quits he dies thinking), that is why they continue to do the show to pay for his ideas. When I have watched it was hard sitting through Matt & Amy disagreeing with stuff.

Pattilynn said...

pogo said:
I like this show I hope TLC doesn't ruin it. I also like the fact that at the Zoo there were other people and it was not shut down cause the Hayes were there, unlike the JK8. I'm sure if one of Khate kids was handicap she would make a fuss. Bette did not at the Zoo. I also notice that the Duggars are doing that now(not clearing the place so they can visit it).
_______________________________

good observation. I think I'm having a light bulb moment! (shock!) just maybe the Gosselins activities were cleared for damage control and only that reason.

Kate is a BAD ad for TLC in public places.... so this imho was no special treatment.. TLC got away with it because of the delusion the couple was under.

Judy said...

I liked LPBW a lot until they started going on big vacation after big vacation a few seasons ago. They seemed to scale back on that for a little while, but then I started getting irritated with how there doesn't seem to be a lot of effective discipline with the kids, esp. the older two boys. They seem to get away with a lot, and I was also concerned with how they weren't following through with keeping up grades but still receiving so many day to day perks like their own cars, trips, etc. It seemed like Amy would yell for a day or two and then it would be done. I do watch that show from time to time, though I sometimes find it a little boring. I watched it Monday night and felt very sad for all of them.

Swissmiss said...

Matt Roloff sent out an e-mail this week about their recent family activities and implied that the network is making their marital differences look worse than they really are. But their sniping back and forth makes me cringe.

The Hayes family last night went to a petting zoo, and Rebecca - the severely disabled child - got to touch a rabbit. She cannot walk or talk, and I had forgotten she is also blind.

Right now it's fairly easy to physically move her around, but with cerebral palsy, I think you grow physically. It will be much harder as she gets bigger.

On the Stensel family blog, one of the surviving girls had more surgery on her left eye; there is only a 5% chance she will have vision in that eye. They are not sure about the right eye either.

Out of the six children, I think the 3 boys died fairly quickly. One of the girls died later. For some reason the two surviving girls are in different hospitals, so the parents shuttle back and forth. They are about four months old.

Before the Stensel family had 6 multiples, the mother lost twin boys.

Another blogger said one of their triplets is blind after 7 surgeries.

And, of course, the McCaughey family has two kids with mild forms of cerebral palsy.

I wonder if Jon and Kate REALLY appreciate how incredibly lucky they were that their children were not born with major health problems.

Judy said...

Not that anyone is perfect, but I think Matt is probably a really hard person to live with. He often seems unfocused and unrealistic.. While I think he's obviously done well for his family, he doesn't seem to want to take on any of the day to day, real life responsibilites.

AnneMarie said...

I don't think the shows CAUSE the breakups. I think they magnify problems that are already there. Sadly, we all get to watch the demise.

In LPBW, there were ALWAYS problems, ALWAYS. I don't know how people feel good about themselves constantly sniping at other people or cutting them down.

They had totally different parenting skills and life skills, and neither had a true desire to work it out.

I see this in the newest little people show, with the newly married couple.

I don't know how people can watch. The level of frustration in all three shows in evident and drives my blood pressure through the roof.

While the kids are running wild on the Duggars, JB and Michelle have the utmost respect and admiration for each other and the family unit. I'm sure they have problems too, but have the patience and the williness to work them out and not let them be aired on TV,

Deborah said...

I think the Roloff's differ from the Gosselins in that both Amy and Matt seem like basically good people.

Yes, Matt could be frustrating. Yes, he needs to finish one project before starting the next.

However, I can't remember Amy ever giving him a kind word. Everything he says is met with sarcasm. Even if he agrees with something she has just said, she will then turn around and disagree. Matt said something to this effect on the most recent episode and I think it hit the nail on the head.

Judy said...

As someone who went through infertility treatments, I think one way they could be improved is for every state mandated coverage for infertility. If couples knew that all their costs would be met, they would be less likely to be as aggressive with treatment. I had treatments before NJ, where I live, started mandating insurance coverage. When I tried for my second child, I was doing IUI with medication. On the cycle I conceived I had EIGHT eggs, was only twenty eight, and was told that was an EXCELLENT cycle. I conceived twins and lost one shortly into the pregnancy.

Natalie said...

konhasyoufooled said...
dustilies said...

This thread prompted me to look at the Stansel family site. The three surviving girls are still struggling it sounds like, and may be blind. So, so sad.
************************

I too read up on those poor Stansel babies. There are only 2 babies left. Haley and Rachel. I remember back when I 1st heard about the high risk pregnancy and what the mother had already been thru trying for a baby. Well I certainly wasn't surprised to read that they were also looking for donations. I was quite upset that yet another family was putting the fate of their babies in their own hands. I read part of their blog when seeking out help and the 1st thing that came to mind was OMG another Jon and Kate how selfish. Did they really think they could carry 6 babies full term when she couldn't carry 1? That is SELFISH in my book.
(snipped)
*********************************
Kon I too went back after being reminded of this couple after reading the thread. When I first heard about them I too was furious that they would ask for donations and seek sponsorships from companies. It struck me as a "We are entitled" attitude. Looking at their site back then it was clear they were setting themselves up to be the next J&K. I couldn't believe they would do this procedure especially with her having a diabetes issue and previous pregnancy issues. It is incredibly sad how it has turned out. People with Multiple Mayhem Disorder see J&K and their healthy kids and they think it will be the same outcome for them. Sadly for the Stansels they have had to suffer the loss of four babies. This should be enough to wipe the dollar signs out of all the eyes of those hoping for a high multiple pregnancy in order to gain fame, wealth and luxury trips.

Im_in_PR said...

If this is the type of excitement this show [The Little Couple] generates, I'll tape a few episodes for the nights when I have trouble falling asleep. No disrespect intended to either husband or wife. I'm sure my life would be a snooze-fest to anyone else watching from the outside too.

I have seen a few episodes of this show. They are somewhat likable if the husband could lose a little of the crude language.
But the fascinating aspect (to me anyway) was all that they both have accomplished. Seeing Jen working as a neonatologist was inspiring to me, a normal size person. I can only imagine how inspiring that would be to little people children.

That having been said, a few episodes were enough. I don't watch that much TV anyway, and once my curiosity was satisfied, I moved on.

And while I stopped regularly watching it a few seasons back, the interest in Jon & Kate was generated by the fact that she was such a narcissist. I mean, how many time can you observe that kind of extreme personality from the safety of your own home?

Im_in_PR said...

Basically what I said was I think the Gosselins should spend some time with the McCaugheys and see how you can raise a family like they both have with normal-people jobs.

I think the issue here is that Kate and Jon don't want a normal life. They want the extremes of fame and believe that somehow they are entitled.

I'd place the McCaugheys more in a category like the Duggars: They have a strong faith to fall back on.

Jon & Kate claimed to have a strong faith, because the faithful were their first group to scam. But obviously, once the money came along, that "faith" was rapidly discarded.

Im_in_PR said...

Did they not learn anything from the Gosselins? I can't understand how the money and fame apparently overcome the senses of these people.

You'd be surprised at just how many people, once they get enough money, are more than happy to dismantle a family in search of "personal happiness."

GoPoshGo said...

Ellas Mum said...
To GoPoshGO

1. I'm intrigued. What age is a pregnancy considered "A Geriatric Pregnancy"

2. Why the name "GoPoshGo"??

**********************

LOL ... I believe the cut-off age is 35, although I was 38 at the time of my first pregnancy. I shudder to think what the doctors' labeled my pregnancy 2 years later at age 40. "Older than dirt pregnancy"??

As for "GoPoshGo," I came out of 'lurkdom' around the time Kate cohosted The View. I was so impressed with Victoria Beckham's guest spot -- she was such a stark contrast to EVERYTHING Kate -- so I used the name in a post about her. It kind of just stuck after that!

tj said...

Don't forget, the OCC guys are family, too. All of this season has had blurbs about how they can't get along with each other, Paulie Jr. wants to get out, Sr. has had it with the boys, now Mikey has come up missing (or something along those lines).

Why does TLC have to push this family falling apart mindset on us? Is Buddy going to go ballistic and shoot up his family at the bakery soon?

Harriet said...

My question about Matt is does he come home early from the vacations HE plans or juet the ones that Amy plans? If it's just the ones that she plans, then he's a jerk and she needs to take him to task for it.

suz said...

Why is it that people think it's their place to judge people who choose to undergo fertility treatments? Yes there are some people who make bad decisions and attempt to carry high order multiples to term and end up with lots of issues. But there are far more people with no fertility issues who make bad choices regarding pregnancy and child rearing too. Why is it simply because people need the assistance of medical technology that it's then ok to judge their decisions and determine if they have enough money to raise a child or that they should just adopt instead?

How about a little compassion? Infertility is agonizing and certainly not made any easier by people telling you that you shouldn't have kids anyway or just adopt. And anyone who thinks that people just rush into IVF and take it lightly needs to spend a little time researching it. Spending up to $30,000, getting multiple daily shots, dealing with general anesthesia for egg retrieval, and then hoping and praying your gamble will pay off is hardly the easy way.

carolann said...

Forgive my morbid curiousity. Does anyone who has followed the Stansels know What has happened to Dad Stansels face?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Y-8RnqgU0ok/Su3KQe1v4NI/AAAAAAAAATU/tJwwrDeJuEI/s1600-h/005.JPG

I can't read through the entire blog. It's too heartbreaking. They love those little girls very much and I only wish the best for them. I don't agree with the decision they made but I wouldn't go as far as to call them selfish. There were doctors advising them and somebody must have made them believe this was possible. If they ever were selfish they don't seem to be now. They are all about those two little girls.

Tina said...

Before I realized how ridiculous TLC had become, I watched several shows on the network. Particularly when the had shows on like Trading Spaces. When they become this network of exploiting children and families and unique medical conditions, I stopped watching TLC for good.

However, I would like to say that the Roloffs, despite their faults which we all have, should be proud that they brought the plight of dwarfism to the public's attention. I never paid attention to the limits that a little person would have. I am 5'10 and my husband is 6'4. We can always reach everything in the stores, in hotels, etc. It never dawned on me, I am ashamed to say, that little people couldn't reach the sink in a hotel room or drive a regular car, etc. So, I commend the Roloffs for changing the way we look at little people. I hope and pray that contractors and businesses keep their plight in mind when building. I admire Matt and Amy for all that they have been through and think of their struggles when I am complaining about getting through a day as a healthy person.

Leigh Ann said...

"I wonder if Jon and Kate REALLY appreciate how incredibly lucky they were that their children were not born with major health problems."

I think they are. There was an episode where they visited the NICU where the babies had been. Kate said she felt really guilty because there were a lot of parents there with one child who might not make it or were facing severe issues and there they were with not one but six healthy babies. All the Gosselin babies really needed to do was gain weight. I think all this fame and fortune has clouded her thinking and maybe she's forgotten those early days, but deep down inside she knows how lucky she is. I haven't heard Jon talk about it but I'm sure he feels the same. We don't see much gratitude out of Kate but I know she has it for her kids' health.

For the Moment? said...

I got a little turned off to LPBW on the BVI trip (took me a minute to figure that one out). Two of the kids sided w/ Amy and decided to stay home (even though she was not there as a protest that their dad planned the trip unbeknownst to her schedule). But knowing what I know now, one has to wonder if TLC did not in fact plan the trip, as there was blatant product placement along the way. They had to ask the name of the restaurant they were eating at and then zeroed in on the sign and lingered there. I think TLC is orchestrating some discord in their lives for the ratings. Matt was obviously not up for such a trip; he does not appear to thriving so well to me.

