- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I think you are a bit harsh in your evaluation of Ms. Flanagan. First of all, unless you have twins, triplets, etc. yourself, it is hard to imagine the exhaustion and strain of caring for multiple infants. Feeling like a full-time mom despite being lucky enough to have live-in help, seems quite understandable from what I have seen in the families of friends and relatives who've given birth to multiples. She does seem to be trying to have it both ways at times, but I think the thrust of her argument seems to be that some of the characteristics and behavior traditionally designated as "feminine" are valuable and worthwhile, and we all lose if they disappear from human behavior altogether. I wonder if she would admit that the kind of devotion she advocates for mothers would be just as valuable from a stay-at-home dad. I haven't see anyone ask her this question. I agree her internal bargaining mentality vis-a vis her husband and cancer is unfortunate and you are absolutely correct in asserting that devoted wives and husbands are tragically left in the lurch every day. I read that in one of her articles and am afraid that I ascribed it to the mentality that I have occasionally seen in my Roman Catholic friends, the idea being that you can bargain with God. (I have to admit, though, that I've seen the same mentality on those of us of other religions also). I think her point is that the earlier feminists, Friedan, Steinem, Millet,etc. devalued traditional "feminine" virtues and as a result, traditional women. Steinem has herself written how she resentfully viewed stay-at-home moms as "the enemy," perhaps as a result of her own difficult childhood. It is a complicated issue, and I am not sure what the answers are. Rigid gender roles seem to be not entirely the answer, but I don't know if interchangeable genders are either. I do know if the old feminists answer was to turn women into female versions of Dick Cheney, I would be sorry to lose the Laura Bushes of the world too. Can you imagine a household where both parents were modeled on the Type-A male paradigm? And don't bring up Hillary Clinton either, I've read that she has a strong maternal side which doesn't translate in her public persona. I've also watched the girls in "Sex and the City" and wanted them to "have it all," but I cringed when they were whiney and selfish and, I'm afraid, "unladylike." We don't have road maps anymore as to what constitutes "good woman" or "good man", but we all know good when we see it.
