Categories
antifeminism antifeminist women creepy evil human females misogyny red pill red pill women reddit sexy robot ladies

Red Pill women now recommending the Stepford Wives as role models

You will be assimilated
You will be assimilated

So one of the inhabitants of the Red Pill Women subreddit — devoted not to pickup artistry but to cultivating a regressive kind of femininity —  has found an unusual source for inspiration. She’s been reading a novel from the early 1970s that contrasts a brash young woman influenced by the “women’s libbers” of the day with a group of more traditionally minded wives living in a certain (fictional) suburb.

At one point in the novel, the main character — the aforementioned brash young woman — asks one of the new traditionalists if she is happy, having given up her own feminist activism to become a stay-at-home wife whose life revolves entirely around her husband’s needs.

Kit looked at her, and nodded. “Yes, I’m happy,” she said. “I feel I’m living a very full life. Herb’s work is important, and he couldn’t do it nearly as well if not for me. We’re a unit, and between us we’re raising a family, and doing optical research, and running a clean comfortable household, and doing community work.”
After quoting this passage, the Red Pill Woman subreddit regular who calls herself jade_cat offers her take on it:
Kit supports her husband by taking care of the house, and makes his life easier. Meanwhile, he works to provide for the family. This concept of complementarity, balance and teamwork seems completely lost in this day and age. Household duties are seen as being chores which must be split 50/50, and a more individualistic approach to fulfillment is considered the norm today. It is expected that both partners in a relationship have both their own career and must be career-driven, and “taking care of the household to make the husband’s life easier” is considered as a complete lack of ambition and a waste of talent/intelligence instead of being a way of fulfillment.

I agree with Kit’s vision (obviously), and even though it probably wasn’t the author’s goal at all, Kit’s response to Joanna helps me put words on how I feel about relationship dynamics.

There’s just one problem here. The novel jade_cat is reading, as you have surely realized, is The Stepford Wives, and Kit [SPOILER ALERT] is not a housewife at all, but a robot who has been designed to replace Kit, a flesh-and-blood woman murdered by a sinister cabal of Stepford husbands — with her husband’s cooperation.

Jade_cat is well aware of this; she just feels more sympathy for the murdering husbands than for the murdered wives. As she explains the plot of the 1972 novel (and the original 1975 movie version), Kit and the other Stepford wives

are in fact robots that have been created to replace the sloppy, nagging wives of the men of Stepford.

Because obviously, a pretty housewife who never complains and who isn’t a feminist is too good to be true, so she must be a robot ! 😉

Another Red Pill woman, SouthernPetite, weighs in with her thoughts on the main character of the film — that is, the flesh-and-blood woman who uncovers the secret wife-murdering, robot-making cabal.

The main character was a psycho. She not only did not work, but she also didn’t really take care of the house or kids, and pitched a fit when her H got angry when she would opt to hang out with her friend and get high.

As I recall the film, she was unhappy she’d been plopped down in Stepford amongst all these weird women. Her husband didn’t like her hanging out with her new friend Bobbie, because Bobbie, like her, was a newcomer to the town, a bit of a feminist herself, and, oh yeah, STILL A HUMAN BEING.

She also started freaking out, and eventually stabbed her friend, because some of the women started conforming more. While it was a bit odd, she had literally only been there…maybe a few weeks at most, so she didn’t really know those people, but apparently thought it was ok to become super paranoid, suspect a wild conspiracy right out the gate, and start stabbing people. While is turns out that she was correct, she was far from a rational person.

Uh, she stabbed her friend because by this point in the movie, her friend is not actually her friend any more but a robot made to replace her murdered friend.

Here’s the scene where it happens, by the way:

SouthernPetite continues:

Tbh, this portrayal is so bizarre, I would almost think it’s a critique on the paranoia and selfishness of feminists, but I don’t think that was the intent.

No, no it wasn’t.

Reading (or watching) The Stepford Wives and rooting for the husbands and their robot wives is a bit like reading 1984 and rooting for Big Brother.

H/T — r/TheBluePill

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

233 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Falconer
5 years ago

“Free Bird” is an Augustinian paradox which bespeaks the soul liberation undergurding one’s reception into the Catholic Church after baptism.

Ha ha! Awesome!

pkayden
5 years ago

“Reading (or watching) The Stepford Wives and rooting for the husbands and their robot wives is a bit like reading 1984 and rooting for Big Brother.”

Or watching Amistad and rooting for the slave owners. I wonder why this Red Pill woman thinks she wouldn’t be replaced with a sex robot when the apocalypse comes.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

Nothing like the freedom of pledging to always criticize feminism no matter what, and the power of submitting to an “alpha” that believes he owns you body and soul. Careful, Hobbes, you’re starting to get a tad Orwellian! Though I suppose that’s not too bad considering your Nom de Plume.

Fun side note: apparently the phrase “Augustine’s Paradox” refers to the idea that if you are able to repent truly moments before you die, you will go to heaven. Thus, it seems like the optimal way to live life is to be as selfish and hedonistic as possible, then repent at the end. However, if you are doing so as part of a strategy then God might see through it and it won’t work.

Does this mean the ideal strategy for women is to spend their early years riding the carousel, then just before they start hitting the wall find some alpha to own them and settle down into traditionalism? But if the alpha knows about their hedonistic escapades, would he take her despite her being physically attractive? If he does, would that make him the “beta bucks” provider and negate his assumed alpha status?

Hmm, what a puzzle…

katz
katz
5 years ago

To add on, I think it’s hilarious your definition of “ambition” (i.e. needs to have a “big scope”) you would say that by and large men are more ambitious, white people are more ambitious, rich people are more ambitious etc. Those are the people who can afford to dream big and aim for positions with “big scope”. Maybe some people dream smaller because they know what is realistic for them the achieve. Unlike you I won’t insult people by saying that they are unambitious because they goal doesn’t necessarily meet my standards.

And the bigger issue is why ambition is coded inherently positive in the first place. Sure, some ambitious people have accomplished big positive things, but all the most terrible people in history have also been extremely ambitious. I’d say it’s a net negative overall; even ambitious people with the best intentions usually end up doing something really shady along the way.

It’s part of a large cultural pattern of casting personalities into dichotomies of Good Traits and Bad Traits. Ambition is good; lack of ambition is bad. Extroversion is good; introversion is bad. Being a leader is good; being a follower is bad. (The latter is so pervasive that many schools and youth organizations to “promote leadership” bend over backwards to classify everyone as some kind of leader, even though the concept inherently requires them to be a minority.) Women who work are feminist and therefore good; women who stay at home are not feminist and therefore bad. And so on.

