Actress Jennifer Aniston “tunes out” ideas of starting a family
The normally unflappable star uncharacteristically snapped at a reporter this week who not so innocently asked ‘So, what does family mean to you?’ A round about way, Jen rightly felt, of asking ‘So, do you want children?’
Clearly riled, Jen, who is 44 and child-free, went on to complain that’s she tired of being asked about kids by reporters who are attempting to be subtle.
‘It’s something about family and trying to relate it to the movie with, “Oh, if I was to have a child how many kids do I want?” And “do I want a boy or a girl?”
…Jen went on to say that she tries her best to ignore stories about her desire to start a family with her 41 year old fiancé Justin Theroux.
‘I surround myself with my amazing work, my amazing friends, my amazing partner, my beautiful dogs, and I tune that noise out. I mean, I think it’s very sweet that people want everything for me,’ she explained, noting that she’s ‘so content and happy’ as is.
~ Ashley Pearson defending actress Jennifer Aniston’s reaction to those who inquire about her lack of children, Daily Mail, Auguest 11
[HT: Laura Loo]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
She gets hounded on this so much and I do wish they’d leave her alone. She’s said in the past she wants kids and rumor was that until her and Brad split, they were trying. I’m sure she’s tired of the question.
I would never ask someone directly when they were having kids, or if they were trying, etc. You just never know what is behind that. Sure, a lot of people without kids are childless deliberately and selfishly, but sometimes what you don’t know is that there is a history of heartbreaking infertility or multiple miscarriages. I have a brother married 9 years now and childless even though I know he loves children. I would never dream of asking when they are going to have kids. Celebrities are no different.
She isn’t married!!!! She shouldn’t be trying to have kids anyway!!!
I agree Anna. The lack of children may be a painful circumstance for her. So she’s a celebrity – so what. She is a person like anyone else, and we should have some common decency and courtesy for her just like we should for other people. I get really tired of the apparent complete lack of common human decency in the media. Leave the girl alone.
I have infertility issues and have lost two precious babies. This is the question I dread most.
Some questions should just remain unasked, especially by strangers.
She’s had to endure countless “pregnancies” in the tabloids. I bet she wishes she had a dollar for every time she saw a headline that read “finally a baby for Jen!”
Whether she’s had a miscarriage or is post-abortive, I agree, enough is enough. If she wants to present a child to the public, she will in her own good time. Maybe if she gets on the other side of the camera (producing, directing) the tabloids will lay off. I don’t know how celebrities endure it; living under a lens all the time. I don’t think most aspiring actors realize how much their life will be affected by that kind of fame.
I think asking/hinting around at someone who is childless about whether they are trying for children just as rude as when someone makes a comment after someone already has children and are pregnant with another, “Don’t you know what causes babies?”
To me most of the Hollywod types are a waste of my time. Jen has proven herself to be an individual without any purpose in life other than superficial things to fill up tabloid space.
If, say, we wanted to compare Jen to Christina Applegate who has her own thread here from a few days ago – who do you think wins the day? And why?
That’s an interesting question, Thomas. However, Jen gets a whole lot more tabloid attention than Christina ever did, plus Jen had the misfortune to lose her husband to a woman who is likewise constantly in the tabloids, WITH her many children. Not since Elizabeth Taylor and Debbie Reynolds have two women been so constantly compared. Ok, Joan Crawford and Bette Davis, too.
Christina has been lucky to be a bit less than A-list and thus hasn’t had so much of her personal life made public.
“Christina has been lucky to be a bit less than A-list and thus hasn’t had so much of her personal life made public.”
That’s exactly it Ninek! But I would venture to propose that Christina would be a totally different person in the constant spotlight than Jen is.
Aniston is driven by this spotlight and has some unfulfilled need to be one-up on her “rival” Jolie. I just think that Jen “steps” into the spotlight with premeditation but Angelina does not.
So that would be a Team Jolie shirt for Thomas? LOL!
Thomas R. says: Jen has proven herself to be an individual without any purpose in life other than superficial things to fill up tabloid space.
Wow. This comment strikes me as amazingly uncharitable. I don’t know much about her, but I sure wouldn’t assume I knew enough about any celebrity to say they have no purpose in life except a superficial one. You’re probably not aware of 95% of her life! What the heck!
Edited to add this link: http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/jennifer-aniston#charities
Lrning, you’re so kind. Yes, we shouldn’t judge celebrities on how they appear in tabloids. However, when you order my t-shirt, make it “Team Debbie” (Reynolds) ;>). As for Crawford and Davis, ooooh, I love them both!
And for the Biblical tabloid follower, I give you a choice between Team Rachel or Team Leah. LOL!! Ok, switching to decaf..
Seriously, Lrning! I would venture a guess that probably the BIGGEST difference between Jennifer Aniston and Christina Applegate is that one has kids and the other doesn’t. I’d bet that, ethically and politically, they are roughly similar to each other; but that’s just a bet. But my point is, it’s amazing how angry some people still get when they see a woman without children – how they assume that they know exactly why she has no children, that it was her own deliberate choice, etc; and likewise how those same people often attribute saintly qualities to women blessed with a kid. Take two women and put them both side by side, each expressing appreciation for the good things in their lives: the one grateful for her child gets praised and the one grateful for her career gets slammed. Maybe they are both just graciously appreciative of the various gifts they’ve been given, and not interested in complaining or crying publicly about the gifts they haven’t received.