Button Button said...

Ten or twenty years down the road, though, she is going to want a happy relationship with her kids, and I just can't picture her having anything resembling a healthy bond with them. That's not something that any mother should have to go through, but it's all in the choices she has made.
..........................

Actually, there ARE families who grow apart when the kids grow up, and neither the grown children nor the parents gives a hoot. Sad but true.

Kate's selfishness is likely a part of her personality that is not going to change. She may think, "Finally I am free!" when the last one moves out. She could finally live just the way she wants to, with no kids or grandkids to bother her.

I hope by then her only problem will be that she actually won't be able to afford the trips, shoes, cars, clothes, yada yada yada that will make her most happy.

Charles said...

tj said...
Don't forget, the OCC guys are family, too. All of this season has had blurbs about how they can't get along with each other, Paulie Jr. wants to get out, Sr. has had it with the boys, now Mikey has come up missing (or something along those lines).
.................................

I have never watched that show nor have I wanted to. I have seen some of their commercials and believe the Dad on that show may be even more loathsome and malicious than Kate.

What a hateful, detestable guy he is. YUK! There is enough ugliness in this world, so why tape and broadcast this disgusting family? They are totally offensive!

AnneMarie said...

What about Matt's recent Hawaii trip ALONE? Just because he had the miles to burn? I mean, WHO does that?

Sidney said...

On the episode where a photographer showed J&K pictures of the newly-born tups that they had never seen before, Kate put her hand to her mouth and was all choked up. She said, "They were babies!"

How could any parents not make the time to see photographs of their new babies?

This certainly shows how very busy their life became, because of their many children, and because of their crazy life with reality TV.

There will be a day when Kate looks at photos of their kids when they were little, and she will be surprised again, and say "They were little kids!"

Kate, you better learn to enjoy the journey. They will be grown and gone before you realize it.

dogsandkids said...

re-cut-off age for geriatric pregnancy:

when I was pregnant in my 40s, the nurse told me that over 35 was considered "advanced maternal age" and over 40 was considered a "geriatric pregnancy."

Leigh Ann said...

"Forgive my morbid curiousity. Does anyone who has followed the Stansels know What has happened to Dad Stansels face?"

It looked to me like a portwine stain, which is a birth mark. They can be huge. But I could be wrong.

DMH said...

Dustilies said...
This thread prompted me to look at the Stansel family site. The three surviving girls are still struggling it sounds like, and may be blind. So, so sad.

---
Sad, only 2 have survived. The 4th baby died in October. :(

Not Watching TLC said...

During the Thanksgiving show where Amy's dad came and looked all over the farm (BTW not that big and I wouldn't call that amount of acreage a farm) and said such negative things I stopped watching LPBW.

However, it's obvious that Matt starts projects, doesn't finish or keep them up. Amy's dad did rightly point out how much was falling apart, but instead of wondering why and thinking it might have something to do with Matt's increasingly physical limitations, he just blasted him on national television.

There has been some controversy about some texting comments that were racist, which considering the show is about building understanding is completely strange and shows clearly to me that the two boys are out of control. Their grades sucked and there is no accountability for a work ethic from neither.

The daughter Molly, who groaned about working on pumpkin day, is also completely clueless.

Self-indulged kids with money in the bank from TLC.

just wondering said...

Dustilies said...
This thread prompted me to look at the Stansel family site. The three surviving girls are still struggling it sounds like, and may be blind. So, so sad.

---
Sad, only 2 have survived. The 4th baby died in October. :(

________

Of the two remaining girls, one is blind and the other just reached 5 pounds. They are now over 4 months old.

Ohio Buckeye said...

J&K+8 so disgusted me that I no longer watch TLC, so forgive my ignorance, but am I getting this right:

The Gosselin marriage is circling the toilet bowl.

The Roloffs 'can't say we are happy'.

And the Chopper family is also on the outs with each other.

Anyone else out here see a trend? It seems TLC has decided that what America really loves to watch is dysfunction and discord.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Tbag said, "How does TLC seem to find these dysfunctional families in the making?"

*********************************

Maybe the whole concept of filming your every day life for millions of viewers to observe and critique appeals to narcissistic, or at least somewhat dysfunctional, personalities, so what we get is a very skewed view of family life and NOT AT ALL 'reality'.

Way to go with your quality programming, TLC. You have truly created a new low in TV Land.

readerlady said...

I've been following the Stansel's blog. They may have started off "begging" for donations, but they seem to be very grateful for everything they've received. On the blog, Amanda always mentions people who have helped out or given them things for the girls and thanks them over and over. They also frequently profess their faith and seem to at least try to live it. They seem to be dealing with the reality that their girls will not be "normal/healthy" children and are preparing themselves to deal with whatever comes. I don't particularly agree with their decisions, but I applaud their courage.

I've been watching Table for Twelve. I like the Hayes's. The kids seem to be normal kids, the parents' are loving and supportive of each other and their children, and they don't put on "airs". As my grandmother would say, there's no "side" to them ("side" is arrogance/entitlement/condescension/superiority, etc.). In an interview, Betty said that they had been approached about doing a show when their tups were infants and turned it down. They decided to do a show now mostly because of Rebecca. They felt that the extra money would go a long way in getting the equipment and specialized treatments she would need, paying for the home remodeling (which Eric did mostly himself) needed to make their house more accessible for her wheelchair) and to help educate people on the needs and programs for kids with CP.

I agree that adoption is always a consideration for infertile couples, but adoption agencies can find a number of trivial reasons for turning people down. Some friends of mine fought the infertility battle. They applied to, and were turned down numerous times for adoption. The reason - he has a minor physical handicap, which affects his ability to walk. He doesn't need assistive devices, but he has some trouble getting around. Didn't stop him from getting a Masters Degree or holding down a good job, but he couldn't adopt a child. Another couple I know were turned down because she was Catholic and he was Methodist. They'd already discussed religious upbringing for any children they had and he was willing to convert if necessary, but they were still turned down. So it's not as easy as just saying you want to adopt.

Frood said...

To: include the disabled don't blame them
My husband is a quadraplegic, who has been in a wheelchair since the summer after graduating high school. Vacations can be a challenge, but we've enjoyed as many as we're able to afford. Possibly the most frustrating one was a family reunion in Steamboat Springs, CO when the planning was done by another family member. The condo that was rented for my husband's family unit was inaccessible; he had to be carried up and down a half dozen steps every time he wanted to enter or leave.


To: dustilies
We have also experienced "late-onset parenthood" through adoption (the first when I was 38, the second when I was 39). "Oh, and that line about older parents having more patience (a positive trade-off for having less energy than a twenty-something)--total crock." Exactly! LOL Our plan was always to try to have one and adopt a second child. We did try some fertility treatments (IUI) for a few months, but drew a line at how long we would try, as well as which procedure we would use, especially given the risk of multiples. Although we were disappointed when it didn't work out, we just moved up our plans to adopt. We met one family who went through 9 cycles of IVF (at approx $10,000 per attempt) before considering adoption! At the same time, I understand adoption isn't for everyone, but it saddens me to think how much I would have missed if we had chosen to give up if we couldn't have our biological children.


I think we always watched JK8 as an example of what NOT to do with our kids and our marriage. I'm no Dr. Glass, but from the very first couch interview we saw, it seemed like they went to great lengths not to be touching each other on that "love" seat. And, as we struggle with this parenting thing, it sometimes helped to be able to say "Well, at least we only have TWO!" ;) And I don't think we'll be having TV camera in our house anytime soon. ;)


My husband watched a marathon of LPBW when he was laid up in the hospital with a quadraplegia related medical issue. I started watching with him since I also know a little person. What seemed to work for Matt and Amy was being opposites...the dreamer and the grounder. I have often told my husband that I don't think I could live with either of them actually. However, I'd hate to think that Matt and Amy are going to separate, but it's hard to tell how much of the stress in their marriage is really being on the show. It seems that being married for 22 years, with two children on the verge of being on their own, and the other two not too far behind is one of those transition points in life where the character marriage is tested and subject to change. I hate to see any marriage fail, so I hope they'll be able to look back on this as a "rough patch" that they got through together, rather than the breaking point. FYI - I don't judge the messy house...we at least have to leave a path for the wheelchair. ;) Actually, with our role reversal (my job is with a company, his is to be the stay-at-home parent), the house is never as clean as my mama raised me to have. However, the Roloff household is tidy compared to my in-law's home, which doesn't even have the afore-mentioned "Wheelchair path" most of the time.



Can't See Sheep said..."It's like Jeremy is featured because he's the one that young female viewers will be interested in."
ITA! In fact, when I recently attempted to read a blog about the Roloffs, the episode recap was obviously done by somebody who is all about Jeremy. Some of the comments were essentially how Matt is obviously the good guy because Jeremy identifies with him better. WTF?



I wish the McCaugheys, Duggars and the Klein/Arnolds all the best, but I'm pretty much done with this genre of "entertainment".


Although, I'm not above coming back to GWOP to see if there's anything new. ;)

brn said...

and shows clearly to me that the two boys are out of control. Their grades sucked and there is no accountability for a work ethic from neither.
+++++++++++++++++++++
I live outside the USA. I am astonished at the twin's level of school work.

To kill a Mockingbird is used by 11-13 year olds who
are expected to answer essay type questions where they must make reference to all chapters.

Also Zack's speech on cake making-(I dont think he got a good grade). Again such an assigment would be for 11-13 year olds not pre college age.

I can't believe they do so badly at school.
I also wish they kept their rooms clean. How hard is it really to just throw your dity clothes in a hamper at the end of the day.
Clean sweep needs to come in.

Big Flap O' Hair said...

Tina said...
I commend the Roloffs for changing the way we look at little people
_________________

I totally agree. I've not watched the full complement of LPBW seasons, but I've seen enough to really believe they've done a great job educating viewers by showing the barriers little people face (and overcome!) So there's been a socially redeeming value to the show, although it may have run its course.

I have found Matt and Amy to be very likeable folks. If their marriage is rocky, I'm sorry for that. But they do deserve recognition for de-mystifying dwarfism. I remember the episode where Matt went to Iraq to help some dwarf children in dire need of medical intervention, and I was very impressed.

Frood said...

Big Flap O' Hair

FYI - Imagine my surprise at learning that the Iraqi family featured on LPBW is now living in my area!

Here is a recent update on the family:

http://www.fox12idaho.com/global/story.asp?s=11561551

Im_in_PR said...

To kill a Mockingbird is used by 11-13 year olds who
are expected to answer essay type questions where they must make reference to all chapters.


In my state, "To Kill a Mockingbird" is usually a ninth grade required read, but some Christian schools assign it in later grades due to the rape issue.

As an aside, the most famous person I've ever met was Nelle Harper Lee. I'll not soon forget that night!

Pony said...

To Kill a Mockingbird can certainly be read by middle-school aged kids, but as a former English teacher, and lover of the book, I don't think that it's really the best age to teach it in school. Most schools I know of either teach it in 9th or 10th grade, although some have stopped teaching it because so many middle schools are having their students read it. The novel is certainly comprehensible by younger students but the major themes of the book, however, are, in my opinion, best explored by somewhat older students. So I don't have a problem with that. I do wonder why the two Roloff lads don't work harder in school. Do they not understand that there are not that many good jobs for people without post-secondary education in the US these days? Or have they, too, succumbed to the lure of freebies from TLC?

