The latest femosphere drama got me thinking off on a tangent about the degree to which we owe loyalty to our nearest and dearest not to gripe about them or about problematic aspects of our relationships. But first, to give some context, let me recap the drama to which I am referring. A non-feminist Christian "mommyblogger" named Jenn wrote a post describing how her husband sloughed off her request to help with their baby who was crying in the middle of the night. She concluded that she was a "bad Mommy" because it turned out that neither of them had fed the baby that night, each thinking the other had done so. Then Amanda weighed in with a critique of Jenn's post to make a point about how "male dominance goes unquestioned." Jenn took the critique to heart, as it hit rather close to home, with the result being that she is going to take a break from blogging, and Amanda has responded.
Here is the portion from Jenn's most recent post that got me thinking:
It was never my intention for Jon to be portrayed in a bad light, or in a bad way. He is an amazing husband, father, and partner; I feel truly blessed to be his wife. Posts that I have written, either in fun or as a way to write down my thoughts, are being misconstrued or taken out-of-context. In that respect, I’m not bringing honor to my husband as I am called to do.
Contrast Jenn's statement with the following from Amanda:
[Jenn] is also sadly blaming herself for the [blogosphere] dust-up and is wondering if she should quit blogging, i.e. quit analyzing her feelings due to uncomfortable questions that arise during that process. Mommy blogging is a feminist rallying point even for determinedly non-feminist women, it seems, which makes sense.
I agree wholeheartedly with Amanda that Jenn should not blame herself for anything related to Amanda's critique of her post, but what I really want to focus on is an issue that Jenn and Amanda's comments made me think about -- the question of how women can reconcile their personal relationships and personal loyalties with the notion that "the personal is political."
I can relate very strongly to Jenn's desire to honor her husband and to not portray him in a bad light. Such a sentiment is not an ideal unique to conservative Christianity; it is fundamental to anyone who values personal loyalty especially in a marital or romantic relationship. I too strive to avoid speaking negatively about my husband to third parties, not because I am a submissive wife but because I believe that he and I owe each other a duty of loyalty that is implicit in the wedding vows we took. I would feel extremely hurt and betrayed and embarrassed if I found out it he were griping about me to his friends or family-- probably even more hurt than if he had an affair.
On the other hand, my standard of personal loyalty can be extremely problematic and isolating in a lot of relationships. For example, I never said anything negative to my friends or family about my college boyfriend during most of our three year relationship. As a result, it was very hard for me to have a sense of perspective about a lot of his troubling behavior and attitudes, including a number of sexist and even misogynist statements and regular attempts to undermine my confidence or order me around. I started to perceive his behavior as normal because I wasn't comparing notes with my friends or getting an objective outside opinion. Finally, I confided in a couple of my friends and as we talked through my then-boyfriend's behavior, it became very clear that I had been putting up with abusive or borderline abusive behavior for far too long. But even though the behavior had angered and upset me all along, I would less likely have identified it as an ongoing pattern in the relationship or come so clearly to the conclusion that it was unacceptable until I hashed the whole thing out with my friends. I broke up with my then-boyfriend very soon after-- and I believe the whole experience of having a relationship with him, being gulled into allowing him to push me around a lot more than my politics really permits, and then having the scales fall from my eyes with the help of my friends was a very positive and valuable part of my personal development.
I also believe that the old feminist practice of "consciousness raising" sessions in the '60s and '70s was an extremely valuable exercise. Women would get together to talk about their lives and in doing so, recognized not only destructive patterns in their personal relationships but also broader societal patterns resulting in women more likely being taken advantage of in their presonal relationships because of gender inequality in the larger society. These types of discussions involved actually discussing one's partner and one's spouse in perhaps very critical terms but not just for the purpose of griping but also to see that, "Wait a minute, this isn't just my personal problem but rather a symptom of entrenched gender expectations that deserve criticism." Women started to ask, "Why is it always the wife who gives up her ambitions to support her husband through professional school only to find herself an unpaid servant in his home?" or "Why do I assume that it is my job to do almost 100% of the child care?" to give just a couple of examples.
