(no subject)

[wavyarms]

Yes, I am posting a link about Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston. It's an interesting article. What's your opinion? Is the author right about the way the press has crucified Aniston for refusing to have kids just yet?

Comments

[ex-a517dogg70.livejournal.com]

I haven't heard about the press crucifying Aniston, but then again, I wouldn't be the one to ask. But I do have some serious beef with the author.

"Jolie's role ... speaks quite terrifyingly to the way in which we seem to be in the midst of a cultural moment in which motherhood is revered to a dangerous degree."

I fail to see how respecting women who give up careers for a family is dangerous.

"...Jolie is cast as irresistible to a baby-hungry Pitt because of her natural maternal instincts (and, implicitly, her femininity)."

I also fail to see why the author doesn't realize that mothers are by definition feminine. Rebecca Traister seems to be saying something like "how DARE the media portray motherly women as sexy! The only women that are allowed to be sexy are the ones on "Sex in the City!" or something like that. She comes comes off as a real bitch. She's blasting Brad Pitt for wanting children before he's in his late 40s:
"Why is it such a crime that Aniston should want to get the good roles she's still offered and up her asking price before her female body and face begin to fall and age and literally lose their value?"
Apparantly she hasn't thought of whether Brad Pitt would like to play catch with his 10 year old kid before he has arthritis. Maybe Ms. Traister would be happier if all babies grew up in test tubes and were raised by nurses, so real people with careers didn't have to deal with them. Gah. I was barely able to get the intended point of the article because I started disliking her so much.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Well, now, hold on.

First of all, the first quote about how the media's portrayal of Jolie has changed is what I found most effective about the whole article. The media portrayed her as a freak for wearing black and admitting to self-mutilation and having tattoos and all this sort of thing, which was not fair. But it is also strange that once she got a child, she went from being portrayed as a strange freak to a wise and nurturing sage. In our culture in general, and in Hollywood in particular, motherhood is being extremely fetishized. If someone is a mother, it is assumed that they are also:
-a nice person
-down-to-earth
-imbued with spiritual wisdom
-more caring about other people in general (not just their child) than non-parents

Jolie is a concrete example of that fetishization at work. So, Traister isn't blasting the media for portraying mothers as sexy - she's blasting it for portraying them as sexier than non-mothers. And the author isn't making a comment on Jolie's choice (or, if she is, she shouldn't, b/c it detracts from her point.) She's making a comment on the media's response to that choice. Women should be able to choose to have a career or have a family and be equally respected - the author is arguing that the problem is that they aren't equally respected. Jolie, the mother, is being respected more than Aniston, the career woman.

As for Pitt, it's actually a perfectly reasonable thing to break up with someone because they don't want children and you do. It's a big issue, and one of the few that can't really be resolved so well with compromise. But it does show a certain lack of suavity to talk to reporters as though they were your friends, and complain about the problem. Keep it inside the family, y'know?

You'd think two people would hash out the whole kids problem before getting married, but that's just me.

[shgb.livejournal.com]

My opinion is that the author can't form an argument to save her life. She never supports her central thesis that the press "crucified" Aniston. Just because they broke up because they couldn't agree on the kids issue doesn't mean it's Jennifer's fault, and no where in the article could I find any evidence that the tabloids where blaming the entire thing on her. Am I wrong in thinking that disagreements over when/if to have kids is a perfectly logical reason to end a relationship? I don't think Anniston did anything wrong by deciding not to have kids (then or in the future), but I also can't find any fault in Brad for wanting to move on if he really wants to be a father right now.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

I agree. (See above.) But I don't think that the idea that Aniston is taking more of the fall is untrue (although to support that statement, I would have to do a lot of research that isn't very appealing to me. :)

[shgb.livejournal.com]

If Aniston is taking more of the fall, that would certainly be wrong, but I don't think the author successfully made that argument. She made that claim but then proceeded to rant write about why that was bad without ever supporting her initial assertion.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

I think she's assuming we read US magazine often enough to know that Aniston is being blamed. Why she would assume this of Salon readers is a different question.

[chorusgirl19.livejournal.com]

Think of it this way: who cares? She's rich and skinny and got to screw Brad Pitt. If she gives a flaming banana what the press thinks then she has her priorities in the wrong place.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

My dear. You are not entering the proper spirit of cultural inquiry and analysis that we are trying to foster in this forum.

Besides, she has to care what the press thinks. Public opinion determines whether she gets the next job.

[chorusgirl19.livejournal.com]

But... she got to screw Brad Pitt... Public opinion be damned! If I got to screw Brad Pitt and I had millions of dollars, I wouldn't care if I never worked again!

[kcobweb.livejournal.com]

I think the article is pretty valid, actually. Motherhood - and pregnancy - are fetishized to a large degree in this society. I think many many people still see motherhood as something that is a central part of the female experience. You aren't quite a Real Woman if you don't spawn.

You don't have to do a lot of research - if you've been in a grocery store, you could see tabloid headlines any week of the past year speculating about whether Brad and Jen were pregnant, or were talking about kids, or about *when* they'd have kids. At least one tabloid, every single week, I'd be willing to bet.

Whether it's true or not from within their relationship, that is the spin the media is putting upon this - I've seen a very bare minimum of some of the Brad-Jen breakup coverage (yes, shut up), and it did focus to a large extent on the Kid Factor.

I agree that the point about the flipflop in Jolie's public image is striking. I also found the part about this being a key time in Aniston's career to be compelling. She's coming off Friends, she has a handful of so-so to okay movies under her belt, and she's 35 (do you know what that is in Hollywood years?) - this is totally a key time for her. Another few years and she'll be 40 and stuck playing Mom roles. She may not be ready for that stage yet.

Or *gasp* - she may just not want kids. (The article doesn't even go there - talk about the ultimate in unfemininity!)

So the breakup is not so much Jen's fault entirely - they shoulda talked about the kid thing before they got married, absolutely - except that she's kinda unwomanly for not wanting kids. And we can definitely blame her for that.

[amade.livejournal.com]

Meh. Who cares? In a more general sense, shouldn't we be asking why the press and the public are so interested in the private lives of two celebrities than, say, people dying everywhere, poor moms who can't even make a decent living, etc?

(And mind you, this is not aimed at you, at all.) It just strikes me as completely bogus that people want to use celebrities as a meter for "thoughtful discussion" and "debate," when really, in comparison to the reality most people in the world live in, they [the celebrities] are living in paradise?

[amade.livejournal.com]

By the way, this was not intended to offend - I just have been really annoyed over the "Brad & Jennifer" and "Ben & Jennifer" and "Paris Hilton" crap that FLOODS the papers here.

Election scandals, destruction, war, torture, etc, and the best thing the newspapers can put on the front page is whether or not Jennifer Aniston is preggers?

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

No, no, not at all! No offense taken! I'm just too busy to reply to posts!

I take what you're saying, but at the same time I think the things we expect of our celebrities reflect in very interesting ways on our cultural values as a whole. I agree that paper-space shouldn't be taken up with it, but since it is, it's interesting to speculate on what it means.