Tam said...

I can reccomend a few great books about multiples:
Party of Nine and Return of the Party of Nine by Jennifer Hanselman. She and her husband have sextuplets that are the same age as the Gosselins, one of whom is autistic, and a son whom is two or three years older than the tups. The book by the Dilley's is good. Another, much rarer book is Full House by Karen Anderson. It is about her quintuplets and their two older brothers, one of whom is deaf. The quintuplets were born in the 70's. All of these are good on their own, bit are especially good when compared to the Gosselins.

Not Watching TLC said...

brn said
I can't believe they do so badly at school.
*****************

JMO but this is why they go to a Christian private school (that I would make a bet is not accredited). I live in the Bible Belt and I have experience with these type of schools; the work demanded is very sub-par on the average and they do not meet state requirements (and thus why they are not accredited).

That is not true of them all of course, but puhleaze people, I live next to a Bible College and Oral Roberts University - the lack of "real" classes in these programs is astounding!

When I saw what the boys were doing at school, their lousy grades, their lack of prep for college, and their disrespect for school, I went "aha! now I know why they go to the private school"; it's so they can get lenience on all this crap.

BTW my son goes to a private school for LD and IT IS accrediated and HE IS on the college track, National Honor Society and straight A's. And this with ADD and w/o meds.

Amy and Matt - you lost those boys by not enforcing simple respect and rules. They are rude to adults, disrespect both of you and IMO Molly is not far behind.

The last few eps I saw the youngest boy was pure Brat.

Im_in_PR said...

JMO but this is why they go to a Christian private school (that I would make a bet is not accredited). I live in the Bible Belt and I have experience with these type of schools; the work demanded is very sub-par on the average and they do not meet state requirements (and thus why they are not accredited).

Does Molly go to the same school? The math class she was in seemed very hard!!

Im_in_PR said...

# Is Faith Bible Christian School accredited?
"Yes, we are accredited by the Northwest Association of Accredited Schools."

# What organizations is Faith Bible Christian School affiliated with?
"We are members of:

* National Honor Society
* Association of Christian Schools International
* Oregon School Activities Association
* Northwest Association of Accredited Schools "



# Are high academic standards a priority for Faith Bible Christian School?

"Yes, although we consider developing integrity and character in our students as our highest priority, the school has always been known for its high academic standards. Both Stanford Achievement Testing and Scholastic Achievement Testing (SAT’s) have proven our outstanding academic program."

Yippee! We are gosselin free! said...

To all of you who watch LPBW, remember now that this was filmed LAST year at this time. Things are different now.

I have some limited "insider information", from a source who works at the farm.

No divorce has been filed, and as many people know, they are trying to work out their differences. It will be a positive ending for the Roloffs! It really will.

Also, notice that Amy and Matt have become producers of the show! They have much more control now.

This is a couple who have worked very hard for many years, together. They have years of experience working through their problems, and learning to "endure" when they go through times of disliking their partner. They are not a young couple going through their first real bout of disillusionment, like Jon and Kate. Sadly the Gosselins hit the hard times (in the area of 'feelings') and decided to cut and run, instead of grabbing each other and hanging on tight to get through. It is a common mistake young people make.

Amy and Matt are older, and wiser.

my9cats said...

Pony said...
"I do wonder why the two Roloff lads don't work harder in school. Do they not understand that there are not that many good jobs for people without post-secondary education in the US these days? Or have they, too, succumbed to the lure of freebies from TLC?"

DING DING DING!!
BINGO!!

Pony, you get the prize.
Why study or work hard when everything is handed to you. These kids have NO character.

Yipeee! Gosselin Free! said...

What I enjoy about the Duggars, is that they have far fewer staged episodes. The family comes up with their own activities, and their own ideas for trips, much of the time. Of course the have the oft TLC standards for reality shows: the kids going to the dentist; grocery shopping; trips to farms and other off home sites.

But, they also show the reality of caring for a sick parent, and the death of the parent; How to survive an ice storm without throwing a fit and screaming at everyone, even when your things are ruined;helping their friends build a new house; going on mission trips to help the poor in other countries; family camp and true family love and devotion. I enjoy the familial aspect of cousins, aunts and grandparents. I enjoy the lack of ego in the show.

I like the table for 12 folks, but their show is also very contrived. They are playing out the TLC scripts....which isn't reality and isn't interesting or educational for the viewer.

Harriet said...

I saw Matt's newsletter posting before seeing the episode this week and trying to reconcile the two was difficult. The twins are in college and doing well according to Matt. Zach is in community college (which I think is appropriate) but I don't think he said where Jeremy was going.

It sounded like he and Amy were doing much better together. I hope so.

kitnkaboodle said...

Finally. A chance to vent a bit.
I used to like Amy R. also-until I saw more and more how she sides w/her doltish kids (two of them now adults, but you'd never know it!) over her husband. Again and again and again and again. Puttin him down, ; yeah he can be annoying and uber childish w/the projects but sheesh why did you marry him, just for his ability to give YOU kids? She is SO obviously a mother above ALL else, and while some may say "that is GOOD", is it really? How bout when there's no marriage left? It's like she used Matt--for having kids, for $$ to raise them, the big house overdo and all--now she's squawking about leaving the marriage, albeit so "subtle." My gosh the way she even LOOKS at him, it is embarrassing. And I have watched every season of their show (UNLIKE J&K+8, which I couldnt' stomach due to Hate)
Oh and Amy? Do something about protecting your skin; it looks Reeeeal Rough Lady. Real Rough. And I dont' need to see the boobies, who do you think you have become: KHate G? What's next? Augmentation?? Blech. She used to dress appropriate and I even liked how she chose her clothes and she got some of her stuff tailored and everything. Now, this is the second show, this season,with the low cut shirt and little bobbies peekin' out. PUH-LEEZE: no! Spare us.
Still vehemently DISagree with the Duggars on SO much, but jeesh at least I dont' have to look at Michelle's booby cleavage! Yucko

kitnkaboodle said...

For KonHasYouFooled: I feel the same way about th Stansel situation as you do. If it makes me sound cold, then so be it. People who do not know me can feel free to think that; I am Sooo far from cold ;but think whatever.
She HAD to have the babies, the motherlode so to speak, and now look . Four dead now? Wow I didn' tknow that til just now either. And two with medical probs? (I had stopped ckng their blog, my bad) Yah, it's private business, but it DOES become SOMEWHAT public when you have created a BLOG for gosh sake's and asked for donations, however tactfully. And people are going to comment, regardless . You put your business out there. I am sorry for your family but.. I have my heartaches too and where are YOU in that? Case in point.
As to keeping things private when you have chosen to be in public eye? Reference Tiger Woods. A much bigger entity than Stansels, but philosophy somewhat the same.
Sad, all around.

yippee skippy, gosselin free! said...

May I please just say one critical thing about the Duggars? I really only have two things to critisize. Two things really, really bug me.

First of all, their idea that women must wear dresses, is obsurd! Pants are actually much more modest, and in no way do women's pants constitute "dressing like a man"; which is what the Bible warns against. And I would argue that pants on men, show much more of their bodies, than pants on women do. Men's jeans reveal many things, that make some women lust after the men and boys!

They only fair thing to do, would be to have the boys and Jim Bob wear "Robes"; the way Jesus did! When I see this happen, I will know that they are truly living out their firmly held beliefs.

ErinKate said...

I paid careful attention at the end of the Roloffs. Both Matt and Amy are listed as producers. I know Jon and Kate were supposed to be producers this past season and I believe they were. Why would the plans have changed? Anyway, I think all these reality people are producers because I see it on many shows. Even Denise Richards' father was listed as a producer. I just wonder why The Lying Channel never listed it? Probably to hide the fact that they are also pulling in producer salaries.

ErinKate said...

Just a note, but on the Roloff trip to BVI, wouldn't you just die to stay at Richard Branson's island? Incredible. And to think he used to follow the Beatles around London in the early 60's trying to do radio interviews!

GoPoshGo said...

dustilies said...
4) Oh, and that line about older parents having more patience (a positive trade-off for having less energy than a twenty-something)--total crock. All we want is peace and quiet to sort our meds, take our fiber supplements, and listen to NPR.

*************************

Oh, dustilies, your post made me laugh out loud. Granted, life's wear and tear have given me some more perspective than I would have had as a twenty-something parent. BUT, as a life-long runner, I'd give my kingdom for the knees I had twenty years ago. Egads, they creak every time I bend down to pick up the twins -- not a pleasant sound, and an even more unpleasant feeling. And damn technology -- we made the mistake of buying a minivan with a dvd player -- so I don't get my fix of NPR most days.

Wouldn't trade it for the world, of course -- and I thank God every day that I have my three little angels. Still, my knees complain to me every day, wondering why I didn't do this 20 years earlier. (I try to remind them about the loser soccer player I was dating in my 20's, but they don't seem to hear -- guess that's because they're knees and not ears).

GoPoshGo said...

dogsandkids said...
re-cut-off age for geriatric pregnancy:

when I was pregnant in my 40s, the nurse told me that over 35 was considered "advanced maternal age" and over 40 was considered a "geriatric pregnancy."

****************************

Well I feel cheated and unnecessarily advanced in age!!!!! lol. My daughter was born in Italy when we were stationed in Naples. Perhaps the Navy docs need to read up on their maternal classifications, as I was referred to an Italian specialist by my Navy OBGYN. Diagnosis: Geriatric pregnancy. ;)

Tess said...

@ include the disabled don't blame them ...

dustilies & GoPoshGo

I've mentioned before that my dear husband has Parkinson's Disease 20+ years. We have a son who is is 5.
This child was a miracle. We were by all accounts not supposed to be able to get pregnant. I also choked when I saw my pregnancy described as "elderly"/"geriatric" at 40! You are SO right about the morning coffee!!!!!

My husband's abilities cycle on and off all day long. In the past 18M - his condition has been as good as being able to hike and bike to as bad as having, for months, almost no movement, swallow, nor the ability to feed himself/handle personal care, to now, post brain surgery/rehab regaining basic ability/stamina to care for himself. I am extremely active and the little guy is, too - but with the stamina of a little guy.

My husband wants so much to make the most of his ability to move - as like Matt - the certain decline in his physical ability is right in front of him. He uses a wheelchair for airports, the zoo - any outing where he needs to conserve his energy to actually enjoy the time spent. It really is a challenge to find things we all can do. We have become quite creative!

I haven't watched a lot of LPBW, but it seemed to me that Matt and Amy each bring complimentary strengths to the marriage, and I think they will weather anything. I do think they need to work on being respectful in their communications/actions though.

As far as the kids being filmed, it always appeared to me, that the youngest was not at all happy about it. He seems to have always had a harder time just handling his emotions, which in my opinion should not be on film, not out of shame, but out of respect.

This is such a ramblingpost... All in all, after the bit of programming I've seen, it is my strong belief that children should not be allowed on "reality" shows. I hope the TLC families take another look at what they are doing and really think about whether the money is truly worth it.

MickeyMcKean said...

my9cats said...
Pony said...
"I do wonder why the two Roloff lads don't work harder in school. Do they not understand that there are not that many good jobs for people without post-secondary education in the US these days? Or have they, too, succumbed to the lure of freebies from TLC?"

DING DING DING!!
BINGO!!

Pony, you get the prize.
Why study or work hard when everything is handed to you. These kids have NO character.

