You might recall that in posts past I’ve bitched about the lack of publicity given to women who don’t have children given that there are meant to be so bloody many of us. Well clearly it’s like buses – you wait ages then blah, blah, blah (god that’s a shit cliché, after all, everyone’s got an app on their phone that tells them when the bus is coming now so you don’t ACTUALLY wait ages…) I DIGRESS.
The title of this post is a bit of a rhetorical question. Or, as some would have it, when referring to headlines in a certain newspaper (“Are immigrants causing cancer?” “Could this £10 pill cure obesity?” “Would YOU wear a dress made from fish guts?” etc etc) QTWTAIN (Questions To Which The Answer Is No). Because no, I don’t think I have been exploited, but undoubtedly some people would.
Women who freeze their eggs in the hope of having children are being exploited by clinics which fail to disclose that the chances of pregnancy are “scarily” small, a leading fertility expert warned yesterday.
Just a quick one BUT… over the past few weeks I’ve been seeing a lot in the papers that references the fact that for women of my generation, having children isn’t necessarily a given – and far more so than in any previous generation. In a piece in The Times (talking about politicians and parenting – it’s very good, do read it), Janice Turner said:
Liz Kendall is no outlier. Of women like her, born in the 1970s, one in four will not have children.
That’s me. A woman. Born in the 1970s. One in four of us won’t have children.