Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Before having my two children, I was a successful professional, and I loved the challenges. After I had my son, I chose to stay home; I felt privileged to have that choice. I've loved that challenge as well. Feminism has brought at least some women (who have the means) a range of wonderful options. I don't know that being home full-time with my kids has improved their lives, but I know it has brought me great joy. Would most women love being able to do both, career and stay-at-home motherhood? Perhaps, but life is about choices and I don't need to criticize others' to enjoy and appreciate my own. I don't understand the need or popularity (if she is popular) of a writer like Caitlin Flanagan. It doesn't add to the discussion. I'd be more interested in those who can help solve the problems of children who have no adults in their lives, either parents or nannies, because of parents who don't have the time, inclination, or ability to care. Perhaps that's a better place for Ms. Flanagan to direct her efforts.
I read about half of Flanagan's book, then set it aside in amused disgust. Her ideas are ridiculous, not worth my time, energy or emotion. Yeah, she's a navel-gazing hypocrite. So what. I am not outraged, angry, and I certainly don't feel bad about her value judgments on my brand of feminism. Who cares what she thinks? Not me, not anyone I care about. She's a fool. I don't suffer them, period.
I'm surprised Joan Walsh spends so much ink on Flanagan's drivel. She's worried that feminists 'feel bad' when reading Flanagan? That can only happen if the feminists in question are allowing Flanagan's silliness to dictate their sense of value and self-worth. What self-respecting, *thinking* feminist would do this?
The only appropriate emotion in response to Flanagan is maybe envy that she got a book deal and made money off of her pathetic tropes. Other than, I say, shrug and let her do her thing. The best revenge is to drown her puny voice with a chorus of more reasonable ones - not in a hysterical critique that only serves to further validate her work as worthy of attention, but with essays and books that counter her foolishness with wisdom.
Editors like to try to gin up "Mommy wars" where none really exist to sell magazines. I know stay at homes, and they DON'T have nannies and housekeepers. They work very hard. Most people realize this is a decision that is personal, and usually dictated by less than ideal situations. Some women have to work, others have well paid flexible jobs they love. Other women have inflexible jobs and childcare costs outstrip their salaries. Some women are depressed by the lack of outsied interation, others thrive on it. Every family has to make the decision for itself.
There is no Mommy War. There are a set of navel gazing, omsecure. Type A writers with judgemental natures who feel the need to create conflict to get published.
It would be nice if like CatherineSF suggests, that all we need is to unite on the mommy wars so that men can stop keeping us down. But this logic doesn't address the issue that men are also divided on many fronts and yet still maintain control of large institutions. It's a nice thought though. How about uniting for the sake of uniting?
Olevant has it right. The "traditional stay-at-home mother" is as much a figment of the social right's collective delusions about the past as the days when all kids were respectful in school or the antebellum south of happy slaves working on idyllic plantations.
When confronted with these mythological figures and periods, one really ought to ask when the golden age really was for these people. I've tried that approach when the idea of how far our schools have fallen comes up. They don't know what they want, or won't speak its name. They'll often instinctively go back to the days immediately before integration; pressed about that, they recant and won't commit themselves to anything else.
That's the question Ms. Flanagan should be asked: When did mothers have the lives you imagine they should?
If we want parents to be able to spend more time with their kids, there are economics that need to get dealt with. People work two jobs because of economic pressure. The cost of college, flex time, and so on, would probably come up in any discussion about that situation. "Traditional" values are if anything dismissive of the very things that would put parents in a better position to raise their families in real life. Instead of encouraging those changes, we're meant to be pining for a past that didn't exist?
Saucer of milk, table for two... hissssssssss.
*snark* *snark* *snark*
I've read every Flanagan essay with pleasure if simply because it's a glorious type of fiction born of some nagging feeling of inadequacy. I've recognize her type of prattle as a secularized version of Marianism, and dismiss it accordingly. If anyone out there is really made to feel badly because Ms Flanagan thinks working mothers are beyond the pale, I humbly suggest that the problem lies more with their own insecurities than it does Caitlin's rather obvious hypocrisy and over-developed sense of entitlement.
I haven't read Ms Flanagans work, but I can see how she has an audience.
She is offering up a big pat on the back to overeducated and underutilized women. The world of work is a complicated place and doesn't always open up to embrace our gifts and talents. Her energies would be better spent talking about real issues. Perhaps these stay at home moms haven't found a niche in the professional world, or crafted a career or job that provides them with enough flexibility to parent and work effectively. When they hear this message, NO PROBLEM! As mom you are doing the most important job in the world! You *are* a success, and you *have* a career, Motherhood! They can give up trying to meld a professional life with their personal one.
As a result, we get no closer to really dealing with the issues that effect children and families in this society. It helps no one save temporarily stroking the egos of parents who have the means to live out this model of a family. It is just laziness.
We need all people to be actively seeking better working conditions and more family friendly policies. To give up is to go backwards. There are more than two models of parenting and the workplace is changing. We can make it change for the better instead of pointing fingers and congratulating ourselves on our own choices. Women have value to this society beyond mothering, cleaning, and lets not forget, shopping. I stay home with my kids but I am offended by her pandering. I haven't given up on a career, and other women who stay home shouldn't either.
Thank you for pointing out her hypocrisy.
Shannon KH
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"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
