you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It doesn't really matter what she wrote.

For most women the choice is an economic one.

They can't afford to have kids on one salary.

They can't even afford to have kids on one good salary and one crap one.

So women have to work and they have to work their way up the greasy pole to get a good wage which means they don't have free time and aren't meeting as many people.

Otherwise the only answer is to throw yourself on the state and live on benefits. Then you can pop out as many kids as you want but it means your agency is taken away and you get less if your relationship is stable.

I mean most millennials won't ever be able to afford a house and of course kids cost a lot more. I doubt the younger generation are any better off. They are even more socially isolated.

I've even see old feminists say "while we were busy arguing about whether stay at home motherhood was good or bad the choice was removed out from under us."

[–]Ponderer 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fair point, but there's a big difference between activism based around economics and maliciously intensifying social division like Cosmopolitan did.