Yet consciousness raising exercises and discussions about the political implications of our personal choices are inevitably intensely painful. We do feel a duty of loyalty to our husbands and male partners -- and a duty of loyalty to the choices we ourselves have made and the time we have invested in those choices. That's what makes feminist discussions about work-life balance, childcare decisions, and sexual politics so wrenching and often divisive. It's the nature of the subject matter itself. How can women discuss these things without implicitly insulting each other or insulting the men in our lives? That's I think the way in which the "patriarchy" (or the "status quo" if you prefer) often has us over a barrel. Assumptions and attitudes about appropriate gender traits and gender roles can be so pervasive that they are part and parcel of how we make our most intimate decisions of how to live -- and hearing critiques of how gender roles affect us adversely feels like a personal attack either on ourselves or on those to whom we feel we owe loyalty.
Some feminists, your Linda Hirshmans for example, just call things as they see them and put their ideas out there without pussyfooting around. Others, like me, tend to err on the side of being diplomatic, which has the advantage of getting people to listen but that diplomacy can sometimes interfere with really asking hard questions.
I am not sure I have a good answer to the question of how we reconcile our sense of loyalty to the men in our lives with the important exercise of analyzing our personal lives through a feminist lens. Such an analysis can be tough or even impossible to do on one's own. It may necessarily involve criticism of the men to whom we have made vows (if we are straight and married) or to men we love or to fathers who have given us a great deal and for whom we have love and affection. In essence, we are dealing with competing values -- the notion of loyalty in romantic and family relationships, and the notion of feminist analysis based on the idea that the personal is political. I suppose everyone has to negotiate her own solution to this quagmire as far as her own loyalty and her own personal life. But then there is also the larger question of how we can talk to each other in anything but a stilted way about the larger implications of such things, without either censoring ourselves from fear of causing offense or not censoring ourselves and actually causing offense. (The Linda Hirshman discussions on this blog are great example of this conundrum.) And I think these tough conversations are important because they are an essential first step towards change.
Yes, it's really hard to examine and challenge decisions you've already made and committed to, but doing those things doesn't mean you necessarily have to *change* those decisions. Even being unhappy about some element of the consequences of the decision doesn't have to mean abandoning it: it might still be a good compromise. You might love your husband enough to forgive something in him that you'd disparage in a man you have no emotional attachment to, and that's a good thing, and probably it's true because you know other, good things about your husband to outweigh the bad.
Posted by: Kai Jones | August 14, 2006 at 06:33 PM
I never said anything negative to my friends or family about my college boyfriend during most of our three year relationship. As a result, it was very hard for me to have a sense of perspective about a lot of his troubling behavior and attitudes, including a number of sexist and even misogynist statements and regular attempts to undermine my confidence or order me around.
I hear that. I was in a relationship for many years with a man who, over time, became more and more controlling and manipulative, and who also made a big deal out of how it was a "necessary" part of a "mature" relationship to keep the details of it private. In other words, he would consider it a betrayal of staggering proportions if I were to discuss our relationship with anyone other than him. Whatever happened between us, he said, was for us to deal with and I should come to him with any concerns I had; we would work it out together, no outside input was necessary or even to be tolerated. Being a pretty trusting and loyal person by nature, I took that to heart and none of my concerns and doubts about his behavior were eever shared with the people around me who might have clued me in on a few things, namely things he had said and done behind my back that they knew about but did not feel comfortable sharing with me because I never gave them an opening to do (by expressing my own doubts and unhappiness) that would have made them feel like they weren't meddling in my private business without an invitation. Or they assumed that because I pretended to be happy I really was, or assumed that I already knew what they knew because I never said anything that would make them think otherwise, and so it must not have been a big deal to me even if they thought it ought to be.
The worst part? The things that went on behind my back consisted of him calling up several people that he had become well-acquainted with only through me and griping to them about what a burden it was for him to put up with *my* supposedly unreasonable behavior. And, yes, under the circumstances it did feel like a worse betrayal than sexual infidelity, if only because he had done the one thing to me that he had insisted I *not* do to him as a mark of my commitment and devotion, and because I complied with his request, I didn't find out about it until I'd wasted way more of my life on him that he was ever worth.
With a manipulative and controlling partner like that, there's just no way to underestimate how valuable third party input is, especially when you get to the point of asking yourself "am I crazy to think there's something wrong here?" If the only person you ever discuss your concerns with is your partner, of course the answer will be, "yes, you're crazy" because undermining your confidence in your own instincts and judgment and invalidating your feelings about what's going on is an integral part of maintaining control over you. And it prevents you from getting the outside support you might need to get out of that relationship if and when you stop buying the idea that there really is something wrong and no, you're not crazy after all for thinking so.
