> Women here were once oppressed as well.

As a group, "once" is a good qualifier. And some individual women are still oppressed.

> Their journey was long and hard fought by women, like the elder Walker, who were willing to sacrifice so that their daughters and the generations of women to follow could enjoy the freedoms they enjoy today.

> Don't you think?

It was hardly necessary for the elder Walker to sacrifice her responsibilities as a mother to dedicate all her efforts to the larger "cause"--particularly since much of that sacrifice was in fact directed toward her career, not just the larger struggle.

> I mean had this women and women like her, followed tradition would anyone even listen to her daughter at all, or would they just dismiss it as the ramblings of another women?

Break a few eggs to make an omlette? I don't think the elder Walker deserves that slack, given the content of the article.

> Although I understand the authors feelings, I think it is a shame that the elder Walkers family did not support her more. Her husband divorced her and her daughter does not even consider that in her mothers time motherhood probably did feel like servitude.

All credit goes to the mother for who her daughter became (and was able to become), blame to the father?? Sounds like the usual modern calculus to me.

> She fails to appreciate that without her mothers sacrifice, motherhood might well feel like servitude to her as well.

She did not sacrifice for her daughter, that's the point of the article--she was all about her career and her ideology.

> She should NEVER have tried to convince her daughter, or anybody else, that women should not have babies, that his means enslavement to the woman. That is nothing less than the biggest load of horse chit that I have ever heard.

Freakin' knuckledragger.

ok, I can agree with your statement that the daughters beliefs, action and such of today are in contrast, not a firect result, but definitely influenced by those of her mother over the previous years.

However, to say that a woman in middle age(going by how she describes herself in the article), is simply rebelling against her mother or her mothers actions, is nothing but ludicrousness. She is not rebelling, she is making her own choice and living her own life. To rebel, she would still have to be living at home, and under her mothers rules and control. Her mother has not had a say in her life for at least a couple decades, if you go by legalities. Going by reality, her mother hasnt had much say in her daughters entire life. But that is beside the point. You can not rebel against someone if they dont have some kind of control over you in the first place.

Again, I agree with your belief that her mother helped mold her into making the decisions she is making today, although by no means are they a direct result. But, the daughter definitely is not rebelling.

I worked for social services and know what child abuse is. Mothers do what they think is right. Sometimes they cannot see outside of what they believe is right to recognize the individuality of their children. This woman is driven and her work is justified. She has focused on the issues for so long she cannot step out of them even with her daughter. I can understand, not stating wrong or right, just I can understand.

Hopefully as the woman grows and ages she will see that she is being too rigid. If not it is sad that the mother and daughter will not have a good relationship before one of them dies.

And it is fine that she chose to not sacrifice forher daughter or family, but she should also have chosen to let her daughter go with her father at the divorce. If the path you wantto lead does not accomodate someone else, then dont bring that soemone else on your path with you.

huh?????

So,
You are done now???

All you were really interested in was someone to agree with your view???

Thats no fun!!!

oh come on fanta, dont you dare go "oh pooooie!!!" on us now, lol...

The knuckledragger comment was an ironic joke, sorry for any misunderstanding. I think the winky went askew.

Regards.

> All you were really interested in was someone to agree with your view???

Hmm. I thought the article made a meta-point very eloquently. Do I want people to agree with it? Well what kind of troll would I be if I posted something I didn't want people to agree with? I was sharing something I thought was important. And I really didn't expect anything other than what I heard, truth be told--except for the two people who called the negative reactions to the article for what they were, and I thank them for that, for making me feel just a little better about the rampant liberalism of online dating sites. Hopefully I'm being just blunt enough, without being too rude? I'm not trying to be insulting, you asked. You tried to split the middle between my (and the author's) viewpoint on the one hand, and the radical feminism we were both taking issue with, on the other, but I don't think it works.

Seems like a pretty narrow view of the article to me, but hey it was your thread and I guess you heard what you wanted.

Congratulations!

What's sick is that this girl had to grow up with a woman who thought natural womanhood was a curse...that's like saying I hate my body. How UNATURAL is that?

That's why I don't believe in ROLL MODELS! They are very deceiving & dishonest. They can also mess up young people unknowingly.

It's really become a sick world we live in. This is more proof of that.