Return to the Stepfamily Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Vanity Fair: May 2009

Posted by serenity_now_2007 (My Page) on
Tue, Apr 14, 09 at 16:55

Anyone read the Gisele Bundchen cover story yet? I predict some fur will fly!

Actually, I can totally see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, Gisele referring to her new stepson as "100% mine" is a totally inane and inflammatory statement ---even if it can be chalked up to naivete and a "language barrier"--- and she really should have chosen different words... or none at all on the subject. But on the other hand, as the stepdaughter of a woman who resented my very existence, it's nice to see that Gisele actually likes the kid whose life she's chosen to become a part of.

Thoughts?


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

I am inclined to think Gisele knew exactly what she was saying.

In the best light possible, what she said was insensitive. In the worst light possible, it was pretty cruel.

What really bothers me is the sensitive situation in which this child was conceived. It's pretty well accepted that Bridget (BM) and Tom were ending their long relationship right around the time that Tom was starting up with Gisele. There was definitely some *lap-over* between the two relationships and Bridget became pregnant during this time.

I can't imagine how hard it must have been for Bridget to not only be dumped (and I do think that is the official story, that Tom did the breaking-up) but then to be pregnant AND have to see your ex-boyfriend and his new supermodel girlfriend all over the press.

Being pregnant is an emotional enough time--then add in being single and being freshly dumped/possibly cheated on. OUCH.

So the way I look at it--Gisele "got" the guy, and now in her Vanity Fair interview, she's staking claims on the kid, too. Not cool.

I get that she loves him and I do believe that she is sincere in that. And that is GREAT.

BUT I think the way she worded everything was insensitive and possibly just cruel towards Bridget. I particularly did NOT like the part about how she "wants him to have a good relationship with his mom." Why wouldn't he? And why is that Gisele's place to comment on? It seems it should be the OTHER way around--the BM should be saying that of the stepmom/child relationship.

I just felt it was all very presumptuous and just had a demeaning/disrespectful tone towards Bridget. At the end of the day, Bridget is this boy's mother and from what I've read/heard, she is a loving, doting mom. As far as I am aware, too, Tom and Gisele are only in L.A during the off-season. So that means a good bulk of the year (during football season) Bridget is doing 100% of the parenting duties. So it's all fine and good that Gisele THINKS she is as bonded to him as his mother is, but I just don't see how she can say that when she is clearly a part-time stepmother.

I would be interested to see if she regrets her comments when she has a child of her own. Then she might realize how offensive some of her comments were.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

I agree with Love - she talks as if the son his hers and Bridget is the SM. Not cool in and of itself, but when you put it in the context of their love triangle, it's downright condescending and ignorant.

I think it will bite her in the a$$. Hope so.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

She'll probably be out in a couple years. Any woman who starts a relationship like this is either selfish or crazy or both. Hopefully it happens soon, before she screws up the kid.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Starts a relationship like what? Going out with someone who is recently broken up? It's not like she found out they were having a baby and intentionally broke them up. Tom's a big boy. If he A) didn't want kids he could have used protection and B) wanted to marry his ex he would have broken it off with Gisele and gone back to her.

And why would it be her who is screwing up the kid and not the child's father or mother? I'm sensing a little step-mom bias here...


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Giselle was the one who gave the quote.

I'm sensing the SM can do no wrong crowd.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Well, I thought the same thing as Love and KKNY. I don't mean starting the relationship by breaking them up, I guess they were already broken up but as Love said time definitely overlapped. And yes, Tom is a big boy. But I do have to wonder where Gisele is coming from, this guy just got out of a relationship. Started a new one right away, old girl was preggo....ugh, if I was Gisele (I only wish! haha) there's no way I'd continue the relationship or even start one.

I don't think it's stepmom bias, but it is a discernment question. Ive said before I would most likely never become a stepmom, I know my limitations and what I could handle. And a guy just leaving an old relationship with a pregnant exgirlfriend would be one of them. And I think with this stepmom in question and the comments made by her, it'll be no wonder that the step issue will most likely be a problem. Not because of a bias, but because of the actual situation.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Silver, I am impressed you know Giselle well enough to know she didnt intentionally break them up, but whatever.

