Julia Roberts almost sounds like she just got out of Relief Society. Having given birth to three kids, Roberts says:
“My dream is to be a highly fulfilled and productive stay-at-home mom and wife,” the Oscar-winning actress tells Vanity Fair magazine. “The highest high would be growing our food that I then make, and then composting and growing more — that kind of circle.”
It’s nice to see a Hollywood mom concentrating on her family. It’s also nice to see her echoing the statements of recent prophets, seers and revelators on the importance of growing your own food.
It strikes me that she may catch some flak from others in Hollywood for not being supportive of working women. It seems like there are really two separate issues here: what Julia Roberts decides is best for her family and what she feels about the issue of working mothers and wives. I don’t know how she feels about the other issue. Earning up to $20 million per movie probably makes it a lot easier to decide to stay at home for a few years.
My personal take is that women, including Mormon women, do not need to be “stay-at-home Moms” to be good mothers and wives. My wife has decided to be a “stay-at-home Mom” for now but she will likely go back to work when our kids are older. I’d be willing to bet Julia Roberts makes the same decision in a few years.
It’s hard for me to think about Julia Roberts as anything but a feminist hussy. By “stay-at-home” she probably means doing yoga while her staff of nannies takes care of the kids. This may sound strange coming from a conservative Republican, but I think most uber-rich people don’t have a friggin’ clue about raising children or life in general. I doubt Julia ever has or ever will till a garden or eat anything from it.
That’s the key right there to Julia Roberts’ motive. She CAN afford to stay at home and be a stay-at-home mom.
Tossman,
I think you need to read up on the “uber-rich” and their family values, frankly. They may not be tilling gardens, but they sure do have the welfare of their children at mind. That’s why the “uber-rich” send their children to the best private schools in the nation, ensuring they go to Harvard, and getting the plush job on Wall Street. They’ve got the secret to life down, my man.
Yep, a secret that this blue-collar family man would love to learn!
I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss her opinions just because she’s rich and famous. She’s also human and surely loves her family just as much as a poor woman would.
I’ve always been a stay at home mom and I believe it’s a good way to be. It’s worked for us, the few times I have worked for extra cash have not gone well for the organization of our house. One time was after all the kids left home and everybody complained because they couldn’t find me.
Our neighborhood used to be all stay at home moms, now it’s mostly working mothers and I do think the kids suffer.
While some women can maintain a home and are better for it, many can’t. On the other hand, if all the women quit (like if the Taliban came here) we’d be hard pressed for essential services in our communities.
Not a black and white issue. Or a rich and poor issue, or famous and insigificant issue. It’s a human issue.
You tell ’em, annegb!! 🙂
good thing the taliban ain’t comin’ here, eh?
annegb, I agree with you that it’s best for the family if the mother can stay at home. I work several jobs so that my wife can do just that. I have several sisters and sisters in law- some that stay at home and others that don’t. I can see a definite difference. I know that makes some women angry, but it is what it is.
I can totally understand those times when the mother simply must work, and I can understand that it’s not the funnest thing in the world for the the wife be a mommy 24/7. But I do think it works best with the wife at home, and families should strive to be in that situation whenever possible, whatever their career dreams or desires.
My point with rich people is that they are detached from reality. reality, for 99% of the rest of us humans on this earth, is that most everything depends on money or means to provide. It’s a constant in our lives, whether we like it or not. I don’t make money, I can’t feed my kids, dress them, or put a roof over their head. So I go about my day the same way the rest of us do, with my job as provider constantly at the forefront.
The uber-rich, however they got that way, go through life without the money factor influencing what they’ll eat, where they’ll live, what they’ll drive, how they’ll spend their day. Sure they’re humans and are subject to the rest of human emotion. But they lack the one component that bleeds into most of those emotions for the rest of the world- that worry about being able to provide.
Regardless of what work they may have done to become wealthy, the fact that they are now wealthy means that they currently don’t have to worry about the main thing the rest of humanity has to worry about. They can sympathize, but there’s a detachment.
To somebody like Julia Roberts, being a stay-at-home mom is a fun idea, something to try or not try for a while without risk or damage, and with the safety net of expert staff. My wife gets absolutely pissed every time she hears of some celebrity talking about being a stay-at-home mom.
Still, it is refreshing to hear her view. She was born a Southern girl, so despite her current wealth, she probably was raised right. Her mom probably was a great mom. Otherwise it doesn’t seem likely that she would respect the role of motherhood as apparently she does.
PS Why is there always a hint of jealousy when people comment on the wealthy?
It’s called class envy. It’s my only liberal tendency.
