The NY Times has an article today on the 'amazing' Angelina Jolie. The article marvels on how she manages her 6 children. Six is a lot (more a soccer team than a family?), but even I could handle that many if I had unlimited funds, completely flexible schedule, and nannies/maids/chauffeurs/Brad Pitt.
At 33 she occupies a rare place within Hollywood’s uppermost tier of female stars...There’s also the humanitarian activist who has served as a United Nations good-will ambassador and is now a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. And there’s her role as half of Brangelina, an unincorporated business that remains the celebrity magazine industry’s best bet for surviving the economic crisis.She has that good-will ambassadorship because she is a beautiful celebrity--NOT because she is qualified. There is an important distinction. She's no Boutros Boutros Ghali--that's for damn sure!
A dark period, when Ms. Jolie was cast as the man eater who broke up Mr. Pitt’s marriage to Jennifer Aniston during the production of the 2005 caper "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," is behind her.She was not 'cast' as a man eater--she was in fact a home wrecker. There was no role or play-acting there. She destroyed a marriage. I have no sympathy for this. The soft wording in the Times article enraged me.
Recently she and Mr. Pitt auctioned off pictures of themselves with their newborn twins to People and Hello! magazines, raising an astonishing $14 million for their charity, the Jolie-Pitt Foundation.Does is really make it better that she exploits her children for good causes? Personally, I think that there is no excuse for this.
I think that idol worship is stupid, but aren't there any better role models out there? Real women (part of Palin's real America, I imagine) struggle everyday to make a living, support their families, and survive.
Jolie is a fraud. She's not a mother, but rather a marketing ploy. Well done advertisers. We bought the magazine, but we don't buy that she's the real thing.