amara
Guest
Nov 28, 2024 12:49:37 GMT -4
|
Post by amara on Nov 10, 2007 0:09:12 GMT -4
I think the very fact that they choose L.A. because they have lived there for years and consider it home to speak pretty strongly though. Nicole's only now thinking of getting a home there. I'm not going to assume she's fought tooth and nail for them when for the majority of their life the woman hasn't even lived in the same country as them. Sorry. To me, her actions and words just don't line up with a woman who either has her kids as her #1 priority or who has been pushed out of their lives against her will.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 12:49:37 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2007 0:24:24 GMT -4
I think the kids came with her dream of her and Tom 4evah! and when that died, she left them with him. They were a part of Life With Tom, which is now over.
Now she has a different life.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 12:49:37 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2007 0:44:24 GMT -4
I usually don't even bother arguing about whether Nicole is a negligent parent or whatever. Some people just believe she's a crap mother, and will twist random quotes she makes to reinforce this belief. So she said her husband is her number one priority? If anyone has the recent People Magazine (Owen Wilson cover), Seal says exactly the same thing: Heidi comes first. He elaborates by saying at the beginning of their relationship it was just the two of them, and when the kids grow up, it will just be them. I, personally, think that's a healthy perspective. Starting from when I was 15, my mom would come home from work, cook us a meal, and then go to my dad's practice to eat with him. That arrangement made her happy, and my siblings and I never felt a void. It would have been so much worse for me had she stayed home, all moody and lonely. I'll be damned if anyone accuses my mom of negligence because the only people who can accurately cast that stone are the ones directly affected.
There are articles mentioning how both children were with Nicole in Australia several times this summer, and there is a recent snippet about how Nicole has made arrangements at a hotel room, or some resident (I don't remember the exact details) for her and her children's stay in Berlin during the filming of The Reader. In addition, Keith has commented on his relationship with the stepchildren. She obviously spends time with her children, and judging from every picture I've seen, including recent ones of her holding hands with Isabella in Australia, she's still very much connected to them. I don't think she could do anything, short of documenting every moment with them, to alter people's perception of her parenting skills--though I'm sure the inevitable cries of 'PR stunt' would commence. As for them being raised as Scientologist, since she refuses to talk about the issue, how does anyone know the exact parameters of the situation or what course of action is right?
I've always liked Nicole, and for some odd reason, with every judgment passed on her mothering, my fondness increases. Anyway, that's the last I'll ever comment on the whole issue because it just feels like an endless merry-go-round.
I'm pretty sure she had places in both LA and NY a couple of years ago. Only since her marriage to Keith has she settled elsewhere in the states.
|
|
|
Post by sugarhigh on Nov 10, 2007 1:42:51 GMT -4
It seems like the perception of her being a bad mother only came around after Tom started famewhoring at up at Isabella's and Connor's games. Before that point, neither Nicole nor Tom were pictured very much with their kids.
I prefer that approach much more than parading them in front of the paparazzi like other stars do. *coughBritneycough*
|
|
xenna
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 450
Feb 22, 2006 22:34:04 GMT -4
|
Post by xenna on Nov 10, 2007 3:26:21 GMT -4
It seems like the perception of her being a bad mother only came around after Tom started famewhoring at up at Isabella's and Connor's games. Not so fast. Before CPMCoG and Fametracker, there was Usenet, and Tom and Nicole's divorce was hashed out from every angle in groups like alt.gossip.celebrities and alt.showbiz.gossip. I found this with some quick googling, it looks like both their parenting skills have been under attack since they split.
|
|
shiningstah
Guest
Nov 28, 2024 12:49:37 GMT -4
|
Post by shiningstah on Nov 10, 2007 5:56:47 GMT -4
I'm with all those who are actually critical of her treatment of her kids. I said it long ago and I'll say it again.
She either feels they aren't that important to her because they are adopted because I can't believe she would let her flesh and blood be exposed to all the abomination that is scientology or maybe she would and she's that awful.
The thing is, like someone said here, she is no poor nobody without money, fame or influence. If anyone ever had the means to fight for their kids, it's her. Women of much less means, intelligence or power fought for their kids.
