Jennifer Aniston has never said anything stupid about feminism. Since questions about feminism have been popular with entertainment journalists for the past few years, Aniston has been asked about her feminism several times, and she always maintains that yes, she is a feminist and no, she has no problem identifying that way. There’s no word-game about “humanism.” There’s no “but I like boys, thus I can’t be a feminist!” Well, as part of her People Magazine “Most Beautiful” cover, Aniston answered a lot of questions about different things, including feminism. And she cites Gloria Steinem as the person who taught her about feminism. She also talks about skinny jeans!
Jennifer’s biggest beauty icon is Gloria Steinem. “I’ve always thought Gloria is quite stunning for many, many reasons besides her exterior. She’s taught me about feminism. There was a time when I was like, ‘I’m not quite sure I understand what this is?’ And she’s like, ‘It’s very simple: it’s just about equality. That’s all it is.’ She’s just taught me – have you seen her HBO documentary? I’ve seen it like eight times. She’s just a very beautiful, strong woman.”
What Justin Theroux likes to see her wear: “Well, let me tell you. I think I’m pretty much the same but he really enjoys me in a skinny jean, which I loathe. But I think I have more skinny jeans these days than normal.”
How she influenced Justin’s wardrobe: “Color! Not just black. It’s quite adorable.”
What she’s learned about love: “Oh it comes in all shapes and sizes. It’s something to be taken care of and cherished. And paid attention to. It’s a blessing.”
First, the skinny jeans… I’m right there with her. This is the most I’ve ever agreed with Jennifer Aniston. I LOATHE skinny jeans. And she’s right to dislike them too: she looks much cuter in a straight-leg or even a boot-cut jean. But of course Justin likes the skinny jeans – he even loves to wear his own skinny jeans.
As for the feminism stuff… I think Jennifer could do much better than Gloria Steinem when it comes to feminist role models, but this is fine. She and Steinem are friends in real life, and I appreciate how straight-forward Aniston is being with the feminism questions.
Photos courtesy of People Magazine, WENN.
Oh dear heavens, spare us her blatherings.
I know right??!
Here’s my little trick to avoid reading about people I can’t stand: I don’t click the article and read about said person.
Life changing advice, amirite?!
We don’t have to read them to be tired of them, dear; it’s enough to know they’re published.
Also, if you don’t like certain comments — just don’t read! Life-changing advice, amirite?
Oh honey…I adore the negative comments!! It’s called “Celeb!tchy” for a reason!
I just find it humorous when we complain about a certain celebrity and then we contribute to their popularity. As in, you’ve already clicked on this article a few times.
Carry on dear Alix!!
The irony is that the more clicks you give a celebrity, the more likely they will keep being covered. So its utterly self defeating to click on a celebrity only to type a post demanding that she not be covered. Its amusing to watch the frustration though, so please dont stop clicking 😀
What’s wrong with Gloria Steinem as a feminist role model?
Steinem has said some really problematic sh-t about this election cycle, for one.
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/129335/feminist-gloria-steinem-says-young-women-support-bernie-want-attention-boys
Oooof. What a profoundly stupid thing to say.
I have a really hard time forgiving her for this. Such an unfair SEXIST thing to say.
that is so disappointing. My mind just ran in different directions looking for any justification/explanation for that statement, but none of them held water. Even her apology seemed empty. ugh.
It was a classic second-wave feminist comment, profoundly generational. 60s activists simply cannot understand why younger women won’t unconditionally support a prospective first female president; they view it as a betrayal of the women’s movement. And, yes, it was a stupid comment from a woman who is normally much more thoughtful than that, made out of a combination of cluelessness and frustration I think.
@tracking, well said!
Oh for god’s sake. One of the major probs with women vis-a-vis feminism is that a hero or shero has to get it right all the time.
Of course, Gloria will say things that aren’t to everyone’s liking. She speaks from her experience. As all should. She is by nature/experience a Matriarchist, she will see the world though that lens. I don’t always agree with her, or her BFF Alice Walker, on everything, but I know where they are coming from – a life affirming place.
The world is better for having them. And I’ll mourn DEEPLY the day they leave us.
That’s really unfortunate, but I agree with Malachite. It should’t detract from all her years of great work.
I think she’s a really good role model.
I think I agree with Malachite and lizabeth here…
while a really stupid and wrong thing to say, it shouldn’t negate her several years of fighting for equal rights or mean she’s a bad feminist role model.
