Every American, whether Republican or Democrat, gets an picture in their minds when they hear the phrase” single rabbit girl”. The ornery, wild-haired harridan. the weedy home and infested house. The obsolete, tearing wall and dusty cookbooks. Boxes of disassembled and misaligned bric-a-brac are long forgotten until a caretaker slams it as a “wonderful treasure” when she fiercely declares it a priceless treasure.  ,
Advertisement
And animals. Outside, animals. gaunt cats and spoiled cats. purchased felines and stray cats, vaccines and wild cats, life cats and dead cats. And rabbit locks. also opened kitty food cans. And cat spend. On the floor. On the equipment. On the mattress. On the cabinetry.
For a fantasies exist for script enforcement across the country. But when the internet dug up an old picture of J. D. Vance criticizing” single rabbit women”, the Left collapsed into its regular, predictable hysterics. According to USA Today, numerous grievance studies professors and abortion rights advocates claim that Vance intends to keep women outdoors, female, and in the kitchen without any human rights.
His comment was intentionally misrepresented as an attack on women ( and couples ) unable to have kids, who adopt kids, or who ca n’t afford kids. However, listening to his entire phrase would not have revealed anything. He also criticized corporate oligarchs, but the Left was n’t going to let that get in the way of a good ol ‘ edited soundbite.
Vance argued that” childless cat women” are ineffective for the advancement and development of our community because they “willfully choose not to have children out of selfish desires. And he’s straight, for two factors.
First, do you know all the rights plans that progressives claim are their birthrights? Medicare, Obamacare, and other benefits aside, what? Well, imagine what we need to maintain those plans upright: coming taxpayers.
Advertisement
Democrats usually go about approaching this problem. Transfer the problem to another person. That kids will one day give for MY rights. However, if you dare say that they help to maintain the population’s needs, they howl and yell in apron and walk on bare feet. But their sanctification of” choice” does n’t extend to other people or other people’s kids. Our children will be forced to compensate for their rights. Our kids do n’t get a” choice” about it.
This cannot be pawned off on anyone indefinitely, unlike your undergraduate debt reduction. Citizens must be born. If it is only conservatives who are involved, it wo n’t work. Below the 2.1 % required to sustain the population as it stands, the birth rate is currently 1.7 % per woman. We simply do n’t have the numbers we need. There’s no way around it. No babies means no income for entitlements.
Vance’s next point is that people, both men and women, who prioritize their jobs, their wealth, their wine tastings, and their charcuterie board above having kids are, however, detrimental to society. Yes, it’s your” option” to do so. Calm over. Nothing is denying you your important” choice.” But remain open to it. You make the choices you do to ensure that there is the least devotion that can be made in order to maintain a privileged and secure life.
Advertisement
For those of us with higher priorities, it’s difficult to believe with your decision on a particular level. Greedy people make unpleasant families. Seth Rogen, that Frankensteinian assortment of alpha male, man-child, and ultimate gym advertising” Before” picture, said the quiet part out quiet next year. The artist relished that, without children, he and his family “get to do whatever we want”. And that’s all it is. That’s what the” option” is really about. That’s what lies beneath the virtue-signaling platitudes about group, about world role, about conservation and all the other persuasive games. You are free to pursue your interests.
So I guess — yeah, I guess I agree with Rogen that he should n’t have kids. In the same way that his relatives failed him, he may refuse his children. Seth and his wife had a puppy instead, which is good. They have so far been able to assume at least some accountability for a living thing once more to the level of at least keeping it intact.
But animals are meant to highlight human relationships, no replace them. The term” childless cat women” is misleading because it conjures up the image of the savage, elderly woman living in her possessed house in a decaying city. However, today’s pet owners are incredibly many, not old hermits, but our vaporized, disembodied youth.
Nowadays, they prefer dogs to cats ( as would I ), and the pet owners are largely female. Many second male dog owners own pets, but their reasons for doing so are different. Many male dog owners use their dogs as a” chick magnet” ( cue eye roll ) and as a ruse to strike up a conversation with female visitors. The success of these activities varies from one person to the next. The place is that they are trying to draw and never deter coworkers.
Advertisement
On the other hand, it seems like there are a lot of single female dog owners who do n’t just use their pets to annoy their future spouses but to take their place. How do these people present themselves as dog owners make you think? ” Oh, great dog”! you say upon meet. They soon inquire as to why they have a relationship with an animal rather than a human being, without any hesitation or question.
” Life is just so much easier. .”.
” I can do what I want, no chords attached..”.
” I do n’t have to answer to anybody..”.
” I’m hardly gonna get domesticated..”.
Rarely did you hear such a obscene speech in such a defiant tone. ” I’m happy, damn it”! They insist with dentures gritted. With their assertions, you wonder if they’re trying to convince you they are n’t lonely, or if they’re trying to convince themselves.
They object to humanity’s “arbitrary standards,” but they are the first to characterize couples with children ( or even people in general ) as illiterate simpletons from a bygone era. This is typical forecast. Celebrities and campaigners promised a single-life ideal, but it was all just a dream in the face of social requirement. We were n’t meant to be alone, and an overwhelming part of them knows they’re missing out on something better.
I’m not going to provide relationship advice because my first 20s were a perfect illustration of what to avoid. But I did suggest this. I did n’t solve the issue by hiding behind an animal and blaming the other gender for my inability to maintain strong relationships or to woo partners who were n’t insanely Cameron Diaz from” Vanilla Sky.” I fixed the problem by fixing myself, by making myself a more exciting companion, and, yes, by being less greedy.
Advertisement
And what relationships did I find amazing even when it was n’t all about Me Me Me 24/7.
Not everyone, however, is willing to take that difficult look in the mirror. But they dig in, and out of delight, they prolong their pain. They attack individuals like Vance in an outburst. And they cling to crazy theories, such as this ridiculous rumor milled by NPR that cat-lady themes were a remnant of feudal times when one ladies with cats were feared witches. And in this painful method of for, they rob themselves of years, even centuries, of marriage companionship and the irreplicable pleasure of having kids.
And then they vote their feelings. They vote from loneliness, from fear, from sorrow, and from hatred. There was no Joyâ„¢ either in their voting.
And we witness how they responded when they lost.
However, there’s nothing we can claim or complete that’s going to change their minds. Before they can make significant changes, they must first come to terms with the issue and acknowledge it on their own, like addicts. There is a means to refuse to be ignored by grief. Without being snarky, smug, or prideful, I sincerely hope these people will discover the joy and interpretation that are essential to developing animal relationships and living human life.
It’s really sad to watch.
