Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Krappy Baby Names.

As I write this, the Kardashian-West child remains officially nameless. I suspect this will be the case until:
1. interest starts to wane -- there is no greater heartache for a Kardashian than being ignored or forgotten on social media,
2. a tabloid offers up enough money for an exclusive photo-op, and/or
3. lawyers and assistants have secured all urls and social media user names connected to the child's brand name.

Best name suggestion I've heard so far comes from a Lord Voldemort twitter account: Kreacher.

In lieu of mocking that baby's names, I'll just mock another family of reality television "stars," the Duggars. The oldest Duggar boy and his wife just had their third child: Marcus. He joins older siblings, Michael and Mackynzie. It seems Josh Duggar is keeping up with several family traditions:
1. having LOTS of children in quick succession,
2. mistaking children for a set of collectible dolls requiring thematic names, and
3. favouring the boys with solid, normal names and giving the girls crap, cutesy names, ie Jinger, Jordynn, Joy-Anna.

Am I right in assuming that the -M name trend is a tribute to Michelle, whose children all have -J names to honour her husband? My theory is that Michelle is a nightmare of a mother-in-law, especially since the end of her child-bearing years ended dramatically at about the same time Anna started having babies, thereby stealing some of the attention from Michelle.

This begs the question: who would you rather have as mother-in-law: Michelle Duggar or Kris Jenner-Kardashian? And who would you rather have for a father-in-law: Jim-Bob Duggar or Bruce Jenner? Oh, dear. I'm scaring myself.

13 comments:

  1. Is his name really Jim-Bob? REALLY?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Nicole, it really is. REALLY.

      FTR, I'd rather have Michelle than Kris Jenner, but only just.

      Delete
    2. Not James Robert. Just Jim-Bob. WHY?!?!??!

      Delete
  2. Oh god, I don't watch any of the shows with any of these people on them, so I cannot make an informed decision, but based on what I've heard, if any of them were potential inlaws, I might have to reconsider marriage in the first place. Shudder.

    Maggie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But doesn't it make our in-laws look better by comparison?

      Delete
  3. Anything but the Kardashian family...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aren't they awful. And all their fame and power comes back to a sex tape. Classy.

      Delete
  4. This one is going to take some contemplation.... a dirty secret of mine, I watch the 19 kids and counting when Keenan is out of town with sick fascination. Here's an ignorant question from someone with no children.... how the hell has her uterus not fallen out yet!!! My thought is she has had it sewn back in multiple times... agreed that both would be crazy mother in-laws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whenever I see Michelle Duggar, I do kegels. As a show of sympathy for her over taxed uterus.

      Delete
  5. I'd also go Michelle over Kris, but only because I just could not stand the constant nagging to lose weight and wear makeup. Standing next to Michelle, my hair would look SO awesome all the time. Worth it alone!

    As for the men, Jim-Bob gives me the willies so he's out. Not that Bruce doesn't give me the willies, only less. It's a sliding scale of willy-ness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Michelle is benign. That's the best thing I have to say about her. And I agree, that Bruce is a better option than Jim-Bob. Bruce afterall was an Olympian. Well, parts of him.

      Delete
  6. I just spent 10 days of family togetherness camping with ALL the inlaws, and I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for helping me realize it could have been so much worse. Compared to the either of your choices, my inlaws seem nearly normal and healthy.

    ReplyDelete