Thursday, December 12, 2013
Hollywood Reporter reports on Oprah Winfrey's not wanting children, but downplays it
Media outlets all over the globe today talked about Oprah’s explanation of not wanting to become a mother, although when you go to the source, page 2 of a Hollywood Reporter story by Lacey Rose, the original interview is a bit underwhelming, link here.
She says that, if she had children, she would have to give up something else, so the kids would resent it, and say so on their own “equivalent” of Oprah. Do marriage and family ultimately undermine individual creative accomplishment?
But of course, that’s why “family values” gets to be such an issue: there’s a perception that you do have to give something up to have a family. Closed knit religious communities have been used to being able to demand this of everyone.
Oprah indicated that he work with her girls’ school in South Africa – probably attracting more attention now because of the coverage of Mandela’s passing and funeral – gives her interpersonal contact with succeeding generations. By way of comparison, I personally don’t have such an outlet right now.
It’s harder for a journalist, because journalism by definition requires objectivity. You can’t play favorites with special causes publicly, well, unless you’re invited to, sometimes.
Oprah, of course, was not exactly neutral in past presidential elections. She probably put Barack Obama into the White House.
Apart from the Lance Armstrong debrief, Oprah's own network doesn't seem to have as high a profile as her syndicated network (usually on ABC) show usually did.
It’s important to remember that at 14 Oprah became pregnant with a baby who didn’t survive. It’s also good to remember the background in Mississippi that she came from.