Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
It's amazing to me that an intelligent person like Joan Walsh could take offense at the self-evident statement that "something is lost" when a woman works. Did Caitlin Flanagan say that nothing is gained? I don't think so. She said that something is lost, and certainly from the perspective of one's children, that is the case: time with their mother. (Assuming we're talking about preschool-aged children, which apparently we are.) Does time with one's mother matter to a young child? Well, yes, can't we agree on that? Is an hour or two in the evening equivalent to a day of companionship? No, I don't think so. So what's your problem, Joan?
Unless you want to seriously argue the ridiculous idea that a nanny or day care center is "just as good" as a loving parent at raising a child, your refusal to concede Flanagan's point betrays a degree of defensiveness or dogmatism that is quite unbecoming. (And if a nanny is just as good as a parent, why stop at 10 hours a day?)
This is the 21st Century. There has been enough credible research to prove that when quality child care is provided there is no measurable difference between children with stay at home moms and children of mom's work outside the home. The difference is always with the quality of the childcare. Ms. Flanigan was fortunate to be able to afford the best. Many women in this country for whom this is not a choice also do not have a quality child care option.
I find it amazing that the subject of Fathers working outside the home is never in debate. Only mothers.
This discussion is always about women controlling their own destiny, and it is time we put it to rest. Perhaps we can take a page from the Creationist/Evolution debates. Leading scientists and archeologists have for some time now refused to engage creationists in public debates. The have declared the matter settled in science. Perhaps women should declare the matter settled as well. No more debates, no more books, no more articles. When Ms. Flanigan and her sisters write books, appear on talk shows or publish articles we should ignore them as silly and frivolous and beneath our notice. If you don't feed a fire it burns out more quickly.
Then perhaps we can put our energies to better use, like fighting for quality childcare, education and health care for all our children.
because she's not kissing Joan Walsh's ass.
It is beyond me how someone can break the Iraq prison story and still find it necessary (let alone find the time) to start a catfight with someone most of us don't pay any attention to anyway.
Get a clue, Joan.
Why are women even arguing among themselves about this issue. Most mothers are simply doing the best they can in their individual circumstances, for their families and themselves. If feminists want to attack someone, look at today's NY Times description of Hugh Hefner's birthday party. A lot of high profile women seem to think it's cool to embrace Hef and his ethos. I have more problems with the way men and women are portrayed in this article than anything I have read in Caitlin Flanagan's or her detractor's comments. There seems to be a lot of economic resentment and angst in the anti-Flanagan comments. This is understandable, but counterproductive. It also may say something about how opportunity and quality of life are viewed in contemporary America. Traditionally Americans have not voiced a lot of economic envy because they felt they had the ability to make their lives better, and they were pretty happy with the lives they had. The comments in this section tells me there may have been a shift in those attitudes.
As a young girl growing up in the sixties I admired women like Gloria Steinem and felt the feminist movement championed choice for women. My choice took the next thirty years of my life along the traditional path of wife and stay-at-home mom. The problem with that path is that it has become a shaky walk along the highwire without a net. Changing laws and social norms like no-fault divorce and high divorce rates combined with an antiquated social security system leaves women like myself out in the cold and facing poverty. Ms. Flanagan's book should be accompanied by a health warning; "Devoting your life to husband, home, and family can be hazardous to your health." Divorced after thirty years of such devotion, I have been left with no job resume, no job offer above eight bucks an hour, no health insurance, and only half of the "breadwinner's" social security - if I live that long. Starting over at my age with no health insurance doesn't bode well for longevity. The feminist movement gave women choice, but our public policies and laws never quite caught up. Ms. Flanagan wants women to scale down the "choices" to one and regress beyond pre-no fault; That's one step forward and two very precarious steps back - and dangerously close to the precipice. I am dying proof that Ms. Flanagan's "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle for women can be hazardous to their collective health.
I read this critique after nearly losing my mind watching Flanagan on the Colbert Report last night. Besides the obvious hypocrisy of a woman with servants berating working women - a majority group who have no choice but to work - she pertuates the myth that sex is something women do for men, that it's some sort of sacrifice, a duty. I agree that husbands shouldn't have to pay for sex in the form of "date night" (horror!) but this woman clearly does not enjoy life (even child-rearing, apparently), and neither should any other woman, according to her. Sure, plenty of old-school feminists preached self-flagellation too, in their own way, but Flanagan's complete dismissal of feminism is not only backward, but disingenuous - could she have attained her current stature (and salary) in the '50s? Not likely. All she's doing is pandering to conservative housewives who like to wag their fingers at uppity elitist coastal working mothers, which is exactly what Flanagan is. She's going up on my own personal Dead To Me board. Bitch.
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