So what’s the logical underpinning to saying that, even if you have a happy, fulfilling life that fills some vital societal role, that’s “worse” than having some other life that you may not want and society may not need?

It’s not feminist. It’s capitalist. All these dichotomies serve to strengthen the narrative that the people with the most power are inherently better than everyone else and therefore deserve what they have, and that the marginalized also deserve their lot as punishment for failing to have the right personality traits. And of course, as you said, the right traits are coded male, and white, and upper class, and so on.

This isn’t the case in non-capitalist cultures: They may value humility over ambition, or doing a good job at the role you’re in over climbing toward a higher-status role.

Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes
5 years ago

The most worthy women are not owned by an alpha; they become alpha themselves and marry a beta and get behind him to make him alpha. Eleanor Roosevelt is a good example.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Katz,
I definitely agree with that. I’m someone who is inherently not ambitious. My whole life, I’ve been told by family and teachers/professors that I’m not working to my full potential, that I need to have a plan and have goals. It’s a source of pain. I often feel bad about myself because I’m not a go getter. Working 80 hour weeks, networking etc. all sound nightmarish to me. I only work because I need to live and because unemployment is my main depression trigger and I do need to get out of the house a bit. Why is that so wrong? The world would be even worse than it is if everyone were ambitious, in my opinion. People who like to spend their time reading, hanging out with friends and family or watching movies aren’t the ones who make the world a shitty place. The world is not going to be worse off if I drift through life. I can still do good by helping loved ones when they need it, keeping my carbon footprint low, and adopting cats who need a home.

Sorry for the tl;dr. I just wish people would get off my back and let me be type b!

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

What… what does “alpha” and “beta” mean to you, exactly? I didn’t realize the categories were so fluid.

If an alpha woman succeeds at making her husband alpha, does she then leave him to find another beta to prop up? Or has she spent her upgrade token and lost her “worthy” status, so it’s ok to be owned by the newly formed alpha?

Do alpha men have a similar role to play in uplifting women and making them alpha, or is the relationship parasitic in that men benefit from women but women don’t benefit from men?

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@Tom

Remember what I said about over posting. Too much, you’ll get banned. Back it off.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

@Mola

Okay, now that I know what “Choice feminist” is supposed to actually mean past “Comparing me to Hoff Sommers because ???”…

Yeah, you’ve misread the hell out of me. I never said that choice is the only important thing, only that it’s an important thing. Equality (eg, dismantling the patriarchy), freedom (eg, freedom from rape, harassment and violence) and choice. I focussed on choice because that’s the one you’re sneering at, as if it’s some all-or-nothing thing. (If women can’t make choices in an absolute vacuum, then they can’t or shouldn’t make choices at all! Fuuuck that. Absolutely, it’d be ideal if there weren’t any gender roles or economic factors pushing women in one direction or another, but until then, I’d say that perfect is the enemy of good in this case.) And I sure as hell don’t mean “The choice to be a SAHM or nothing,” I mean any choice for any reason. Scientist, SAHM, retail worker, doctor, soldier, for cash-flow reasons or social factors or just because they bloody well want to – no option is inherently better, more ambitious or more feminist than the others. That comes from what’s inside, who you are and what you believe, not what your fucking job is.

And yes, I do feel that this condescending bullshit about “Working is more feminist than being a SAHM” is, ironically, misogynistic (and classist). Because you’re viewing roles seen as stereotypically feminine as lesser – which means, on some subconscious level, viewing women as lesser. And that’s gross.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

Also, you can’t apologise “If” anything “Comes across as” a personal attack and then, once again, compare me to arse-damned Hoff Sommers. It just doesn’t work that way. Own your shit.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
5 years ago

My personal Hobbes tolerance threshhold is approximately one post per thread, rounded up.

reallyfriendly
reallyfriendly
5 years ago

@katz, WWTH and SFHC

I agree with the idea that ‘ambition’ has been unnecessarily glamorized in society – not to mention the problem of the attached ‘inherently male’ concept to it.

I see society as a massive group undertaking and that every job in it (from sewage worker to neurosurgeon) adds to it – no one should be judged because their contribution is less ‘flashy’, but unfortunately society does indulge in this judgement.

I will admit in my younger days that I used to have the notion that SAHM is a ‘lesser’ job for women, but as I have gained in knowledge and understanding I see now that I was merely reflecting another person’s view without critically thinking it through. Every job matters to society and none are superior, feminist or otherwise. The amount of money and ‘prestige’ you get may differ, but one thing to remember about ‘prestigious’ fields is that they are only so when the society is able to support it. Some of these fields would be redundant when their need/demand is almost non-existent.

When criticizing ‘choice feminism’ as WWTH mentioned, the focus should be about the system that pushes people into choices, rather than the choices that people end up making, lest the critics would end up missing their own point. Being unambitious is not a bad thing at all. Remember, the patriarchy always wants to sell ‘male qualities’ as being better than ‘female qualities’, and ambition is one such ‘male’ product.

And now, let me also speak up in defense of Mola and Rosa here (which I hinted a bit at in my prior post).

I think Mola did try in her long reply (the one in which she wrote about backing out in the beginning) to clarify her position. Unfortunately it can be read that she was equating SFHC with CHS but I don’t think that was her intention. I read it more as she was trying to give examples of faux feminists that subscribe primarily to ‘choice feminism’. The wording was off but I don’t think she meant it in that sense.

Also worth pointing out is that she does try to explain in the post that she is not trying to judge or define the worth of people based on their life choices. She was talking more about how society generally view women as being ‘lower status’ in comparison to men, and why it is easier for the stigmatization to carry on into the work assigned to them. I do think that the criticism that Mola has been receiving is a little too harsh, especially when she did try to clarify things (you can say that she was not clear enough, but that is a different issue).

She also has the right to withdraw herself from the conversation and we should respect that. Please do not attack her because of that. I don’t believe she wrote a ‘hit piece’ and then ran away from the scene of the crime.

In regards to Rosa, I think she was just talking more in terms of how society views ‘ambition’ and how it typically does not apply that well to SAHM. I do NOT think she was casting a wide judgement on SAHM and saying that they are of lesser value – only that the term ‘ambitious’ is not applicable in the way it is commonly used. I personally view that raising children is pretty darn ambitious, but I do see where Rosa is coming from.

Please remember that it is easy (as I stated in the prior post) to mistake criticism of ‘choice feminism’ as an attack on women’s personal choices. Most feminists against ‘choice feminism’ are definitely not judging or demanding that women make ‘un-traditional’ choices. They want to instead highlight the system that is unfairly skewing the society.

If you disagree with what I have written I will be glad to hear you out on what I got wrong, especially if I mis-represented your point.

Thanks.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

(Also, post-lunch, I should apologise to everybody else for being uncharacteristically angry about this. It’s just hit two very specific weak points of mine at once.)

Snuffy
Snuffy
5 years ago

@reallyfriendly I think you have on some massive blinders and are willing to see that people you agree with ARE critiquing SAHMs.

Take for example some of @Rosa’s posts:

“I’m not saying that people have to want to reach a lot of people, or create impressive things – I’m saying that just being a housewife isn’t going to do it (at least I don’t see how).

I would not call a woman whose dream is being a housewife ambitious. I would call a woman whose dream is to create a show like Martha Stewart Living ambitious.

No here’s your defense:

I think she was just talking more in terms of how society views ‘ambition’ and how it typically does not apply that well to SAHM.

Bullshit. Notice how she repeatedly used the word “I”. She wasn’t talking about how “society” views ambition, she was clearly talking about how she feels, and she feels SAHM’s aren’t ambitious. She said that creating “impressive” things is something housewives can’t do, how is that not a critique on the value of their work? She doesn’t think that the goal of being a SAHM isn’t a big enough goal to count as an ambition. It seems like you twisted her comments into what you wanted to hear, and are blind to the fact that SAHM’s are being critiqued here.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

… *Sore spots. Weak points is video games. Sigh.

Mwa
Mwa
5 years ago

@Button, among other things, I do not recognize “reddit does it” as a legitimate argument. You are absolutely free to engage with novels however you like. But to call this kind of wholesale disregard for the contents of a book “interpretation” is a category error. Re-envisionings, reading against the grain, speculating about what might be different, and any other manner of activity might be rewarding in other ways, but they all represent the fan’s thoughts and ideas, not the novel’s.
Also, authors do not create canon. Critics, time, and the status quo create canon. We decide whether or not we want to accept that canon, or create alternate ones.

msexceptiontotherule
msexceptiontotherule
5 years ago

What purpose would a room full of leaders have, if there aren’t any followers for them to lead? (It’s like the old saying “Too many chiefs, not enough Indians”.) It’s difficult for many parents to accept that not every child is destined to attend Ivy league, and become one of the youngest successful CEOs of an F500 – or some other such amazing level of parental brag-worthy accomplishment – and in a perfect world everyone would continually make each other sick with all the awesomeness being posted on Facebook about each and everyone’s child(ren). Fortunately this is an imperfect world.

reallyfriendly
reallyfriendly
5 years ago

@Snuffy

I will agree with you that in the second quote is Rosa stating her own opinion on being ambitious – which I will also point out is normally the way society uses the word ambitious.

Do people in general call SAHM ambitious? That is what I’m getting at. Rosa is using it in the common context. I will cede the point that she may not be talking specifically about society’s definition of ambition, but she is using it when she is trying to describe how she looks at things.

I do however think you are reading an intent that does not exist. Other than stating what she thinks is ambitious or not is all she does. She did not say that either choice is better or worse, only that one choice had characteristic ‘A’ and the other doesn’t.

Please point me to an instance where Rosa specifically said one choice was BETTER than another. I did not see that.

The intent you are assuming is that Rosa views a job negatively because she says it is not ambitious. I don’t see her trying to disparage SAHM in any way. Remember that I think otherwise on this point (SAHM is something I view as ambitious), but I bear Rosa no ill will because I see her discussing definitions, not critiquing SAHM.

While it can be argued that ‘unambitious’ is viewed negatively by society in general (Katz and WWTH talked about this) I don’t get that sense from Rosa from what she wrote. Please point out an instance if I missed it.

reallyfriendly
reallyfriendly
5 years ago

@SFHC

I hear you. It really hurts when people attack your life choices.

However, I did feel like the two individuals were trying to argue in good faith and that got lost in all the noise. I don’t blame them for not wanting to continue the thread.

We should not let these differences in opinions keep us from hearing one another out.

I really enjoy reading your comments as well, just in case I never mentioned it 8p

Snuffy
Snuffy
5 years ago

@reallyfriendly

She specifically said that SAHMs aren’t capable of doing anything “impressive” (I already linked that quote). How is that not an insult? How is that not belittling to the work SAHMs do? How would you feel if your ambition was dismissed because someone thought you weren’t dreaming “big” enough?

You excuse her for using “society’s” definition to describe herself, then immediately turn around and say that she isn’t using the way that definition is coded by society. You can’t have it both ways. Society’s definition of ambitious includes all of the coding about which jobs are considered “good” and high-status.

I do however think you are reading an intent that does not exist.

Intent isn’t fucking magical. I don’t care if she didn’t intend to insult SAHMs. She did. Period. I’m not the only person who thinks so. I don’t like how you are trying to spin this to be about me being wrong at “reading” her, you’re one step away from saying “it’s all in my head”.

Mike
Mike
5 years ago

I know this post’s getting a little old by now, but just wanted to quickly respond:

@mrex, 9/20/15 3:02pm

Furthermore, I think you may be assuming that all stay at home moms are married and relatively privileged, or that all groups of stay at home moms have the same advantages that married and relatively privileged stay at home moms have . Neither assumption is true.

Oh that’s actually not what I meant at all… I think that in our culture (speaking from the U.S.), there remains this aspirational ideal of mid-century domesticity, which includes devoted housewives and gainfully employed husbands, along with a good dollop of suburban affluence. So, even as that lifestyle has become inaccessible for most Americans – and even though it was never very accessible to begin with – it’s something that a lot of people (mainly young people) still think they can achieve, if it’s simply what they decide they want. My point is that realistically, most households can’t maintain that degree of affluence on just one income, because most jobs just don’t pay enough for that.

I think my mistake was that in my original post, I didn’t say anything specifically about how the housewife/male-breadwinner fantasy intersects with dreams of wealth (or of middle-class stability, at least); I guess that’s because I feel like that element – of financial prosperity and general comfort – is inseparable from the 50s suburban ideal (i.e. the thing that was being satirized in The Stepford Wives).

Basically, I think we’re both saying pretty much the same thing: in the contemporary U.S., single-income households are likely to be struggling financially.

@mildlymagnificent, 9/20/15 9:45am

Those are great points and it’s really fascinating to hear about that stuff (my sense of those particular traditions is pretty vague). Thank you for sharing that.

katz
katz
5 years ago

Please remember that it is easy (as I stated in the prior post) to mistake criticism of ‘choice feminism’ as an attack on women’s personal choices. Most feminists against ‘choice feminism’ are definitely not judging or demanding that women make ‘un-traditional’ choices. They want to instead highlight the system that is unfairly skewing the society.

First off: I really appreciate that you’re taking a nuanced view here and seeing both sides. I don’t want to be reductive of people’s positions and I do think the anti-“choice” people have a point in there somewhere.

However, if someone wants to share their nuanced opinion in a good-faith discussion and cares about being represented accurately and treated respectfully, they shouldn’t frame the whole thing in terms of a pejorative label that reduces everyone they disagree with to a simplistic single-issue position and lumps them indiscriminately together with straw feminists, plastic surgery ads, and Christina Hoff Summers. Respectful conversations do not that way lie.

They should just say what, specifically, people actually present are doing that they have a problem with, and why it’s a problem. Then we can have an actual conversation.

reallyfriendly
reallyfriendly
5 years ago

@katz

I agree that mola framed her case poorly and that her subsequent withdrawal made it hard to carry on the conversation, but I do respect the choice to so. There was clearly a better way to state her case without labeling others in the discussion with any pejorative terminology.

When I take everything she said into context, I understand that that is not what she is trying to say and hence why I am trying to defuse the situation a little, which in turn could be my own ill-advised action, which I apologize if what I’m saying/doing is wrong.

Mola was doing her best to express herself about an idea she was worried about getting blowback on, which it did a bit.

Framing bad? Yes. Wording bad? Yes. Lumping people with CHS bad? Definitely.

mrex did a much better and clearer job of getting the idea across. Mola started with terminology and categorizing before explaining the details and hence why it came out sounding really horrible.

As I have previously encountered such discussions before that may be why I was less annoyed with what Mola did – her ideas were not new to me.

If you want to call her out on how she expressed herself, I do agree with you. As many others have pointed out, there are issues there. However I did think that a few of the replies did not understand where mola was trying to come from and I was trying to clarify that. I’m not saying that everything mola said or did was good, just trying to explain where she was going with her ideas.

rugbyyogi
5 years ago

My grandfather had all his teeth pulled at a relatively young age. I presume there was some decay but not at the level which would have required all his teeth being pulled today. When he was in local government in a small town in the South, he advocated and successfully had fluoride added to the water supply without telling the electorate. He only told people after the fact. He knew they’d think it was a communist plot and he also knew it would save other people from his fate. He also told me many, many times to look after my teeth, because real teeth were much better than dentures.

reallyfriendly
reallyfriendly
5 years ago

@Snuffy

Without going into personal details, yes, I do understand the feeling of people calling my choices ‘un-ambitious’.

What I will say in regard to that is how you feel about it is personal to you – there is no real wrong or right way to feel about it. If you read my earlier comment about how I view the word and the ideas implied with it, you could assume that it didn’t strike myself as particularly negative (though I wouldn’t think of it as positive either) and you would be right.

I’m not saying this to imply that your view of the term is wrong in any way, just answering your question. I could easily view other descriptions that are more neutral to you as being very negative towards me.

I don’t see Rosa using two definitions of ‘ambitious’, just one, and it is the common one. I disagree with it. If what I wrote was not clear, I apologize.

Going through everything Rosa wrote, I agree with you that it comes off as belittling initially. Her first comment was directed at Red Pill women and I do think (could be wrong) she intended to belittle them and she wasn’t the only one. However, in Rosa’s case she dragged in an entire community of women into her belittling comment and that was definitely wrong.

When she tries to explain her idea of ambition, she goes for the common concept which is unfortunately very male-coded and belittling towards women.

This is where you and I diverge in opinion. For me, Rosa is explaining the common definition of ‘ambition’ which because it’s already insulting towards SAHM due to the male coding ends up making Rosa sound like she is insulting this community of women. All she was trying to do was explain this definition – I don’t see her as a person insulting others, more like a person trying to explain a loaded idea that is insulting to others.

Her word choice was poor as she could have used more neutral terms to explain it, but it is not that simple to dump linguistic baggage.

I’m not saying that what she said is not insulting, or should not be read as such. What I am trying to set the focus on is that Rosa is not trying to be negative of SAHM, but since she is using the male-coded idea she ends up insulting others and we should be aware of that.

Intent does not absolve her actions, but it should temper our criticism of her.

katz
katz
5 years ago

Rosa said SAHMs should fess up to being unambitious. Usually you only tell people to fess up to bad things.

You’re being super generous about everyone’s meaning, which is nice of you and it’s absolutely your right, but at some point from my perspective someone who is trying to insult people and someone who isn’t trying to insult people but sounds exactly like she is and doesn’t try to clarify are functionally identical.

mola the ocean sunfish
mola the ocean sunfish
5 years ago

@ reallyfriendly

Mola started with terminology and categorizing before explaining the details and hence why it came out sounding really horrible.

If you don’t mind, could you take the time to explain why, what and how I sounded “really horrible”? I don’t see it, and clearly I need to learn, badly.

reallyfriendly
reallyfriendly
5 years ago

@katz

I call it my character flaw 8p

I do understand that I tend to be overly generous towards the things other people say or do, and I understand where you are coming from. I’m pretty sure her first comment was done intentionally and it was clearly in the wrong.

It could then be reasonably extrapolated from that initial comment that she has a negative view of SAHMs and that the term ambition is purposely used in a negative sense. That is a valid assessment of the situation.

I do disagree that she did not try to clarify her point. She tried to, but unfortunately it was in a manner that was insulting so it ended up making things on the whole worse.

In the end I’m just trying to explain their side of things, which I mentioned may not be the best/correct course of action. You don’t have to agree with me – just talking in general how these things look to me.

I appreciate your honesty and candor in these discussions and I do learn from the ideas you express. Thanks 8p

reallyfriendly
reallyfriendly
5 years ago

@mola

First off, let me say that I understand what you were trying to explain and I did feel like you were trying your best to not sound terrible. For what it is worth, you did not make me angry with your comments. There are problematic parts that I found and I will focus on the parts that people were most frustrated about.

“I don’t buy the bullshit about “empowered” women making “choices” in a suddenly existing non-patriarchal vacuum. Especially not if those choices curiously look like appeasement, capitulation and collaboration. People should make what private choices work for them, for whatever reasons they want. But feminist women should also be aware of the wider context of patriarchy and what their choices mean against that. Women who choose to be traditional women should be aware that it means to be less than, which really isn’t compatible with ambition. We don’t have a world where that is not true yet.”

The main idea I think you are trying to convey here is that many of the choices women make are influenced by society and it is not done wholly by oneself. You want to remind women to keep that in mind as they go about their lives.

This point is good and definitely worth highlighting.

However, the statement “But feminist women should also be aware of the wider context of patriarchy and what their choices mean against that” does read like all feminist women need to make ‘certain feminist’ choices – with the added implication that SAHM is not one of them.

I was pretty darn certain that that was not where you were going, but I could see why others would view it as such. I think you were going for “women should be thinking critically of the choices they make”.

The next part was more off-putting.

“Women who choose to be traditional women should be aware that it means to be less than, which really isn’t compatible with ambition. We don’t have a world where that is not true yet.”

The first line, read as is, sounds like you are calling out ‘traditional women’ as being ‘less than’. You also then state that it “isn’t compatible with ambition” which reads that traditional women are not ambitious. If you have been keeping track of the comments, people here are not using the common definition of ambition, but a broader and more encompassing definition of it. This is a little hard to always figure out (SEMANTICS!) but if you had carried on the conversation you may have had the chance to clarify. I personally can’t say if your staying to talk would have been positive in the long run though 8(

I included your second line not because it was in error, but rather that line was what clarified it for me. You were focusing on how in our current world SAHM is viewed as a ‘lesser status’ job (though it is vital!) and why ‘ambition’ is not labeled beside it.

However, the previous lines were problematic enough to frustrate others as the direct reading of it was very unfavorable.

The line “Especially not if those choices curiously look like appeasement, capitulation and collaboration” also implies that women who make ‘traditional’ choices are basically collaborating with the patriarchy – which you can understand as being insulting especially to feminist women.

This is a more nuanced point that you are trying to get at. You have to be aware, as others have pointed out, that you seem to be speaking purely in hypotheticals and that sometimes these choices are made with almost none (or none) of the influence of the patriarchy. Could range from true personal agency to life circumstances – your statement has too broad a net and catches a lot of women who don’t fall under the statement you made. It is also really hard to gauge or make a call about how much of this is driven by society versus personal agency.

I know that you are trying to remind people that these choices fall back on patriarchal lines, but the way it is stated does blame people for choosing traditional. Would have been best if the line was absent as it does detract from what you are trying to get at.

I will talk about the longer comment you posted tomorrow when I’m at work during my lunch break. I only have mobile devices at home and all my comments are typed out on touchscreen. It takes a long time 8p

mola the ocean sunfish
mola the ocean sunfish
5 years ago

Thanks for that, reallyfriendly. I look forward to reading your post tomorrow. I’ll give this one a couple more reads and some time to sink in, too.

You can’t tell if my continued engagement would have led to anything positive, but I can tell you: it would not have. From what I can tell, this isn’t just a problem of poor communication and wording. My actual beliefs are offensive. Clarifying and elaborating on them would only have made things worse.

Snuffy
Snuffy
5 years ago

@reallyfriendly

Her first comment was directed at Red Pill women and I do think (could be wrong) she intended to belittle them and she wasn’t the only one. However, in Rosa’s case she dragged in an entire community of women into her belittling comment and that was definitely wrong.

So she intended to insult red pill women. She did that by insulting their goal of being a housewife. She called their goal unambitious as an insult.

Rosa is explaining the common definition of ‘ambition’ which because it’s already insulting towards SAHM due to the male coding ends up making Rosa sound like she is insulting this community of women.

Her definition of ambition lines up with male coding, society views ambition as a good thing, PLUS SHE ALREADY USED THE WORD “UNAMBITIOUS” TO INSULT SOMEONE.

I don’t see her as a person insulting others, more like a person trying to explain a loaded idea that is insulting to others.

Except she DID try and insult red pill women for wanting to be housewives. That was intentional. You can;t make fun of them for wanting to be a housewife without insulting everyone else who has that goal. She believes in an idea that is insulting to others, that housewives aren’t ambitious.

I’m not saying that what she said is not insulting, or should not be read as such.

Except you DID try and downplay that she did insult SAHMs.

First post:

“I think she was just talking more in terms of how society views ‘ambition’”

You twist her words to be about how society views SAHMs rather than herself.

“I do NOT think she was casting a wide judgement on SAHM and saying that they are of lesser value”

Except she did insult and make negative remarks about them.

” She did not say that either choice is better or worse, only that one choice had characteristic ‘A’ and the other doesn’t.”

Except she made fun of wanting to be a SAHM. And implied a bunch of negative things about wanting to be a SAHM (unambitious, not impressive, need to fess up, not dreaming big enough).

Intent does not absolve her actions, but it should temper our criticism of her.

You realize that you’re presuming you know her intent right? She insulted SAHMs, other people disagreed, she doubled down her definitions and continued to say negative things, then bailed. What criticism that people said needs to be tempered? People said they were insulted, you claim she didn’t intend to insult them, doesn’t change that people were insulted.

In the end I’m just trying to explain their side of things, which I mentioned may not be the best/correct course of action.

I think you are making it worse by dragging this out. You are being ridiculously generous to her “intent”, and downplaying the negative things she said.

katz
katz
5 years ago

My actual beliefs are offensive.

You know, I can’t actually agree or disagree with this statement, because after 181 comments, I’m still not sure what your actual beliefs are. To wit, I’m not sure what anyone here actually said or did that you object to, why, or what we ought to have done differently.

If your actual belief is that we should all be aware of how systems of oppression affect our decisions, then you started an argument for no reason because everyone believes that. But, yes, it’s kind of offensive, because you’re implying that we don’t already know that.

If your actual belief is that feminists shouldn’t behave like plastic surgery advertisers and Christina Hoff Summers, then you again started an argument for no reason because no one here was doing that. And that’s kind of offensive too, because you’re implying that we’re like that.

If your actual belief is that women shouldn’t be housewives, or that feminists can’t be housewives, or that you can be a housewife but it makes you inferior in some way and/or you should feel bad about it, then yes, that’s extremely offensive.

Actually, I take it back. Your beliefs are offensive any way you look at them.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

You know… This thing where somebody refuses to explicitly state their point or beliefs, dancing around it, leading us in infuriating circles, denying every possible interpretation…

mola the ocean sunfish
mola the ocean sunfish
5 years ago

@ katz,

I objected to SFHC’s characterization of my position as forcing women into certain roles. That is the only objection I can think of that I’ve made here. I’m not sure why you think I think you should have done something differently, I don’t think I’ve criticized anyone here for anything.

Are you asking me what my beliefs are? Do you expect that I recognize one of the choices you provided as an accurate summary of them?

Trivially, I do agree with the first one, but that is not what I referred to when I said my actual beliefs are offensive. It was never my intention to start an argument, so saying I did so “for no reason” is beside the point. No argument should have begun from stating something we all agree with anyway. I have other beliefs that I know better than to bring up here (given the history of threads of doom), and when I first got involved in this discussion I didn’t realize it would head in a direction where those beliefs would become pertinent. If I had guessed, I would have stayed out to begin with. Now it’s obviously too late for that. It’s best if you let me leave it here, but if you want me to answer questions, I will.

katz
katz
5 years ago

I objected to SFHC’s characterization of my position as forcing women into certain roles.

I have other beliefs that I know better than to bring up here

So…you are mad that people are mischaracterizing you…but you won’t tell us what you actually believe?

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

Are these other offensive beliefs of the racist, homophobic, transphobic and/or sex worker-phobic variety? I honestly can’t think of any other reason why you’d keep mentioning them without specifying what they are. Despite what you apparently want from me, I’m not psychic.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

Wait, I missed the reference to the Thread Of Doom. So it’s transphobia. Awesome. *sarcasm*

Transphobes aren’t welcome here.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

Am I wrong, or was Mola conflating “traditional woman” with being a stay-at-home mother earlier? Being the partner in a relationship that doesn’t have a job doesn’t mean you also have to accept the myriad regressive notions that have traditionally been paired with the role…

There’s a world of difference between a red pill woman defending her beliefs that wives should be subordinate to their husbands and a feminist woman defending her choice to not pursue a career. In this kind of situation, intent is kind of magic.

Robert
Robert
5 years ago

EJ, thanks for the reference to ‘death of the author’. I hadn’t heard about that, and looked it up. It’s good for my intellectual development to be exposed to new (to me) concepts that are different from my own understanding of things.

Regarding the topic, looking back on my childhood I think that both my parents might have been happier if my mother had been working full time and my father had been home taking care of the children. I know that I am happier in the latter occupation. Our younger son used to criticize me by accusing me of being my husband’s “follower”. Well, a good leader needs a good follower.

mola the ocean sunfish
mola the ocean sunfish
5 years ago

@ katz
Why do you think I’m mad? I made a correction when my position was mischaracterized, that’s hardly the same as being mad about it.

@ SFHC
I don’t want anything from you, except for you to drop it already. Which should be pretty clear in all of my words and actions.

mrex
mrex
5 years ago

“There’s a world of difference between a red pill woman defending her beliefs that wives should be subordinate to their husbands and a feminist woman defending her choice to not pursue a career. In this kind of situation, intent is kind of magic.”

Yes there is difference!

And this is why I hate choice feminism. Both of these choices are choices made by women. One is feminist, one is inherently anti-feminist. But both are choices being made.

It’s hypocritical to say that’s it’s OK to criticize people who you disagree with, are anti-feminist, or whatever, but hold the choices of feminist women up as beyond question unless it involves violence. Either it’s OK to criticize everyone , or its not OK to criticize anyone . There’s an old saying about people in glass houses throwing stones.

@reallyfriendly Glad you found the definitions helpful. But remember, her point was not that those silly choices are problematic, but that they’re being held up as empowerment, and beyond question, and *that* is problematic.

RE: criticize society, not individual people

Look, this shit doesn’t fool anyone. Society is made up of individuals. Even if you pull some sleight of hand by vaguely criticizing society, you can’t expect that there won’t be people in the audience who have made those decisions and won’t get personally offended.

Just look at this thread. One woman says something dumb about SAHMs being unmotivated, a bunch of SAHMS emerge to (rightfully) tell her off.

Look, you get an incredible amount of shit being a SAHM, and yes, 90% of it is bullshit passive aggression about how it must be nice to have a “choice”, as if only working mom’s have had their choices constrained by finances and personal situations. 9_9 But then, there are many legitimate concerns about being a SAHM. Leaving your job for children DOES hurt the perceptions of women in the workforce. And it’s harder than you would expect to find a job after a long break for “family”. And being a SAHM in the US impacts personal retirement benefits, because married SAHMS are only entitled to a portion of their husbands SS benefits and can only deposit a smaller amount in IRÁS or 401Ks, while cohabiating or single SAHMS are in even worse shape because they neither have any access to a partners SS nor can they deposit a dime into an IRA. (You have to either work or be married to use IRAS or other tax-deferred retirement accounts in the US. Ask me how much I hate the US governments policies towards single and cohabitating women.) And etc. These concerns need to be talked about and aired so we can make changes, and not just hide behind some bullshit about women’s choices being “empowerment”.

Likewise, there are legitimate issues with being a working mom. Like latch-keys kids that are too old for after-school programs but are still too immature to be left unsupervised still being left alone. Or putting a 6 week old baby in a shitty daycare center that constantly changes staff for 9 or 10 hours a day. And etc. These concerns need to be talked about and aired so we can make changes to society, and not hide behind some bullshit about women’s choices being “empowerment”.

@Mike

“Basically, I think we’re both saying pretty much the same thing: in the contemporary U.S., single-income households are likely to be struggling financially.”

Yeah, if you had said that, I would’ve agreed. 🙂

When people who say that being a SAHM is a choice, it sounds like they’re saying that poor SAHMs are choosing to be poor because they “don’t work”, which is actually, literally, something said to poor SAHMs.

mrex
mrex
5 years ago

One more thing; I’m not saying that women aren’t responsible for their choices, quite the opposite actually. I’m just sick of this confusion of choice with empowerment and this idea that criticizing a woman’s choices is tantamount to shaming her because her choices are sacred.

ReallyFriendly
ReallyFriendly
5 years ago

@Snuffy

Hmm… alright. This will be the last post I will do in regards to what Rosa said as I agree there is little point in continuing this. I think that fundamentally we have both decided on our own ways of dealing with what has happened and we don’t agree with the approaches. I’m not saying that either approach is better, but that they are simply different.

First I will address my own shortcomings. Yes, reviewing what I did say it is clear that I have been too defensive on Rosa’s behalf.

Specifically the comment, “I do NOT think she was casting a wide judgement on SAHM and saying that they are of lesser value” was in error as even if she did not intend to, her statements do cast judgments on the value of SAHM. I also agree that her definitions that she followed up with at best can be neutral, but more likely they are being applied negatively. There seems to be some internalizing of the male-coded values of ‘ambition’ happening in her comments.

I apologize to everyone if my defense looked like they were endorsing her statements.

I will however argue that I don’t think I’m assuming her intent out of thin air. Let me quote her twice:

“Also, I’m sorry if it sounded like I was trying to say people who to be housewives or have standard jobs can’t dream big; I was referring specifically to the original poster, whose goal in life seems to be being a housewife.”

This was a really bad backtrack – it sounds like she realized which other women she has just insulted and tried to re-focus it onto more specific targets, but it doesn’t really work out. She is trying justify what she said but this is more defensive than substantial. As you yourself mentioned, this is an example of doubling down.

“I don’t think roles assigned as feminine are lesser or necessarily show a lack of ambition just by virtue of being assigned as feminine.
As an exemple – I love taking care of children. I would be nurturing and motherly and play with kids for hours, and not think any lesser of myself for it – but I really wouldn’t consider that as being ambitious.

If you believe that being a housewife is something that can have a big scope, I personally can’t see it, but if you can clarify, I’m all ears.”

In this instance (and this is inference), she is trying to point out that she is not trying to be negative about ‘feminine’ roles which I assume is inclusive of SAHM. This is a step in the right direction from her previous comment. She is also open to hearing a good explanation to counter her assumption about ambition and she is honestly stating that she doesn’t see it personally. This sounds to me more like Rosa is trying to keep an open mind about things and would be willing to get input on this.

For me personally, if I get the sense that the individual who did put their foot in their mouth is willing to hear others out and get advice, I cut them some slack. Are you justified in getting angry about her insults and her defensive comments? Definitely. I simply prefer toning down my criticism (which should be given) in order to communicate with her. That was what I meant by tempering. You don’t have to and you don’t owe her that, just something to consider.

Thanks 8p

reallyfriendly
reallyfriendly
5 years ago

@mola

Sorry it took me a while to get back. I was busy over lunch so I can only type this out at the end of the day. I will focus on the longer comment that you made that before you departed from the post.

“First off I would like to say that I debated making this post for a long-ish time. I’m still not sure this is the right choice, and if it’s not, then I’m sorry. I’m doing my best to avoid being a dick, however I’m not good at that, and if I fail, as I often do, it’s on me. It’s probably best that I withdraw from the discussion after this. I’ll try to explain myself with a carefully minimized amount of assholery, then I’m out.”

Several commentators have pointed out that this could be read as wanting to drop a stink bomb and flee the scene. Personally I read it as you trying your best to be diplomatic, but let me summarize it for you and I think you will see the problem.

‘I am going to say something controversial that could hurt others. Then I am leaving.’

And you should be able to see why others read it negatively. You do insert a lot of apologies and disclaimers beforehand but understand that that in itself is insufficient to support the move. However, I do get where you are coming from and know that it is plenty scary to offer when you feel to be a questionable point of view to a vocal group. It would have been better to say nothing (which I don’t personally recommend) or engage willingly with the group even though there is a risk of conflict (which I do recommend – as long as the conflict is healthy. This move allows you to broaden your personal understanding).

Let us now talk about what I think was the worst part of your comment:

“Too much individualism will always end up trying to make women responsible for their own oppression. Individualist “feminists” are people like Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young and Christina Hoff Sommers. “Choice feminism” is a pejorative.”

First line –

This can be read in the sense that you were going for (which I do not need to explain), or, the sense that a lot of the others read. It can be read that you are blaming women for their own choices, which leads to their own oppression. It can be read that you are actually endorsing removing some levels of individualism from woman for their own good. It could be read that you are blaming women for their own oppression.

Second line –

Categorising happens here, whether you intended it or not. I don’t think I need to explain how equating feminists with CHS could frustrate them. Most feminists do view themselves as individualists so this was just bad, bad, bad. You have lumped them together.

Third line –

Without first defining what you mean by ‘choice feminism’ you leave it for others to infer what you are getting at. Remember that feminism is a huge issue with numerous topics and you cannot expect everyone to share your knowledge. Some of the basic ideas can be taken for granted but ‘choice feminism’ is not one of those as evidenced by commentators asking for details. By calling it a pejorative before detailing what you are actually talking about makes it sound like ALL ‘choices’ made by feminists is pejorative. I suspect people may have varying degrees of this interpretation, but with little to no context it can only sound bad.

Mola, I hope you don’t mind but I will finish this tomorrow. My office is closing up and I have to go, but I will definitely cover the remainder tomorrow.

Cheers.

Snuffy
Snuffy
5 years ago

@reallyfriendly

I simply prefer toning down my criticism (which should be given) in order to communicate with her.

So instead of offering her your “tempered” criticism directly, you decided to swoop in and defend her against other people’s criticism. You didn’t even bother to try and communicate with her about those criticisms “which should be given”. Your statement was addressed to the people criticizing her and offered 0% criticism of Rosa and 100% defense. It took me multiple posts to even get you to admit wrongdoing on her part.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

It’s funny. This whole argument, I was limiting my posts and tempering my words (believe it or not) because I was worried that I had misread something; that the snipers would finally have an actual, non-made-up example of one of us driving away an innocent poster and it would be my fault.

Then it turned out that, no, I hadn’t misread jack, her definition of feminism is so fucking narrow and exclusionary that she’s a transphobe.

Lesson of the day: Trust your instincts.

reallyfriendly
reallyfriendly
5 years ago

@SFHC

Please Stop.

RosaDeLava
RosaDeLava
5 years ago

@Snuffy
First, I apologize for grammatical errors; This is really long, but I didn’t feel like spell checking.

I have to point out, I don’t think ambition = success, or vice versa.
Instance: I’m a biology student, and I want to be a researcher. I have the resources to do it (i.e. a family with money that is willing to support me). I have colleagues who have decided to become teachers because they couldn’t afford to be researchers. I don’t think they are any less ambitious than I am – I just think I’m luckier.
Ambition is the desire to achieve, and success is the achievment itself – or, at least, that’s what I was taught. So, to me, the difference between me and those classmates is only the probability of success.
(Though I agree that ambition often has the connotation of being “male”)

“Ambitious” is usually used as a positive word (though I’ve seen it associated with “loose morals” many times), and I’ve read the comment of the redpill woman as if she was trying to add a quality to herself, which I still don’t think she posesses. It would be like telling people I’m hard-working. I’m not. My behavior is not consistent with that of a person who would be called hard-working, so I don’t call myself that. It read to me that the redpill woman was claiming to be something she wasn’t to make herself look better – specifically because people at large seem to value ambition. Whether or not I think less of people for not being ambitious, my issue with her is that I thought she was being dishonest.

And I have to point out because I think none understood my meaning, and I hope I’ll be clearer this time: I believe a woman can be a housewife and still be ambitious. I believe a woman can be a housewife and still achieve something I would consider impressive. I believe a woman can be a housewife and do better things than a woman whose achievments I would consider impressive. Being a housewife (or SAHM – that means stay at home mom, right?) by itself is not relevant to ambition. The reasons for being a housewife would be the things I’d consider – and no, being a housewife because you want to does not fit my view of ambition and I don’t see a reason to change it at the present.

And I’m not suggesting that being ambitious is the end all be all. I don’t remember saying people should be ambitious – I only said that some were and some weren’t.

And, hell, maybe I do look down on people who I think achieve little when I think they are able to achieve more. Maybe it has something with perceived class. I don’t think it has anything to do with being traditionally feminine or masculine, but it’s likely to be because of how I see things being valued in society (or my narrow experience with society).

But I STILL don’t understand. I am ASKING you to explain it to me. Why do you think WANTING to be a STAHM can be ambitious? It’s not easy or superfluous, that I grant you, but why ambitious? The reason I can think of is that I’m mistaken as to the actual number of housewives – that I think there are more than there actually are, and, by default, this makes becoming a housewife easier.
People have said I was belittling or insulting housewives, which was not my intention, and though I think understand I have come across as offensive (I sounded as if I was saying that not being ambitious is bad, or that someone had to be successful to be called ambitious), my point remains: I don’t see how a woman can be ambitious if her greatest wish is to be a housewife (as I can’t see how a woman can be ambitious if her greatest wish is being a bank clerk, as I said before), and I can’t change my opinion on the basis of it being insulting – I can certainly keep it to myself, but I can’t change it.

This is one thing you have said, and I think you hit the mark:

She doesn’t think that the goal of being a SAHM isn’t a big enough goal to count as an ambition.

Unless we use ambition to mean “the want of something” (which I know is one of the possible meanings, though is not used often), wanting to be a housewife doesn’t fit my idea of ambition – and I take full responsability for it. I’m not going to claim I’m actively trying to represent the popular opinion. I might be influenced by it, so much so that I’m actually reproducing it, but it doesn’t change the fact that I consider it a view I actually hold.

I’m asking you, in good faith, why I am wrong.

If it insults anyone, I can promise never to breech the subject again and refrain from making any comments on it if it shows up – but I won’t pretend I understand what I don’t understand.

P.S.: As for reallyfriendly not having said that she disagreed with me directly, it might have been because she saw no reason to do it, since you were already doing it. And I don’t need to be directly adressed – I can read the comments.

RosaDeLava
RosaDeLava
5 years ago

@reallyfriendly
Thank you for trying to understand my view of things. The way you tried to adress what I say does, at the very least, make me more willing to listen to your points. None has to be nice when expressing their opinions, but doing so helps when trying to make a point.
I think you were the one who understood what I was trying to say the best. I have to say that:
1) I wasn’t trying to present the way society views SAHMs or ambition – I might have mimicked it perfectly, but I did so unconsciously. I take full responsability for the opinions I expressed, whether they are influenced by society or not.
2) I wasn’t trying to insult the redpill woman because I thought she wasn’t ambitious and I consider it bad (I know ambition is often said to be a good thing, but since people often associate it with being willing to do things that will harm others, I don’t think it’s entirely positive) – I was adressing her use of the word “ambition” and that I disagreed with it. I think being unambitious is much better than pretending to be something you are not – and to me, that is what she was doing.

I hope the main issue that is leading people to be angry at me (other than that I have offended them :P) is the disagreement with the meaning of “ambitious”. I feel as if I was saying that a boat was blue while everyone else thought it was green – only that, in this case, blue and green carry negative and positive connotations.

ReallyFriendly
ReallyFriendly
5 years ago

@Rosa

Thank you for coming back to the post to explain your point of view. I did suspect that I got some things wrong and was trying my best with what I had. It is good to get it clarified directly from the source.

You were exactly right about why I didn’t direct criticism at you; people were all already doing it, no sense in my dog-piling. I MEANT to speak to your critics (which I don’t think was grasped fully) who I think got lost in all the noise they were making.

While I did not fully understand you, my main interpretation of the event was you trying to explain your idea of ‘ambitious’ and everyone getting really insulted by what you were saying. I should have expanded that since your intent was one where you were willing to discuss this we should have gone there instead of being condescending and dismissive (and to be fair to your critics, not all of them were like that).

I was personally surprised at how much anger came your way. Whenever I see a comment, positive or negative, I always frame it first in the idea that the commentator is coming with good faith. That may be why I did not find myself angry with what you said because I just thought about what you could be trying to say without leaping to the idea that you were going out of your way to belittle SAHM. I did come to the wrong conclusion and am glad to hear your side on this.

@mola as well from this point on

Mola, I know that I said I was going to cover your whole comment, which I will still do if you are interested. However, I understand completely if you decide you are done with posting or coming to this forum anymore as things escalated to the point of absurdity. It did make me a little ill to see it happen.

In a sense, I even felt it was kind of pointless to finish going over your comment because I don’t even know how it would help (at least in this forum). Even if you understood what came out negatively at people from what you said, after this experience I understand that you may want to keep your opinions to yourself in regards to this forum. IT SHOULD NOT HAVE TURNED OUT LIKE THAT.

However, if you request it, I will gladly finish it on your behalf. The turn the conversation took made me think very seriously over the past few days about the state of online communications and if a site like this could be a detriment to building bridges. I don’t know – it was saddening. I could be taking all of this too seriously, you can share your thoughts on this.

Mola and Rosa, I’m sorry that both of you got thrown under the bus just for expressing your opinions. This should not be what feminists do to one another.

Wish you good folk a great week and hope to see you around.

Cheers.