It's nice Joan that you've justified a mean-spirited attack against a woman's character and writings in the name of feminism. Too bad, she has cancer . . . I mean, you were REALLY upset, so it must have been okay. Ah, yes, Joan, that's good sister-love for ya! You are clearly a model of feminism!!

Well, if you feel so santimoniously justified, I'll feel okay with saying this: YOU ARE RUINING SALON! This fabulous, wonderful journal has nose-dived in quality since you've taken over. Its layout is worse, its articles are worse, and the tone, worst of all, has become snide and nastily judgmental. Especially as it relates to feminism.

I'm so sick of the mommy wars being waged on these pages. MY GOD. It's not that this isn't an interesting issue. It speaks directly to my demographic: I'm a mother of two that is trying to juggle raising my young kids as well as continuing a semblance of a career (I run my own company), and it's hard, and it involves daily decisions that can be very challenging. So, of course, I would be one of your readers who would be interested in hearing how others manage.

But I'm not interested in mean-spirited attacks, and that is what you have waged here. I've read Caitlin Flanagan's articles in the New Yorker and enjoyed them. I have read elsewhere of the women who are throwing their arms in the air at her so-called anti-feminist opinions, and I have to say that at first I wondered, could they be talking about the same articles? Ms. Flanagan just writes about her experiences. She decided to work from home (and though you Joan somehow seem to know personally of her nanny/career arrangement, I would venture to guess that, yes, she spends more time with her kids writing from home than if she were to have a career out of the house). Isn't it okay that she identifies a benefit with that decision? Isn't that what every woman, if they are fortunate enough to have a choice in this regard, does -- choose what appears to accrue the most benefits to them and, by extension, their family.

So, for her, the benefit is that her kids get to be around the person who loves them most in the world. Why is this the sucker-punch that you describe? Importantly, she did NOT say, as you ridiculously imply, that kids with nannies love these nannies more than their parents. No, the way I read her statement was to readily acknowledge that her children seemed in no demonstrable way better-prepared for the world. The benefit was merely that the person who took care of them -- their mom -- loved them infinitely.

Forgive me, but what's the scandal?!?! Are you trying to suggest that women who leave their kids with caregivers should not acknowledge that those caregivers don't love them as much as their parents. Because that's clearly off the mark. Of course, parents love their kids more than paid caregivers. OF COURSE! So, why get so insanely defensive and MEAN?

In this article, you imply that Ms. Flanagan surprises her readers with her anti-feminist surprise attacks which you characterize happening as 1) lulling her readers to believe women can all respect each others' choices, and then 2) suprising them with a sudden attack (with analogies to Dick Cheney!) of judgment. Isn't this exactly what you have done yourself?!?!?

And I find it especially discouraging that you justify your attack in the name of feminism.

Feminism should focus more on what we have in common as women, and respecting the various challenges that we all encounter, albeit in sometimes radically different ways. Feminism should be about support and succor . . . and earnest debate too. But not mean-spirited attacks. Shame on you Joan Walsh.

I think everyone's being a tad harsh against the LW. She seems like a smart cookie to me and when she says that there was flirtation I believe her that it was both coming and going.

My impression of what happened is that both she and her friend wanted to explore the romantic potential to their friendship, that's why they flirted and that's why her friend came out to see her for a weekend. Would he have really have burned up the phone lines or spent the time/energy/money on the trip if he had also not nursed the fantasy that maybe he would feel some lust for this ol' fabulous platonic galpal of his? I doubt it.

Unfortunately, when the two saw each other mano a mano, the spark just wasn't there. Perhaps the friend (who after all had just left a 5 year relationship) recognized that it was better to leave well enough alone rather than try to force the issue.

I think he did LW a favor. I personally have been there, where it's difficult to muster up the energy for yet another god-awful date and you begin to trick yourself that hey, that old buddy from long ago really was a great guy . . . maybe even the guy I should spend the rest of my life with . . . and who needs lust anyway? Well, LW, you do! Go find yourself some fun!