Well, after a while, I met my ex. The first thing he did was tell me that I need to get off the fake shit. He told me that if I talk like a "valley girl" or "the Whitest White chick on earth" (which I do) to accept that and move on. He told me that I could find more TRUE acceptance and friendship by being WHO I AM instead of being WHO I THINK OTHERS WANT ME TO BE! The funny thing is, at first I protested.I swore up and down I was NOT faking anything. (Even though I knew damn well growing up I spoke TOTALLY differently then I was speaking at that time) But, after he specifically requested that I not speak that way in front of his family, I realized that he was right. He was right about me acting fake. And he was right about people liking and accepting me more for being myself.
Where do you think the following comes from? A "Patriarchy Rules" website where women swap stories about how important it is to allow men to lecture you and mold you into the version of you they will be comfortable with? No, the story actually comes from a website called Womanist Musings.
I always hope that at least on womanist blogs I will be spared reading stories about how a man lectured a woman on how she should behave and how she complied, which made her super happy in the end. If any man in my life ever allowed himself to criticize my speaking patterns (let alone "specifically request" that I change them for the benefit of the patriarchal structure of his family), he would not be a man in my life any more.
It's sad to see how readily so many women allow men to infantilize them. It's sad to see that the situation where a men lectures and commands while a woman jumps to attention is so wide-spread that even feminists don't always notice how humiliating such stories are to women.
69 comments:
So, if a FEMALE friend of mine had made the SAME EXACT SUGGESTION about altering behavior that was OFFENSIVE, that would have been ok, because she does not have a penis??? You are really reading WAY to much into this. The funny thing is, you talk on the womanist musings site about my ex's "patriarchal" family, when most of his family are FEMALES! Racially insensitive behavior SHOULD BE called out by people, a Black man should be IGNORED when he speaks of how a racist act impacts him because he happens to be male!
"So, if a FEMALE friend of mine had made the SAME EXACT SUGGESTION about altering behavior that was OFFENSIVE, that would have been ok, because she does not have a penis???"
-Could you please quote where I said anything like that?
As to "reading too much into it", this is a phrase that is always used when women protest against sexism.
"The funny thing is, you talk on the womanist musings site about my ex's "patriarchal" family, when most of his family are FEMALES! "
-That doesn't in any way prevent any family from being deeply patriarchal. I'm a little surprised that a woman who writes for a womanist website wouldn't know that.
Do yourself and the rest of the world a favor and learn about racism before you spew garbage about topics you obviously are CLUELESS about. I guess if I called my ex the N-word and he told me not to, that would have been sexist of him as well, right??? Really, this whole post and your comments on womanist musings seem like a colossal joke! You so TOTALLY missed the point of my post. You think being a feminist is the be all and end all and ignore racism entirely!
"I guess if I called my ex the N-word and he told me not to, that would have been sexist of him as well, right???"
-Was that a possibility? I mean, is that something you normally do?
That's horrible, Joanna. It's equally horrible that you see no difference between a racial slur and correcting one's speech patterns. Racism is truly disgusting.
What is horrible is that you do not see the SIMILARITY between using racial slurs and cultural appropriation, particularly when it is based on STEREOTYPES and ASSUMPTIONS. I guess in your world racism is only offensive when it is so blatant it screams racial slurs! You need to recognize there is far more to racism than that. Oh, and you totally missed the point that it was NOT MY SPEECH PATTERN.... it was an ACT, based on racial STEREOTYPES and it NEEDED correction. Are you so intent of making this into an issue of sexism that you cannot see the racism in what I was doing back then???
I agree that it definitely needed correction. But I also believe that you - as an adult - deserve respect and space from others to figure that out. I don't think it's appropriate or rough for people to lecture others - especially, when relying on gender domination patterns - on what they need to correct in their behavior.
It was not a lecture, it was a conversation. And if he had not pointed out to me how problematic this was, I could have gone on offending people for a long time before I came to the realization on my own, so the expression of his opinion was welcome and appreciated. If I am doing something offensive, I would rather have someone call me on it then ignore the issue for fear or being seen as being sexist or patriarchal.
Joanna:
If he told you that you are "too fat" and it's bad for your health and you need to lose a couple of sizes before meeting his family, would you respond in the same way to such comments?
I don't know about Joanna, but I'm already sorry for a guy who'd try to do that to me.
Lee that is really a disingenuous comparison. Being fat has DOES NOT IMPACT OTHERS. Speaking in a manner that is phony and racially offensive DOES. How you can even compare the two boggles my mind!
"Being fat has DOES NOT IMPACT OTHERS."
If only more people thought this way.
Guys, I think in this thread we will all agree that fat-shaming is wrong and inexcusable, so there is hardly any need to address it in this particular topic.
Just saying.
"Being fat has DOES NOT IMPACT OTHERS."
- Of course, it does!!! Your life expectancy, poor health, and other things related to obesity do most definitely impact others.
What's uncomfortable, from a feminist perspective (or, rather, from my own perspective) is the tone rather than the content of the blog post. There is a feeling, a tone, a voice, that sounds like he was being instructional and the author was the empty vessel waiting to be filled. The idea that he asked the blogger not to do something in front of his family is complicated, too. Not necessarily anti-feminist, mind you, but complicated.
The tone of the post is paternalistic (or condescending would fit if the "advisor" were female). I think if the blogger wrote more about her own experience from within, what it was like for her to come to realize she didn't like the way she was speaking, it might not have set off flags with this blog's author.
It seems the point was the blogger wasn't being herself and her friend who happened to be a man pointed out qualities he felt were inconsistent with who she really was. She was open to those comments, evaluated those comments in relation to her own truth, and made adjustments in her life.
Again, though, I agree that the tone was disturbingly passive. But, Clarissa, the meaning wasn't offensive to me (a feminist). It makes me uncomfortable reading it, sure, because she sounds child-like. But I really do think that's an effect of the writing not necessarily the meaning.
I don't really understand why race has been taken out of this conversation. Let me spell this out:
1. The author was adopting forms of speech she thought to be "black" forms of speech in order to fit in with black people.
2. There is a lot that is RACIST about doing so, even if "well-meaning" or unintentional.
3. Her black friend alerted her of this in a loving way that not only asserted how problematic her adoption of black forms of speech was, but also suggested she did not have to fear losing her friends if she was not herself.
So this is NOT just about gender and "being onesself." This is also a discussion about race, and you conveniently keep ignoring that.
-Leah
That wasn't "a friend", Leah. It was a boyfriend. And if this kind of lecturing is considered "loving", then I hope to be spared forever from this kind of love. When you enter into a romantic relationship with a person, that is supposed to mean that you like them the way they are. A romantic partner is not a work in progress, not a project in need of improvement. If he didn't like her mannerisms or speech patterns and found them offensive, he shoudln't have gotten involved with her in the first place.
Clarissa you completely missed the point of that post and I suggest you need to check your racial privilege. I am so sick of women like you who only see gender as a point of interrogation. Race was a huge facet of this conversation. Why should he allow her to continue to be offensive and racist because he is a man and she is a woman? Does being called on your racist shit become more palpable when it comes from a woman? Well here it is -- your erasure of the role that race had to play in that conversation is racist. Enjoy!
Renee, I agree with you. I also think there's a point about the tone of the piece that *sounds* like the blogger is asking her more-knowledgeable boyfriend to teach her how to live.
Like I said, though, I do agree with you that Clarissa's apparently ignoring or discounting the role of race and racism in the content is an example of ignorance/racism.
In relationships, Clarissa, yes, we ought to accept each other as we are not as "works in progress." However, if a partner finds their partner's behavior insulting, offensive, or demeaning it is essential in most relationships that they discuss it and work on it.
What do you think of the idea that the ideas expressed *came across in tone* as a bit like she was being told how to be and she was adjusting herself for him, but the *meaning* of it was that he was flagging some self-destructive and harmful behaviors that helped her grow and she appreciated it?
PS For what it's worth, I believe all whites are racist and the best we can do is educate ourselves on how fucked up we are and try to change. I am frankly surprised at Clarissa's apparent unawareness (?) of the weight of the topic, how it changes the dynamics and meaning of the blog post and makes it pretty clear it's not just a "oh, do my thinking for me, big strong man!" kind of thing.
Why did this guy date Joanna in the first place if he considers her such a huge racist and a fake to boot? It sounds like he just picked her on purpose to have somebody to demean and feel superior to.
"I believe all whites are racist and the best we can do is educate ourselves on how fucked up we are and try to change"
And that isn't a racist statement??? EVERYTHING that starts with "all blacks", "all whites" or "all Latinos" is RACIST.
Racism, Anonymous, is privilege+power. People of color cannot be racist against whites because whites have all the power in regards to race. While white people can speak out against and fight racism, white people are all racist because the fact is we BENEFIT from white privilege.
