What do you think?
Rate this book
To Hell with All That: Loving and Loathing Our Inner Housewife
It's not news that women work, have families, and are conflicted about it. No one needs to be reminded that motherhood is hard. Enter Caitlin Flanagan with a fresh, witheringly funny take on women's lives today, the weddings, nannies, overscheduled children, sex (and the lack of sex), the cult of the "domestic goddess" and its manias for home decorating and gourmet cooking, and the endless tension between working moms and stay-at-home moms. Part social history, part social commentary, part personal account of the author's own relationship with her mother and her children, To Hell with All That is about the things that interest Flanagan the women and children, households and marriages. Presented as a series of essays, it follows the natural course of women's lives. Without offering a prescription for happiness, it defines where Flanagan wants to in a world where a woman is depended on, and considered irreplaceable, by people who love her.
Audible Audio
First published January 1, 2006
40 people are currently reading
804 people want to read
About the author
Caitlin Flanagan
5 books69 followersCaitlin Flanagan is a four-time finalist for the National Magazine Award. Her essays have appeared in Best American Essays 2003, and Best American Magazine Writing 2002, 2003, and 2004. She has made numerous national media appearances. She has been the subject of profiles and critiques in the New York Observer, Ms., The New Republic and various other publications. She lives in Los Angeles with her husband and children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 192 reviews
August 16, 2007
The writing is amusing and engaging, but this book is just irritating.
Flanagan tries to laud and defend the decision of women to stay home with their kids through her own example. She makes some decent "division of labor" arguments, but it's just impossible to take her seriously because this book is the story of how she made such a noble decision to stay home with her kids... and then hired a nanny to take care of them and a maid to do all the housework (not to mention hiring an organizer -- who knew this was a job? -- to cut through her clutter). She says herself that she and her husband don't fight over who changes the sheets because the maid does it, or over who cleans up their kids' puke because the nanny does it. So, to me, this books ends up not really being a defense of being a homemaker: instead, it's a manifesto for marrying someone rich enough to hire a staff.
The book ends with an awkward, tacked-on chapter about her ordeal with breast cancer, in which she suggests that her husband takes loving care of her and pulls his weight with the kids during her illness only because she had saved up enough goodwill currency through her years of housework (performed by the maid?). As if women who don't bake recipes from Martha Stewart don't deserve to have their husbands bring them soup after chemotherapy?
Overall, if you're interested in reading about the difficulties and ennui of being a "housewife" who's a rich white woman with a bunch of servants, then this is the perfect book for you -- otherwise, not so much.
Flanagan tries to laud and defend the decision of women to stay home with their kids through her own example. She makes some decent "division of labor" arguments, but it's just impossible to take her seriously because this book is the story of how she made such a noble decision to stay home with her kids... and then hired a nanny to take care of them and a maid to do all the housework (not to mention hiring an organizer -- who knew this was a job? -- to cut through her clutter). She says herself that she and her husband don't fight over who changes the sheets because the maid does it, or over who cleans up their kids' puke because the nanny does it. So, to me, this books ends up not really being a defense of being a homemaker: instead, it's a manifesto for marrying someone rich enough to hire a staff.
The book ends with an awkward, tacked-on chapter about her ordeal with breast cancer, in which she suggests that her husband takes loving care of her and pulls his weight with the kids during her illness only because she had saved up enough goodwill currency through her years of housework (performed by the maid?). As if women who don't bake recipes from Martha Stewart don't deserve to have their husbands bring them soup after chemotherapy?
Overall, if you're interested in reading about the difficulties and ennui of being a "housewife" who's a rich white woman with a bunch of servants, then this is the perfect book for you -- otherwise, not so much.
September 12, 2012
Caitlin Flangan is possibly the most controversial author writing today: someone who writes for high-level culture magazines like the New Yorker and the Atlantic and yet is truly hated by many intellectuals. Her infamous Atlantic essay on nannies pissed off the entire world---including me, though I didn't take note of her name at the time. Later I read her column on Twilight and was startled to realize that the writer of this wonderful piece was also the writer of that awful nanny piece.
Flanagan has kind of repudiated the nanny piece, but she still pisses off a lot of people because she writes positively about traditional family structures. She dares to say, for example, that a mom who spends day in, day out with her child is likely to have a kind of closeness with that child that a mom who doesn't won't. But, all things being equal, isn't that kind of obvious? I'm the fourth child in my family but I can admit that parents with only one or two children seem closer to those children than those with more, all the while being very grateful that my parents had four. And I realize that the trade-off in intimacy with parents is more than made up for by the great gift of siblings.
In other words, we don't need to fear the truth. It's okay to say that something is lost when a mother works. Every set of social change brings with it losses AND gains, and we can admit to the losses because we know the gains are worth it. And Flanagan certainly isn't afraid to admit to the gains as well. She tells how her own mother, who was very traditional and whom Flanagan adored, threw down the sponge one day and went back to work, against her husband's wishes. She can tell how she herself hired nannies so she could write. Critics act like they're catching her out with these facts, but the tension between these things is exactly what Flanagan is writing about.
Her writing is the kind of writing I like best: smart and accessible, insightful and not afraid to tease out the complexity of social relations. She's also damn funny.
Flanagan has kind of repudiated the nanny piece, but she still pisses off a lot of people because she writes positively about traditional family structures. She dares to say, for example, that a mom who spends day in, day out with her child is likely to have a kind of closeness with that child that a mom who doesn't won't. But, all things being equal, isn't that kind of obvious? I'm the fourth child in my family but I can admit that parents with only one or two children seem closer to those children than those with more, all the while being very grateful that my parents had four. And I realize that the trade-off in intimacy with parents is more than made up for by the great gift of siblings.
In other words, we don't need to fear the truth. It's okay to say that something is lost when a mother works. Every set of social change brings with it losses AND gains, and we can admit to the losses because we know the gains are worth it. And Flanagan certainly isn't afraid to admit to the gains as well. She tells how her own mother, who was very traditional and whom Flanagan adored, threw down the sponge one day and went back to work, against her husband's wishes. She can tell how she herself hired nannies so she could write. Critics act like they're catching her out with these facts, but the tension between these things is exactly what Flanagan is writing about.
Her writing is the kind of writing I like best: smart and accessible, insightful and not afraid to tease out the complexity of social relations. She's also damn funny.
March 8, 2012
I enjoyed reading this book, it was amusing and actually made me thankful just to be me -- but the book itself really irritated me. Other than the first chapter about weddings... it's just not my thing, I guess. It was SO boring and ridiculous I didn't think I would make it to chapter two. Not EVERYONE today thinks their wedding has to top their friends or break the bank. Blah! Seriously, weddings should be simple and personal.
I have so much to say about this book -- obviously, so does the author. I kept waiting for her to get to the point, for her to "choose a side" so to speak, but it was more of a "lay it all out there and you decide" kind of thing. In the end, I don't think the author really knew what she wanted or what she thought was right.
I was SO completely annoyed with this woman claiming to be a "housewife" and yet she has a full-time nanny, maid, and professional organizer helping her along the way. She has NO clue, literally NO clue. I did not feel sorry for her for ONE minute nor do I respect her. She whined about how hard it was, yet she did none of the WORK.
