Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
You claim that the majority of states voted against the ERA. You're wrong. The majority (my memory is 34) voted for it, just not the 3/4 that's required for adoption.
Flanagan is like a bad car wreck: you don't want to think about what she says, but at the same time you can't look away.
Flanagan is right in one respect, that is, when a mother works, something IS lost, and let's be honest, I can see it in my child's eyes precisely in the moment when I drop her off at day care.
But what she doesn't talk about is what is also gained: independence for the mother and the child, a greater variety of learning and social experience for the child, satisfaction in working and accomplishing something in your own right, maintaining your individuality instead of being absorbed by husband and family. I am fascinated to see the respect my stepsons express for their two moms who are college professors, to see women shouldering responsibilities, dealing with job crises, and effectively managing their employees alongside men. Maybe it's a flaw of our society, but this is a kind of respect my peers and I didn't show (or probably feel for) our stay-at-home moms.
You can work at home, but you can't effectively work and pay attention to your child at the same time (believe me, I try!). This is where Flanagan's reasoning breaks down: if you'd ask her where her attention is focused, then she couldn't get around the question. You CAN have it all, just not all at the same instant! I think women who can utilize the more "male" skill of compartmentalizing their activities are probably a lot happier. The feeling of constant distraction is what is so unsettling and what the kids respond poorly to.
I keep thinking sometime soon we'll all get sick of Mommy Wars, but alas . . . It is amusing to read the anti-feminist thoughts of a woman who lives the feminist dream - husband, kids, interesting job, and enough household help to make it all possible. Just as it is amusing to read Kate O'Beirne rant on the subject of working mothers as she rakes in unfathomable amounts of dough while working her little conservative ass off, presumably with a passel of household help. And I can be amused instead of outraged because I am fortunately past the problem. The kids done growed and gone. I did not work. I had the luxury of staying home, which I chose to do, and though sometimes I envied my friends who worked and had nannies, I only envied them because they seemed to have better haircuts and nails than I did. Our society forces us to be hypocrites, and that is because our society doesn't really like families. It likes wealth, and the gaining of it, over all else. I know it will sound like socialist pap to say it, but say it I will: the country's resources should be concentrated on families not warheads. That's so 60's, sure. Still, feminism is about who takes care of the children, not who gets to be a lawyer.
It's nice Joan that you've justified a mean-spirited attack against a woman's character and writings in the name of feminism. Too bad, she has cancer . . . I mean, you were REALLY upset, so it must have been okay. Ah, yes, Joan, that's good sister-love for ya! You are clearly a model of feminism!!
Well, if you feel so santimoniously justified, I'll feel okay with saying this: YOU ARE RUINING SALON! This fabulous, wonderful journal has nose-dived in quality since you've taken over. Its layout is worse, its articles are worse, and the tone, worst of all, has become snide and nastily judgmental. Especially as it relates to feminism.
I'm so sick of the mommy wars being waged on these pages. MY GOD. It's not that this isn't an interesting issue. It speaks directly to my demographic: I'm a mother of two that is trying to juggle raising my young kids as well as continuing a semblance of a career (I run my own company), and it's hard, and it involves daily decisions that can be very challenging. So, of course, I would be one of your readers who would be interested in hearing how others manage.
But I'm not interested in mean-spirited attacks, and that is what you have waged here. I've read Caitlin Flanagan's articles in the New Yorker and enjoyed them. I have read elsewhere of the women who are throwing their arms in the air at her so-called anti-feminist opinions, and I have to say that at first I wondered, could they be talking about the same articles? Ms. Flanagan just writes about her experiences. She decided to work from home (and though you Joan somehow seem to know personally of her nanny/career arrangement, I would venture to guess that, yes, she spends more time with her kids writing from home than if she were to have a career out of the house). Isn't it okay that she identifies a benefit with that decision? Isn't that what every woman, if they are fortunate enough to have a choice in this regard, does -- choose what appears to accrue the most benefits to them and, by extension, their family.
So, for her, the benefit is that her kids get to be around the person who loves them most in the world. Why is this the sucker-punch that you describe? Importantly, she did NOT say, as you ridiculously imply, that kids with nannies love these nannies more than their parents. No, the way I read her statement was to readily acknowledge that her children seemed in no demonstrable way better-prepared for the world. The benefit was merely that the person who took care of them -- their mom -- loved them infinitely.
Forgive me, but what's the scandal?!?! Are you trying to suggest that women who leave their kids with caregivers should not acknowledge that those caregivers don't love them as much as their parents. Because that's clearly off the mark. Of course, parents love their kids more than paid caregivers. OF COURSE! So, why get so insanely defensive and MEAN?
In this article, you imply that Ms. Flanagan surprises her readers with her anti-feminist surprise attacks which you characterize happening as 1) lulling her readers to believe women can all respect each others' choices, and then 2) suprising them with a sudden attack (with analogies to Dick Cheney!) of judgment. Isn't this exactly what you have done yourself?!?!?
And I find it especially discouraging that you justify your attack in the name of feminism.
Feminism should focus more on what we have in common as women, and respecting the various challenges that we all encounter, albeit in sometimes radically different ways. Feminism should be about support and succor . . . and earnest debate too. But not mean-spirited attacks. Shame on you Joan Walsh.
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