___________________________________


In addition to this week's episode where TLC may in fact be pushing the issue of the Roloff marriage to seek higher ratings ....

A couple of weeks ago there was an episode on LPBW where Jacob, the youngest child, racked up a one month cell phone bill by texting 8,000+ messages to his young girlfriend. The bill was $2,800!!!

I was stunned that Matt and Amy took a bill like this in stride -- they did not even talk to Jacob about how he needed to work it off by mowing lawns until he graduated from high school or whatever!

I don't know what they can or cannot afford, but even if they can afford to pay this bill without blinking thanks to the paycheck they receive from TLC, what about the girlfriend's family that Jacob was texting??!!

I don't know, maybe Jacob has his own bank account thanks to TLC and he will have to contribute or pay the bill out of that account. All I know is that how this matter was not handled by the parents did not set well with me. If nothing else, IMO they blew a perfect opportunity to teach Jacob that money does not grows on trees.

Also, there was another recent episode where Jacob and Zack got into a fight due to a paint ball gun. To retaliate, a BB gun was brought outside to "get even". Shots were fired aimed to due bodily harm at the sibling!

Thank goodness Molly came out and diffused the situation ...

Obviously TLC's cameramen were there to film and only film -- they were not there to stop potentially harmful behavior to minors when the parent(s) were not present.

What message is this teaching the young viewing audience that own BB guns, slingshots, knives, machettes, etc? That this is acceptable behavior?

HELLLOOOOOO!!!!

TLC is a sick, sick channel. IMO this gun footage never should have been aired as it was NOT entertaining whatsoever and it may in fact provoke a shooting sometime in the future.

Not Watching TLC said...

Im_in_PR said...
said

"Yes, although we consider developing integrity and character in our students as our highest priority, the school has always been known for its high academic standards. Both Stanford Achievement Testing and Scholastic Achievement Testing (SAT’s) have proven our outstanding academic program."

********************

Obviously the school has different standards for the the kids in LPBW - I am assuming you have watched the show and have actually seen their continual poor performance in school???

As well as their lack of interest in being tutored so they wouldn't fail and be college ready? Why Amy and Matt would pay for tutoring for those two clowns is beyond me - maybe another TLC freebie and link to promote...?

Obviously no Honor Society for either of these two. And I stand by the FACT that Christian schools, on the whole, bypass and bend over backwards for their students to pass... Sorry, I've seen it WAY too many times, both at the high school and college level.

As far as I could tell Molly went to a different school (but I don't watch it anymore) and if she does there's another indication that the private school was selected because the twins were poor achievers academically and they needed the accomodations that a private school would allow.

Just because a private school has an Honor Society, in no way means the twins were members.... and how would they be with the many F's detailed on the LPBW show?

What a school posts on their website - and yes I've been in PR - two decades - is seldom the "reality" of what functions day to day. Especially, with "celebrity" children.

Can't See Sheep said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
please no said...

Just to stir the pot: do you think someone will give birth to nanuplets (or whatever you call 9 at a time) someday? You may laugh, but ten years ago, could you imagine healthy octuplets being born?

Can't See Sheep said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
include the disabled don't blame them said...

Frood, I'm guessing a horseback riding vacation probably wouldn't appeal to your husband. hmmm.

But I'm so happy to hear that you persist in facing challenges. What a great attitude!

We should all support provisions made in 1990 under the ADA act. Accesibility... heres a guy who just wanted to watch a football game, see Paralyzed Veterans of America vs University of Michigan.

Can't See Sheep said...

MickeyMcKean said...
A couple of weeks ago there was an episode on LPBW where Jacob, the youngest child, racked up a one month cell phone bill by texting 8,000+ messages to his young girlfriend. The bill was $2,800!!!

Also, there was another recent episode where Jacob and Zack got into a fight due to a paint ball gun. To retaliate, a BB gun was brought outside to "get even". Shots were fired aimed to due bodily harm at the sibling!
--------------------------------

This is awful, awful behaviour! What is wrong with these people & why is no parenting getting done? Seeking to do harm, BB gun or not, that's not tolerable. It seems these children have so many privileges & none are being taken away when they do these kinds of things.

Hard to Keep Loving Jon said...

Roloff's are producers because they're a hell of a lot smarter than the Gosselins! Duh..... they are college educated.

However, they haven't put that goal in the twins' mind.

Neither Khate nor Jon have college educations.

Hard to Keep Loving Jon said...

And Matt is NO business fool and I'll bet dollars to donuts he and Amy had a lawyer review the TLC contract.

How Gosselins were so naive (or stupid) NOT to hire a lawyer to review their contract (which btw was going to yield beaucoup) is beyond ignorance. Frankly, the two of them deserve each other.

tuesday said...

What was frustrating to me was seeing Matt have to BEG his teenaged children for help around the house. Matt tried to instill some values when docking friends of the older boys payment for basically screwing around. He said something to the effect of--they didn't work, so I'm not paying them. Next comes Amy, along with the teenagers badgering him about not paying them enough.

Amazing, a working farm with 4 capable young adults. Amazing that Amy defends them sleeping until noon and not contributing to the household in any way. I mean come on, I'm no clean freak, but is it too much to ask your kids to pick up dirty clothes out of the main living area. Just saw a shot of dirty socks all over the stairway.

OK Amy we get it, you are your kids bestest friend ever, keep trying, --you'll find out when your kids are out of the house that you should have made your dear HUSBAND your best friend ever.

Jane in California said...

Mickey McKean said:

A couple of weeks ago there was an episode on LPBW where Jacob, the youngest child, racked up a one month cell phone bill by texting 8,000+ messages to his young girlfriend. The bill was $2,800!!!

I was stunned that Matt and Amy took a bill like this in stride -- they did not even talk to Jacob about how he needed to work it off by mowing lawns until he graduated from high school or whatever!

* * * *

Wow, I find this shocking. I am one of those old-fashioned parents who does not believe I should be responsible for my son's unlimited use of a cell phone. My 11 year old has a cell phone, and it's pay as you go. I put $10 on per month. He has a couple friends that he texts with, but it's minor. The phone is for him to call me when school is out, when he's getting on the bus, so I know all is well.

When he gets older and starts talking on the phone more, he better figure out a way to pay for it, because I won't.

I think Matt and Amy (or any parent in similar situations) are doing their children a huge disservice by picking up the tab.

I am so shocked I don't even know what to think, except "What are they thinking??!"

Im_in_PR said...

Not Watching TLC said...


Obviously the school has different standards for the the kids in LPBW - I am assuming you have watched the show and have actually seen their continual poor performance in school???


I'm not defending those kids or their school. Someone said they'd bet it wasn't accredited. I looked on their website and it was accredited. I simply posted the information so this blog would not be accused of being misinformed.

And BTW, Molly is in the 9th grade at Faith Bible. She's obviously taking a higher math class.

As to whose fault it is that Jeremy and Zach are so seemingly uneducated, you can lay the blame at Amy's feet. She made every excuse in the world for both of them, especially Zach.

Im_in_PR said...

yippee skippy, gosselin free! said...

First of all, their idea that women must wear dresses, is obsurd! Pants are actually much more modest, and in no way do women's pants constitute "dressing like a man"; which is what the Bible warns against.

Actually, the Duggars base their dress code on a New Testament passage that states that the Christian women is to be modest. I Tim. 2:9.

The Duggars do not believe pants are modest as they outline the crotch and buttocks area.

Kat_momof3 said...

I just have to chime in.... not only should the McCaugheys (namely the Gosselins and Hayes family who both have high order multiples), but what about the Dilleys?

I hope people remember them, cause I sure do. They've done the odd commercial, they used to do yearly updates with Diane Sawyer when she worked at ABC or NBC on the nightly news...

but otherwise, they stayed private... they were the first surviving sextuplets in the US, I think.

And of course, there are others whose names are escaping me... that made one-time or a small number of appearances on Discovery Health or other news networks that had large families of high order multiples that did it as a one-time thing, not as a constant means to a paycheck.

I can still watch the Duggars... I don't think they will let it change them... but all these others... I just can't.... I've noticed already with the Hayes the product placement and that... it escalates too quickly. I know they mean well and I appreciate they are trying to not only support their family but do all they can for Rebecca (the tup with special needs), but I just know how this goes. I pray I'm wrong and they'll rise above a lot of it.

Frood said...

To: include the disabled don't blame them

Actually, my husband is from Michigan and started playing wheelchair rugby on a team sponsored by PVA, so we're pretty familiar with their efforts.

Don't get me started on places like stadiums and movie theaters....when he called for tickets for us to go see Paul McCartney for my birthday at the Palace in Auburn Hills, MI they were sold out of the handicapped seating. He generously still bought me tickets and I took a friend instead, but it wasn't the same. Although, I have to say that the seats had a much better view that we would have been able to get from any of the HC seating.

On the other hand, Disney is extremely accommodating!

Still, back to the point. One of the interesting aspects of LPBW is being able to highlight some of the challenges faced by people with disabilities. Granted, not all challenges or solutions are the same, but helping us able bodied folks become a bit more aware is a good thing in my book.

Can't See Sheep said...

silimom said...
I agree that I hope people take all the factors in to account -financial, emotional, societal - before having children, naturally artificially or through adoption.
----------------------

That was terrific silimom. I realized after hitting publish for my comment that it may look like I was singling one group out, which it totally does & I do apologize whole heartily to anyone I've offend. I'll probably upset a larger group now, because I agree that financial, emotional, societal factors should be considered before the birth or adoption of any child. I wish there was a course or something people had to take & pass to become parents. But then that would end up fraught with it's own nightmares.

And yes, there can be a lot of unfairness & bias by people running the system. That's the problem, there needs to be something, the only problem is the usual, you get bad apples in every job & letting the government run anything is rarely a good idea.

People with fertility issues should be treated with compassion, but the practical should not be pushed aside. The financial, emotional, societal should be considered, it should be considered by everyone wishing to be parents.

Again, in some areas, can't say for everywhere, people adopting pets have to prove that they know how to take care of a pet & that they can give it a good home. Biological parents can just keep having as many children as they please without having to prove that they can provide a good & stable home. There is so much abuse & neglect of children. We make sure animals go to good homes, but we don't make sure babies end up in good homes when they come into this world biologically.

Yes, it would be a nightmare to figure out, it'd just be nice if fewer toxic people made the cut for being parents, fewer children growing up to be damaged adults for life. Nope, I don't have the answers, if I did I'd be trying to do something about it.

Another good thing that can lead to adoption is foster parenting. One of my aunts did this, she had a biological baby, had no interest in another frightening pregnancy & the doc told her it'd be best if she didn't. So, she & my uncle decided to become foster parents. They included their biological son in the decision to do this.

I know becoming a foster parent is not the same everywhere. Many aspects of their life were scrutinized, my uncle went & got a raise to make sure there'd be a good amount of money. They ended up with a family 3 girls & a boy who's parents were killed in a car accident & they had no other family. Only a year passed & the children were asking them to adopt them, including their biological son. They made sure it was what the kids really wanted & proceeded with adoption which took a good deal of time. I have never understood the saying that blood is thicker than water because I am far closer to my adopted cousins than I am with my biological ones. I could not think of my life without them in it.

Dunwoody Mom said...

The Duggars do not believe pants are modest as they outline the crotch and buttocks area.

Only if they are worn too tight. Skirts can also be too tight as well. That argument does not hold water, imo.

Dunwoody Mom said...