Posted by: Lyn | August 14, 2006 at 06:37 PM
This is, perhaps, where the internet and potential anonymity of blogging are most useful. While there is something to be said for using your real name online, being anonymous could allow a person to go online and share the things that their spouse may be doing in order to get a gague on how normal, or how common that experience is without worring that they have besmirched their spouse's good name to those closest to him/her.
I know I can get online and find a group that has values similar to my own and read about how these people have managed just about anything from learning how to have great sex, to recognizing abuse and getting out of a bad relationship. Very rarely have a seen comments that are a genuine plea for advice go unanswered, (as in "My SO does [blank], is it normal? How do I deal with it?"). I think blogging may be one of the feminist movement's greatest assets simply for it's potential to allow women to seek external input without threatening their personal loyalties.
Posted by: Starfoxy | August 14, 2006 at 06:52 PM
"consciousness raising" sessions in the '60s and '70s
Good. Better to take the battle into the home than to inflict the ideology onto innocents, like employers and co-workers. If bending is required let it come from the husband and let the costs be focused on the advocate of feminist thought and those close to the advocate.
Assumptions and attitudes about appropriate gender traits and gender roles can be so pervasive
Are you implying that the assumptions and attitudes are all arbitrary?
how we reconcile our sense of loyalty to the men in our lives with the important exercise of analyzing our personal lives through a feminist lens.
More feminists should exercise such introspection. Real-world costs in order to pursue fanciful goals.
Posted by: TangoMan | August 14, 2006 at 06:58 PM
What Starfoxy said. I don't see how it's disloyal to discuss these things openly but with some anonymity.
Posted by: mythago | August 14, 2006 at 08:03 PM
I was in one of those negative "don't talk" relationships: when I met my current husband, one of my dealbreakers was that he be okay with me talking to a select few friends - with, of course, the understanding that once I got straight in my head, we'd discuss the problem. I think there is a world of difference between using outside support to find your own voice and boundries, and merely kvetching for the sake of running your partner down.
Posted by: Arwen | August 14, 2006 at 08:26 PM
I've just stumbled onto this site and am finding it really interesting. A lot of "food for thought" here. I am a Christian and believe in honoring my husband. I would never, even under anonymity(sp) belittle or insult my husband. That's not to say that I wouldn't discuss things he does that are irritating to me or baffling. I guess I'm saying there's a line where we're respectful of the other person yet can still express our frustations with that person. I don't see anywhere in my Bible where my husband is to placed on a pedastal to the point that we can't go to a safe place and "vent" about him. It's disturbing to see so many women who believe submitting to their husband means making themselves less of a human.
Happy, thank you for this site. I really appreciate your manner and your diplomacy.
Posted by: Just Me | August 14, 2006 at 08:38 PM
On the whole, the personal nature of these discussions tends to work out well, even as feelings get hurt. As mythago mentioned on my blog, she aimed so criticism at a way a former boyfriend clearly slacked in my home, and I was defensive because I knew, deep down, that he would never step up and I would have to break up with him. But I did eventually (for a lot of reasons) and I'm so much happier now.
One of the reasons abusers separate their victims from friends and family is because they know exactly this, that talking about your problems will often lead you to realizing that you have to solve them and, if you're being abused, the solution is to leave. In a lesser way, this talking can lead to confrontations at home that result, for the man, in him having to do more work. In every way, the silence issue manages to endorse sexism.
It's frustrating, because we want a good solution but at a certain point, the solution is up to men. Are they willing to care about the women in their lives enough to make the changes at home that create equality? Much to most of the time, the answer is No and that is the hardest thing for those of us who love them to admit of all. It's admitting that the man you love so much that you do everything for him under a cover of loyalty doesn't love you enough to even treat you fairly. It's depressing.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | August 14, 2006 at 08:44 PM
Actually, my husband and I have an explicit understanding that we're both allowed some degree of confiding outside the relationship, but we negotiate it. He sometimes lets me know which of my friends and family members he feels more comfortable about me airing some problem with, and I respect his wishes on that. And I know who he's likely to confide in about me. And of course, since in our case one of the things we both have to deal with is his bipolar disorder, he has his support groups of other people with bipolar disorder, and I have my support group of other family members. And I sometimes blog about the bipolar disorder because he's already outed himself there (and blogs frequently about it on his own blog).
