Jinjer 49: Westward Ho!

[Mimosa]

I just tried it on my instagram. It allowed me to upload a video to my story, and it broke it up how ever it needed to. So, there's no way to say when Jinger filmed the audible ad. 

[Sacrilicious Twerk-a-Work]

AND SO IT BEGINS
 

 

 

[VelociRapture]

51 minutes ago, Sacrilicious Twerk-a-Work said:

AND SO IT BEGINS
 

 

 

The picture is kind of cute. It’s nice to see the crew seems to actually like the little kids. Too bad they’re profiting off those kid’s loss of privacy because their parents are cool selling their childhoods for easy money. Must be such a strange way to grow up, never having any sense of real privacy. 

Anyone want to take bets on whether Jana is with them, won’t be shown on the episodes, and JinJer will be playing up the whole “traveling with a baby without help is hard y’all!” angle? 

[BlondeIdol]

Not sure if they have actually moved yet, but I hope very much that Jinger and Jeremy took that cat with them to LA. That is all I can find myself caring about, haha.

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, VelociRapture said:

The picture is kind of cute. It’s nice to see the crew seems to actually like the little kids.

Supposedly the Figure 8 crew is hand-picked to like little kids.  Do we know whether Fundie Sound Man Mike is still with them? 

Can you or someone else fill me in?   I can't bear to scroll through many, many, pages about hair color. 

If Jeremy and Jinger are moving to their "new home" in LA (presumably because of his Master's Seminary program):

• have they sold their house in Laredo? 
• has Jeremy resigned being pastor of Grace Church Laredo? 
• or is it still going to be the Pastors Jeremy and Chucky Vuolo show from LA (while multiple other people continue to hold down the fort because Jeremy is off playing hooky with Reality TV and visiting San Antonio)? 

I actually took a quick squint at the Grace Community Church, Laredo site.  The only change I can see is that the Leadership link doesn't work any more.  Jeremy's mugshot is still up there as pastor,

On their youtube channel, one Michael Mireles was "ordained" as an elder by Jeremy and Chucky a week ago.  It is a 2 parter and I don't have time to watch the whole thing to see whether Jeremy resigns as pastor.

By the way, according to Chucky, in the 3 years and almost 3 months since Jeremy was ordained, the church has grown from 17 total members to 33.  And in a week or so 6 more members will arrive.  Presumably the family of Michael Mireles.   I am unimpressed.

Not much to show for 3 years of work, Jeremy.  Although God did give you a spanky new building to hold services. 

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Palimpsest

[nickelodeon]

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

By the way, according to Chucky, in the 3 years and almost 3 months since Jeremy was ordained, the church has grown from 17 total members to 33.  And in a week or so 6 more members will arrive.  Presumably the family of Michael Mireles.   I am unimpressed.

Seems like fundie world is approaching the point where there are more pastors than congregants.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

5 minutes ago, nickelodeon said:

Seems like fundie world is approaching the point where there are more pastors than congregants.

Good.  Maybe they’ll start to theologically eat each other.

[WiseGirl]

33 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Good.  Maybe they’ll start to theologically eat each other.

That I would watch. Can it be a death match? Is that too mean?

Not sure if Jana is there yet as she is at Magnolia Market per IG. Maybe they are meeting up. 

[SassyPants]

So JB and M had too many kids to take of by their own means, so after they robbed the kids of any sort of childhood or education, they sold away those kids’  private moments and anonymity, actually putting the kids to work to support the family. Further, when the adult kids need some help, they send their siblings as opposed to themselves. JB and M are pretty much useless waste of spaces, always have been and seemingly always will be. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

So JB and M had too many kids to take of by their own means, so after they robbed the kids of any sort of childhood or education, they sold away those kids’  private moments and anonymity, actually putting the kids to work to support the family. Further, when the adult kids need some help, they send their siblings as opposed to themselves. JB and M are pretty much useless waste of spaces, always have been and seemingly always will be. 

Agree on the suckage that is JB and Michelle - however if they went to help their adult kids with normal life things like parents do the older kids would still be pressed into service watching the ones still at home.

they still have what 7-8 minor kids at home?

A parents love may expand with each kid but time and attention are finite.

[SassyPants]

11 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Agree on the suckage that is JB and Michelle - however if they went to help their adult kids with normal life things like parents do the older kids would still be pressed into service watching the ones still at home.

they still have what 7-8 minor kids at home?

A parents love may expand with each kid but time and attention are finite.

Of course you are right. I totally forgot that they have children over multiple generations! Damn, the reality of having kid after kid for 20 years straight.

[Bobology]

10 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

Too bad they’re profiting off those kid’s loss of privacy because their parents are cool selling their childhoods for easy money. Must be such a strange way to grow up, never having any sense of real privacy. 

Yes, no sense of any kind of privacy at all. No privacy at home or school or friends' houses, etc, and then the parents added an additional level of privacy loss with the show. Both are disgusting.  Even without the religious nuttiness, it would be challenging to develop normally in these conditions.

 

5 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

A parents love may expand with each kid but time and attention are finite.

This needs to be in their bible and they need to dwell on it and have family bible time about it so all the kids can have a chance to understand how they are being cheated, not by the heathen outside world, but by their heathen parents.

[VelociRapture]

1 hour ago, Bobology said:

Yes, no sense of any kind of privacy at all. No privacy at home or school or friends' houses, etc, and then the parents added an additional level of privacy loss with the show. Both are disgusting.  Even without the religious nuttiness, it would be challenging to develop normally in these conditions.

 

This needs to be in their bible and they need to dwell on it and have family bible time about it so all the kids can have a chance to understand how they are being cheated, not by the heathen outside world, but by their heathen parents.

I was actually referring to the current crop of new parents and their children. They’re willingly choosing to do the same thing their parents did to them, which is to sell their children's right to privacy because it’s easy money and they want to maintain the lifestyles they’ve grown used to. Felicity, the Seewald kids, the Forsyths, the various Duggar kids... all of them will have the same lack of privacy their parents did, though the current grandkids will be experiencing that from before they’re even born - their parents at least didn’t start having cameras shoved in their faces two seconds after they were born. 

(But yes, the same goes for the children of Michelle and JimBob as well.)

[SassyPants]

1 hour ago, VelociRapture said:

I was actually referring to the current crop of new parents and their children. They’re willingly choosing to do the same thing their parents did to them, which is to sell their children's right to privacy because it’s easy money and they want to maintain the lifestyles they’ve grown used to. Felicity, the Seewald kids, the Forsyths, the various Duggar kids... all of them will have the same lack of privacy their parents did, though the current grandkids will be experiencing that from before they’re even born - their parents at least didn’t start having cameras shoved in their faces two seconds after they were born. 

(But yes, the same goes for the children of Michelle and JimBob as well.)

And this is exactly why I refuse to give those 2nd generation kids with their own kids, who are  involved with the show, a break. Sorry, if you’re doing the exact same thing to your kids, for easy money, I will judge you, harshly. Make a better decision . No excuses. The Dillard boys are in the best position, because they are no longer being shilled to TLC, and at least their dad is educated enough to support them. Kudos to Jill and DD.

[PainfullyAware]

I would be curious from the point of view of a child psychologist what the impact of reality television on childhood development is. For example the second generation Duggars seem to spend a minimum amount of time actually filming. Based on the (uber boring) content of the show it looks like a couple of weekends per each couple worth of material each season , not weeks and weeks being followed around like the Kardashians. There seem to be limits on filming during homeschooling or work hours or church, which could be the parents' attempt to create a (slight) sense of privacy. But how significant is the amount of time filmed on harm to the kids? Or the restrictions of where and when filming takes place? Or is simply the fact that their images are broadcast for so many people, and online for eternity, enough to cause harm.

