Everyone was quick to jump all over Gwyneth Paltrow for her idiotic statements about how difficult her life is compared to the rest of the world. At first I thought I have no right to comment because I don't have children. Then I thought I felt a little sad for her for being so "sheltered" that she can't get out of her own way. Then I reframed the problem and realized she is a bigger douche than I originally thought. You see, she has a choice to be ignorant of the rest of the world and what brought this into perspective was another idiotic move by a more "common" person, Rachel Canning. I didn't cut this girl any slack and she at least has the naivety of youth.
Rachel Canning is the spoiled teenage girl who wanted to see a boyfriend who may or may not be bad for her, but bottom line, her parents didn't like. She moved out of the house in a fit of rage and then turned around to sue her parents to continue to pay for her private school. This sense of entitlement plagues our entire population lately. The thought that you could defy your parents, move out on your own and then expect them to still pay for your existence is laughable. It is a sheer exercise in not understanding the basic facts surrounding "consequences for one's actions."
You do have rights, you do have choices and you must deal with the CONSEQUENCES of those choices. Move out, see the boy, figure out how to pay for your existence. You aren't owed anything in this world accept the right to live. Not the right to live in the glorious style you are accustomed to. Just ask anyone who has lost it all, there are no promises of future wealth or status here. How many times did Mickey Rooney go bankrupt?
Gwyneth seems to suffer from the same lack of reality. You see she grew up in a Hollywood home. She knows no other life. She has never wanted for anything so the idea of children going to bed hungry is nothing more than some sort of Sally Struthers infomercial. I understand her statement was probably meant to say her "relationship with her husband would be easier with a more consistent schedule." Problem with that or any of the statements she made, she works by CHOICE. If she really felt her life was lacking and she put her marriage above all else she could have stopped working at any time. There is enough money in those coffers to last an average person 10 lifetimes. You are not a victim of circumstance, you are a victim of poor life choices. You reap what you sew.
Neither of these situations address the sheer tiredness of parents and the amount that they have to balance. Women were further insulted as they don't often work by choice but rather out of necessity. They don't miss school events because they are making multi-million dollar paychecks, they do so because if they don't they might not be able to pay the rent, feed their kids or buy them a new pair of shoes. And please, don't blame the 140 character limit on Twitter, Gwyneth's stupid knows no character restriction.
As for Rachel Canning, she is definitely the victim of her youth coupled with access to a lawyer, a bad combination. If Gwyneth had bothered to consult with someone, probably just about ANYONE, they would have told her the comments were a really bad idea. On the other hand, Rachel got advice from an incredibly stupid lawyer who plays to the "entitlement" factor. As a country I ask that we please get back to a sense of reality. A sense of saving for what you want, not needing the new thing at every corner and understanding the value of our relationships. We are destined to fail if we keep along the path we are on, stuff doesn't fall out of the sky and a little work never hurt anyone!
For a great response from a working mother go to Crazy Days and Nights.
No comments:
Post a Comment