I would love it if Jennifer Aniston became a self-elected, high-profile ambassador for women without children.

She refuses to stop talking about it, which makes me think she is pondering the role. After proclaiming in November that she refuses to “be whittled down to a sad, childless human”, she has now said:

“We, as women, do a lot of incredible things in this world other than just procreate …. (but) we just get boxed in!”

“We’re seeing women through that very narrow lens: if we don’t have a baby or a white picket fence or a husband, then we’re useless. We aren’t living up to our purpose.”

“It’s shocking to me that we are not changing the conversation.”

capture-j

Yes! to that last one.

I just hope that she doesn’t do a Janet Jackson at 50. If Aniston – with her wealth, fame, hair, amazing lifestyle and access to the Theroux men – starts to think that she needs a baby to round it all off, what hope is there for us mere mortals?

Whatever you think of Aniston (I love her: she was extraordinary in Cake), her statements are important and it takes huge nuts to make them. It’s still vaguely embarrassing, in our ultra child-centric society, to talk about being childless in your forties.

The massive gated community of mummy/mama/daddy/papa/+variation sites and the powerful parenting-blog behemoths that they orbit can often make me feel like an insignificant outsider in Internet land.

Am I the only one who feels a little bit championed every time JA says something?

See more posts at Stirrup Queens Microblog Mondays

Main image from Wikipedia Commons 
Advertisements