We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
LAST WEEK, THE Telegraph printed a piece by novelist Amanda Craig pondering whether a woman’s ability to produce offspring was, in fact, the font of perfect understanding of the human condition.
The fact that the hook used to sell this rather daft premise was the childlessness of recently deceased author Maeve Binchy took the thing to rather spectacular levels of tactlessness, but the argument itself is one that makes me want to bang my head off the keyboard. While I’m not for one moment suggesting that Amanda Craig is representative of all maternal thinking, her argument is one that’s depressingly familiar, and as a woman who’s hit 40 without child-shaped appendages it’s one I’ve heard in various incarnations way too often and every time I hear it it seriously pisses me off.
It’s a big subject but the first and foremost thing is that, as a writer, I don’t see myself particularly as male or female. The writer is a puppet master, inhabiting the head of every character. It doesn’t matter if they’re barren or fertile, male or female, sweet or rotten to the core. It’s my job to understand each one of them, what makes them tick, why they do what they do. Walking in their shoes, seeing through their eyes is in the job description. Some of the characters will have jobs I’ve done, go to places I’ve been, feel emotions I’ve felt, but everything else is extrapolation.
I try to have experienced as much of my characters’ lives as possible but there’s a limit. I’ll never be a man. I’ll never kill someone (I presume). I can think of dozens of things my characters will do that I simply won’t be able to. But that doesn’t mean I won’t know how they feel when they do those things. If I can’t imagine it, then I’ll find someone who’s done it. That’s my job.
It’s the same job for a male writer. The Telegraph piece is only concerned with the female authors who haven’t given birth. The vast body of literature produced by the opposite sex, none of whom have managed to personally drop a sprog, is completely ignored. The piece is written with the assumption that the words written by women exist in a hermetically sealed bubble. That there are men’s books and women’s books and never the ‘twain shall meet. It’s assumed that the fairer sex need their own playing field, that our minds need the same sporting considerations as our bodies.
I’ve never fully understood why there always need to be men’s and women’s versions of every sporting event anyway but I’m damn sure that such precautions aren’t necessary when it comes to the intellect. It reminds me of an old theatre anecdote about the old stage actor confronted with a young co-star who favours method acting. The youngster ties himself in knots fully understanding his characters motivation while the old stalwart insists that the only thing necessary is to know your lines and try not to bump into the furniture. It’s acting, not being.
I’ll freely admit to being more than a little method when it comes to understanding my characters but that only goes as far as I need to to understand. I don’t need to live their lives. That way insanity lies.
But apart from underestimating the writer’s skill and insulting the whole of the female sex with the assumption that our words are not equal to men’s, Amanda Craig is guilty of the kind of maternal smugness that generally brings me out in a rash. As women we’re told from a very young age that babies are an integral part of the female experience. As little girls, we’re given baby dolls to nurture – then when we get older we’re told that we will only be a true success when we have found that elusive balance between being a woman and being a mother.
In Ireland in particular, with a booming birth rate, there’s little enough debate about women who might not want to have children. We talk ad nauseam about raising a family, and there’s huge sympathy with the one in six who will struggle to start the family, but you rarely hear from people of either sex who simply prefer to live their lives child free.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I didn’t mean to get to this stage in my life without children but that’s the way it’s happened. I do know the pain of not being able to conceive but ultimately felt that I couldn’t face being reduced to a breeding machine in order to have a child. I was scared by baby dolls when I was little. My imagined perfect life never really had a cradle in it. I never really got on with small children.
That might have changed, and one day I’d like nothing more than to give a home to a child but it never was and never will be the way I define myself. That perfect future that I dreamed up when I was a kid might not have had a cradle but it did have a desk, with a vase of flowers, a steaming mug of coffee and a typewriter. That hasn’t changed.
Abigail Rieley is an author and journalist who has written two books about recent murder trials, Devil In The Red Dress and Death On The Hill, and also covers trials for the Sunday Independent. She blogs at abigailrieley.com. See facebook.com/abigailrieleywriter.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Fair’s fair, Telegraph. If they’re going to publish an article about how not having children made Maeve Binchy less of an understanding and compassionate person, I’d like to see an article about how having children would have made Jesus a bit more patient and loving.
60 out of 81 comments down to a troll and someone who should know better. Kop on.
Women and Men feel selfish for not waiting children and I’m not sure why. You have children because you want them and you don’t because you don’t. Both are equally selfish…. think about it.
Im 43 and have never wanted kids. Maybe Im selfish but I look at the population of the world and it was 1.5 billion in 1900 and its 7 billion now. How much longer can it go on. We didnt see the credit crisis and we are not seeing this. We will be living on top of each other in 100 years,
The point of the post is that the definition of “success” for women, but not men, hinges so strongly on childbearing (along with appearance).
Although not everyone thinks this way, the effect is strong enough to, for example, require a conversation to be had about a woman’s mothering choices (and most probably her appearance) alongside any discussion of her general accomplishments.
Where I diverge from the author is in her excoriation of “maternal smugness.” If women are shown a narrow gate through which “true, feminine” success lies, it is hard to fault anyone who crows a bit on getting through it.
We need to be less judgmental of one another, as women, and keep shoving to open the gate wide enough so that whatever we do – punch like Katie Taylor, write like Maeve Binchy, discover like Marie Curie, raise awareness like Sister Stanislaus, mother like my own wonderful mother – it’ll work as a fine example of female success, of which we can all be proud!
But you’re confining literally everything women do to their gender. Being female is blatantly has a massive impact on the life of women, defining many significant choices they will make (which is why their decision to have children may sometimes be examined). Indeed, our physiological make-up sees us with very different abilities to those of men. Even our neurological structure is affected.
What this author is saying is that neither the strengths and limitations of a particular gender, nor the choices we make based on them, need be an issue when it comes to writing. What matters is that the author can empathise with their characters. Educating oneself and becoming informed about somebody who has been in a particular position will help to build this empathy so that believable characters can be constructed. Ultimately, there is a science to writing and for the best authors, their gender doesn’t even come into it.
Would it be anything to do with the fact that its women who give birth to children?
And? The idea that parenthood is somehow required for women (rather than men) to achieve completion and happiness, while men are fine without it is incredibly insulting to the amazing fathers out there who feel like their children make their lives complete.
Nice strawman Nick
Note to people who are obsessed with gender. You are free to make your own choices if the biggest problem you face in the world is the expectations people place on you then you need to get out of your upper middleclass bubble and see the real oppression in the world.
Strawman? There is actually someone making the arguement that gender defines the experience of having children to the point that men can feel fulfilled and women cannot without children.
And the idea that because people have bigger problems, it’s not tacky for the Telegraph to publish an article about a woman who faced infidelity and claim that if she’d had children, she might have been a more empathetic writer? Ridiculous. Of course there are other problems in the world., it’s still just jaw-droppingly absurd.
But by all means, I’ll let you return to the more important “Robsten” articles on the Journal…
Sorry, my autocorrect caught infertility as infidelity! Really shouldn’t leave that as is!
People talk bad about other people all the time get over. Its problem everyone faces, I’m sorry if you can’t handle it but a therapist would be a better outlet than trying to change everyones opinion to suit yours.
Do you propose that first we solve privileged upper middle class womens problems first then the ones caused by living in a world with limited resources??
Are you actually turning infertility into a class issue? Because it affects people of all backgrounds and is equally heartbreaking.
But hey, I’m sure you’d just recommend a therapist, right? It’s silly to suggest we can only handle one problem in this world at a time.
”Are you actually turning infertility into a class issue?”
strawman
I was referring to problems of opinions of others as your biggest cross to bare. Not infertility
”It’s silly to suggest we can only handle one problem in this world at a time.”
No Im saying Im sick of upper middle class women like yourself saying that their problem of not conforming to a social norm is as big as rape and forced marriage in Pakistan.
When have I ever said that this was as big of a problem? I did not. Strawman! I commented on what this article was about, attitudes towards women who don’t have children. I also find the idea that “we should let this injustice slide because there are starving children in Africa” to be a cop out. I assume you post the same comments on articles about gay marriage in Ireland, right? Because why should people be campaigning on something that affects mainly people in a first world country? It’s a cop out.
Making assumptions on my opinions on gay marriage is very dishonest. How dare you?
we should let this injustice slide because there are starving children in Africa”
It is an injustice that will never go away, do you seriously think that your problem of social expectation placed on you must be dealt with as greatly as starving children in Africa?? This so called injustice is a very minor issue starving to death is not a minor issue.
A very selfish attitude to say the least
No, I’m not presuming to know your opinions on gay marriage. I’m just saying that if you’re not a hypocrite, then clearly you believe that any movement to gain better rights in a relatively privileged first world country is a problem (since you feel this way about women’s rights, it would be hypocritical not to feel this way about racial or LGBT equality). But of course, for all I know, you are a hypocrite.
