Monday, January 13, 2014

Opting Out is Not White Privilege, It's a Reward

Opting out is portrayed negatively as wasting a degree or betraying the women's liberation movement or class and race based privilege. When discussing the wasted degrees of women opting out, snarky liberal academics and pundits will throw out their catch phrase of privilege  and tie it to class and race. It is a bit of a chicken and the egg issue, and with liberals, there is no need to evaluate causation and personal choice only the need to look at results and the color of people's faces. Opting out is not a privilege. It is a choice. Opting out is also a reward for making choices liberal academics and pundits actively persuade the masses away from and consider old fashioned.

Opting out articles mention a first time mom from some good college leaving work because of her first child. They drop the college name so you get her class marker. The articles then expand it to a new trend for middle and upper middle class women. Sometimes it is referred to as possibly being the new "having it all". The articles portray these women in a neutral or negative fashion and forget how some of the early feminist crusaders wanted women to have the "choice" to work or stay at home. Choice only registers with killing unborn babies to leftists. It is not a permanent choice, so aren't these women really just taking some time off while their kids are young like women did 10-20-30 years ago without being called opt out sell outs? Within these articles, the clues are out there as to why opting out is a reward, not a privilege.

It does not require Sherlock Holmes' skills in deduction. Most articles focus on the late 20s-early 30s women doing this. If it's their first child, they delayed having children until beyond the average age of first time mothers, meaning they had more time to accumulate wealth. The articles cite these women as being college educated, so they most likely slotted into decent paying jobs. If the mom is 30 in the 2010 article, she graduated college in 2002 when universities were much cheaper, college debt loads were lower and employment opportunities better. This applies even better to the 2003 NY Times article on Princeton graduates opting out.

Most importantly, opting out requires being married. A married couple that delays their first child has the potential for a much larger income and wealth base to make that choice. These women had children while married, alleviating many problems. The other unmentionable is that these women selected men in their 20s who wanted to get married and have families. Men who had the potential for income growth. They may not have played bass and had a barbed wire tattoo, but they were a junior account specialist with an idea of a career. Of course they are predominantly white, educated and middle to upper class because look at illegitimacy statistics, marriage statistics and education attainment. Those are the last women left doing what our grandmothers considered the regular order of life (marriage to a guy with a job then children).

This is not privilege. It is a reward for avoiding pitfalls that can torpedo a woman's choices later in life. It is the payoff for balancing the partner selection between cad qualities and dad potential. How many Dr. Phil episodes and Life of Julia narratives does a progressive have to watch before they admit that leaving one's options open means delaying immediate gratification or taking precautions in life? They cannot openly admit it because their foot soldier voting pool would then be revealed to be what they are "voting booth muscle" that they view as dumb scum and nothing more. Let us celebrate someone having this choice. There are consequences to decisions. Not everyone makes bad decisions and not every decision has negative consequences.

These women did the old fashioned right things. If they opt out, they earned it. Spotlight this choice as a reward for others to emulate, not a privilege for rich bitches. The media doesn't want that though because God forbid women have families instead of reaching for that 250,000 job that will not happen instead of their 35,000 job. They are not betraying the feminist revolution. They may even return to work after a few years or find new pursuits. They have made decisions earlier in life that give them chocies later in life. The media should celebrate spending time with their children and encourage other women to think long term to have those same choices and opportunities. Stop hyperventilating HuffPo and NY Times, there is still a good chance they will vote Democrat.

No comments: