?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Ms. Flanagan, I do believe you're on my list. Or, gee, I suppose I should say: Mrs. - GROWL
ifritah
ifritah
Ms. Flanagan, I do believe you're on my list. Or, gee, I suppose I should say: Mrs.
In my latest Writer's Digest, they had a competition between Betty Friedan (author of The Feminine Mystique) and Caitlin Flanagan (author of To Hell With All That: Loving and Loathing Our Inner Housewife).

They give a section called 'Philosophy in a nutshell' where they take one quote from their books that, well, basically has their philosophy, uh, in a nutshell.

Anyway, that's what I wanted to note:

Friedan:

"The problem that has no name - which is simply the fact that American women are kept from growing to their full human capacities - is taking a far greater toll on the physical and mental health of our country than any known disease."

Vs.

Flanagan:

"What few will admit - because it is painful, because it reveals the unpleasant truth that life presents a series of choices, each of which precludes a host of other attractive possibilities - is that when a mother works, something is lost."

Is that when a mother works, something is lost...

I'm reeeeally hoping she means that something is lost when it comes to the child. Because out of context it's hard to tell. But man, that's the only way I'm not completely seething right now. ... Still seething, but I'm not turning green or anything.

Look, I'm not saying that having a parent full-time at home isn't good for a child. And I have complete respect for both housewives and househusbands. But that's part of the point, isn't it? Parent. Father OR mother.

And that's not even going into the financial reasons why most two-parent families have both the husband and wife go to work. Which isn't even including all the single-parent households out there.

I didn't study child psych when I was in college... mainly because the idea of studying children makes me shudder, so I can't go into too much of the argument over full-time parents vs. working parents and child rearing. (Though there's a good chance I'll be grabbing some of my books when I get home from work.)

But I can tell you one thing. If throwing my rights out the window as an equal human being is the only way to insure that my child grows up healthy and happy (which it doesn't)? Then just add that to my very long list of reasons why I'm not having kids.

(Oh, and by the way? The author (John Warner) of this article deemed that Flanagan won. "Because she's still living - and her powerful publishing friends could harm me." *Cries*)

Current Mood: angry angry

5 purrs or Purr for me
Comments
ninjadebugger From: ninjadebugger Date: August 15th, 2006 06:11 pm (UTC) (Link)
All you can do is keep pushing forward the idea of equality, slowly and surely. Push too fast, or fight against their idea, and their idea, and the backlash that comes with it, gains power. Push too slowly and their idea gains ground.

This is one of the basic principles of information warfare. Your enemies cannot live forever, and as long as they're losing ground, they'll tend to continue losing ground, due to attrition.

ifritah From: ifritah Date: August 15th, 2006 08:11 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oh, I definitely agree.

*Waits for the current WORMS (white old rich men) to die off so more progress can be made*. Ahem.

But this new anti-feminist movement is merely attempting to shove back the progress women have already made. And that really pisses me off.

ninjadebugger From: ninjadebugger Date: August 15th, 2006 08:30 pm (UTC) (Link)
The anti-feminist movement is basically doomed to failure, as long as you don't try to actively oppose them. They are fighting against your (our) idea, which makes them the automatic loser. Only a fool fights an idea. Ideas are bulletproof.
kamalloy From: kamalloy Date: August 15th, 2006 07:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
If the quote from the author of the article is supposed to be humorous, it's really not. It makes him look like he's scared to back up his own opinions and that his primary purpose in writing the article is to kiss up to Flanagan and her "powerful publishing friends." How are we meant to take him seriously?
ifritah From: ifritah Date: August 15th, 2006 08:14 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm right there with you.

The first thought that came to mind after reading that was: "Coward!"

(Kiss-ass was a very close second.)
5 purrs or Purr for me