In any case, while I agree that there is a huge raced/gendered issue with a kind of fetish for being "corrected," Clarissa's erasure of race in this discussion is not cool. And it's notable that the one other comment I've seen from you on WM also ignored race in regards to an article (written by a woman of color) in regards to the racist appropriation of language by a white woman.
-Leah
"And it's notable that the one other comment I've seen from you on WM also ignored race in regards to an article (written by a woman of color) in regards to the racist appropriation of language by a white woman."
-Yes, exactly, that was yet another egregious case where a woman was expected to sacrifice her interests in order no to hurt male feelings.
I only wish there were a single story on that website where a man would be expected to sacrifice his interests for a woman or put up with lecturing from a woman. Otherwise, it's hard for me to understand what's "womanist" about the site.
It would be very nice if people tried to avoid using the meaningless crutch of a word "privilege" on this blog. At least from time to time.
If he didn't like her mannerisms or speech patterns and found them offensive, he shoudln't have gotten involved with her in the first place.
Again your stinking privilege on display and I don't care if you like that word because it's the truth. You do realize that as a poc when you have a relationship with White people that you constantly have to negotiate race. Did it ever even occur to you that he saw beyond her facade and realized that behind the racist language and behaviour to see a good person? A POC who has a white friend or a White lover constantly ends up in the position to correct racist assumptions. In fact because we have to negotiate our White supremacist society we always have to deal with racism of Whiteness. I honestly cannot believe that you read my blog and still remain so ignorant when it comes to race. Gender does not trump race but then White women have never been able to accept this simple fact.
"Gender does not trump race "
-You are absolutely right. Of course, it doesn't. Except in romantic relationships. Normal people do not get romantically involved on the basis of race. They only get involved on the basis of their gender preference.
What I keep forgetting, though, is that when talking to North Americans one must assume that they have already somehow managed to erase sexuality from sexual relationships. I know you will now accuse me of my "immigrant privilege", but so be it. :-)
And, Renee, applying adjectives like "stinking" to "privilege" doesn't make it any less of a meaningless verbal crutch.
Clarissa, do you even realize what "womanist" means? You keep using it as if is a synonym with "feminist" when, in fact, it is a term some women of color have taken up because viewpoints of some feminists - feminists like yourself - have neglected to see race as relevant.
And, in what world, pray tell, does race not play a part in romantic relationships? That's not a world I am familiar with. Also, care to explain your disdain for the word "privilege?"
-Leah
Leah: On privilege: http://clarissasbox.blogspot.com/2009/08/privilege.html
Of course, I know what "womanist" means. Still, it contains the word "woman", and it makes no sense for womanism to disregard women's rights altogether.
People don't normally select their romantic partner on the basis of race, do they? Unless, they are racist, of course. We do, however, choose romantic partners on the basis of their gender, right?
Um, Clarissa, do you realize that not only are you ignoring the most important aspect of the original post, that of racism, but you are in fact infantalizing ME but making the assertion that my ex made my decision FOR ME. Sorry, but if I take advice from a boyfriend, it is because I THINK IT IS GOOD ADVICE, not because I am a victim of his paternalistic, sexist mind set. It always cracks me up when I hear feminists go on and on about women's rights and then deny a woman the right to make her own choices if they do not fit in with your agenda.
Oh, for the sake of Allah, not "choice feminism"! Nothing is worse than this toothless Palinesque perversion of feminism claiming that if a woman chooses to have her husband beat her, that "choice" should be respected and celebrated.
The greatest ideological achievement of any oppressive system is making people believe that they have chosen their own oppression.
1. To isolate gender as the primary aspect upon which people choose their romantic partners is severely reductive when speaking of erotics/attraction. Race plays a part in romantic relationships, and, incidentally, the particular blog author in this case has repeatedly articulated her attraction as solely oriented towards black men (which is a *whole* other conversation).
2. Yeah, you know, I get what your "analysis" of the word privilege is. But you do that think academics use where you theorize a word out of relevance in a manner that alleviates the ethical requirement to intuit and read particular contexts where the word is used. In *this* case, no one is saying their opinion matters cuz they have less privilege or that your opinion doesn't matter because you have more. In *this* case, people are rightly saying that your refusal to negotiate race is only possible because of white privilege. *You* are actually the one who refuses to read the particulars of the conversation because of some fucking (white) paradigm you already have worked out in your head that forecloses discussion.