I’d really like to hear her apologize for saying that, though…
@ Dufus, she sort of did-
http://time.com/4211234/gloria-steinem-bernie-sanders-apology/
My dear aunt is of that generation–an activist, preceded Hilary through law school, chose public service, lived the struggle, etc–and is an avid Bernie supporter. I understand how Gloria wants to see a female president, but at what expense to her own ideals? As a younger woman, she would have been horrified/outraged to have been diminished as she diminished female Sanders voters. I agree that it doesn’t negate all that she has done and contributed, but it’s still a head-scratcher.
Have to agree that while it was not a great thing to say by any stretch, it shouldn’t detract from everything else she has done or disqualify her from being a role model. I also agree with tracking that I think it also came out of frustration.
Thanks for posting that lizabeth.
I’m with Doofus, Lizbeth, and Malachite.
But my jaw dropped when I read the quote from Bob Sutton. What an ass.
I’m with those that think she said a stupid thing, but it doesn’t erase all the good she’s done.
I wouldn’t have the opportunities I’ve had if not for her and others of her generation like her.
No person gets it right all the time, and therefore, no role model will get it right all the time. I think she’s a great feminist role model.
@tracking is totally right. I can see how this is a really generational thing. Of course not all second wave feminists hold this opinion but I see where she’s coming from. I strongly disagree with that perspective, but I can see why she holds it.
I was puzzled by that too, especially since I don’t think there are any perfect feminist role models that would fit a mass preference completely. A lot of them say problematic stuff at times when they start to get theoretical, but everyone seems to say one must align with the dictionary definition of the word rather than the competing ideologies. That’s the spirit as to how I took Aniston’s answer.
She’s a bully. If you don’t vote for Clinton, you’re not a feminist. If you like Bernie Sanders, it’s just because you want attention from boys. Her status and power have gone to her head, in my opinion, and she needs some perspective.
I do think what Steinem said about the election is definitely dumb. I just took Aniston’s comment in the spirt of the general equality discussion. I liked that Aniston’s comment was direct and no-nonsense as opposed to sort of mealy-mouthed (sometimes Watson’s #HeForShe campaign seems like that even though I think Watson means well).
I guess I don’t find her answer as bad or weird as Meryl Streep’s, who is considered to be a far more interesting, knowledgeable, and deep person than Aniston, not just as an actress.
Aniston has always said she’s a feminist (clearly and succinctly) so I don’t think this is a new thing for her. But I guess whatever answer you give to the feminism question, whether you’re Kaley Cuoco or Aniston or Actress X, Y, or Z, will be analyzed for something that is off. I don’t think Aniston has ever said anything stupid when it comes to women’s rights or equality, though, even if everything else she talks about is perceived as less than interesting or kind of dumb.
Who said anything was wrong with it?
What Steinem said was unfortunate, but given everything she has done for the movement ( like create it) people need to sit down. As a Hillary supporter who sees so much vitriol for a politician who has done so much for women (seriously) just to see a younger generation who might not understand the work either women put into it, I get her comments in a way.
Not a Jen fan but no shade in clearly identifying what the word feminism really means. Never thought she would be better at articulating it than Meryl Streep ( or anyone other) who misuse the term “humanism”. Wow.
sincere question: what is wrong with gloria steinem as a feminist role model?
I don’t think there is anything wrong with Gloria Steinem as a role model of any type. I do think that sometimes her name is dropped for affect. She has influenced the course of women’s rights in a very significant way.
See above. She said young women just support Bernie Sanders to get attention from boys. Not because they have minds of their own, of course, but because they are motivated by that age old factors – we want boys to like us. Ugh.
Yeah, I saw Kaiser’s response after I posted. Stupid, stupid, stupid thing to say. And very disappointing.
I think some people have issue with comments she’s made about women and the election. Something like girls only like Bernie to impress boys.
i always knew tootsie was a feminist hero
And people wonder why Brad Pitt left her. Wonder no more…………..
She’s so utterly vapid…
I don’t understand why she has to be anything other than her vapid self, I guess? I think there’s clearly not much there, but Aniston has never tried to really promote herself as an intellectual type. She’s always been shallow and superficial and maybe aside from her weird Oscar shilling, she’s never tried to present herself as anything but someone who advertises for water and hair/skin products. She’s not out trying to change the world, she’s not out trying to get a political platform. She doesn’t seem particularly intelligent, and that’s okay. It would be nice to see her gain some depth and use her fame for political or social ‘quests’ for lack of a better word, but she’s pretty harmless where she’s at.
