Cross-posted at the ex-expat.
Vileness corner
Not to put a finer point on it but both breeders and non-breeders are going to have to rely on someone to change our adult diapers and keep the economy expanding while we are consuming our retirement savings and that someone is going to be those currently not potty trained. Whether this next generation is going to look out for us through the welfare state or because we are individually paying them to do is a moot point and one worthy of political debate.
But what shouldn't be in the political discourse is whether a woman, because apparently men's parental status is never up for discussion, who haven't had children being referred to as selfish. There could medical reasons, there could money reasons, there might be career reasons, their partner may not want to or they hadn't found a partner at all. All reasons that someone might not have had a child and not a crime against humanity for them to so. Because in the end it isn't anyone's business whether a women, or for that matter a man, makes the decision to breed or not to breed.
1 comment:
The commenters over at The Standard who were honestly trying to say that remarks about Clark's family status have nothing to do with her gender? I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Post a Comment