“If it is mainly liberal women who are less likely to have children, then I think this should be a trend to encourage, not discourage.”
I think the causation goes both ways, though. It’s possible that Maureen Dowd, for example, would not be such a bitter liberal if she had gotten married and become a mother. A funny thread about her hating Christmas, unlike her more traditional female relatives, is at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1294490/posts .
I agree with you totally. I knew some charming young ladies in college (we’re all 51 now) who were as traditional as any gal back then. They fell for the women’s movement expectation of career before men or children, and today they are accomplished but are childless, loveless, and basically lonely. Only very few will admit they made a mistake. I’ll see how they are at the 30th reunion later this year.
Mo Dowd is probably another casualty.
She makes me laugh. Only today has she finally realized that men don’t want to marry ball-busting women.
The reason is that when they become divorced, single parents, they want the government to be their husband and take care of them and to be the father and raise their children.
I don't know if this is true, but it sounded cool.
I used to really detest Mo Dowd. She is like so many of the other normal girls I met at Stanford who, after 4-8 years of leftist indoctrination in college and grad school, became doctrinaire, ball-busting, bitter, angry feminists.
But lately I am sensing that Dowd has figured things out and is just toying with her readers. Meaning, someday she might meet a man, get married, quit the job or go part-time, and confess to the world that careers, feminism, and all the rest of it aren't what they seemed.
The rest of the lib world will be furious, just like they were when Gloria Steinem ("a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle") got married in her late 60s.