Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

The 'Baby Bump' Is So Hot Right Now

By Ellen Goodman, Truthdig. Posted July 27, 2006.


In times of war, babies become the new bling.
072906_story
The 'Baby Bump' Fixation
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

I suppose it is reassuring that when all hell breaks loose, the tabloids still keep their eyes on the heavens, or at least the stars. Even in the Middle East, a gossip sheet in the United Arab Emirates is dutifully chronicling the search for baby Suri.

The daughter of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes is not exactly missing. No milk cartons, please. It's just that the 3-month-old has not yet had her picture on the public show-and-tell circuit, a required rite of passage for celebrities.

The frenzied speculation about the TomKitten, as she is called in tabloidese, gives you an idea of the change in star tracking. These days the paparazzi are focused on the celebrity baby -- from bump to birth and beyond. The fascination with these celebrity births has surpassed the fixation on celebrity love, marriage, infidelity, divorce and weight gain -- unless they conveniently dovetail.

For most of Hollywood life, the bump was not a fashion statement, nor was it a smart career move. In 1953, when Lucille Ball had a baby in real life and sitcom life, you still couldn't say "pregnant'' on TV. In 1991, Demi Moore broke a barrier when she posed nude and pregnant on the cover of Vanity Fair. But when Britney Spears appears that way on the cover of Bazaar, she merely looks, um, overexposed.

Cameras now stalk celebrity wombs. The Onion turns its satirical eye to announce celebrity satellites that can spot "baby bumps'' from 13,000 miles above the Earth. And when Reese Witherspoon sues Star magazine for false pregnancy reports, the mother of two is described as "empty-wombed.''

The 2006 crop of top tots -- courtesy of Brooke Shields, Gwyneth Paltrow, Gwen Stefani, et al. -- climaxed with the birth in Namibia of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's daughter Shiloh. People magazine reportedly coughed up about $4.1 million for the photos to feed a public appetite for newborns that formerly was limited to grandparents.

Following the new script, celebrity parents are also displaying a post-partum glow and a few words of parental bliss. Even the zany Jack Black has publicly promised to enter and win the best-daddy-on-the-planet competition.

So how did this fixation on celebrity babies, this upbeat bump beat, happen just as we are being told that parenthood is onerous and grueling and that parents are overworked and overwhelmed?

Readers of Star, In Touch, OK! and US Weekly probably did not pick up the latest lament about parenting at their supermarket checkout. It was offered by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project and still best known for siding with Dan Quayle in his spat over single motherhood with Murphy Brown. Now, she's painted a disheartening picture of parenthood as "a conspicuous source of anxiety and distress.'' She then points to a demographic and cultural culprit. (full report / summary)

Parenting, writes Whitehead, takes up a shorter amount of the expanding life cycle these days, somewhere between a child-free youth and a child-free empty nest. So the culture that once thought of adulthood and parenthood as synonymous now portrays child-raising as an unsatisfying timeout from the fun.

"If the popular culture were the only source of knowledge about American parenthood,'' she says, "one would quickly conclude that being a parent is one of the least esteemed and most undesirable roles in the society.'' She describes a society that is "indifferent at best, and hostile, at worst, to those who are caring for the next generation.''

But if the popular culture casts parenthood as grim, who's feeding the pro-natalist message to its audience? "What is happening to the joys of parenthood?'' asks Whitehead in dismay. But in the tabloids, stars respond in a torrent of parental gush: "He inspires me!'' "We stare at him.'' "We're so in love.''

Let's be clear. The difference between being a celebrity parent and a civilian parent is probably the difference between working at Wal-Mart and Warner Bros. The stars get nannies and trainers, the rest of us get diapers and stretch marks. Hollywood's baby flicks may ultimately be as useful a guide to real life as its chick flicks.

But I'm guessing that the media baby boom also fills a real desire for some counter-messages. Whitehead may rue the pop culture that makes "child-rearing values -- sacrifice, stability, dependability, maturity -- seem stale and musty.'' But Brad Pitt, scion of the pop culture, tells the world: "I got kids now. And it really changes your perspective on the world. ... I'm so tired of thinking about myself.''

Parenting as drudgery? Or could it be that babies are the new bling?

