2021年3月6日 星期六

Hilaria Baldwin and the Strange Allure of Celebrity Fertility

Why we can't stop talking about her … whole thing.
A roundup of new guidance and stories from NYT Parenting.
Sonia Pulido

On Monday, an image broke brains across the Internet, appearing to violate the rules of space and time. Hilaria Baldwin, a fitness expert, podcast host and the wife of Alec Baldwin, posted a photo of herself with her six children, including a newborn, for her more than 900,000 Instagram followers. This sounds mundane, except that Ms. Baldwin gave birth to a different newborn in September, and as far as we know, it is not possible to gestate a full-term infant in six months. Furthermore, she told People Magazine in November that her family didn't have plans for another baby.

ADVERTISEMENT

At first, the couple declined to discuss the provenance of this additional child. (When Katie Rosman, a Times reporter, asked about it, Ms. Baldwin's publicist said, "Not sharing!") Then, reports began to surface that the couple used a surrogate for the new baby girl, which the Baldwins did not deny. On Thursday, Ms. Baldwin posted a photo of the two babies with a long caption that included the sentence, "We are living each day, bonding, and grateful for all of the very special angels who helped bring Lucía into the world," which appeared to confirm the surrogacy, but left room for more confusion.

Oh, and this comes just months after Ms. Baldwin was accused of perpetuating "a decade long grift where she impersonates a Spanish person."

If you've made it through those first few paragraphs, you may be asking yourself, "Why does anyone care about the fecundity of this famous couple?" I have asked myself that very question several times this week as I scanned Ms. Baldwin's Instagram posts, mesmerized by a video of her doing leg lifts while simultaneously entertaining one of her babies. The answer lies in America's cultural obsession with celebrity pregnancy, and the way that social media helps perpetuate unrealistic ideals of motherhood — that you can build your business, raise a passel of kids without breaking a sweat and have a "bikini body" immediately postpartum, too.

This "supermom" ideal began to emerge in celebrity media profiles during the 1980s, as part of a post-second wave feminist push to promote mothers in the work force, said Elizabeth Podnieks, a professor of English at Ryerson University in Canada, whose research focuses on motherhood in popular culture. "There was this sense that the celebrity mother was the perfect role model for contemporary women," she said. "They had these glamorous careers but were also these glamorous mothers." That there was an enormous amount of money and child care support undergirding this glamour went unspoken.

ADVERTISEMENT

The ideal went into overdrive in the early '00s, said Anne Helen Petersen, a celebrity gossip expert and the author of "Too Fat, Too Slutty, Too Loud: The Rise and Reign of the Unruly Woman." That's when tabloid magazines were competing for paparazzi photos of celebrities just living their lives, Ms. Petersen said, and the so-called "basketball" pregnancy was held up as the goal — that's when a woman's body looks otherwise unchanged by carrying a baby, save for a cute, easily adorned bump, like they swallowed a basketball.

In the early '10s, when social media became ubiquitous, stars "internalized that tabloid surveillance and took control of it themselves," Ms. Petersen said. In some ways, it was a smart move — after all, celebrity pregnancy is a big business now, and many of Ms. Baldwin's Instagram posts are sponsored content for various pregnancy and kid-related products.

But there is a dark side. "They can't escape from that lens once they turn it on themselves," Ms. Petersen said. This is something Ms. Baldwin has lamented. In an interview with The Times in December she said, "I am entitled to my privacy. People say, 'No, you're not entitled to your privacy because you married a famous person and you have Instagram.' Well, that's not really true."

Both Ms. Petersen and Dr. Podnieks find Ms. Baldwin's stated desire for privacy tough to square with her savvy use of social media. "When they post these images, they're promoting a number of things. It's not done innocently or naïvely," Dr. Podnieks said. In Ms. Baldwin's case, when she posts a photo of herself just months postpartum in lingerie, "she's promoting her capabilities as a fitness instructor," said Dr. Podnieks; she's implying that if you use her methods, you too can look like her.

ADVERTISEMENT

By welcoming a sixth baby during a pandemic year where there may be 300,000 fewer births in the United States because of financial and health fears of the average American, Ms. Baldwin is taking the "supermom" image to the extreme. Intellectually, we know that most aspects of her life are not accessible for almost anyone, despite the banal images she posts — the domestic tableaus of happy, dancing children and fitness moves. So why can't we look away?