I don’t think he’s really any more interesting than she is. He’s pretty, but interesting? Not really. Even his face, while pretty, isn’t actually interesting. It’s just that now he has 6 kids to talk about to fill in the air.
I think getting with AJ did him a lot of good–now he travels all the time (which JA wouldn’t do), gotten involved in the world and has broadened his horizons. I give him credit for that.
Yeah, but she’s the interesting one, not him. He needed her to make him appear interesting. He wasn’t super interesting when he was with Gwyneth either. What did they talk about when they were together — steam-cleaning her nether regions?
Even though he’s now with Angelina and his public persona may be more interesting because of her, I’ve never come away from one of his actual interviews and thought “Wow, what an amazing conversationalist. I must absolutely hang out with this man to hear his wonderful thoughts.” Angelina comes off fine in interviews — I still think he’s dull and inarticulate (though considering his success I would never classify him as dumb, just to be clear. I simply don’t think he’s any more interesting in conversation than Aniston is, even with the topics Jolie has brought to the table for him to discuss. She’s usually the one bringing up big issues outside of her domestic life while he talks about that time in the ’90s he hung out on his couch smoking pot and he was bored with himself. I don’t see anything compelling when he himself is left to his own devices to speak).
@ Perplexed–
You have to be interesting to ATTRACT interesting people.
Brad snagged Jolie, no doubt about it.
And he has a successful vineyard, has a hobby of building furniture, builds new homes out oi his Make It Right Foundation, can now speak French, and his body of work as a producer shows that he likes to take on challenging projects that mean something personal to him. He thinks like an artist because he IS an artist. Even at 52, his fanbase is still worldwide record strong. Don’t beleive it? Go to You-Tube and people still scream and rush him when he arrives on the red carpet. He is anything but dull. And no, he is nowhere near your average type of anything.
He is an icon for many reasons. His level of success, both professional and personal, is not just pure luck. Often enough people as well as the media still refer to his looks and his swagger as an icon standard.
I agree with @perplexed.
@Josephina, I hear what you are saying but the red carpet thing? Of course, he is still considered a big star!! That doesnt mean he is the most interesting. He has been into architecture for a long time. He can be a good actor and fun to watch on film. Not sure he is an icon.
The whole Brad and Angelina thing will always have big questions attached to it. As far as Jennifer Aniston, I think she is just so wary when she is being interviewed that she goes the safe route which does often sound a bit boring. Although this one was more interesting (Gloria Steinem, watching the movie 8 times, even the skinny jeans comment!) than some other recent interviews.
Idk…Brad Pitt is boring to me in conversation. Like, I said, I would never classify him as dumb in his brain or anything like that, given how he has effectively managed his career, but I have never come away from an interview of his and thought “Wow, he is such an exceptionally articulate man I would want to talk to for hours on end.” Even when he’s on Oprah, I’ll fall asleep. He’s just a handsome guy (objectively so) to me (who gets good parts because he’s a man and doesn’t have to fight as hard as any woman in any age category to get the same quality roles). Beyond that, I wouldn’t have any interest in spending time with him (though that’s okay — I wouldn’t dare to think nor am I conceited enough to think that someone who looks as good as him would want to spend time with me either. )
That’s fine. You find Brad Pitt interesting as a conversationalist. I don’t. We can agree to disagree, if you’d like.
Edited: This was in response to someone’s post about Brad Pitt, but I don’t know where that person’s post went.
@jules, wow. I can take JA or leave her (mostly leave), but as far as I am aware of, you personally weren’t around for the demise of her marriage. It’s quite venomous to make a statement inferring that you know why her husband left her–and to you it’s somehow based upon what she said in the world’s most benign People Mag article????? And obviously since you’re an insider, you have the iron clad knowledge that he left her, it wasn’t the other way around or mutual or anything like that.
Ok sure, clearly Jen’s a monster and it’s crystal after reading her thoughts why Brad bounced. You seem kind and fair, tho.
So BP is a male chauvinist who doesn’t support equal rights for women. Is that what you meant?