-Leah
Wow, you are really making a huge leap from my comment about a CHOICE to take a man's opinion under advisement without being labeled a traitor to women to a woman CHOOSING to be beaten. I mean, damn, if I want my man to help me make a decision, HOW ON EARTH is that evenly REMOTELY related to domestic abuse??? I did not say anything about a man FORCING his decision on me, or abusing me in any way, shape or form. You must subscribe to the subset of feminism that believes that if a woman CHOOSES to be a full time mother she is being oppressed because she should have a career instead. Totally ignoring the fact that for some women a career is oppressive and a family is liberating.
"You must subscribe to the subset of feminism that believes that if a woman CHOOSES to be a full time mother she is being oppressed"
-I don't think she is necessarily (although possibly) being oppressed. But I do believe that she is being hugely oppressive to those around her.
Joanna, do you honestly believe that it's OK for a person who is supposed to love you the way you are to tell you you are a fake, to tell you "to accept that and move on", and to tell you how to behave in front of other people? Seriously? I cannot possibly imagine how it can be conducive to a positive, empowering relationship to be treated this way. I have to tell you that I have never allowed anybody to talk to me in this manner and never would. Maybe it's the way you describe it, maybe it sounded different in the actual conversation, I don't know. But the way you narrated it in your post sounded extremely grating.
"*You* are actually the one who refuses to read the particulars of the conversation because of some fucking (white) paradigm you already have worked out in your head that forecloses discussion. "
-Leah, I'm a little tired today, so I find it somewhat hard to follow. What does this part of the discussion have to do with fucking? I don't remember sex being addressed in any way in that post on privilege.
Leah and Joanna: do you think it's OK for a white guy to tell Joanna: "get off the fake shit"? Would that be more acceptable? Or less? Or there would be NO difference?
"What's uncomfortable, from a feminist perspective (or, rather, from my own perspective) is the tone rather than the content of the blog post. There is a feeling, a tone, a voice, that sounds like he was being instructional and the author was the empty vessel waiting to be filled. The idea that he asked the blogger not to do something in front of his family is complicated, too."
-That's exactly what I've been trying to point out. Maybe you are right and it's all in the telling. I most sincerely hope so.
If I were doing something that was OFFENSIVE, then he has a RIGHT to say something. And if he loves me, he almost has a responsibility to let me know if I am making a fool of myself and being offensive. Any person who CARES about me SHOULD feel comfortable expressing an opinion if I am doing something that is hurtful. Whether male or female. Whether we are sleeping with each other or not.
The most ironic part of this all is that yo are condemning this man for encouraging me to BE MYSELF. He was letting me know that my act looked as fake as it really was, and making me realize that WHO I AM is ok, that I do not have to pretend to be someone else to be accepted.
Joanna: it's about the tone, the format of the comment. "you are a fake" and "get off this shit" is not the same as saying, "Are you sure that this is the best thing for you to do? Would you like to talk about it?" Anything in the world can be said in a condescending, offensive way OR in a kind, loving way.
Clarissa please telll me how a woman who chooses to be a homemaker is being oppressive to those around her.... I really would like to know.
"The most ironic part of this all is that yo are condemning this man for encouraging me to BE MYSELF. He was letting me know that my act looked as fake as it really was, and making me realize that WHO I AM is ok, that I do not have to pretend to be someone else to be accepted."
-Now we are getting to it. This is the crux of the problem, Joanna. Patriarchy is based on the idea that men should inform, instruct and advise women on how to be themselves. Women are considered too immature, stupid and incapable of realizing that and discovering that for themselves. As a result, women become eternal appendages to men, considered unable to exist without their constant guidance.
If somebody could point me to a single online resource where men celebrate how their girlfriends told them to "get off the fake shit" thereby helping them to become themselves, I will highly appreciate that.
"Clarissa please telll me how a woman who chooses to be a homemaker is being oppressive to those around her.... I really would like to know."
-Unfortunately, I don't have the energy right now to rehash the debates on housewives that we had on this blog. Could you do me a kindness and search for "housewives" in the search blog? There, you will find several discussions on the subject. If not, I will try to write on this tomorrow.
So I tried to turn this situation around, and here is what I came up with. Let's say I have autism (I do). Society is unjust and oppressive towards people with autism (it is). Let's say my partner doesn't have autism (he doesn't). But he thinks it's cool and prestigious to have it (he does.) So he starts faking it and behaving like he does (he doesn't but let's just imagine), which I find annoying and offensive (I would.)
It would never occur to me to address him in terms of "get off the fake shit" because it's unacceptable to take this tone with people you supposedly care about.
So no, the condescension and offensive tone do not make sense. They just don't.