Posted by: Lynn Gazis-Sax | August 14, 2006 at 09:18 PM
My husband and I had a very rocky start. If I wouldn't have been able to vent and process to my parents and close friends, I would have died. But because I was able to process, vent, and work things out with helpful feedback, things turned out okay in the end. I think he doesn't love the fact that my closest friends and family know some very unhappy things, but he realizes that it was important if we were going to get through it - that I had to have someone to process with and vent to. To the great credit of my family and friends, they didn't hold it against him and understood that I was processing and venting in a particular context and that he was still an amazing person and someone that, if I could love and be with, they could approve of and be happy with. Point being I think it is not disloyal to process and vent (to a certain extent) with close people in your life and can often be healthy and helpful.
Posted by: Elizabeth | August 14, 2006 at 11:03 PM
Hmmm... a lot of food for thought but I'll perfectly upfront and honest when I say first, that I am completely out of my league here. I understand the need to step back and question if something is really kosher and ok within a marriage and/or family. I've been with Jon for almost nine years and I'm very aware of his faults and vices, as he is of mine. When I say that I want to honor my husband, it comes from the respect I have for him as a human and as my partner in life. I expect the same respect from him. We both have friends that we can go to and discuss family and marital issues and I can't tell you how freeing it is to be able to compare notes. In that same aspect, these friends can also hold us accountable when we may be wrong and the spouse is right.
My biggest problem with what happened last week were the assumptions that abounded in both Amanda's post and the comments that followed. One, the assumption that because I was a Christian that I put my husband on a pedastool which is hardly the case. We're both human, and as such, make mistakes all the time. To use one story as laying a basis that my husband shirked his fatherly duties and was "expecting" me, as the wife and mother, to fix the "problem" was extremely presumptious. It was ONE story in 20 months of caring for our child.
The second assumption was that I was, or am, a stay-at-home mom. I work 40 hours a week and as such, the time I do get with my daughter is extremely valuable to me. I have yet to find my daughter boring and that could very well stem from the fact that I don't spend day-in and day-out with her.
And last, but certainly not least, was taking one snippet, one paragraph from a VERY long post and cause everyone to assume that I said children, in general, aren't boring. I very specifically state that my friend, Sarah's words were perfect and I copied her verbatim. In it, she says that no one told us that parenting wouldn't be tedious and boring at times but that its a balance of being there for our children and raising them to be independent, all while not losing ourselves in the process. Balance is extremely important. But none of these things were even mentioned in Amanda's post and instead everyone jumped on one sentence with a vengenance.
All in all, this has been an extremely valuable lesson for me. It has definitely caused me to stop and think about things and I'm sure I'll be blogging again in the very near future.
Posted by: JennG | August 14, 2006 at 11:33 PM
On a side note, thanks for stopping and visiting. I truly do appreciate your thoughts and words.
Posted by: JennG | August 14, 2006 at 11:37 PM
This feels like an extension of the "You're only a real feminist if..." (btw, did everyone see the laughable bulleted list of feminst obligations? kactus at superbabymama had some choice words about that one today) conversation, where the actions of not just ourselves, but the people we love are used to question the feminist cred of others. We're all complex people, and we don't know everything. I like to think I'm a good person even if there are some important things I never understood 5 or 10 years ago - and that I was still a good person then, too. Regardless of what you see in this snippet of Jenn's life that Amanda wrote about, it's still just a snippet. It's certainly not good enough evidence to characterize anything about her life or her relationship or her husband. Call it a classic example of sexism if you like, but we all have examples in our lives where we've done sexist things. I always am annoyed when I hear someone called "a racist," or "a misogynist" on the basis of one act or another. I should think that it takes a lot more than refusing to get up to feed the baby one night to be called an out-and-out sexist.
Posted by: Sara | August 15, 2006 at 12:42 AM
>>> I agree wholeheartedly with Amanda that Jenn should not blame herself for anything related to Amanda's critique of her post [ … ]
I’m not participating in your pretend world. I just read Amanda's "critque" of Jenn's post. Can anyone really be surprised at Jenn's reaction to the "Jenn-you're-one-fucked-up-doormat-and-your-husband's-a-loser" theme? Don't turn off you intellect just because it's Amanda, Happy. Amanda doesn't care about Jenn, and in fact she absolutely loathes the woman, and others like her. Of course, she'll deny this, but don't let that fool you. Amanda's sole objective was to puff herself up by letting her readers have a good laugh at Jenn's expense, and Jenn is obviously not well equipped to defend herself to such an abusive woman. I've read Amanda enough to know that her hit-n-run style, and her readers just eat it up.
