Britney Spears — the most unfortunate example of the stereotypical, rural, White-Trash-Baby-Mama — has gone and done did the “Oops!” unthinkable again: She got her sister pregnant.

Yesterday, the world unfortunately learned Jamie Lynn Spears, Britney’s 16-year-old sister — was 12-weeks pregnant — and she was keeping the baby.

Is it fair to blame Britney for her sister’s moral demise? Yes. Britney is not only a Pop Music SuperStar — who earns over $800,000.00 USD a month in music royalties — but young women the world over look up to her and model their behavior on hers: That is the requirement and consequence of Celebrity. That Aristotelian imitation is natural in the media and even more necessary in the family.

When you have obvious Absentee Parenting — both Spears sisters are clearly victims of immoral parental neglect — great and permanent mistakes are made, and the babies of child parents are those who suffer the most. Did no one teach Britney and Jamie Lynn the necessity of protected sexual contact?

While it may be unfair to directly blame Britney for her younger sister’s pregnancy, it is required and urgent we publicly hold accountable the parents who birthed the Spears sisters and then neglected their welfare as children. Now we are left with the sad spectacle of Britney and Jamie as new mothers caught in the dismay of their unknowing.


  1. What is it with these people ………. ?
    Mind you I suppose if she got $50,000 for the exclusive article I suppose it could be seen as a good career move. (Insert sarcasm smilie)

  2. It’s just a sad thing, Nicola. It’s all over the news. You cannot escape the story. Britney, according to, didn’t even know as of last night that her sister was three months pregnant.
    There are so many young girls who, unfortunately, look up to people like Britney and Jamie Lynn — and the message being sent is teenage pregnancy is fine.
    These media idols have much more direct control over children they have never met than the very parents of those lost children.
    We’re now guaranteed at least another generation of gawking as we track the promiscuity of the Spears offspring everyday in our entertainment lives.

  3. It is sad – 16 is very young to be having a child – especially when you are not much more than a child yourself.
    The messages they are sending is terrible – not all of that age have the parental wealth to cushion them, and provide lawyers etc ………
    It is condemning two generations to poverty – what a waste of lives.

  4. Yeah, Nicola!
    It is exactly a condemnation — for the children of those child mothers who will have to fight their way clear of their mothers’ behavior.
    Money may solve a lot of problems — but raising children is a job few can afford — and no 16-year-old can even begin to pay down that debt.

  5. One has to wonder where the Spears parents went wrong?
    I suspect they worked hard and spoilt their kids with money not time ………..

  6. The Spears parents — the mother especially — raised her two daughters to be performers to make money for the family… much in the same way the Lohan mother has worked her two daughters…
    Now that Jamie Lynn is “ruined” — as they say in the business, as the former “child star” of her Emmy-nominated Nickelodeon children’s show… one has a hard time imagining her future earning power as a former “beautiful innocent with promise” will ever come close to her past, youthful, successes.

  7. No gobbling today, Gordon! 😀
    Love the UPI link! Soooo funny! Why can’t her publisher just say, “She stinks as a mom. We’re canceling her book as she should’ve censored the behavior of her daughters.”
    I wish Nickelodeon took a harder public stance — sometimes money cannot be everything. Forget the bottom line for once and do the right thing and send a harsh message.
    Nickelodeon serves little kids. Girls from 5-19 watch Jamie Lynn’s show on their network. They could stand up for the right, moral, thing by condemning the impregnating of 16-year-old girl by her 19-year-old boyfriend and cutting her loose for the mistake to teach all the other little, poorer, less famous, girls that this sort of behavior has real consequences beyond the baby.

  8. Thanks for filling in the missing details – I wasn’t aware of the pushy parent/wage slave/cash cow effect going on.
    Maybe that was enough for the younger daughter to “opt out” so dramatically – rather than crash and burn like her elder sister.

  9. Nicola —
    Britney got out. Cut off her mom from her money and I think she even has a restraining order against her. The next workhorse was Jamie Lynn who was supposed to provide for the family.
    If getting pregnant was her way out — what a horrible choice. At least Britney has plenty of money to last her a lifetime. Jamie never got started.
    I’m hearing rumors that — now that Jamie Lynn is “out” — the family plans to pull Britney back in to start paying the bills again.
    This is what is happening to Bindi Irwin, too:

  10. The Bindi Irwin thing was and is appalling. Talk about exploitation.
    This whole concept of children as cash cows goes against my fundamental core.
    I cannot find the words to be honest – makes me so very very sick.

  11. It is sickening, Nicola.
    The NYTimes contacted me yesterday to ask permission to use a few quotes from my Binding Bindi article. Sounds like there’s going to be a resurgence of interest on this matter…

  12. total —
    Mom has son Bryan — he’s the family “manager.”
    I think they should all return to Louisiana together, lock the doors, shade the windows and live quiet, private, lives of desperation as they dream of killing each other. Please stay out of our eyes and lenses!

Comments are closed.