She’s a beautiful woman for sure, inside and out. Nothing annoys me so much as when I call her beautiful and some commenters run in to remind me of how she has no lips, her man-face how she’s not sexy. I find her beautiful that’s all. And I’m talking about fans of Jolie who will then go on to claim that Jolie used to receive worse treatments. And i like that she has never shied away from the F word. Lovely woman
Oh and someone is already asking why we wonder why Brad left her. They dated, they got married, and we will all deal whether we like her or not. She was a part of his story and we can’t rewrite history. Even he can’t
I’m not a huge fan, but I totally agree with you that there are people on here who are just nuts on the subject and will criticize her for breathing air.
I like both Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie, how is that for a change? I like Aniston because she is a strong down-to-earth woman, with a good sense of humor. I like Jolie because she is very beautiful, intelligent and a great human rights’ activist. See, it’s possible.
I agree, and would say the same about the Jolie threads. I don’t have a lot invested in either. I think Jennifer is harmless and Angelina does a lot for humanitarian causes. I don’t get all the angst.
I’m sitting with you guys.
I like Jolie and I’m indifferent to Aniston. She seems utterly harmless to me and I actually liked this interview with her.
I HATE how people get away with making the rudest comments about her appearance. She’s a good-looking woman, no doubt. People are harsh.
I’ve always liked Jennifer and find her harmless and unpretentious. But she is inarticulate and pretty uninteresting in interviews. She brings nothing new to the table, ever. But in fairness to her, she’s never pretended to be anything other than who she is.
that last sentence is a very good point.
I also wonder if she just plays it safe, and doesnt reveal too much. She used to offer more when she was younger, even post major fame, but, now, not as much.
Why do use the term “Harmless”.. I mean what does that mean exactly. I don’t see many celebs out physically hurting anyone. And I know a several celebs that have never said a negative thing about anyone. They get negative comments. But because Jennifer is “harmless” she is not suppose to?
Because most people are harmless in that they are inciting riots or doing things to cause others harm..
Harmless in that she pretty much keeps to herself, doesn’t stir up drama, isn’t a problem on set, doesn’t rant on social media, doesn’t convince people not to vaccinate their kids, etc.
I know what you mean, Jayna. I don’t find her terribly fascinating, but I think she’s perfectly fine and nice. And that’s ok.
Well, I’m not a huge fan of Jennifer’s or Gloria Steinem’s (recently) but it makes me sad that people are so dismissive of someone who actually defined feminism in a reasonable way. Let’s at least give credit where it’s due?
that is true. she made an error (hopefully she sees that) but it should not erase what she has done and who she is and what she has meant in history.
+123
Steinem made and continues to make more for civil rights or feminism than 99,9% actual hyped feminists .
As feminist,she doesn’t understand why a woman prefers to vote for Sanders than for Hillary and she thinks to have an answer.
.what I love about Steinem is that she always assumed her choices about her private life,her professional life and she doesn’t care about the others think .
No kidding. This isn’t the subject to call her vapid and boring on.
She is an idiot. Never a thought of her own.
Maybe she SHOULD just stick to talking about her hair.
Aw, his ‘n her skinny jeans.
maybe they share, like she said they do with skin/hair products. 😉
This simple Becky.
Lololol! If you didn’t obviously learn what “Becky” was slang for 2 days ago, then maybe you would realize the words “simple Becky” are actually quite redundant.
Lmao.
Wow, you people are so awful to this poor woman. It’s actually quite pathetic.
It’s always like that around here. It’s so oddly personal and frankly, mystifying the way people use her as a punching bag.
Yes, first time I really reel bad for her. Vapid her comments are not.
And I quote: “People are just expressing their opinions.”
She only met Gloria last year. So all her 46yrs before that, she had no idea what feminism was? I’m sorry but the way other women and magazines fawn over Jennifer is so grating. Even so far as calling her a feminist icon? She is clueless on social issues. That’s why all she talks about is the superficial, anything beyond that she has the deer in the headlights look in interviews. Her publicist is permanently at her side so no one goes off script.
They did an interview Q&A thing 2 years ago, and even if that was the first time they met in person, that doesn’t mean she wasn’t aware of her and learning from her. I’ve learned from many people I’ve never met.
I see there’s another Cee on here whose opinions I greatly differ from so just to clarify I’m the Cee that likes JA. I agree with this point. Personally Gloria Steinem has always been my feminist hero and I’ve never met her either so I don’t see the stretch in imagination here that Jennifer could have been aware of her and her work and admired it. But you know it’s Jennifer Aniston so by all means let’s keep the rhetoric the same. Man face, blah cakes.