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Ellen Goodman's e-mail address is ellengoodman(at symbol)globe.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Blame it all on the pill
Posted by: Nosila Sevarg on Jul 28, 2006 2:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm old enough to remember what life was like for women before the birth control pill and before abortion. And I think women were fed a "line" about being a mother. Women were told that being a mother was the best thing she could ever do. There wasn't much choice, either.
I could always tell my own mother struggled with this -- she didn't like being a mother at all, but she didn't have a choice.
Now that we do, I suspect a lot of women aren't so crazy about the whole idea of having kids and for the first time they are "allowed" to talk about it.
Yet, for women to be able to discuss how parenting might not be as wonderful as all the propaganda says it is (and it IS propaganda) requires them to be open about the issue. Open to all the negatives and positives.
Yes, I guess it's selfish and cold-hearted to not want a baby, but it's better to not have one if you aren't really sold on the idea.
Pre-birth control, women HAD to have kids and LIKE it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No baby for me Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Blame it all on the pill Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Blame it all on the pill Posted by: boydranchitos
» RE: Blame it all on the pill Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: Blame it all on the pill Posted by: BlueTigress
It's not selfish....
Posted by: morticia on Jul 28, 2006 5:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....and cold-hearted to not want a baby. It's perfectly reasonable. To be human means that we don't have to necessarily allow ourselves to be "used" by nature in its insatiable drive for reproduction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's not selfish.... Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: It's not selfish.... Posted by: Ivan_K
» only if they are lucky Posted by: 50566
It is often selfish ...
Posted by: aouie01 on Jul 29, 2006 2:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is often selfish to choose to not adopt a human (or a non-human for that matter). It may be okay to be selfish at a personal level. Societies try to encourage not being too selfish in the interests of the collective (and sometimes based on notions of morality). .... .... ... Consider adoption. .. .. ..
Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It is also selfish ... Posted by: Envi
» RE: It is often selfish ... Posted by: xaocoh
» RE: It is often selfish ... Posted by: aouie01
» RE: It is often selfish ... Posted by: MyLeftFoot
So.. I'm selfish.
Posted by: churchofone on Jul 29, 2006 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I knew a long time ago that I didn't want to bear children. If the maternal urge ever pushed me strongly enough, I likely would've adopted. But I've never really wanted to be a mother and was honest enough to admit to it.

I was blessed in recently marrying a man who has three grown kids. One of them has three of her own and with her recent marriage acquired three more. So... I get to be a grandmother of six.

So call me selfish. I get the best of both worlds (for me, anyway) - a child-free existence, along with the fun of being a grandmother. Talk about BLING!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Selfish? Not at all... Posted by: slimguy_sf
18K Americans die every year for lack of universal healthcare. So our Left gives us "Baby Bling"
Posted by: unperson on Jul 29, 2006 5:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gosh, I cannot imagine why we have no universal healthcare. I mean, what with our Leftist media giving us more articles on celebrity Baby Bling, you would think we would have caught up with the rest of the industrialized world and gotten universal healthcare. But we haven't. Go figger!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What Leftist Posted by: soulfulnotes
» but what about his point? Posted by: rebel_pig
» Don't feed the trolls...(NT) Posted by: brunowe
» Here he is!!! Posted by: russianblue1
Bling?
Posted by: pcushniesr on Jul 29, 2006 5:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Christ, I hate that word.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bling? Posted by: boydranchitos
» RE: Bling? Posted by: morticia
» RE: Bling? Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Bling? Posted by: morticia
» RE: Bling? Posted by: christininrome
» RE: Bling? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Bling? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Bling? Posted by: JayDee
Ever hear of overpopulation? Look out the window
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 29, 2006 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It amazes me that people still talk about having babies as if it were a frivolous choice, like buying a new I-Pod.

The U.S. and the world are facing a worsening population crisis. Our streets are congested with traffic, our air and water are dirty from pollution, poverty and crime are rampant and our hospitals and other social services can't keep up with the public's needs.

All these issues are closely related to rapid population growth, but most people act as if they can reproduce like rabbits, with no consequences at all. Wake up and smell the soylent green.

