Quote:
Originally posted by MysticCat81
Okay, I may sound like the old man here, but no, it's not her choice. It's their choice -- a decision that they are supposed to make together.
Once you are married, decisions like this no longer belong to just the husband or the wife, they belong to the husband and the wife. Does that it mean it's easy to decide together on something as important as "to have kids or not have kids" when one spouse wants them and the other doesn't? Certainly not, but many, many couples have managed to do it and have stronger marriages because of it. That's because those couples have learned that in making a decision, they have to give just as much respect to their spouse's feelings as to their own.
|
I get what you're saying, but no, it's not their choice. She is still the one that has to carry the babies, and as the article pointed out, no matter how progressive her and Brad's relationship was or how much money she has, she will still end up doing more of the childcare than him. And so ultimately that is her choice.
Now, I perfectly support his right to divorce her if he thought kids were going to be a part of the marriage deal and later found out that they weren't. But you aren't guaranteed kids just 'cause you get married. Even if your wife originally said she wanted them, she isn't obligated to keep that opinion forever.
Personally, I think people are making a lot of jumps here:
1) That kids are even the reason for the breakup.
2) That they discussed the issue of children before marriage (if they didn't, the fault belongs to both of them, not just her).
3) That if they did, Brad has wanted kids all along. How do we know he didn't change his mind on the issue as well?
4) That Jennifer's wanted kids all along. I know she's said that to the press, but actions speak louder than words . . . plus I don't think that anyone thinks that a lot of the stuff spoken to the press about their marriage is anything more than propaganda so People magazine will report how idyllic and perfect the Pitt/Aniston marriage is blah blah blah.
Acting is a tough job to have if you decide to get pregnant. You can't just work through your pregnancy like with a normal job -- once you start showing, you're usually done. Plus you have to get back into shape before you can do any more work. And because your dollar value is based on requiring you to stay in the public eye, if you're not working, you have to push private details of your pregnancy and post-pregnancy into the media. Plus, if you don't want kids and say so straight out, that is looked at as unnatural and you lose some of your likeability, which is imperative to your job. So I don't blame her one bit if she doesn't want kids. Not to mention the fact that Brad kinda seems like he would be the kind of parent who is around for ten minutes every ten days to drop off some presents. Should she give him kids if she realizes that he won't be a good parent to them? There is a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. I hardly think it's as simple as some of you are making it seem.
I think that their separation has brought out a lot of views that are pretty frightening to me. Plenty of people have insinuated that she should be subservient to him . . . . because he's HOT? How many steps away from "be subservient to him because he's the breadwinner" or "be subservient to him because he's male" are we? Or the idea that someone is obligated to have kids just because she once said she wanted them?
If Jennifer doesn't want to have kids, that's fully within her right. And if Brad wants them, there are millions of women out there who would be willing to help him out.