Is the harm body image or social anxiety? The stress of people pleasing or expectations of living up to a tv persona in real life? The celebrity factor of being special or singled out from other kids? Bullying?

I wonder if it's comparable to beauty pageants for young girls or child actors.

[Palimpsest]

7 hours ago, PainfullyAware said:

I would be curious from the point of view of a child psychologist what the impact of reality television on childhood development is. For example the second generation Duggars seem to spend a minimum amount of time actually filming. Based on the (uber boring) content of the show it looks like a couple of weekends per each couple worth of material each season , not weeks and weeks being followed around like the Kardashians. There seem to be limits on filming during homeschooling or work hours or church, which could be the parents' attempt to create a (slight) sense of privacy. But how significant is the amount of time filmed on harm to the kids? Or the restrictions of where and when filming takes place? Or is simply the fact that their images are broadcast for so many people, and online for eternity, enough to cause harm.

Is the harm body image or social anxiety? The stress of people pleasing or expectations of living up to a tv persona in real life? The celebrity factor of being special or singled out from other kids? Bullying?

I wonder if it's comparable to beauty pageants for young girls or child actors.

::Climbs on soapbox::

It is potentially harmful.  Potentially very harmful.  Some of these children may be OK if the parents are very careful to control what is filmed and presented, but I don't see much care in most of today's reality TV families.  I see child labor and exploitation.

We don't know yet how harmful this will be, because the first generation of children who have worked in UnReality TV are only just reaching adulthood.   Some of them may speak out at some point.  Jacob Roloff already has spoken out, but got a huge backlash of hate from fans of the Little People Big World show.  He partially retracted, possible to salvage some of his relationship with his family, but no longer agrees to be filmed.

Do we have precedents for this sort publicity in children other than child actors.  Yes.  In 1997, the three surviving Dionne Quintuplets wrote a powerful open letter to the McCaughey family about how their lives had been ruined by publicity and being raised in a fishbowl.  Members of the Loud family have also spoken about the very negative aspects of having participated in the documentary "An American Family" back in the 1970s. 

But absolutely children working in Reality TV can be compared to child actors.  In fact they may be worse off than child actors because their actual names are attached to the characters they play on TV.  However, because these shows are all semi-scripted and follow a story line what you see on TV is not their real identity or personality.   The footage is edited and manipulated.  What we are watching is not their reality.  It must skew their sense of reality.

Remember: children working in entertainment are not protected by Federal Child Labor Laws.  It depends on individual states to enact "Coogan" type laws to protect them.  Only a few states have done so. The children in the Duggar family, while minors, have no choice about being filmed.  Again, in most states there are no laws to control what is filmed, the time spent filming, no provisions for their safety, no screening of the people on the film crew, and no payment for their work.  They can be filmed around the clock if the parents allow it.  Cameras in the bedrooms, the bathrooms, everywhere.

I think Paul Petersen of A Minor Consideration said it best.  "Children are not Meercats."

I've posted this before.  Do read the whole thing.  It is his testimony in 2010 at the hearing for amendments to the PA Child Labor Laws.  AKA, the Gosselin Law.  That was House Bill 1548, and it was finally signed into law in 2012.   It didn't go far enough, IMO, but is better than nothing.

Quote

Good morning. My name is Paul Petersen and I have been growing up and growing old with most of you here today. Grandparents may remember me for my brief stay with the original Mouseketeers. Your parents may have watched me on “The Donna Reed Show.” Today’s generation…the consumers of so much of what passes for popular entertainment…may know me because of my advocacy on behalf of the children in Entertainment for the past twenty years through my foundation, A Minor Consideration. That is what brings me here today.

