In reading Arlie Hochschild’s “The Second Shift,” I was made very aware of the idea of “shame” that Nicholson brings up very explicitly in her essay. Hochschild’s concept of the “myth” and the “gender strategy” are perfect examples of how families deal with the shame they feel for not being normal families (i.e woman stays at home and rears the children and man is the breadwinner). All of the couples operate out of some sort of fear: fear of losing your spouse, fear of ending up like your mother, and a general fear of judgment from people who can see that you do not conform to your gender roles. When I was first reading about Carmen and Frank, I found myself casting incredibly harsh judgments on Carmen for wanting to be a subordinate, domesticated housewife. And I realized that I’m just as much a victim to the “myth of the traditional family” as anyone else. My parents are both professional career people; for me, this is the norm. I think that Nicholson’s definition of the “traditional” family isn’t as concrete as she makes it out to be, but I definitely understand her point of how powerfully it dictates our relationships. Hochschild’s profiles of the various couples confirms this, in showing that the most effective way to deal with slight deviations from the traditional family is to come up with a strategy, or a manipulation tactic. But I suppose, in reading the Nicholson article, I felt some sort of hope that this notion of tradition is flexible and capable of reformation. If working wives and mothers used to be considered “alternative,” then we’ve definitely made strides. It makes me think that 50 years from now, someone in this same gender studies class is going to be reading about how same-sex marriage used to be non-normal…hopefully! But it all brings me back to something we’ve been talking about all semester, which is this idea that even if we are redefining “norms,” we are still acknowledge that some things are right and some things are wrong. We are still acknowledging that some people just don’t fit. So, I ask in response to Nicholson’s idea of evaluation, why evaluate at all? Wouldn’t this help to truly alleviate the dichotomy between “traditional” and “alternative”?