And a delightful piece in the Atlantic Wire made fun of the whole thing. “Saints be praised. After nearly a decade of wandering this old blue globe like a keening ghost, lamenting lost love and scorning those that stole it from her, world’s loneliest and saddest woman Jennifer Aniston has finally found someone to settle (down) with after losing Brad Pitt.”
It’s of course part of our culture that we care about the love lives of celebrities—I’m not saying journalists shouldn’t report on them. But we in the media should be careful about lazy reporting that assumes the popular (tabloid-driven) narrative is the true one. Though romantic comedies may be focused on marriage as the only possible happy outcome, in real life, women find success in all sorts of ways. It’s wonderful that Jennifer Aniston is engaged. But she was successful—and likely happy—way before she found someone to share her life with.
- 1
- 2
The reasons, obviously, is the audience for this stuff. Without wading into high weeds of political correctness, here's a hint: men don't spend time reading about Jennifer Aniston.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 17 Aug 2012 at 04:59 PM
"because women are still in constant danger of being reduced to their roles as wives or mothers"
Most women I know consider their roles as wives and mothers to be an elevation, not a reduction, in social status and self-worth.
But as Mark notes... It is women, not men, who drive the "who's dating whom, what color were her bridemaid's shoes" stories. Women have an innate fascination with marriage and relationships - indeed recent research indicates that girls just six years old identify themselves as sex objects.
At the risk of offending feminist sensitivities, I think we're dealing with biology here.
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 18 Aug 2012 at 05:38 PM
And another thing...
Just tugging on the pullrope of the Reality Bell for a moment...
Since females are a MAJORITY in this country....
Shouldn't a series entitled "Minority Reports" be talking about how men are getting screwed over, instead of women?
HUH?
I know... I know...
We're not in Realityville...
We're in CJR-Land...
Sorry...
Preach on it, Sister Jennifer!
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 18 Aug 2012 at 07:36 PM
Wow, who knew that being a wife and mother was a "reduction" and a "constant danger?"
Maybe women like Jennifer Aniston are portrayed this way is because, they are, indeed sad and lonely.
The question isn't whether woman can be anything else if they are wives and mothers. The question is whether they should be anything else after they become wives and mothers.
#4 Posted by newspaperman, CJR on Mon 20 Aug 2012 at 01:12 PM
Being a wife and mother is not a "reduction." Having marriage and motherhood considered your only attributes is the reduction Jennifer is referring to. Only discussing one aspect of anyone's life or achievements is "reducing" that person in some way.
Once a man is married with children, should he be known primarily as a husband and father? Or do his career achievements merit recognition? That's the point of the statement, not that marriage and parenting aren't worthy, worthwhile, difficult, rewarding, etc.
#5 Posted by Jennifer Land, CJR on Mon 20 Aug 2012 at 05:51 PM
Nobody considers motherhood and marriage to be a woman's "only attributes".
Just look at Katy Perry... She is neither married, nor a mother, and she has fine attributes that everybody talks about.
But seriously...
Billie Jean King? Amelia Earhart? Hillary Clinton?
This whole gripe is nothing but a feminist whine.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 20 Aug 2012 at 08:34 PM
Wow. The commenters are something else in this here thread.
When the pay for being a good mom equals or exceeds the pay of being a good career woman, then we can talk about the "elevation" of societal status and self worth.
Until then, let's just face that the societal perception of motherhood, minus a support figure, is that of a low skill/low wage job. And let's also face the fact that in a society where women are often found judged by how they'd place in a swimsuit competition, that motherhood tends to affect a woman's body in a way that doesn't help.
Jennifer Aniston pretty much lost her husband because she was afraid the motherhood role would rob her ability to perform in her career role, and since has been struggling to get over it. Owen Wilson had a similar problem getting over Kate Hudson. Romance is sharp and people get cut.
But that's Anistion's story. It's not the story for every woman, every individual. The media should be careful not to overtell that story based on prejudices and assumptions about what a woman is or what a woman wants to be. Women can be career oriented. Women can be mothers. Women can be single. Some women can do it all:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051301628.html
And boy, it's rare, really rare, to hear a question as stupid as this one:
"The question is whether they should be anything else after they become wives and mothers."
Not your question to ask, not your position to answer. It takes a village to raise a child and we should be focused on building that sort of village, not pestering people about what sort of women should live in it.
Would you ask a single father to relinquish his career because of his three kids?
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 20 Aug 2012 at 10:04 PM