Re: Caitlin Flanagan

In the comboxes below, a reader writes that being a stay-at-home mom is something only wealthy people like Caitlin Flanagan can do. She (the reader) writes that if she quit her job to do that, she'd have to live in a "vile" neighborhood and do housework all day.

Well, yeah, unless your husband is wealthy, you will not be able to live in a neighborhood as nice as you might do otherwise, and you will have to do unpleasant things like dishes. But it has its rewards. It can be done, but you have to be willing to make do with less. I agree that Flanagan is not the best example, because she does have household help, but the reader is being way too defensive here. The point to be taken from Flanagan's essay is not, "Is Caitlin Flanagan a bad woman?" No, the point is how come the Democratic Party seems dead-set on marginalizing and even running off women (and men) who are traditionalists about family life?

Forget C.F. for a second; what if that were written by one of the many women I know who are living in a much smaller and less nice house than they might otherwise live in, all because they chose to stay at home to keep house and raise children? The argument would still be the same, because I know from my wife's experience that there is a certain kind of liberal Democrat who looks down on women who make those choices as fools who don't know what's best for them. These are women who might be open to the Democratic message on the economy, health care, the environment and suchlike. But they are not going to sign on for a party that looks down its nose on them for their choices. For all its flaws, the GOP makes room for both career women and stay-at-home moms. Flanagan is a flawed messenger, but the message is one worth taking seriously.