Their Bad Mother

Their Bad Mother


Jennifer Garner And Me: Exploiter Moms?

posted by Catherine Connors

Jennifer Garner has a problem with the paparazzi. I don’t have a problem with the paparazzi, but then again, I’m not Jennifer Garner. But just because I’m not a major movie star and don’t have paparazzi trailing me wherever I go doesn’t mean that I can’t understand where Jennifer Garner is coming from. Neither does it mean that I don’t feel entitled to comment, critically, on her attitude, from the perspective of a pretend-insider.

Bear with me here.

Jennifer Garner is upset that the paparazzi hound her family, because, as she says, her children – unlike herself, and her husband Ben Affleck – are not public figures. But despite the fact that she tries to keep her children out of the public eye, “there are
almost as many video cameras as there are film cameras and the
situation has shifted so that a huge amount of their focus is put on
the children of celebrities.” Children like her own.

Some say that such attention is simply part of the price of celebrity: if you’re going to make your living selling yourself as a celebrity commodity – a ‘personality’ who draws audiences to movie theaters because those audiences are fascinated by your persona – then you’re going to have to expect that if you ever have children, they will become part of the package of that persona. If you don’t want that, then you have a few options: a) don’t have children, b) don’t be a celebrity, or c) move to a ranch in the middle of the desert like Julia Roberts and never let your children see the outside world. But is that really fair – or is it just the plain, cold truth?

I’m a writer. I’m also a writer who chooses to draw her children into the public sphere that is created by her writing. I write stories about being a mother, which means that I write stories that involve my children. I write lots of stories that involve my children. I have photographed and published pictures of my children, and I have let them be photographed by others. My son’s picture has been in the Style section of the New York Times, twice, and he’s not even a year old. But I allow that. Heck, I invite that. My children are a living part of my work, inasmuch as part of my work involves putting my life on display. And because my work involves putting my life on display, it is public. Which means that – according to my crude math – my children are, in a way, public. Which, sometimes, puts me in a very uncomfortable position. My children didn’t ask for the attention that they sometimes receive; they didn’t ask to have their lives put on display. Their names and faces are well-known in certain circles because I made certain choices about making my own life public, not because they chose to make themselves known. So when someone accuses me of exposing my children without their consent, I have to concede that there is a little truth to that statement. Conceding that truth makes me squirm a little.

But the fact that the truth of that statement makes me squirm a little does not incline me to disavow it. It’s something that I chose. (I’m not going to defend that choice here – that’s a subject for another day – but I will say that I have considered that choice very carefully, and that I consider that choice every time I put fingers to keyboard.) If I ever decided – if I ever do decide – that the cost to my children was too high, I could – I will – choose differently.

That choice is available to Jennifer Garner. She could live a life with less of a public profile. She could retreat, even just a little, from the world of red carpets and Entertainment Tonight features and celebrity. She could move to Montana. She could, simply, make different choices about the kind of work that she does and the kind of life that she leads, about the kind of life that her children are by necessity drawn into. She can certainly better afford to make such a choice than can most of us.

I want to make it clear that I’m not saying that the paparazzi should have carte blanche to stalk the children of celebrities. I’m emphatically not saying that just because someone chooses and embraces the life of celebrity, all bets are off. Especially not when it comes to children. There should absolutely be certain rules or at least accepted terms of practice when it comes to media treatment of the children of celebrities. But to absolve celebrity parents of any responsibility for the fact that their children are themselves, in some ways, celebrities, is to ignore the obvious. They chose this. Just as I chose my work, and most of the conditions and circumstances of my life – which is to say, as a parent of dependent children, that I have chosen the conditions and circumstances of their lives – so did Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck. And they, like me, carry responsibility for those choices. No one else.

Which doesn’t mean that I don’t think that Jennifer Garner is awesome. Just, you know, that she maybe needs a bit of a mom-to-mom reality check. (Hey, Jen, you need a playdate when you’re shooting in Toronto? CALL ME!)

