Her third strategy used is ambiguity. When legally we have the right to say yes but morally, is this the right decision to make? The right to choose is a choice that she has already made but she chooses to stay behind both sides of the lines depending on what situation the person is in. Allowing her audience to choose without her having to drive a certain side into their brains. This choice should be made before we are put in to this situation before we decide to lye down with that person or before we even think about that person in a sexual way, but our society today thinks after and not before. Quindlen lets her audience know that it is not easy raising children even when you think it is the right situation or the right time in your life, because truly their never is
The unexamined investment this “brave” commentator seems to have in gender stereotypes — and really, in stereotypes of several varieties — is troubling and off-putting. “Worst nightmare” as washing sweaty athletic clothing and having a short hair suggests an intensively myopic life and lifestyle. Did it really take the birth of three boys for this mother to realize she doesn’t have to wear flat shoes (flat shoes as a * worst nightmare? — please) and have a practical haircut? As for the ambition to dress in matching clothes with one’s daughter and visit the American Girl store … the sort of consumerist search for identity this piece explores (I still wear shoes with ribbons, I get this and that water bottle) is deeply unengaging. Might we have a “different” account of motherhood that employs (and reflects the employment of) imagination. Now *that would be exciting.