creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
15 Feb 2012
That's What Friends Are For

Here we go again: a tragedy in the music world, a tragedy waiting to happen that did. Disturbing headlines … Read More.

10 Feb 2012
What Happened to Newt and Mitt?

Newt's easy. While all of us on the Democratic side were playing "root for Newt," Republicans were … Read More.

8 Feb 2012
Chasing Equality

Tuesday's ruling by a panel of three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit … Read More.

Spears' Family Values

Share Comment

Today's newspapers carry the headline that the fertility rate in the United States is going up again, reaching its highest level in 35 years and distinguishing us from most industrialized nations that, faced with the increasing availability of birth control, the opportunity and necessity for women to work, and who knows what other factors (maybe the paucity of good husbands and fathers), are struggling to reproduce themselves. Women need to have at least an average of two children apiece for a country to replace itself, as it were, and for the first time since the Baby Boom ended, we do. It's 2.1 to be exact.

But is it good news?

That is a hard question to answer in the abstract. The zero population growth crowd will tell you that in an overpopulated world using up its resources faster than it can preserve them, encouraging women to have more children is exactly the wrong advice.

I don't know how to dispute that contention in the abstract, except to point out that the same rules don't necessarily hold for developing countries with more mouths to feed than food to do it, as for industrialized nations, who need people to do skilled jobs, not to mention pay into the Social Security Trust Fund. But in any event, it's not entirely an abstract question.

If the higher fertility rate reflects, as it surely does in part, the increasing ability of skilled doctors and scientists to help couples who once might not have been able to experience the greatest joy in life become parents, then I'm thrilled for the news, and for them. Believe me, I can remember painfully well the irony and longing I felt when I was trying to have children. I was worried about whether I would be so lucky — the irony being that after years of worrying about not getting pregnant, I was even more worried, even more desperate, for the opposite result. There is simply no greater joy, no greater blessing, at least in my book of Life, than a much-wanted, much-loved child, and no greater trust than the trust of raising that child.

Which brings me, of course, to the lovely Jamie Lynn Spears. The 16-year-old's announcement of her pregnancy predated by only one day the news about the fertility rates. Apparently, she and her own mother will be paid $1 million by OK! magazine for an exclusive photo shoot once the baby is born.

Jamie Lynn is, of course, the younger sister of the poster child for selfish, stupid and arrogant mothers: Britney Spears.

Britney's antics with addiction and abuse have made Kevin Federline, her ex-husband, otherwise best known as a wannabe rapper, emerge instead as a candidate for father of the year. The news of little sister's pregnancy, which follows weeks of speculation that Britney, having done such a bang-up job with her oldest two, may again be pregnant, also included mention of the fact that Grandma (who might actually still be of childbearing years herself) has put her book on Christian parenting on hold.

Christian parenting? I don't know much about Christian parenting, not being one, but I do know that it can't have anything to do with this family, and the only thing more absurd than Jamie Lynn being paid $1 million for a story of successful slutdom is her mother being paid to write a book about Christian parenting.

How dumb do these people think we are?

How dumb are we?

When is enough enough?

The younger mother-to-be isn't just the sister of a celebrity car wreck, but one in her own right. She's a "star," too — on "Zoey 101," a Nickelodeon show aimed at teenagers who might see her as a role model. This week, Nickelodeon issued the kind of statement that makes you wonder whether any of the people who run these networks are parents themselves, or could care less about the children who are their audiences and make them rich. "We respect Jamie Lynn's decision to take responsibility in this sensitive and personal situation. We know this is a very difficult time for her and her family, and our primary concern right now is for Jamie Lynn's well-being."

Well, I beg to differ. My primary concern is not for Jamie Lynn's well-being, but for her baby's, who didn't ask to be brought into the world by a selfish, immature celebrity who sees in her pregnancy a big payout from a magazine that caters to and encourages the worst instincts of its readers. If she wants to devote herself to being a mother, good luck to her. Kicking her off that television show would give her more time to do it. And as for Grandma, maybe she needs to go buy a book about Christian parenting, instead of pretending that having two daughters she should be ashamed of qualifies her to write one.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Comments

13 Comments | Post Comment
Bravo!You hit the nail on the head with your article.High time somebody took that mother to task.I pray the kid is thrown out of her t.v show.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Maya Nagin
Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:56 AM
Leave it to Susan to write the truth with her usual flair and wit. Thanks, Susan, for your wonderful column.
Comment: #2
Posted by: sandra clarke
Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:26 PM
This is the first time I've read anything by Susan Estrich, so it's a shame that in the first few sentences of her column dealing with fertility rates in the U.S. she made a mistake that any smart freshman in college should be able to catch. The "fertility rate" which allows a population to reproduce itself is not 2.0 (children per women), as she reports. The official figure is 2.1, due to the fact that a small percentage of children never reach adulthood. Anyone can make a mistake, but wouldn't you expect a journalist to check her facts before sending them out --and thus misinforming-- thousands of readers? It's a responsibility and credibility issue.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Joe David
Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:37 AM
This is the first time I've read Susan Estrich and it's a shame she gets a fact wrong in her first paragraph. A society does not reproduce itself when every woman has two children as she reports. The correct figure is 2.1, which she cites as the current level of children per woman in the U.S.

