The Right To Be Opinionated

[RS Davis]

Teresa Heinz Kerry's unsolicited observations

by: Cathy Young


The mini-controversy over Teresa Heinz Kerry's outspoken persona brings on a sense of deja vu. Twelve years ago, the controversial figure was Hillary Rodham Clinton—a career woman who made waves by saying that she wasn't the kind of wife who "stayed home, baked cookies, and had teas" and by openly aspiring to a unique "co-presidency" with her husband.

Throughout her tenure as first lady, Hillary Clinton remained both a target for ferocious attacks and an object of adulation. In the eyes of many feminists, any criticism directed at her was evidence of sexist prejudice against strong or "uppity" women. Novelist Erica Jong compared her to Joan of Arc and wrote that her troubles stemmed largely from "the undeniable fact that there is no way for a smart woman to be public without being seen as a treacherous Lady Macbeth figure."

Today, it is Heinz Kerry who is ruffling feathers. The recent incident in which she referred to the "un-American traits" of some political opponents, then accused a reporter who questioned her about it of putting words in her mouth and finally told him to "shove it," has surely reinforced her image as a loose cannon and a potential embarrassment to John Kerry's candidacy.

In her speech at the Democratic National Convention last Tuesday, Heinz Kerry made a transparent reference to her image problems, casting them in terms of her gender. "My right to speak my mind, to have a voice, to be what some have called 'opinionated,' is a right I deeply and profoundly cherish," she declared. "And my only hope is that, one day soon, women—who have all earned their right to their opinions—instead of being called opinionated, will be called smart and well-informed, just like men."

But how many people in America, in 2004, do not believe that women have a right to speak their minds? Or that women cannot be smart and well-informed? After all, on the other side of the political aisle, one of the chief architects of and spokespersons for President Bush's foreign policy is National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Karen Hughes, the former White House communications director, is another strong and smart woman who is a part of the president's inner circle.

It's doubtful that back in 1992 when Rodham Clinton became a lightning rod, most Americans had a problem with women in public life. There was no shortage of women in politics by then, including women who held Cabinet posts and who were running for public office. One big difference is that Rodham Clinton was not running for anything: She was in the spotlight as a candidate's wife, and later as the president's wife. She did not have to answer to the voters or to win confirmation from Congress.

The same is true of Heinz Kerry today. Of course all people, men or women, have a right to their opinions. But the only reason her opinions are being heard is because she is the presidential candidate's wife. It's true that Heinz Kerry is a distinguished philanthropist in her own right; but would it be too uncharitable (no pun intended) to point out that her philanthropy is funded by the fortune of her first husband, the late Pennsylvania Senator John Heinz?

There are many women in America today—liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat—who have truly earned the right to be public figures, in the same way as men. This cannot be said of Heinz Kerry.

In 1998, one of the five "Heinz Awards" distributed by the Heinz Family Foundation went to Carol Gilligan, a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and author of the book In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. In the citation for Gilligan's achievements, Heinz Kerry wrote, "Carol Gilligan dared to challenge the notion that men represent the paradigm for our understanding of the human condition. By introducing women's voices, she transformed that paradigm and greatly enhanced our understanding of what it means to be human for both women and men."

Yet Gilligan's work (criticized by many feminists and psychologists alike) is based on the idea of a "female" ethic of care and nurturance, contrasted to the "male" ethic of justice and individual rights. It's a kind of feel-good retro-feminism that repackages old-fashioned sentimental stereotypes as feminist virtues and urges women to participate in public life as women, not as individuals. Heinz Kerry represents a similar kind of retro-feminism: She defends women's independence from a podium where she stands because of marrying into power.


Cathy Young is a Reason contributing editor. This column originally appeared in the Boston Globe.

[n2nsites]

Bah. People believe we have rights, sure. They just really hate strong women.

But how many people in America, in 2004, do not believe that women have a right to speak their minds? Or that women cannot be smart and well-informed? After all, on the other side of the political aisle, one of the chief architects of and spokespersons for President Bush's foreign policy is National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Karen Hughes, the former White House communications director, is another strong and smart woman who is a part of the president's inner circle.

Personally, while I understand what's being said, I also understand what's being said.
I want to know what a candidate's spouse is thinking. Like it or not, they have a lot of influence. So I really believe running for a high profile elected position is a team effort. They are both running. That said, it is my unsubstatiated (LOL) opinion that men are chafed by THK. They don't want to give her credit for "doing" anything because she inherited her "power". Bah.
Of course, I was a little put off by an interview she gave in which she was trying to give the impression that she had seen hard times. Ha.

[RS Davis]

n2nsites said:

Bah. People believe we have rights, sure. They just really hate strong women.


Personally, while I understand what's being said, I also understand what's being said.
I want to know what a candidate's spouse is thinking. Like it or not, they have a lot of influence. So I really believe running for a high profile elected position is a team effort. They are both running. That said, it is my unsubstatiated (LOL) opinion that men are chafed by THK. They don't want to give her credit for "doing" anything because she inherited her "power". Bah.
Of course, I was a little put off by an interview she gave in which she was trying to give the impression that she had seen hard times. Ha.

I don't really know what to make of this essay. I think it makes some interesting and valid observations, but I don't know what its point is. I don't have any opinion one way or the other about THK, but I certainly don't think her talling that guy to "shove off" or whatever was any big deal. I'd have probably done the same thing.

The only real complaint I have with THK is the same one I have with all the political elites - they are disconnected with average America. I remember once hearing Tom Daschle on Meet the Press say that a tax cut or something would only amount to about $2000 extra in the average American's pocket, insinuating that it was paltry. Well, maybe to a rich and powerful Senator, that is not much, but I would have certainly liked an extra $2000. But this disconnect is not attatched only to THK and Daschle - every one of those elite beltway power brokers suffers it.

Her conundrum is that she has married into her second political union, and, like it or not, the things she says and does may affect her husband's chances of ousting Bush. I think HotJan would be much the same way if I were running for office, and to tell you the truth, I wouldn't have it any other way.

- Rick

[n2nsites]

The gist that I got was that the hype surrounding THK being a strong opinionated woman and suggesting that the people don't like it isn't true. I believe it is true. I believe people (male and female) have a hard time when they are faced by a strong, vocal, opinionated woman. It seemed to me the essayist was trying to say, no that isn't so see all the strong women in politics.
I say bah. It's changing, it's better but issues still remain.
I also get the impression that she should tone it down so that her husband can win. I say no. I want to know what she thinks cause she will influence him. I want to know what all the spouses think (really think, not what they are supposed to think) for the same reason.

[RS Davis]

n2nsites said:

I also get the impression that she should tone it down so that her husband can win. I say no. I want to know what she thinks cause she will influence him. I want to know what all the spouses think (really think, not what they are supposed to think) for the same reason.

The funny thing is, if she were to really let people know what she thinks, she'd be the first person involved with this election to do so.

- Rick

[outgirl]

n2nsites said:

The gist that I got was that the hype surrounding THK being a strong opinionated woman and suggesting that the people don't like it isn't true. I believe it is true. I believe people (male and female) have a hard time when they are faced by a strong, vocal, opinionated woman. It seemed to me the essayist was trying to say, no that isn't so see all the strong women in politics.
I say bah. It's changing, it's better but issues still remain.
I also get the impression that she should tone it down so that her husband can win. I say no. I want to know what she thinks cause she will influence him. I want to know what all the spouses think (really think, not what they are supposed to think) for the same reason.

I say Bah too. I don't say Bah often but I may start now. If anyone thinks that there isn't a certain mindset in this country about strong women well, just ask Martha about that. So Bah

[RS Davis]

outgirl said:

I say Bah too. I don't say Bah often but I may start now. If anyone thinks that there isn't a certain mindset in this country about strong women well, just ask Martha about that. So Bah

I don't know if it was as much about Martha being a strong woman as it was about the appearance of perfection. You know, she seemed to have this perfect life - she made perfect crafts and cooked perfect food and ran the perfect household. I think people liked to see her taken down a peg. People were so happy when books came out that said she was this domineering bitch, and then when she was wrongfully imprisoned, it was like there was dancing in the streets. Just a thought.

- Rick

[whatever]

outgirl said:

I say Bah too. I don't say Bah often but I may start now. If anyone thinks that there isn't a certain mindset in this country about strong women well, just ask Martha about that. So Bah

I'm with you on this one outgirl

I see feminism today as somewhat blind, and conventional thought says one thing in a world that does another. I mean, I think most of both men and women believe women today are much more liberated. But, we're not.

I heard someone say on the radio a couple of years ago, discussing the issue of "Has feminism gone too far?" haha No one said anything like, if we're asking the same questions as we did in the 1960's, how can we be much farther along? I still see commercials playing off the housewife female sterotypes. We still seek to look like unrealistically thin women.

I still see women and girls of all ages spending inordinate amounts of time on how they look, to the exclusion of many other interests and possibilities, in my opinion. Then there's the Rush attitude, which is basically hateful.

Abortion is fair game again, to the delight of many. A religiously based law, it takes ALL focus away from the women. Conveniently.

I still see young woman wearing ridiculous heels, looking like street walkers...to go to an ordinary day at work. Make-up mandatory, hair carefully maintained, nails bought and paid for. I see a lot of insecurity involving issues of appearence which men NEVER have to worry about anywhere as much. That's how I see it, anyway.

Take bras, for example; didn't we learn that bras weren't something women really like, back in the '60's? Don't I remember something about "Bra burning?" Somehow apparently not, and so I feel compelled to "cover 'em up" as a matter of modesty, not any comfort or health need. A women in Starbucks was asked to leave the public area when breastfeeding her baby...a few weeks ago. Not a few decades ago.

So these fools on the talk radio were throwing around the concept of how maybe it's gone too far, feminism that is. What a joke.

I can't begin to describe how many and in how many ways women are judged on appearance alone. And on having an outspoke attitude, like our gal Teresa.

The many and varied expectations men have about how we look and how we should act, and many men feel free to judge us that way. Blatant double standards, as if men and women aren't different enough, naturally, with no artificial colorings, coverings or other unhealthy and unnecessary enhancements.

I remember well catching attitude from men just because I was standing on the damn flight line, on the air force base, with a tool box. And even though I lugged the tool box religiously, when I hurt my shoulder, they thought I was lying to get off the flightline. Is that sad or what? I was finally getting to know my way around those damn planes. Big planes

I can't remember ever caring this much about the outcome of a presidential election. I only hope Kerry means at least half of what he says. And Teresa can translate just about anything said in front of him, too cool.

Yes, give me a First Lady that doesn't lie very well. That would be all right.

And I wish more women spoke their minds and didn't put up with bull shit. I probably wish that as much as I wish anything. In my opinion, women are too damaged by their cultures, too often, and we should stop it. I don't think men can, or will, stop it.

As an aside, what's sad too is that, in my experience, most young women don't understand how common it is for men to be very unfair, and even dangerous, to women in certain situations.

Such as the young women raped by...Tyson I think? I heard over and over how she "should have known not to go to his room". No, she didn't. Had she known, she wouldn't have gone. She knew there was a chemistry, but did she know he intended to hurt her. Why would she think he meant to hurt her? She wasn't denying sex, so why would she be afraid of him hurting her?

Most of us can't concieve of that possibility until we're older. Not before we're old enough to be acceptable targets though. Late teens, early twenties? I've lectured teenagers about going out alone at night. They think, and say, that they have the right to go anywhere they want, any time they want. And I understand. But they don't realize they have no way to defend that right, and prevention is the best way to go in this case.

Most young women think that feminism, and equality of the sexes, is no big deal. They don't get it. They would easily have gone to that room too, having bought the "nice guy" act. They, too, would think it was no big deal. In our civilized world.

An undeniable difference in the behavior of the sexes, but too ugly to admit out loud.

And for my mind, having to deal with that reality takes us right back to the stone age. We don't seem to have much say, as far as being opinionated. Doesn't seem to matter.

[RS Davis]

whatever said:

I heard someone say on the radio a couple of years ago, discussing the issue of "Has feminism gone too far?" haha No one said anything like, if we're asking the same questions as we did in the 1960's, how can we be much farther along? I still see commercials playing off the housewife female sterotypes. We still seek to look like unrealistically thin women.

I still see women and girls of all ages spending inordinate amounts of time on how they look, to the exclusion of many other interests and possibilities, in my opinion.

I still see young woman wearing ridiculous heels, looking like street walkers...to go to an ordinary day at work. Make-up mandatory, hair carefully maintained, nails bought and paid for. I see a lot of insecurity involving issues of appearence which men NEVER have to worry about anywhere as much. That's how I see it, anyway.

The many and varied expectations men have about how we look and how we should act, and many men feel free to judge us that way. Blatant double standards, as if men and women aren't different enough, naturally, with no artificial colorings, coverings or other unhealthy and unnecessary enhancements.

