After making a comment while promoting her new movie that women shouldn't have to wait for a man to come along before they decide to have children, Jennifer Aniston was attacked by Bill O'Reilly "throwing a message out to 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds that, 'Hey you don't need a guy. You don't need a dad.'"
He claimed that her message is destructive to society, and he even brought on two of his Fox News henchwomen to debate him, and by debate, I mean, agree with him.
One of the women, Gretchen Carlson, said that Aniston was "glamorizing single parenthood" and that young girls wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 40-year-old woman wanting to have a child on her own and a girl their age wanting to do the same thing.
Good to know Carlson has absolutely no faith in the youth of America. Even if girls couldn't distinguish the difference, I'm sure they're aware that getting pregnant isn't exactly a great life choice. If they do think that, I'm sure Jennifer Aniston isn't what put the idea into their heads.
To be honest, I agree with Aniston's statement. I do think there's value in having two parents in the home, but I think that single parents can still create loving, supportive communities without necessarily having a biological father as part of that system.
My mother would have loved to have had a father in my life, but my father made that impossible. So instead, she did the best she could, and guess what, Mr. O'Reilly? I turned out just as well as some of my friends with two parents.
Why do conservative pundits insist we were all better off when nuclear families were the norm? Wasn't there still child abuse, and wasn't it kept under wraps more often? Wasn't there still a disconnect between parents and children? Weren't fathers not expected to do anything more than head off to work, come home, have a drink, and sit in front of the television all day?
I know I'm generalizing, but that's the classic image of the families of the fifties, and that seems to be what most idealists pine for.
Aniston's statements weren't about glamorizing single parenthood. There is no way to glamorize single parenthood. That's like trying to glamorize root canals. She was only trying to say that if you want to have children, you shouldn't think that you have to wait around until a man shows up for you to do it.
Aniston is also speaking as a celebrity who can afford to hire help. If people can't tell the difference between her speaking about having kids without a man and the average woman, then they shouldn't have kids anyway because their intelligence level is obviously a little on the low side.
A good father can contribute a lot to a family, but a bad one can cause lots of damage.
The whole incident just makes the Fox News personality look out-of-touch. O'Reilly was obviously overreacting when he called Aniston's message "destructive to society," but what's worse is that I'm not sure he realizes what society he's living in anymore.
He claimed that her message is destructive to society, and he even brought on two of his Fox News henchwomen to debate him, and by debate, I mean, agree with him.
One of the women, Gretchen Carlson, said that Aniston was "glamorizing single parenthood" and that young girls wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 40-year-old woman wanting to have a child on her own and a girl their age wanting to do the same thing.
Good to know Carlson has absolutely no faith in the youth of America. Even if girls couldn't distinguish the difference, I'm sure they're aware that getting pregnant isn't exactly a great life choice. If they do think that, I'm sure Jennifer Aniston isn't what put the idea into their heads.
To be honest, I agree with Aniston's statement. I do think there's value in having two parents in the home, but I think that single parents can still create loving, supportive communities without necessarily having a biological father as part of that system.
My mother would have loved to have had a father in my life, but my father made that impossible. So instead, she did the best she could, and guess what, Mr. O'Reilly? I turned out just as well as some of my friends with two parents.
Why do conservative pundits insist we were all better off when nuclear families were the norm? Wasn't there still child abuse, and wasn't it kept under wraps more often? Wasn't there still a disconnect between parents and children? Weren't fathers not expected to do anything more than head off to work, come home, have a drink, and sit in front of the television all day?
I know I'm generalizing, but that's the classic image of the families of the fifties, and that seems to be what most idealists pine for.
Aniston's statements weren't about glamorizing single parenthood. There is no way to glamorize single parenthood. That's like trying to glamorize root canals. She was only trying to say that if you want to have children, you shouldn't think that you have to wait around until a man shows up for you to do it.
Aniston is also speaking as a celebrity who can afford to hire help. If people can't tell the difference between her speaking about having kids without a man and the average woman, then they shouldn't have kids anyway because their intelligence level is obviously a little on the low side.
A good father can contribute a lot to a family, but a bad one can cause lots of damage.
The whole incident just makes the Fox News personality look out-of-touch. O'Reilly was obviously overreacting when he called Aniston's message "destructive to society," but what's worse is that I'm not sure he realizes what society he's living in anymore.
Comments
Post a Comment