It's not only her I'm bothered by, but by millions of other women who think it has to be a certain way. Your way of mothering, whether you work outside of the home, or not, is your choice and is based on your family's unique circumstances. I believe it can be done both ways as long as the mother puts her children first. (Meaning that may dictate the type of career she chooses and amount of hours she works.)
Near the end of the book I was disgusted with her. Never changed sheets a day of her married life???? Who is this woman?! However, I appreciate what she said in the last two chapters. I like how she said basically that life is what you make it; what YOU want it to be. I hope she really feels how she said she did in the last paragraph. She seems more like a "do what I say, not what I do" kind of person though. Finally, some insight into what is really important. I'm happy that she is okay and gets a "second chance" to put time into what really matters.
I like how this book made me feel, because I realized how good my life is and how blessed we truly are. I love to live in a smaller town with simpler ways. I love that I didn't grow up feeling pressured to have a career. I love that I don't spend all my days running all over town taking my kids from sport to hobby to whatever. We are simple. We do our own thing, without regards to what other people do or think. How refreshing!
When you actually DO the work involved with being a stay at home mother -- everything: the good, the bad, and the ugly (no nannies, maids, or professional organizers) you become a stronger, better, happier person. You LOVE the people you serve. Until I read this book, I didn't realize how content I am being a stay at home mother. I feel privileged (not oppressed!) to make my home a happy, safe, organized place for my children and husband to live in and actually spend time at and get away from the stress of the world outside. I am old-fashioned, I guess, and thankful to be so. I take great pride in fixing homemade meals for them, doing the laundry and even mending it. (Yes, I was lucky enough to take Home Ec!) This is where I choose to be right now and I believe if you're "bored", you're not doing it right.
There are 5 people in this world whose lives are better because of me.
I have so much to say about this book -- obviously, so does the author. I kept waiting for her to get to the point, for her to "choose a side" so to speak, but it was more of a "lay it all out there and you decide" kind of thing. In the end, I don't think the author really knew what she wanted or what she thought was right.
I was SO completely annoyed with this woman claiming to be a "housewife" and yet she has a full-time nanny, maid, and professional organizer helping her along the way. She has NO clue, literally NO clue. I did not feel sorry for her for ONE minute nor do I respect her. She whined about how hard it was, yet she did none of the WORK.
It's not only her I'm bothered by, but by millions of other women who think it has to be a certain way. Your way of mothering, whether you work outside of the home, or not, is your choice and is based on your family's unique circumstances. I believe it can be done both ways as long as the mother puts her children first. (Meaning that may dictate the type of career she chooses and amount of hours she works.)
Near the end of the book I was disgusted with her. Never changed sheets a day of her married life???? Who is this woman?! However, I appreciate what she said in the last two chapters. I like how she said basically that life is what you make it; what YOU want it to be. I hope she really feels how she said she did in the last paragraph. She seems more like a "do what I say, not what I do" kind of person though. Finally, some insight into what is really important. I'm happy that she is okay and gets a "second chance" to put time into what really matters.
I like how this book made me feel, because I realized how good my life is and how blessed we truly are. I love to live in a smaller town with simpler ways. I love that I didn't grow up feeling pressured to have a career. I love that I don't spend all my days running all over town taking my kids from sport to hobby to whatever. We are simple. We do our own thing, without regards to what other people do or think. How refreshing!
When you actually DO the work involved with being a stay at home mother -- everything: the good, the bad, and the ugly (no nannies, maids, or professional organizers) you become a stronger, better, happier person. You LOVE the people you serve. Until I read this book, I didn't realize how content I am being a stay at home mother. I feel privileged (not oppressed!) to make my home a happy, safe, organized place for my children and husband to live in and actually spend time at and get away from the stress of the world outside. I am old-fashioned, I guess, and thankful to be so. I take great pride in fixing homemade meals for them, doing the laundry and even mending it. (Yes, I was lucky enough to take Home Ec!) This is where I choose to be right now and I believe if you're "bored", you're not doing it right.
There are 5 people in this world whose lives are better because of me.
March 17, 2008
I loved this book. The reviews I read from other people on this site who are not on my friends list are pretty negative. I think they are quick to be offended without understanding the real purpose of this book. I think this book does a wonderful job of being completely non-partisan. She explains the consequences of working and the consequences of not working. She in no way takes a side, she only states realistically that there are sacrifices to made made on either side.
As women we are fed the idea that we can have it all. But we can't. That's the cold hard truth. We will either be at home missing a life without kids or we will be at work missing our kids. That's a brave thing to say considering that all we are fed is that we are only worth something if we work. We are only of value if we work, etc... We CAN'T have it all. It's not humanly possible.
I also REALLY liked how she talked about her civic responsibility in paying her nanny and getting her Social Security -- essentially how OUR women's movement has only oppressed OTHER women. It's an argument no one wants to hear because of course, no one wants to feel guilty about it. But it's valid.
I didn't feel at all like she was trying to brainwash me. Only getting me to question what the consequences for my decisions are and how they can affect other people. I know, I know, heaven forbid we actually take OTHER people into consideration, it's so oppressive and all...but guess what? It will help in your relationships with other people.
As women we are fed the idea that we can have it all. But we can't. That's the cold hard truth. We will either be at home missing a life without kids or we will be at work missing our kids. That's a brave thing to say considering that all we are fed is that we are only worth something if we work. We are only of value if we work, etc... We CAN'T have it all. It's not humanly possible.
I also REALLY liked how she talked about her civic responsibility in paying her nanny and getting her Social Security -- essentially how OUR women's movement has only oppressed OTHER women. It's an argument no one wants to hear because of course, no one wants to feel guilty about it. But it's valid.
I didn't feel at all like she was trying to brainwash me. Only getting me to question what the consequences for my decisions are and how they can affect other people. I know, I know, heaven forbid we actually take OTHER people into consideration, it's so oppressive and all...but guess what? It will help in your relationships with other people.
June 8, 2009
Flanagan has a sharp wit and can write some enjoyable prose. But she really comes across as a Stepford Bee-otch in this book, so it was hard for me to appreciate. On the one hand, she has all the fond rose tinted memories of childhood that I love as well. I recall a simpler time (don't we all?) when I spent long happy days in the company of my mom doing things around the house and around the small town where we lived. I remember when things felt organized...when weekends were generally weekends (not errand death marches or extra time spent at work) and when kids were not expected to assume schedules that would intimidate society debutantes. Our constant craving for organized activities, structure and "school" for toddlers drives me insane. Yes. I stay home with my kid. Yes. I enjoy it. Yes. I chose to because I wanted to give her a few years of "childhood" the way I remember it. And yes. I feel this has been the best choice for MY family (not necessarily for yours...that is your call.)
So it is occasionally nice to hear something positive about being an "at home mom".
But...Flanagan is not going to be the standard bearer for women who choose to stay at home with their kids. There are two glaring problems with Caitlin Flanagan.
1. She apparently stays at home with her kids mainly so she can drive them to the nonstop activities I mention above...or so she can get on the phone to hire people to come into her house and do the work that middle and working class "housewives" do. (As in cooking, cleaning, taking actual care of her children and basically everything. I never really did figure out what Caitlin Flanagan did at home herself. How can you write a tribute to the domestic arts and hands-on mothering if you don't do your own housework and even fail to clean the puke off your own child? (the nanny does that) Caitlin Flanagan...thy name is Carol Brady!
2. As much as she waxes poetic about her late mother's housekeeping mojo and all the benefits inherent in having a parent at home with you during the formative years...in the end she seems to harbor a true disdain for moms who don't work jobs outside the home. Lucky Caitlin can call herself an "at home mom" because she doesn't have to go to an office to work. However she does not have to be one of us frumps (with no life) either....the kind she pokes fun at during a school event for one of her kids. No. Caitlin is "important." She's writing a book! And she writes articles for major periodicals...from home...while her nanny wipes puke...and her housekeeper cleans the bathroom...and her "organizer' deals with the endless clutter that makes most of us regular mommy folk feel like a high level explosive containing Little People just detonated in the middle of our living room.
So read this for a few good yuks. We can all benefit from poking fun at ourselves from time to time. And it is kind of refreshing to know that many women are conflicted by the myriad roles and expectations that are currently in place. But, unless you are upper middle class or higher, don't expect to relate to this book.
So it is occasionally nice to hear something positive about being an "at home mom".
But...Flanagan is not going to be the standard bearer for women who choose to stay at home with their kids. There are two glaring problems with Caitlin Flanagan.
1. She apparently stays at home with her kids mainly so she can drive them to the nonstop activities I mention above...or so she can get on the phone to hire people to come into her house and do the work that middle and working class "housewives" do. (As in cooking, cleaning, taking actual care of her children and basically everything. I never really did figure out what Caitlin Flanagan did at home herself. How can you write a tribute to the domestic arts and hands-on mothering if you don't do your own housework and even fail to clean the puke off your own child? (the nanny does that) Caitlin Flanagan...thy name is Carol Brady!
2. As much as she waxes poetic about her late mother's housekeeping mojo and all the benefits inherent in having a parent at home with you during the formative years...in the end she seems to harbor a true disdain for moms who don't work jobs outside the home. Lucky Caitlin can call herself an "at home mom" because she doesn't have to go to an office to work. However she does not have to be one of us frumps (with no life) either....the kind she pokes fun at during a school event for one of her kids. No. Caitlin is "important." She's writing a book! And she writes articles for major periodicals...from home...while her nanny wipes puke...and her housekeeper cleans the bathroom...and her "organizer' deals with the endless clutter that makes most of us regular mommy folk feel like a high level explosive containing Little People just detonated in the middle of our living room.
So read this for a few good yuks. We can all benefit from poking fun at ourselves from time to time. And it is kind of refreshing to know that many women are conflicted by the myriad roles and expectations that are currently in place. But, unless you are upper middle class or higher, don't expect to relate to this book.
February 28, 2021
Childless, I have no strong opinion on stay-at-home vs working, or on the value and complications of having a nanny. But I do enjoy Caitlin Flanagan’s writing, so picked up this book of essays…and felt like I was reading an anthropological study of a distant culture. I was left both wondering what the hell had happened since my “go outside and don’t come back until suppertime” childhood, and sympathetic to the conflicting concerns of young mothers today. Mostly, I enjoyed Flanagan’s humor, insight, and ability to describe the emotional landmines of motherhood. Also, it was nice to be reminded of Erma Bombeck.
December 4, 2010
Okay, so she quit work to stay at home with the kids. Except she hired a maid and a nanny to do all the work. And she has the nerve to rail against Betty Friedan and the 1950s feminists for being unhappy in their housewife lives. What the heck does this author DO all day?
She did have some interesting sociological and historical insights, but most of the book was spent talking about how incompetent she is around the house, so much so that she's never sewn a button and doesn't make meals from scratch.
I guess it's nice to have money....
Don't waste your time on this one.
She did have some interesting sociological and historical insights, but most of the book was spent talking about how incompetent she is around the house, so much so that she's never sewn a button and doesn't make meals from scratch.
I guess it's nice to have money....
Don't waste your time on this one.
June 8, 2024
I picked this up at a LFL and I don’t know, I mostly found myself confused about why she wrote these essays. It felt like she was trying to walk this weird you-can-have-your cake-and-eat-it-too line and in doing so probably ends up being relatable to almost no one.
She said a few interesting things and I liked the way she encourages you to be aware of how the current trends and popular ideologies of the day are influencing our narratives of raising children and housekeeping. Things have evolved. There’s a reason things used to be how they were (albeit difficult in so many ways) and there’s a reason things are the way they are now (albeit difficult in other ways). Things are complex. Think for yourself. All that.
Anyway she had some good thoughts but paired with a very inaccessible perspective/experience of keeping house and motherhood it was sometimes tough to swallow.
She said a few interesting things and I liked the way she encourages you to be aware of how the current trends and popular ideologies of the day are influencing our narratives of raising children and housekeeping. Things have evolved. There’s a reason things used to be how they were (albeit difficult in so many ways) and there’s a reason things are the way they are now (albeit difficult in other ways). Things are complex. Think for yourself. All that.
Anyway she had some good thoughts but paired with a very inaccessible perspective/experience of keeping house and motherhood it was sometimes tough to swallow.
August 27, 2011
I have mixed feelings about this book. I'm like the author in some ways; I work from home as a writer. I am the main "keeper" of our house. Unlike her, I don't have a cleaning woman and I wouldn't have a nanny/won't have one when we are blessed again with a child in our lives. There is something that kept me from connecting with her, though, and I got the feeling she was one of those hypocritical women I feel like you always have to watch out of the corner of your eye for the knife about to be tossed in your back. To be fair, she owns up to her own hypocrisy, admitting moments when she's been the one assisting with or wielding that knife, but that makes it even worse somehow, as though she's not ashamed of it's existance as I would be if that urge lurked inside of me.
The book begins as a sort of academic manifesto on the ways marriage - and in particular weddings - have changed over the last century or so. What once was a simple affair has become lavish, what was once an expected, tolerated committment has become rife with complicated comprimises and everyone-out-for-themselves-ness. It reads like a thesis, and if you're into reading those for pleasure, you'll appreciate the numerous quotes and historical references. Or you might get a little bored and drift.
The middle section reads as a memoir of the author's relationship with her nanny - or nannies, plural, as she went through several short term ones as well as her long term one while raising her twin boys from babyhood to pre-school age. Though she didn't work, and admits that she abandoned her writing for mothering, she marvels at how easily the nanny can do a job that exhausts her while the nanny is away. Interestingly, her nanny is also the mother of two small boys, and seems to take caretaking of children and homekeeping in stride, which is a cause for envy and stress to the author. I can understand feeling overwhelmed by the sight of your child reaching for the nanny instead of you, but when you've previously explained how you watched from a safe distance in the doorway while she earlier took care of your sick child, I find it hard to garner sympathy or any other emotion.
The last section flows from the effects of being orphaned by the deaths of her parents to the ways in which she balances her work with her motherhood, and here is where you see her claws, as she alternately puts down both working mothers and stay at home mothers.
I often see my friends struggle with the feeling that they just "can't win" - if they work they're a bad mommy, if they stay home they're a boring, bad person. While the overwhelming notion at the end of the book seems to be a glorification of her childhood and how happy a whole family is if only they have a homekeeper - male or female - in charge of making the house into a sanctuary, she equally seems to think Martha Stewart style lives are merely a fantasy rich women like to think about but not truly live. The only consensus I could draw is that the author thinks everyone should have either a mother or nanny to take care of them and their households their entire lives, but no one should ever take on this job themselves because it is demeaning, demoralizing and depressing. Unless you're being paid fairly and have your taxes and social security benefits paid by the rich chick you work for.
With all that said, the book is well-written, and the author has a turn of phrase which she admits in the afterword came to her in her bootcamp training writing at The New Yorker. I like The New Yorker, and its style, and that must be part of the appeal to me. I also found the beginning third of the book, discussing the evolution of the wedding and marriage to be enlightening, and wish that the rest of the time was spent discussing the ramifications of this on the modern woman rather than drifting into emotional memoir-ism.
The book begins as a sort of academic manifesto on the ways marriage - and in particular weddings - have changed over the last century or so. What once was a simple affair has become lavish, what was once an expected, tolerated committment has become rife with complicated comprimises and everyone-out-for-themselves-ness. It reads like a thesis, and if you're into reading those for pleasure, you'll appreciate the numerous quotes and historical references. Or you might get a little bored and drift.
The middle section reads as a memoir of the author's relationship with her nanny - or nannies, plural, as she went through several short term ones as well as her long term one while raising her twin boys from babyhood to pre-school age. Though she didn't work, and admits that she abandoned her writing for mothering, she marvels at how easily the nanny can do a job that exhausts her while the nanny is away. Interestingly, her nanny is also the mother of two small boys, and seems to take caretaking of children and homekeeping in stride, which is a cause for envy and stress to the author. I can understand feeling overwhelmed by the sight of your child reaching for the nanny instead of you, but when you've previously explained how you watched from a safe distance in the doorway while she earlier took care of your sick child, I find it hard to garner sympathy or any other emotion.
The last section flows from the effects of being orphaned by the deaths of her parents to the ways in which she balances her work with her motherhood, and here is where you see her claws, as she alternately puts down both working mothers and stay at home mothers.
I often see my friends struggle with the feeling that they just "can't win" - if they work they're a bad mommy, if they stay home they're a boring, bad person. While the overwhelming notion at the end of the book seems to be a glorification of her childhood and how happy a whole family is if only they have a homekeeper - male or female - in charge of making the house into a sanctuary, she equally seems to think Martha Stewart style lives are merely a fantasy rich women like to think about but not truly live. The only consensus I could draw is that the author thinks everyone should have either a mother or nanny to take care of them and their households their entire lives, but no one should ever take on this job themselves because it is demeaning, demoralizing and depressing. Unless you're being paid fairly and have your taxes and social security benefits paid by the rich chick you work for.
With all that said, the book is well-written, and the author has a turn of phrase which she admits in the afterword came to her in her bootcamp training writing at The New Yorker. I like The New Yorker, and its style, and that must be part of the appeal to me. I also found the beginning third of the book, discussing the evolution of the wedding and marriage to be enlightening, and wish that the rest of the time was spent discussing the ramifications of this on the modern woman rather than drifting into emotional memoir-ism.
April 15, 2009
I am so NOT enjoying this book, but since I'm 3/4 finished, I'm sure I will skim to the end of it. She's a good writer, but I just really can't relate to what she's talking about. Her stories are those of the problems with nannies, overscheduled kids, keeping up with the Joneses-Mommy Edition, etc. She is describing just the kind of life that I'm so trying to avoid. The book is quickly becoming annoying...
************************************************************************
Ok, I finished it out of obligation. Flanagan is a good writer, I'll give her that. I just didn't enjoy the things she had to talk about. So, maybe for "upper middle class" (her description of herself and cohorts) people that can relate to what she's depicting, it might be an enjoyable read. In the end, I found it to be actually quite sad that the life described here is what many people aspire to.
************************************************************************
Ok, I finished it out of obligation. Flanagan is a good writer, I'll give her that. I just didn't enjoy the things she had to talk about. So, maybe for "upper middle class" (her description of herself and cohorts) people that can relate to what she's depicting, it might be an enjoyable read. In the end, I found it to be actually quite sad that the life described here is what many people aspire to.
March 14, 2022
Flanagan is one of my fav magazine authors (her article about abortion in The Atlantic does the best job I've ever read wrt seeing - really seeing - both sides of a fraught situation) so I was thrilled to see she'd written this nostalgic (for me) timepiece capturing the highs and lows of early parenting.
like the author, I too straddle the contradictions of being an independent feminist attracted to the traditional role of motherhood. yes, as children we grew up dreaming of the day we'd have our own homes and families to care for. yes, as young adults we absorbed the message that it was demeaning for women to be subservient to men and relegated to the home to perform repeated, menial tasks. but yes, once married and with offspring, we found some meaning in being that integral, necessary, person to the functioning of the home; a zen practise amidst the laundry and the decluttering.
like the author, I too straddle the contradictions of being an independent feminist attracted to the traditional role of motherhood. yes, as children we grew up dreaming of the day we'd have our own homes and families to care for. yes, as young adults we absorbed the message that it was demeaning for women to be subservient to men and relegated to the home to perform repeated, menial tasks. but yes, once married and with offspring, we found some meaning in being that integral, necessary, person to the functioning of the home; a zen practise amidst the laundry and the decluttering.
February 3, 2009
The book started out strong with some really interesting research. I agreed with so many of her points, but really felt like she kept missing the mark. I didn't appreciate her attack on Steven Covey and think that she simply doesn't really understand his philosophy. She has a witty writing style and MOST, not all, of the book was enjoyable. I skipped some. I ended up disagreeing with some of her conclusions. She seems to think that the only benefit of a mother staying home with her children is that they will be with the person who loves them the most. I think there is much more to it than that and believe the position of stay-at home mom or at-home parent (as she calls it) deserves.
November 26, 2008
Caitlin Flanagan is undoubtedly an amusing writer--but she holds herself out as an annoying "i'm better than all of you" example of I don't even know what--anti-feminism? neo-feminism? martha-stewart-is-my-idolism? i haven't quite figured it out. But I do like to read her articles and so I have grudgingly given her three stars, rather than that the 2 for "it was ok." it was better than that--but nothing more than another entry in the i-can-bring-home-the-bacon-fry-it-up-in-the-pan-and-after-that-i-can-love-my-man genre.
December 24, 2008
Caitlin Flanagan writes about motherhood without the sentimentality. In this book she covers every aspect of modern womanhood from overblown wedding ceremonies to the difficult decision to work outside the home. She writes about her twins' nanny, and she writes about Martha Stewart. She sees through the BS.
And she's funny. She willingly self-deprecates in the name of writing the truth.
It's true that this book is really an essay collection cum memoir, but it's nonetheless super enjoyable. If we're going to figure out the modern family, we need voices like hers.
And she's funny. She willingly self-deprecates in the name of writing the truth.