Invariably, some people respond by pointing to declining populations in Japan, Russia and a few other nations, but don't be misled: Those declines are temporary and unusual. Around the world, the baby boom is on big time and the human race is rapidly running out of clean air to breathe, clean water to drink and decent places to live.l

Our government needs to follow the lead of China and other nations, and get serious about mandating reasonable family planning. (Replacement people only, please.) That doesn't mean forced abortions, but it should mean pro-active measures to stop our foolish overbreeding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You got that right! Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: You got that right! Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» Nope Posted by: planet doomed
» bling babies are useless babies Posted by: planet doomed
Not selfish to have no children
Posted by: kt1066 on Jul 29, 2006 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's always seemed to me that it can be selfish to create a whole other person just because you want one. Some people treat babies and children (and pets) like fashion accessories. That's really selfish. How can knowing what you want and what you are capable of handling, and then doing it, be called selfish? Not everyone wants to be a parent; so what? If only the people who really wanted kids had them, perhaps the planet wouldn't be so overpopulated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hilarious... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Hilarious... Posted by: BlueTigress
Go Ellen!
Posted by: talkville on Jul 29, 2006 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She's on to something here, Ellen Goodman is. How vicarious (and "didactic") our lives are becoming!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

aren't there more news-worthy things?
Posted by: pikkle123 on Jul 29, 2006 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i got halfway thru this article and then i just couldn't go any further. the mainstream media's focus on celebrities, be it "love, marriage, infidelity, divorce [or] weight gain" is unnecessary, and indicative of the complete lack of priority given to more pressing issues, such as the conflict in the middle east, the war in iraq, or even the impeachment of bush.

i read another alternet article not too long ago about how the author was so disappointed to see that the winner of american idol made front page of the ny times over other issues of import. i agreed then and i couldn't agree more now.

alternet should be finding other things to write about. we don't need yet another news outlet wasting time and energy on the fritterings of the stars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ellen goodman is a rich author
Posted by: rebel_pig on Jul 29, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
typical

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Help America! Keep producing cannon fodder, Patriot Breeders!
Posted by: xbj on Jul 29, 2006 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just think, eighteen years from now when we're still fighting the Neocon/Zionist endless "war" on "terror", you too can have the civic pride of your precious baby coming home in a box, food for worms.

Or worse yet... without a couple of legs, or arms.

Or even worse... a completely insane psychopath, or catatonic vegetable.

Long after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Rove are dead, the killing they began to increase their estates will continue unabated and take your child.

Bling bling! Better be smart like Hispanics... make ten or twelve of 'em so one might live to 40.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More babies = more soldiers
Posted by: nzo on Jul 29, 2006 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You don't realize how much power you have, suckers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More babies = more soldiers Posted by: christininrome
Make a statement, be bump free
Posted by: moschops on Jul 29, 2006 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd love to see some celebrity couples making an environmental statement by being bump-free. Every celebrity kid is going to be among the elite class of highest consumers, highest C02 produces, and highest concertrators of wealth. And even if its parents make an effort not to make it so, the media feeding frenzy will ensure some reporter, newpaper, TV station is burning up power and resources on its behalf and wasting millions of hours of the worlds precious time with media coverage.

A child free celebrity couple is good for the environment, good for our lives and yay, by consuming less its patriotic to boot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Take is a step further
Posted by: soulfulnotes on Jul 29, 2006 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if child free celebs gave their fortunes to Planned Parenthood?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Take is a step further Posted by: moschops
Please...
Posted by: josh7337 on Jul 29, 2006 11:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is hard to take seriously an article that has "bling" in the subject line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Please... Posted by: christininrome
Alternet is the new "People"?
Posted by: janakiblum on Jul 29, 2006 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was looking forward to a thoughtful article on baby booms in times of war, with perhaps some history thrown in. Instead I get an article that almost might do "People" magazine proud. Alternet; we get this celeberity stuff all over the mainstrem media so please live up to your name and give us a real analysis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: lindalee Posted by: HeidiLockwood
Have a kid? NEVER!
Posted by: pianojo on Jul 29, 2006 2:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I ALWAYS knew I would NEVER have children. The thought of it utterly turned my stomach. All I could picture was a 9-month tumor growing inside of me - What a revolting idea! I wanted no part of it.

No, motherhood was definitely NOT for me and I have never regretted that decision - not for one second. Years later, when I had a business I cannot tell you how many women, talking to me over the counter, told me that if they had it to do over again, they would NEVER have had children.

Just because we are female does NOT mean we should be parents or have children. I often think that if half the people in the world who had children had decided NOT to have children, this world would be far better off than it is. Imagine if Barbara Bush had NEVER given birth!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I knew I wouldn't be a good mother.
Posted by: Longdream on Jul 29, 2006 2:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm too self-involved.