What do you think? Do celebrity parents hold any responsibility for their childrens’ exposure in the media? Should celebrity children be off-limits to the media? Should paparazzi who focus on celebrity kids be strung up by their toes? ALL OF THE ABOVE?

Copyright Catherine Connors 2006 – 2009.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(27)
post a comment
Your Name

posted May 12, 2009 at 2:33 pm


While I agree that Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner to have the means to choose where to live, I disagree that their children should be “stalked”. In your article you consent to your childrens’ pictures being used; Ben and Jen do not.
As parents we all make the decision that we think is best for our child. You allow your child’s picture to be used, they have chosen differnt. Doesn’t make one right or wrong, just differnt.
Unlike some celebrities, Jennifer Garner does not walk the red carpet with her children. She has not taken them to a movie premiere, used them for a cause, received money for baby photos of her children, or used them in anyway to receive free promos from companies or fashion desingers.
So then why shouldn’t the children be allowed privacy? One real problem that I see is pictures and video taken of Violet on a playground, or at preschool when neither Ben Affleck or Jennifer Garner was present.
Ben and Jennifer are indeed in the public eye. If they would show on the red carpet with their children then they deserve to have their picture taken, those pictures then used by websites, or magazines.
However, Jennifer or Ben don’t deserve to be cut off in traffic as a magazine hungry photographer is trying to get a photo of their children. Neither does Violet deserve those same photographers yelling things at her why she is walking with her mother or father. Mind you they are not yelling for Ben or Jen to turn and pose for the camera but yelling things at Violet.
There is a video of Ben and Jen leaving Violet’s preschool, with the new baby. There was such a hoard of photographer’s present that it neared a dangerous situation.
Regardless, of their children, don’t the other children and parents at that preschool deserve to take their children to and from preschool without all of that commotion.



report abuse
 

Their Bad Mother

posted May 12, 2009 at 4:57 pm


I stated pretty emphatically that I don’t think that paparazzi should be able to stalk children with the same aplomb that they do adult celebrities – there’s obviously a much, much higher standard of respect that needs to be observed. So that wasn’t a defense of the paparazzi. Not at *all*.
My point was this – Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck have cultivated their own celebrity, which has involved encouraging public interest in themselves as personalities – they do features in In Style magazine and People and share themselves with the world because that’s what sells their product – them. In continuing to do this after having children, they involve their children. You’re totally right that my case is different in that I’ve permitted photographs of my children and draw my children into my work explicitly – but I was suggesting that in continue to cultivate a cults of personality for themselves as celebrities, they kind of implicitly do something similar, inasmuch as they court public interest in their lives.
I just wonder, I guess, whether there’s something incompatible about being a public celebrity – of the sort that allows In Style magazine features – and complaining when one’s children get drawn into that celebrity. As I said – if it worries them that much, they could always manage their celebrity differently, or withdraw.



report abuse
 

Issa

posted May 12, 2009 at 5:01 pm


I think it’s a hard thing to figure out. I have chosen not to put my kids pictures up on my blog, but my girls are older than your kids. Then again, I feel like since I don’t put their pics up, I shouldn’t do it with my son either. Which sucks because he is tiny and smush-able and cute. I’m not even against it, but my husband is and I have to respect that choice. I guess that’s the thing, it’s a choice. You can one day choose to take down E & J’s pics if you want and people will understand. We will all still read you either way…although I may miss seeing J in tutu’s but that is just me.
But celebs don’t get that choice anymore. Yes, they can move to the middle of nowhere, but the second they leave nowhere, they are assaulted by the media. Should they have to move to the middle of nowhere, for their children to be left alone? Does any kid deserve what these kids put up with? Would you want E to be photographed every time you took her to pre-school? Or J every time you pushed him on a swing?
Also, it’s only been in the last say 10 years where it’s gotten so bad for celeb kids. I grew up in Los Angeles. My brother played ice hockey with Kurt Russel’s son for years. I played in the bleachers with Kate Hudson as a kid. Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell were big name stars back then, but their kids were ignored, except for the few times they were taken to events. They weren’t photographed going to the park, every. single. day. I went to school with celeb kids…and a few kids who were celebs, but they weren’t stalked. But Jen Garner, Gwen Stefani, Alba…forgetting her first name, Marcia Cross: they are followed around, not because of who they are anymore, or what they are doing, but the fact that they have small cute children. It’s not right in my mind. Jennifer Garner wasn’t stalked until the second that belly showed up the first time. Then we saw her, every time she walked into Starbucks. Hell, I go to Starbucks every day, it’s not that exciting.
There’s no easy answers in that situation for them. So, um yes, I do think paparazzi should be strung up in that situation.



