Lemondrop

Did you know that because of Jennifer Aniston and her new movie, "The Switch," which opens Friday, men will no longer be necessary in the familial equation? Or that 12- and 13-year-olds will start getting their names on the sperm-bank list, like, NOW? That's what Bill O'Reilly would like you to think.

In a public disagreement that has an achingly familiar Murphy Brown / Dan Quayle feeling -- in both vehemence and content -- Aniston unwillingly set off O'Reilly off last week when she said this: "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 is that we do have so many options these days ..."

O'Reilly lashed out at the Hollywood actress, calling her "destructive to our society."

That's a little bit harsh, don't you think? Aniston's non-incendiary response went something along the lines of, OF COURSE we'd all love to find that perfect mate -- with accompanying parental skills -- but sometimes that doesn't work out.

While her restraint may be admirable, I really wish she had blasted him -- really, truly tried to one-up his ultra-traditional ways. Not because he's a Republican or because he's the definition of conservative, but because he really has no right to determine what makes a sound, happy, healthy home for a child. And one man and one woman isn't the only scenario.

O'Reilly is fixated on this binary version of parenting, when what he should be focusing on is the end result: Will this child develop into a productive, caring member of society? And do you need one man and one woman to secure that result?

Full disclosure: I am a heterosexual, married mother to one daughter. Nothing really non-traditional about my life. I don't write this to represent a minority of any sort. But with the experience I do have -- trying very, very hard to be the best parent I can be and raise a happy child -- I have learned that it doesn't take a mother and father to do so.

On any average weekday at our house, our daughter sees her dad for about 15 minutes in the morning and about an hour before bedtime. While he is emotionally necessary to our lives, he's much more essential to my sanity than to our daughter's well-being. He makes life as a parent indefinitely more manageable.

Let's say Jennifer Aniston decided to follow her character's path in "The Switch" and get in line at the sperm bank. Can you imagine how many nannies that woman would have? Seriously, that child would never have a want in the world. One happy baby, and no dad in sight.

I suppose what I'm really saying is that it takes a solid support system. Whether it's a husband, family and friends, or a hired staff of babysitters or daycare providers, every mother needs people around who care, and every child needs role models of both sexes from which to learn. Think about any family with two full-time working parents. In those cases, the children spend more time with a nanny than they do with their parents. Yet they turn out to be wonderful, productive members of society, too. Mom and Dad are out of the picture for 10-plus hours a day, but a good role model can go a long way.

So, back to our question: Is Aniston a threat to our society as a whole? Of course not. She's not the first person to suggest that women who want children shouldn't wait for a mate to do so. And she won't be the last.

And if I had any choice in the matter, I'd take a paid nanny over an hour-and-fifteen minutes of Bill O'Reilly as a father figure any day.