This is awful, awful behaviour! What is wrong with these people & why is no parenting getting done? Seeking to do harm, BB gun or not, that's not tolerable. It seems these children have so many privileges & none are being taken away when they do these kinds of things.

It's called shooting a scene for their television show. LPBW is no more "real" than J&K or the Duggars.

MomIAm said...

"The Duggars do not believe pants are modest as they outline the crotch and buttocks area."

This belief is actually a little creepy about the person holding that belief. When I look at men and women in pants, I think about comfort, warmth, neatness and so on, not sex. When I look at little girls in long dresses, I wonder if they are sometimes cold, and think how restrictive it is because you can't do as much work in a long dress. Pants are more modest because they keep you covered.

Don't get me wrong, there is a place for a dress (if you can even find a nice one in the stores these days), just not in every day life. It is much easier to care for my children, and to work around the house and yard when I'm wearing pants instead of a dress.

I guess this is one reason I don't watch the Dugger's. They are odd.

junebug said...

Ohio Buckeye, I'm so glad your back!

AnneMarie said...

Considering how men dressed when the Bible was written.... Just sayin' they didn't wear Pants. Most men of the time actually wore SHORTER robes/frocks/whatever's than women.

Becky said...

A couple of weeks ago there was an episode on LPBW where Jacob, the youngest child, racked up a one month cell phone bill by texting 8,000+ messages to his young girlfriend. The bill was $2,800!!!
+++++++++++++++++++++
I don't care who picks up the tab,
such behavior is just irrisponsible.

clean sweep said...

Amazing that Amy defends them sleeping until noon and not contributing to the household in any way. I mean come on, I'm no clean freak, but is it too much to ask your kids to pick up dirty clothes out of the main living area. Just saw a shot of dirty socks all over the stairway.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
With minimal effort that house could be kept tidy all the time.

Also having such a lovely home is a blessing, why keep it like that.

Amy at a funeral says being with family is more improtant thatn cleaning and i can see where shes coming from, but the kids lack basic pick up skills.

Maybe TLC strews stuff around for filming?

msrylee said...

I also watched the LPBW episodes, and was disturbed by Matt's and Amy's interactions, rudeness, and disrespect for each other. However, is this another ploy by TLC to increase ratings? It seems possible IMO.

As my partner and I are now empty-nesters, we understand how important it has been to keep growing and deepening our relationship with each other. If Matt and Amy are together when the kids leave home, what will remain of their relationship? It seems very rocky right now. My advice to them would be first to nix their contract with TLC (no matter the consequences) and seek both couples' and family counselling. It may not be too late to pick up the pieces and put this marriage and family back together again.

Maude said...

I'm sorry to say I let curiosity get the best of me and checked out the Stansel blog. What a nightmare! I'll probably get roasted for this, but going ahead with a pregnancy like this is selfish. No matter how I try, I just can't see it any other way. Those poor babies have suffered HORRIBLY. Bleeding brains, surgery after surgery, I'm saddened, sickened and angry.

Preach morals and religious preference to me all you like, these people set these children up for a life of pain and suffering.

And before I get jumped on here, no I don't think a woman who has a baby with Down's Syndrome or CP or any number of disabilities is setting that child up for a horrible life or should abort the pregnancy. But going forward with an unnatural pregnancy of this many babies is drastically decreasing the chances of success for any of the babies.

Sorry I sound so harsh but reading about this, in their own words, really upset me.

Swissmiss said...

In response to a few other posts, the twins were tutored by a commercial facility. They were given a credit on-screen. Anytime the camera lingers on a place name like a hotel, restaurant, grocery store, etc., it's my understanding it's product placement and freebies are involved.

Also, the more times you are listed on the credits at the end of the show, the more money you get. The Gosselins didn't hop on that band wagon at first but eventually woke up. A prime example was the late Michael Landon of "Little House on the Prairie" fame. He got paid as an actor, producer, director, sometime writer, etc. It made him fabulously wealthy.

Matt Roloff did NOT graduate from college. Luckily for him, he was extremely talented dealing with computers. Amy graduated from school in Michigan - you often see her kids wearing the college's shirts.

As far as high standards (or lack of them) at Christian schools, I went to some demanding Catholic schools. If you didn't keep your grades up, you were asked to leave.

One of my favorite bosses turned out to have gone to 'my' high school. He had to leave because of poor grades, so it's ironic he became my boss 30 years later and earned more than twice what I did. So much for his failing grades in Spanish (and two other classes at Catholic school).

Mrs. Stansel - the one with 6 children (and only two still alive) - has diabetes, which probably complicates her pregnancies a lot.

I don't watch OCC. Seeing them briefly on Jon and Kate was more than enough for me. Too much testosterone. I find their frequent promos very irritating.

Why does TLC run the same promos time after time? Maybe they can't find enough advertisers to fill the gaps between programs.

Im_in_PR said...

When I look at little girls in long dresses, I wonder if they are sometimes cold, and think how restrictive it is because you can't do as much work in a long dress.

I always get a chuckle at this mindset. The women who built America, in pioneer wagons and slave cabins, would beg to differ.

Leigh Ann said...

"I hope people remember them (the Dilleys), cause I sure do. They've done the odd commercial, they used to do yearly updates with Diane Sawyer when she worked at ABC or NBC on the nightly news...

but otherwise, they stayed private... they were the first surviving sextuplets in the US, I think."

I always enjoyed watching them, too. Once a year, not once a week! They were the first surviving sextuplets, but only five were expected. Five babies had been delivered and when the doctors were fishing out all the placentas, they found Ian! He'd been hiding behind someone the whole time!

I remember whichever network featured them paid for a big house for them. I think they paid either the materials or labor, but not both. Anyway, when the Dilleys couldn't keep up with the expenses of the big house, they moved into something smaller. Imagine that. But 16 years ago, these types of shows hadn't come along. Who knows what decision they would have made if they'd been making the decision 10 years later. But I've always thought they were a nice family.

inger binns hair design said...

I actually cannot believe we are just now talking about the Roloffs! From episode one, the kids have been lazy, rude, disobedient, etc. I could barely stand to watch their terrible behavior never being corrected. I believe that Matt has been selfish and impulsive and never tried to meet Amy in the middle, but I also believe Amy has been rigid and selfish and not willing to meet in the middle. Matt is miserable in their disgusting house, what is wrong with her cleaning the house if only to make him happy? Isn't that what marriage is all about, extending yourself to make your spouse feel good?! This family is a wreck,and thanks to TLC we will see it all destroyed. Yuck

readerlady said...

@ Leigh Ann

Actually, Becky Dilley said in an interview not too long ago that they'd been contacted recently about doing a reality show but decided it would be too disruptive for the kids. Imagine that! Parents who actually put their kids' best interests before money!

JaxMom said...

Up until only recently in this country, very few woman wore pants, and very few woman left the house without their heads uncovered. Wearing pants and having an uncovered head were signs of immodesty...and had been for thousands of years.

Katherine Hepburn got a lot of flack for wearing trousers in the 30s.

While it may seem odd to us today, it really is only recently that pants on women have been accepted.

And the Duggar girls wear long skirts... very modest. It's not like we're comparing a miniskirt or even knee-length skirt with a pair of pants.

Personally, I haven't watched any TLC show in ages. I will not support that channel at all. I don't see myself ever going back to watching it.

Nancy said...

When I look at little girls in long dresses, I wonder if they are sometimes cold, and think how restrictive it is because you can't do as much work in a long dress.

I'm in PR said = I always get a chuckle at this mindset. The women who built America, in pioneer wagons and slave cabins, would beg to differ.

I don't think you know if those women would beg to differ. They clearly got a lot of work done, but they also died at a young age and lived very hard lives. Perhaps they would have preferred pants when doing all their hard labor. Perhaps all that work would have been easier wearing pants. Perhaps not. But the point is, the simple fact that they did the work wearing skirts doesn't mean they preferred it to pants.

Can't See Sheep said...

Leigh Ann said...

"I hope people remember them (the Dilleys), cause I sure do.
----------------------------------

They were on a Food Network special "Last Cake Standing" for a birthday cake for their 16th birthday.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09120/966384-34.stm

and here on Becki Dilleys myspace page, she talks about each of them some & has pics posted

http://blogs.myspace.com/beckidilley

Niki said...

Great idea for a topic!

I've been sort of watching Little People, Big World lately (started out just having it on in the kitchen when I did the dishes, but I've actually started to become intrigued with the family...and not in a good way...)

Why does TLC think people want to see a real family falling apart? I love scripted shows about family life (and of course, drama), but watching the drama and fights with the Roloffs is just beyond uncomfortable and feels very voyouristic. Not to mention incredibly sad. This family (especially the parents) needs to get some help rather than showing the world how miserable their marriage has become.

Last episode, for example, was about how Matt always leaves their (free) vacations a few days early. Amy complains bitterly about it and the kids just seem sad.

I don't know much about Amy and Matt's marriage before TLC stepped in, but I'm guessing TLC has something to do with their current problems (or at the very least, isn't helping...)

Ohio Buckeye said...

Maude said, ".... Those poor babies have suffered HORRIBLY. Bleeding brains, surgery after surgery, I'm saddened, sickened and angry.

Preach morals and religious preference to me all you like, these people set these children up for a life of pain and suffering..."
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Maude, There are a few comments you might be interested in reading on the thread about kids being filmed for reality tv. You're not alone!

MomIAm said...

Thinking of the Dugger's and their style of dress caused me to remember some things from the past. I remember when both of my Grandmothers wanted to cut their hair. They didn't know each other. One had terrible headaches from the weight of her hair. The other wanted a change and was tired of the long hair. They both ended up cutting their hair despite objections from their husband's. Encouraged to make the change by their daughters, they were happy with the outcome.

I also remember the concern by my Mom about wearing pants on the farm instead of a dress. Now she wears them all the time except for fancy events. But a few decades ago, she was concerned about what people would think. Once she began to dress more appropriately for the work, she never looked back.

The pioneer women didn't have a choice. If they had, I bet the work would have been much easier. When we visited an 1800's home in New Orleans, they said the highest rate of death for women was catching their long dresses on fire in the open fire places.

If the Dugger girls don't have a choice, that is a shame. They deserve the same freedom others have.

readerlady said...

I keep seeing complaints about product placement and statements that families will end up just like the Gosselins (particularly the Hayes's) BECAUSE of the product placements. I don't have a problem with product placement, as long as it's appropriate for the show ( certainly don't want to see placement for liquor or male enhancement products, but things like Ragu and crocs and other products the family use are fine by me). Product placement is what pays the bills. It's when the product, or the show, becomes more important than people, or the family, that I have a problem with. The products themselves aren't evil or dangerous, IMO. It's the attitude, or lack of attitude, of the people involved that can/will start them down a slippery slope. I don't see that happening with the Hayes's. They seem to be too grounded and down to earth for that. Same with the Duggars (don't watch that show, but from all I've heard, they are pretty grounded, too). J&K, esp. K, let it go to their heads and got to thinking they were more important than the family, and that, IMO, was their downfall - among other things.

Kat said...

FYI re: Roloffs

Faith Bible (http://www.faithkids.org/index.html) is a small private school that is accredited (http://www.northwestaccreditation.org/standards.pdf). All the Roloff children attend(ed) - the elementary/middle school is in a separate location from the high school. Total enrollment in high school ~140. Average SAT score 1715/2400 (1509 is nat'l avg across all seniors taking SAT). Four AP classes offered - US History, Eng. Lit, Calculus, Art. Most graduates who go on to college attend small private colleges, particularly Christian colleges. Limited curriculum choices, which is common for very small schools.

