Now that I'm back in Melbourne and quite literally melting on the first day of the new year, perhaps it's only appropriate to celebrate the 10 best moments in celeb pregnancy in 2007:
10) Lily Allen: luckily avoided tabloid spectacle for her unplanned, out-of-wedlock pregnancy as a result of making her announcement at the same time as even bigger trainwreck, Jamie Lynn Spears (we'll get to her later). Announced just yesterday she will not be adding a maternity line to her new collection of clothing as it would send a 'bad message' to young girls.
9) Halle Berry: having wanted a baby for as long as anyone can remember and after a string of loser husbands, Halle is finally pregnant to a man who is quite possibly more beautiful than she. How's that for revenge?
8) Bridget Moynahan: made the mistake of getting knocked up at the same time she and Patriots frontman Tom Brady were just calling it quits. He shacked up with Brazillian supermodel Giselle Bundchen and Bridget ended up popping out his baby alone. The word on the street is she 'bounced back' so quickly just to show him what he was missing (I assume that's in addition to being a responsible father?)
7) Jennifer Lopez: played the 'I'm not pregnant' game for longer than anyone was willing to withstand and as a result, even I lost interest. 'Freaking out' over having gained 50lbs to date according to the latest Internet rumours, J.Lo is either have twins or a small mammal (I'm guessing it's twins, so why don't you just tell us already?!)
6) Christina Aguilera: same deal, feigned non-pregnancy for too long only to bust out naked and knocked up for Marie Claire magazine this month. *Yawn* Last I heard she has scheduled a caesar for the first week of January because pushing just isn't her thing.
5) Milla Jovovich: is there anything more delicious than seeing a waifish stick-figure model gain upwards of 70lbs in a single pregnancy? Milla literally ate her way through 9 months of baby-growing and has not appeared in many photos since in the birth of her daughter.
4) Jessica Alba: international sex symbol gone maternal and marrying a guy named 'Cash'. Seriously, I hope they don't name the new baby 'Money'.
3) Britney Spears: was not pregnant but 'accused' of pregnancy so many times in 2007 we might as well include her on the list. Dealt with dysfunction, K-Fed, and the loss of custody of her children. No wonder she decided to shave her head, attack a paparazzo with an umbrella and get kicked out of almost every decent hotel in Beverly Hills.
2) Nicole Richie: formerly drug addicted, eating disordered and struggling with family dysfunction, hooks up with tattooed rocker and does complete 180. Starts eating, becomes the poster child of good motherhood and reignites her friendship wth Paris Hilton. Need I say more?
1) Jamie Lynn Spears: 16 years old and shares the same genes with Britney Spears. Priceless.
'Mandatory' HIV testing during pregnancy
New Jersey has recently made it law that all pregnant women must be tested for HIV with the hope of making the test as 'routine as ultrasound' (and you all know what I think about ultrasound already). The testing is 'mandatory' as it is in a number of states and will be active in six months. Illinois and New York already require HIV testing for newborns. According to the new law, women will only be permitted to refuse testing on the basis of religious reasons. “Early detection is the key,” Senator Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat from Bergen County who sponsored the bill, said in a statement. “This measure is a huge step forward in terms of protecting all babies while helping to educate mothers.”
I have a huge problem with this new scheme. No one wants to see babies infected with HIV (or mothers for that fact), however, this new bill seriously impacts upon pregnant women's autonomy and is tantamount to the same issues of fetal rights American women have been experiencing since Roe v. Wade. Whilst testing is referred to as the best step in preventing the spread of maternal-fetal HIV transmission, American lawmakers have not fully thought out the implications of testing and treatment. In essence, this method of umbrella testing is incomplete treatment. Once women have the information that they are HIV positive for example, what happens next? Is the New Jersey state government going to spring for retroviral drugs? If the baby is born with HIV as well will the medical costs be covered?
Women who are forced to be tested will not necessarily seek out treatment on their own and cannot be forced to be treated for the disease or to take special precautions against transmitting the disease during pregnancy to the fetus. So what is the point of mandatory testing? In fact, forced testing, like forced treatment, is medical intervention without consent. A study in Michigan (where testing is also mandatory) examining the effects of the new law found that "fewer than half of the women felt very comfortable refusing testing, and one in five did not feel at all comfortable refusing HIV testing." Women who were unemployed, had fewer contacts with the health care system, and were younger were still less comfortable refusing the test. In Arkansas, which also has an opt-out testing program that doesn't require written consent, another study found that "16% of women tested did not even know that they had been tested for HIV." This is a serious problem for all women let alone minority groups, women who do not speak English and poor women with limited access to quality medical care.