It's true that this book is really an essay collection cum memoir, but it's nonetheless super enjoyable. If we're going to figure out the modern family, we need voices like hers.
January 17, 2020
In an age of ideological purity tests, Flanagan points out the hypocrisies inherent when our flawed human selves butt up against our carefully crafted identities. Part history, part commentary, part eulogy, this will leave you with plenty of questions to ponder.
March 25, 2021
The scathing reviews of this book on Goodreads seem focused on judging Caitlin Flanagan for the personal decisions she made rather than assessing the book as a whole. Yes, she sometimes seems out of touch, and yes, she may have made different decisions than I would have, but overall, she is very witty, self-deprecating, and capable of drawing attention to the many paradoxes that lie within the heart of the post-women’s lib American wife and mother, which she does with great gusto in this small book (which I finished while waiting in line for my first dose of the Pfizer vaccine; huzzah!). I appreciated the wife/housekeeping/mother chapters of the book, but I also felt, sometimes, that Flanagan didn’t go far enough. I wished it was a bit more focused (perhaps more on running a household rather than the extraneous chapters about the wedding-industrial complex and her own parents, as touching as they were). She is a talented writer, even if you may take umbrage at the way she decided to rear her family.
March 5, 2020
.5 Stars. This is a whole bunch of sexist, racist, bougie bullshit from a rich white lady who doesn't know the first thing about anyone's experience but her own. Absolutely not
Read
March 14, 2020A lot better than I judged by its cover. (I try not to, but can’t help it sometimes.)
September 22, 2025
Listened as audiobook. Collection of essays, compelling and very funny if not at times a bit scattered. I started expecting a clear thesis which I now see was not the author’s intention. Instead she creates a very self aware, critical portrait of her experience in middle class motherhood. And with a very healthy amount of humility.
October 12, 2019
I’m giving this book three stars based entirely on how well-written it is. The writing is funny, clever, and engaging.
BUT. Oh my God, how I came to dislike the author! She writes from a place of entitlement that is actually a little breath-taking. And while I certainly agree that there is something lost in a system where both parents work full-time, is she really clueless enough not to understand that often it’s just plain necessary? Besides, for a SAHM, she was remarkably resistant to actually fulfilling the M part of that. I mean, good Lord, you hire a nanny so that you can stay home and trail around after the woman who is actually being a mom to your children, while you feel exhausted and resentful. Okay - great system! A win for all concerned!
The privilege expressed in this book just grated on me from the beginning. From the chapter on extravagant weddings (and no, not all of us middle class folks got sucked in by the wedding industry) to her admission that she enrolled her kids in multiple activities from an incredibly young age just to give herself a break (and from what? She has a freaking nanny!). On the one hand, she seems to view so much of what she perceives as the current culture - maids to clean your house, extensively appointed kitchens you aren’t competent enough to cook in, private schools, paying nannies under the table - with a gimlet eye, on the other she embraced all of it as far as I can tell. Whining all the way. I am educated, middle class, and have a career so I could not/did not take the stay-at-home route. And yet I cooked and ate dinner with my kids every night, did my own laundry, made my own beds, didn’t over-schedule my kids lives so that they had time to explore on their own and also do things as a family. In short, I did what parents do when they take parenting seriously. I actually felt a little sorry for this author’s kids for the skewed world view they were raised with.
And then, good grief, the chapter on breast cancer. The diagnosis was unexpected! The biopsy was painful! The chemo grueling! The fear of dying and leaving your kids without a mother overwhelming! Well, yes. Breast cancer sucks all the way around. But did she really need cancer to wake her up to how important her family was to her? My breast cancer was scary in large part BECAUSE I already valued that.
The one thing I really did like about this book was the story of her mother tell her father to drop dead when he objected to her returning to work. Unlike the author, her mother was a true SAHM for many years and then got fed up with her sole purpose being to take care of the entire household. She sounded like someone I’d enjoying hearing more about.
BUT. Oh my God, how I came to dislike the author! She writes from a place of entitlement that is actually a little breath-taking. And while I certainly agree that there is something lost in a system where both parents work full-time, is she really clueless enough not to understand that often it’s just plain necessary? Besides, for a SAHM, she was remarkably resistant to actually fulfilling the M part of that. I mean, good Lord, you hire a nanny so that you can stay home and trail around after the woman who is actually being a mom to your children, while you feel exhausted and resentful. Okay - great system! A win for all concerned!
The privilege expressed in this book just grated on me from the beginning. From the chapter on extravagant weddings (and no, not all of us middle class folks got sucked in by the wedding industry) to her admission that she enrolled her kids in multiple activities from an incredibly young age just to give herself a break (and from what? She has a freaking nanny!). On the one hand, she seems to view so much of what she perceives as the current culture - maids to clean your house, extensively appointed kitchens you aren’t competent enough to cook in, private schools, paying nannies under the table - with a gimlet eye, on the other she embraced all of it as far as I can tell. Whining all the way. I am educated, middle class, and have a career so I could not/did not take the stay-at-home route. And yet I cooked and ate dinner with my kids every night, did my own laundry, made my own beds, didn’t over-schedule my kids lives so that they had time to explore on their own and also do things as a family. In short, I did what parents do when they take parenting seriously. I actually felt a little sorry for this author’s kids for the skewed world view they were raised with.
And then, good grief, the chapter on breast cancer. The diagnosis was unexpected! The biopsy was painful! The chemo grueling! The fear of dying and leaving your kids without a mother overwhelming! Well, yes. Breast cancer sucks all the way around. But did she really need cancer to wake her up to how important her family was to her? My breast cancer was scary in large part BECAUSE I already valued that.
The one thing I really did like about this book was the story of her mother tell her father to drop dead when he objected to her returning to work. Unlike the author, her mother was a true SAHM for many years and then got fed up with her sole purpose being to take care of the entire household. She sounded like someone I’d enjoying hearing more about.
January 22, 2009
Caitlin Flanagan writes essays on modern family life for the New Yorker, which explains why this book is long on charm and short on tirades. Despite the inflammatory title, Mrs. (dare I call her?) Flanagan takes a friendly look at all things domestic as experienced by today's at-home mother.
Just take a look at these chapters:
The Virgin Bride tries to explain how it is that today's not-likely-virgin bride gloms onto the most elaborate wedding rituals.
The Wifely Duty notes the lack of romance, and often sex, of the two-career family, with a fair amount of discretion.
Housewife Confidential compares the at-home mother with the housewife of the 1950s, with a roster of the writers who documented and defined the housewife in the contemporary press. Such underrated luminaries as Jean Kerr, Shirley Jackson (yes, she wrote The Lottery and The Haunting of Hill House, but she also wrote Raising Demons in the housewifely vein), Peg Bracken, and the superstar Erma Bombeck.
A Necessary Person explains how Walt Disney both defined and destroyed the nanny for this generation, while That's My Woman describes her experience with having a nanny for her children.
Executive Child looks at the highly scheduled lives of today's children (and thus their parents).
Drudges and Celebrities examines the propensity for the at-home mother to have drudges for the down-and-dirty cleaning, and celebrities (aka Martha Stewart, et al) to teach them how to sweep floors and fold napkins.