Some of the hype when I was of childbearing age said that I'd be sorry when it was too late, and that I would envy my friends whose kids were caring for them in their golden years. Who would care for me? Fortunately, even if I'd bought it at the time, it wouldn't have been a good enough reason to go against my firm instincts.

As I look around at my friends and acquaintances, although we're nowhere near our feeble old age, I see many of them shelling out retirement money to bail out their children or help support their grandkids, or opening their homes to returning adult children who went bust. Of the ones who have young children, some are having fun, and some are engaged in pitched battles with odd little strangers, or remind me of servants.

I've got friends from all economic and educational walks of life, and some of them have successful, comforting adult children. Many don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Low brow gossip
Posted by: nim1 on Jul 29, 2006 2:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on AlterNet. Do you have to sink to the same level as the low brows? Please stick to adult, real news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The liberals better get cracking
Posted by: ArchiesBoy on Jul 29, 2006 4:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "baby bling" article reminds me of something I heard recently: that, evidently, liberals have fewer children — for whatever reasons — than do conservatives. If this is true, they better get going before the righties win through sheer force of numbers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Marching morons Posted by: BlueTigress
Wow!
Posted by: morticia on Jul 29, 2006 5:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's telling us!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: somebody else's kids
Posted by: 50566 on Jul 29, 2006 5:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
may rebel against their parents... I did.

Kids are for people who are bored with their lives...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: "islamic" fanatics, what about...
Posted by: 50566 on Jul 29, 2006 5:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the other fanatics? They are far more bothersome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Weird response
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 29, 2006 8:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Note the bizarre, loopy thought process behind these remarks.
You can almost hear the Twilight Zone theme playing in the background.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Weird response Posted by: morticia
RE: somebody else's kids will take care of your elderly hiney
Posted by: xbj on Jul 29, 2006 8:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Did I mention somebody else's kid will serve in the military and keep the Islamic fanatics from slaughtering your hedonistic hiney wholesale?"

Thanks for reminding me why I'm hightailing it to Canada asap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm Hispanic, raised a Catholic, and live outside SF
Posted by: kit79 on Jul 29, 2006 9:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so quit with the stereotyping.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quit stereotyping me!
Posted by: realmuzik on Jul 30, 2006 12:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am 43 and consider myself fortunate to have had the BRAINS to have CHOSEN not to become a parent because I have never, in my life, had the $aving$ that is REQUIRED to raise it. Children cost $$$$$$, whether they be birthed, adopted, or whatever. I am also NOT AN ATHIEST. I am an ACTIVE MEMBER of the United Church of CHRIST--with the most suppotive and tolerant church community I have ever become a part of. My minister has never, ever judged me for being a non-parent! I also happen to live in a RED state, where all of my neighbors attend mega-churches, and consistently make the pro-life agenda their #1 reason to vote.

I spoil myself very little. If I have spare $, I donate it to the independent press because it must continue to thrive. I also support various local grassroots causes. I never shop at box-stores and I use the library for all my so-called "selfish" needs. I am very frugal at the grocery store, and I shop the farmers market when it is in-season. Being poor teaches one that you do not need riches to survive. I am afraid the day will come in our time where we will no longer be able to earn money to survive. It's time to start figuring out how to sustain without it. Less breeding is a start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Intrinsic Value
Posted by: idmaster2000 on Jul 30, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In many ways I agree with gerdhansel's "somebody else's kids will take care of your elderly hiney," but what about the intrinsic value of children?

I hate to sound like some smug sage, but one writer summed it up best by saying they were too self-involved, so for all of you who are standing proud for your narcissism, I guess I have to say because you've never been there you cannot understand the joy of it.

Kids are fun--far more fun than an empty home (and it is just that). It's fun to watch them learn to ride a bike knowing that you've helped (yes, that's egotistical or intrinsically rewarding--pick your rhetoric). It's fun to listen to them reason through some of the same existential questions that we adults still cannot answer. And it's fun when they fall asleep on your shoulder and depend on you to watch over them.

If you haven't had that pleasure with your own child, then you are missing, or have missed, one of life's most profound experiences.

And as for kids being a drain on your self-involvement: that hasn't been true for me either. When I was a single guy, guess what I did on Saturday nights? You're right--went out and got wasted and didn't wake up until 10am on Sunday when I went out for a big greasy spoon breakfast after which I sat around all day.

