JULIA ROBERTS spoke in a recent Elle interview on being a wife and mother:

“The children became the shooting stars of him[her husband], of that thing we have. How lucky we are that we love each other so much that we burst into three pieces.” 

                                                                          — Comments —

Jane writes:

I’m confused…are you being ironic in your recent post about Julia Roberts and her ever so sentimental musings on her children being the shooting stars that resulted from her love with her husband? I’m sorry, but isn’t this is the same serial monogamist who swooped in and stole this already married man from his then-pregnant wife at the time, who then miscarried during her husband’s affair? I just don’t buy it.

Laura writes:

Yes, I am not truly an admirer of Julia’s poetic imagery.

I think Julia literally views herself as a supernova.

Jennine writes:

“The children became the shooting stars of him[her husband], of that thing we have. How lucky we are that we love each other so much that we burst into three pieces.” 

Octomom could say the same thing: I love my turkey baster so much that we burst into 14 pieces.

A reader writes:

I am amazed that you have the gall to mock Julia Roberts’ love for her children, not long after you lay into Jennifer Aniston for being a single mother. Perhaps Julia Roberts hasn’t led a perfect life, I certainly don’t believe in infidelity(although I notice the man is never blamed in this situation on your blog), but the inconsistencies are insane. Women can never please you. Julia Roberts offends you by speaking about how much she loves her children, Jennifer Aniston got no sympathy from you or your readers despite the fact that her husband cheated on her with another woman–interesting how you are able to attack Julia for this, but not sympathize with Jennifer.

All in all, your vindictiveness is incredible. As I said, I despise infidelity and I despise adultery, and if you want to write a reasoned post condemning either I would be all for it. But simply going on a witch-hunt against individual women and posting their quotes for the sole purpose of mockery is infantile, not intellectual. Is this “thinking,” Thinking Housewife?

The reader adds:

Pardon me, I meant to say, “not after you lay into Jennifer Aniston for supporting single mothers” or at least, in your interpretation of her words, supporting them. Obviously she’s not a single mother. But you and your readers seemed to take great pleasure in commenting on her single, childless state (did I mention that her husband betrayed her? Was your attack truly Christian compassion for a woman with such a situation to handle?).

Laura writes:

A witch hunt? Posting a couple of lines from an interview is a witch hunt? My only regret is not eviscerating Roberts; that was lazy of me, I admit, but I had some errands to run. I wanted to further comment on her promotion of Eat Pray Love, the movie version of a book that has inflated the already dangerously bloated self-image of American women, but I took a pass. In the cover shoot for Elle, which accompanied these disturbing and hilarious words about a love so powerful that she and her husband exploded into three pieces, Roberts appeared with her breasts bared and her semi-naked son on her lap while she sat in a Hindu temple. It’s a strange, quasi-erotic photo, suggesting incest or some form of spiritual masturbation. Only an oblivious narcissist would have her son pose in this humilating way or would desecrate a religious temple with her erotic fantasies. And, the effort to affect piety or yearning on her face reminds me of one important fact about Roberts: She is a lousy actress.

Those beautiful words about shooting stars come from a woman who has left one husband and a string of other men behind, as well as the ex-wife of her current husband, who was married when they became involved. There is no inconsistency in criticizing her for this (even though I didn’t criticize her for this) and my remarks about Aniston, who spoke about how great it is for unmarried women to have children from artificial insemination and openly welcomed the demise of the traditional family. Do you really feel sorry for Jen? Wow. You see, this is why I have to keep at it. There’s so much work to do. With women like you fawning over celebrities who are decadent and cruel, I may never get a day off. These are witches, beautiful witches, who deserve to be hunted.

Lawrence Auster writes:

Your reader thinks you are contradicting yourself by criticizing Anniston for pushing childbirth without a husband, and criticizing Roberts for celebrating childbirth with a husband. 

It’s not a contradiction. In both cases you were criticizing the same thing: the cosmic egotism of liberals, especially liberal celebrities, who make up their own rules and make the whole universe revolve around themselves. The extravagance of Robert’s shooting star imagery is utterly typical of the contemporary culture. She doesn’t see the conception and birth of her child as the manifestation of a larger, providential order of which we are all a part; she sees it as some over-the-top glorification of herself. She might as well be a Mormon and become the god of her own solar system. 

The reader adds:

Pardon me, I meant to say, “not after you lay into Jennifer Aniston for supporting single mothers” or at least, in your interpretation of her words, supporting them. Obviously she’s not a single mother. But you and your readers seemed to take great pleasure in commenting on her single, childless state (did I mention that her husband betrayed her? Was your attack truly Christian compassion for a woman with such a situation to handle?).

Hey, with Christian compassion in place, no criticism of public figures is possible. The issue becomes: Christian compassion versus public debate on public issues.

Laura writes:

She might as well be a Mormon and become the god of her own solar system.

Or a Hindu goddess.

Please follow and like us: