Mumsnot
And now this. Mumsnot . This is a very clever title for a very upsetting debate. The way it's framed is particularly saddening: if a woman doesn't have children, what value does she have, and indeed, does she have any? HELLO? EXCUSE ME? Of COURSE a woman, like any other person, or animal, or flower, has value, simply by existing. OK, evil people, flowers and animals have perhaps less value, and usually do more damage. Value — now there's a word. What on earth does it mean to "have value"? In economic terms, it means "be tradeable". I'm not sure that that's what the Mumsnot debate means. After all, women have been traded for centuries, and it's usually the idea that they're not virginal that prompts the idea of their loss of value. When did tradability shift to the post-partum female? And who is assigning that value? It used to be men, on the basis of dowry or chattels. What is it now? An index of male fertility, or capacit...