Actually, I don’t mind wealthy people. I Just can’t stand celebrities and celebrity worship. I never got a job from a poor man, and I respect the hard work it (sometimes) takes to acquire wealth. It’s when the wealthy spout political or social opinions that blood shoots out of my eyes.
Why can’t Julia Roberts choose to stay home with her kids because she loves them and thinks it’s the right thing to do? It doesn’t seem to be a passing phase.
There are a lot of responsible parents among the rich. Also a lot of crappy ones.
But you know, I just visited a kid in jail whose mother has stayed home and they’re poor and he’s no better for it. Having, HAVING, to work and worry about it isn’t any more a mearsure of character than having tons of money. Which I always tell God He could trust me to be charitable, but He doesn’t seem to care about that.
I wish money weren’t an issue with us, either, Tossman. We robbed Peter to pay Paul, went without ourselves so our kids could have the things they needed (although I refused to buy them a Barbie jeep and they’ve never forgotten it). I know what it’s like to worry about money.
Still, Utah’s governor’s wife is rich, the Huntsmans are loaded. I don’t hear anybody griping about her being able to “have fun” for awhile because she’s home with her kids.
We should be applauding those public figures who choose to do the right thing by their families. Even Angelina Jolie, who I think is a little crazy (it takes one to know one, you see), still seems quite devoted to her kids. If she suddenly lost her money tomorrow, I think she’d still take care of them.
Britney, another story.
Yeah, perhaps we can all agree that Julia Roberts is a better role model than Britney Spears and probably than Madonna also. And being the father of two pre-teen girls, I can tell you that celebrity role models do matter. I wish it weren’t like that, but they do matter.
Didn’t Julia give hope to prostitutes everywhere? She’s such an inspiration.
Tossman,
Because the wealthy don’t have the right to political or social opinions? Or because somehow their wealth eliminated the soundness of their political and social opinions? Or because they disagree with you?
Seriously. I often laugh at political opinions of celebrities because, often, their opinions are ill- or misinformed. Then again, often the opinions of noncelebrities are poor or misinformed. (And are you conflating wealth and celebrity?)
But you have to remember, she’s just a girl, standing in front of a garden, asking it to harvest.
Tossman,
I gotta call you on that again, Tossman. I really think you need to actually study the lives of the “uber-rich” before you say something which is not true. The generalizations in your comment don’t help either. The rich detached from reality? What reality? They have to rely on money and means also to survive. The difference between you and them is not the money or means, but how much money they have. They still have to actually pay for the things they have in their lives. Julia Roberts, in this particular case, worked very hard to get where she is at. I actually know few “uber-rich” who don’t work tirelessly to make money. (The royal family of Britain—and other royal families in Europe would be excellent examples of people not working hard). I’m currently reading Ron Chernow’s excellent biography of John Rockefeller, for example, and let me tell you, that man worked hard most of his life, provided for his family, and raised his family in his Baptist faith. That’s just one example.
Why is it wrong for the wealthy to speak out on political or social issues? You said yourself they were human with regular human emotions. Why can’t their words be taken at the same value as the “working class?”
Sam B., number 2.
They have the right to their opinions and they have the right to express them. I just hate when they pretend they’re regular people. I may value George Clooney’s advice on acting or making it in the business. I value a rich man’s opinion on how to get rich. I don’t value his opinion on much else whether I agree with it or not, because he’s not looking at life through the same lens that you and I are.
Doesn’t mean it’s not a valid opinion. It’s just the prism through which they see life degrades somewhat the soundness of their argument, at least as it relates to me.
In this case, I agree with Julia Roberts. But I pity the person looking to Julia Roberts for parenting and life advice.
Why? She’s apparently successful as a mother. Does she need to be poor in order for her views on parenting to have validation? What is wrong with asking Julia Roberts advice on mothering? I don’t see how that is more wrong than asking your neighbor the same thing.
Let me be clear that I am talking about the extremely wealthy. People with so much money they could quit working today and never have to give it a second thought for the rest of their lives. I would put many celebrities into this category, including Julia Roberts.
If Julia Roberts works, it’s because she wants to, not because she has to. Rockefeller? Great work ethic obviously, but was his livelihood dependent upon his continuing to work? No. I don’t fault somebody for working after they’ve met their family’s needs for generations to come. My priorities would be different, I think. If an uber-rich person works tirelessly to make even more money, I question their sanity. What a waste of a life.
No, I haven’t devoted much time to the study of the uber-rich, Dan, for pete’s sake (other than listening to Rush Limbaugh periodically and following the Clintons).
I’m talking about the stress of making ends meet and the mindset that comes with it. It’s a mindset that most of us share and that shapes reality for most people on this planet.
Dan the Democrat defending the Rich. This is awesome.
Movie stars have a lot of people’s attention.