More importantly, she has succeeded in making the relationship with the child's mother more difficult.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

KKNY, you're awfully snide today. I don't know Giselle at all, and if I did, I doubt it would impress anyone. If Tom didn't want to break up with his girlfriend, he probably wouldn't have. If he wanted to marry her, her probably would have. From what I can tell they broke up, he started dating someone new, then they found out she was pregnant. I don't see how this is Giselle's fault.

She perhaps could have worded things better, but English is not her first language and it appears she is trying to say that she loves the kid. I'd be more concerned with the mother and sm never meeting before. That's the strangest part of this relationship, IMO. If I were the BM I'd want to meet the woman who would be helping my child's father care for my child.

But again, why is it her who is in the wrong and not Tom? I'm not pro-step-mom, but I think this is laying the blame a little unevenly. Why isn't it him who is "succeeding in making the relationship with the child's mother more difficult"?


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

I think the bottom line is--Gisele should have not commented on her stepchild in the interview. It really is just not her place to speak about him in the press; and then when you add in the fact that she started talking about his relationship with his mother, that takes it to a whole different level of inappropriate-ness.

If she HAD to say something, it should have been short, and to the point.

"I love him a lot and he's a great kid" would have been more than sufficient.

There is just no need to gush all over the place about how you are "100% his mom" and "just because you didn't give birth to him doesn't make him less your child." That is so wrong on so many levels. It would be one thing for her to say those things if Bridget was not in the picture, or if he were adopted or something. But that is obviously not the case.

Honestly, I thought the whole thing was so disrespectful to Bridget who, from what I can tell, has handled this whole sitation with a lot of class and maturity.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Silver,

The father didnt give the interview. Giselle, whom I dont know, has apparently been in the press for a number of years. She is 27 and should know better. I predict a more difficult relationship than would have otherwise been.

Visition/custody is for the father to have a relationship with the child. According to the article that is to occur when the father is not working.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

I'm sure she feels like an a** right now. She's a supermodel who has never been a parent. It's kind of hard to know what to do when one doesn't have the life experience. I'm of the opinion that she was just trying to show she cared about the kid.

Personally I'd rather have an involved SM that says she loves my kid like her own than one who is bitter and jaded. If visitation is for the father to spend time with the kid and that's not happening, is that the SM's fault?

Please. People just need to stop judging the relationships of celebrities.

I think that saying that just because she didn't give birth to him does not make him less her child is a nice thing to say. She is really making the effort. Perhaps it came out a little badly. But I'd be thinking horses, not zebras on this one.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

I think there's a line between loving a child as your own, and trying to take over. It didnt come out a little badly, it came out really badly. Is she making an effort to be nice to the kid, or to take over the relationship? All I know is what she said.

I didnt mean to imply if visitation wasnt happening, it was SMs fault, I wrote that in response to your comment that SM would be helping with child care. There is no need for help here.

I think that Giselle was incredibly insensitive. Bridget loses the guy and now the woman is trying to say the kid is 100% hers.

As to your horses/zebras comment (are you a doctor), I dont know what is more common, SM trying to ignore kid, SM trying to control kid and not recognize that SHE IS NOT THE MOM.

In any event, it was inappropriate to discuss the child as much as she did.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

She didn't say she's the mom.

"Is she making an effort to be nice to the kid, or to take over the relationship?"

That's just it. No one knows. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt. That's where my horses not zebras comment comes in.

As for my comment that she will help with the care of the child: They are married. There will be the inevitable need for help of some sort. Unless you are suggesting when the child is there that Mr. Brady's wife should not be, and should not help in the least?


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

I haven't read the article. Did the interviewer ask her a question about the child or did she just bring it up out of the blue? If the interviewr asked a question there would be no way around the subject. That's why I ask.


 o
100% mine

She said the child is 100% hers. I think that is pretty clear.

