She Wrote Fake News for Cosmopolitan and Now Regrets Misleading Women on Feminism. The goal? To sell women on the idea that sexual liberation is the path to the single woman’s personal fulfillment.

submitted by Chipit from dailysignal.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
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 -  (21 children)

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."

[–]Yin 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (20 children)

Poverty is a state of mind. Generations in the past had less and did more better.

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

That's one of the lies fed to people.

[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I disagree. The the economic conditions today are far worse than they were in the generalized past (the combined effects of the dust bowl and crash of 29 might be the only rival).

The family order was demonized and dismantled gradually, because the goal was to get women into the work force to increase productivity and profits for those at the top. The whole "feminism" and liberation through work or careers, as if arbeit macht frei, only came after families needed a part time, and then a full time, and then a third, income to pay the bills. They mask inflation and automation created the appearance of free time when in reality the necessity of having at least one person at the home for the kids was only recognized in some social-science circles, until it became inconvenient for the people who fund those departments. The supposed "liberalism" in those departments may have appeared to be about liberation or about throwing away old ideas, but they were motivated by the only thing liberalism is ever motivated by: the right of those with money to buy what ever they want and to confuse that with freedom and rights.

Think about how much we spend goes to financial institutions: our credit cards, our mortgages or if we rent or lease then the owner's financial institution, the line of credit the trucking companies use too keep their fleets running, the mortgages and lines of credit on the warehouses, the financing of the cars that get the warehouse workers to work, the line of credit used by farmers, every single half-step in the supply chain kicks up to the financial elite in ways not dreamed of 70 years ago. Even if you are not in debt, it is likely that debt upon debt upon debt is factored into all transactions you engage in many times over.

The things you cite are the illusion meant to keep us from seeing the invisible hand of the market groping us while it picks all our pockets over and over.

[–]Yin 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Idiots are being convinced that they need large piles of money to have kids. They're glamored into depraved shallow lifestyles w/ deranged values such as seeking communist degrees and dumb products as if the kid needs it to be raised well.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's genuinely not easy to raise them in a two-parent household, on a single income that sort of sucks. It's possible, but it's not a blast and there's a lot of worry about making ends meet. If the support system is also less than desirable, it starts to take a mental toll on the both of you after a while. I noticed benefits from going frequently to the parks and play areas, trips to the library's events, and local family events that were free/inexpensive though, so keeping them entertained and educated isn't difficult (or wasn't). I don't know how things are now with parents transing their kids over and copypasting their degeneracies onto them early on to get social value.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I wonder if they're waiting on feeling like they're financially ready, or it's more due to wanting to be selfish with time and use the former as an excuse though. That said, raising children requires a level of sanity, self control, and selflessness. If they're waiting or don't want them, would accident kids end up faring worse off and just shoved onto a nanny or someone else to be raised?

    [–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    "to have kids"? No. Idiots do that all the time. You're talking about spoiled brats. You're talking about "glamored into depraved shallow lifestyles". You're ranting. I'm talking about reality. I disagree, and I stated why. You ignored all of it and rant like you're Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      "Laced smears" you find, but you can't find upon reading it twice my "why"? I find you are being disingenuous.

      Where you ask 'how is that disagreeing with what I said?' OBVIOUSLY I'm saying those are far more likely to be causal factors that your assumptions about other people's cultural choices. Your assumptions about the lifestyles of those you clearly disdain, besides me perhaps I need to specify, are an illusion

      [–]jet199 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      I'd say poor kids of young mothers on benefits nowadays are more often spoilt brats than the the kid's of working parents. Actively investing in your kid getting basic stuff like good healthy food and having the time to cook it costs time and money. Buying cheap food, ignoring their schooling and then buying them designer clothes is the easy option.

      [–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      OK, so you'd say that about poor kids of young mothers on benefits. Do you back that up with data? Good healthy food is more expensive, goes bad faster, and requires time, and since poor kids are specified here they tend to live in what are called food deserts where such things are less accessible. When has "designer" clothing been the fad? The disco era? Are these kids wearing Jordache Jeans?

      [–]Node 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Good healthy food is more expensive, goes bad faster, and requires time,

      What is your home planet? That's not how it works here.

      [–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I'm disagreeing not on the grounds of what idiots believe, but on the simple fact that the cost of living for families is greater while the support networks that existed decades ago are far weaker.

      I have yet to see the ASSUMPTION that "they are convinced that they need large piles of money to have kids" backed up or disproved with data. I do not know they think this, and I do not know they would be wrong if they did think it. I think they do not have the historical perspective to compare olden times to now, so the assumptions they make about costs are probably based on their own direct experiences and the experiences of those around them now.

      The good thing is if you do a search for "economic stats hide inflation: or something like that, you will find things from every side talking about that fact. Seems to me the assumption you assume they make is right regardless of if they make it or not.

      [–]aabubakr 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      Poverty is a state of mind.

      true, starvation is a state of mind. i have gone without food for almost ten days, and i can promise you that it is indeed a state of mind.

      have you ever been hungry, yin?

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]aabubakr 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        oh, now you want to think tank.. about something that you know nothing about..

        Being poor isn't the same thing as having no food.

        have you ever met rich people that have nothing to eat for dinner?

        rich means that you have more than you need, while poor means that you dont have enough.

        extreme rich can not spend all of his money even if he tries.

        extreme poor means that you have no food.

        i asked you if you have ever gone hungry.