Yeah? If you think this is such a minor inconvenience, you’d ignore an article about it. Of course, it would make me selfish if this was the only issue I cared about. But you don’t know me, you have no idea what I do. I will say that I find people who argue “all other problems I find minor should be ignored until problem I care about are solved” to be tedious. If you really care that much, stop alienating people who, for all you know, might be supportive of your cause but think other things matter.
strawman strawman strawman
First a minor inconvenice that everyone suffers in life is very different from some being denied equal rights in marriage due to sexual orientation are very different. How dare you hi jack another cause for your selfish interests.
I do know you Nick I call you out everythime you become very agrresive regarding issues you precieve as disrimination against middle class women. It is right to call people out on this.
Your issue of social pressure doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. Sorry if i recognise privilege when I see it.
nick, stop feeding the ugly bridge trolls, :)
Won’t get you laid
Nothing but a internet hardman
I know, Barry, I know! I just have to accept the same people who say “problems with women in Ireland should be ignored because women in Pakistan have REAL problems” would never say “issues with gay marriage in Ireland should be ignored because the LGBT community has REAL problems in Uganda.” But this guy is clearly a bit obsessed with me…
Stop your slander Nick
No one has the right to enforce people to think and believe a certain way. However marriage is a right afforded some and not other based on sexuality.
I advice the moderator do his/her job here as I feel a liable coming
Libel. And the libel/slander definition doesn’t exist anymore, it’s all defamation since the new Defamation Act. Hope that helps!
You so educated
maybe that explains why you think your minor social pressures are greater than rape in islamic countries and children starving to death
Now, see, that is defamation because (1) I never said it. At all. and (2) Right minded people would think less of someone who did believe that.
See, you’re learning loads today!
I am absolutely privileged in a lot of ways and that’s definitely due to luck rather than anything I’ve done myself.
But that doesn’t make the Telegraph article about Maeve Binchy less tacky. Or it less weird that you care so much about belittling people who are active in causes you don’t support.
non causes, selfish causes, distracting causes, help you deal with your privilege causes.
Aww, I’m sorry your feelings are so hurt that I’m not spending my time the way you think I should. So much that you spent hours venting.
t least I aint drawing attention from real issues to deal with my petty problems of people’s opinions
Yes, you are. You’re detracting from real issues to discuss my opinions. If they’re so ill informed, you don’t have to worry about me convincing anyone, do you? If you think this thread and my argument are so ridiculous, ignore it and pay attention to something you deem worthwhile.
Over 2000 people have read this article dealing with a non issue
The media controls people’s minds, all the time spent on these minor issues distracts from real probelms
eg gender quotas Vs lack of free universal primary care in the republic
So why have you not tried to get the Journal to write more articles like that, rather than complaining at commentators who engage with what they publish?
Im not a journalist
They publish articles by non-journalists who submit feature length pieces of suitable quality. If there’s something you think should be discussed, you should definitely consider submitting.
Medred – you’ve obviously been posting comments here before, you have all the chars sticks of a regular poster. So, why did you change to a different profile and what profile did you use previously. I’d be handy to know as you’ve obviously an axe to grind, and it would be nice to know what that axe is.
I dont know what this has to do with anything.
I deleted a previous twitter account because of abuse I receiving.
If I have an axe to grind it is clear from what I have stated above, however, I will once again point it out. I have a problem with upper middle class white women who think that the trivial issues they face as part of a privileged life wish to exploit advantage by claiming they face discrimination on a level equal to people who do not have the same advantage.
Abuse is relative, in this case. Your domination of this article’s comments section, for instance, could be seen as abusing the forum.
Yes some claims of abuse should be rejected as trivial
PS I never mentioned or even implied abuse Please stop building strawmen
Firstly, please consult a dictionary. You seem to be misinformed as to the meaning of the term “straw man”.
Secondly, you have tried to monopolise an entire comments section connected to an article. You’re wasting other people’s time and are using the forum for reasons other then those intended. Therefore, you are abusing the service. Simply repeating your same points is not the same as developing an argument. No development without progression.
Calling an error then not explaining the error is schoolyard stuff.
Open forum, don’t like don’t read my comments
Telling people to stop monopolising a thread on an issue that seem to have a monopoly in the journal.ie is ironic. This is failing of ‘the personal is politial’ because those with the loudest voice, ie people like you and Nick, get their issues heard first. The rest o us just wait in line.
