Jennifer Aniston recently went up against Bill O’Reilly after he made some comments on his show about how her movie The Switch glamorized single motherhood and now their debate is being brought up with just about anyone who might have a comment on the subject. Mary Louise Parker did an interview with Vanity Fair to promote the current season of Weeds, but somehow the interview wound up on the topic of the Aniston/O’Relly debate:

Jennifer Aniston got some flack recently from Bill O’Reilly because she said it’s O.K. to be a single mother. O’Reilly went so far as to call her opinions “destructive to society.” I’m pretty sure I know the answer to this already, but as a single mother who plays a single mother on TV, do you disagree?

I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Why is being a single mother destructive?

I’m not sure I follow his argument. Something about the nuclear family and fathers being disrespected.

Give me a break. He sounds like an idiot. Who is he again?

He’s got a show on Fox News.

That’s the right-wing channel? Well, there you go. Maybe he’s right, I don’t know. I don’t think you necessarily have to be part of a traditional nuclear family to be a good mother. A lot of children from traditional nuclear families have really unhappy childhoods, and they have dysfunctional, distant parents who don’t pay attention to them. Also, some people don’t plan on being single parents. It’s not like you’re sitting at home and thinking, “Wow, I’d really like to do this by myself. I’d love to wake up six times a night and change diapers and have nobody to help me. That’d be great!” I certainly didn’t do that.

So you’re not buying O’Reilly’s theory that single mothers are destroying the fabric of society?

I think that opinion is pretty narrow-minded. People like him—and I don’t even know who he is, so this is just a guess—they usually just say shit like that for attention. He probably comes from a nuclear family and didn’t get enough attention as a child.

As someone who grew up in a single parent household and can see the pros and cons of this type of environment, I have to say that I’m appreciative of both MLP and Aniston’s statements. It’s quite obviously not ideal to grow up “missing” a parent, but if a child is nurtured and cared for by their one parent, then that’s really all that matters. Biology doesn’t wait for a sociologically ideal time to kick in, right?

“Of course, the ideal scenario for parenting is obviously two parents of a mature age. Parenting is one of the hardest jobs on earth. And, of course, many women dream of finding Prince Charming (with fatherly instincts), but for those who’ve not yet found their Bill O’Reilly, I’m just glad science has provided a few other options.”

Har-har-har, cute, Jennifer Aniston. I just love your Susy Sunshine-brand of humor. No, but really, all joking aside: Bill O’Reilly is an asshat. (Read: His head is so far up his ass that he could wear his ass — as a hat — should he so desire.) And I agree 100% with Jennifer Aniston on her initial remarks about parenting, because all she was really saying was that the face of the ‘traditional’ family is changing. Which it is, and will continue to do so as long as humans and society continue to evolve. And there’s not a whole lot wrong with that. I’m not siding with the fact that a lot of people say that a single-parent family is where it’s at, ’cause I do believe that the optimal situation would be for two loving parents to be present in a home, raising a child with the greater good in mind. But not every situation can pan out in the way we all individually see fit.

I’m not sticking up for Bill O’Reilly — because we are not friends, and I am not a fan — but I have one final point: if Jennifer Aniston was a mother, and not a totally self-sufficient multi-million-dollar money-making movie star — oh, and a single mom, too — she might feel differently.

Can this whole ‘battle’ be over now?

Ok, so here’s how this loveliness began.  While she was promoting her new movie, The Switch, Jennifer Aniston made the following quote:

“Women are realizing it more and more knowing that they don’t have to settle with a man just to have that child. Times have changed and that is also what is amazing… that we do have so many options these days, as opposed to our parents’ days when you can’t have children because you have waited too long. The point of the movie is what is it that defines family? It isn’t necessarily the traditional mother, father, two children and a dog named Spot. Love is love and family is what is around you and who is in your immediate sphere. That is what I love about this movie. It is saying it is not the traditional sort of stereotype of what we have been taught as a society of what family is.”

After that, Bill O’Reilly and a couple of Stepford-looking Fox News ladies got together, as shown in the above video, and Bill said that Jennifer’s statement is “destructive to our society.”

I may not be the biggest fan of Jennifer Aniston, but I’m on her side with this one (it doesn’t hurt that I hate pretty much everything that Bill O’Reilly ever says).  I definitely don’t think a woman needs a man in her life to have a child, and I don’t think there’s anything in her statement that could be misconstrued as being supportive of teen pregnancy as Bill O’Reilly suggests.

Which side are you guys on?

And on a begrudging note, high five to O’Reilly for telling that woman it was “unfair” to get so personal and catty around the 0:28 mark.  I still don’t like any of these people though.

Because I can’t watch it.

First off, I apologize for my recent absence around these parts. My laptop is very sick. It’s at the Apple store right now undergoing emergency surgery, and hopefully it will come out alive and well. My friend lent me her laptop in the interim, but trying to be creative on a foreign computer is kind of like Mark McGwire playing baseball without steroids; it’s just not as impressive and things take much longer.

But I thought I’d share with you the video footage Sarah Palin’s Fox News debut. Maybe I could have watched the whole thing if she hadn’t been sitting next to Bill O’Reilly, who, in the first few minutes, tries to convince me that Sarah Palin is not a threat because she is both a mother and an American. Because, you know, once we chicks pop out kids in this country, we lose all potency to effect change in other arenas. There was nothing misogynistic about that remark, Bill. You’re a peach.

Furthermore, there is nothing at all threatening about Sarah Palin, unless you care about silly girl things like reproductive rights and foreign policy and evolution and the sheer terror that runs through your body when you realize how much of the country is reading this woman’s book without throwing something at the wall.

The truth is, I’m not especially angry about Sarah doing Fox News. I would way rather have her there, preaching to her choir, than in public office, capable of impacting those of us who don’t watch Fox News.

Does Michael Jackson deserve to adulation he’s received post-mortem? Here’s my story:

“So the Jackson story’s pretty much run its course?” a friend asked me tonight. “No,” I said. “At least six months more. At least.”

He was flabbergasted. “What could they be talking about for six months?”

Well, we’ll talk about the biological parentage of his kids, we’ll talk about who gets what in his estate, we’ll talk about who whore what to court and whether they were late; people will from time to time bring up the whereabouts of Bubbles and a potential feature film, at some point Macualay Culkin will have to weigh in, and then every now and then someone will make a very, very horrible but pee-your-pants funny joke about his death and I will laugh. Like what just happened a few hours ago. No, I’m not repeating it. But seriously. This is going to last FOREVER, so hop on the train and get a seat.

It’s a fascinating phenomenon, this public outcry of grief we see when a major celebrity passes. These deaths are an opportunity for mass catharsis. It’s not that these people are crying over Michael Jackson or Farrah Fawcett specifically; they’re externalizing pain that’s probably needed a release for some time. You see a sort of mob mentality take over — the grief feeds upon the grief. In today’s society, how often do we get an opportunity to stand on the street with strangers and share a good cry? It’s not really my style, but I can see the appeal. There are certainly less healthy outlets for pain.

Michael Jackson died from an accidental overdose of the prescription pills he was abusing. He died of addiction, which is a disease. That disease doesn’t make him a bad person, or less worthy of adulation, than if he’d died of cancer. Bill O’Reilly thinks otherwise.

Little Bill O’Reilly Tells It Like It Is – Watch more free videos

A Lil’ Bill O’Reilly.

Thanks Martin!