report abuse
 

Their Bad Mother

posted May 12, 2009 at 6:23 pm


Issa – no, you’re right that kids don’t deserved to be harassed. Which is why I say that the paparazzi SHOULD be strung up for invading the space of celebrity tots. But that doesn’t mean that their parents are off the hook. If Emilia was being trailed to school, I would quit writing about her. Simple as that. Jen and Ben are complicit insofar as they court public attention in other areas of their lives; there’s always the option to *not* do that (Julia Roberts is an example of someone who avoids the media – when was the last time we saw a pic of her kids?)
Obviously, it’s not that simple – these are real lives. It’s just that I think it’s too easy to just vilify the paparazzi – they’re taking pictures to fill a consumer need, a consumer/audience need that celebs like Jen and Ben, end of the day, benefit – richly – from.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 12, 2009 at 8:19 pm


I am the first poster, sorry I didn’t leave a name after my first post.
Yes, Jennifer has done an In Style piece, as well as, other magazine spreads. However, to my knowledge she has never sat with Ben or her children for a photo of them all to be included in that magazine. If the magazine does use a photo of her children, it is usually one taken by paps.
I would be right on board with you, if they had taken money for baby pictures of Violet or now with Sera. They didn’t! I am sure there were offers.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted May 12, 2009 at 8:55 pm


I think that to be an actor is not necessarily the same thing as being a celebrity. There are plenty of actors who don’t hang out in public and work to create a public persona. If you choose to do that, you must know that your family will be of interest to the public you’ve worked so hard to court. As a fellow Mom blogger who sometimes struggles with sharing my children with the general public, I understand that it must make Jen feel better to make such a disclaimer. It’s as though she’s absolving herself of any blame for the decisions she’s made.
That said, I think paparazzi are sleazy. But they wouldn’t be working to expose the inside of the onion if a lot of people weren’t frothing at the mouth for it.



report abuse
 

Ben&JenAreNotAllTheyAppear

posted May 12, 2009 at 9:07 pm


I think Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner are far more complex, career driven, and narcissistic than they present to the media. I would bet that Affleck has his eye on a career in politics, and Jennifer Garner’s recent quip that she would make a great First Lady was not pulled out of thin air. A big piece of having a successful career in politics is presenting the image of a happy family, and they work hard at it. Much of what they do is calculated, including choosing to live (and purchase a home) where the paparazzi are at their worst – they can’t escape them! I agree that celebrity children have gotten much more unwanted attention than when I was growing up, and that is unfortunate, especially for the children. However, I have to think that some incredibly successful actors/actresses like Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Julia Roberts (mentioned several times in earlier posts), Matt Damon (Affleck’s good buddy), Reese Witherspoon (when she lived in the South with Ryan Phillipe) stayed/are staying away from the limelight because they truly don’t want the attention. They truly want to raise their children AWAY from Hollywood. They truly want their children to have a somewhat normal childhood. I don’t buy all of Jennifer Garner’s down home goodness (I bake banana bread, blah, blah, blah). And I do think she is profiting from, and capitalizing on, the positive attention she has received for her parenting (note she was just voted #1 celebrity mom). Her career has certainly benefited from her role model as a great mom, and she knows it. So I don’t feel sorry for the celebrities and the swarms of paparazzi who follow them. If I were being paid the millions of dollars that they were for each film — if I had the luxury of taking off 9 months out of the year — if I could hire nannies, bodyguards and assistants to help block the paparazzi, then yeah, I’d say to myself, “This is the price of being famous.” I’m sure the Obamas thought long and hard about whether they wanted to subject their daughters to the media attention and scrutiny that would inevitably follow if they made it to the White House. I do not hear President or Michelle Obama complaining about the public interest in their daughters because they understand that such attention goes with the territory. Will Affleck and Garner halt his political ambitions to protect the privacy of their daughters? Let’s just wait 10 or so years and see.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 12, 2009 at 9:31 pm


