Angelina Jolie Not Committed To Bonding With Children, Us Mag Says What Many Are Thinking
 
It would seem the saintly image the media has cast Angelina Jolie into isn’t as angelic as she would like us to believe. With barely a week having passed since Angelina brought home another adopted child from overseas, her Vietnamese son Pax, the actress has signed on to begin shooting another movie starting in April, an action film called Wanted, with filming based in Prague. Many were surprised to see her show up in Chicago for screen test for the film on March 23, with new son Pax only just introduced into his new family.
Angelina had said in interviews that she had no plans to be away from her family as they transitioned another child into their growing brood which now stands at 4: 5-year-old son Maddox from Cambodia, 2-year-old daughter Zahara from Ethiopia, 10-month-old daughter Shiloh - her only biological child with partner Brad Pitt — and now Pax, her 3-year-old son from Vietnam. That’s four children under the age of five. Not an easy task for any mother, but an especially difficult one for a mother who has a busy schedule that keeps her away from her children for days at a time. Angelina’s statement on March 16 to Ho Chi Minh City Law newspaper :
“I will stay at home to help Pax adjust to his new life.I have four children and caring for them is the most important thing for the moment.”
While some are slamming Us magazine as being jealous and angered over Angelina favoring People magazine for her coveted pictorials, that is simplistic at best. I doubt a whole editorial board of a major magazine decided to go after a huge star with such a stark tone, without some kind of actual concern for the situation of her family. This is Us we’re talking about, not the National Enquirer.Â
And I am reticent to point this out, but I have been voicing my concerns about the Angelina Manipulation machine for months. Not once have I ever felt comfortable with the image she portrays to the world. Something deep within me feels stirred and uneasy about the facade of “goodwill” she wants us all to accept  – perhaps it is my own maternal instincts. At the core of my concern is that she really does favor her adopted children over her biological one, a claim Us makes as well.Â
If this is true, which I fundamentally believe it is, then that is the sign of a horribly sick mind. The kind of mind that would eventually do something either consciously, or subconsciously to harm her biological child. I doubt in a physical way, but absolutely in a spiritual and psychological way. I am confident that Brad also has deep concerns about Angelina’s relationship with Shiloh, which may have led to the fight Us reported they had they had prior to her visit to Vietnam.Â
In fairness to Brangelina, we don’t REALLY know what goes on behind closed doors, and it’s doubtful that the children aren’t being cared for properly by a trained army of handlers. That’s not the central issue. The central issue is Angelina projects one thing to the world in an effort to manipulate and control her image as she would like it to be, but the real Angelina, the private one we don’t see - is not a saint, and truly as her own father said has “serious emotional problems.”Â
I’ve said it before, and I guess I need to say again, Brad isn’t going to make it with her for the long haul. He may be a philandering cad, but he genuinely seems to care about his children, and no good father would stay with a woman who isn’t true to her own flesh and blood.Â
Pink Stripe WordPress Theme Designed by Joni Mueller &
AHHHHH!!!! CELEBRATE!!! thank GOD a major magazine is finally NOT sucking up to hollywood’s major couple!
I think they struck at the right time, when there is so much info against Angelina that they are going to get people thinking, instead of defensive or pissed. This is so refreshing! YAY!!!
Comment by blah blah — March 29, 2007 @ 9:14 am
Let’s say, hypothetically, that Angelina *does* favor her adopted children over Shiloh. **WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM**???? You know that if it were the other way around—if she favored her biological kid(s) over any adopted ones—people wouldn’t even bat an eyelash. To me, *that* is the part that’s messed up.
Comment by V. — March 29, 2007 @ 9:30 am
I don’t think people are saying Favour her adopted children over her biological is to much of a problem. What the problem is is that she does not mention or show any type of care or emotion to her biological child Shiloh. Shiloh is left out of all interviews. Just like on Cnn she had said we plan to adopt again for Maddox and Zharah. Nothing about Shiloh. which to a lot of people is disturbing. I am just glad that Shiloh has a father that truely cares with all his love and devotion, Like Brad Pitt!! I just hope on day he pulls his head out of his A@* and leaves Angelina, and takes Shiloh with him. He better anyways or Shiloh will end up with many family issues later on in life.
Comment by Christa — March 29, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Christa, people claim that Angelina never holds Shiloh, never talks about her, etc., but I have not seen that to be the case.
One example (holding Shiloh) can be found here: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2006/10/angelina-shiloh-out-for-a-cute-stroll/
The coordinates of Shiloh’s place of birth are tattoed on Jolie’s upper arm—right next to Mad and Z’s coordinates.
I think that, if there are *fewer* pics of her carrying Shiloh than, say, Mad or Z, it’s only because Shiloh is still so little and in general doesn’t get out as much as the older kids. Seems pretty normal to me.
And I do recall a television interview with Angie saying that she felt “privileged” to be Shiloh’s mother, and that the pregnancy had done nothing but make her ecstatically happy.
I really think people are blowing things out of proportion and/or making assumptions about Angelina’s relationship to Shiloh vs. her other kids when the reality is that no one knows how mother and children interact behind closed doors.
I’d be willing to bet Shiloh is given as much love, affection, and attention as her brothers and sisters.
Comment by V. — March 29, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Why does everyone seem to want to criticize Angelina? What most of you don’t seem to understand is that she is exploiting the media and paparazi to make an impact in the world…NOT her chilren. Good for her for taking thier money and giving it to charity. They are intrusive, and have no respect for for human kind..
Comment by Christine — March 29, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Parents shouldn’t favor any of their children over another. Period. Each is different and equally deserving of their parents love and care.
Shiloh is absolutely unequivocally a second thought to Angelina. She doesn’t feel that Shiloh is as deserving of sympathy and understanding because she was born into privilege. What an enormously disturbing thing to say about your own child.
The woman is sick and those who are fooled by her are blinded by her manipulation. It’s really frightening how many people buy into her bs. I am just glad that some people are beginning to realize it’s all a very well orchestrated veneer.
Comment by dmdo1016 — March 29, 2007 @ 10:34 am
DmDo1016:
You state in your post that: “Shiloh is absolutely unequivocally a second thought to Angelina.”
Can you justify this assertion with appropriately documented textual citations from articles, books, and/or the web?
Because if you can’t, then you are merely speculating.
See my post above containing actual links to supporting material (example: Angelina carrying Shiloh–link posted in response to people who keep saying [all over the web] that she “never” carries Shiloh) and references to television interviews.
Don’t make unfounded statements unless you can back them up by providing sufficient evidence to prove your point(s).
I’ll wait patiently for whatever evidence (citations, links, etc.) you have to show us.
Comment by V. — March 29, 2007 @ 10:43 am
Quote by Angelina Jolie:
“I think I feel so much more for Madd and Zee because they’re survivors, they came through so much,” Jolie says in the new issue of U.K. Elle.
“Shiloh seemed so privileged from the moment she was born. I have less inclination to feel for her…I met my other kids when they were 6 months old, they came with a personality.”
I can speculate and read into that whatever I want, it’s my opinion. You are welcome to yours, however, I don’t agree whatsoever with yours and I guarantee you I have put way more thought process into my opinion than you have yours.
Do you have children?
Comment by dmdo1016 — March 29, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Also, there are far more pics of Angelina with her other two children than with Shiloh. A child under one needs far more attention than older children. If you are a mother and think her actions are okay, then I don’t really want to discuss this any further with you as I don’t feel you have anything to offer of value.
If you aren’t a mother, well that would explain your viewpoint.
Comment by dmdo1016 — March 29, 2007 @ 11:08 am
HURRAH! FINALLY, some people are coming to their senses and AT LAST daring to see through the fraud that is Angelina Jolie! I have been complaining about her for years! So nice to find like-minded people. Here are some of the comments I posted about the US story:
The point of this story is not anything from Angelina Jolie’s past. It is not about sexual promiscuity (which I do not believe she is guilty of), drugs, cutting, blood vials, stealing married men or serial adopting. Those are cheap, easy insults. The evil of Angelina Jolie is much more insidious.
It is about how she has consistently billed herself for years as a saint, presenting an image of absolute perfection without the slightest admission of humility or humanity, and, worse, how the media and so-called “journalists†have swallowed it wholesale. Her deviance has simply been sublimated to be more shrewd, cunning, manipulative and controlling.
The irony is that she goes on and on about her own “honesty†and “openness†ad nauseum. All her incessant harping on “morals,†“values,†and being a “good person†smacks of overkill. It sounds like the “lady doth protest too much.†If she really were as perfect as she would like to present herself, she wouldn’t have to work so hard to sell an image that is quite possibly the opposite of everything she really is.
Anyone who thinks People has a shred of credibility needs to go read Gawker about that magazine’s secretive, sneaky, under-the-table, backroom deal with Brangelina. The reason People has been getting Brangelina pics first for over a year is quite simply because People pays for them. Brangelina are literally on the People payroll. Brangelina made a deal with the devil for some desperately needed favorable publicity and now People has them by the horns … er, balls. Angelina Jolie did those photographs because she really doesn’t have a choice at this point. The whole arrangement is what People editors had to resort to after they were so pathetically humiliated by the fantastic US Magazine Kenya beach scoop two years ago.
