"Bringing a child into this nightmare world. This should require two-thirds, too. If you want to feel maternal, you can care for my plant, Fernie Sanders."
So reads one punchline in a New Yorker humor piece, "The Filibuster Belongs in my Group Chat, Not the Senate."
Hosting a destination wedding. This should be constitutional-amendment rare—so, like, two-thirds to bring a vote.....
Is the humor in agreeing with the notion that other people are making bad decision in this area or is it in thinking that friends who want tight control over their friends' decisions are horrible? Or is it funny because you can't really tell? Alternative position: It's not funny.
I do think the hostility toward destination weddings is real, but the intrusion into decisions whether to bear a child must be intended to reflect badly on the proposal to subject it to a filibuster. I note that the filibuster is set up to make it harder to choose to go through with a pregnancy. There's an implication of forced abortion! The proposal is not to subject a decision to get an abortion to the filibuster.
I know, I'm ruining all the humor. I can do that all on my own.
Even though there's no reference to women in that humor piece, it's clearly about the way women feel about other women and how much they desire to control them and how their go-to technique is to weaponize their need to be part of a group.
Terima kasih karena telah membaca informasi tentang "Bringing a child into this nightmare world. This should require two-thirds, too. If you want to feel maternal, you can care for my plant, Fernie Sanders." . Silahkan membaca berita lainnya.
