Site Presented By
Thursday, Nov 26, 2009
It's 2005 and newly separated starlet Jennifer Aniston is -- surprise! -- being pilloried for putting her career before motherhood.
Jan 11, 2005 | In a Friday evening press release announcing their separation, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston made a startlingly direct address to those who have been tracking their marital fortunes with the ardor of Red Sox fans. "For those who follow these sorts of things, we would like to explain that our separation is not the result of any speculation reported by the tabloid media. This decision is the result of much thoughtful consideration," read the press release. "We ask in advance for your kindness and sensitivity in the coming months."
The tabloid press responded to this cuffing with a giant "Whatever, dudes!" and a prompt avalanche of stories cheerfully regurgitating exactly the same speculation they've been churning out since the beginning of the Aniston-Pitt dynasty: He wanted kids, she wanted a career, he got tired of waiting.
The media lesson we're all being fed in the wake of the breakup -- whether it bears even a passing resemblance to the realities of Pitt and Aniston's marriage -- is glaringly clear: You may land a hot husband, ladies, but you'd better pop one out soon, or you won't keep him.
For the four and a half years since their wedding, the coverage of the Aniston-Pitts has included near daily checks of Aniston's frustratingly flat belly. There have been stories about her supposed trips to fertility clinics, and detailed records of every baby gift she ever lavished on former "Friends" costar Courteney Cox Arquette's new kid, Coco. She even mocked the way she was constantly hounded about her reproductive -- rather than her cinematic -- future on "Saturday Night Live," when she played a paparazzo yelling at Jennifer Aniston, "When are you going to have a baby?"
Then there have been the stories about Pitt's desire to bed his costar, Angelina Jolie, in the upcoming "Mr. And Mrs. Smith," mostly, it seems, because she has a cute son. Pitt hasn't helped matters by dragging his sorry ass around town and opining to anyone who'll listen -- Vanity Fair, Diane Sawyer -- about how eager he is for kids. "We've been in rehearsals for long enough," he told CNN, with a whiny candor that I hope earned him a tongue-lashing.
But now that the marriage seems to be ending, the press is gleefully dancing on a grave that they have dug: one that contains the corpse of a marriage that does not bear fruit. It's a regressive and scary message to women: No matter how rich, thin, beautiful or talented, what really makes us attractive -- after a few years of marriage anyway -- is our ability and willingness to reproduce on demand!
In highly speculative weekend coverage of the story, both the New York Post and the New York Daily News put the breakup on their covers; their tut-tutting could barely be suppressed.
The Daily News noted that after Aniston's hit show, "Friends," ended last year, "both fans and Pitt began pressuring Aniston, 35, to have a baby. Pitt made it clear to anyone who listened that he was ready for a change of life and to have children." The News story reported that the couple had a nursery built into their Beverly Hills home, and even suggested that the issue of children "really hit home" when Pitt's ex-fiancée Gwyneth Paltrow had a baby and started cooing everywhere about the all-consuming fulfillment of motherhood. The paper conceded that Aniston acknowledged that she'd like to have children and sometimes wore a fertility medallion. (Then again, wouldn't you throw on a fertility medallion -- or 12 -- if you had millions of people practically threatening to behead you unless you produced an heir?) "But," the story went on, "Aniston also set up a brutally heavy four-film work schedule that would leave her little time for motherhood in the next three years." An accompanying article quoted New York family therapist Jane Greer as saying, "It was really inevitable ... It was really just a matter of time."
The rest of the early coverage was in the same vein. The Star, quickly amending an on-stands cover headline that squealed, "Brad & Jen Back On: It's Baby Time!" posted an online story reporting that "He wanted children, while she was pursuing a full-time career as a film star after a 10-year successful run playing Rachel on Friends." As if to suggest that 10 years of superstardom really should be enough to satisfy any ambitious young woman. By Sunday, the Post's "Had to Be Dad" cover story was quoting unnamed sources who said that "Aniston doesn't want to take the time off to have a kid -- and she doesn't want to endure the physical effects that giving birth will have on her sexy body."