Clutter Warriors takes a wry look at the anti-clutter movement, and the at-home mother's need for a hired organizer.
To Hell with All That describes the day that her mother, a competent and content housewife, suddenly threw in the towel and got a job, and the effect it had on then-12-year-old Caitlin. This segues into a discussion of working moms vs. at-home mothers.
My Life Without You deals with the death of her mother and her own bout with breast cancer.
And finally, in the middle of the acknowledgements, as she thanks her twin sons, she answers the question that puzzled me throughout the book:
"Patrick and Conor: We did it! Thanks for your excellent help and advice. I don't know why the publisher didn't call it "To Heck with All That," like we decided. I love you."
And that's why I will read this book again.
Just take a look at these chapters:
The Virgin Bride tries to explain how it is that today's not-likely-virgin bride gloms onto the most elaborate wedding rituals.
The Wifely Duty notes the lack of romance, and often sex, of the two-career family, with a fair amount of discretion.
Housewife Confidential compares the at-home mother with the housewife of the 1950s, with a roster of the writers who documented and defined the housewife in the contemporary press. Such underrated luminaries as Jean Kerr, Shirley Jackson (yes, she wrote The Lottery and The Haunting of Hill House, but she also wrote Raising Demons in the housewifely vein), Peg Bracken, and the superstar Erma Bombeck.
A Necessary Person explains how Walt Disney both defined and destroyed the nanny for this generation, while That's My Woman describes her experience with having a nanny for her children.
Executive Child looks at the highly scheduled lives of today's children (and thus their parents).
Drudges and Celebrities examines the propensity for the at-home mother to have drudges for the down-and-dirty cleaning, and celebrities (aka Martha Stewart, et al) to teach them how to sweep floors and fold napkins.
Clutter Warriors takes a wry look at the anti-clutter movement, and the at-home mother's need for a hired organizer.
To Hell with All That describes the day that her mother, a competent and content housewife, suddenly threw in the towel and got a job, and the effect it had on then-12-year-old Caitlin. This segues into a discussion of working moms vs. at-home mothers.
My Life Without You deals with the death of her mother and her own bout with breast cancer.
And finally, in the middle of the acknowledgements, as she thanks her twin sons, she answers the question that puzzled me throughout the book:
"Patrick and Conor: We did it! Thanks for your excellent help and advice. I don't know why the publisher didn't call it "To Heck with All That," like we decided. I love you."
And that's why I will read this book again.
October 22, 2013
Well, then. I've liked Caitlin Flanagan's stuff about women and family in the Atlantic, and much of that material is repeated here. She's an engaging writer, and scary-easy to read. There's a lot to like here, and plenty of fun bits ("I remember hearing my mother's half of a long, complicated telephone conversation about whether it would or would not undermine the housewives' beef strike of 1973 if the caller defrosted and cooked meat bought prior to the strike"). But taken as a whole, the essays in this book add up to a big nothing. I know I'm supposed to dislike Flanagan for writing, for example, that women simply care more about housework than men, or that stay-at-home moms impart some benefits to their children that working moms don't. (I haven't read any of "Girl Land," which I gather from online commenters is just about the worst thing to have been written ever by a woman.) I just can't get worked up about that kind of thing. She's actually not wrong about a lot of it, and her pieces are far more nuanced and her writing more honest than they're made out to be by her critics (she comes off in her own work as kind of a mess personally, and seems dismayed by much of what she finds herself doing). I think my main question is why is she, of all people, writing about these so-called issues? She seems to have worked out a way of being a wife and mother that works for her, her corporate husband, and their three-sport-athlete first-graders—it involves not only a nanny but a maid, gardener, and weekly sessions with a home-organizing professional—and she has a fairly clear view of the fact that this won't work for everyone or even most women. What are we supposed to take from her nuanced, honest description of her life (and her somewhat simplistic view of others' lives)? What do we get out of it? I got nothing, other than a sense that maybe I should sweep the floors more often—which I probably should, but still. I could just flip through Martha Stewart Living to get that.
I think I must be more of a Sandra Tsing-Loh type.
I think I must be more of a Sandra Tsing-Loh type.
February 26, 2008
I really liked this book! My favorite chapters (on America's love of huge weddings and virgin brides) were the first two I read and I was hooked.
Basically, the author is pointing out the truth: we've gained so much as women in the last generation or two, but we've also lost a little bit too. There is a trade off for everything.
I think what I REALLY liked about this book is that Ms. Flanngan doesn't claim to be a homemaker at all. She claims to have been a stay at home mom, not the same thing in her opinion. I never thought about that, but I think she is right. However, I disagree with her that there are no more homemakers. I enjoy taking care of my home through cooking, decorating, and seeing it clean. (I don't like the actual cleaning, but all jobs have their drawbacks.) This is my job and I take it seriously. She nevers 'slams' homemaking at all; instead paying homage to her own mother who was a fabulous no-nonsense mother and homemaker. Ms. Flannagan simply admits she didn't have the patience to do the same. I don't have to agree with her attitude and or views to appreciate what she was saying.
I'm not sure why other readers of this book have slammed Ms. Flannagan in their reveiws. Yes, she chose to stay home with her twins when they were babies, and hired a nanny, but what mother of twins doesn't wish for extra help those first few years? She was very candid about her mixed feelings of hiring a nanny. I didn't get the feeling at all that she was saying, "Here's what I did, you should too." She was simply sharing her experiences with us. Personally I enjoyed it.
The last chapter sums it all up--I won't give it away, but basically she comes to find that Mother's play a unique role in famiily life and society--a role that is irreplaceable.
Basically, the author is pointing out the truth: we've gained so much as women in the last generation or two, but we've also lost a little bit too. There is a trade off for everything.
I think what I REALLY liked about this book is that Ms. Flanngan doesn't claim to be a homemaker at all. She claims to have been a stay at home mom, not the same thing in her opinion. I never thought about that, but I think she is right. However, I disagree with her that there are no more homemakers. I enjoy taking care of my home through cooking, decorating, and seeing it clean. (I don't like the actual cleaning, but all jobs have their drawbacks.) This is my job and I take it seriously. She nevers 'slams' homemaking at all; instead paying homage to her own mother who was a fabulous no-nonsense mother and homemaker. Ms. Flannagan simply admits she didn't have the patience to do the same. I don't have to agree with her attitude and or views to appreciate what she was saying.
I'm not sure why other readers of this book have slammed Ms. Flannagan in their reveiws. Yes, she chose to stay home with her twins when they were babies, and hired a nanny, but what mother of twins doesn't wish for extra help those first few years? She was very candid about her mixed feelings of hiring a nanny. I didn't get the feeling at all that she was saying, "Here's what I did, you should too." She was simply sharing her experiences with us. Personally I enjoyed it.
The last chapter sums it all up--I won't give it away, but basically she comes to find that Mother's play a unique role in famiily life and society--a role that is irreplaceable.
July 30, 2025
This was fun and clever. While some of this is written for a world I do not live in—I cannot afford a full time nanny even if I wanted one—I appreciated her honesty about the conflicting messages women receive from modern culture but also from within. It was refreshing to read something about women by a woman who isn’t trying to deny qualities that seem to be in part innate in the majority of women. I may not agree with everything, but there’s nothing I love in a collection of essays more than nuance, which is definitely present here.
