Imagine if the sexes were reversed in this story:
Some time ago, a friend told me that she was planning to leave her husband but was waiting for him to get a vasectomy. She said she knew she’d have to hold his hand through it to make sure it happened. Once the procedure was done, she planned to break the news that she was going to end the marriage.
Why, I hear you ask?
She felt that he could barely manage to parent the children they had and that she didn’t want him to be distracted by more kids.
She doesn’t want the man she’s leaving to be distracted.
She said that she had been warning him for years that she was planning to leave and so it shouldn’t be a surprise.
Ah, clearly from the “nobody owes anyone s**t” school of relationship behaviour. If divorce laws were sensible, women wouldn’t be able to repeatedly threaten to leave their husbands while staying in the relationship for years.
She later reported that when she told her husband of her decision to end the marriage for good, he told her that he was upset to learn this after having had the vasectomy and that he believed it would hurt his chances of finding a new partner.
Frankly, this man’s balls were removed long before the vasectomy.
Her response was that she was pretty sure that women weren’t going to be interested in having children with someone his age anyway (he’s middle-aged).
Translation: being sterile means hotter, younger women who want a family won’t be interested in him.
This woman is employed by an organization dedicated to reproductive choice and plans to work as a counselor.
This doesn’t surprise me. From what I’ve seen, the pro-abortion movement in the US is chock-full of lunatic feminists who hate men.
I have been troubled about what she told me for months and have considered disclosing the information to the organization, but I’m unsure: Would I just be “tattling” on what I find to be reprehensible human behavior? Or would this be a reasonable act in response to the highly inappropriate behavior of someone working in the field of reproductive choice? Please advise.
The answer from the NYT on this question amuses me:
There’s a significant body of research in social psychology suggesting that our conduct in one type of situation often doesn’t generalize to others. You can be an honest broker and a dishonest husband. That someone has done something awful in the context of a difficult marriage, then, doesn’t prove her to be an awful person in every other respect; and it certainly doesn’t establish that she’d be unable to discharge her professional obligations.
I look forward to them applying the above standard to Brett Kavanaugh.