Aniston had a miscarriage from Brad Pitt….rumour has it they split because he wanted kids and she wanted a career. I don’t think she’s having kids. I’m so tired of looking at her in the tabloids. I am not a fan of hers.
Aniston is pro abortion ….I like A Jolie much better.
And no Aniston is not post abortive but I’m sure she’s been on birth control through her relationships. Ive read she wanted to be the next Rita Hayworth type of actress. Her movies suck.
Anyway I am one of the few women who isn’t into Pitt either. He and Angelina are liberals whereas Pitts mom and Jolies dad are conservatives. sigh….but at least they seem happy together but they should get married.
Eh one more thing….I never did condone the adultery but sometimes these things happen. Yes Brad should have divorced Aniston before he and Jolie bedded. Pitt and Jolie issued a statement saying that until gay marriage is legal everywhere only then will they marry. They want equality for all.
Okay done with my Aniston rant. But yes I do believe that she is envious of AJ.
Left out the most important thing….Although I wish Aniston and the Kardashians would go away…..Hollywood just loves to keep beating the dead horse of Anistons love life…If she really doesn’t want kids then good for her. I wish her well on her soon to be new marriage. Haven’t they been divorced for 9 years now? Time to move on.
Team Jolie, I like that Ninek!!! Thanks. But also how about Team Christina? I support her too ya know. LOL back…
Notice Lrning that nowhere in my assessment of Jen did I make a judgment call on her decision to put a family “on hold.” But I have been exposed to her antics long enough (since her career took off actually) to observe and be able to ascertain what she stands for. She may be the frontliner for a charity but that is about all she does for those charities . And as Heather pointed out, Jen is a pro-abort. Interesting bit of info from the website you provided (I quote verbatim) “The GLAAD Vanguard Award was received by Jennifer in 2007 for her outstanding contributions to increase understanding and awareness of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.” She is quite supportive of the traditional family, isn’t she??? Perhaps to you I am uncharitable toward Jen but to me its just reporting on harsh facts.
Nuns and priests don’t marry and have kids. Shall reporters nag them about their childless lives?
Nuns and priests are a given. Paparazzi not needed. “A” list actors by virture expose themselves to public scrutiny and that question, I think, is fair. If the bigshot actor does not want to answer it, they can simply respond “none of your business, next question please.” Instead they all get bent out of shape that the public who they want to attract to their side in the first place, is curious.
If it were not for the paparazzi and tabloids and these questions, Jen’s popularity would be in the proverbial toilet by now, for it is because of them she stays in the spotlight.
It has been long established that “stars” have no reasonable rights to privacy. If Jen is “tired of being asked,” she may have to stop seeking the spotlight to begin with..
Nurses and priests don’t have kids. Why would anyone ask?
“Nurses and priests don’t have kids.”
Nurses?
Oops nuns
Oh come on now JDC, you know what Heather meant. You are not a Phd level English professor, are you? LOL.
“Oops nuns”
Thanks for the clarification.
“Oh come on now JDC, you know what Heather meant.”
Hey, you never know…
“You are not a Phd level English professor, are you? LOL.”
That I am not.
“Wow. This comment strikes me as amazingly uncharitable. I don’t know much about her, but I sure wouldn’t assume I knew enough about any celebrity to say they have no purpose in life except a superficial one.”
Silly Lrning. Celebrities aren’t people. They are simply pretty empty shells for people to project their personal judgments and insecurities onto. They don’t have like, feelings, or personalities, or any of that crap.
Btw is anyone surprised all these young girl child stars end up in drugs and with mental health problems? If even adult women have trouble handling the crap that people think is acceptable to say to/about female celebrities, I can’t imagine how teenage girls deal.
And lol Thomas, Applegate is not exactly a conservative, her and Aniston are typical lefties in Hollywood. Applegate had her child before she was married, GASP!!! You haven’t been “exposed to Aniston’s antics”, you’ve gobbled up the gossip about her personal life, something that Applegate has mercifully gotten a lot less of, and it makes you feel superior to judge Aniston as a human being over tabloid gossip.
Oh, and btw Aniston would definitely still be famous if the tabloids treated her as they did Applegate (as in, not stalk the heck out of her, every time she has a less-than-happy expression captured on camera you get headlines of “omg is she suicidal over Brangelina’s new baby!!!”, it’s just ridiculous). She’s a good actor, out of the six Friends she’s definitely the most famous and had the best success breaking into the movie biz after the sitcom cancelled (Courtney Cox is the only one who stayed all that famous, other than Aniston). Aniston is hilarious, her movies are funny. She’s one of the most highly paid actresses currently.