The twins both attend a Portland Community College campus about 6 miles from the farm. PCC does not restrict admission - anyone may attend. Class levels are assigned after placement testing. No info on what classes the twins are taking.

Molly is being raised by the same parents that are raising Jeremy, Zach, and Jake. At some point (the twins are 19), you can no longer blame your parents for how you turn out. If the twins wanted a clean room, they could have one.

Re: Duggars

Have never understood why it's okay for boys/men to outline their crotch/buttocks, but not girls/women. If anything, men are more noticeable in that regard. I've been told that it's because women are not "lookers" like men are, but it seems that if a man is going to be aroused, loose clothing would conceal it more readily than jeans.

Re; Gosselins

You know, I can't think of anything left to say about them, except kids, enjoy your time off, because your mom is no doubt at this very minute plotting to get those cameras back on your faces, one way or another.

Ohio Buckeye said...

June Bug: THANK YOU!!!! It's great feeling free to 'talk' openly to all you guys again!!!

Do you think people who sign on for reality shows about their personal lives are normal and the stress and temptations of fame and fortune unhinge them OR do you think most people who are willing to have their personal lives exposed and judged on tv are a narcissistic and somewhat emotionally unbalanced to begin with?

Merrilee said...

TLC will have another BIG family to destroy soon. Gag! Why would this family agree to air their dirty laundry this way? Disgusting!


http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/tlc-debut-one-big-happy-family-reality-series-on-december-29-10039.php

Momof2 said...

Maude said...

I'm sorry to say I let curiosity get the best of me and checked out the Stansel blog. What a nightmare! I'll probably get roasted for this, but going ahead with a pregnancy like this is selfish. No matter how I try, I just can't see it any other way. Those poor babies have suffered HORRIBLY. Bleeding brains, surgery after surgery, I'm saddened, sickened and angry.
...................

I couldn't agree more...I have read the Stansel blog when they were expecting the babies and I was stunned at their intentions as well as their "donate" button. I thought was an incredible selfish way to get attention, and now those poor babies have paid the price. I have never commented on that blog nor will I.....I think they have gone through a lot and I wonder if they could go back would they do it the same?

Ohio Buckeye said...

Re: Duggar Dress Code: so, females are disallowed wearing pants because pants 'outline the crotch and buttocks' and are, therefore, 'immodest'?

What? Males don't have crotches and buttocks????

Ohio Buckeye said...

I find it insulting to men to assume they can't handle the 'temptation' of seeing women in pants or having 'unrestrained hair'. Not giving the male gender much credit.

A total under estimation of the male gender IMO.

And, IF the belief was accurate, WHY is the responsibility placed on the WOMEN to keep the men in check by altering THEIR attire? Why can't men be accountable for their OWN thoughts and behaviors?

(No biblical quotes, please. Not all of us believe the bible was ever meant to be taken literally.)

I fail to understand why women willingly go along with such an imbalance of power and dignity. Name ONE religion where the WOMEN dictate male attire....

I also have to really WONDER about men who need to keep their women subservient.

JMO, a MAJOR lack of logic going on here.

CappuccinoLife said...

The Roloffs--I've gotten more and more uncomfortable watching them. Is sarcasm and disrespect just *the norm* in most people's marriages? Maybe that would explain our huge divorce rates? So sad to see another family going that way. As a woman and a wife, I can understand having some difficulties relating to a man with as much vision and passion as Matt, but my husband is a lot like him, and I have learned not only to live with him but to appreciate those qualities. It looks like this couple never quite learned how to meet each other halfway.

This is another area that I think the Duggar's differ from other families in a good way. They treat each other very well, keep their communication respectful and kind, and are very conscious of what they say and how they behave towards others, especially in stressful moments. I was not raised that way, but I have friends who were, and I envy them the leg up it gave them on a healthy marriage. The habits of sarcasm and snarkiness in close relationships are hard to break but so destructive.

Ohio Buckeye said...

@Reader Lady: liked your post about product placement in 'reality shows'.

The product placement is just one more thing that makes 'reality' shows so bogus.

If I'm to believe the likes of TLC and Kate Gosselin, that we are seeing 'the realest 'reality' show on tv and that these shows measure up to the standards of a documentary, where in this equation does product placement fit???? If it's REALITY, why is it contrived with plots, scripts and product placement???

I really hate the whole 'reality' genre. It's mind boggling to me that this programming has an audience. I find it disheartening that people actually buy into this stuff having any connection at all to 'reality'.

JMO, 'reality' programming is nothing more than modern day fairy tales - an unrealistic & contrived plot line filled with pathos and dotted with caricatures, all played out on a 'morality always wins out' background.

I gave up baby food and fairy tales a long time ago.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Interesting that neither Kate Gosselin nor Nadya S are capable of maintaining a close relationship with their own mothers. Hmmmmmm..... wonder how that factors into the equation of the bigger picture......

Can't See Sheep said...

Ohio Buckeye said...
And, IF the belief was accurate, WHY is the responsibility placed on the WOMEN to keep the men in check by altering THEIR attire? Why can't men be accountable for their OWN thoughts and behaviors?
-------------------------

Ph thank you Ohio Buckeye, I was just trying to figure out how to word my response on this & you have done it so much better. I agree with your whole post.

I've always wondered why the men can't be responsible for controlling their own urges about things if that is the problem. I've heard it explained that women are the ones responsible for keeping the men in check because of Eve & tempting Adam. IMO it's a load of bunk, men need to be responsible & accountable for their own behaviour & teaching your sons any different than that is doing them a disservice.

I put no stock in keeping women subservient& neither did my ancestors. The woman in my family have a very interesting history for the generations that have been in North America, at home on the farm they wore their husband's pants. when they went to town they put on a dress, but at home they put on their husband's pants. A number of my great grandfather's got a kick out of it. We have some of their letters where it is mentioned. My great, great, great, great, grandfather was most vocal, telling his brother in a letter how beautiful his wife was in a pair of his new grey trousers, he called her "an angel in britches"

Im_in_PR said...

OhioBuckeye said Why can't men be accountable for their OWN thoughts and behaviors?

(No biblical quotes, please. Not all of us believe the bible was ever meant to be taken literally.)


If you asked the Duggars, they would probably tell you that they feel they have a responsibility to their fellow man, and they also feel that they have a responsibility to follow the Bible.

While no one would want to force YOU to believe what they do, that certainly doesn't preclude them from believing it.

Im_in_PR said...

Nancy said I don't think you know if those women would beg to differ.

The issues was not whether or not pioneer women would "prefer" pants of dresses. It was stated by someone that you can't do as much work in a dress. My comment was meant to illustrate the fact that one can get just as much work done in a dress or skirt. As evidenced by the wonderful nation building done by women in the past, in the USA. From pioneer wagons to slave cabins.

Nancy said...

I'm in PR - the issue isn't whether women CAN work in skirts. They could work in burkas or diving suits or clown costumes for that matter. It's whether they would prefer to do so. Your comment, "chuckling" at those of us who think they might have preferred pants assumed that you knew their feelings on the matter. I stand by my position that you have NO IDEA if they would "beg to differ" because you don't know their feelings. My Grandma, who is a 97 year old Italian immigrant loves wearing pants (was disallowed in her youth) and thinks they are MUCH more comfortable for gardening. That doesn't make her the majority but it is a data point.

MickeyMcKean said...

Re The Roloffs

Whereas I posted earlier about the recent episodes that I found unsettling -- a child's $2,800 one month cell phone bill, children using weapons to get even, and Amy saying "they are not happy" -- I do believe that the show LPBW has made an impact on how the world views little people.

In fact because of LPBW other TV reality shows about little people have popped up on our screens.

Recently there was another little couple show called "Little People Big Pregnancy" followed by "Little People Big Baby" (or something along those lines).

I found the commercial for this show a tad disturbing because it was a little people version of Kate - when the husband asked the wife "let's hold hands" she said, "ah, let's not".

At this time I do not think this show has made it to the TLC schedule, but now that J&K+8 is a done deal, I bet TLC will go after this couple since they have the potential to be a miniature version of the Gosselins even if they only have one child - the wife verbally abuses the husband. Add the fact that this couple recently both lost their jobs and had to relocate ... yep, I bet my current paycheck that TLC will be trying to sign this couple ASAP in order to use and abuse them too.

Yep, that's right. IMO TLC used to be a moral TV network but now it's only focus seems to be that it wants to destroy, exploit and manipulate their "stars" all for ratings and then they market the show as "entertainment".

MomofFour said...

I get the "Roloff newsletter". I'm a fan of their show but ...I think they are getting the idea that TLC exploits the divorce angle for ratings. In their newsletter Matt states they are taking "a long break" from the show to work on their communication and spending time together. Maybe they learned from watching the Gosselins self-destruct.

Im_in_PR said...

Nancy said...

I'm in PR - the issue isn't whether women CAN work in skirts. They could work in burkas or diving suits or clown costumes for that matter. It's whether they would prefer to do so. Your comment, "chuckling" at those of us who think they might have preferred pants assumed that you knew their feelings on the matter.


The issue in regards to my comment, to which you seem to object was (sigh, once again) NOT WHETHER OR NOT PIONEER AND SLAVE WOMEN WOULD HAVE PREFERRED PANTS.

Neither one of us knows the answer to that, and my comment was not made to that specific issue because NO ONE SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

The comment I replied to was someone stating that people in dresses can't get as much work done.

So to clarify, my comment was in reply to that misnomer. YOU CAN get just as much work done in a dress as centuries of women would testify to, were they here to do so.

4 teens and a filthy house said...

clean sweep--Having a lovely room IS a blessing. Amy remarked once to Matt that she'd like to eventually turn the property into a B&B. Matts flabbergasted speechless reaction, while gesturing at the absolute disorder and mess in the home was priceless.

He uttered something like, WTF, are you kidding me, ? I don't know but it was really funny! Talk about a dreamer. (Amy)

Then of course she gets all upset about it, complains to the kids, etc. Don't shoot the messenger Amy.

jayley said...

All I know is that if I was a pioneer woman building this great nation on the great trek to the west on my wagon train I would want to be in long underwear, pants, boots, and a heavy duty coat.. and mittens..and a scarf..and a hat........

I'd freeze in a skirt. They went through the mountains, didn't they?

include the disabled don't blame them said...

Frood: Highlighting people with disabilities is a great accomplishment that was made by this program. I agree.

An ex-Michigander as a spouse? well, he's got to be cool then!

Nancy said...

To clarify - I'm in PR - you say you weren't referring to whether pioneer/slave women would "prefer" to wear pants. My premise is that the entire discussion is about whether the work might be easier in pants and whether they might prefer to wear pants. Period. I don't care about the biblical interpretation. My Mom is a history professor and it is pretty clearly documented that the pioneer and slave women had no choice about anything.

the donner party said...

lol, What hemisphere does the poster advocating women wearing skirts and trekking through the mountains live in?

It's 22 frickin degress here women, get real!

Jane in California said...

Mickey said:
Recently there was another little couple show called "Little People Big Pregnancy" followed by "Little People Big Baby" (or something along those lines).

I found the commercial for this show a tad disturbing because it was a little people version of Kate - when the husband asked the wife "let's hold hands" she said, "ah, let's not".
* * * *

I happened to catch part of an episode of this show. I too was dismayed by how often the wife spoke critically of her husband to the camera, and to him. Right or wrong, you don't air dirty laundry like that, nor should you think your husband is a dumb ass.