*listened
*listened
March 3, 2014
From the first few pages of this one, I figured I would have issues with this one. And I did. But in the spirit of listening to opposing viewpoints I did finish it and found myself liking Flanagan a teensy bit more than I did in the beginning.
First off, I take issue with someone who has taken one path (i.e. working mom or stay at home mom) and seems unable to see the other side. Flanagan did even worse on this front, flip flopping from a diehard SAHM'er to a proud working woman once she starts writing and getting published. I also give her the side-eye (fair or not) for having a nanny while staying at home. And a housekeeper. And a professional organizer. Yes, she had twins. Yes, her husband seems to work a lot. But you can't be such a fervent SAHM'er while having a nanny to sweep in from the background to help out with the kids, the dishes, the cooking, etc. Most SAHMs don't have those luxuries and you lose a lot of credibility (in my opinion) because then you're not really in the same boat as the typical SAHM.
Overall, I didn't find Flanagan to be a very credible opinion-giver on this topic. She sort of, almost came around at the end when she talked about each woman doing what is best for her and her family. Which is firmly the camp I'm in. Do I think I'd be a good SAHM? Not particularly; I like the fulfillment I get from my work. And that's ok with me. You may be different. And that's ok with me, too. Flanagan isn't an authority to listen to on this issue - but you are.
First off, I take issue with someone who has taken one path (i.e. working mom or stay at home mom) and seems unable to see the other side. Flanagan did even worse on this front, flip flopping from a diehard SAHM'er to a proud working woman once she starts writing and getting published. I also give her the side-eye (fair or not) for having a nanny while staying at home. And a housekeeper. And a professional organizer. Yes, she had twins. Yes, her husband seems to work a lot. But you can't be such a fervent SAHM'er while having a nanny to sweep in from the background to help out with the kids, the dishes, the cooking, etc. Most SAHMs don't have those luxuries and you lose a lot of credibility (in my opinion) because then you're not really in the same boat as the typical SAHM.
Overall, I didn't find Flanagan to be a very credible opinion-giver on this topic. She sort of, almost came around at the end when she talked about each woman doing what is best for her and her family. Which is firmly the camp I'm in. Do I think I'd be a good SAHM? Not particularly; I like the fulfillment I get from my work. And that's ok with me. You may be different. And that's ok with me, too. Flanagan isn't an authority to listen to on this issue - but you are.
January 7, 2012
Caitlin Flanagan is a sarcastic and humorous lady, and though I enjoyed reading this book, it took me a couple of chapters to get accustomed to her writing style so that I didn't have to reread a sentence or two to make sure I understood what point she was making. (My great worry when reading is that I will misunderstand which side of the fence the writer is on!) What is most refreshing to me is how she applauds and understands all MOTHERS, whether they work or stay home or some combination of the two. It reminds me to not be judgemental of other mothers and the choices they make regarding their children and husbands, since I HATE when people judge my decisions for my family. Also, she makes a good point about men just not being "connected" to housework the way women are. My husband tries very hard to do housework for me and he tries to do it the way I "like it done," but he's a man and does things differently. Flanagan reminds the reader that men and women are different and see things differently, and to give the men a break! I liked this lady throughout the book but when she went into her ordeal with breast cancer, my heart went out to her. I can only imagine the threat of being removed from the life of my young children, when they need me so much. Her all encompassing love and appreciation for her own mother was also sweet and touching, reminding me of how much my mom loved and sacrificed for us.
December 5, 2012
Caitlin Flanagan has been called "anti-feminist" at times because of her focus on women's traditional roles as wives, mothers, and homemakers. Still, this book is a thoughtful enough examination of women's connection to these roles over time that it didn't feel anti-feminist to me. Indeed, I think exploring perceptions commonly held of women and work commonly done by women is a feminist thing to do, regardless of the conclusions you come to. Somehow, her humility and understanding of her own privileged place in society makes certain luxuries she writes about (hiring a nanny even though she was home with her kids when they were babies) chafe less. She brings up some interesting points about why women are drawn to things like Martha Stewart (not because of beauty but because she represents a fantasy of having TIME to do all those things) and decluttering (unlike daily housework, it involves high-level "executive decisions.") I related to her ambivalence about traditional women's roles and was attached enough to her by the end of the book that the last essay made me cry a bit. A worthwhile read for women regardless of where their relationship to traditional women's work falls on the spectrum.
August 11, 2015
I read this years ago and liked it. As it was still sitting on my shelf, I thought I'd see if I still found it amusing, now married, in a home, contemplating a family etc.
Welp, no. Obviously it's not a surprise that a book with this subtitle is heavily invested in gender essentialism...but it's just done so inanely! Women love pretty things! Men can't possibly be expected to match socks!
She gives the sad masses of American mothers cultural lessons, yearning for the aristocracy and the great WASPs of times past. REAL rich people do things like this, ya bunch of slobs.
And, oh, the hypocrisy. She berates the second wave feminism for its demonization of housework, argues that many women WANT to be domestic goddesses and take care of hearth and home. That wrestling with your husband over who's going to make the bed is a foolish game anyhow. And then announces that she has never (not even once) changed her own sheets. She is proudly, assuredly, a 'stay-at-home mother' — but with a full time nanny who also does all of the cooking and cleaning. See also: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/sa...
And yet....she's just a damn good writer, and some of the essays ARE so funny and moving.
Welp, no. Obviously it's not a surprise that a book with this subtitle is heavily invested in gender essentialism...but it's just done so inanely! Women love pretty things! Men can't possibly be expected to match socks!
She gives the sad masses of American mothers cultural lessons, yearning for the aristocracy and the great WASPs of times past. REAL rich people do things like this, ya bunch of slobs.
And, oh, the hypocrisy. She berates the second wave feminism for its demonization of housework, argues that many women WANT to be domestic goddesses and take care of hearth and home. That wrestling with your husband over who's going to make the bed is a foolish game anyhow. And then announces that she has never (not even once) changed her own sheets. She is proudly, assuredly, a 'stay-at-home mother' — but with a full time nanny who also does all of the cooking and cleaning. See also: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/sa...
And yet....she's just a damn good writer, and some of the essays ARE so funny and moving.
February 1, 2021
Engaging, strongly opinionated essays. I didn’t love or agree with all of them, but would say “The Executive Child” was fantastic.
I can see how Flanagan can be written off as anti-feminist. Here she is espousing orthodox opinions regarding gender roles:
And here’s one regarding sexuality and marriage:
I found these passages rewarding not because I agree with them, but because these are earnest, fairly-intended opinions with which I can better understand why I don’t agree with them. In this way, reading Flanagan was somewhat like reading Plato… yes, his character Socrates’s ideas are daffy, so what is your more “enlightened” alternative?
For the former quote, Flanagan begs the question by never answering what heartache has feminist agenda really brought. Or where the balance of heartache lies. For example, challenging the “child doesn’t need a father” opinion ignores the mothers and children who are fatherless by no choice of their own, and who want to believe fatherless children can still have successful lives under the circumstances they find themselves in. Ideas that may be intended as empowering are too often misconstrued as divisive.
