- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Everything I read about Caitlin Flanagan points to a central issue she struggles with -- obsessive worry about not being loved enough. Most telling is her anecdote about her husband carrying her to the hospital when she had breast cancer, and thinking his loyalty was a result of her having subordianted her career and cooked him hot meals. Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture? Love is not about some tit-for-tat accounting of good deeds. If that were so, wouldn't husbands of working women feel obligated to their wives for all the *actual* money their wives contributed to their well-being? Obviously, a good spouse will care for a sick spouse regardless of the circumstances, and a selfish one will not, regardless of the circumstances.
Flanagan also worries obsessively about her children loving their nanny more than her, and tries to get other women to be afraid that their kids will love their childcare providers more than them. In fact, her whole reason for working at home seems to be out of fear that her kids might grow to love someone else. I hate to think how they'll feel about her when they grow up, and how she will treat their spouses or partners.
The irony is, small children will love their mothers no matter what. I've worked in Child and Family Services before, and no matter how many times some mothers abandon their kids for jail or rehab, beat their kids, or neglect them, the kids still want to be with their mother, given the choice. Working mothers who send their kids to day care or leave them with a nanny really don't need to worry about losing their children's love. But if, like Caitlin Flanagan, you can't stand the thought of your child loving someone BESIDES you, by all means follow in her footsteps.