She said she "made the money and he spends it." That was highly offensive to me. It is so reminiscent of the attitudes that many husbands did (and still do) have when they are the primary breadwinner and their wife stays home to look after the kids. The spouse who is the home maker is given less respect than the one earning money, and that's not right.

Then she continued to find fault with him in various ways. It's just not a good thing, even if said jokingly or teasingly.

But I didn't get the vibe that she's a narcissist like Kate - just perhaps not quite aware of how she sounds and maybe by watching the show, she'll not like what she sees and change her behavior.

For not having jobs, they sure have a nice vehicle and a nice place to live. I wonder if TLC helped to finance those things.

Muffynbear said...

I don't understand the phenomenon of rewarding "Large" families. Could someone please explain? I find the concept of breeding large amounts of children "just because" or for "just one more" completely irresponsible and selfish. Yes, the Gosselins/Duggars/Table for Twelve etc. are very obnoxious. How about documenting single, struggling parents?

Also,
Why all the fuss about "selective reduction"? If you're stuffing your uterus full of eggs due to in-vitro then yes,possibly one could expect to have "selective reduction" at some point. Fertility treatments should be regulated because of freak shows like the Gosselins.

The Big Wooden Spoon said...

Ohio Buckeye said...
And, IF the belief was accurate, WHY is the responsibility placed on the WOMEN to keep the men in check by altering THEIR attire? Why can't men be accountable for their OWN thoughts and behaviors?
*******

Thank you! My thoughts exactly.

MomIAm said...

The discussion about the Duggar's style of dress and the dress of pioneer women has been interesting. There was a huge transition for women in the 1900's that some of us cannot begin to imagine though I recall many things about my Grandmothers, Mom and Aunts. They were very conscious of society and expectations of others. Change was hard.

It is true that we don't know what choices a pioneer woman would make but my older relatives, most of whom are gone, loved the changes and the freedom. Try wearing a long dress with petticoat, then work outside most of the day on a wet, rainy or cold, snowy day. Then tell me they preferred dresses. Contrary to what we see on old movies, women were out doing things like mucking the barn, planting the fields. They didn't stick to cleaning their houses and baking.

Do the Duggar girls do the same work as the boys? I would bet there is a division of work.

AnneMarie said...

OHBuckeye said:
OR do you think most people who are willing to have their personal lives exposed and judged on tv are a narcissistic and somewhat emotionally unbalanced to begin with?



=========
YES!

Caryl said...

Re:pioneer skirts

OLD time skirts with pettipants, and petticoats and a dress ontop, sometimes with a pettifore, and then a coat, is FRICKEN HOT !!!!

Compared to wearing a pair of pants, it's the difference between wearing a glove liner and 3 pairs of wool mittens. HOT HOT HOT

Lola said...

I think it should be illegal to put your children's lives on display.
I would never expose my children like this for any amount of money. Their privacy is priceless.
Amy, Kate and the mom from little couple- big baby- are not very good examples of being supportive wives.(I'm trying to be nice)
TLC is exploiting these families- why can't they see it?

One last comment about reproduction laws- To the poster who commented about China and the one child policy. The reason it was put in place was to stop the growth of the population for fear that they did not have the resources to feed 2 billion plus people- they had to stop the growth at 1 billion. It has nothing to do with fertility treatments here. We have enough resources to feed our population.
It's a totally different issue.

SafetyTrain said...

Maude said.......
I'm sorry to say I let curiosity get the best of me and checked out the Stansel blog. What a nightmare! I'll probably get roasted for this, but going ahead with a pregnancy like this is selfish. No matter how I try, I just can't see it any other way. Those poor babies have suffered HORRIBLY. Bleeding brains, surgery after surgery, I'm saddened, sickened and angry.
***************************************************************************************************

Maude - I so agree with you. I feel their whole website its downright creepy. They watched four babies suffer and die yet their first instinct every time was to immediately jump on the computer and blog to the world that the deaths were "God's will"? Really? God didn't force them to do something that the human body wasn't meant to do, they themselves chose to. Instead of begging for corporate and private donations on their website, I wish these parents would instead offer themselves up as a cautionary tale for other parents who will undoubtedly choose the same path they do - to show that high-order multiples pregnancies don't always end happily like it did for Jon and Kate. But they don't. Instead they pawn this whole debacle off on God, saying it was always in His hands. I find that irresponsible. I feel bad about feeling that way towards these parents, but its the only moral conclusion that I can come to.

readerlady said...

@ Ohio Buckeye

I'm glad you're back, also. Missed your eloquent comments and point of view. Besides, we current and former Cincinnatians need to stick together LOL.

Re your insights on product placement and "reality" shows - I see where you are coming from. However, kids wear crocs, people use toilet paper and do laundry and buy certain food products, so I guess I don't see that focusing in on the products makes this any less "reality". I totally agree that what we have seen on J&K+8 is not "reality", but is scripted and contrived. I've not seen enough of any of the other shows to have an opinion on them. As far as the whole reality genre is concerned, I abhor it. With few exceptions, I think it's degrading, disgusting and appeals to people's baser instincts. Even the "reality/competition" shows can be pretty contrived and unsettling. There are a few out there that I've enjoyed - I love "Groomer Has It" and watch "Extreme Makeover:Home Edition" from time to time and, obviously, I watched J&K. Overall, though, I don't think TLCs brand of "reality" programming is beneficial to anyone or anything, other than some people's wallets. Ii remember when TLC presented genuine educational programs - programs about things like heart disease - causes, how to avoid it, how to live with it and treat it. Informational programming on the environment, other cultures and countries, different ways of life. All that has fallen by the wayside. Unfortunately, I don't see an end in sight. Reality programming is cheap to produce, compared to scripted shows with real actors and genuinely educational shows that require research and thought and careful preparation. As long as TV programming executives only care about the bottom line, I'm afraid we're in for a lot more of it.

6 said...

DILLEY'S
But 16 years ago, these types of shows hadn't come along. Who knows what decision they would have made if they'd been making the decision 10 years later. But I've always thought they were a nice family.
_________________________
In their book published when they were babies they said they would consider any opportunites like commercials but stop once the kids reached school age.
I think outside of a soup commercial and an insurance(?) commercial they have only been on the occasional talk show.
The fact we know so little about them shows that Keith and Becky were determined to be parents and a family!

Button Button said...

the donner party said...
lol, What hemisphere does the poster advocating women wearing skirts and trekking through the mountains live in?

It's 22 frickin degress here women, get real!

12/03/2009 8:21 PM
----------------------------

Just a quick post about dresses vs pants.

I had a terrible rash last summer and NEEDED to wear loose clothing. I started wearing dresses and skirts and found I do PREFER them, even now when my rash has gone away.

They are certainly cooler in the summer and always more comfortable to me now. I don't wear long dresses or pioneer clothes. I wear loose, comfortable clothes and often get compliments at stores, etc. Men, particularly, comment that it is refreshing to see a woman dressed in woman's clothes.

I do wear pants now too, of course. They certainly have their place, but often choose a dress or denim skirt instead.

Jane in California said...

SafetyTrain said:
Instead they pawn this whole debacle off on God, saying it was always in His hands. I find that irresponsible
* * * *

Yes, that's how I feel. The bible says God gave us free will, and that we are allowed to make choices, right or wrong. This couple made some choices in order to become pregnant -- that was their free will in action. Because of making those choices, a series of consequences followed, resulting in the brief and rather painful lives and deaths of several of the babies they produced through scientific intervention. Please don't put that on God.

Jane in California said...

I've been enjoying the discussion of dresses vs. pants for women, and what pioneer women must have experienced, etc.

Has anyone ever watched any of those series, where a family (or group) agrees to live in a certain time period, following the customs of that time? I remember watching two of those series -- one was pioneer times in the American West. This show had several family units (husband, wife & kids, father/son, two single guys, etc.) live and work as if they were a small pioneer community. They had to wear the clothing of that period. I do remember the women talking about how eye-opening it was -- that you worked from dawn to dusk, just to get by. Personally, I think women would have appreciated being able to slip on a pair of pants and just get down to it, rather than the drawers, petticoats, corsets, and dresses that were considered required clothing for women of that time.

The other show I watched was a British production, and it was a family living during war time Britain. They had to deal with rationing, etc. Again -- it's truly eye opening to see how people lived in other times, and how much of a struggle we would have if we suddenly had to revert to that type of living again! I can't remember if the women complained about the clothes -- but I think they did say there were too many layers, and it was def. a hassle.

Momof2 said...

Bottom line, regards of how the Duggars dress....could you EVER imagine in your WILDEST dream Michelle Duggar walking around like a diva, with mini skirts and hooker heals and hilarious large sunglasses constantly attached to a cell phone?

NO. The Duggars made some wise investments before they planned their family and before they became a series on TLC they were pretty smart with their money. I actually admire Michelle Duggar because they haven't strayed from their faith and they set a great example for the dynamics of large families.

Im_in_PR said...

MomIAm said Try wearing a long dress with petticoat, then work outside most of the day on a wet, rainy or cold, snowy day. Then tell me they preferred dresses. Contrary to what we see on old movies, women were out doing things like mucking the barn, planting the fields. They didn't stick to cleaning their houses and baking.

Ok, maybe I'm missing something here, but can someone point me to the post that says "Pioneer and Slave women preferred dresses?"

Minnesota Gopher said...

Ohio Buckeye said...
Interesting that neither Kate Gosselin nor Nadya S are capable of maintaining a close relationship with their own mothers. Hmmmmmm..... wonder how that factors into the equation of the bigger picture......

********************************

I don't have a close relationship with my mother. Never have, and I certainly never want to. My mother exhibits a lot of qualities that Kate does. To me it showed what I shouldn't do with my own kids. My husband and I plan on having kids within the next year and we are both very excited. After having my mother as an example, I know that I will be a better mom to my kids than my mother ever was to me.

Basically what I am trying to say is that just because I don't have a close relationship with my mother, does not mean that I am going to treat them the same way I was treated and not have a close relationship with them or that I am going to treat them like Kate or Nadya treat their children.

On another note, I enjoy all your comments! You bring a great perspective to things!

Canadian Mom said...

Has anyone heard of TLC's new show...

Large Families Living Large?

It's about an OBESE family...

Dunwoody Mom said...

Here's a link to Matt Roloff's newsletter. They are currently taking a break from filming. It sounds like they may be done with TLC as well???

http://mattroloff.com/?p=293

Canadian Mom said...

http://www.newstin.com/tag/us/160870587

Obese family show...

Canadian Mom said...

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/tlc-makes-room-for-one-big-happy-family,1074080.shtml

Much more info...names, ages and show format...

Wonder how Kate feels being replaced by an OBESE family??

(And NO, I have nothing against the obese, rather, I NEED to gain weight d/t my pancreatitis...

Hmmm...obesity vs. pancreatitis? Tough call...)

dustilies said...

Oh, Canadian Mom, just when we thought the bottom of the barrel was scraped clean:

Here's a snippet from the description of TLC's new series on a morbidly obese family:

****
The show follows the Coles, a close-knit couple and their two teenage children, as they try to lose weight without the help of a nutritionist or personal trainer.
****

1) Close-knit couple? Let's see how fast TLC unravels them.

2) No professional help? A total set-up for failure and humiliation. And yet another missed opportunity to educate everyone about how to "embrace a healthy life style."

Remember that toxic sludge left behind in NOLA after Katrina? I bet something similar all over the hallways of TLC's corporate hq.
Bleeeeech.