There’s opportunity for middle ground, which Flanagan almost offers. Elsewhere (such as in the opening essay), she challenges the idea that a woman’s role “home maker” is actually subservient. Flanagan and her feminist “adversaries” both would agree that they don’t want to be subservient, but just disagree over what behaviors and relationships constitute subservience. Addressing the question of what constitutes subservience directly perhaps makes for more dry writing, but it would at least attempt at a more constructive contribution to the debate Flanagan wants to have.
This question is more clearly reflected in the latter quote, wherein Flanagan seems to think feminists (who she personifies via a writer I’m not familiar with, Jill Bialosky) have achieved a Pyrric victory in their sexual liberation. If this is true, then I think the more rewarding essay (and certainly one I don’t have the gifts to write) might be for Flanagan to explain how she finds equality within her relationship in spite of, or better because of, her traditional actions.
Beyond sexuality and gender roles, Flanagan demonstrates admirable self-scrutiny about her economic circumstances. One rewarding essay was her dawning realization that she was not providing her nanny, Paloma, with social security, which is illegal on top of being immoral.
After rectifying things, Flanagan goes on to bring this issue to national attention, I expect directly benefiting a lot of domestic workers around the country.
I can see how Flanagan can be written off as anti-feminist. Here she is espousing orthodox opinions regarding gender roles:
Writing honestly about these issues in the national press has been difficult, because it required challenging certain articles of faith that comprise what the current American feminist agenda requires us to believe about womanhood. Among them: girls do not have a natural interest in home making; a young woman should not spend any of her energies finding a suitable husband and preparing for her life as a wife and mother; a woman doesn’t need a man, and a child doesn’t need a father; caring for the emotional and physical needs of a husband constitute subservience; paid professional work outside the home is the most valuable way for a woman to assert her intelligence and native gifts onto the world; there is no connection between the number of hours a woman spends with her child and the nature of her relationship with that child. For many women, this code has brought heartache. Why? Because it refuses to acknowledge a truth as old as civilization – that a woman’s ambition to be a wife and mother can be just as powerful as her ambition to become a respected member of the labor force.
And here’s one regarding sexuality and marriage:
The Jill Bialoskys of the world may feel that they belong to the most outrageously group of women yet to stride the earth. These women assume that, in the very act of confession [about their loss of sexual interest in their partners] they are wearing the mantle of freedom. They are not only free enough to perform oral sex in a moving car (a bit of cutting edge eroticism that I believe dates back to the Model T), but also free enough to admit, in tones of outrage and bewilderment, to the abrupt waning of their desire. What they don’t understand, and what women of an earlier era might have been able to tell them, is that when the [woman’s sexual interest] turns off, it is time not to rat out your husband (is there anything more wounding to a man, and therefore more cruel and vicious than a wife’s public admission that he’s not satisfying her in bed?) but to turn it back on. It is not complicated. It requires putting the children to bed at a decent hour, and adopting a good attitude. The rare and enviable woman is not the one liberated enough to tell hurtful secrets about her marriage to her girlfriends or the reading public. Nor is she the one capable of attracting the sexual attentions of a variety of worthy suitors. The rare woman, the good wife and the happy one, is the one who maintains her husband’s sexual interest, and who returns it in full measure.
I found these passages rewarding not because I agree with them, but because these are earnest, fairly-intended opinions with which I can better understand why I don’t agree with them. In this way, reading Flanagan was somewhat like reading Plato… yes, his character Socrates’s ideas are daffy, so what is your more “enlightened” alternative?
For the former quote, Flanagan begs the question by never answering what heartache has feminist agenda really brought. Or where the balance of heartache lies. For example, challenging the “child doesn’t need a father” opinion ignores the mothers and children who are fatherless by no choice of their own, and who want to believe fatherless children can still have successful lives under the circumstances they find themselves in. Ideas that may be intended as empowering are too often misconstrued as divisive.
There’s opportunity for middle ground, which Flanagan almost offers. Elsewhere (such as in the opening essay), she challenges the idea that a woman’s role “home maker” is actually subservient. Flanagan and her feminist “adversaries” both would agree that they don’t want to be subservient, but just disagree over what behaviors and relationships constitute subservience. Addressing the question of what constitutes subservience directly perhaps makes for more dry writing, but it would at least attempt at a more constructive contribution to the debate Flanagan wants to have.
This question is more clearly reflected in the latter quote, wherein Flanagan seems to think feminists (who she personifies via a writer I’m not familiar with, Jill Bialosky) have achieved a Pyrric victory in their sexual liberation. If this is true, then I think the more rewarding essay (and certainly one I don’t have the gifts to write) might be for Flanagan to explain how she finds equality within her relationship in spite of, or better because of, her traditional actions.
Beyond sexuality and gender roles, Flanagan demonstrates admirable self-scrutiny about her economic circumstances. One rewarding essay was her dawning realization that she was not providing her nanny, Paloma, with social security, which is illegal on top of being immoral.
Friends, all of whom were doing exactly as I was doing, rushed to assuage my guilt. Who knew if social security would even be around by the time Paloma retired? It was better, they said, to put a little money aside each month in a money market account and tell her not to touch it until she was 65. I supposed that was true, although none of my friends was doing such a laudable thing. And besides, we were all liberals, weren’t we supposed to be violently opposed to privatizing social security? My old ace in the hole, the notion that Paloma was an independent contractor turned out to be bogus. The Federal tax code makes it explicitly clear that domestic workers are not, under any circumstances, independent contracts. They are always employees. The reason for this bit of precision shamed me further. When the program was designed under FDR, domestic workers (the vast majority of whom were black women) were specifically denied access to the benefits. In those days, women’s work was hardly seen as work at all, and the work of black women even less so.
After rectifying things, Flanagan goes on to bring this issue to national attention, I expect directly benefiting a lot of domestic workers around the country.
August 9, 2009
Flanagan's writing focuses on how the past 30 years has changed the lives and choices of women, but in that time we have also lost sight of so many things that really do matter.
She writes on nannies, the anti-clutter movement (loved this one), lack of sex in marriage, weddings, motherhood, twins, over scheduled children and many other topics. I enjoyed her common sense attitude- her undertone is one of "hasn't it all gotten a bit ridiculous?".
She's controversial with many feminists, and here is a taste of why: "what's missing from so many affluent American households is the one thing you can't buy: the presence of someone who cares deeply and principally about that home and the people who live in it: who is willing to spend a significant portion of each day thinking about... (what those people need). This book is a great reminder of what really is needed by families and why women are well equipped to provide it.
She writes on nannies, the anti-clutter movement (loved this one), lack of sex in marriage, weddings, motherhood, twins, over scheduled children and many other topics. I enjoyed her common sense attitude- her undertone is one of "hasn't it all gotten a bit ridiculous?".
She's controversial with many feminists, and here is a taste of why: "what's missing from so many affluent American households is the one thing you can't buy: the presence of someone who cares deeply and principally about that home and the people who live in it: who is willing to spend a significant portion of each day thinking about... (what those people need). This book is a great reminder of what really is needed by families and why women are well equipped to provide it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 192 reviews