3 ms·
> The article blames literally everything but socioeconomics You may have skipped past this paragraph: "Yet radical pro-natalism is only going to grow as moth
by wecky 2y ago
> The article blames literally everything but socioeconomics
You may have skipped past this paragraph:
"Yet radical pro-natalism is only going to grow as motherhood, an ancient political battleground, is electrified by the ever more frightening socioeconomic outlook. Perhaps the only way to make this inevitable tide of pressure and debate work for us is first to recognise it as a collective issue, then to push for a system which does not actively punish women for having children: affordable childcare so that we do not face a career cliff edge; affordable housing so that settling down seems even remotely possible."
Given the very short amount of time between my post and your comment, it's clear you must have written your retort without having read the article.
- talldayo 2y agoThat's not blaming socioeconomics. They're acknowledging it, writing it off and then saying that it's a political problem and not a market-related one. It's buried at the end of a litany of blame write-offs demanding change without identifying the problem. When you make your next alt account, please don't waste our time with another one of these godforsaken opinion pieces. They are low-quality and so obviously outrage bait, you will have your post flagged before it reaches the frontpage and your account(s) will be banned if you exclusively promote low-quality, single-source material. I guarantee you this is not worth your time.