This family is mad for photos. Not the fun spontaneous photos capturing candid bouts of joy and rapture, but structured photos of this family group and that family group and the other family group. Generally this isn't a big deal to me - I grew up with two genealogists for parents, so I get the whole idea of preserving the family for posterity. However, in this particular case there are two things that are really irritating me.
First, I just generally hate being photographed. That one I realize I have to get over in this case and so it's not so much the issue. But it's still there.
Second, however, is the one that really - to borrow a southern expression - chaps my hide: the majority of the photos are "bloodline only". And so Tim has to go, and they take Joshua, but they don't include me.
Now, I get if they want to do parents and their children without spouses. But I don't get why they would include parents, children and grandchildren without the spouses who made those grandchildren possible. Nothing says, "You, as an in law, are such a second-hand citizen as to be down actually closer to a third hand citizen" as a "bloodline only" family photo. It's just...insulting.
So, I'm working on getting over it, but I have to say I'm really disinclined to be in any of the other retarded photos they want to take if I'm not important enough to be included in photos with my child.
5 hours ago
Um, how is Joshua a bloodline?
ReplyDeleteI'll join you on the "don't want my picture taken" front. Ugh. And I really don't understand "bloodline" only photos...in fact, I've never heard of that. I could see doing siblings only, or generational (as in all cousins, for example) though, or a particular portion of the tree which like you say would include the parents of each respective child. But really, I think one large group photo of everyone at the reunion is the only one worth taking. And maybe another of the matriarchs/patriarchs of the entire brood. Otherwise, bah!
ReplyDelete