Jennifer Aniston has spoken for the first time about trying to get pregnant, which is significant for the kind of people who speculate about celebrities and their fertility — which in the late 1990s and through the 2000s was roughly everybody — because the exact cause of Aniston’s child-free life has been puzzling them for years.
“It was really hard,” she told Allure magazine. “I was going through IVF, drinking Chinese teas, you name it. I was throwing everything at it. I would’ve given anything if someone had said to me: ‘Freeze your eggs. Do yourself a favor.’ You just don’t think it. So here I am today. The ship has sailed.”
The undisputed main star of Friends and, circa 2003, the highest-paid female TV actor in the world, has always been a template for the feminine ideal. I remember an American columnist in the very early years of Friends explaining her appeal thus: “She knows, and everyone knows she knows, she has great hair.”
It was such a peculiar formulation that it lodged in my mind, which was fortunate, because it was the mid-1990s, so it is not on Google. The hair, not too long (attention-seeking), nor too short (feminist-independent), not too blond (conventional) or too dark (vampy), not too shiny (airhead) nor in any way dull (frigid), was the perfect, man-pleasing hair for the late 20th-century woman; but the fact that she was self-aware, hair-wise, was important, too, because it was cool in those days to be a little bit feminist.
When she got engaged to Brad Pitt in 1999 (he was the perfect late 20th-century man, for reasons we don’t have time for now), the gossip columnists and newspapers globally became obsessed with Aniston’s body. It must surely be the best body in the world, since how else would she have snagged the perfect man, so her life turned into a manual for the attainment and display of the corporeal ideal.
There were rumors before the wedding that she was in the gym from 9am to 5pm, working so hard just on toning that she did not have time for actual work. There were other rumors that she leaned hard into this, saying that you kept a man by making sure your clothes were “tight, tight, tight, the right size is the tight size.”
If you could map out the social expectations of femininity, Aniston would have been it — perfect hair to perfect man via perfect body leads inexorably to the perfect family. It is no wonder that the fascination with her fertility was so rabid.
Womanhood completed by fertility, meaningless without it, was a peculiar creed in the late 1990s — it would have made much more sense to Anne Boleyn, or anyone else instrumental in the dynastic transfer of property via the legitimate womb, than it did in an era where women were supposedly equal, or at least, financially independent. It was underpinned, I think, by the fact that a lot of cultural anxiety around female emancipation was played out euphemistically in debates about the impossibility of “having it all” — what if women concentrated so hard on their careers that they left it too late to have children? What if they mistook professional fulfillment for the real kind, the baby kind?
The real anxiety had nothing to do with the pain of unchosen childlessness — it was about what the world would look like if women took the lead in the workplace, who would be displaced, how that independence would reshape the domestic sphere. But why say that openly, when you can have a coded conversation and whip up anxiety at the same time?
It was damaging for people living through struggles with fertility; it erased men completely, even though they are sometimes involved, emotionally and in other ways, in the procreative journey; it skated over the fact that IVF can be a heartless racket, eye-wateringly expensive treatments delivered to patients with little chance of conceiving; and it created a brood mare narrative, in which you were not a real woman if you had not produced young (which, I think, drove other gothic orthodoxies, such as: you’re not a real woman if you did not have a normal, vaginal birth; if you did not breastfeed; if your nipples were not cracked and preferably bleeding; if you did not have a prolapse down the line).
None of this is any kind of feminism, and it is depressing to see it rehashed and reheated in today’s trans-exclusionary arguments.
Second and third-wave feminists used to argue fiercely against a reductive, biological definition of womanhood. So it is unsurprising that Aniston kept all that private, but that takes its own psychic toll — in speaking now, she says: “I feel like I’m coming out of hibernation. I don’t have anything to hide.”
For what it is worth, I still, 1990s-fashion, think she is the perfect woman, but I do not think it is anything to do with her womb. Or her hair. It is mainly her comic timing.
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past
President-elect William Lai (賴清德) is to accede to the presidency this month at a time when the international order is in its greatest flux in three decades. Lai must navigate the ship of state through the choppy waters of an assertive China that is refusing to play by the rules, challenging the territorial claims of multiple nations and increasing its pressure on Taiwan. It is widely held in democratic capitals that Taiwan is important to the maintenance and survival of the liberal international order. Taiwan is strategically located, hemming China’s People’s Liberation Army inside the first island chain, preventing it from