Firstly, thank you for taking the time to write such a measured and interesting response.
Kristie De Garis
31

To be honest, when I woke up this morning, I fired up the computer with the intention of deleting my previous comment (or seeing if I could do so… I do not use Medium much). However, it appears to have been less clumsily written than I expected. Similarly, its bearing is more measured and respectable too, but, I must say, not nearly so dignified as your response. However, that very dignity makes it even more clear that you’re being rather too kind to my points. I really was too unsympathetic to the specific nature of what you set out to do.

I must also say, I did miss a quite important point when I initially read your post… the solidarity. Possibly I read it the first time, but forgot about it as I fixated on the notions of agency. Either way, that fixation reflects not agency’s critical role in your post (your point, as you reiterate here, is not about the decision as such, rather the reactions to it) but rather my unspoken intention to make points relevant to some other discussion… which is unfair.

You offer your daughter more than a ban, a model too… something to think about… and I just ignored that. It really is the case that we’re bound by our socio-cultural contexts and our experiences, but this is a quite different experience to what I misread. It’s also fairer, as you pointed out initially. In terms of the agency point, hopefully she’ll remember that you used to shave. That is, you draw her attention to the nature of the choice… for her, forcefully constrained, for you, abstractly so.

My apologies, and best wishes.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.