The use and abuse of children in our media is no longer a “Hollywood Problem.” The life-long troubles of former child stars has become a cliché’ with which we are all too familiar. But, the production of commercial entertainment has spread not just throughout this country, but throughout the world…and spread so rapidly that our laws and rules and regulations have not kept pace with the special needs of children exposed to the voracious appetite of our modern media. Complicating this issue of the exploitation of children in entertainment is the incredible development of delivery platforms we now take for granted…the Internet with its staggering social networking sites and unregulated content…downloadable music and films, the traditional platforms of the printed Press, broadcast news and, of course, television. An outside observer will note that many of these delivery systems are actually owned by a just a few very large global conglomerates who routinely use the profits of one division to drive traffic to yet another wholly-owned subsidiary. 

So, what is the true status of children working in Entertainment? What is the State’s interest in their labors? What are the risks and perils? There are so many myths surrounding the most visible children in the world that it’s time to look at the facts. Let’s look behind the curtain.

· First, children are the “property” of their parents. They are, literally, owned by the people who bring them into this world. In Common Law the wording is straightforward: “Parents of a working child are entitled to its custody, income and services.”
· Children in Entertainment are exempt from Federal Child Labor Law…and have been since 1938 with the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If an individual State does not pass laws governing kids in entertainment, there are no laws to protect this class.
· A Minor is assumed, in Law, to be incapable of Informed Consent, and contracts entered into on their behalf are unenforceable unless approved by a Court.
· The Parent…not the child…is expected to provide for food, clothing, education and shelter. Children who must work for these basic necessities are always at risk.
· PA’s Third Circuit Court in 1985 noted that "the common law rule that minors…may disaffirm their contracts has as its basis the public policy concern that minors should not be bound by mistakes resulting from their immaturity or the overbearance of unscrupulous adults."

Of all we hear about Child Labor we continue to believe that parents will always do what is best for their off-spring and that actual paying work is a rarity when it comes to children. The Federal Dept. of Labor, however, tells us that 5.5 million children are even now at work in America, most of that number involved in Agriculture…and just like young performers, the kids picking our crops are exempt from federal child labor laws. Today, as I speak, 250 million children are in the world’s work force…most of them underpaid, working to have enough to eat, and easy prey for the so-called adults who are in control of their destiny.

I want to thank Rep Thomas Murt for undertaking this task of examining Pennsylvania’s laws regarding not just children in Entertainment, but the hidden world of working kids. This subject is much larger than most people suspect, and has consequences that stretch far into the future because we are affecting our children’s perceptions of the world they will inherit. We have become far too careless with our kids…with the quality of their education…their broadcast images…and their need for spiritual nourishment and right to privacy.

Nothing in life can compare to the bond between parent and child, and each of us must be mindful of the risks inherent in what some call ‘meddling’ in other people’s business. We must also keep in mind that the rules for children are different…especially when work and money are involved. I have not come to Pennsylvania to point fingers. The events that have played out in the Gosselin family over the past five years have, frankly, defied description, but from my perspective as a person who literally grew up on television I keep coming back to the one unassailable truth…these children, through no fault of their own, are engaged in a commercial enterprise that takes place in their home…a home in which every participating adult is compensated…yet their status has not been determined in Law or in the collective mind of our culture.

The excuses for this absence of common sense reasoning are many. The children are merely participants. Being on camera is easy and not work at all. “Jon and Kate + 8” is just a reality show and the kids aren’t actually performers.

Permit me to gently point out that in the mind of a child these are distinctions without a difference. Children are not Meerkats. They are decidedly not the same as a pride of lions being filmed by a naturalist on an African plain. They are aware…and if you’ll just close your eyes and remember when Dad took out the movie camera to film you playing in the back yard and the way you mugged for the camera…you’ll know to a certainty that even a two year old toddler knows when a camera is present. 

Cameras and microphones alter behaviors. The presence of a working film crew alters the dynamics within a home. When money is thrown into an altered reality things can become extremely complicated. For the developing child who finds themselves in the voracious maw of the media there is literally no concept of the life-long consequences they will have to live with for the next sixty, seventy of eighty years of their lives.