I'm suggesting that Mr. Brady should be the primary when the child is there.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

I think Giselle was being a wench when she said that. That is just something hurtful to say, and nothing but a dig at the bio mom. If she wants a baby that is 100% hers then her and football dude should get her knocked up, then maybe she will have something better to do with her time then say incredibly insensitive and ignorant comments to the press.


 o
Doodle

Doodle,

She could have just said my H has an adorable child, and if pressed beyond that, we do not discuss in public, the child is entitled to privacy.

btw, in all the articles about Bill Gates, including his billions, his wife Melinda, how they met, his charities, how much have you read about his kids? Not much, why, he protects their privacy. Same with most succesful people.

Giselle has been giving interviews for years. Shes been involved with charities and humanatarian casues for years. She's not a high school kid or a babe in the woods. She was involved in a controversy with PETA. She knows how to deal with the press.


 o
kkny

I wasn't defending her. I was just wondering how the topic even came up.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

I couldnt imagine it NOT coming up in a Vanity Fair interview. She agreed to do cover and article. I think anyone could imagine questions about hubby and his son would come up.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Did read the article last week, and assumed Vanity Fair sought Gisele out because it was Scandalous!Football Player!!Models!!! Out of wedlock baby!!!Hope Gisele meant she was 100 per cent behind the situation with the baby, not that the baby was 100 per cent hers..Agree she was WAY out of line to hope baby has good relationship with Bridget, oh Thank you Gisele!!!But it occured to me that Bridget had been going with Brady for 3 years, and wanted marriage and a baby,and all of a sudden she turns up pregnant at the tail end of the relationship, odd, maybe she wanted to save or cement the relationship in its waning months?Brady and Gisele did not know of the pregnancy when they started to date,(or that is what has been reported) no body was married here, is there a decent waiting period to start dating after a breakup?If I broke up with someone, I think I could date the next day if I wanted to, why are these people being held to a different standard,because they are in the public eye? What is the difference?


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Dotz, I think most of the critism is more directed at Giselle saying the things she did in an interview. It showed a real lack of judgement, and IMHO, will only hinder a good relationship between the child and the father. It was stupid. If she had a brain she would issue a statement taking back what she said and apolgizing to the mom. In the meantime, I am not buying any Pantene.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Dotz, I agree with you. What is the difference? Well, when our neighbor does something we don't agree with we can't boycott whichever product she represents!!

I personally find the whole thing a bit sad. The picture of the baby on the magazine prior that was done by the bio-mom was tasteless and really did not facilitate good relations between the child and the father.

But... no one says a thing about that. It's the first pictures of the kid and this is what the mom does? Puts a soulful, heart-wrenching, sad photo of the two of them on the cover looking like victims. And saying that she "lost" the dad to Gisele. She painted her out to be the bad guy to start with. What about Tom? Where's his role in this? Why aren't these people taking responsibility for what they did? Is it Gisele's fault they broke up? Who knows? But the parents are the ones ultimately responsible. If Tom didn't want to leave, he wouldn't have.

I think this is step-mom bashing. So she said something stupid that may or may not have been taken out of context. Give it a rest.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Tom isnt the one who gave the interview. Of course the mom is sad. That goes without saying. This isnt SM bashing. This is Giselle, as SM, overstepping bounds.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

is there a link to the article?


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Mercy, she's living in a dream world!

She thinks she's got a good man with a pure heart...
who evidently was canoodling with her and another woman at the same time.

so maybe it's no surprise that she thinks of this little one as "100%" hers.

but it *is* tacky, & it *is* foolish.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

"We were dating two and a half months when he found out, and it was a very challenging situation. Obviously, in the beginning, its not the ideal thing." Moynahans pregnancy made Gisele wonder whether she should encourage Brady to re-unite with his former girlfriend. "You question at timesShould I stay here? Maybe you should work this out," she admits. "But when people break up, its for a reason."

I don't see what is wrong with this? They broke up and he starting dating Gisele. Very few women know exactly when they are pregnant. Finding out a couple months in is common. It doesn't make him "canoodling" with two women at the same time. It is unfortunate, but it happens often. If anything, why isn't anyone coming down on them for pre-marital sex?

