Read other letters about this article
Not that I question the validity of the author's criticism in this article, but I'd just like to point something out. Flanagan's self-righteousness is obviously enjoyed by someone, she wouldn't get work otherwise. Clearly she can't be writing for most of America, because most people in America who have children at home simply can't afford to pay for an adult staying at home as well, no matter the reason. Whether she's being read by women who agree, or men who take heart in her 'traditional' values, she's clearly being read (and noticed) by a minority. Thus, a retort like this, while I'm certain that it's correct if the characterization of the book is true, can only be applicable to those same people as well.
I assure you that while I might agree with some of what she says and disagree with other bits (and if the quotes in the article are any indication, I do both) none of that changes the fact that if I were aware of her book before I read this article I and just about everyone I know would dismiss it as complete and utter useless tripe. The very notion of the stay-at-home-mother (regardless of Flanagan's hypocrisy on the definition of it) is absurd, and will become even more and more rare in all practical experience because (sorry to get up on my own soapbox, here) the rich want everyone who can work out there working for them. The value of 'traditional Americana' isn't worth the percentage dip in their own fortunes that they'd have to take if the economy were to realign, so it's just not going to happen.
In the meantime, real wives and mothers out in the world have no reason to subject themselves to trash like Flanagan's self-righteous essays, any more than I'd like to read a book about the adventures of a man with a foot long penis and how much better he can please women than I can. Some people might enjoy torturing themselves like that, but I can't see how it's healthy.