I am not necessarily disputing the public health benefit in diagnosing the mother, but in the possibility of preventing infection outright in the fetus. But establishing a right for the fetus to have the mother tested is very scary. "Testing during pregnancy, labor or right after birth, tests the woman's status, not the baby's, and thus should only be done with her informed consent - it shouldn't be mandatory," observes Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU in North Carolina. "We would far prefer legislative efforts to increase access to comprehensive prenatal care - including HIV testing - during pregnancy, at a time when the woman can make informed decisions about her health, can choose to take certain medications during pregnancy, and can arrange ahead of time to have a C-section to reduce the risk of transmission." And the New Jersey bill, ACLU chapter executive director Deborah Jacobs, argues, "needlessly sacrifices the rights of women and parents" and "deprives women of their moral authority to make decisions for themselves and for children."
If such programs are to be introduced, continuing medical care, including highly active antiretroviral therapy, must be provided and pregnant women must have reasonable alternatives to compulsory testing and treatment.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/nyregion/27hiv.html?ref=nyregion
I have a huge problem with this new scheme. No one wants to see babies infected with HIV (or mothers for that fact), however, this new bill seriously impacts upon pregnant women's autonomy and is tantamount to the same issues of fetal rights American women have been experiencing since Roe v. Wade. Whilst testing is referred to as the best step in preventing the spread of maternal-fetal HIV transmission, American lawmakers have not fully thought out the implications of testing and treatment. In essence, this method of umbrella testing is incomplete treatment. Once women have the information that they are HIV positive for example, what happens next? Is the New Jersey state government going to spring for retroviral drugs? If the baby is born with HIV as well will the medical costs be covered?
Women who are forced to be tested will not necessarily seek out treatment on their own and cannot be forced to be treated for the disease or to take special precautions against transmitting the disease during pregnancy to the fetus. So what is the point of mandatory testing? In fact, forced testing, like forced treatment, is medical intervention without consent. A study in Michigan (where testing is also mandatory) examining the effects of the new law found that "fewer than half of the women felt very comfortable refusing testing, and one in five did not feel at all comfortable refusing HIV testing." Women who were unemployed, had fewer contacts with the health care system, and were younger were still less comfortable refusing the test. In Arkansas, which also has an opt-out testing program that doesn't require written consent, another study found that "16% of women tested did not even know that they had been tested for HIV." This is a serious problem for all women let alone minority groups, women who do not speak English and poor women with limited access to quality medical care.
I am not necessarily disputing the public health benefit in diagnosing the mother, but in the possibility of preventing infection outright in the fetus. But establishing a right for the fetus to have the mother tested is very scary. "Testing during pregnancy, labor or right after birth, tests the woman's status, not the baby's, and thus should only be done with her informed consent - it shouldn't be mandatory," observes Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU in North Carolina. "We would far prefer legislative efforts to increase access to comprehensive prenatal care - including HIV testing - during pregnancy, at a time when the woman can make informed decisions about her health, can choose to take certain medications during pregnancy, and can arrange ahead of time to have a C-section to reduce the risk of transmission." And the New Jersey bill, ACLU chapter executive director Deborah Jacobs, argues, "needlessly sacrifices the rights of women and parents" and "deprives women of their moral authority to make decisions for themselves and for children."
If such programs are to be introduced, continuing medical care, including highly active antiretroviral therapy, must be provided and pregnant women must have reasonable alternatives to compulsory testing and treatment.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/nyregion/27hiv.html?ref=nyregion
Pregnant with Christmas cheer
What better way to celebrate Christmas than with another (semi) naked and pregnant celebrity?Yulia Volkova of the controversial Russian girl group, Tatu, poses with Lena Katina clad only in a bra and undies for the Russian version of Maxim.
"We have many girls are using pregnancy as an excuse to look worse — as if it were a disease," Volkova told Maxim. "A pregnant girl can be sexual!"
How's that for a stocking stuffer?
Source: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=339969
Maternity fashion advice for Jamie-Lynn
Apparently the doyenne of fashionable American maternity wear, Liz Lange had this to say to People about Jamie Lynn and dressing up her bump:"She's a young girl, so I would want to keep [her look] innocent."
Um. Right. She's clearly had sex and she's pregnant. What part of 'innocent' should she be trying to pull off?
"I think little cute dresses and jeans with tight-fitting tee shirts. ... She's 16, and I'd like to see her look her age. Britney was into cowboy boots with little dresses. That was her style. I'd like to see Jamie Lynn go a little plainer. [No] belly baring for her!"