Now, having said that, I do agree with Amanda's general take on Jenn's perception of her and her husband's respective parental roles. It seems to me that Jenn has embraced "traditional roles" much to her detriment as an individual. Amanda could have simply said this, but hey, that's not as fun, now is it?
Posted by: Richard | August 15, 2006 at 03:20 AM
Amanda specifically SAID Jenn should not blame herself. I did not "pretend" that she said that. She said it. And I agree with her.
It's really beside the point, but I also disagree with your comment that "Jenn is obviously not well equipped to defend herself . . . " Judging by Jenn's comment above, she seems quite intelligent, articulate, and well equipped to speak on her own behalf.
Either way it's irrelevant to my point which has nothing to do with either criticizing or endorsing Amanda's original post, which merely led to the comments that made me think about personal loyalty versus processing relationship issues or feminist consciousness raising.
Posted by: The Happy Feminist | August 15, 2006 at 07:09 AM
Also, I forgot to say that I am thrilled that Jenn stopped by. One of the things that I am especially interested in is communication on this blog is constructive and mutually educational communication between feminists and non-feminists.
Posted by: The Happy Feminist | August 15, 2006 at 07:14 AM
There is a great scene from the movie “Mona Lisa Smile” that I just love. In it, Julia Roberts’ character goes to a student’s house with every intention of helping her student realize her “dream” of becoming a lawyer, only to find out that the student had married her sweetheart over the weekend. Not to be put off, Julia Roberts’ character insists that her student can have it all, marriage and a career. Julia Stiles’ character reaches out with a response along the lines of “You’ve told us that we can choose, that we have choices, but this is what I choose. I’m choosing to be a wife and mother.” (Ok, so that’s probably not word for word, but you get the point.)
Yes, I’ve chosen to keep the traditional roles of wife and mother and my choices aren’t wrong; this is what I wanted, this is where I feel fulfilled and complete. So why is it then, that my choices were mocked and ridiculed? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the goal of feminism was to empower and enlighten women of the opportunities available to them and to encourage each other in the choices that have been made. Am I wrong in assuming this? If I’ve chosen to keep the traditional roles, that’s my right and my life.
Posted by: JennG | August 15, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Nobody is arguing that it is not your 'right' to choose whatever you like, Jenn. But you are wrong; feminism isn't just about saying "hey, do whatever you want". It's about examining our choices and the reasons we make those choices. For instance:
“You’ve told us that we can choose, that we have choices, but this is what I choose. I’m choosing to be a wife and mother.”
If this were a scene with two men, it would be bizarre. Nobody would ever expect a man to say that he wanted to be a husband and a father, so he was giving up his career. It's the assumption that family and work are incompatible for women, and that integrating them is women's problem, that people like Amanda are getting agitated about.
I assume that if a young girl told you "I want to be at home full-time with my kids because women aren't really smart enough to make it in the working world," your response would not be to cheer her on, even if you agreed with the choice itself.
Posted by: mythago | August 15, 2006 at 10:33 AM
Yes, I’ve chosen to keep the traditional roles of wife and mother and my choices aren’t wrong; this is what I wanted, this is where I feel fulfilled and complete.
This isn't meant as snark, but I've never really associated "traditional wife and mother" with working a forty-hour week. To me, that label implies being a full time SAHM (and I think that might be where a lot of the confusion from commenters comes in).
Also, what mythago said. The underlying assumption is that "having a family" means something radically different for men than it does for women. Your choices don't happen in a vacuum, and frankly, I'm kind of disheartened that a woman who is clearly bright and capable like you would make such a choice without going beyond "this is my choice and that's it." (Again, no snark intended.)
Posted by: evil_fizz | August 15, 2006 at 11:02 AM
>>> … why is it then, that my choices were mocked and ridiculed?
You are mocked and ridiculed because that is the churlish nature of feminism today, Jenn. That is how feminism mostly expresses itself. Happy is a rare exception (but she's no Uncle Tom either!). Personally, I believe that the "traditional role" for a woman is very limiting to her life, but I don't mock it or ridicule it. But look around the feminist blogosphere. You’ll find mostly angry, intolerant and abusive writers.
>>> ... this is what I wanted, this is where I feel fulfilled and complete.