Let me blunt about this: There is no Delete button on the internet. Once your identity becomes public there is no going back. Images can be manipulated, and even the most innocent activity can be changed to suit the mind of the consumer of popular entertainment. It is a dangerous world out there, my friends, and all of us need to be constantly reminded that the consequences of fundamentally and publicly altering the life of a growing child will have consequences. Each of us is directly connected to every day or our lives.

I repeat, the rules are different for children. We do not hand an eight year old the keys to the car. Children have bedtimes and rules. Kids are not equipped to deal with things like taxes and salaries, publicity shoots and travel arrangements…and they do not ordinarily have to deal with autograph seekers and fans.

We have long acknowledged the special status of professional children who are paid to deliver a performance…in fact we have come to believe that an entire set of special rules are always in place to guard their welfare and income. Some of the things we believe are that children in the world of entertainment always have a parent or guardian close at hand, that a studio teacher will be provided to ensure that child’s education, that their working hours will be strictly limited and a portion of their income will be set aside for their use when they become an adult.

It’s just not true. I have already mentioned that there is no Federal standard for kids in Entertainment. If an individual State doesn’t pass its own child labor laws for Entertainment there are no laws governing the work place. Today there are still nineteen states, many of them competing for production dollars, which have not gotten around to passing meaningful child labor laws specific to entertainment. Pennsylvania, thankfully, is not one of those States. There are, in fact, laws on the books to protect children in the entertainment industry. The question is, why in the case of the Gosselin Family have they not been enforced?

Special work permits are required by this State for all children under the age of Seven. Provisions for contract approval and even the definition of what constitutes the Employee-Employer relationship are on the books. It’s just too easy to excuse the working reality of television production by believing in the term “Reality Show.” These mislabeled productions are anything but reality. There are writers, producers, publicists and paid production crews. There are hand-crafted stories to tell and do-overs and 2nd takes.

And always…always…there is big money on the table. It is all too easy to forget about the special needs of the children involved in these entertainment products…and I’ll remind everyone that this is nothing new. The Dionne Quintuplets were exposed to this kind of public consumption seventy years ago. The Loud Family was ripped apart by participating in the PBS production of “The American Family.” Even under the best of circumstances the consequences of early fame can have devastating…lethal consequences. 

I am painfully aware that the use of juveniles in so-called reality shows is a genie that has long since escaped the bottle. That fact should not prevent us from asking the hard questions or preparing ourselves to intervene when children are put up for sale by even the most well-meaning parent. Here are my concerns:

· What is the share of each child’s participation in these commercial productions?
· Who owns the money these children earn?
· What are the work rules when your home is the studio?
· What independent authority is present to halt production when the welfare of children becomes the issue?
· Is it in the State’s interest to insure that an independent advocate is assigned to protect the separate interests of the working child?

The good news is that we do not have to re-invent the wheel here today. Well tested models already exist. The better news is that with today’s hearing we have collectively recognized the potential for harm that always exist in an unregulated work place that utilizes Minors. 

And finally, it is my fondest hope that we send a clear message to all of America’s children that no matter how unique your circumstances may be there will always be people who are prepared to help you prepare for your future with laws, counsel and loving advice. It is our solemn obligation to raise the next generation…to share with them what we know, the lessons we’ve learned, and the rewards of playing by the rules.
 

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Palimpsest

[TatiFish9]

On 6/20/2019 at 11:02 AM, acheronbeach said:

Never noticed this before but I'm seeing a LOT of Grandma Mary's features in that picture where Jinger is holding Felicity and smiling upward at the camera.

 I finally found the picture you mentioned. Yes, in that picture especially she looks like grandmom. I am just realizing in other pictures of her with grandmom compared to the ones with Michelle, I am convinced she looks more like grandmom Duggar. It's amazing how we can see things differently after something new is introduced to the equation. This is sort of similar to when we see children with one parent first, we only see the features of that parent in that child. Once the second parent is introduced, we usually see both or sometimes realize the child looks more like the second parent. 

