These are generalizations, but for the most part, conservatives seem more likely to interpret this as: “There are fundamental physical realities that require you to make hard choices about your life, about how much and what you can successfully accomplish, and to accept that to get almost anything you will have to give up something else.”

The progressivist, upon hearing this, is likely to say, “That may be true, but why should I take your word, or accept your decision, that in any given specific situation I should (a) consider a goal to be worthwhile because you say it is, (b) accept your definition of the price that you say ‘must’ be paid for it, or (c) believe your assertions about what is and isn’t possible? The rallying cry of tyrants has always been ‘necessity’, and every oppressed people in history has been persuaded to accept their oppression by telling them their freedom would cost more to attain than it would ultimately be worth. When somebody tells you you can’t do something you want to do, your first instinct should be to look at how they benefit from your sacrifice.”

This is a weakness for both sides. The conservative who becomes too reflexively resistant to change can mistake mere social convention for physical reality; the progressivist who becomes too convinced that anything is possible can mistake the limits of physical reality for mere social power structure.

Call me a crazy feminist, but I would have thought that women’s interests would be best served by pushing young men to marry – say, by about age 25. The expectation would be that one would date in college with the purposes of courting for marriage or having long-term relationships, and then marry shortly afterwards. This would cut down on the exploitation of women via casual sex, hook-ups, and date rape. Women would not be in their 30s and complaining about having all of the single men their age chasing young things who can conceive in a month; they would have been married long before then.

Rather the comment about trade-offs set off my snide side. Libtards have never accepted the idea of trade-off. In fact I believe the one has issued an executive order to ban them. Further, I expect Mrs. Pelosi to introduce a bill to that affect.

The idea of trade-offs is a false choice. There are no trade-offs in Obamaland, nor reality.

One of my favorite female right-wingers, Cassy Fiano, educates upset liberal feminists on marriage at young age:

Feminists do love to ignore those uncomfortable truths, don’t they? It’s so easy to brush things like this off as anti-feminist. But i…

It would be a far better world if everyone would simply agree with Jessica Valenti. Well, females, anyway. It would seem from a comment above that males’ opinions don’t count for much.

Well said–I never thought of it those terms. Unfortunately, it does become too late for many folks who are mislead as young professionals.