Now, I stay home with my kids on Saturday nights and after they go to bed, I work on my Master's degree, and I'm up at the crack of dawn on Sunday working and studying.

My life is more productive and focused than it ever has been because I have a wife and kids who I am trying to make life better for.

Sometimes when we serve others, we are rewarded with a double measure of freedom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Intrinsic Value Posted by: Epicurienne
» RE: Intrinsic Value Posted by: Sunfell
I'm ashamed of this article
Posted by: christininrome on Jul 30, 2006 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Ellen,

Please, kindly, consider what you've done here on alternet, using the word "bling" in the subject line of your article to describe America's fascination with the celebritization of culture. We already have enough of this candy-cane crap on every major network, billboard, radio show and magazine in the world.

You seem to be able to write (much better than I can), so please, use your head and write something newsworthy. Britney Spears, hurling chunks I am.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pregnant bellies are not attractive
Posted by: Epicurienne on Jul 30, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think some things should be kept private. I don't especially want to see the bare pregnant belly of somebody I don't even know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How SELFISHNESS can you get?
Posted by: pianojo on Jul 30, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So this is your reason to have chiildren? So there will be someone there to take care of you when're you're old and feeble?

TALK ABOUT SELFISHNESS!!!!!!!!!!

THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET! If for no OTHER reason, we need to have FEWER children, NOT more!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: somebody else's kids will take care of your elderly hiney
Posted by: Epicurienne on Jul 30, 2006 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When you're old, somebody else's kids will:
Drive the ambulance that hauls your geriatric hiney to the hospital.
Vote for political candidates you don't agree with.
Be the policeman who protects you from criminals.
Pay the taxes that support your elderly bum.
Be the doctors, nurses and orderlies who wipe your elderly bum when you're rotting away with Alzheimer's disease."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have no children, and I vote and pay taxes. I'm not an ambulance driver or a nurse, but I am planning a career as a social worker (another occupation which serves others.)


"They'll sacrifice vacations, urban lifestyles, Volvos and Rolling Stones tickets for the next generation.

So enjoy spending all your time, money and energy on yourselves while you're still young and spry enough to enjoy it. "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think you're just jealous. By having children, YOU have chosen to miss out on the vacations, urban lifestyles, Rolling Stones concerts, etc., so you have to be nasty to people who made other choices.

"Somebody else's child will probably be Hispanic and Catholic, and probably won't have a lot of sympathy for your atheistic, hedonistic, Birkenstock-wearing, child-hating, elderly, San Fancisco-loving bum."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ooh, nice stereotyping. I'm not an atheist, don't hate children (just hate to see bad parenting in action), and have never been to San Francisco. Since I work and pay taxes, I also take issue with being called a "bum".

I've also know Hispanic Catholics who turned out to be pretty liberal.

So get down off the cross. We need the wood.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Typo correction: Posted by: morticia
Democracy: it's about numbers
Posted by: yoursfaithfully on Jul 30, 2006 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it odd that with the historical advent of democracy, the people who know the most about democracy (intelligent Westerners) are deciding to have the fewest children?

Do you people understand how democracy works? Do you think democracy is going anywhere? Do you think in 100 years the select few intellectuals in the US will be hand-picking the president?

You need people to vote for your cause.

I don't want to hear anecdotes about "Oh, well my parents were right-wingers, and I'm a leftist, so it will all work out". Oh really? So maybe our schools should be trying to indoctrinate all our children with right-wing ideas, since that will get them to rebel and take up the progressive cause?

Of course not. Those are ANECDOTES. People are very likely to endorse the political party of their parents. Look at statistics, not stories.

If liberals don't have kids, and conservatives do, we're screwed. It's called survival of the fittest, and just because we're educated doesn't mean it doesn't apply to us.

Overpopulation is NOT a US problem. It's happening in poor countries near the equator. It just is. And I don't live there, so I'm not going to base my procreation habbits on their problems. If you look out your car window and say "Wow, lots of traffic! Too many people!" you're forgetting that most of the US does not live where you live. We have plenty of room, even here in Detroit.

More people = more scientists, more artists, more thinkers, more revolutionaries. Our planet isn't dying because of all the people in Malaysia, it's dying because the American elite are greedy. Focus on them, please.