I can't believe I never noticed this about Jinger until now, because I simply hadn't been paying attention.

[VelociRapture]

5 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

::Climbs on soapbox::

It is potentially harmful.  Potentially very harmful.  Some of these children may be OK if the parents are very careful to control what is filmed and presented, but I don't see much care in most of today's reality TV families.  I see child labor and exploitation.

We don't know yet how harmful this will be, because the first generation of children who have worked in UnReality TV are only just reaching adulthood.   Some of them may speak out at some point.  Jacob Roloff already has spoken out, but got a huge backlash of hate from fans of the Little People Big World show.  He partially retracted, possible to salvage some of his relationship with his family, but no longer agrees to be filmed.

Do we have precedents for this sort publicity in children other than child actors.  Yes.  In 1997, the three surviving Dionne Quintuplets wrote a powerful open letter to the McCaughey family about how their lives had been ruined by publicity and being raised in a fishbowl.  Members of the Loud family have also spoken about the very negative aspects of having participated in the documentary "An American Family" back in the 1970s. 

But absolutely children working in Reality TV can be compared to child actors.  In fact they may be worse off than child actors because their actual names are attached to the characters they play on TV.  However, because these shows are all semi-scripted and follow a story line what you see on TV is not their real identity or personality.   The footage is edited and manipulated.  What we are watching is not their reality.  It must skew their sense of reality.

Remember: children working in entertainment are not protected by Federal Child Labor Laws.  It depends on individual states to enact "Coogan" type laws to protect them.  Only a few states have done so. The children in the Duggar family, while minors, have no choice about being filmed.  Again, in most states there are no laws to control what is filmed, the time spent filming, no provisions for their safety, no screening of the people on the film crew, and no payment for their work.  They can be filmed around the clock if the parents allow it.  Cameras in the bedrooms, the bathrooms, everywhere.

I think Paul Petersen of A Minor Consideration said it best.  "Children are not Meercats."

I've posted this before.  Do read the whole thing.  It is his testimony in 2010 at the hearing for amendments to the PA Child Labor Laws.  AKA, the Gosselin Law.  That was House Bill 1548, and it was finally signed into law in 2012.   It didn't go far enough, IMO, but is better than nothing.

 

I will say that Paul’s statement was very well stated. The two parts that really stand out to me are:

1. How even very young children are aware of being filmed and will play up for the camera. My two year old absolutely does this already - she sees our phones come out and either turns into a massive ham or she refuses to let us take any photos/videos at all. She’s very aware of what happens with the phone and I have no doubt that even the very young Duggar grandkids will know what the film crew and cameras mean. What really bothers me is the possibility that the kids might not always want to be filmed because I don’t think they exactly have much choice in the matter, regardless of how understanding their parents are. If they need specific footage including the kid then they’re going to make sure they get it at some point, despite how the kid feels. 

2. That the internet is forever. Josie Duggar, for example, will never be able to completely eradicate footage of herself having a seizure or having a blowout diaper or footage of her time in NICU because it’s all very likely online at this point. She had no say in whether it was filmed or uploaded online and did not consent to any of it, yet she now has to live the rest of her life knowing that complete strangers are aware of very intimate details from her life. I’m incredibly glad the original show was canceled since it’ll provide her with at least a bit more privacy than she would have had otherwise, but I’m concerned about the ramifications the new show could have on those of her nieces and nephews still being filmed - again, without their consent. 

This is a big reason why I’m so concerned about my daughter and social media. I had been uploading a lot to my Instagram stories because they only last 24 hours before disappearing and I have a very limited list of people allowed to follow me. I felt comfortable with that for a while, but even that feels exploitative to me in some ways - so I’ve stopped doing that for now. Husband and I have also agreed that we’re probably going back to our “No one other than us is allowed to share her image online” policy as well. We had been ok with limited photos being shared of her by our siblings, but then one of them shared a few photos of her in a shirt and pull-ups, with her face visible. The fact that they have a public account and lots of followers made me uncomfortable enough to request that this person remove the photos (which it was very quickly.) We can’t know who has access to someone else’s social media or what they might do with our daughter’s image, so the safest decision for us seems to be to start limiting what others close to us can share. 

