Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
We, of the generation who attempted to enhance equal rights for women simply strove for just that: equal rights for women. The majority of states voted against that. This ridiculous so called battle between stay at home moms and working moms is such a distraction. Why do women buy into it? One can do it all if in fact they have a partner or spouse who is in fact a partner. Eagle River, Alaska
Does anyone else think dear Caitlin sounds a lot like someone arguing that the electoral process is messy & oftentimes inconvenient and therefore we should abolish democracy and return to the traditional governing values of the monarchy?
Guess what sweetheart- if you think women should have the right to vote, own property and otherwise conduct themselves as equal citizens then *gasp* you're a feminist.
I have the senior citizen's habit of looking back on the successes and failures of my younger days. One of the sweet successes was the battle I and my contemporaries fought, beginning 5 decades ago, to obtain equal rights and opportunities. A sweet success, because we won more than we expected. A sweet success because my brother now occasionally thanks me for making the world better for his now-grown daughters--for being part of something that gave them competitive sports, freedom of (outspoken) speech, adventuresome and rewarding career choices. Feminism has different challenges now, as evidenced by Walsh's article and women like Dr. Laura and Ms Flanagan. And it's ironic that today women square off against each other, more than against the wider culture. I think it's because we're each battling ourselves now, questioning our personal choices. Feminism's continuing evolution still fascinates me, despite my being far less dependent on its outcomes. I hope it forms a sweet success for all the younger women now engaged.
I cannot understand why another opinion seems to matter so much to you.
One big problem with feminism has been its virtue: it's been too tolerant for too long of people like Flanagan. You can gabble sanctimoniously on about sisterhood all you like, but when your "sister" continually undermines your "family" while presenting a placid, perfect, and utterly false countenance to the rest of the world...you know, there are some family members from whom you finally just have to walk away because they are so destructive, so manipulative. I thought "sociopathic" was kind of a strong choice of word, but on further consideration, that's exactly what a sociopath would do. I think Walsh has hit the nail right on the head in this review (and I admire her tenacity--Flanagan's Atlantic Monthly essays were hard enough for me to stomach in their original form.)
As I've said in other letters, I feel sorry for Flanagan, but she is a fraud, and--it bears repeating--not just as a mother and housewife, but possibly as a writer as well. (Google Flanagan and the CJR.) When rank-and-file Democrats got serious about giving Joseph Lieberman the boot, it wasn't seen as a catfight but as a show of solidarity: we were rooting out the enemy from our midst. This "sisterhood" business is one of those suffocating matriarchalist lies, the same kind that claim that all women are meant to be nurturing caregivers and should therefore behave nicely. When liberals started deriding and disowning the pseudo-liberals among them, when progressive Christians and other religious liberals finally got a pair and refused to tolerate the religious right any longer, they didn't become weakened by the discord; they only became stronger by asserting what they believed. There's a big difference between refusing to tolerate valid differences and refusing to tolerate people who are actively trying to discredit the movement from inside.
I am an over 50 single woman. I don't have a devoted husband and two drenched in mother-love sons. Instead I have dozens of friends, my sisters, my nieces, my aunt, my cousins and my cat. I have never once felt alone or unsupported or unloved. There are all sorts of places where one can store up good karma. It doesn't all have to be poured into a husband or children. Joan Walsh pointed that up very nicely. Thanks Joan.
to Joan Walsh for the discerning review. I've come to the conclusion that what makes Flanagan's writing so grating is not her hypocrisy in cataloging the imagined sins of employed mothers -- or even her one-woman war on feminism -- but the fact that she's basically a snob. A wonderfully witty and genuinely gifted snob, but a snob nonetheless.
Unlike earlier masters of the domestic genre -- such as Jean Kerr and Erma Bombeck, who Flanagan professes to admire -- she can't quite manage to sustain the level of self-deprecation that made those writers truly funny and compelling. But then, unlike Bombeck and Kerr, Flanagan doesn't want her readers to identify with her --she wants to seduce them with her flawless prose so they'll stand still while she twists the knife. And frankly, it's not unheard of for magazines like the New Yorker and Atlantic Monthly to launch the careers of writers who excel at that particular art.
Oh, I hate when people relieve their guilt by balancing out their criticism. "She's a horrible, demeaning, hypocrtical snob ... but talented!" If you don't like something, you don't like it.
This woman sounds creepy regardless of a generally adequate ability to write. All editors care about is how to get $$$$, considering how comparatively crippled the industry is. Well-balanced, healthy, reasonable debate doesn't generate the flaaame that books like this do; call it the Reagan/Murdoch school of publishing.
A lot of hype and glowing reviews are just brand awareness (or sometimes careering nepotism), just like a lot of news is PR in disguise. People should definitely not believe a lot of what's written about works; the people who do believe and follow these flavors-of-the-month ... they're the real tragedy.
I think you are a bit harsh in your evaluation of Ms. Flanagan. First of all, unless you have twins, triplets, etc. yourself, it is hard to imagine the exhaustion and strain of caring for multiple infants. Feeling like a full-time mom despite being lucky enough to have live-in help, seems quite understandable from what I have seen in the families of friends and relatives who've given birth to multiples. She does seem to be trying to have it both ways at times, but I think the thrust of her argument seems to be that some of the characteristics and behavior traditionally designated as "feminine" are valuable and worthwhile, and we all lose if they disappear from human behavior altogether. I wonder if she would admit that the kind of devotion she advocates for mothers would be just as valuable from a stay-at-home dad. I haven't see anyone ask her this question. I agree her internal bargaining mentality vis-a vis her husband and cancer is unfortunate and you are absolutely correct in asserting that devoted wives and husbands are tragically left in the lurch every day. I read that in one of her articles and am afraid that I ascribed it to the mentality that I have occasionally seen in my Roman Catholic friends, the idea being that you can bargain with God. (I have to admit, though, that I've seen the same mentality on those of us of other religions also). I think her point is that the earlier feminists, Friedan, Steinem, Millet,etc. devalued traditional "feminine" virtues and as a result, traditional women. Steinem has herself written how she resentfully viewed stay-at-home moms as "the enemy," perhaps as a result of her own difficult childhood. It is a complicated issue, and I am not sure what the answers are. Rigid gender roles seem to be not entirely the answer, but I don't know if interchangeable genders are either. I do know if the old feminists answer was to turn women into female versions of Dick Cheney, I would be sorry to lose the Laura Bushes of the world too. Can you imagine a household where both parents were modeled on the Type-A male paradigm? And don't bring up Hillary Clinton either, I've read that she has a strong maternal side which doesn't translate in her public persona. I've also watched the girls in "Sex and the City" and wanted them to "have it all," but I cringed when they were whiney and selfish and, I'm afraid, "unladylike." We don't have road maps anymore as to what constitutes "good woman" or "good man", but we all know good when we see 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"
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