Yes, Matt Damon lives in FL, to avoid some of this. However, there are pictures of his children taken from balconies of hotels, neighboring homes, and through trees.
A problem now is that Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner are in Boston (Cambridge), MA. There is one paparazzi agency that is typically based in LA, that has seemed to set up camp outside their rental home.
So they are in essence doing what the writer of this article suggests, in part, going away from the lights and cameras of Hollywood. They are right now, however, there are daily pictures from paparazzi of Jennifer trying to buy food, or taking a walk to the park, or leaving a restaurant on Mother’s Day. You can clearly tell these photos are taken from a distance away. Again, taken in MA not in LA.



report abuse
 

Another Suburban Mom

posted May 12, 2009 at 9:56 pm


I think that the paparazzi gets worse and worse each year. Yes Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner are celebrities. Yes they choose to lead public lives. However they are entitled to some privacy.
Should they live in NYC where the celebrity children go mostly unnoticed or in a suburb somewhere…..
Maybe. But it seems wrong to not let them parent their children in peace.
I am also waiting for some celebrity to sue the paparazzi for violating their 9th amendment rights.



report abuse
 

Amy @ Muddy Boots

posted May 13, 2009 at 10:38 am


I agree with you on almost every point, Catherine. However…
If I was a celebrity mom myself, with little celebrity kiddos, I’d like feel very differently.
On a related issue, I have absolutely NO PATIENCE for those celebrities who deliberately -and HUGELY- profit from their children, ie. the huge bidding wars over baby pictures or all the attention/press/interest/conspiracy theories around Suri Cruise at the beginning.



report abuse
 

Della

posted May 13, 2009 at 11:01 am


!@#!@)(#*!@#!@J#!
I spent 45 minutes typing a post here, and the freakin recaptcha expired.
When I pushed the refresh button to get a new recaptcha… oh yeah, you guessed it.
SUMMARY: I don’t think it’s fair to force celebrities to choose between (A) being happy in their job/location/etc WITH kids and unable to complain about the asshole paparazzi, and (B) having to take all the responsibility off the paparazzi to protect the pap’s freedom of speech, and therefore having to move somewhere they would be miserable, or miss out on social events, or spend less time doing their work, etc, in order to protect their kids.
I think there should be a third option – stay where they are and be able to cut off the paps. Unfortunately with the rabid way the US is about freedom of speech, I don’t see that happening in our lifetimes.
If I was famous, I would be complaining about that, too.



report abuse
 

Della

posted May 13, 2009 at 11:04 am


oh and i forgot that there is a 2.5 option: don’t have any kids so the paps can’t get them.
which just says how much of a problem the paps are.



report abuse
 

Jo

posted May 13, 2009 at 11:51 am


I agree that certain celebrities draw more attention to themselves (and therefore their children) than others. I can’t say what their agenda is besides the obvious self-promotion, but they are definitely responsible to some degree for their children in this situation.
I live down the road from Colin Firth (ohhh yeah, read it and weep people), and he avoids the celebrity limelight unless he is doing certain promotions for films. I really respect him as an actor (and not just because of the P & P white-ruffly-shirt-underwater scene) and as a dad. He’s always walking his kids to school in the morning and also mans a booth in the park festival promoting his local eco store. Overall, is very active in our community, but not to draw attention to himself as a celebrity. People seem to respect his family’s privacy here and I’ve never seen paps around. I think Jen & Ben could have more peaceful lives if they followed in the footsteps of more low-key (but still successful) actors.
But I think paps should be strung up anyway.



report abuse
 

Jessi

posted May 13, 2009 at 12:34 pm


I feel conflicted about this. First of all, I think that paprazzi are evil. Period. I think it is really a stretch to call what they do freedom of speech and is more closely aligned with libel. And I do think that kids should be off limits. I think that anyone with a sense of decency would not pester kids at school or soccer games or ballet class because they have a famous mom. However, I realize that making this a legal obligation just ain’t gonna happen.
So, what should the celebrities do? Julia Roberts is just one example of someone that gets by without her kids being part of that. I live near a celebrity in a very small, very rural town and while I see him out doing stuff all the time with his kids, I never see a horde of evil camera carriers following him. And I don’t think you have to live in the sticks. But I don’t know if it’s degree of celebrity, or maybe both parents being famous or what, but some kids definately get it worse than others.
I use my kids names in my blog too and I write about real stuff that happens to them and I feel the same way as you. If it becomes an issue, I’ll stop. I’ll fix it. But if someone told me that fixing it meant giving up my blog completely or moving to Utah, I’d tell them where to stick it. Just saying.
So, in short, I have no idea what I think about this, bu I do think about this. Probably more than necessary.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 13, 2009 at 1:27 pm


But, Jo, that is the point. Ben and Jen do live a low key lifestyle. They don’t attend high profile parties, walk red carpets together, or try and draw attention to themselves.
They do the similar stuff as Colin does, walk their child to school, attempt to get yogurt from a local stand, buy fruit from a local market, etc.
If they are out to dinner, it usually is a low key deli, where they are trying the enjoy family time.



report abuse
 

Sass Pizzazz

posted May 13, 2009 at 1:42 pm


Hi Catherine, I mainly just came here to say that I’m more than happy to read more of what you have to say, so I’m glad you’ve got this 2nd, slightly different outlet for your mom-related writing. I also think the picture here of you and Jasper is adorable!
As for this issue, I don’t have kids, so it’s difficult to speak from a mom’s point of view. I do tend to agree with what was said by the poster who talked about Colin Firth, and which I think is essentially the same argument you’re making. I think that there are a lot of actors who cultivate their career on the strength of their acting, and otherwise tend to avoid all of the Hollywood-esque limelight, which seems to help them fly under the paparazzi radar. On the other hand, I’m sure a lot of that stuff can be a lot of fun, so maybe it’s not fair to say that celebrities have to choose between their children and enjoying the perks of their fame. On the *other* other hand, parents have to choose their children over having fun all the time, so maybe I had a good point in the first place.



report abuse
 

Jo

posted May 13, 2009 at 2:48 pm


Oh, hmmm… I thought the point was that Ben & Jen do bring attention to themselves as celebrities, at least that is how I interpreted it, but sorry if I missed that…
On further thought, it is quite difficult when you have two major celebrities reproducing. Colin Firth isn’t married to a major star and neither is Julia Roberts. Not that I think they need to avoid reproducing with each other (hmm…) but, it will attract much more attention. I know it seems harsh for them to have to move to a far away place and avoid all the fun perks that come with being a celeb, but if it is truly bothering or hurting their children (or is it just bothering them?), and that would fix it, then that’s what you do. I’d really like to go to the pub right now, but probably staying home with my kids is the best thing to do.



report abuse
 

Ben&JenAreNotAllTheyAppear

posted May 13, 2009 at 6:30 pm


I’m really appreciating the respectful tone to these exchanges and the spirit that it’s okay to disagree. I agree that the paparazzi are aggressive. I agree that they are getting worse and worse. If there wasn’t such a demand for celebrity (and celebrity children) candids, then the paparazzi wouldn’t have the incentive. Bottom line is that lots of money is to be made off of the photos because we, the consumers, buy the People, Star, Us Weekly magazines. I guess my point with Jen and Ben is that other successful celebrities place a high value/priority on their being able to live a normal life away locations where the paparazzi breed, like southern California. In today’s day and age, I do not think that high profile movie stars have to live in southern CA in order to advance or promote their careers. They could live anywhere in the country, yet Ben and Jen recently chose to purchase a home smack dab in the middle of what they purport to hate. I don’t think Ben and Jen are pretending to hate the cameras and the aggression of the photographers. I believe that they hate it. My point is that they are 2 smart, thinking adults who happen to be celebrities. If they hate it so much, then do what is within their control to manage it. Jen’s recent complaints about the paparazzi lose their impact on me, for one, because she lives where they are. It’s like complaining about being encircled by sharks while swimming in shark infested waters! And remember, many of the same people who purchase the celebrity magazines or check out celebrity websites are the same people who will go to the movies that have helped to make Jen and Ben millionaires a few times over. I would never want to live their lives, AND I don’t feel too sorry for them because life is about the choices that you make. And if you look at their life choices, it ain’t about getting their children away from the cameras.



