I make no bones about and offer no apologies for my obsession with my weekly fix, Star magazine. My fellow readers may have been drawn by the March 30th edition's headline that screamed about John Mayer's alleged intention to publish a tell-all about his ex-girlfriend Jennifer Anniston. Whatever. For me, the reading got worthwhile on page 62, with what I think of as a kind of round-up of round-ups: "Step Stars," about all the "celebrities who treat their partners' kids as if they were their own."  Indeed, the copy proclaims, "They're not bio-babies, but these celebs treat their partners' kids like their very own flesh and blood." Followed by pages of photos and quotes attributed to steps like Jenny McCarthy, Katie Holmes, Megan Fox, and Sandra Bullock essentially gushing, "I love them just like they're my own" over and over.

Who knew a stepchild was the new It bag? And that stepmothers were the new Mothers? No, I don't think the Star is the heart and the conscience of American culture. And I do think it's great to see positive relationships taking hold between kids and their stepmothers or stepmother-figures. But it's revealing and disappointing that a mass publication like this one has bought into and is perpetuating some familiar and pretty misguided notions such as: 1) being a stepparent is easy; 2) having a loving relationship with a stepchild is a simple matter of being kind and good to them, and you get back what you give; and 3) that the standard of success in a stepfamily is loving the kids "just like they're you're own." This, my friends, is apparently what makes you a good person, a good stepmom, a good woman.

But anyone who's been there without a stylist can tell you it's not so easy. And here's betting every false eyelash in Hollywood that all these lovey, perfectly maternal celebs have had their not-so-lovey days with these kids, and have been informed, at least once, "You're NOT my mom!"

The notion that women especially should love their stepkids like they're their own — and the presumption that, if they don't, they are somehow lacking, defective, and fundamentally awful, isn't new. But people who cherish this notion (some of them without even knowing it) and judge the stepmom, holding her more or less solely responsible when things don't go perfectly in a stepfamilies, are living in a dream world. "Have you tried just being nice to them?" more than one of us has been asked when things are not going well, as they so frequently and so normally do NOT in stepfamilies. Such bizarre biases — "Just be sweet and they'll come around!" — have nothing to do with Step Reality, in which stepkids typically feel loyalty conflicts, anger, and resentment about mom or dad repartnering, and try consciously or unconsciously to keep stepmom at arm's length, sometimes for years.

The littler the kids, the better the chances for an outcome that resembles something like a parental bond, of course. And there are plenty of women who have close and loving relationships with their stepkids of all ages. But let's not forget the truth that James Bray and other stepfamily experts have exposed: in the initial  years, and sometimes even for decades after, conflict and difficulty are the rule rather than the exception in stepfamilies. Even long after their formation, studies show, stepfamilies are less cohesive and close than first families — though that doesn't mean they can't be high-functioning and satisfying families as well. What the stepfamilies that succeed have, rather than super-close dynamics and perfectly-synchronized feelings and family rituals is flexibility, respectful behavior between members, and tolerance to spare.

The lesson here is to stop judging stepfamilies by first family standards. And to stop expecting stepmothers to act and feel like mothers.  With that burden lifted from our shoulders, we can build something real with his kids.