Therefore, you could argue they have an obligation to champion causes they believe in. Shutting up, making your money and staying out of the spotlight is to squander a public good. If a celebrity can draw attention to autism, or humanitarian crises, shouldn’t they do it?
I suspect it’s more the fact that they are championing the “wrong causes” Tossman that gets your goat, more than the mere fact that they are championing causes.
I value the opinions of somebody who knows what they are talking about. I do not feel most celebrities have an earthly clue about what they opine (i.e., actors and musicians telling me who to vote for, etc.). I think celebrities should carefully consider the impact their statements may have on their fans.
Seth, you would be wrong. In this case I agree with the opinion stated. Still gets my goat. I agree with most of Bono’s causes, but I still think he’s a pompous windbag. And when Rush Limbaugh tries to tell me about family values, I want to puke.
I’d like to be ultra wealthy one day. And when I do, I won’t expect any of you little people to value any of my opinions.
(Note: this comment is very far from the original topic, but it seems like the topic has already shifted quite a bit)
Tossman,
I understand where you’re coming from. I also hate celebrity worship and don’t understand why people pay so much attention to what they think politically. But I also have to take issue with your generalization of uber-rich people. Do you really know Julia Roberts enough to say what you did in #1? Are you confident in your observations of rich people enough to make a personal attack based on them?
But you bring up an issue that I’ve been thinking about lately. We all have freedom of speech (in the US), but we don’t all have equal opportunity to be heard. (Speaking of blood shooting out of eyes, I can’t stand when people claim violation of freedom of speech when a TV or radio show gets cancelled. No one’s offered me a radio show!)
So my question is: If we have freedom of speech, do we have equal right to be heard? Is that really the same thing? Even if it was our right, clearly it is an unreachable ideal considering we also have freedom of the press. Should we even try to achieve it through some sort of government control of the media, or should we just let society work it out, and if society wants to listen to celebrities, leaving people like you and me to lament the state of society, then so be it?
No, we do not have equal right to be heard. For one, it is impossible, and for two, it does take away our free agency to choose whom we wish to listen to. Personally I don’t ever want to hear Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity ever again, but that’s not my choice. A large enough segment of the population want to listen to them, as bad as they are. Hey, so be it. It reflects on the listeners more than the two hosts.
Coming back to the original topic (were we ever on it?) of the question of staying at home or not, I’m a firm believer in the distinction between principle and practice. The inspired principles on the subject are laid out by the proclamation on the family. How to apply those principles is personal. It’s true that we are often guided in these decisions by church leaders, but ultimately it’s us that will be held accountable for how we choose to apply those principles, so we are obligated only to be true to what our own conscience tells use is the right thing to do for our families.
With that in mind I have no right to judge anyone for their decisions as long as they are attempting to live the principles in the proclamation (and very little right to judge in general), but for my family my wife and I have decided that she will stay home and that has worked out for us so far. My mom, however, worked part-time and I never felt like she was less of a mom because of it.
Lest anyone accuse me of being a hypocrit since I have spoken out on my own blog in favor of stay-at-home moms (not that anyone reads it), let me clarify that as a general rule I feel society is better off with more children who have the attention of one of their parents full-time, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t individual exceptions, and sometimes necessity does require that both parents work. Although that necessity, I believe, is less common than is claimed.
Geoff,
Julia would make a great Mormon. For one thing, she believes that married men should feel free to date and marry new women!
(Just kidding on the Mormon connection there; unfortunately, not kidding on her belief that she should be free to date a married man.)
Toss,
Yes, the uber-rich have somewhat different lifestyles than the rest of us; and yes, Julia is uber-rich. But extending the attack to “celebrities” in general seems overbroad.
There was a woman in my old ward who was really a celebrity. She was an actress who had won a couple of top industry awards (really), had been on the cover of TV guide, had websites dedicated to her. She wasn’t a true A-lister, though — her star was fading, and was likely to continue doing so, and she was slowly transitioning into producing rather than acting.
When we knew them, she was still doing regular TV work, some producing and some acting, and was a nice and unassuming woman with a nice family and cute kids. She wasn’t uber-rich by any stretch of the imagination, and I’m sure her income was miles from the Julia Roberts level. Her family wasn’t in the poorhouse, but they were making the same day-to-day decisions as any of the rest of us.
Dan,
You might actually enjoy Glenn Beck. If the only thing you ever read on him is from Media Matters (speaking of the uber-rich, George Soros), you probably think he’s Satan incarnate. He’s actually pretty sensible. I’m not a Hannity or Rush fan either.