Blaming the poor (which most of you are doing) on our planet's troubles is twisted and right-wing. If you hate people so much, join the Republican party. Please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» oh yeah and Posted by: repo
» What world do you live on? Posted by: pianojo
What's wrong with Birkenstocks?
Posted by: sirossisofliver on Jul 30, 2006 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's wrong with Birkenstocks?

You forgot to include a Limbaugh-esque slap at "Volvo-driving" in your wingnut rant.

BTW it wasn't Sal Mineo's "ethic',....it was James Dean's

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CeleBreeding
Posted by: Sunfell on Jul 30, 2006 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it just me, or is the constant and mindless celebrity worship something that I generally totally tune out, unless I collide with it in normally intelligent places like AlterNet, or at the Kroger check-out stands?

I mean, I only hear about this crap when I forget to turn off the TV after the local news, and that gushing codswallop of "Extra" comes on, full of baby crap and 'couples news'.

Who gives a flying flip? They all look alike, sound alike, and make the same impression on me: none.

The only time I pay attention is when some of my friends are snarking about the latest abomination of a name that they give these poor kids.

I think that the emphasis on CeleBreeders is sort of an unsubtle method of population expansion- if the MSM plasters its pages and airwaves with the swollen bellies and mewling larvae of The Stars, maybe Joe and Jane Sixpack will want to breed, too. This 'War on Terra' is going to go on for a very long time, and we need more kids to feed into the war machine. Better start breeding them now!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah yes, the war between the smug subset of parents and the smug subset of childless...
Posted by: davelwhite on Jul 30, 2006 12:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
never the twain shall meet.

The one thing I have never seen when people discuss the relative merits of having vs. not having children is any middle ground, such as, say, "I choose not to have children because of overpopulation but I like them (or at least respect that they are part of the cycle of life) and help my friends with theirs." Or, "I chose TO have children because they enrich my life or I want to give to others but I don't think childless people are selfish scumbags and appreciate the help they can provide." No, instead (for the most part) we have these two warring camps-- although I suspect there are some people who would agree with one of the two positions above and they just haven't written in.

Both warring camps are at war with nature as well as each other. The "you must have kids to take care of you when you're old / overcome the breeding of the Republicans / because it's what's done" camp forgets that overpopulation really is a problem, caused by affluent Americans as well as third worlders. You need only visit Target or wherever you prefer to shop, to discover that the Third World is pretty much where everything we use comes from-- partly because Americans don't like working in heavy industry (and their companies don't like paying First World wages for it), but also because our material desires are much greater than what our own land can supply. Even areas where we still produce and export material goods (like agriculture) are dependent on areas where we mostly import (like the oil on which our agriculture depends). Oil is only the most obvious example-- global peak oil might happen (pessimistically) next year or (very optimistically) 70 years from now, but right now, it is already a fact that we have to import most of what we need to run our farms, freeways, factories (what few we have left), etc., because our own oil peak happend in the early 1970's. There just isn't nearly enough capable of being produced domestically to meet our current expectations, if you are conceiving of the U.S. as some independent self-supporting unit. Even more oil, coal, metals, etc. are consumed on our behalf by all the factories in China that make our stuff. So more people here really does mean less resources in the third world, pushing all sorts of people into desparate poverty and environmental chaos (yes, it also increases third world employment, so the issue is complex, but even the most optimistic see resource depletion being a problem within the next 100 years).

But the "childfree" are equally delusional. We were all children once, and even if the worst predictions of ecological catastrophe are true and we need to reduce our population voluntarily by 50%, SOME children will still need to be raised. If you are really bad with kids, then don't raise them, but they are still a collective responsibility of all of us. That means we all ought to pay reasonable school taxes, and those of us who can get along with kids should be willing to help through volunteering, extended family, sharing responsibilities with our friends, etc. Both parents and non-parents will need to get used to the idea of working together, since there is no ecological prediction that says we can grow the way we have in the past, which means that universal parenting is probably a thing of the past too.

The verbal war between certain parents and certain childless people serves no one; the distrust that it creates eliminates the possibility of innovation in family life that would both make working life easier on parents, AND would create opportunities for ecologically mindful people who LIKE kids to care for them without having their own. Therefore, both the ecologically aware childless people AND the parents would benefit directly from working together instead of bickering.

