You might have heard by now that actor Al Pacino is reportedly going to be a father again at the age of 83:
Hollywood actor Al Pacino is set to become a father again at the age of 83 https://t.co/MkYxOAuw9t pic.twitter.com/6QYDn6bPBH
— CNN (@CNN) June 1, 2023
Al Pacino is going to be a father at 83. His girlfriend, 29-year-old producer Noor Alfallah, is eight months pregnant https://t.co/7do4waKmxV pic.twitter.com/kDKvi0dOsc
— Reuters (@Reuters) June 1, 2023
Normally I don’t cover things that are usually more fitting for sites like TMZ, but the USA Today’s framing of the above story simply speaks volumes — none of them good — about how far “science” has fallen thanks to the new fad of denying reality:
Al Pacino's news exposes a frustrating truth: Those who want to bear children face a biological clock, while their partners can wait decades longer. https://t.co/cK0cVc48wD
— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) June 1, 2023
Recommended
Translation: Men and women are different (that’s actually controversial these days).
They forgot to include "BREAKING" for this groundbreaking story. https://t.co/VJZuxGMfSs
— Fusilli Spock (@awstar11) June 1, 2023
Breaking News from … the earliest days of mankind! https://t.co/R3LND37bFA
— Christian Toto (@HollywoodInToto) June 1, 2023
The latest inequity has been spotted:
At age 83, Al Pacino is about to have a baby with his 29-year-old girlfriend. Robert DeNiro, 79, recently welcomed his seventh child with a younger partner, too.
The actors are just two recent examples of older male celebrities having children with younger partners. And while those on the internet are debating the ethics of conceiving a child so late in life, their ages and age gaps with their partners also represent a frank truth that has long been felt by many: Women face a constantly ticking biological clock that impacts many facets of their lives, and men, simply, do not.
Pacino and DeNiro’s recent headline-making announcements might sting for some, making this inequity harder to ignore, experts say.
That’s a long way of saying this:
So, you’re saying there’s a difference between men and women, then?
— Rob Smithson (@RobSmithson6) June 1, 2023
Can USA Today please define “woman”? Also according to the current “rules” couldn’t any women just identify as men and extend that biological clock? This is all so confusing.
"Male privilege." 🤡
LMAO.
— often uncommon 👊 (@oftenuncommon) June 1, 2023
FIFY: *Women* who want to bear children face a biological clock, while *men* can wait decades longer.
— Rose in KC 🇺🇲 (@roseinkc) June 1, 2023
BREAKING NEWS: REALITY IS A THING. WOMEN MOST AFFECTED https://t.co/oqMorgQ3R0
— Phil Labonte (@philthatremains) June 1, 2023
This is such a bad tweet for so many reasons https://t.co/nkEumB2nRP
— HaterCelt (@CShawBurn) June 1, 2023
Not as bad as USA Today’s chainsaw bayonet attachment take but it’s up there.
***
Related:
Greg Gutfeld shreds USA Today, the ‘propaganda arm for violent criminals’ everywhere
USA TODAY shows us what life could be like in 2050 if the US embraces ‘green living’