This medred guy is a good laugh eh?
Shouting strawman at everything he disagrees with it, a sadly common debating tactic these days.
And closing a twitter account due to abuse all I can say is
“People talk bad about other people all the time get over. Its problem everyone faces, I’m sorry if you can’t handle it but a therapist would be a better outlet than trying to change everyones opinion to suit yours.”
Medred – I’ve said my piece, my opinion of what you’re doing is clear, and I’ve no interest in feeding your craving for attention. So, unless you’ve something new and productive to add…
Nothing more than you are a self righteous bigots who thinks that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a fool and should shut up
Think about it. It is very difficult to take your opinions seriously when you have no time to hear other.
Good day
Denis construing anothers opinion in a manner that is easier to attack is a common tactic here on the journal.
As is jumping in like a pack of rabid dogs to attack those who question your opinions is clearly also a big problem here.
As is ad hominem attack. It is a fallacy to assume that someone is insane if they dont agree with you liberal dogma.
My quote is valid claiming your own sensivities is a human rights issue is a strange way to deal with a nerotic trait. Claiming I should see a therapist because people repatedly abused me for have an opinion on an issue makes you seem like a hypocrit and bully.
Thanks medred, I have to say you have cheered me up infinitely :)
Is it wrong that the thing that sticks out most in my mind, having read this debate, is the “strawman” malapropism? Nick made some excellent posts, but I’m just tantalized by the fact that this “medred” character has obviously never seen the film with Nicholas Cage in it, to which he has been alluding all evening but never quite pinpointing.
Sorry, I’m just making more strawmen which will draw attention from the issue.
(fwp, fml, lol)
Orly you are a proof that you can educate and idiot but that person is still an idiot
I apologise if I am not as educated as you, however, at least I think for myself and don’t disregard people’s opinion because they don’t meet your education level.
Having children helps to define the parents of the child being good parents bad or in different. What defines people is how they live their lives, enjoying, coping with sorrow and everything else that people have to deal with.
* enjoying life.
It would be an odd person who wasn’t changed by being a parent.
The issue with Craig’s original article was that she implied that Maeve Binchy would have been a better understanding of human emotion if she had had children. It was in very bad taste because 1. It was written on the day of her funeral, 2. she didn’t mention anywhere about Binchy’s struggles with infertility. She also doesnt mention Binchy’s strong relationships with children of friends and other family members.
Craig talks about having deeper understanding of human nature when you have a child and that Binchy “might have dug deeper, charming less but enlightening more, had she done so”.
I don’t know if Craig is responsible for the caption under the photo in the Telegraph article or the line under the heading but the caption is wrong (she lavished her affections on the children of family and friends as she said in her documentary) and the line under heading, which in a way summarises the article, is insulting to childless women. Writers frequently put themselves in other people’s shoes to write and saying that she didn’t write as deeply because she didn’t have children is insulting.
*have had – poor editing on my part
“In Ireland in particular, with a booming birth rate, there’s little enough debate about women who might not want to have children.”
May I also suggest that Ireland is not as unique as the insular mind would like to think. The real problem is that a sensible debate on the subject is impossible.
Your assumptions are false as you have failed to countenance the influence that nature carries over all of us. I tired giving my daughters boys toys but they preferred girlie stuff. I never once saw my son admire himself in the mirror like my 3 year old daughters did. Keep on thinking that society forces dolls and femininity on little girls. Logic like that is hard to defeat with reason.
The simple fact of the matter is that women and men are different, physically and psychologically. Equality means equality of opportunity and not true equality which is impossible. The fastest woman on earth would have no chance whatsoever of winning any medal in the mens’ 100m final at the Olympics. (not without pharmacology or mutant genes!) However, in the battle of the sexes nature will always win.
You’ve made a very generalised arguement, but in the specific example of this article, are you actually arguing that ALL women want children?
stop building strawmen!!
where is the moderator??
“Your assumptions are false as you have failed to countenance the influence that nature carries over all of us. ”
Not a strawman to ask to clarify if he means that all women want children. Hey, don’t you have resources to go apportion? Why are you wasting time with comments on the Journal?
The fastest woman on earth WILL beat most men, all the same.
The bell curves for male and female abilities have enormous overlap for most individuals and for most abilities.
Your point?
”Your assumptions are false as you have failed to countenance the influence that nature carries over all of us.”
its the nature v nuture debate
not
”are you actually arguing that ALL women want children?”