GoPoshGo said...

What chum bucket did they scrape the bottom of to find this gem of an idea?

I guess this makes it official; TLC IS the "Biggest Loser."

Kat said...

"Men, particularly, comment that it is refreshing to see a woman dressed in woman's clothes."

Urk. This alone might keep me in pants forever. This is EXACTLY the attitude that I HATE in men. Guess I should trsde in my jumper saddle and riding breeches for a sidesaddle and long skirt ASAP. LOL...

Personally, I like the Indian salwar-kameez. Freedom of pants, yet loose, comfortable top. I often wear what you might call an American version (loose shift over running pants). Of course, I'm a geek, and don't pay much attention to either fashion or social approval. Maybe I should send the Duggars some salwar-kameez patterns!

FYI, on the whole long dress pioneer thing - If you view enough history books and visit enough museums, you'll see that as long as women have been wearing long dresses, they've been tucking the back edge through their legs and into their waistband, creating a sort of "harem style" pant for those occasions when loose skirts were just too inconvenient or messy (think, washing clothes in the river, working in muddy fields, harvesting clams and cockles on the beaches, etc., etc.).

And just because you can accomplish a lot wearing a dress does not make it the most effective garment for that work. Who knows how history might have changed if women hadn't been hampered by their clothes?

bedonenow (withTLC) said...

"Men, particularly, comment that it is refreshing to see a woman dressed in woman's clothes."

But they are NOT wearing women's clothes. They are wearing men's polo shirts from the Goodwill and men's jeans that have had the legs split open and sewn into a skirt. There is nothing feminine about the way those girls dress at all. They are in men's used clothes.

The only reason the girls have all worn their hair in that big eighties permed style, is because their father is stuck in the 80s and he thinks that is the height of attractivness. (per Michelle "Daddy likes it".) Which is a little weird-o if you ask me. What kind of family mandates daughters to groom in ways that were attractive to Daddy in his younger years? Eww.

jasmine said...

Is TLC following circus families yet? One three ring circus would be able to provide countless TLC shows and spinoffs for many seasons.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Minnesota Gopher: THANK YOU!

Sorry about your mom and I so admire that, instead of using that experience as an excuse, you, instead, are committed to using that experience to do better for your children than was done for you. Applause and rock on, Gopher!

Re: Kate/Nadya and their moms: I didn't mean to imply any guilt on the parts of their mothers. I just find myself wondering if there's any connection to these two whacko women, who seem to have trouble fostering any real emotional closeness with anyone yet choosing to have more kids than any uterus was ever designed to carry at one time?

Things that make you go, 'hmmmm....'

Can't See Sheep said...

Muffynbear said...

I don't understand the phenomenon of rewarding "Large" families. Could someone please explain? I find the concept of breeding large amounts of children "just because" or for "just one more" completely irresponsible and selfish.
-----------------------

Especially in an age where people are trying to REDUCE their carbon footprint.

Ohio Buckeye said...

I'm in PR said, "While no one would want to force YOU to believe what they do, that certainly doesn't preclude them from believing it."

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Excellent point, PR. That's something the USA can be proud of.

Ohio Buckeye said...

@Reader Lady: I haven't caught "Groomer Has It," but it sounds like I might enjoy that, since I love animals.

I have to wonder about TLC's changing from their previously INTERESTING and even enlightening programming to the current 'reality' tripe. Cheap is great but can their really be a sustainable, lucrative market for this schlock? Oh my lordy be, I hope not, but I fear you are right, that we are in for more of the same, since TLC is now announcing their newest embarrassment about an obese family.

WHAT IS it lately with all the stuff on tv about obese people?? WHO told the network execs viewers want to see overweight people struggle and sweat to the brink of heart attacks? WHO SAID it's entertaining to watch them cry and compete and generally humiliate themselves? Some personal battles are best kept PRIVATE. Is this word no longer in the dictionary or what????!!

Seriously, is this the best tv has to offer anymore? Truly pathetic state of affairs.

Ever read about the old 50's show, "Queen for a Day" where women got up and told their pathetic life stories, hoping for the sympathy vote, which was registered on an 'applause meter'. And, the big prize, the big reward for this self humiliation was always something like a Maytag washer. Wow, that's selling your dignity for far less than it's worth. And to think that dog of a show was a previous of coming attractions - we do not seem to be progressing forward in tv land.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Random thoughts re: Duggars: JMO but 18-19 kids is beyond my own personal definition of responsibility, but to each her own, I guess.

This show, like J&K, is obviously contrived and scripted - i.e., the scene where Jim B was giving Josh a 'Chrisitian' book about married sex on Josh's wedding day was an obvious contrivance. (One example of many.)

Michelle D seems a genuinely sweet person.

I admire that, at least during camera time, Michelle and Jim Bob (name cracks me up) and the kids seems to treat and speak to one another with respect. Jon and Kate Gosselin could've taken a lesson on this issue.

It bothers me, though, whenever kids are told exactly what to think and believe RATHER than introducing them to varying ideas and concepts and encouraging them to ponder, soul search, and develop their OWN personal take on life issues. Again, JMO, but teaching/encouraging critical thinking skills is far more commendablel than stifling minds by insisting there is only ONE way to look at important life decisions/belief systems.

I also feel sorry for the females in the household. Long range goals for them seem so low and limited, and the older girls are pretty much live in nannies to all the younger kids - not a fair set up as far as preparing and encouraging young women to explore their own unique potential in life.

Jim Bob? Well, no offense, he MAY (though I remain unsure) be a relatively nice guy, but seems kinda egocentric and an overall doofus. Men who want their wives and daughters to share equal power and equal decision-making (rather than 'the husband is the leader of the family') are far more interesting and unselfish than men who insist upon keeping the women in the home subservient, IMO. The use of religion to justify an unwillingness to share power in the marriage, is just not my cup of tea, but again, to each her own.

JMO.

CakeIsGreat said...

Amanda Stansel scares me. I couldn't believe she was asking for
handouts, saying she'd do a show, before those kids were even born
especially when she's had a history of miscarriage. How did she think she could carry 6 with no huge problems? It blows my mind that throughout all those poor babies troubles and tragic deaths, she makes time to BLOG. I think if I were in her situation I wouldn't be able to put a sentence together for months, yet alone make a regular blog. It bothers me she posts pictures of the two surviving little girls but
maybe I am being too sensitive. I've been the baby on breathing
machines, (though I don't remember it), and a little kid/ teenager,
in the hospital for months at a time (I wasn't a premee, just born
with a congenital disorder) and those are the pictures I make it a
point to keep away from family/friends because I just think of them as private. My mother whom loves me dearly has admitted to me she can't
look at some of my baby pictures because it takes her back to a
horrible place in which I was suffering. I don't know how Amanda can display them proudly to show off how "strong" the girls are. I wonder if all her talk about how "these are the girls god gave them" are her way of not dealing with the fact that SHE did that to those girls by going through with such an obviously dangerous pregnancy to fulfill HER desire to have kids. What's even scarier is that I actually know someone like Amanda. This person got pregnant with a high-order after a lot of treatments and being warned it might not be safe. She only brought 2 home who need therapies daily and one still isn't breathing on its own. She tweets about them every day since she went into very premature labor, including tweeting when some passed away, the day of
funerals, and while in the ER with one of them recently. She has pics
up when they were in the NICU, ect and goes on about how greatful she
is that God made them just as they are (my mother who spent a great
deal of time in Peds ICU with infant me in the 80s is absolutely
horrified when I've shown her said hospital/NICU tweets saying if
Internet had been around in the 80s, that would've been the last thing on her mind still.) Amanda Stansel is still Khate/Octo/Betty/the Raising Sextuplets mother, on a small scale (as is the woman I know) because every time she makes a new post (episode) she has lots of
comments praising what a wonderful strong woman she is for staying by
her kids side. Ah, NOT staying by their sides would be abandonment!
Its what a good mother is SUPPOSE to do when having an ill child (or
children.) Amanda also mentioned how Jen Arnold has been her
daughters Neonatologist at times and that worries me for those little girls future. Not because of Jen, I actually admire/like her but if Amanda has a link to TLC, I just know eventually we'll be seeing a show about the Stansels and their struggles raising two special needs girls, and they'll say they HAVE to do it in order to provide for their needs and every bit of struggle those innocent girls have to go through will be exploited.

Oh and to Please No, I absolutely think Nanutuplets will happen one
day. As long as there's an interest in multiples, someone will try and eventually succeed.

CakeIsGreat said...

Hey guys, delurking for the first time after lurking since the TWOP thread.

I honestly think these families are all the same on some level. The
Hayse family seems popular for being 'normal', yet Betty Hayse has
gone on record saying they tried the 3rd time so her daughter could
have a sister and Betty herself never had a sister and wished she did. Who has a kid with the main reasoning being so their daughter could have a sister? Huh so are myself and several of my girl friends unknowingly deprived because we only have brothers? I don't see how that's that much better than Khate's stupid "tag along for the tups" line. If they had gotten another set of twin boys, would Betty have tried again? It seems like all these parents for one reason or another
are trying to make up for something they felt they lacked as a child. Michelle Duggar has spoke about she really didn't live a proper Christian life (she was even a cheerleader!) until she met Jimbob, now her daughters are wearing skirts and keeping house until they get married off when their parents see fit. And at the end of the day these parents are all being paid... to be parents to their children. Being a parent is a job, yes, but not one that you should be paid for.

Another trend I see amongst the high order multiple parents is
bringing up God/Religion when the topic of complications and selective reduction are brought up. I was brought up Catholic but I don't profess to be religious and I'm a big believer in Science. Just once when these parents say "because of our faith we couldn't abort and we accept what God gave us" I'd love for someone to ask "but you went to a doctor and made the CHOICE to go on these fertility treatments (in
some of these moms cases ---Khate--- ignoring doctors orders and upping the treatments more than recommended), was that leaving it up to God and accepting what he gave you?" If God had intended for women to have that many babies we would be without treatments. I know IVF isn't supported by Catholic/Christian churches, is IUI? It just
bothers me that they all play the religion card when it works for them instead of just saying "we wanted to have them" and move on. In a way that's why I have more respect for the Duggars than any of these families, despite how I really, really, disagree with a lot of aspects of their life. They believe exactly what they believe and they aren't fake about it at all. They don't hide behind religion when its beneficial to them and ignore it when its not.

goawayJandK said...

WHAT IS it lately with all the stuff on tv about obese people?? WHO told the network execs viewers want to see overweight people struggle and sweat to the brink of heart attacks? WHO SAID it's entertaining to watch them cry and compete and generally humiliate themselves? Some personal battles are best kept PRIVATE. Is this word no longer in the dictionary or what????!!

------------------------------

I think it really depends on how the stories are told. I am a huge fan of The Biggest Loser, and I find the contestants' efforts inspiring. Unfortunately,I have no doubt that TLC will portray these people as anything but modern day freak show participants.

tuesday said...

hmmmm, I am a woman and have gotten plenty of compliments from others (including my husband!) about just being myself.

Most days its a hockey coat, sweatshirt, jeans, and adidas. Believe me , there are plenty of men who like women who dress the way they want.

I'm a girly girl/tomboy at heart. I was thrilled when the NBA and MLB started making clothing for women.

We all should wear what we feel confident in wearing. I couldn't get out of the car too girly girlish, I'd feel wierd.

Jane in CA- House 1900's, PBS!! yep saw it , fascinating!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 270   Newer› Newest»