Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
It's very telling that I thought "drag queen" femininity was the perfect way to describe Caitlin Flanagan's life and not, as Flanagan would have it, the women's movement. Dressing up in sexy nightgowns while laughing at other stay-at-home moms' devotion to their children is drag queenishly grotesque indeed. My own stay-at-home mother threw herself into class projects, field trips and birthday parties with enthusiasm, good cheer and imagination. The thought of someone as phony and insecure as Flanagan mocking the dedication of women like my mom makes me want to kick her (Flanagan) in the ovaries.
This is a great piece, but Walsh's assessment of Flanagan as a happy hypocrite does not quite go far enough. She is a rich bitch in the tradition of Marie Antoinette - happy to play dress-up on a toy farm with no idea of how to actually make it run.
In my opinion there is an awkward strain on the identify of females. There always has and always will be. Men have always have an identity- to try and aceheive, through anger, compitition, envy, greed, pride, ect- their goal through societites has been to try and acheive sucess, both financial, emotional and psycologically. Of course the most important, being financial, because being rich gers you respect from the outside and in many chances increases your chances with the opposite sex. Why men have always acheived success in different societies, women have always been there on the side. To talk, gossip, relax, cook, organize, take care of the kids. Hoever there has never been a consistent role that women have shared, something that makes a women a women. Now even more so, because women have started to enter the work force. So all this being siad, I feel that women have no real self core or idtneity. If you ask a women what she wants or what makes her happy there will be no consistency in thier answers. Because they are always looking for something else to give them inner purpose and identiy, lacking it in themselves
So the writer doesn't buy Caitlin Flanagan's self-identifying as a stay-at-home mom? Because she hires "help", because she does serious work? Why not? Flanagan made a conscious choice to be at home. She did what was necessary to make that happen.
There is a difference between being at home and not being at home, and the difference doesn't fall in salary, career, or who cleans the toilet. The difference is whether you're there or you're not there.
Like Flanagan, I chose to be at home with my children. I didn't give up work. I made a lot of choices to fit with what I wanted, which was to be home with my children. I could have identified myself as "working mother". I could have gone with "stay-at-home mother". Was I both? neither? Who gets to decide? Evidently the writer of this article feels she gets to decide for me. She'll weigh all the evidence -- babysitters? home office or kitchen table? -- and then hand me my papers. Well, as Flanagan might say, to hell with that.
I don't worry about labeling myself for others, but if pressed, I would choose stay-at-home mother, because the working part is just so redundant. But evidently I'm not allowed to define myself, based on my own values, beliefs, and intentions. And I guess I have to turn in my feminist papers, too, since I do think that my children and I both gained tremendously from my being at home. So be it. And to hell with it.
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