No, I am asking him to clarify if he mean that all women don’t want children, which is why he brings up nature. I am asking for clarification, troll.
No you are protraying his opinion in a dishonest manner.
I’m asking. And you really are a troll.
Calling people a troll because they call you out on your dishonesty is a bit childish
Nick Beard, what does one have to have between their ears to draw such inferences from a comment that points out that the argument put forward by the author is deficient because the influence of nature has not been countenanced while arguing that female behaviour is 100% due to nurture!
Which is what I found confusing. What are you saying is nature? That women are naturally meant to all want have children? The author is indeed arguing that society says all women should have children, but I’m baffled as to why you’re bringing nature into it. Some women want to have children, some women don’t. Some of that probably is nature. What has nothing to do with nature is third parties saying women without children are complete.
Great, point me to where I’ve lied and I’ll consider it calling me out on my dishonesty. Until then, you seem a bit stalkery obsessed with me, to be honest.
Get over yourself Nick and stop building Strawmen.
Only image obsessed people care so much about what other people say about them and turn it in to a rights issue
Tell what rights you on about??
reat, point me to where I’ve lied and I’ll consider it calling me out on my dishonesty. Until then, you seem a bit stalkery obsessed with me, to be honest.
Ah the all men are rapists and perverts line .. when you dont get your own way
Well done
Dear Doting Auntie, many have gotten into bit trouble quoting the ‘Bell Curve’ I’d steer clear of that one if I were you. However, I will throw a little bit of evidence your way just for the craic.
Wonmens’ 100m finals times 2012
Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce 10.75
Carmelita Jeter 10.78
Veronica Campbell-Brown 10.81
Tianna Madison 10.85
Allyson Felix 10.89
Kelly-Ann Baptiste 10.94
Murielle Ahoure 11.00
Blessing Okagbare 11.01
Mens’ 100m finals times 2012
Usain Bolt 9.63
Yohan Blake 9.75
Justin Gatlin 9.79
Tyson Gay 9.80
Ryan Bailey 9.88
Churandy Martina 9.94
Richard Thompson 9.98
Asafa Powell 11.99
Except no one said anything about me which is rights-based. A Telgraph article said something about Maeve Binchy that I found tone deaf and sexist.
No, all men who disagree with me aren’t rapists and perverts. Men who seem to only want to discuss me based on, what they even admit they have found by following my views, are unsettling.
But she didn’t dispute that the world’s fastest men were faster than the world’s fastest women. She argued that men are faster than some women. Speed is not only determined by gender, otherwise all men would be faster than all women. These women you cited are faster than 90% of men, so clearly gender is not the only or most relevant factor when determining whether or not someone is a natural runner.
Nick Beard, the author put forward evidence to support her argument. My point is a simple one.. the evidence put forward is one sided. You will notice in the comment below the ‘very generalised’ statement “we’re told” thereby creating the illusion that all the factors that afflict female psychology are inflicted by society.
“As women we’re told from a very young age that babies are an integral part of the female experience. As little girls, we’re given baby dolls to nurture – then when we get older we’re told that we will only be a true success when we have found that elusive balance between being a woman and being a mother.”
First Nick you don’t seem to understand nature v nuture
Second, you spasm up every post on womens issues on the journal like you are on a cursade
Calling me a stalker is very dishonest
The world is in the mess it is because people like you want you issues dealt with first. Ireland of 2012 families struggles to get medical care because they don’t qualify for a medical care. Suicide is epidemic here. Drug problems effect very town and village in this country. Yet poor upper middleclass women like Nick precieve that society says they must have children to be complete Poor Nick. yes yours is the big issue here.
Well, I would agree with you that plenty of women do want to be a mother based on nature, but what about women who truly do not want children? I think part of it is that I have read the Telegraph article that it was based on and I hope everyone can agree that women who don’t have children can indeed live very happy and fulfilled lives and it’s a bit ridiculous that other people would assume there’s something missing.
Calling you a stalker is not dishonest. You are bringing up things that have nothing to do with the article in question and you admitted you’ve been following me and even said “I do know you Nick.” I find that creepy.
I’ve never said this should be the first issue dealt with so maybe you should take your strawman apart. I do think this should be the issue DISCUSSED ON THIS THREAD due to the relevant article, but hey, single issue people love hijacking all threads (remember the Fiscal Treaty?)
Nick people have a right to their opinion more than you have a right not to be offended.
