- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I am in complete agreement with the author that Flanagan, at her core is a hypocrite of the highest order. She peddles a worn-out 1950's image of motherhood that even she herself cannot live up to. Despite all her ramblings about how children need mother love and not nannies or other caregivers, her children were in fact, raised by a nanny.
The problem with Flannagan and her "there's no love like mother" movement is that it is utter baloney. First off, extra-parental childcare is not some new, post-femminist thing. Throughout history we have had wet nurses, nannies, villages, families and communities to assist mothers in raising their children so that mothers could work both in and out of the home. The idea that a mother should spend 24-7 trapped in her house with her infant child while daddy goes off and earns a living is a pure invention of the post-WWII era, when men came back from the European and Asain theatres and wanted Rosie the Riveter to go home. It was a sham then and it's an even bigger sham now.
Second, Flanagan's smug assertion that somehow a child misses out by not being immersed in "mother love" is a complete misunderstanding of what love is. Love is not a zero-sum game or a finite resource. A child only runs out of love to give if you teach him or her that love is a scarce commodity. The truth about love is that it is as infinite a commodity so long as we allow our hearts to produce it. What kind of idiot suggests that a person can't love BOTH a nanny AND a parent? And what kind of fool suggests that having more love in a child's life is a bad thing? I have an infant son, and I can tell you that I want him to experience as much love as he can, from his parents, his extended family, his chiildcare providers. The love he has for me is only diminished by the love he has for someone else if I teach him that love is a finite resource and that love is therefore a competition. And to teach him that would be to leave him open to a lifetime of insecurity, where he must always be worried if someone loves him "enough."
It's a pity that this is how Flanagan views the world, because it has obviously created all kinds of insecurities (as evident by her misgivings about her own childhood) that she probably can't help but inflict on her children. How sad for her, really.
The problem with how we raise families today is not that women have to rely on daycare providers, nannies and other extra-parental childcare, but that there isn't enough ADEQUATE and AVAILABLE childcare. And that is not a mother's fault. It's not a mother's fault that Congress doesn't want to fund Head Start, or that employers want employees to work more hours but are unwilling to provide on site childcare to employees, or that states don't properly enforce regulations that apply to childcare providers. Most women do not have the option to stay home.
And even if we did, the truth is that some women love to work outside the home, just as much as some women love to stay at home. Truth be told, most women would love to do a little of both if they could. Why sell women on a one-size-fits-all solution when every woman is different in her needs? THAT was what was wrong with the 1950's way of looking at the world. The whole point of femminism wasn't to push women into the workplace and out of the home, it was to give them the choice to pursue fulfillment wherever they could find it, whether in the home or out of it. Flanagan's characterizations of femminism fail to grasp this, and therefore result in stupid "straw man" charicatures of feminism, making her intellectually dishonest as well as hypocritical and pitiful.