report abuse
 

Stephanie A.

posted May 13, 2009 at 11:23 pm


Hmmm, I feel like your blame is misdirected. So if someone has built a career and then later decides to have children their only choice is to put up with paparazzi? Sure, they could move, but who wants to commute that much. It makes sense that to stay as close to their family as often as possible that they would live where they do the most work. That is reasonable parenting. Keeping a job and not losing yourself in your kids if that is what you want to do also sounds like reasonable parenting. It is also reasonable to want to keep your kids’ lives as private as possible until they are old enough to make decisions.
So to me it boils down to questionable actions on part of 1) the paparazzi and 2) the people who read these magazines/watch these shows. To make the jump that the parents are at fault when they are trying to protect their children rather than whoring them around is illogical.



report abuse
 

Beth

posted May 14, 2009 at 11:25 am


I also am grateful for the respectful way that others can have a different view of this subject and discuss it.
I think one point Jennifer Garner might be trying to make is there are pictures of Violet when her parents aren’t present.
Just today on a popular blog or gossip site are pictures of Violet being walked to or from school by an assistant. Ben nor Jen is with her. Those pictures should not be taken and should not be published.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 15, 2009 at 5:12 pm


Stephanie A. covered a lot of what I was thinking, as have others. If one (or two) very famous people decide to have kids after they are famous, I don’t think the options presented to them are fair to them or their kids.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that people should either have to change their careers and personalities or not have kids. If these weren’t famous people, we would rarely tell a person that if they wanted to have a child and feel that their child was safe and protected then they’d have to live in the middle of no where, accept being non-social even if they are social people and/or change jobs. The only time I can think of that someone would have to do all that to protect their child is if they are in the Witness Protection Program (I don’t know the Canadian equivalent). Is it really fair to celebrities that if they want to have children they have to be treated like a (U.S) federal witness of a major crime just because of their jobs and personalities?
I stopped buying celebrity mags and reading gossip blogs because I don’t want to be a consumer who encourages the paparazzi to hound celebrities’ children. I do think it’s gotten out of hand and that lines are being crossed. But the paps will continue because their pics sell. So I won’t buy.
Lastly, people draw the lines in different places. Just because some people think that the line in one place is fair to all does not mean that it feel fair to another person. If Jennifer feels that a line is being crossed, then she has every right to feel that way IMO, even if others see the line elsewhere. Unfortunately, it seems that she can’t enforce the line where she wants it to be, keep her job, her personality, her housing location, etc. It seems to me that she’s in a no-win situation, and I go back to that doesn’t seem fair to her.



report abuse
 

caramama

posted May 15, 2009 at 5:14 pm


Oh, I left that last comment, but it didn’t pick up my name. I’m still trying to figure out this new site of yours.



