is a father. As for the illusion that she alone shoulders parental responsibilities, Ms. Manheim acknowledges that her own father and mother, sister, brother and nannies are home behind the scenes taking care of her infant while she hogs center stage.
I'm sure Ms. Manheim's relatives serve as able and loving baby-sitters. But there is no one else in the world who can ever be as physically and emotionally bonded to this child as the two people -- mother and father -- who gave him life.
In Tinseltown, however, such absolute truths are outdated. Reflexive moral relativism rules the roost. Who are we to judge? "Thankfully, we've come to a point in our cultural history where I don't have to wear a scarlet letter on my chest and be condemned for being a single mother," Ms. Manheim mouthed off to InStyle magazine last month. "I plan on providing everything a child needs, including male stimulus from family members and friends," she said.
"Male stimulus"? As if the invaluable role of a father -- his simple presence, his daily contributions, his moral authority -- could be replaced by an occasional visit from an uncle, neighbor or some other male human electrode.
In the "progressive" feminist worldview, dads are little more than expendable sperm donors. The strength, discipline and guidance Ms. Manheim received from her own father mean nothing to her now. Women like Ms. Manheim see children not as the fruit of a loving union between two married partners for life -- but as just another accomplishment to check off on their to-do list. A friend of Ms. Manheim's recalled in a magazine interview that the actress vowed: "I'm going to have a baby before I'm 40, and I don't care if there's a man in my life or not."
Ms. Manheim is not alone. There is a growing population of single mothers by choice (they refer to themselves as "SMBCs") who have denied their children the benefits of having fathers because marriage is just too much work. Ms. Manheim's self-indulgent attitude is typical. She told her Hollywood pal, model/designer Emme, that one of the many advantages of single parenthood by choice "was that she didn't have to seek approval from her significant other about baby names." Ms. Manheim exulted: "I don't have to sit there and say, 'Is that OK?'"
So no man will get in the way of Ms. Manheim's decisions about her son's name, clothes and moral development. No one else will share his first words, first steps and first day at school. "Milo," Ms. Manheim must gloat every night in her lavishly decorated nursery, "is all mine." Daddy be damned.
How convenient for Ms. Manheim. How devastating for her son. This arrogant lifestyle choice will teach little Milo that fathers are merely impediments to a woman's self-fulfillment. It will teach him to seek solace in material wealth over emotional enrichment. It will teach him that sharing and sacrificing are for chumps. How on earth will Ms. Manheim teach her son to be a good father when she has made such a mockery of the concept?
"Go ask your Male Stimulant" seems a criminally inadequate response.
Milo Jacob Manheim won't be celebrating Father's Day this weekend. Like a growing number of celebrity babies, 3-month-old Milo doesn't have a dad in his life -- and that's exactly the way his biological mother wants it.
Chalk up another victim of Hollywood's twisted family values.
Actress Camryn Manheim, an outspoken liberal, is publicly defiant about her decision to be an unmarried single mother by choice. "There is no father," she tells reporters who request the identity of Milo's other parent. Ms. Manheim boasts: "I'm 100 percent a single mom."
Who is Ms. Manheim kidding? There is no such thing as a 100 percent single mom. Unless Ms. Manheim underwent an immaculate conception, there