Feminism will say that you have been brainwashed by a patriarchic culture into this decision, and that no sane free-thinking woman would ever actually choose the path you've chosen. To feminism, you are nothing but a shallow "godbag" who votes mindlessly for Republican candidates, hates “homos” and blacks, is about as sophisticated as a doorknob. You are a laughingstock to them, Jenn. It's a shame you're learning this the hard way.
>>> Happy wrote: “I also disagree with your comment that "Jenn is obviously not well equipped to defend herself . . . " Judging by Jenn's comment above, she seems quite intelligent, articulate, and well equipped to speak on her own behalf.”
I was not commenting on either ability or intelligence, but rather on comfortableness with confrontation and conflict. Amanda lives confrontation. Jenn seems like a person who might not be as inviting or comfortable with it. I could be wrong.
Posted by: Richard | August 15, 2006 at 11:09 AM
So, would make everyone feel better if I could write a list of reasons and logic of why I, "a woman who is clearly bright and capable", would even think of becoming a traditional wife and mother? But why would I need to explain that to anyone? I hate the questions, "But why do you do the things you do?" or "Why do believe the things you do?" When in reality, I have already thought through the who, what, where, and why of these things. I don't feel that I need to explain myself to anyone, let alone be judged because I'm "cutting myself short".
This isn't meant as snark, but I've never really associated "traditional wife and mother" with working a forty-hour week.
I firmly believe that regardless of working a 40-hour week, that I'm perfectly able to go home and try to be the wife and mother I feel called to be. I am the nurturer of the family, I can still be there for them while doing my best at work too. Now, I'll admit, the last thing I want to do when I get home is cook a meal or clean dishes or do laundry and we try to share these duties. Jon is a much better cook than I am, so I'll do the dishes on nights he cooks, and vice versa. But I'm still able to step into the roles of a loving, supportive wife or loving, nurturing mother regardless of how many hours I work.
Posted by: JennG | August 15, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Every "side" of every "issue" debated on the internet has its fair share of "angry, intolerant and abusive writers." Each of us makes a choice, when engaging with others, whether to hold against them the "angry, intolerant and abusive" words of OTHERS who have similar substantive positions, or to engage with them, and with their commentators, in a civil fashion based on their own words and tone.
Richard, you yourself have noted that Happy is not "angry, intolerant and abusive" so who are you to say that "most" feminists are so? Can't we just agree that every group has its radical, angry, offensive members and get past that? When you characterize "most" feminists by the traits of those you hate, it really does not make me want to listen to anything you have to say. Many anti-feminists are "angry, intolerant and abusive" especially on the internet, but I wouldn't go onto Jenn's blog and talk about how offensive I find their comments and "respond" to them in that forum, because Jenn seems perfectly civil and willing to engage in thoughtful discussion. If you're angry at Amanda, go leave your comments on Pandagon.
Posted by: Emily | August 15, 2006 at 11:30 AM
Also, for Jenn, putting your personal life on the internet is an invitation to have people asking you "why do you do the things you do?" and "why do you believe the things you do?" What's the point of blogging other than to engage with others regarding what you post? If you don't want to engage with people on these questions, you could just as easily write a traditional diary or journal rather than a blog. You must have had a reason for deciding to blog to start with, I'm actually now curious what it was. What was the purpose of your blog, if not to invite discussion of your posts (and thereby your life)?
Posted by: Emily | August 15, 2006 at 11:37 AM
Emily, those are very good questions and initially my blog was started as a way for out-of-state family and friends to stay updated on our lives. When other Christian moms found my blog and decided to stay as readers, I was quite happy with the little community that was being created. I was completely shocked and thrown when my "little 'ol" blog was found by feminist sites. I was quite unsure how to handle the situation, as its never happened before. Now, that it has happened, and now that I have learned a very valuable lesson, I'm much better prepared for future "discussions".
I just think that its wrong for women to say that just because I'm bright or articulate that I'm selling myself short for choosing to find joy in my roles as wife and mother. And I don't feel the need to explain why I've chosen to find joy in those roles. If I were a doctor, unmarried, and dedicated to my job, I wouldn't have to explain the reasons why I chose to do that; so that same concept should be applied here.
Posted by: JennG | August 15, 2006 at 11:59 AM
Specifics, Richard. Where are the specifics? "OMG FEMINISTS ARE MEEN!!!" is not an argument.
What did Amanda say that was abusive? I'm curious.
Posted by: The Grouch | August 15, 2006 at 12:00 PM