These things are as much a product of women's attitudes as men's. The ideal body-type changes all the time. I think the uber-skinny model isn't the ideal right now. I am happy that the whole J-Lo bootie thing is hot right now, because I am totally an ass man.

whatever said:

Abortion is fair game again, to the delight of many. A religiously based law, it takes ALL focus away from the women. Conveniently.

Can't disagree. This battle will never stop raging...

whatever said:

Take bras, for example; didn't we learn that bras weren't something women really like, back in the '60's? Don't I remember something about "Bra burning?" Somehow apparently not, and so I feel compelled to "cover 'em up" as a matter of modesty, not any comfort or health need. A women in Starbucks was asked to leave the public area when breastfeeding her baby...a few weeks ago. Not a few decades ago.

Well, Jan wears a bra because it is more comfortable, but if you go braless, don't expect many complaints from guys.

whatever said:

So these fools on the talk radio were throwing around the concept of how maybe it's gone too far, feminism that is. What a joke.

It has, in some ways. It was supposed to be about choices, but in many ways, it has replaced one choiceless situation with another. The looks of disdain I've seen some feminists give to a woman who chooses to be a stripper, housewife, etc (choices unapproved by feminists) to me are just as bad as the looks given to women who wanted to join the workforce back in the day.

Modern feminism must recognize women as individuals and celebrate all women who make an informed, non-coerced choice about the rest of their lives.

whatever said:

I remember well catching attitude from men just because I was standing on the damn flight line, on the air force base, with a tool box. And even though I lugged the tool box religiously, when I hurt my shoulder, they thought I was lying to get off the flightline. Is that sad or what? I was finally getting to know my way around those damn planes. Big planes

That is certainly shitty, and I sympathise, but remember - the military is hardly representative of the attitudes of mainstream society. From my experience, the military fosters misogynistic and homophobic attitudes from day one.

That was a great post, Whatever! I hope I gave you some food for thought, as well...

- Rick

[Kender]

Just a comment on the subject in general rather than a response to something someone wrote here.

Yes, people have a right to be opinionated. Yes, people have a right to express those opinions.

People also have a right to be offended, to disagree, dislike and so on.

Whether you're talking about Mrs. Kerry, Whoopi Goldberg, or Mrs. John Doe down the street, there's no guarantee that what they have to say will be universally accepted or liked.

[outgirl]

Kender said:

Just a comment on the subject in general rather than a response to something someone wrote here.

Yes, people have a right to be opinionated. Yes, people have a right to express those opinions.

People also have a right to be offended, to disagree, dislike and so on.

Whether you're talking about Mrs. Kerry, Whoopi Goldberg, or Mrs. John Doe down the street, there's no guarantee that what they have to say will be universally accepted or liked.

so true

[outgirl]

whatever said:

I'm with you on this one outgirl

I see feminism today as somewhat blind, and conventional thought says one thing in a world that does another. I mean, I think most of both men and women believe women today are much more liberated. But, we're not.

I heard someone say on the radio a couple of years ago, discussing the issue of "Has feminism gone too far?" haha No one said anything like, if we're asking the same questions as we did in the 1960's, how can we be much farther along? I still see commercials playing off the housewife female sterotypes. We still seek to look like unrealistically thin women.

I still see women and girls of all ages spending inordinate amounts of time on how they look, to the exclusion of many other interests and possibilities, in my opinion. Then there's the Rush attitude, which is basically hateful.

Abortion is fair game again, to the delight of many. A religiously based law, it takes ALL focus away from the women. Conveniently.

I still see young woman wearing ridiculous heels, looking like street walkers...to go to an ordinary day at work. Make-up mandatory, hair carefully maintained, nails bought and paid for. I see a lot of insecurity involving issues of appearence which men NEVER have to worry about anywhere as much. That's how I see it, anyway.

Take bras, for example; didn't we learn that bras weren't something women really like, back in the '60's? Don't I remember something about "Bra burning?" Somehow apparently not, and so I feel compelled to "cover 'em up" as a matter of modesty, not any comfort or health need. A women in Starbucks was asked to leave the public area when breastfeeding her baby...a few weeks ago. Not a few decades ago.

So these fools on the talk radio were throwing around the concept of how maybe it's gone too far, feminism that is. What a joke.

I can't begin to describe how many and in how many ways women are judged on appearance alone. And on having an outspoke attitude, like our gal Teresa.

The many and varied expectations men have about how we look and how we should act, and many men feel free to judge us that way. Blatant double standards, as if men and women aren't different enough, naturally, with no artificial colorings, coverings or other unhealthy and unnecessary enhancements.