The pettiness in JA threads never cease to amaze me 😤
If Brad is so much more interesting than her, tell me this, what does it say aboutt him that he married her 😩 They clearly had something in common, downplaying her own success and propping him up reeks of sexism.
I’m not even a fan of Anniston but some of the replies genuinely have me shaking my head–she said nothing wrong and people are still ripping her apart.
She’s a feminist, understands what it means, and gave credit to Gloria for opening her eyes on the simplicity of equality….
Oh the horror 😒
lady–
Her mouth is moving but her ACTIONS speak louder than her words.
She has established a definite track history all on her own. Outside of her role as Rachel on Friends how is she influential to you? Does Aniston strike you as a feminist? (See Horrible Bosses 1 and 2, We’re The Millers)
She is a woman not a child. She is criticized for being vapid. At age 46, very few women on this planet get a pass on that.
Isn’t she 47 now?
Jospehina, if you don’t think women in their 40s don’t get a pass for being vapid, you haven’t seen my FB feed. And I’d guess I’m far from the only one who’s acquainted with vapid people of all ages.
I’m confused. You’re coming for Jennifer Aniston because she A) said she was a feminist and B) explained (totally accurately) what a feminist is and why she considers herself one. And somehow from her response you’ve reached the completely arbitrary conclusion that she’s vapid. Would you have preferred that she respond by channeling her inner Meghan Trainor and proclaim that she’s not a feminist because she likes men? It’s like this woman is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. At this point, I think most of the haters are just twisting reality so that they’ll have some reason to indict her.
I’m simply amazed at the infighting between posters on this thread.
I’ve been a celebitchy reader for years and part of its appeal for me has always been that fellow bitchys treat each other with respect.
Differing views/opinions run rampant, but the attacks are far and few between.
Odd to see so much of it on this thread.
Perhaps the team Aniston folks are more “passionate?”
LOL
I sure hope you have the same empathy for the Brandi/Le-Anne threads.
Hands-down that is clearly the roughest crowd out there.
Or rather, do you see a lot of yourself in Aniston and are shocked by the vapid criticisms?
OK, I’ll engage.
If you understood my comment, you’d know that I was not defending team Aniston, but saying that there appears to be more attacks/disrespect coming from them.
So, NO, I do not see anything about myself in JA.
You’re obviously on “the other side”, but that’s the point.
Why does there have to be such “sides?”
And your patronizing comment directed at me proves my point further.
People who post on the JA or AJ threads attack each other.
Petty…
Over and out
Team Aniston is more passionate? Are you reading these comments? The first thirty comments in this post are almost exclusively Aniston haters completely snatching her bald.
@Grant, who wrote: “Team Aniston is more passionate? Are you reading these comments? The first thirty comments in this post are almost exclusively Aniston haters completely snatching her bald.”
It’s pretty easy to “snatch someone bald” who wears extensions.
It’s kind of ironic that one of the more ‘passionate’ Brange fans jumped all over her…
i dont understand the point of this most beautiful cover anymore. the last two have been beyond ordinary looking even with all the professional help they have.
Yeah, I think the Most Beautiful issue stopped being interesting a decade a half ago. It was probably interesting the first time it was issued when it was novel, but I don’t get the point of the issue every single year. It’s not like any of these people stop being pretty once a new person has been named — the whole premise doesn’t make much sense.
I really wish some media coach would sit down with these ladies and really guide them through the issues that make feminism relevant and more than just a word. It’s not the same as being a vegetarian or ‘rejecting’ ‘plastic surgery’. And yes, Jennifer did give and alright answer to the question. These high profile people who choose to respond to the question have such an opportunity to educate a large audience and start meaningful conversations.
Feminism is about equality, but for that to happen there needs to be structural and cultural changes in the way we value and support women so they can be ‘equal’. If men had to take 6 weeks (In the US?) off for the birth of a baby, with the loss of pay and perceptions of their priorities, there would be far fewer babies born. No way they would risk their career development for being a ‘more expensive employee’. If women decided how much viagra men could use and made it regulated and enforced by law, there would be an outcry and demand for change. If men had to take the ‘second shift’ (super fascinating topic for those of you interested) when working full time and parenting, the household role normally taken on disproportionately would be valued in some other way.
