I'm both amused and dismayed by the passionate denunciations in the comments section of this blog post. The commenters are sure that Giselle is a skank, Brady is a cad, and Brigid is a victim. Could be true, who knows what really happened except for Brigid and Tom? The commenters write as if they were intimate friends with the celebrities, which I doubt very much. Such is our modern age that people get emotionally overwrought by the lives of celebrities. Perhaps celebrities replace the gladiators, royalty, and saints of earlier ages, the larger-than-life people that many ordinary folks looked up to and measured themselves by. Yeeks.
In the finger-pointing and denunciations, they've missed the point of Eagan's op-ed, which is that 1) single motherhood unfortunately no longer carries a social stigma and 2) the baby will no doubt suffer from not having a father. Eagan doesn't blame the actress, the model or the quarterback, she laments that our society has lost its moral bearings. It's wonderful that Brigid didn't abort their baby, but it's a shame that their child will have no father around. That's just not something to be happy about.
I totally agree with your comments. Except Tom Brady made the decision for Bridget that she would be an unwed mother. She would have married him in a heart beat and it was his selfishness and immaturity that is keeping this baby from having his father.
Posted by: Another blogger | June 17, 2007 at 02:31 PM
Tom looks bad in all the scenarios. No matter the cause of the breakup, his rapid and public moving on has humiliated the mother of his baby. And his lackluster comments about his future child ("challenge", something he must "deal with", not a "big deal", etc.) make him look like the worst kind of creep.
I think this is probably in keeping with the attitudes of many unwed fathers who refuse to marry their baby's mother. But it's never nice to see, and it's almost always the woman and child who get the short end of the stick. Although I don't know all the facts, I think this probably aplies to Bridget... so my sympathies are with her (and the child).
Posted by: JE | June 17, 2007 at 02:36 PM
Tom looks bad! My opinion is she looks bad. He dated her for 3 years and she still did not have a ring, she just turned a year older and her TV show was sucking so she was also out of work and approaching 40. All fingers point to her dumping her birth control and trying to take matters into her own hands. It backfired. He did not love her enough to marry her, but she is the one responsible for the situation. Tom Brady does not have to marry a woman he does not love, but he does have to support his child, which I am sure he will do.
Posted by: Holly | June 17, 2007 at 06:51 PM
Oh boy, here we go again!
Yes, women do pay a heavy price when there are unplanned pregnancies. The men get to pretty much walk away and start over. Thus it has ever been, despite the fervent, utopian wishes of feminists.
Posted by: miss kelly | June 17, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Just ignore Holly. She is a rabid Brady fan who posts against Bridget on every site possible. She doesn't care one way or another about the issue of babies and fatherlessness. For her, the only issue is making Tom Brady look good.
Posted by: Holly is biased | June 18, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Ever notice how women are referred to as 'unwed mothers', single moms, unmarried, etc.? Yet you will never see an article on Tom Brady that starts with the preface, unwed father, Tom Brady. Or single dad, Tom Brady.
Posted by: Tana | June 24, 2007 at 04:52 AM