I find these comments so bizarre, especially coming from a woman that made the pregnant belly the centrepiece of a maternity outfit. Lange's comments are almost shockingly incongruous with the veritably oppressive cultural enticements for pregnant women to dress like walking sex. I mean pregnancy is the most 'sexed' state of being a woman can embody in her lifetime. A pregnant belly is visible evidence that you have had sex. Just because Jamie Lynn is sixteen why is there still a sentiment that someone should be trying to protect her from the big, bad world of sex when she's already been a happy customer long enough to get knocked up? 'Looking her age' suggests that Jamie Lynn should be trying to re-capture the virginal status that is so often attributed to 'respectable' young women. The comment about 'no belly baring' similarly suggests that the exposure of her sixteen year old body would be too sexual, even though she is telling everyone she has had sex just by virtue of being pregnant!
Moral panic surrounding JL Spears
Well, from last glance, there are no less than 1,542 news items devoted to the Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy 'shock' today. After a good 24 hours of critical thinking time, I am pretty appalled by the world's reaction (and even my own) to this young woman's pregnancy. This morning as I ate my toast, every breakfast show devoted at least two segments to 'How To Talk To Your Kids About Sex' as if the appearance of a pregnant 16 year old would induce thousands of 'innocent' teenagers to drop their drawers, find a partner, and start having illegitimate children as if teen pregnancy is a new phenomenon. Last year alone, there were 800,000 babies born to teen mothers in America.
Jamie Lynn is just more famous and a very rich version of the average pregnant teen. I take umbrage that the media has positioned this woman as a 'bad role model' as if she signed up for being a 'good role model' simply by virtue of playing a popular character on a wholesome kids show. The fact that Spears has been sort of forced to say this baby was made irresponsibly and that she didn't make the right decision is very sad for the baby who undoubtedly will grow up one day and find out that he/she was a 'mistake'.
Then I came across a number of news articles that were really shocking. As she is technically underage and her pregnancy legally considered a result of 'statutory rape' the internet rumour mill is buzzing with suggestions that her 18yr old boyfriend could be charged despite the fact that the sex they have clearly been engaging in is most likely consensual. Whether or not these charges are actionable remains to be seen, however, the very suggestion that Spears is a 'victim' of a predatory 'older' man is absolutely ridiculous. There is a thriving moral panic surrounding chastity and virginity when it comes to young women and I find it really hypocritical that allegations of rape are thrown around when it comes to a young woman but when young men engage in sex with older women (as in all of those cases with young boys and their female teachers) everyone cheers him on for the 'stud' that he supposedly is. Similarly, as much as mother Lynn Spears has had a rocky relationship with Britney and the press, the suggestion that Jamie Lynn's pregnancy is the direct result of her 'bad' parenting is unfair. Why doesn't Dad get slammed for failing to preach the virtues of chastity?
Whilst undeniably everyone agrees that becoming a parent at sixteen is less than ideal, we all have to keep in mind that these young celebrities are living in a pretty fast paced world filled with sex, drugs, a whole heap of money and a lot of rock n' roll. Jamie Lynn may be 16, but she's not stupid and surely knows how to take care of herself. If she feels old enough to be in a committed relationship with her boyfriend (who she met at Church!) who are we to say that she will be the epitome of 'bad mother'.
The best thing to come out of this strange situation? At least all of Jamie-Lynn's bad press is giving Britney a much-deserved break.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/19/viacom-jamie-spears-face-markets-cx_er_1219markets01.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/19/spears.statutory.rape/?iref=mpstoryview
Jamie Lynn is just more famous and a very rich version of the average pregnant teen. I take umbrage that the media has positioned this woman as a 'bad role model' as if she signed up for being a 'good role model' simply by virtue of playing a popular character on a wholesome kids show. The fact that Spears has been sort of forced to say this baby was made irresponsibly and that she didn't make the right decision is very sad for the baby who undoubtedly will grow up one day and find out that he/she was a 'mistake'.
Then I came across a number of news articles that were really shocking. As she is technically underage and her pregnancy legally considered a result of 'statutory rape' the internet rumour mill is buzzing with suggestions that her 18yr old boyfriend could be charged despite the fact that the sex they have clearly been engaging in is most likely consensual. Whether or not these charges are actionable remains to be seen, however, the very suggestion that Spears is a 'victim' of a predatory 'older' man is absolutely ridiculous. There is a thriving moral panic surrounding chastity and virginity when it comes to young women and I find it really hypocritical that allegations of rape are thrown around when it comes to a young woman but when young men engage in sex with older women (as in all of those cases with young boys and their female teachers) everyone cheers him on for the 'stud' that he supposedly is. Similarly, as much as mother Lynn Spears has had a rocky relationship with Britney and the press, the suggestion that Jamie Lynn's pregnancy is the direct result of her 'bad' parenting is unfair. Why doesn't Dad get slammed for failing to preach the virtues of chastity?