The question arises why Joanna and many other women think it's ok to be talked to in this way. I have no other explanation than patriarchal conditioning.
I am having trouble understanding how adopting someone elses speech patterns is different from learning another language. It feels wrong to me to automatically presume that others will talk the way I do so that I can understand them, and not want me to talk as they do at all.
I think I tend to adopt others speech patterns if I am constantly in their company, quite unconsciously, although I am very (probably absurdly) careful about not using what I perceive as incorrect grammar.
I know what you mean. As a non-native Spanish-speaker, I tend to imitate the accent of the person I speak with. So with Argentineans I talk like an Argentinean, with Peruvians like a Peruvian, and so on. It isn't something I try to do, it just happens. People have sometimes thought I was mocking them and got upset. :-)
"Clarissa please telll me how a woman who chooses to be a homemaker is being oppressive to those around her.... I really would like to know."
Joanna, are you a housewife? There is so much anger in your posts that you must be. What's with putting every 5th words in CAPS? And you do need to review basic English grammar. It is terrible how staying at home makes people forget how to write the most basic things.
"It would never occur to me to address him in terms of "get off the fake shit" because it's unacceptable to take this tone with people you supposedly care about. "
Good point!
Ah, yes, the anonymous voice choosing to disrespect and denigrate another woman for her personal life choices. That is so empowering for females!
I find it so interesting that you choose to comment on my writing skills when I actually was invited to write for at least 5 blogs, by people who thoroughly enjoy my writing style. Perhaps one or two errors in syntax or grammar slip past me because I do not proof read comments before I post them, but you are behaving as if I have been unable to put forth even on intelligible sentence.
As for me being a "housewife", I am not married as of yet, and I do not have a family. But, if I were in a situation where I was financially stable and I was able to make ends meet without being part of a dual income family, I would love to have the full time job of a mother.
Then, of course, "feminists" who preach about how a woman can be anything she chooses in life will be sure to tell me how I am choosing the worst path. After all, I can only be happy if someone with a vagina tells me how to run my own life.
"I would love to have the full time job of a mother"
-It's not a job if you can't be fired from it. If there is no system of control over the quality of your services, if people to whom you proved those services didn't choose you to provide them and didn't ask you to do it, it isn't a job.
"But, if I were in a situation where I was financially stable and I was able to make ends meet without being part of a dual income family, I would love to have the full time job of a mother."
And then you can let the man who'll be paying your way guide you and instruct you to your hearts content.
A fitting conclusion to a the discussion, I find.
So, wait, let me understand this. Patriarchy is oppressive because it dictates certain roles based on gender and impinges on the choices of a woman. Your brand of feminism basically says that a woman is a disgrace and worthless if she chooses not to have a career. So, how is that not impinging on the choices of a woman? To me, your particular brand of feminism seems just as oppressive as patriarchy. It is not about women being able to be whoever and whatever they want in life, it is about a woman being told how to live her life by other women instead of by men. Interesting concept, but I prefer to have my own agency thank you very much.
Anonymous- my husband will be my partner, not someone who dictates my actions. But, you are right, it is so much better to have "feminists" like you and Clarissa to guide me and instruct me on how to live my life. That is so much better than being a "victim" of the patriarchal system. All is well, as long as my oppressors have vaginas!
You wouldn't, surely, disagree, Joanna, that the manner in which I expressed my opinion about your post was a lot more respectful than the way your ex addressed you about your behavior.
"Your brand of feminism basically says that a woman is a disgrace and worthless if she chooses not to have a career."
-The only person who has said this on the blog is you. Interesting.
Clarissa, my ex and I have a certain way of interacting with each other. While I do not do so in my writing, I have a tendency to take on a very casual tone with friends and people who are close to me. I am not worried about using curses or being confrontational with someone who I know well and who I care about, and I appreciate the same sort of brutally honest communication from those around me.
And I did not say that anyone on this blog used those exact words, but I believe you already know that. I meant that the brand of feminism you subscribe to implies that a woman who chooses to live her life without pursuing a career is a failure as a woman. But you already knew that. You just wanted to try to catch me on a technicality, but I am not playing that game. The word basically, in case you are unaware, means that I am translating your message into my own words.
"The word basically, in case you are unaware, means that I am translating your message into my own words."
-But how can you then expect me to argue with your projections and assumptions? I can only address my own texts, not your "translations" of them.
As a non-native English speaker I could also take offense at your suggestion that my English is in need of translation to be understood.