"I understand that he has a mom, and I respect that, but to me its not like because somebody else delivered him, thats not my child. I feel it is, 100 percent," Gisele says. "I want him to have a great relationship with his mom, because thats important, but I love him the same way as if he were mine. I already feel like hes my son, from the first day."

I still just think this is a poor choice of words and she's being raked over the coals. She didn't say she felt he was "100%" hers. I think it's great she is treating him as if he is hers. The little boy will not be confused as to who are his bio parents. What a lucky child to have such dedicated people in his life.

If anything, I still reiterate that I would be more concerned that the she and the mother had never met. As a mother, I would want to meet her, then I'd be happy she's so loving toward my son. She is, after all, married to his father.

I have had three stepmothers. One who treated me like the wicked step-daughter and treated her two like princesses, one who could care less and was vocally disappointed when she met me that it was not one of my friends who was my father's daughter, and my current one, whom I am learning to tolerate but has never been affectionate or loving in the least.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Silversword, I don't really see anyone who is bashing Gisele for being an other woman or anything like that. While I think it's pretty obvious Tom was with both women at the same time and it does make me wonder what Giselle was thinking...that would send red flags to most women, but whatever she continued the relationship.

What I see is the problem was the 100% mine comment and hoping that little guy has a good relationship with his mom. Sure it could've been just a slip and maybe she didn't mean to say it, but if that is how she really feels and views the situation, then I think that translates to future trouble. Who would say that? I mean, they are extremely weird comments.

And as a celebrity, she does control the interviews. She could've not answered the question. She put it out there, she wanted to be in the magazine, she didn't have to do either. Don't want people commenting? Don't say anything.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

I agree with Nivea. It's the 'good relationship with mom' part that throws me. If it was a poor choice of words, so be it. But if it implies how she views the situation, then there is definately trouble brewing.

Bottom line - she could have, and should have, left the kid out of it.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

They ALL need to live the baby out of it. The OK Magazine cover with mom and baby on it was pretty tasteless too. She should not be using the child to garner sympathy. She's doing the "poor me. I got left for another woman and now I'm a single mother" thing. I feel for her but the child shouldn't be plastered on covers with headlines like LIFE WITHOUT DADDY. That's just as sick as what Gisele did if not worse because this woman IS the boys mother. Tom is involved with the child right? He just isn't with mommy anymore so why the hell does the cover even say that????


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Of course, y'all realize that the common denominator here is Tom Brady, right? Seems to me he needs to get these two women to keep their traps shut about the child. Since neither of these women seem to be able to act like responsible adults, it IS on him as the child's father to put the kibosh on all of the speculation and discussion and shield the poor kid from all of this ridiculous invasion.

Idiots, all.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

The baby is apparently going to be growing up with limited contact with his dad. But Giselle needs to learn it isnt her kid.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair

Who said Dad is goignt o have limited contact...the courts or gilted Ex? If he isn't goignt o be involved with the child why would Gisele make such a bold (if not bone heade) statement? That makes no sense.

Gisele needs to realize this isn't her child but mom needs to stop being a dumb ass too. SHe is no better waving the baby around for sympathy. They ALL need to suck it up.

As far as Tom goes...he's being silent in all this because he is the BAD GUY and he knows as long as he shuts up all the catty women in the world will blog/post about the show down between the two stupid females rather than what a DOG he is.

Case in point here....I say next topic.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Regardless of what the article says... did the media print the ENTIRE interview? or just the 'quotes' they wanted to? Does anyone really think the celebrity on the cover of a magazine gets to choose the photo used or the headline? Maybe some do, but more often the editor gets to choose to put what sells their magazine! They are in the business of selling their product, not informing the public of the 'truth'. Sometimes the truth is boring... that doesn't sell.

I don't wanna get started on the media... they cause more problems than help. It's one of my pet peeves... from the nightly news, local newspaper to these stupid sleazy publications that would pay the paparazzi big money to stalk celebrities to get pics of their kids or them on the beach with no make up, just to make a 'story'. Some celebrities have sued because of the stories written about them, but most just accept that crap will be written when you're in the limelight.