Yeah, the right to be as creepy and irrelevant as you want. You absolutely do, but people will call you on it.
You write comments in a public space and may I add alot of illinformed ones.
Those with power in society like upper middleclass white women like yourself have a greater voice than 3-4 billion people in the world. More articles address these so called womens rights issues than all the other pressing concerns
Grow up
Uh huh. Great. So, why don’t you do something useful like write an article for the Journal about other things that you care about? I love how you think whinging at me and describing me as ill-informed is doing anything constructive. Unless you’d just rather complain about how people care about the wrong things rather than making a positive difference?
You drive the agenda Nick
Your self righteousness shouts everyone down
See its Nicks way or your WRONG
I aint the one spending pcountless hours of my life fighting issues that aren’t really issues at all
At this stage I quote no greater an authority than my good self “The real problem is that a sensible debate on the subject is impossible.” c.f. original comment.
Really? You just spent a lot of time fighting the battle of whether or not I’m privileged (yep. I am and I know it) so yeah, that’s putting a lot of time into a non-battle that you could spend doing something worthwhile.
A bit selfish to whinge at feminist activists when there are a lot more important battles to be fought like children starving.
But this feminist revival draws attention from all the real issues not your I cant have everything I want and thats the patriarchy’s fault issues
Then instead of attacking me, do something to draw attention to real causes, not fighting the strawman of insulting me. You’re doing precisely nothing on this thread to make a positive difference to the “real issues” and in fact, seem to be alienating people. Which, if you’re someone who in the real world actually makes a difference to a real cause (which…stranger things have happened), is too bad.
Telling people that their lame petty problems are non issues is doing something
As an educated white upper middleclass woman people will listen more to you than me
Calling people out on their selfishness is the issue here
This issue in the article is not one I personally face. I just read it and felt a lot of empathy for Maeve Binchy and any woman facing infertility because I cannot imagine how painful that must be to be judged to be hollow. You do not seem to have sympathy. And if you actually think people like me should support the causes you do (which you have no idea about, actually), insulting me as selfish for having empathy for this woman is not a way to win you a lot of allies.
Again you assume I have no sympathy for those who face infertility issues
But again that is not the point you said
‘You’ve made a very generalised arguement, but in the specific example of this article, are you actually arguing that ALL women want children?’
”And? The idea that parenthood is somehow required for women (rather than men) to achieve completion and happiness, while men are fine without it is incredibly insulting to the amazing fathers out there who feel like their children make their lives complete.”
This is what I take issue with
I don’t assume you have a lack of empathy, a statement like “I’m sorry if you can’t handle it but a therapist would be a better outlet than trying to change everyones opinion to suit yours” as well as repeatedly calling me selfish for thinking this is a problem would indicate you don’t have a lot of sympathy for women who suffer from infertility and then are judged as lacking by society because of it.
And yes, I do think that women who achieve success but who don’t have children are gauged as living incomplete lives (Maeve Binchy, Queen Elizabeth I), while the same judgements aren’t made of Jesus, Michelangelo, da Vinci. Obviously not the most important fight for women’s equality in the world, but something to note the ridiculousness of.
2+2=15
Having no sympathy for people who make issues out of minor social pressures is not the same as having no sympathy or the real life problem of infertility
Stop buidling strawmen
There are just as many social pressure for men
check that privilege
There are social pressures for men. This isn’t one of them. So check your privilege.
I really, really hope you’re a woman. Because a man stating there is no discrimination based on gender then claiming “check your privilege” would be explosive irony.
Whatever about the article, the title is more than a little silly? It implies that it’s a given that women are defined by parenthood and men or not. Not true on either count. People are far more odd and various to boil issues down to simple black/white opposites. Secondly, it blurs the difference between self-Definition and definition by others. The first is chosen, the second is an imposition. It’s not right or wrong if you are defined by parenthood, but it’s always wrong if a definition is forced into you, parent or not. For the record, I a man with two grown-up kids, they’ve been the most important things in my life, and so being their father is a large part of what defines me. I choose and accept that happily. I’d guess that the majority of fathers, not the minority, feel the same way.
We need the Journal’s standard polling question here…..why can’t we all just get along?
I’m very happy to be defined by the fact that I’m a mother.
Sorry to pop in here with something so irrelevant, I just wanted to show you all what I began constructing earlier.
Define ‘define’.
and to men, children are a thing apart. To women, their whole existence………
have your say