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.”
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
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.
@ reallyfriendly
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.
@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
@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
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.
@reallyfriendly
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.
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.
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.
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…
@ 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.
So…you are mad that people are mischaracterizing you…but you won’t tell us what you actually believe?
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.
Wait, I missed the reference to the Thread Of Doom. So it’s transphobia. Awesome. *sarcasm*
Transphobes aren’t welcome here.
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.
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.
@ 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.
“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.
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.
@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
@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.
@reallyfriendly
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.
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.
@SFHC
Please Stop.
@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:
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.
@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.
@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.