Nobody knows 'the truth', except the parties involved, so it's pointless to speculate. To debate over what is written in an article... well, I take it with a grain of salt because I only believe about 10% of what those publications say is true. (now if there is video of the interview in it's entirety, that might be a different story. Then you can listen to everything said.. you have body language and intonation)


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Thank you Doodle and Ima. I agree completely. Both mothers are being tasteless, Tom has stayed out of it and is just as guilty, and we only have 10% of the accurate story. The only real loser is the poor little boy who will have to read about this when he gets older. Next topic.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

"Who said Dad is goignt o have limited contact...the courts or gilted Ex"

I think it's been made really clear, and has been said by Tom himself, that he only sees his son when it's not football season. Half the year he lives in NY. According to the courts, they share 50-50 custody when he is in LA during the off season. So, while I wouldn't say he has *limited* contact, I think it's fair to say Bridget is doing the lion's share of parenting here.

As far as the OK cover and article, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Bridget was peeved that OK used that cover and headline. Who knows if that's true, and you do have to take what you read with a large grain of salt--I personally would not consider OK to be the most *reputable* magazine, anyway.

I know that she did donate 100% of the proceeds of that to charity.


 o
oops

Oooops--I think the Patriots are from MA, right? Shows how much I know about football! LOL. Well, either way--half the year Tom lives in NY or MA, whatever---my point is half the year he is not really involved with his son.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

She decided without him to have the baby and raise it herself. He has to work. He has a job that requires him to travel. I think vilifying Brady and Gisele is unnecessary.

If we are to go by the standards of KKNY, Bridget is an old hand at giving interviews. She should have required them to run the cover picture and headline by her and get her approval before they ran such an awful cover.

What's good for the goose...


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

I haven't read the article..but now i'm curious.
BUT i have to say something here. In french, the expression the child is 100% mine means she is doing everything for the child.
I do not take this line as overstepping but again i have not read the full article. BUt that line alone to me reads i do things 100%.
Now if dad is always traveling...then yes, i honestly think that is exactly what it means. By her saying she hopes the child has a good relationship with BM means she hopes the child is not confused in the futur as to who is the biomom here becasue of all the time beign spent with this child.
you have to be very careful with language. Not everythign translates correctly or is interpreted properly. And hey,,,,its a magazine....
Plus the relationship was over between tom and ex...he started a relationship with this model and then found out ex was preggers...no cheating there.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Exactly, love 1/2 the year Brady has no involvment.

The other half, according to the lovely Giselle, "We have ...50%" . Well news to you Gisells WE dont have any custody, Tom does.

As to what 100% mine means Maria -- my Ds french teacher, native of France, doesnt agree with you. In any event, Giselles native tongue is Portugeese.

Giselle comes off in the interiveiw as an arrogant person who would stoop so low as to try to take over another woman's child.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

lol, well if kkny thinks she comes off as an arrogant person trying to take over another woman's child (big surprise there!) at least the magazine accomplished one of it's goal! (If kkny is not only debating this on GW, but discussing with her DD's teachers, for interpretations)

I've gotta say though.... WE have full custody of SD. Yes, the order has DH's name, not mine... but she lives with US. Therefore, WE refer often to the arrangement as WE or US having custody of SD. When you are a couple that lives together, it is usually WE or US that the child lives with or visits, not just the person whose name is written on the paper. (well, maybe if the stepparent leaves when kids are there or has nothing to do with kids when they are there, then it might be different) To make an issue out of what word a person uses (He vs. Us) is, in my opinion, splitting hairs.

And the article, which I honestly think was edited in favor of being controversial... did mention she spoke several languages and without going back to re-read it, I thought it says she had a continental accent because she spoke several languages and had limited education and I would agree with maria that if she was speaking in English, she may have been interpreting as best she could, phrases from any of the languages she speaks. I am not defending her because I don't think the full interview was stated and I think only portions were used.

And did the article really say he spends 50% of the time playing and not seeing his child and that he only sees him 50% of the off season? Or does it say he has 50% custody... maybe he has him the entire off season, which means they have him 50% of the time. I don't recall if the article actually said what the custody arrangement is. Did it?


