Yes. This is an obviously difficult area - I mean, I am most certainly NOT saying, oh, it's ok to be a surrendered wife because I choose to do it in a post-feminist fashion. Of course that's bollocks.
But it just seems so inelegant to me blanket ban anything which may have a political significance of the type we've discussed. I just want a totally different approach, and yet I truly don't know what that is.
Some of the basics would be, I suppose, a default assumption that a woman is an independent, free-thinking, reflective personality until there is evidence to the contrary - innocent until proven guilty, if you like. And that actions in general should be assessed in context.
But then I run in to trouble, as clearly there are some actions where I think context is irrelevant, as you can't get past the fact that they objectify women - Page 3, pole-dancing, etc. So my theory looks less elegant already.
Swedes' post was interesting - I get very fed up with notions of guilt for not being "the perfect parent", and I don't want to be held responsible for some other woman's guilt over something pointlessly unattainable. Why isn't "good enough" ok? It suits me pretty well. I mean, I get that it's not enough for an Olympic swimmer, but for a parent? And the guilt stuff is vile and pervasive - I detest and despise "guilt" over food - and yes, that's where I get scornful. Food is many things, but a "sin" is not one of them, and this common ascription of a moral value to what you eat vexes me enormously.