report abuse
 

Marilyn

posted May 17, 2009 at 9:54 am


There’s one point that I’d add. I know Jennifer Garner complains about the paparazzi taunting her daughter (which is completely over the line, imo), but you have to wonder how other, more high-profile, celebrity moms manage to avoid getting photographed so frequently.
You see occasional pictures of Julia Roberts and Reese Witherspoon (just two examples), but they aren’t photographed on a weekly basis, despite living in LA, and they’re both far bigger stars than Jennifer Garner. So I can’t help but think there’s a way to at least limit paparazzi exposure if the celeb wants to.
You don’t see pictures of Julia’s and Reese’s kids without their celebrity parents because we wouldn’t even know who those kids are. If Violet Affleck wasn’t photographed so frequently, then she wouldn’t be hounded even when her parents aren’t around.
I think we see all these pictures of Jennifer Garner to reinforce her post-Alias image. I think she wanted to change her image from a sexy action heroine into a girl-next-door, everyday Mom image so she could get roles like the one in Juno and Ghosts of Girlfriend’s Past. To do that, she allowed the paparazzi to photograph her with her daughter (accompanied with articles in People from fawning former co-stars about how she’s the “perfect mother”).
Jennifer may not like what the coverage has become, but that’s the risk with encouraging media attention: you can’t control how far it will go. And let’s face it: would we even remember her today if we hadn’t been bombared with these “Mommy and me” pictures for the last couple of years? Her movies haven’t been exactly lighting up the box office (with the exception of Juno, but Ellen Paige and Diablo Cody got most of the attention from that hit).
I’m sure Jennifer Garner loves her daughter. I’m also sure she loves her high-profile career. It’s a difficult situation, but I don’t think she’s the victim here.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 19, 2009 at 12:06 am


Marilyn,
I think Jennifer would have been photographed because she is married to Ben Affleck. Ben was one of the first stars to be hounded by paparazzi. When he was with Jennifer Lopez, it was the start of the celebrity web sites, blogs, and more gossip magazines. There are some that by following him, taking pictures of him, put those magazines in business.
Yes, one thought is that Jennifer “calls the paps”, “poses for pictures”. However, there is nothing to show that she encourages pictures of her, or Violet. Just the opposite. I get his impression from watching a few videos that have been posted of the paparazzi following her.



report abuse
 

Marilyn

posted May 19, 2009 at 10:20 am


Your Name,
I appreciate that Jennifer Garner’s pairing with Ben Affleck raised her profile, but it still doesn’t explain how other, more famous moms avoid being photographed while she does not.
That’s the big problem I have with the whole “I don’t want this” explanation. Others don’t want it either, and somehow they actually manage to avoid it, at least in terms of frequency. There’s no good reason Jennifer Garner cannot.



report abuse
 

Leslie

posted June 5, 2009 at 1:36 pm


Actually, Reese’s chidlren are photographed frequently–I remember Ava as being one of the first celebrity babies to be photographed a lot. (She is actually older than most of the babies you see all the time on the web), so your premise is flawed Marilyn.



report abuse
 

usElisabetta

posted February 11, 2010 at 1:15 am


I want to say that an experienced essay writing service supposes to be a light on the way of college essay writing. Thus, students can use it anytime they would like to buy essay papers online.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Their Bad Mother. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Inspiration Report Life As A Concious Mom Happy Reading!!!

posted 4:50:01pm Jul. 05, 2012 | read full post »

The Road To Heaven Is Paved With Maracas
Last weekend, I went to Mass for the first time in well over a decade. To say that it was a strange and disorienting experience would be to understate things dramatically. But it was also a deeply comforting and familiar experience. I know that that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but in my exp

posted 9:30:01am Mar. 09, 2011 | read full post »

Dear God (On The Catholic Church And Abuse And Evil And Crises Of Faith)
This weekend, I read an article in New York Times Magazine about the crisis surrounding the Catholic Church in Ireland as new, horrible, stories emerge about sexual abuse of children and efforts by the Church to cover up those stories. It was a teensy bit upsetting. So I started to write a post abou

posted 1:34:44pm Feb. 16, 2011 | read full post »

Buy Yourself Roses For Valentine's Day
You can search throughout the entire universe for someone who is more deserving of your love and affection than you are yourself, and that person is not to be found anywhere. You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection. -- Buddha

posted 9:07:07am Feb. 10, 2011 | read full post »

There But For A Rocking Chair: On Love and Fear and Keeping Our Children Safe
Before Emilia was born, I fussed endlessly about babyproofing. Never mind that it would be months before she would even enter the world, let alone move around it and find its electrical outlets: I was convinced that when it came to babies, there was no such thing as too many precautions taken too so

posted 6:46:18pm Dec. 16, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.