https://bit.ly/3ISNkFf
https://bit.ly/3KuBNg6
https://bit.ly/35ZpxVU
https://bit.ly/3MrqYwS
https://bit.ly/3tIy0EO
https://bit.ly/34pvFGl
https://bit.ly/3MyaHGn
https://bit.ly/3Cmhizf
https://bit.ly/3HSRgoc
https://bit.ly/3hQmj9S

Unless you were the wife of a sultan languishing in some eastern harem, or the mistress of a wealthy man, there was never likely to have been a time when you were a woman who was expected to have no responsibilities whatsoever. It's not to do with 'political correctness' it's to do with the fact that every grown-up has some responsibilites in their lives, and "feminine energy" women are not for ornamental purposes only.

by Louise C on 2006 Jan 26 - 07:15 | reply to this comment
Cherishing in Our Past and Present
One small note to start with, I thought a criticism of women not working was implied in the “Most men can not afford to support wives and provide them with servants” part, so I’m sorry if I misinterpreted that, I didn’t mean to offend you.

I do need to point out something again, and that is that my article was not just simply about Pat Allen’s theory, it was also about my own conclusions that were rather inspired by it. Though there is some core overlap, it is not just simply the same thing, and so I do not share *all* of Allen’s ideas. I have simply embraced those that feel in my body to have the ring of truth, which is a very feminine-energy way to discern things. My feeling about her is that she comes upon some VERY core truths, but then she also muddies them up with political correctness to fit in with the mainstream. And I just embrace the core stuff there that rings true for me, not the muddying-feeling stuff that does not.