the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
again, not how the author frames it at all, though certainly possible for that to be an issue in the abstract. But I think it is reasonable to expect, if that were the main issue, it might be mentioned in the article, whatsoever
but in the article, it is implied the child has already been born, 1-2 years ago, and yet the author explicitly frames the conflict here in terms of her desire to return to normal. There is no mention of homeschooling or the child at all besides the pregnancy and that he went along on the vacation discussed in the last paragraph. I don't think those would be unreasonable concerns, but they are your concerns, not those of the author. For all we know they've already worked out an amenable solution to the kid's schooling and it isn't a source of conflict at all.