Oh Baby

Oh my god, in just two days on “The View,” I think Rosie O’Donnell has performed some sort of Jedi mind trick on my brain. Because suddenly I’m not hating so much on Tom Cruise. Or, more accurately, TomKat.

Mystery baby Suri does exist, and looks enough like both her parents to prove she wasn’t purchased from Brangelina or otherwise scientifically engineered. Sure, she’s cute, as one might expect, but, and I say this with complete objectivity, not any more so than my 8-month-old niece or 1-year-old nephew. Which leads me to ask, why so much fuss over what’s essentially a poop and drool factory?

We were supposed to be disturbed by the fact that her parents have kept her under wraps for the past four months, if under wraps is defined as limiting visitors to friends and family as opposed to a global audience. Think about that for a minute and then get back to me on why that’s so Machiavellian. Or why the media expects and demands photos of celebrities’ children the instant they exit the womb.

I imagine most people don’t really give a damn about the little TomKitten. But the entertainment press does. How else to justify their existence? Denied access, they whipped up a little teapot tempest and in the process said some awfully nasty, and most likely untrue, things about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. OK, minimally Katie. (Why has she been hiding? Gee, I don’t know, because she has a newborn to take care of, because if she appeared in public looking anything less than svelte and magnificent, the press would crucify her.)

You know that dazed look on Katie’s face? Maybe it had nothing to do with Scientology. Maybe it had everything to with her lightning-fast ascension from the B-list to the A-Team, the constant glare of the paparazzi and all the incredibly cruel things written and said about her and her daughter.

Or maybe that’s just what they want us to think.

* * *

While Vanity Fair features editor Jane Sarkin hit the morning show circuit touting her magazine’s Suri scoop, another major birth almost escaped attention.

I’m talking about the arrival of the as-yet-unnamed male heir to the Japanese throne, which has set back women’s rights around the globe by at least a couple of centuries.

For those unfamiliar with Japan’s Imperial family, let me explain in simpler terms: Let’s say that Prince Charles and Princess Diana had two little girls—Wilma and Harriet—and weren’t able to produce additional offspring. Let’s say that British law wouldn’t allow Wilma or Harriet to become Queen. Why? Because boys just look better in ridiculously large crowns performing utterly superfluous ceremonial duties. What’s a country to do?: 1) change the law or 2) ask Prince Andrew and Princess Fergie to take one for the team and crank out a child with a suitable Y chromosome.

That pretty much sums up the situation in Japan where Princess Kiko (Fergie) is being lauded as a hero and Crown Princess Masako (Diana) has been reduced to a basket case, suffering from stress-induced depression. The Harvard-educated Masako gave up her career in diplomacy to marry the Crown Prince, only to be judged inadequate as a brood mare, having managed to only eke out a single pathetic female child.

I’m going to go kick the tires of our Honda in protest.

* * *

Meanwhile the other Katie, Couric that is, debuted as sole anchor of the CBS Evening News last night. And was promptly taken to task for wearing a white jacket over a black dress. Um, does anyone recall what Brian Williams wore his first day on the job over there at NBC?

So it hasn’t exactly been the best week ever for the fairer sex, and the feminist in me is left once again to ponder why sexism is so pervasive and so persistent. I know “The Da Vinci Code” purported to have the answer, but I still don’t believe it has anything to do with Audrey Tatou being the direct descendant of Jesus Christ.

Here’s hoping that by the time Prince What’s His Name-o marries Suri Cruise, we won’t still be asking this same question.