The system of legal representation for single parents – most commonly women – does not foster financially stable and independent families with a single head of household. I would same the same for rape, harassment, the type of jobs women hold in higher representation (clerical and the service industry), which come with fewer benefits, less stability and less opportunity for upward mobility. The feminization of poverty is a real statistic and it affects families for generations.
I’m tired about hearing the superficial responses to this topic. People who have a significant role in media should either get informed or decline to answer due to lack of understanding of the complexity of the topic if they want speak about the issue. While Jennifer gave a very banal response, I would love to see a movement to more comprehensive dialogue. Especially since a lot of hollywood women complain about the sexism in the industry. I don’t follow Aniston, so I don’t know if she does. Non-answers take away from the opportunity to have a substantive dialogue. And it makes me twitchy.
I think how actresses respond (I’m talking about all of them, not just Aniston) might be based on how the interviewer frames the question. A lot of the times interviewers don’t seem to ask follow-up questions, which is probably where you’d find more elaboration. I don’t know if entertainment interviewers (i.e of the People magazine kind, I mean) themselves are necessarily well-informed enough to ask follow up questions that would elicit a deeper response. You’d probably get answers about cultural and structural changes if The Atlantic or The Economist were interviewing these actresses and made sure they elaborated. I’m not saying the writers at People Magazine are dumb or incapable of doing additional research, but their agenda for informing people about celebrities is different, and I think they structure the questions accordingly to fulfill their market aims. I suspect People Magazine asked “Who is your biggest beauty icon?” and Aniston answered accordingly. Aniston didn’t even have an obligation to bring up feminism, but she did. At that point People should have followed up with another question about feminism, but I don’t know if they did the research to do so.
If a magazine like Shape Magazine is going to ask Kaley Cuoco about feminism, I assume the questions will be structured differently from how they’d be framed in some other venue. And I personally think the answers provided are likely articulated in the manner the question was offered.
I think giving more solid answers would eventually change the questions being asked if the interviewer isn’t prepared to engage in a thoughtful dialogue.
I think Aniston did give a solid enough answer to the beauty icon question, if I’m honest. She answered exactly what they were asking, while also taking the answer in a somewhat different direction. It was the question itself that was kind of lame (or possibly redundant), but at the same time fit with the tone of the issue (i.e Most Beautiful). The magazine, and this particular issue, isn’t very deep to begin with, so there’s only a certain way you can answer. If Aniston wanted, she could have simply answered with Audrey Hepburn or Elizabeth Taylor or someone in that vein (i.e a movie star known for their beauty) and avoided bringing feminism to the beauty icon question, but she actually went with a more unusual choice (someone you wouldn’t expect to be framed as a beauty icon despite her general attractiveness). I wouldn’t put the onus on the subject to give a more meaningful answer if the magazine itself and the question posed is sort of shallow. I don’t see how any actress, not even the highly intelligent ones, can change the direction of a entertainment magazine’s tone and the questions asked to discuss social and cultural systemic issues, if their agenda is to be light and sort of shallow in the first place. I think you would have to rely on The Guardian or The New York Times to do that, but those places aren’t going to put out Most Beautiful issues to begin with and aren’t going to interview Kayley Cuoco to discuss her exercise regimen while asking her about her view of feminism.
Okay I’m ready for the onslaught of hate: JA to me is the least of all pop culture evils. She doesn’t make sex tapes, she doesn’t pick internet fights with people and she doesn’t make me feel the need to protect my kids from her crazy talk/language/sexual behavior/pictures etc. while she may be a tad boring or vapid, I will take her over these hypersexualized argumentative nitwits any day.
@Susan …
Are you talking about the same Jennifer Aniston who did the naked “GQ” cover?
Oh boy. She’s an actress repeating someone else’s thought and beliefs. Good for her.
I don’t have an issue with her assertion that she is a feminist because there are parts of her life that support this. She didn’t give in to the pressure to have children even though so many were invested in this idea. I disagreed with her coy answers in interviews but I also understood why she didn’t reveal her true feelings. People freak out when a woman chooses a career and doesn’t want to have children. It is easier to give vague answers instead of trying to justify her choices.
She started a production company and has been a successful businesswoman as well as remaining relevant even if her acting career is marginal. Not easy.
Her vanilla persona doesn’t mean she isn’t empowered. It has nothing to do with it.
There are things I don’t like about her image and her lack of depth in interviews or her PR strategies but it is fair to give her props when it is warranted.
Fair and balanced comment, I agree with you.
What “coy’ answers.. she was very clear.