Monday, February 2, 2009

Babies? Anyone have any babies?

For those of you who have enjoyed my past Angelina Jolie rant: a moment of fun. Seems even SNL has realized that she jumped the shark:




*giggle*

Its a double post day! Two posts. Two videos. What more could you want?

6 comments:

Stacey said...

I think the strangest part of the Jolie-Pitt family is the parents' desire to "balance the races":

"Now the questions are more when you have a mixed-race family do you balance the races so there's another African person in the house for Z, so there's another Asian person in the house for Mad. Shiloh has Brad and I she can look at. These are the questions we're more asking what's best for the children as they grow. "We don't just want to have different children from different countries, that's not the point."
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/jolie%20and%20pitt%20seek%20to%20balance%20races%20in%20family_1016600

Pamthropologist said...

So...not only do we have baby fetishism but "balanced" baby fetishism? I know its a teachable moment about notions of "family" but it boggles the mind. Thanks, Stacey. (I think. LOL)

larry c wilson said...

This "baby fetish" may have some connection to your Hispanic student who thinks "his people" are more fertile.

Pamthropologist said...

I thought it was post-modern Marx, babies as the new accessory but, I see, its a bit more complicated.

larry c wilson said...

Why do people always drag in Karl Marx when Veblen and "conspicous consumption" will suffice?

Pamthropologist said...

Veblen was better at predicting what putzes we would be. Marx thought the revolution was coming. But still, I don't get the feeling the babies are status symbols, they seem more to be substituting for some other meaning--not just more but a way to transpose and obfuscate *real* social relations. Just bullshitting. I'm out.