Horebite, #23,
Note that I didn’t accuse Roberts of being a hussy. I’m sure she’s a perfectly moral person, but I’ve seen a few of her movies in my time, including a few of her seedier filems before I stopped watching rated R’s. It’s hard for me to see her now and think loosey goosey.
Correction, my last statement in my final post should read like this:
It’s hard for me to see her now and not think loosey goosey.
Tossman (18),
I completely agree with you that most celebrities don’t have a clue what they’re talking about a lot of the time. Of course, I don’t think that’s a situation specific to celebrities–I think most people often talk about things they don’t know about.
However . . . celebrity and wealth can get you access to information you don’t otherwise have any access to. Bono hangs with the Pope and heads of state; Angelina Jolie has spent time with Henry Kissinger. About things they have researched and spent time on, their opinion is probably of more importance and relevance than mine or yours. Dismissing a person out of hand (based on wealth, poverty, status, race, or whatever other reason) is irresponsible; so is accepting someone else’s analysis without any reservation.
As for Julia Roberts, I don’t much like her acting (much to my wife’s amazement); still, I have no doubt that she is the best mother she can be, and when she talks about wanting to spend time with her children, it’s because she wants to spend time with her children. Whether or not it’s an economic squeeze for her makes no difference as to how she feels or what she wants to do.
Wow, we’re a definitely getting off track on this post.
Can I ask anybody who wants to discuss talk radio to comment on this thread:
https://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2006/01/27/p1435
My experience is that many people who complain about individual talk show hosts have never really listened to them for an extended period of time. In the above thread, you will see that I have listened to many of them and I like some of the conservative hosts a lot and I dislike some of them immensely. But at least I have listened.
Tossman,
Nope. I cannot enjoy a man who once pondered on how he could kill Michael Moore. I cannot enjoy a man who dared question the patriotism of a newly elected Congressman simply because he was Muslim. I’m sorry, but Glenn Beck is a reprehensible man.
Sorry Geoff. I’ll keep on the subject. 🙂
Tossman, you may want to check out “Notting Hill.” One of my favorite romantic comedies. There are a few seedy PG-13 moments in the movie, but you will definitely get a new perspective on Julia Roberts.
Wow, Kaimi even visited M* and commented here! Now I know the secret to getting people to visit this blog is to create a “People Magazine of the Bloggernacle.” 🙂
I actually really liked Julia in “Runaway Bride.” Nice clean movie (I think…don’t quote me on that). I think she’s a great actress actually. My favorite work of hers is actually when she appeared on an episode of Law & Order. Excellent work. Incidentally enough, she plays a floozy in that episode.
I’m not exactly sure what the subject is here, Geoff, so it’s hard for me to stay on it. Are we talking about stay-at-home moms, celebrity role models, or Julia Roberts’ parenting skills?
I don’t like celebraties opinions either, both because I hate the majority of their political opinions and because it is ego trip more than informational. When I hear celebraties mouth off or do anything about subjects other than acting, writing, etc. all I hear is a bunch of non-thinking idiots who might have one up on selective experiences, but not knowlege. They are nothing more than PR stunt people. If you look at many of the causes they talk about, most are self-serving. They pick the most up-to-date issues or ones that first impacted them. On top of that, they often don’t educate, but pontificate and treat those who disagree with them as the worst scum imaginable. I have known politicians who have done some of the same things as celebraties and still wouldn’t trust their views.
There have been a very selective number of celebraties that I have trusted. All of them have similar qualities. They stop looking for the nearest camera (although the camera might still find them) and stop acting, writing, singing, etc. They do more than go around and talk to “influencial heads” of the moment. They actually start talking to and interacting with people of all walks of life. A great example of this is Prince Diana who visited the sick, the poor, those who went to war, or sometimes the person on the street. That said, I still didn’t trust her completely. She acted like a model who was trying to go out of her comfort zone to see the larger world, but failing to go the distance.
She loves her husband, she loves her kids. I think that’s the reality that hits many celebrities. I think they do a lot of things they regret later.
Just like the rest of us.
I sure do wish I had some of their money, though.
I was thinking (total threadjack, I’m abjectly sorry) that if all the rich people who had ten houses, all big enough to house 20 people, just lived like normal middle income people, we might not have global warming and they could use the leftover money to fund AIDS research and treatment in Africa, also hunger. There you go. The problems of the world solved.
“It strikes me that she may catch some flak from others in Hollywood for not being supportive of working women.”
I doubt it. Notice, unlike what has come from some church leaders, she is merely saying that this is what she wants to do… not saying that this is the ideal for all women.
Plus, I don’t think that that many Hollywood women are caught up in the baby-boomer second-wave feminism. It seems rather, from my observations, that most Hollywood feminists are third-wave feminists that think it is wonderful if a woman wants to embrace certain aspects of womanhood.