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

"Or does it say he has 50% custody"

Not sure if this article specifically stated it. I think Gisele said Tom has his son 50% of the time when they are in L.A, which is during the off-season.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

First, she didn't say "100% mine". She said "...but to me its not like because somebody else delivered him, thats not my child. I feel it is, 100 percent,"

If you put a "pause" in there, which is what the comma was trying to convey, it changes the meaning of the word a bit. I personally think she was trying to say her feelings for the child are 100%. That she does not look down on the child because it is someone elses. Honestly, looking at her pronoun use in the rest of the interview, I think were she trying to say the child were hers she would have used "he" rather than "it" before the 100%. Go back and look at it. I think you'll see what I mean.

I think this is way overblown. It's not the words but the context. A person who speaks French for goodness sake! would not be able to determine what Gisele was saying any more than a person who speaks any other language. I have many friends who speak more than one language and the inflections are off, the timing is off and the meaning, unless one is paying attention, can easily be misinterpreted.

I say "our daughters" even though I don't have a smidgen of "authority" over my DH's daughter and nor does he of mine. His name is no where near my DD's custody arrangement.

But he is MY HUSBAND. THEREFORE her STEPFATHER. I want both him and her to feel comfortable enough to claim the other as a member of their family. Hey guys! There's room enough in here for everyone! I'd never hurt my dd's relationship with her bio-dad, and both my dh and I make sure she knows who he is and how important that relationship is. But it should not come at the sacrifice of other relationships.

This actually makes me really mad. We should be thankful that this woman is willing to be a stepmother and feels so strongly about this baby boy. It's far healthier than if the father were single and had a bunch of girlfriends (c'mon, he's Tom Brady!) over when he had his custody time.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

I agree Giselle's words were not well thought had she not meant to be offensive. BM or SM, who cares, the kid will probably have a couple of nanny's to call mom.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

LOL Gerina. You're probably right!


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

I find this fascination with celebrties and what they do and what they say rather peculiar. I do not mean on this forum per se, but in our society in general. i have never heard of any of these people, I also have never read Vanity Fair.

After reading this thread I did click on the link. As i see now it is a celebrity magazine that is publishing stuff that maintain people's interest in celebrities (unless I am wrong and this magazine has some other things in it).

If they stop publishing that stuff, people might lose interest in models, football players and the likes.

Fasnination wiht celebrties' babies is just part of the game. They mention their babies (or even someone else's babies) for a reason, they say thing in the interviews for a reason, magazines publish all this for a reason.

Part of their fame is due to general public's immense interest in their personal lives. If they stop talking ro doing nonsense, people might stop carrying about them.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Fine, Vanity Fair is anything but a tabloid..Articles every month include culture, politics,crime,books, movies.Some are their biggest advertisers are Patek Philippe,Cartier and Dolce and Gabbana..I dont think the circulation is so big in the trailer parks like the National Enquirer....


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

dotz, even if this magazine includes more than just celebrities gossip, I still would take everything what celebrities say in the interviews with a grain of salt.

I don't mind people having guilty pelasures, I have my own LOL, I just don't take it seriously. These people use their private lives for maintaining public interest and they know that public gets excited reading all that.

I do not know what they read in trailer parks, maybe nothing, although I do know some very intellectual people who live in rather bad living conditions in bad areas. Some people live in great houses and yet their interests remain rather shallow. There is no rule.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

First, she didn't say "100% mine". She said "...but to me its not like because somebody else delivered him, thats not my child. I feel it is, 100 percent,"

Oh for heavens sake...this means she is devoted 100%! It means that this child is in her life and she feels its 100% her even though she didn't give birth....Its the same for adoption!
kkny, i am french as well, live in a french province with an ethnic background and WE believe any child is ours 100% if we are involved and raising that child. We are taught to love another woman childs no matter what....meaning if we fine one of the street, we take it in as our own even though we didn't give birth to it.
I do not need lesson from your d's french teacher lol....
yah she's arrogant because of her lifestyle...doesnt mean to me she's out to steal another womans child lol....my gosh, get over your fears people!
This is a magaine tabloid...they rearrange and shift words to suite how the public interprets them. Gets them money and they stir up crap...and from all the postings on this blog...its worked.:)
Giselle is a sm who will have alot of responsibility as a biomom due to custody rights of Tom.Glad to see she's not rejecting this child. But hey...for SM...its damned if you accept and love the kids,,,Damned if you reject them eh? How conveeeeeeeenient.....what a joke.!