My critical point about all this is the fact that she DOES know what scientology is! She knows how evil, ignorant and dangerous it is first hand and she rejected it completely. She had the balls to fight that long before they divorced. She must know that kids being raised like that are damaged to a great extent and on many levels.
Many people say that maybe she hopes they return to her when they are adults but nobody can count on that. It's like knowing your kids are sexually abused or abused in any other way for years and think "hopefully in a few years I'll get a chance to be with them, explain, put them through therapy and they might have a chance to get over it".
First of all, they have to be affected emotionally by not being raised by her and by not really having a mother in their daily lives and by whatever brainwashing they might experience through their childhood. I'm not sure any kind of mother-child feelings can be recreated by the time they are adults.
Second of all, their whole personality, character, life views, morals and behavior are being molded and solely affected by this cult during the most important years of one's life. It's very difficult if at all possible to affect all those when one has already reached adulthood. These are not just a few years she is sacrificing in the hope that they may ditch it all a few years from now and come back to her. By the time they reach adulthood, they are already the people they will be as grownups. She must know that and how critical childhood is in any person's life, let alone one that is being experienced in that dangerous cult.
Mothers who really care about their kids' wellbeing sacrifice their comfort, economical status and even their lives to prevent damage or danger to their kids. She obviously doesn't seem to have sacrificed anything and chose herself over them. if she feared for her career because of fighting for them, she should have given up on her career. And I'm sorry but inspite of all I heard about the clams, I don't believe it was fear for her life that motivated her.
At no other time was there anyone that had so much going for her while fighting a clam (not necessarily the whole clamhood). As much as she had to lose from fighting him, tom had much more to lose, way more and so did the cult. Nicole had many aces up her sleeve right then and it doesn't seem like she used any of them in favor of her kids.
|
|
|
Post by lpatrice on Nov 10, 2007 7:44:47 GMT -4
Considering how devastated she was after Tom left her, I don't think Nicole had any fight in her. I think she really did love Tom, scientology and all, and she was just completely blindsided and crushed by his decision to leave her.
And it is fun to talk about Scientology and all, while I agree that it is weird and it may be a cult, it isn't criminal and it isn't illegal.
So what her kids will probably be wackjobs. Newsflash lots of people are wackjobs, even without scientology.Besides I'm not overall concerned about scientology the basis of that "religon, cult, faith" or whatever you want to call it, isn't all that more wacky and logic defying than other more established and accepted forms of religion, faith, blah blah blah.
|
|
gosspot
Guest
Nov 28, 2024 12:49:37 GMT -4
|
Post by gosspot on Nov 10, 2007 7:55:40 GMT -4
Those kids were born to impoverished Sea Org parents. Have anyone seen the adoption papers? Maybe it's stipulated that the children be raised as Scientologists? What legal rights would she have to take them away from their place of learning? Until the US government recognizes the organization as a cult, I'm not sure NK has the kind of money or power to fight Clambo and his cult. Sometimes just as much damage can be done to children by putting them through a custody battle. Like someone said, they are not in any danger physically. The best she can do is bide her time and offer them unconditional love and for them to know that she there whenever they need her.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 12:49:37 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2007 10:04:08 GMT -4
I remember reading somewhere that adoptions set up by the church stipulate that the children be raised scientologist. I think Nicole is walking a fine line between not being part of the church and not being labeled a suppressive. At that point, she'd lose all contact with them. I'm guessing that she'd just trying to maintain a presence in their life until the time that they get sick of Scientology.
I'm not the biggest fan of Nicole but I cannot wait for the Golden Compass to come out. I adored the books and am nervously waiting to see how the movie plays. Another board I visit (A travel board with lots of conservatives) had a thread about the movie/books. I was flabbergasted at how many people flat out said they wouldn't see the movie because of the religious pov.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 12:49:37 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2007 10:53:06 GMT -4
I'm looking forward to the Golden Compass. It looks interesting. Maybe all the religious protest will backfire and make the movie more successful. Goodness knows the woman needs a hit. Daniel Craig's in it too, so I think I"ll show up just for a glimpse of some of that!
|
|