Are You Fucking Kidding Me?

Those were my first thoughts when I read this article on boston.com

I wanted to poke my eyeballs out. No actually I wanted to poke HER eyeballs out for suggesting - no putting the panic into young women - that if they want to have a baby, the first thing they do is have to FIND A HUSBAND!

And to find one in your twenties no less. And to essentially imply that if you are out there, pursuing your career instead of a husband, that you will end up infertile, childless and alone.

Does anyone else see the problem here? The problem that we as women face ALL THE FUCKING TIME when it comes to advice and mixed signals? Women are told they can have it all. That they should DO it all.

And to do it, now they're being told they need a HUSBAND first.

I call bullshit. BULLSHIT (said in that adorable Matthew McConaughey voice that he does with Kate Hudson in "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" and interestingly enough, again in "Fool's Gold". But I digress...)

First of all I question the logic of needing a man. Wanting a man (or partner) is one thing, but to NEED one? No. You especially don't need one to conceive. You can adopt (which the article COMPLETELY glosses over); You can use sperm banks and freeze eggs as she suggests, but let's face it - that's expensive and unproven.

But I think what gets me more, is that she's telling young women to put careers on hold, that you can have those later, but you can't have kids later. And frankly, that's so off the mark it's depressing. I'm not sure what world she lives in, but when was the last time you saw a woman entering the career force in her, oh, I dunno 40's and quickly climbing to the top of the corporate ladder because her resume read "mommy"?

I'd be willing to say...never. She's making it seem like these women CAN have big career but should do it after they've landed a HUSBAND. And that young women should PURSUE finding a man with the same vigor they would in finding that great corporate gig instead.

Did this chick step out of the 1950's or what?

Now, I know there are PLENTY of women who are mother's and have careers. I know there are plenty of women who have made the choice to have a family early in their lives because for them, that was what was most important. That was what they wanted in their lives. And that's awesome. But there are just as many who have struggled and fought their way up in the working world so young women WOULD and COULD hold jobs that men have held for decades, to give women the chance of breaking through the glass ceiling and this bullshit she's feeding her readers does nothing but set that movement back god only knows how long.

She's almost as bad as Ann Coulter (shudder) telling Ivy League women who can have nearly every opportunity in life within their reach that they should be teachers and librarians and stay at home mothers. Those are great jobs for women who want them, but don't make it seem as if you're failing your duty as a woman by chasing a different dream for yourself.

But this woman is making it sound as if every woman in her 20's who is NOT on the fast track to motherhood by the time she's like 24 (because really, that's when you should've started, didn't you know) that it's NEVER going to happen for you.

I think what bugs me most, aside from being so archaic and ridiculously fear-mongerging is how little emphasis she's placed on the value of having a loving, caring, deep relationship with the "baby daddy".

She spent 10K on a dating service to meet someone, so desperate was she to have this happen. $10K? (Hasn't she heard of eHarmony?) What about love? What about liking the person you're with?

Men, as much as we don't need them, wouldn't you WANT to be with someone you actually LIKE if you're planning on marrying them and procreating? You can't buy love in a relationship (but sadly, you can buy a baby, the sperm, the eggs...) Hell, she'd probably condone paying someone to raise the kid, too, with as little time and effort she seems to have to find a suitable father, how the hell would she find time to be a good mother?

Why does she even want a child? Because she thinks she should? To complete her? To love someone other than herself?

I just think the tone of the article made it sound as though if you're not actively man hunting, you're wasting your life and it made me angry angry angry.

Young women in their 20's have enough pressure as it is to be successful and to find "the one" thanks to Hollywood and their 'relationship' clocks ticking, but to throw in the pressure of 'you better find the guy, snag him up to have babies' ASAP is a ridiculous sentiment to impose on anyone, and it's simply unfair.

I fell into that trap. Not because I wanted babies, but because I thought that if I didn't meet and marry the guy in my 20's, I'd be some washed up old hag at 35 whose cat would eat her face off when she choked on kung pao chicken (and yes, I watched too much SATC...)

I'm just saying. There's something to be said for love and a healthy marriage that's entered into for the right reasons. I would say it's much more important for a child (regardless if it's biological or not) to be raised by two people who love one another, LIKE one another and have a vested interest in each other as partners, not just as seed and a fertile field.

If you're in your 20's and you *want* the husband and the family, then yes, by all means find it and live your dream. But if that's not what you want or you're not sure if it is, don't buy into this woman's bullshit and settle for the first guy you kinda might like for fear of not finding love and therefore missing out on being able to have children. Getting married for the sole purpose of having babies is absolutely, positively the worst thing you could ever do.


(Ed. note: yes, I'm crazy opinionated. This can't *possibly* surprise any of you...)