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

No, what I am saying is that a SM has to respect boundaries. But some people think only the skids have to respect boudnaries.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

Bm is also have to respect boundaries. Both sm and bm are adults and should act accordingly. Every situation is different and yet when it comes to biomothers their word is always right and sm have no rights.
And yet in another persons post the mother has abondonned her 2 children, hears dad has remarried, she's run off with another man and yet she has the gaul to think she has the right as a mother to dictate whether her childrens haircuts are proper or piercing their ears.....so..
And skids and biokids have to respect boundaries as well.
Skids are not to be treated special in any way shape or form. In fact, i do not believe in double dipping and alot of skids these days 'double dib' and it completely out of parent guilting. And people wonder why? Kids should respect their boundaries.
You are on a stepparent forum. of course the view will appear skewed to think skids should respect boundaries. But many of us on this board also discipline our biochildren all must respect boundaries.
It does not only apply to skids or sm or biomom...but to all human beings.
We do not know the full extent of this story. But i honestly do not think that person is intentionally going out to 'steal' another womans kid. This is not about boundaries.
This person is expressing that she has 100% interest in this child and will look upon this child as hers 100%. There is nothing wrong with that.
If mother cannot share then there is an issue. I know there are fine lines and mothers are intently jealous of their offspring towards another female. I get it, its primal. But we are not animals....rise above it. Its difficult.BUt in the end i would happy to know that another woman is taking proper care of my child , is making him happy and does not distinguish him from biochildren...in this manner not segragating the child.
But from what i see from most mothers is jealousy ...and oh she can't do that, it my job..etc..etc..hey..think about the childs feelings here and speak to the other adult properly. Now if she is vulgar towards you...its not because she is a sm...its because the human being has issues. And from my hunch....sm who embrass their kids lovingly tend to attempt to be freinds with biomom.
Lets face it, divorce in most cases are ugly. And beign friends after and civil with one another takes great effort. BM and SM should not be at each other throats and yet they are. For who's benefit? ITs awful


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

This is not a stepparent forum. This is The Stepfamily forum.

Double dipping comes with the territory and it's not the kids responsibility to set boundaries, it's their parents. I'm sure each stepkid thinks it's unfair that their parents divorced and remarried. Maybe all sides need to quit blaming the kid and look at themselves and their own actions.

As a biomom, I'm not jealous or crazy, but I do have standards for my daughter. I don't care who her father remarries, if stepmom promotes violating those standards, Dad's going to hear about it. If stepmom is actively interfering in my relationship with my daughter, Dad's going to hear about it. Any parent has that responsibility, I expect her father to act that way as well.

Biomom, stepmom, whatever. At the end of the day we are all women. You put us all together in a room and I doubt that all the biomoms would get along and all the stepmoms would get along. The stereotypes of both are ridiculous.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

That i agree with. Its human nature to be bias and defensive. But in this day and age...i think people are just not thinking at all.
Nivea, what do you think about a BM who interferes with the relationship with their dad and Sm?? That is not right either. To poison her kids against their father and his wife. Do you think that is good for the kids?
That has happened in my case and from what i can see, the damage onthe kids is done.
Yes there are soem Sm who step waaay over their boundaries and no one has the right to talk ill about either side here. Whether its a sm, bm, or sf, or bf. the problem with divorce is that its not civil in most cases, its ugly for all, the kdis suffer andif there is any substance abuse the situation is explosive.
I agree with not all going ot get along. But i'm just sick and tired of people pointing fingers and acting like children. ITs sad.


 o
RE: Vanity Fair: May 2009

"to me its not like because somebody else delivered him, thats not my child. I feel it is, 100%"

If I were the "somebody else" who "delivered" him, I'd be 100%, full-throttle furious as well as offended & insulted.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Stepfamily Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here