Saw this in page 157 of Why Men Are The Way They Are by Warren Farrell:
Commitment valued for its own sake, then, tempts "falling in love" to commit rather than genuinely falling in love. This encourages a fragile family life. A parallel pressure occurs for women when we call women selfish if they choose to not have children - we generally recognize this now as unenlightened.
I have discussed how a single woman is called a career woman, while a single man who supports himself is called a playboy. He may pay for her play as well as his own - but he hasn't "grown up" until he pays for her life. Ironically, a woman who commits and becomes financially dependent is considered more mature than a man who doesn't commit but is financially independent.
When I realized this, something clicked in my head. This happens a lot with Warren Farrell's books and I always love it when that happens.
Ever since feminism came about, or as I like to refer to it, the Female Supremacy Movement, anything that refers to women in a negative light has gradually been eliminated, censored or legislated away. Look at Career Woman - such a positive term, positively laden with good vibes and energy. It implies a smart, well-dressed woman who is not afraid to say no. I'm sure that there must have been many negative pseudonyms for "single, childless woman" but with the advent of feminism they were deemed misogynistic and only adjectives that referred to men in a negative light were allowed - only misandric opinions were politically correct, since women were naturally as pure as the driven snow, innocent of the original sin, and free of the bounds that made the "rest of us" racist, sexist, homophobic, and what have you. A select few took it upon themselves to brand their chosen opinions as the "right" ones and censor everything else. Sound familiar? It should - its been repeated countless times throughout history.
A playboy is such a negative term - even when a man uses it, it doesn't carry many positive vibes. I can fully imagine a jealous man or a collaborationist using it to describe a man who gets more pussy than he does - to a feminist, to his wife, to his daughter, and so on. If a man is getting respect and admiration for his ability to snag pussy, he is usually referred to as something else, like a player, a god among men, and so on. ;-)
Think of the term "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" and think of why the feminists have allowed it to be in such common use. I'm sure its come up in many domestic violence cases where the woman was the perpetrator, which of course she can never be according to the Duluth Model, the official government-endorsed bit of feminist theory that is used in every domestic violence shelter across the country, maybe even across the Western World.
Call a woman selfish for not having children or for aborting the ones she didn't want to have and see how much abuse you get. You just can't call a woman selfish anymore - whether she doesn't cook, doesn't shave her legs, doesn't care for her husband, or doesn't care for her children - her meal tickets. But of course, men are fair game - whether its for a family they don't want to have, or for children they had no say in apart from their genetic matter, which of course carries the risk that the woman was cheating and its someone else's baby the man is told to be responsible for.
Its for the children, you see. All of it.