Great analysis!

We can't resolve the work v. stay at home issue by deciding which makes women happier, because neither are very appealing or pleasing alternatives in our society. Workings moms who are still responsible for the lion's share of child care responsibilities are simply overwhelmed and (real) stay at home moms feel undervalued and are full of anxiety over what they have given up (unless they have some kind of religious sense of purpose to subscribe to).

So instead we fight the work or stay at home issue on the minefield determining of what is better for children. Which is about as critical and central to a mom's identity as penis size seems to be to some men. It's no wonder that Flanagan's little digs about a mother's love are such an amazing gut check.

I think we have to make a pact not to go there. Nobody wins. We win when we work together to improve options for women and children. Only those who want to set back the clock for women are served by this kind of uncivil war.

Everyday I work in a hospital where women are working full time, going to school and raising children while battling husbands (ex or not)for child support. Mothers who worry every day what will happen when a child is sick, and they must stay home, losing money and probably school time, in an attempt to provide a better life for there children. I have enormous respect for these women. Ms. Flanagin would not survive a day in their world. I have only read excerpts of her work but feel no need to provide her any of my income by buying her book. I just hope I am some kind of support to the real working mothers that I encounter.

I wonder what happens in Caitlin Flanagan's self-absorbed, fantasy world when both parents happen to be women? Or, God forbid, men!

No doubt she has some wacko homophobic reasoning for those families as well.

In fact, I'm pretty sure at her core she is every bit the homophobe, racist, and classist her privileged, one-sided June Cleaver dogma proves itself to be.

Signed,

Proud, gay, happy former latchkey kid with a very loving and supportive Mom.

"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.

"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.

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