I was watching the Today Show on the treadmill at the gym this morning. I typically don't tune into the audio, rather I read the sub-titles while listening to the tunes on my iPod, as the plethora of cheesy 90s tunes I downloaded give me the boost I desperately need when trying to get through a dreaded workout.
Then I saw a caption under a woman I had never seen before that caught my attention enough to switch from my music to the sound on the Today Show - this woman, Ayelet Waldman, says that there is always a future beyond [a] child's death, but she could imagine no joy without her husband. She also states that she is the only mom in the Mommy & Me group who has sex with her husband because she doesn't focus all of her attention on her kids. I kid you not. And she writes,
"...if, God forbid, someone were to snatch one of my children? God forbid. I imagine what it would feel like to lose one or even all of them. I imagine myself consumed, destroyed by the pain. And yet, in these imaginings, there is always a future beyond the child's death. Because if I were to lose one of my children, God forbid, even if I lost all my children, God forbid, I would still have him, my husband.
But my imagination simply fails me when I try to picture a future beyond my husband's death. Of course I would have to live. I have four children, a mortgage, work to do. But I can imagine no joy without my husband."
Now, far be it for me to judge another person's emotions. And while I can't in any galaxy near or far relate to these statements, this woman is entitled to her opinion. I guess.
It's when she writes that she and her husband describe their 4 children as tangential, that I want to scream. I mean, can children be considered the incidentals of a relationship? In most partnerships, children are a hinge that can make or break a union (meaning, the wanting or not wanting of kids is often a deal-maker or breaker). While I agree that a happy home is one in which there exists love that knows no bounds, shouldn't that unbounded love extend to the children?
Or at the very, very least, shouldn't the conditional love she extends to her children while her hubby receives the attention of a crazed obsessive person, be her little secret? And not something she liberally screams from the rooftop?
I mean, can you blame the throngs of people who criticized her views at every turn including on Oprah?
"Kids, come for dinner! And btw, just in case you hadn't heard - you should know that I'd take a bullet for your father, but for you? Not so much. Pass the potatoes!!"
To get to the point, the piece on Today was all about judgemental mothers and Waldman's new book (which I won't bother naming). She self-describes as the authority on being judged since her insane writings led to her near-Crucifixion. But I ask you this, I wonder if her wounds were purposely self-inflicted in hopes of causing controversy. After all, controversy sells, right? I mean, if all publicity is good publicity, here I am adding to the buzz.
Talk about a head-turning crash site.
To watch the piece on Today, take a deep breath and click here.