The difference is due to the fact that a small percentage of children never make it into adulthood. This, for American couples to reproduce themselves they need to produce on average 2.1 children per household.

Anyone can make a mistake. But journalists have a special responsibility to inform themselves correctly, as what they send out may be read by thousands of people, and influence their views. In this instance, Estrich has mis-educated thousands of people.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Joe David
Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:42 AM
I heard Susan on the Hannity show and was very impressed. I am equally impressed with this article. We can now add that the father of Jamie's baby may be guilty of felony statutory rape. Our children continue to grow up alarmingly fast and no one seems to care about it. But Hollywood and the entertainment industry will continue to fund their right to influence youth and take no responsibility for it.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Jack Robert
Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:43 AM
Go Susan !!! In the case of Britney and Jamie-Lynn ; WHERE are the christian parents ??? LOL. My grandchildren are the most beautiful beings I have EVER seen. If you don't have grandchildren, just wait its pure joy.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Jerry G.
Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:51 PM
Being a Christian fan and ultra conservative Fox watcher I never thought Susan Estrich would ever say anything I could agree with, but her column re Jamie Lynn was great!! I hope, even though a Jew, she believes what she wrote.
Comment: #7
Posted by: charles putnam
Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:11 AM
I love the the "Christian Parent" mantra heard all over the media and now with Spears book. There are many racial and religious groups that revere and care for their children. And as a Jewish Mother, I can back up this statement.
The Spear family are "users" of their children, have eaten off of and luxuriated in the stardom, money and spotlight.
Now that each of these "Christian" girls have fallen off the media grace, the Mother is still scratching for some momentum to line her pockets. Thank you for the astute commentary. But I think we should all back off and let this family go into hibernation. And while they are out of the spotlight, I would advise they all go see a group therapist together.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Joyce Zukerman
Tue Dec 25, 2007 7:58 AM
I am a conservative. I admire Susan from watching her on Fox News. Because of this I read her article off of Drudge on the Spears family. I really will never understand how liberals can see such imorality for example in the Spears family and miss the whole point on Bill Clinton. Wonder if ole Bill influenced any of our young people with his conduct?
Comment: #9
Posted by: Bobby Ray
Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:27 PM
Lovely, all the compliments to your article. I myself can't seem to get past the fact that a grown adult woman referred to a CHILD as a "slut." Susan, why don't you take a deep breath the next time you find yourself attacking a high school student with high school tactics. You've had QUITE a few years since high school to figure it all out - so can't you afford to be a little more generous with a vulnerable and needy and ill guided young girl. I think your strong reaction denotes a time for introspection for you - where in your own development did you get stuck with a high school mentality that allows for verbal abuse of adolescents? My heart aches for the young girl, and there are lots of reasons, good and bad, to not bring forth a baby. I would consider avoidance of being called a "slut" publicly by grown women to be a bad reason. How many of you anti-abortion people are disparaging not the parents and authority figures in this child's life, but the CHILD herself? It is reprehensible.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Kim Pro
Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:07 PM
Susan, don't you think "slut" is a little harsh for an unsupervised sixteen-year-old impregnated by an adult? And please don't be disingenuous, good Christian parenting is no different from good Jewish parenting. Unfortunately, Jamie Lyn Spears had neither. I was lucky enough to have both, and managed not to get pregnant at sixteen. Jamie Lyn had neither and was left to her own devices and made a really bad decision that she'll have to live with. And he TV show won't fire her since they're no more concerned with her well-being that her mother is. Both are concerned about her earning ppotential.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Carole
Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:58 AM
Re: Kim Pro

You are so right. I hope Susan reads these comments.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Carole
Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:46 PM
Ms. Estrich ,you said it in your blogg ,you are not a Christian and don't have the values of a Christian. I don''T expect a Jew to understand the concept of forgiveness and turn ing the other cheek.Jews showed their values when they trumped up charges to crucify an innocent man.But I believe that people do give in to temptation !I'm sure you have many secret sins hidden that you can find the the time to criticize and throw stones .Jews are great for thowing stones!But I Think the one redemptive factorin Jamie Lynn is that this girl had the moral courage not to murder her mistake, as so many Jews would have done . Putting the onus on the victim,instead of themselves for the act.BY the way, her big sister is suffering from Bi-pola Which she is living in denial.This will soon be brought out why she acts so erratic.
Comment: #13
Posted by: ratdragon
Tue Jan 1, 2008 2:01 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Alan Reynolds
Alan ReynoldsUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Terence Jeffrey
Terence JeffreyUpdated 15 Feb 2012

13 Jul 2007 The Beauty And The Beast

25 Aug 2010 Leaving Home

20 Oct 2010 The Male Vote