"It IS progress that Demi Moore posed naked and pregnant on the cover of Vanity Fair, and that it is now socially acceptable to be an unwed mother."

The problem that I have with the celeb pregnancy culture is that it misleads everyday people - my comment addresses the second half of this comment (that it's socially acceptable to be an unwed mother). It's all fine and well to be an unwed or single celebrity mom. These women have plenty of money and support and make it look easy. In the real world, though, it is extraordinarily difficult for a parent (more often than not the mom) making a low-to-middling salary to support children on his or her own. I do a lot of legal advocacy for people on public assistance in NYC. The waiting rooms at these places are invariably filled with women who are struggling mightily to raise children without a father's logistic, financial, or emotional support.

Sure, we should all be able to separate fantasy from reality and acknolwedge our own financial limitations. However, I resent the glamourization of single/unwed motherhood when it is so difficult for the average woman to do the same in the current climate. Like it or not, marriage provides protections and accountability for parents and women should think long and hard about the difficulties of raising a child while unwed - single or not.

Want to add that I'm a liberal Democrat and not some weird pro-marriage conservative. I do, however, also think people need to dwell in reality and protect themselves and their children.

In the last month and a half, exactly half of the articles in the Life Section have been about celebrities (excluding Cary Tennis).

This ridiculous one;

Janis Joplin;

Courtney Love;

Ugly Betty;

Madonna;

Rachel Ray;

Stephen Baldwin;

and two Suri articles back to back!

Why isn't this nonsense in the A&E section?

All this hysteria is just a further manifestation of people's psycho compulsions about fame and the elite few who possess it. For a sad but increasing number of Americans, especially, the fascination with the progeny of the stars is just an extension of long-held fascinations with their homes, their clothes and their cars. It's all a sorry reminder that, left with the choice between finding some kind of meaning in one's own life vs. fixating enviously on the good fortunes of a priveleged few, soulless people everywhere will go for the latter. Sad, sad, sad.

The celebrity-obsessed culture of ours has a big affect on the lives of regular moms. No, they don't exactly say "I'm going to be just like Michelle Pfiffer or Reese Witherspoon" but the cumulative effect of the publicity machine pressures mothers, even if it is subconcsiously. If you are a mother, you must be a) sexy (that body bounced back in 6 weeks! b) in love with parenting every minute of the day c) capable of working a 40 hour week and still coming home smiley and happy and d) so energetic you have time to please your man!

This is the message we get from celebrities. Unfortunately, I know a couple of men who told their wives they needed to be skinny and not complain about motherhood, since every minute is glorious. Where are they learning this, Britney Spears? Julia Roberts has twins and she's skinny and gorgeous and (of course) puts her kids above her career. They say money does not buy happiness, but let's face it, for most Americans the ability to have a staff of 3 people and enough money not to live paycheck to paycheck would dramatically change our lives.

I would like Salon to publish an article about Canada's maternity and paternity leave. If American fathers and mothers knew how bad we have it...They get over a year. Paid! Both parents! And of course we know what they get in Europe....Here you have a drive-by birth and take off six or eight weeks, or if you can make it work, take the unpaid Family & Medical Leave that we are supposed to be so thrilled about. Unpaid leave. Fabulous. Thanks America. At least we are "more productive" than the French. That's what I'll be thinking on my deathbed.

Thank you Salon, for publishing a no-holds barred attack on the celebrity pregnancy/baby racket. I think this is exactly the kind of thing Salon should publish when it comments on the world of celebrity-dom.

I like the tone of the article because it is true criticism. I, like the author, am not saying that the women who get little foreign babies do not love them, but it is a lot like the hot new handbag.

And the pregnancy watch is troubling. Yes, they play with it for publicity sake; but no, it's not really our business. So when I see a picture of Jennifer Lopez with an arrow pointing to a suspected "bump" I cringe. Who is buying these magazines? Someone must be if they are that prevalent.

I also gag every time I heard a celebrity talking about how ordinary their lives are, how down to earth they are. This is nothing but a shrewd calculation. Brad and Angelina know what they are doing. They could have had their baby privately in L.A. Going to Namibia had zero to do with privacy--it in fact ENSURED that they would be on the covers of magazines and in the news every day until the baby is born.

And now, ever since the two hooked up, America does not go a single day without knowing their whereabouts. It's freaky. It's like Brangelina are our security blanket. Every day we learn that Brad bought his son a toy; then bodyguards are arrested; then they take a boat ride. When they leave India you can be sure that the tabloids will tell us that they landed in L.A., complete with pictures. The next day we will find out what house they are in...and on, and on, while our world careens toward catastrophic climate change that will kill us all. Bread and circuses.