I remember well catching attitude from men just because I was standing on the damn flight line, on the air force base, with a tool box. And even though I lugged the tool box religiously, when I hurt my shoulder, they thought I was lying to get off the flightline. Is that sad or what? I was finally getting to know my way around those damn planes. Big planes

I can't remember ever caring this much about the outcome of a presidential election. I only hope Kerry means at least half of what he says. And Teresa can translate just about anything said in front of him, too cool.

Yes, give me a First Lady that doesn't lie very well. That would be all right.

And I wish more women spoke their minds and didn't put up with bull shit. I probably wish that as much as I wish anything. In my opinion, women are too damaged by their cultures, too often, and we should stop it. I don't think men can, or will, stop it.

As an aside, what's sad too is that, in my experience, most young women don't understand how common it is for men to be very unfair, and even dangerous, to women in certain situations.

Such as the young women raped by...Tyson I think? I heard over and over how she "should have known not to go to his room". No, she didn't. Had she known, she wouldn't have gone. She knew there was a chemistry, but did she know he intended to hurt her. Why would she think he meant to hurt her? She wasn't denying sex, so why would she be afraid of him hurting her?

Most of us can't concieve of that possibility until we're older. Not before we're old enough to be acceptable targets though. Late teens, early twenties? I've lectured teenagers about going out alone at night. They think, and say, that they have the right to go anywhere they want, any time they want. And I understand. But they don't realize they have no way to defend that right, and prevention is the best way to go in this case.

Most young women think that feminism, and equality of the sexes, is no big deal. They don't get it. They would easily have gone to that room too, having bought the "nice guy" act. They, too, would think it was no big deal. In our civilized world.

An undeniable difference in the behavior of the sexes, but too ugly to admit out loud.

And for my mind, having to deal with that reality takes us right back to the stone age. We don't seem to have much say, as far as being opinionated. Doesn't seem to matter.

I really feel what your saying whatever. No matter how strong we may think we are, we are still so influenced by a lifetime of believing that our prince or princess will save us. It is so hard to let go of the myth.

[whatever]

Thanks for the response Rick, you did give me a few points to ponder and play with

RS said:

on Aug 13th, 2004, 12:04pm, whatever wrote:
I heard someone say on the radio a couple of years ago, discussing the issue of "Has feminism gone too far?" haha No one said anything like, if we're asking the same questions as we did in the 1960's, how can we be much farther along? I still see commercials playing off the housewife female sterotypes. We still seek to look like unrealistically thin women.

I still see women and girls of all ages spending inordinate amounts of time on how they look, to the exclusion of many other interests and possibilities, in my opinion.

I still see young woman wearing ridiculous heels, looking like street walkers...to go to an ordinary day at work. Make-up mandatory, hair carefully maintained, nails bought and paid for. I see a lot of insecurity involving issues of appearence which men NEVER have to worry about anywhere as much. That's how I see it, anyway.

The many and varied expectations men have about how we look and how we should act, and many men feel free to judge us that way. Blatant double standards, as if men and women aren't different enough, naturally, with no artificial colorings, coverings or other unhealthy and unnecessary enhancements.

These things are as much a product of women's attitudes as men's. The ideal body-type changes all the time. I think the uber-skinny model isn't the ideal right now. I am happy that the whole J-Lo bootie thing is hot right now, because I am totally an ass man.

Now this is an interesting argument, to me. Are those things as much a product ov women's attitudes - because women agree? I question the agreement part Have women had an equal say? I don't see us as being equal, as you say those issues are as much a product of women's attitudes as men's. Women won the right to vote in, what, 1920? Before that, we were even property, I believe.
Many attitudes toward women have come about over time, I think you would agree. Frequently we're relying on historical precedent to understand men and women, and frequently historic precedent is used to justify and illustrate reality. How things "really" are. Yes, men and women are both human beings, but some gender stereotypes are so obvious, we can't imagine it any other way, in a normal life.

And so, I cast doubt on that idea of yours Rick I see women as still being more of an oppressed people, and men as oppressors, rather than in some equal partnership. Equal in everything that went into forming society, deciding life and death issues, and eventually law I suppose.

But, for the vast majority of this time, women haven't had anything close to an equal say. And I think the "trends", for lack of a better word because I don't really know what the hell I'm talking about normal trends which damage women are "problems", because it seems many social acceptable attitudes are actively unfair or harmful to women. I think they're too many of them.