It really annoys me that people devalue her accomplishments in her career to make annoying and sexist judgments about her character. I mean, Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise get a lot of tabloid flack, but at least people give them credit for their talent and success as actors. People like to reduce Aniston and Jolie and Applegate and other female actors to superficial tabloid fodder, ignoring their accomplishments.
“It has been long established that “stars” have no reasonable rights to privacy. ”
You can’t use the “well everybody’s doing it, herp a derp” argument for whether or not it’s okay to treat people’s personal lives as your entertainment. The only reason they have no reasonable expectation of privacy is because we as a culture allow people to be treated like this. We have presidential campaigns focused on whether Bush snorted some coke in college or Clinton inhaled, rather than their important policies that effect the country. We care more about Tim Tebow’s virginity rather than his ability to throw a football. It’s ridiculous, and it really doesn’t have to be like that. We can expect people to act like grown-ups and get out of this reality television mindset if we want to.
I will say this….ALL STARS pay a price for being in the public eye so they can retire whenever they wish. Either you like Aniston or you don’t. Personally I don’t. I do not like her movies and I do not find her funny. Anyway I find it odd that she went on the Ellen show complains about gay blogger Perez Hilton being a bully and calling her Jen Maniston but she chooses to hang out with bully Chelsea Handler who trashes everyone …..especially Angelina Jolie.
Its not okay to bully Aniston but she’s talking out both sides of her neck when it comes to Chelsea calling people ugly slutty or stupid. Get your bff in check Aniston ….one more reason I don’t like her.
JACK to LRNING: “Silly Lrning. Celebrities aren’t people. They are simply pretty empty shells for people to project their personal judgments and insecurities onto. They don’t have like, feelings, or personalities, or any of that crap. “
JACK TO THOMAS R: “And lol Thomas, Applegate is not exactly a conservative, her and Aniston are typical lefties in Hollywood. Applegate had her child before she was married, GASP!!! You haven’t been “exposed to Aniston’s antics”, you’ve gobbled up the gossip about her personal life, something that Applegate has mercifully gotten a lot less of, and it makes you feel superior to judge Aniston as a human being over tabloid gossip.”
In your response to Lrning you derail those that have opinions of others and make some assumptions regarding their motivations for doing so. In your response to me you commit the same error by judging that I gobble up gossip and that I feel superior. But you missed the following statement I made to Lrning:
“Notice Lrning that nowhere in my assessment of Jen did I make a judgment call on her decision to put a family “on hold.” What insecurities (filters) did you employ in order to project your judgment while bi-passing this consideration?
Just thought I’d point that out. To judge is human and all of us do it. Yourself included. LOL.
I agree with you Thomas …..Aniston is an Obama supporter even baked a cake for him. I don’t know if the tabloids just take her life story and run with it. Its always Jenn calls Brads mom…I doubt the Pitts keep in touch with her anymore. She’s been in the tabloids for 10 long years. Uh this divorce is ten years old.
“It has been long established that “stars” have no reasonable rights to privacy. ”
Yes Jack, and the same applies to us citizens and politicians while in public. SCOTUS has long held that any statements and actions in public are not protected by “right to privacy.”
Under current law, to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy a person must establish two things: that the individual had a subjective expectation of privacy; and that that subjective expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. If either element is missing, no protected interest is established.
Read the rest at http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy
“Notice Lrning that nowhere in my assessment of Jen did I make a judgment call on her decision to put a family “on hold.”
I don’t understand why you think this is significant, or even a response to my post that you are being uncharitable. So because you didn’t judge her for this particular decision, it somehow negates the fact that you said “Jen has proven herself to be an individual without any purpose in life other than superficial things to fill up tabloid space.” You judged her entire life to be superficial (when you only know about a small portion of her life that apparently ends up in the tabloids) and the fact that you didn’t specifically mention her decisions regarding family somehow makes it okay?
LRNING:
I am going to put this discussion as it relates to me to rest once and for all:
MAY EVERYONE AND ANYONE WHO READS THIS BE ADVISED THAT I, THOMAS R., DO NOT THINK THAT JENNIFER ANISTON IS ALL THAT; THAT I DO THINK SHE IS SUPERFICIAL IN HER PURPOSE IN LIFE AND THAT SHE STINKS AS AN ACTRESS. I ALSO THINK THAT SHE SEEKS THE SPOTLIGHT SHE LATER RAILS AGAINST. SHE IS PRO-ABORTION AND ADVANCEMENT OF HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS WHICH I DO NOT SUPPORT.
There. This is my last comment regarding Aniston. Usque ad finem. Terminus.
TR I couldn’t have said it better. If people want to be Aniston fans ….fine! But count me out for the same reasons you have just stated AND she is NOT Americas sweetheart!
It has nothing to do with being a fan of Aniston. In fact, I haven’t shared my opinions about her at all. For me, this has nothing to do with her acting ability, her political views, or her morals. I just believe all human life is deserving of a basic level of dignity and respect, even abortionists. Yes, I think it’s uncharitable to label someone’s entire life as superficial when you really know very little about them.
Thumbs up Lrning for getting the last word on this topic. LOL.
Thanks for your support Heather. LOL.