"You could describe the audience's relationships with these accounts as a staring contest," said Kathryn Jezer-Morton, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Concordia University, who researches the internet and motherhood. "I'm going to stare at it 'til it blinks" — which is to say, I'm going to look at these images until I see a crack in the perfectly imperfect façade, a dose of reality in this world of bliss.

In the end, when consumers of celebrity culture think and talk about Ms. Baldwin, it's not even really about her — it's about us. "We use celebrity images to gauge our own responses to motherhood, our own behavioral practices," Dr. Podnieks said. "How we respond to her showcases our own ideologies." If we aspire to the mediated glamour of Ms. Baldwin's life, we follow her Instagram with admiration, possibly imagining ourselves with a smiling brood on a windswept beach in the Hamptons. If we think that she adds to the pressures on mothers to be physically and emotionally perfect, we will critique her.

At this point I should probably look away from this maternal Rorschach test, but I can't help myself from staring, judging, vacillating between those two poles of envy and aversion.

Thanks for reading! And please check out what else is new this week in the section below.

— Jessica Grose, columnist, NYT Parenting

THIS WEEK IN NYT PARENTING

Article Image

Sophie Chivet/Agence VU'

letters

Pandemic Moms: Long Days, Short Fuses

Readers discuss how mothers are struggling with the extra burdens, which have "intensified the anger and guilt that parenting can sometimes bring out in all of us."

Article Image

Marta Monteiro

Adolescence

How to Help a Teen Out of a Homework Hole

The more students fall behind in the pandemic, the less likely they are to feel that they can catch up.

By Lisa Damour

Article Image

James Estrin/The New York Times

In Their Own Words: Why Health Experts Say Elementary Schools Should Open

With proper safety measures, doctors and scientists said in a survey, the benefits outweigh the risks.

By Margot Sanger-Katz and Claire Cain Miller

Article Image

Elaine Cromie for The New York Times

Major Evangelical Adoption Agency Will Now Serve Gay Parents Nationwide

The decision comes as more cities and states require organizations to accept applications from L.G.B.T.Q. couples or risk losing government contracts.

By Ruth Graham

Article Image

Frida Mom

On TV, a Rare Realistic Look at Breastfeeding

A commercial from the parent products company Frida, to be broadcast during the Golden Globes, is part of a wider effort to show the struggles of the "fourth trimester."

By Tiffany Hsu

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Tiny Victories

Parenting can be a grind. Let's celebrate the tiny victories.

On a school night, I gave my 7-year-old the OK to watch a movie while he ate dinner before bedtime at 8. Exhausted from a year of working from home while parenting, I sat down on the couch and fell asleep. When I came to at 9 p.m., I discovered my son had turned off the TV, ushered our puppy into her kennel and taken himself to bed. He even turned on his space heater and humidifier.

— Molly Messana, Ambler, Pa.

If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for NYT Parenting from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

The Senate was as dysfunctional 125 years ago as it is now

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Author Headshot

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

To research my Friday column on the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 and the Lodge federal elections bill, I spent a lot of time on JSTOR, a searchable database for primary sources and academic research. I found a lot of stuff I didn't use, including an 1893 article by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, published in The North American Review and titled "Obstruction in the Senate."

It's a short piece, arguing against the tradition of unlimited debate in the chamber. The background to Lodge's argument, as I explore in my column, is that when he was a member of the House in 1891 his federal elections bill was killed by a Democratic filibuster after months of delay and obstruction.

I want to highlight one section in particular that with few adjustments could be published today as an argument against the filibuster as it currently exists.

"Practically speaking," Lodge writes, "each Senator can speak as often and at as great length as he chooses. There is not only no previous question to cut him off, but a time cannot even be set for taking a vote, except by unanimous consent." He continues:

This is all very well in theory, and there is much to be said for the maintenance of a system, in one branch at least of the government, where debate shall be entirely untrammelled. But the essence of a system of courtesy is that it should be the same at all points. The two great rights in our representative bodies are voting and debate. If the courtesy of unlimited debate is granted it must carry with it the reciprocal courtesy of permitting a vote after due discussion. If this is not the case the system is impossible.

There are more lines like that in the piece. For instance, Lodge says: "To vote without debating is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile. The difficulty in the Senate today is that, while the courtesy which permits unlimited debate is observed, the reciprocal courtesy, which should insure the opportunity to vote, is wholly disregarded."

He concludes his argument with a point that defenders of the filibuster would do well to heed: "How the Senate may vote on any given question at any given time is of secondary importance, but when it is seen that it is unable to take any action at all, the situation becomes of the gravest character. A body which cannot govern itself will not long hold the respect of the people who have chosen it to govern the country."

ADVERTISEMENT

What I Wrote

My Tuesday column was on President Biden's brief address in support of labor rights, which was much more groundbreaking than it might seem at first glance.

Biden is not the first president to speak in support of unions, but he may be the first to speak so publicly — and so directly — in their favor (certainly since Harry Truman). The words themselves are ordinary, but the context, an American president speaking in support of the most high profile organizing drive in the country, makes them extraordinary. And that, in turn, raises expectations for what Biden can and should accomplish as president on behalf of the labor movement.

My Friday column, as I said at the top, was on the twin stories of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 and the Lodge federal elections bill, and what lessons they may hold for our own time.

By the end of the decade, in 1900, most of the rest of the South had followed Mississippi down the path of official white supremacy and total suppression of Black voting. Circumstances varied from state to state, but the dynamics were the same: first came biracial agrarian rebellion, then new constitutions, new restrictions, and a new equilibrium of white elite dominance over land, labor and capital.

I also joined my former colleague Aisha Harris on NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour, to talk about the new movie "The United States v. Billie Holiday" and depictions of the F.B.I. on film.

Now Reading

Tressie McMillan Cottom on Dolly Parton in her newsletter.

Michael Kazin on the future of the Democratic Party coalition in The New Republic.

Jeannie Suk Gersen on the true story of the "comfort women" in The New Yorker.

Mark and Paul Engler on presidential power and grass-roots mobilization in Dissent magazine.

Kwame Anthony Appiah on the economist Thorstein Veblen in The New York Review of Books.

Rebecca Sun on the actress Kelly Marie Tran in The Hollywood Reporter.

ADVERTISEMENT

Feedback
If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to your friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Photo of the Week

I have been in a rut for the past month, so instead of a new photo, here's another one from the archive. I took this in February 2016 in Washington D.C.'s Chinatown, on my way home from work. I had a mini tripod on me, so I set it up on the sidewalk and went to work. I believe that I was using a Fujifilm point-and-shoot camera.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now Eating: Chicken (or Paneer) in a Yogurt-Tomato Cream Sauce

The recipe name tells you all you need to know. You make a yogurt-tomato sauce, you add a protein (I used chicken, but pan-fried paneer works too), you simmer, and you finish with cream and cilantro. It is very good and best served with flatbreads and a vegetable. Recipe is adapted from Julie Sahni's "Classic Indian Cooking," a wonderful book that you should own.

Ingredients

  • 4 large cloves garlic, peeled
  • 3 tablespoons chopped fresh ginger
  • 3 medium-size ripe tomatoes (about ¾ pound)
  • 1 cup plain, full-fat yogurt
  • ¼ cup neutral oil, such as canola or grapeseed
  • 3 pounds boneless, skinless chicken breast, cut into 1½-inch cubes (or 2 pounds fresh Indian cheese, cubed and pan-fried)
  • 1 teaspoon ground nutmeg
  • 2 tablespoons ground blanched almonds
  • 1 teaspoon ground cardamom
  • 1 teaspoon ground cumin
  • 1 teaspoon ground coriander
  • ½ teaspoon ground fennel seed
  • 1½ teaspoons salt
  • ½ cup heavy cream (or less, depending on your taste or how low-fat you want it to be)
  • 3 teaspoons freshly ground pepper
  • ¼ cup cilantro, finely chopped

Directions

Put garlic, ginger, tomatoes and yogurt into the container of a blender or food processor, and run the machine until the ingredients are reduced to a fine, smooth purée.

Heat oil in a large saucepan or 12-inch skillet with lid over medium-high heat. Add the purée and cook until it reduces to a thick sauce, about 15 minutes.

If you're using chicken, add and cook for 5 minutes, stirring so that nothing burns. Add the spices and salt and mix well. Bring to a simmer, cover and cook for 15 minutes.

(If you're using paneer, add along with a cup of water. Add the spices and salt and mix well. Bring to a simmer, cover and cook for 15 minutes.)

Uncover and continue cooking until the sauce has reduced, another 15 minutes. Stir in the cream, black pepper and cilantro, and turn off the heat. Serve as you'd like!

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Jamelle Bouie from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018