I just finished reading Caitlin Flanagan's new piece in Atlantic Monthly on "How Serfdom Saved the Women's Movement." It seems designed to be a talked-about piece for working women, feminists and anyone who cares about the status of nannys in America. And while there are sure to be a whole range of critiques (see this Slate discussion for a start) that I simply don't have the background to join in, Flanagan stumbles briefly into Rebel Dad territory. So let me point out a couple of my eye-rolling moments.

For starters, she mocks Alix Kates Shulman's marriage contract from the early 1970s, which spelled out *exactly* how household tasks would be divided to ensure equity. Her judgement on Shulman: "Shulman has earned herself a spot on any almost short list of very silly people." Even if you think the contract is over the top, the idea of husbands pitching in with an eye to equalty is hardly "silly." (Flanagan then goes on to brag that such a contract is superfluous in her home, where a nanny pitches in with the kids and does all the laundry ...) And having dad help out a home is relegated to the shadows for much of the rest of the piece, an issue apparenly no longer worth thinking about.

Then, in an interview with Flanagan accompanying the piece, she lets loose with this exchange:

I want to switch gears for a second. Throughout the article, you talk about the professional woman's dilemma—whether to sacrifice her own happiness for the sake of the children. Stay home or go to work. Do you ever see a time when the issues you raise in the article won't essentially be women's issues?

The hot new thing in feminism these days is maternal feminism. It was launched at a big conference at Barnard College a couple of years ago, attended by some of the major feminists of our time, including Ann Crittenden and Sylvia Ann Hewitt. The crux of their argument is that mothering—as opposed to fathering, or parenting, or care giving—is something unique, and of inestimable value. That the bond between a mother and her children is different from any other kind of human bond, and that it should be revered and respected. You won't get an argument from me about that. But the second that one implies that—in part owing to this unique and sacred bond—the hard work of raising children belongs more to women than to men, these same women start squealing like stuck pigs. They can't have it both ways: either mothers are uniquely designed for the care and protection of children, or they aren't. End of story.

While we're on the topic of silly, let me pop this bubble: I can think of no defender of mothering who sees it as something different in value than fathering. Trust me, Ann Crittenden -- who has been uncommonly nice to Rebel Dad -- does not squeal "like a stuck pig" at the idea of fathers as primary caregivers. If anything, Ann (and most other observers of the modern family) continue to think there's massive gender inequity at home, inequality that would be helped in no small part by more dads picking up more of the household responsibilities.

(UPDATE: Flanagan, in the Slate discussion has now weighed in with the iron-clad point that men are incapable of doing housework or chatting with a child's teacher well, and, as such, can safely be left out of any discussion about home roles. And she uncorks this line: "Another dynamic is that mothers are much more concerned and even anxious about the day-to-day realities of their children's lives than are fathers." I guess we're a lost cause. Ay caramba!)