SIR -

It would seem that I’m incapable of writing more than 10 posts/month. That’s no good. I’ll change that this month.

So I found myself getting up on the feminist soapbox yet again earlier this week. Note the following passage from this week’s Economist, discussing the problems posed by a falling population:

States should not be in the business of pushing people to have babies. If women decide to spend their 20s clubbing rather than child-rearing, and their cash on handbags rather than nappies, that's up to them.

Also note the accompanying image, this week’s cover:

That’s a bit besides the point, but it does have a certain “WTF?” effect to it.

My first reaction to the above statement was to laugh. But after re-reading it, I thought, “Wait…that’s not so funny.” It paints twentysomething women as shallow and frivolous, and fails to recognize the fact that women often have those options as a result of increased independence. I realize that the article is about demography and not women’s life choices and what triggers them, but there was no need to throw that stereotypical rhetoric in there.

And so I wrote a letter to the editor:

“SIR –

I was disappointed that you chose to attribute the falling number of births among women in their twenties to the desire for nightlife and handbags. What about the women who choose to delay child-rearing to pursue higher education and successful careers? You’ve failed to acknowledge the fact that women’s increased financial independence is often what makes those handbag purchases possible in the first place. As a woman in her early twenties, I’d be most appreciative if an astute and influential newspaper such as yours moved away from the stigma that so many already thrust upon my demographic.”

Probably sounds familiar. I don’t know that it’s worthy of publication, but I’m satisfied nonetheless. Ciao, bella.