Given the general feminist insistence about fertility – the insistence on discussing it for a start, then the control of it by none other and no other than the woman concerned – we’ve something of a right to expect feminists to acknowledge fertility in all areas of life. Yet, as we know, that’s exactly what they don’t do:
At least this (smallish age gap) counts as a novelty. Usually, we nosy types find the larger age gaps intriguing. Some such relationships defy the odds and work. Others look unhealthy, especially if one party is not just younger, but also young, period – too young for them to have much hope of real agency in their relationship. Then there’s that other kind of age gap, with the freaky gendered socioeconomic dimension – where snagging a much younger woman becomes as much a signifier of male success as a mansion or a Porsche. Here, the younger woman is less a human being than a male acquisition or achievement. I always wondered why some men were forever moaning nastily about gold-diggers.
It finally dawned that perhaps it’s because they are intoxicated with this idea of womankind confirming their financial success. “Look, everybody, I’m so successful, I’m being played by gold-diggers!” There lies the essential tragedy of the money-obsessed – it even contaminates their sexual and emotional life.
You know, fertility? That thing that women lose in their 40s?
No, there’s no justice or righteousness here, just experience. We’re descended from people who found fertile women shaggable. Those who didn’t didn’t leave descendants. And thus it’s rather built into us to prefer fertile women as shags.
Which does leave us still with the question. Given all that feminist attention paid to fertility why is it they fail to understand it?