"But, if I were in a situation where I was financially stable and I was able to make ends meet without being part of a dual income family, I would love to have the full time job of a mother."
I don't understand what you mean. What is a full time job of a mother? If you are trying to say that you would not work, are you implying that women who have children and careers are part-time mothers? In that case, considering that your husband would probably work, would that make him a part-time father? Weird terminology for someone who takes pride in her communication skills.
Anonymous: Apparently, for "choice feminists" a mother's choice to work isn't nearly as respectable as a mother's choice to work, all their defence of all and any female choices notwithstanding.
This is just about the most ridiculous conversation I have ever been involved in. If you want to believe that it is your right and responsibility to dictate the choices of other women, you go ahead and do that. I, on the other hand, choose to think for myself. I refuse to throw off the shackles of patriarchy only to replaces them with the prison of your version of feminism. I prefer freedom.
And Clarissa, it is not your words I was translated, rather it was your though process, which frankly, I could never even begin to truly understand.
"I, on the other hand, choose to think for myself"
-Hopefully, not only when a guy tells you to.
" I refuse to throw off the shackles of patriarchy "
-You should have ended the sentence there. It would reflect your position a lot better.
"And Clarissa, it is not your words I was translated, rather it was your though process, which frankly, I could never even begin to truly understand."
-And that's why you chose to pervert it through your own projections? Interesting strategy.
I'm late here, but I also think maybe you were missing the point Joanna was trying to make.
The way I read her article, it struck me as less "my boyfriend told me my speech patterns sound 'fake' so I changed them because he knows better than I do so I defer to him in all things" and more "there was a time when I tried to talk and act like I thought a black person would talk and act, but when my boyfriend (who is black) called me on it, I realized I was being racist, so I stopped doing it."
Gracious.
But this is true: "...when talking to North Americans one must assume that they have already somehow managed to erase sexuality from sexual relationships."
And this is funny: "I know you will now accuse me of my 'immigrant privilege"...."
:-)
If this is a scathing parody of the cultural tone-deafness and patronizing, passive-aggressive bullying of some white feminist academics, then it's brilliant. If you are serious, then this is a genuinely disturbing display of the same.
Is it too much trouble to read the blog's header and see exactly what "this" is? Then, however, you'll have no excuse for such meaningless comments, and what fun would that be, right?
So... the second one then. Yeah, that's a shame.
Clarissa--as a fellow professor, it's baffling to me that you still have not explicitly addressed the issue of race that you neglected when quoting the original text. Simply on a compositonal level, you should never take a quote out of context just to support your own argument. The fact that, in your original blog post, you did not state that the author was addressing race issues is completely irresponsible. You frame the quote as if she is only talking about her speech pattern, when this is not the case. I would expect more from you, and hope that you teach your students to incorportae outside sources within their own arguments in a manner that it more respectful to that original text.
OK, fellow professor, let's remember what we know about the first-person narrator. The first person-narrator is unreliable and self-serving. Nothing s/he says should be taken at face value. Remember that?
In this particular case, the narrator is clearly bothered by how horrible she is treated by men. She is trying to assuage her anxiety on the subject by creating a suitably ideological narrative of why it was perfectly fine for her boyfriend to humiliate her.
I refused to buy this self-serving narrative. That's all that happened here.
I have to laugh, because my first thought it that this blog should be called "Clarissa Explains It All". But, dear Clarissa, you are not a psychologist, nor are you a mind reader. Your interpretation of my story is pure conjecture on your part. But, apparently, according to you, I need a woman like you to tell me how I actually think and feel. Good thing you don't have a penis, because it you did, that would be extremely patronizing, wouldn't it??
I wasn't explaining anything to you, Joanna. I was answering a question somebody asked me on my blog. Are you trying to prevent me from responding to my own readers? Or did you maybe see me come to your blog and try to explain anything to you there? That didn't happen, right?
Clarissa - The "Clarissa Explains It All" part was a joke... I don't know if you are familiar with the Nickelodeon show from a few years back. No, I would not tell you not to answer questions on your own blog, the rest of my comment was simply letting you know that I feel you are mistaken in your interpretation, but the "Clarissa Explains It All" was just a corny joke that popped into my head. But I stand by the rest of my comment.
No, I'm not familiar with the show. As I said, I'm an immigrant, so many cultural realities escape me. I'm good with more recent stuff, but anything from the nineties and before is a mystery to me.
I remembered after I saw your response that you said you were an immigrant, so I apologize if the joke was not understood. But, I am sure many of your readers will catch it! LOL!
:)
Post a Comment