Many critics have suggested Huma has brought feminism back a generation. They believe she should have already left her husband. They disagree with her decision. Others don’t have a problem that she won’t divorce her husband, but that she chose to publicly show her support.
I think criticizing her decision to remain married is ridiculous. In reality it is no one’s business what this couple does in their marriage. No one, but them, knows what has been said and what has happened in their marriage. Huma’s decision to uphold her vows, despite the dumb things her husband has done shouldn’t be something criticized. It should be commended.
Personally, I don’t think I could remain married to someone who has cheated, let alone twice. But again, this isn’t my marriage and I therefore have no right to judge. I also have no right to decide that it ends.
Many have compared her decision to Hilary Clinton’s decision after President Clinton cheated on his wife while in office. Many “feminists” were outraged she didn’t divorce the president. Just like in the Weiner situation, it is no one’s business what they do in their marriage.
I think it is counter intuitive to pronounce yourself a devout feminist if you use any platform to denounce another woman and her actions. You aren’t really promoting feminism if you simply promote conformity. Isn’t a staple of feminism the independence and freedom of choice? In this case these two women chose to stay with their cheating husbands. Ultimately their decisions have no bearing on your life and their personal decisions should not be dictated by your personal opinion.
What do you think?
Email: realtalkdebate2012@gmail.com
Twitter: @adrakontaidis & @talkrealdebate