Or is it just nature? Nature not keeping up? Nature hasn't fixed the problem yet? Hmmm

And I believe in reincarnation anyway, meaning we've all been both sexes...so, I don't understand where the problem is coming from in the first place

So, back to the original topic, women must not be opinionated enough!

RS said:

on Aug 13th, 2004, 12:04pm, whatever wrote:
Abortion is fair game again, to the delight of many. A religiously based law, it takes ALL focus away from the women. Conveniently.

Can't disagree. This battle will never stop raging...

It's sad. I wonder if I am so wrong to think men have, ah, no right to have a say in this matter. I don't know, honestly, if this is fair or not. From looking at it, I don't see a better solution thoough.

RS said:

on Aug 13th, 2004, 12:04pm, whatever wrote:
Take bras, for example; didn't we learn that bras weren't something women really like, back in the '60's? Don't I remember something about "Bra burning?" Somehow apparently not, and so I feel compelled to "cover 'em up" as a matter of modesty, not any comfort or health need. A women in Starbucks was asked to leave the public area when breastfeeding her baby...a few weeks ago. Not a few decades ago.

Well, Jan wears a bra because it is more comfortable, but if you go braless, don't expect many complaints from guys.

haha And I'm happy for Jan too Please don't think I'd ever, ever put another woman down for wearing one! Didn't mean that at all. I tell you though, it's still a social stigma, and it annoys me terribly Guys with attitues like...well, I don't have to name names, but you know what I mean, rudeness. Poor fools think that just because they can see it, means WE want 'em oggled. NOT. Not all the time, anyway Realistically, I'd never want to wear a bra, and they're quite uncomfortable, but I can't. Sucks!

RS said:

on Aug 13th, 2004, 12:04pm, whatever wrote:
So these fools on the talk radio were throwing around the concept of how maybe it's gone too far, feminism that is. What a joke.

It has, in some ways. It was supposed to be about choices, but in many ways, it has replaced one choiceless situation with another. The looks of disdain I've seen some feminists give to a woman who chooses to be a stripper, housewife, etc (choices unapproved by feminists) to me are just as bad as the looks given to women who wanted to join the workforce back in the day.

Modern feminism must recognize women as individuals and celebrate all women who make an informed, non-coerced choice about the rest of their lives.

I agree with you completely on all that

RS said:

on Aug 13th, 2004, 12:04pm, whatever wrote:
I remember well catching attitude from men just because I was standing on the damn flight line, on the air force base, with a tool box. And even though I lugged the tool box religiously, when I hurt my shoulder, they thought I was lying to get off the flightline. Is that sad or what? I was finally getting to know my way around those damn planes. Big planes

That is certainly shitty, and I sympathise, but remember - the military is hardly representative of the attitudes of mainstream society. From my experience, the military fosters misogynistic and homophobic attitudes from day one.

The reason I mention it wasn't so much that it was so bad, because I'm a mouthy bitch when I want to be...and I could pick up an 80 pound electric generator...but that it was so typical. No big deal. Just there.

The thing about the military, though, is it's such a cross section of our people. It's...interesting. Some people, like me, didn't mind being the odd one out in my opinions, being in a place I never thought I would. It sounds dumb, but I figured one person that wouldn't be a part of anything ethically wrong, like pushing a button...wouldn't be such a bad thing. What the military is now, what the people are like now, I have no idea.

RS said:

That was a great post, Whatever! I hope I gave you some food for thought, as well...

- Rick

Thanks dude

[whatever]

Kender said:

Just a comment on the subject in general rather than a response to something someone wrote here.

Yes, people have a right to be opinionated. Yes, people have a right to express those opinions.

People also have a right to be offended, to disagree, dislike and so on.

Whether you're talking about Mrs. Kerry, Whoopi Goldberg, or Mrs. John Doe down the street, there's no guarantee that what they have to say will be universally accepted or liked.

Good point And anyone opening her/her mouth ought not be surprised at strong reactions to strong opinions, even if he/she didn't realize ahead of time. Because, it happens all the time, no matter how fair one tries to be

[whatever]

outgirl said:

I really feel what your saying whatever. No matter how strong we may think we are, we are still so influenced by a lifetime of believing that our prince or princess will save us. It is so hard to let go of the myth.

I think you're right about that too. Though I blame religion quite a bit too.