Whilst undeniably everyone agrees that becoming a parent at sixteen is less than ideal, we all have to keep in mind that these young celebrities are living in a pretty fast paced world filled with sex, drugs, a whole heap of money and a lot of rock n' roll. Jamie Lynn may be 16, but she's not stupid and surely knows how to take care of herself. If she feels old enough to be in a committed relationship with her boyfriend (who she met at Church!) who are we to say that she will be the epitome of 'bad mother'.
The best thing to come out of this strange situation? At least all of Jamie-Lynn's bad press is giving Britney a much-deserved break.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/19/viacom-jamie-spears-face-markets-cx_er_1219markets01.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/19/spears.statutory.rape/?iref=mpstoryview
A new generation of Spears calamity
Just when I thought the world of pregnancy was getting a bit dull, as I walked in the door from my 12km run this morning, my ears perked up with the news that Jamie Lynn Spears, our Brit's 16 year old sister, is knocked up. The father is her 19 year old boyfriend. Spears told People:
"It was a shock for both of us, so unexpected," Jamie Lynn told OK!, according to the Associated Press. "I was in complete and total shock and so was he."
Ya think?
Holy cow. Hasn't anyone in this godforsaken country heard of birth control? I mean 16! SIXTEEN!! Apparently, Brit Jr. is 12 weeks pregnant and she told her parents right before Thanksgiving. One wonders what will happen to her hit show Zoey 101. As I've said in response to Juno, teen pregnancy has never been a paradigm for emulation. Not that Jamie Lynn should be ashamed, but why would you go and blab to Ok! magazine considering all of the crap Britney has gone through with regard to motherhood? On the other hand, if Jamie Lynn is really happy about being pregnant, it's pretty crap that every news agency is slamming her for being irresponsible.
In other news...wait for it...Lily Allen is pregnant.The 22-year-old "Smile" singer has been dating the Chemical Brothers' Ed Simons, 37, since September. "As the pregnancy is at a very, very early stage, the couple ask that you respect their privacy," her rep said in a statement. "The couple will be making no further comment but they are obviously both thrilled by the news."
J.Lo goes underground from fear of 'fat'
Apparently, J.Lo is 'freaking out' over her pregnancy weight gain. Due to give birth in early spring, a 'source' says:"She is huge and freaking out. Her face has become really puffy from retaining a lot of water."
So worried about losing her looks, the actress/singer has decided to put her career on hold and 'do a Victoria Beckham', hiding out at home until the baby is born. Beckham, as you may know, is notorious for having caesars at 8 months to stem weight gain and to give herself more time to 'bounce back'.
When I read this, I realised something. When was the last time we heard about or saw pictures of Nicole Richie, Halle Berry or Christina Aguilera*, all of whom are due to give birth in the near future?
Whereas hundreds of news items were devoted to the pregnancies of these women (including J.Lo) for many weeks, as each woman waddles closer to her due date, her appearances in public becoming increasingly few and far between. Why?
As seemingly comfortable we are with the visibly pregnant belly and as marketable as pregnancy is for a number of celebrities, the appearance of a 'monstrous' pregnant stomach is still anathema to the heterosexual appeal these women typically embody when they are not pregnant. Despite a culture that loves a good pregnancy or celebrity wedding story, the 8-9 months pregnant celeb is not fodder for 'sexy' cover photos. As in the feminist philosophical tradition, the heavily pregnant woman is abject, swollen, 'leaky', monstrous, and even 'grotesque' as she transitions into motherhood.
As Christina (we're clearly on a first name basis by now) and Halle Berry were happy to be photographed with a cute little protuberance, a heavily pregnant belly is more inconvenient than irresistible. It is no wonder that J.Lo is afraid of monstrousity given her career as a Latina icon with an amazing arse; now she is allegedly pregnant with twins (double the weight gain in half the time). Pregnancy is a time when the taut, tight idealised feminine body is challenged; many of these celebrity women are surely anxious about having/being a body that is seemingly uncontrollable and 'chaotic'. Cultural standards of female beauty are particularly daunting for any woman that is not pregnant; now we know that these same standards apply to pregnant women and are even more vociferously enforced post-baby.
*obviously Christina is on the cover of Marie Claire this month, but the photo shoot was done months ago when her body was more contained.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)