Dave

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» good point Posted by: planet doomed
» I wasn't clear, sorry Posted by: planet doomed
let's keep things in perspective
Posted by: paintthestreets on Jul 30, 2006 3:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's nice how everyone wants to debate about child-free vs. not, but let's focus on the absurdity of the issue at hand: celebrities reproducing like rabbits and the public (i.e. us) obsession with it.

2006 seems to have been the year for popping out a kid or two and people are drinking this up like water. who CARES about these celeb kids?? know that they will be waited on hand and foot and will always have to remember their only claim to fame was having the right genes. should we really care whether fatherhood changed Jack Black? No, we shouldn't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ah well... Posted by: Aussie Kim
what a pathetically self-centered reason to have a kid
Posted by: planet doomed on Jul 30, 2006 9:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee, wonder what kind of parent this person is? Ick. Can't teach your kid to be a good person if you aren't one yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two things
Posted by: davelwhite on Jul 31, 2006 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One, the person who attached to my comment a little rant about how they're against forced sterilization either clicked on the wrong "response" link, or didn't read my post. I'm against forced sterilization too; even my position on abortion is the tempered "Safe, legal, and rare" as advocated by Clinton at one time. My whole post was about how if parents and non-parents could work together and help each other raise the smaller number of kids that we are already currently having, ecological progress could proceed apace and we won't NEED to have a China-esque policy in the future. As far as Chinese goods being "weird economic times," I agree (I just found out a substantial chunk of Target's earnings increases lately are late fees for people who are maxing out their Target-sponsored Visa cards-- obviously that is even LESS sustainable than the ecological drawdown is)-- but okay, let's assume that the housing bubble is going to crash and/or the dollar is going to decline and/or China is going to raise prices as they start selling to themselves instead of us, or whatever economic changes you foresee-- how is that going to make it a no-brainer that all American liberals should have kids, which certainly seems to be what you are implying? Remember, my position is NOT "nobody should have kids," that is somebody else's position. My position is "whether to have kids or not is NOT a no-brainer, there are arguments on both sides including resource and economic ones, and parents and non-parents should be respectful of each other given that our society is probably entering a phase during which some people will definitely be parents but not everybody will." Okay, if our Chinese imports are going to increase in price or decline in quantity, how does that cancel out my measured position? It doesn't, because that sort of economic situation is EXACTLY why parenting or not parenting is not a no-brainer decision, it is EXACLTY why non-selfish non-parents should put more money and time into school taxes, volunteering, supporting friends who are parents materially, etc. (since an economic downturn will make parenting harder), and EXACTLY why parents should be nice to the aforementioned non-parents (because the sort of sharing that will help us through a downturn depends on good relations).

So I start out being disappointed by this rather shrill response, only to be even MORE disappointed by the childfree response to THAT, which is something using the term "breeder" or some equally insulting term for parents (I can't see it now since I'm on the editing screen). How hard is this to understand: if we liberals are all about community and sharing the burden (whether through government programs or co-ops or whatever) we can't win people over to our side by creating these ridiculous little wars and hurling insults?!

Dave

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JayDee
Posted by: JayDee on Aug 1, 2006 2:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Baby Bump" is just as revolting as "Bling."

Add: "scoring digits," "doing the deed" and "canoodling" to the list of words and phrases that make me want to vomit copiously and without cease.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Humanocentric
Posted by: Artemis3 on Aug 2, 2006 3:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we need is LESS of humanity, not more...humans are the worst parasite that this world has ever seen, and it would be good for Her to get rid of us. By the way, I am childless by choice, and it turns my stomach when I see other people out with their obnoxious brats. Earth will be better off without us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

whelping new brats is immoral
Posted by: catnapping on Aug 8, 2006 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are already 6 billion humans on the planet. Can you say cancer? We are the blight. We are not living in balance. Just like cancer cells, we grow grow grow. We use our technology to keep old people from dying, and we use it to force premmies to live.

How disgusting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who invented the term "bling," anyway? And why?
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Aug 17, 2006 2:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Knee-jerk liberals who think overpopulation is just a first world problem because of selfish greedy overconsuming white people should reflect on where the term "bling" came from.

Hint: Any rap video should clue you in rather quickly -- it's hardly just whites who are selfish greedy overconsumers.

The entire human race is grotesquely overpopulated, and it's refreshing to see the many folks who articulately said so in response to Ellen's article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]