I think the Duggar offspring have very skewed concepts of privacy due to spending their formative years on camera. They’re doing a huge disservice to their children by allowing them to be filmed though. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by VelociRapture

[Bad Wolf]

I find the pregnancy speculation interesting. The only ones I can keep straight are Jill, Jessa, and Jinger. Anna's kids are a blur, and the other couples seem too much alike. I can't remember which kids belong to which couple, and which ones are pregnant. (And don't tell me, because I don't care.) If a Duggar was wearing a big sign saying I'm pregnant, I probably still wouldn't get it.

Maybe when it's Jenny or Jordyn, I'll be more interested.

[Tangy Bee]

Well looks like Jeremy is cashing in before things get slow for the show. Don't blame him for the quick easy money that will help support them and pay for the rest of his studies. Bet he will go for a Ph.d next. Got to keep Jinger in those pretty clothes! But on a serious note, JB is no dumb ass when comes to making money. Just look up all the properties he's had over the years. Plus his mom was also real estate savy. The Duggars got rich because their family is VERY conservative and odd. I know plenty of large families. The difference is they are NOT strange. Have 2 aunts that had over 12 kids. Two pastors in this area have 10 kids and they all attend their church private school. How come they don't have a show?? Well because they are "ordinary acting" people. The Duggars have NEVER been ordinary. That's why people watch. Not a fan, but I wonder if the older kids realize the main reason they are famous is because they are...odd.?

[JermajestyDuggar]

I saw this picture and realized headbands with big flowers must just be in the Duggar blood. Jinger looks just like Felicity.

[VelociRapture]

1 hour ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I saw this picture and realized headbands with big flowers must just be in the Duggar blood. Jinger looks just like Felicity.

John looks like he’s thinking “WTF?”, Jill looks confused, Josh looks like he regrets being born into that family, Jessa looks like she’s trying to keep sweet, Jinger looks amused, and Jana already has that Fundie Helpmeet stare mastered. 

Jill also looks like someone put a wig on Izzy and forced him to wear a dress. ?

[PennySycamore]

I thought that was our dear @Four is Enough in the lower center of the picture and remembered that she just has that as her avatar.

[Lurker]

Jinger posted on her instagram that they are in “Cali”. 

[Iamtheway]

On 6/23/2019 at 7:03 PM, VelociRapture said:

This is a big reason why I’m so concerned about my daughter and social media. I had been uploading a lot to my Instagram stories because they only last 24 hours before disappearing and I have a very limited list of people allowed to follow me. I felt comfortable with that for a while, but even that feels exploitative to me in some ways - so I’ve stopped doing that for now. Husband and I have also agreed that we’re probably going back to our “No one other than us is allowed to share her image online” policy as well. We had been ok with limited photos being shared of her by our siblings, but then one of them shared a few photos of her in a shirt and pull-ups, with her face visible. The fact that they have a public account and lots of followers made me uncomfortable enough to request that this person remove the photos (which it was very quickly.) We can’t know who has access to someone else’s social media or what they might do with our daughter’s image, so the safest decision for us seems to be to start limiting what others close to us can share.

I only have facebook and I share pictures of Miniway sometimes, once a month maybe, definitly not more then that. My facebook is not public and I know everyone on my friends list but there are lots of random old class mates and people I worked with 15 years ago and I think about that before I share anything about him or myself. 

I never write things that are bad about parenting or dumb things he does. I only share photos where he looks good. I think a lot of kids will grow up having some sort of online presence but if Miniway or anyone he knows ever dig through my old facebook posts I don’t want them to find anything embarrasing. I’m sure he’ll find everything I do embarrasing at one point but isn’t that what parents are for?