Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"The stay-at-home moms today aren't traditional so much as hyper-neurotic"
This is just one line from many in all of the letters about this article. I guess I don't get why it's OK to denigrate stay-at-home moms and lump them into some kind of monolithic body but not OK for Flanagan (whom I've never read) to do the same to working moms. Why not just criticize her judgmental nature without judging others yourself? It's like the pot calling the kettle black.
I've been an on and off stay-at-home mom for the past 15 years. I have no regrets and have seen good and bad parents of both varieties. Obviously everybody is entitled to their opinions about what works and doesn't and--guess what--they're even entitled to think that what others do is wrong or bad for their kids. I guess I really think people should just be secure in their choices. Could this Flanagan author make you so angry or defensive if there weren't a twinge of doubt or guilt within you? Maybe you should confront that head on and perhaps in the process reinforce your decision with the kind of confidence that will allow you to dismiss such books in the future.
I'll always remember what a therapist told my friend once when she was in the throes of group therapy. Some other patient made a remark suggesting that my friend, who was a stay-at-home mom, didn't do anything all day. My friend got all upset and angry at the inference, and the therapist kept coming back to the same thing: If what you do is satisfying to you and your family, if it completes you and makes you whole, if you really and truly feel confident that your choice of meaningful work is right for you, THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT ANYONE ELSE THINKS.
What I agree with most in this article is the apparently deceptive nature of Flanagan. For goodness sake, she doesn't sound like a stay-at-home mom at all! It reminds me of Dr. Laura who castigated women for all those years for working while she herself enjoyed a lucrative broadcasting career.
I understand this critic's confusion, given the conflicting statements from Flanagan, but I found her to be one-sided; everywhere Flanagan criticized stay-at-home moms was seen as helpful and truthful, while every criticism of working moms was a sword in the side, a bullet out of nowhere, a betrayal. And how come a group of moms could snicker in a "get-a-life" fashion at a stay-at-home mom, but the MEAN MOM label gets put to the stay-at-home moms putting down the no-show working mom? That's the kind of bias that kind of bugs me.
Who cares about Caitlin Flanagan. She's just another rich bitch. I tire of reading about the lives of people who leave the day to day crap to "the help". Her insecurity about her own life comes through loud and clear - if she weren't so insecure, she wouldn't need to express her razor edged criticisms of people who either choose differently, or don't ever have the opportunity to make a choice between staying at home or working. And since she didn't make a choice but did both (sort of), who cares about her useless, ignorant opinions?
Does nobody else think it's weird that Flanagan was traumatized by being left home alone in SEVENTH grade? Don't normal junior high students long for an empty house so they can have their friends over? Maybe her problem stems from an overly dependent nature.
I don't know why women are STILL arguing about the stay-at-home vs working mom issue, trying to make the other "side" feel guilty if they don't agree their way is best. Could it be they themselves are just too insecure about their own choice to allow other women theirs? When my son was born 16 years ago, some people told me I'd be a bad mother if I went back to work too soon, and others told me I was wasting my over-educated brain if I stayed home. No matter which path you take, SOMEONE will criticize you for it. What worked for me worked for ME, and has nothing to do with anyone else.
Can't we all just get along? I respect a woman's right to choose!
"Here's what I know: When I woke up from the final surgery, I didn't want to see the articles I've written or the editors I've worked for. I wanted to see my sons and my husband. And I wanted to go home."
Well, duuuuuuuh! Are we supposed to believe that a man would feel differently? That any human being at all would feel differently?
Since when does feminism mean valuing things or the vestiges of success more than people? I always thought it was about equality about having the right to be my true self.
For the record, my husband and sons wouldn't have me be any other way. People who really love you do not hold their love over your head. They want you to be who you are. That's the whole point.
In my personal experience, I have found that most women who espouse the joys and wonders of house-bound servitude are wealthy enough to hire someone to do all the odious chores.
The rest of us must make do with ever decreasing "leisure" time and an ever decreasing buying power.
As you very rightly point out, what makes one women happy would make another miserable.
And a corrolary: the best environment for one child would not be the best for another.
Years ago feminists coined the phrase "the personal is political." At the time I think that was more about validating women's unrecognized struggles and experiences. But I think it also means that our individual experiences and unique circumstances cannot be addressed by one-size-fits-all solution.
This article about Caitlin Flanagan reminds me of two other hypocrites that I wish would shut up:
Madonna, denouncing money and fame after she's enjoyed it and is now in a position to stop going after it. All the riches and spoils are still hers, ofcourse, and it's not like she's about to part with it, but why not heckle anyone else who goes for it. (Mind you, I'm a Madonna fan, but this is self-righteous drivel on her part.)
Jamie Lee Curtis, "speaking out" against magazines and society at large about their unrealistic expectations of how a woman's figure should look. This after she too has made a hell of a lot of money for maintaining a drop-dead gorgeous figure and can now afford to sit back and look normal. Of course it just so happens she's passed her prime, not really that viable anymore or talked about until she makes this statement and poses in her underwear for a magazine to prove her newfound wisdom.
Whatever.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