People is owned by TimeWarner, which also owns CNN, and the Anderson Cooper interview last year was part of the $4 million package deal (You don’t really think People would shell out that much money for photographs alone, do you?) Around the same time, Time Magazine, also obviously a TimeWarner subsidiary, inexplicably and mysteriously fired Barlett and Steele, two of the greatest investigative journalists in American history. That $4 million could have kept Barlett, Steele and their staff working for at least another ten years, and we would probably know more about corporate and governmental corruption as a result, instead of all this celebrity B.S.
If you don’t know anything about journalism, know this: Paying anyone for interviews or photographs is just about the single most egregious ethical violation there is. Once you do that, you completely lose any shred of credibility you might have once had. US was not “scooped†on anything. Its editors simply refuse to pay an unconscionable amount of money by firing real journalists for a few photographs. People may have more “firsts†with this couple, but at least US never paid them a cent. The level to which People has stooped has done irreversible damage. Welcome to the corporate-media-celebrity complex.
Angelina Jolie is a CLASSIC CASE of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Read up on it. If you are at all familiar with her public history, the symptoms will describe her PERFECTLY.
I used to think her father was an idiot and commended her for cutting him off. Now, I understand completely exactly why she hates him so much. Like all narcissists, she hates nothing more than being called on her B.S. and will react violently against anyone who tries to do so. Her father is really the only person in her life who expressed the truth about her: that she needs help. Unlike every other man who has ever met her, he for one was not swayed by her charm or beauty.
Comment by Clarity — March 29, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
Oh yes Clarity, People magazine is pure evil and US Magazine is the last bastion of fine journalism. Give me a freakig break. While I do appreciate your pseudo-intellectual lecture on journalism (Edward R. Murrow is probably rolling over in his grave after reading your post), you are taking the side of a tabloid. A TABLOID. If you know anything about journalism as you seem to claim, you should know better than to take anything these tabloids say with a grain of salt. I do commend you for investing that much time and thought into something as important as a hollywood celebrity.
Comment by Annie — March 30, 2007 @ 12:24 am
Oh yes Clarity, People magazine is pure evil and US Magazine is the last bastion of fine journalism. Give me a freakig break. While I do appreciate your pseudo-intellectual lecture on journalism (Edward R. Murrow is probably rolling over in his grave after reading your post), you are taking the side of a tabloid. A TABLOID. If you know anything about journalism as you seem to claim, you should know better than to take anything these tabloids say seriously. I do commend you for investing that much time and thought into something as important as a hollywood celebrity.
Comment by Annie — March 30, 2007 @ 12:27 am
Calling your GORGEOUS baby a “blob” is not exactly sensitive and loving. Do you honestly think the baby doesn’t know of her indifference? She PROJECTS all these emotions on these children, who, in fact, have their own. Loving children is extremely selfless. I think Angelina is far too narcisstic for the job. Thank God little Shiloh has her Daddy, who seems to adore her, as he (and her mother) should.
Comment by Jesse — March 30, 2007 @ 1:43 am
Angelina is a she-witch. End of discussion. I also see “V” bailed. How shocking when faced with direct quotes that fans of Angelina’s are left speechless.
SHE-WITCH!!
Comment by dmdo1016 — March 30, 2007 @ 10:17 am
She never said I will quit working all togehter. She said at the moment . She has more than 3 moths to do that. If you take a materniy leave from your work that will be about the same time. Just leave her alone. She is doing her best.
Comment by angela — March 30, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
Wow all the haters. Leave them alone. Angelina loves all her children and you can see that. If a woman who has a heart to adopt the unfortunate kids, she’s got a bigger heart for her biological child. Grow up people. I’m the one who should be bitter that my adoption didn’t go through:)
Comment by Cgalore — April 1, 2007 @ 4:33 am
It’s obvious Angelina feels more for M and Z than for her own daughter. I just can’t comprehend how she can favour this uggly little troll Zahara over her own beautiful daughter. It’s only a matter of time until Brad leaves her and gets full custody of Shiloh.
Comment by DJA — April 2, 2007 @ 8:58 am
Zahara is beautiful.I can’t believe anyone would think otherwise.But besides that.What’s wrong with you. Your saying this about an innocent little baby.
Comment by SA — April 3, 2007 @ 12:25 am
[...] week Us Magazine came out with a rather tame article criticizing Angelina Jolie’s recent behavior. The front [...]
Pingback by GlossLip » Angelina Jolie’s Allegiance To People Magazine Is Having Repercussions — April 5, 2007 @ 9:33 am
MO, Zahara’s beautiful in her own way as Shiloh is in hers. I do notice that in recent times it’s not Mommy Jolie holding the later but Daddy Pitt. And when she’s in a picture with the child there’s no eye or physical contact between the two–What is friggin’ wrong with this picture? As for her “priviledge birth” comment regarding her younger daughter–Having been born into money over a mother’s arms bathing and showing love for her just doesn’t cut it!!!!
Comment by Camp Coker — April 17, 2007 @ 11:04 am