- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,021
- Name
- Fanotodd
Why?I never want to hear that team say they're "for women's rights" ever again after this.
He didn’t hurt anybody or advocate for the mistreatment of women.
He stated an opinion which placed an extremely high value on motherhood to the point he felt it was more important than career decisions.
He might have picked a better time and place than while addressing women graduates who were probably closer to career objectives than most.
Don’t women still have the choice to opt out of the workforce to dedicate themselves to family, running a household, and raising their children as opposed to leaving them in the hands of strangers while they pursue a paycheck?
It is unfortunate that economics make this decision more difficult than just being an idealogical one, but it is still a choice women have a right to make. Haven’t we all known women with degrees or specific training and qualifications only to have put their careers on hold (at the very least) to raise a family? I am certainly not going to put THOSE women down for exercising THAT right.
Last edited: