Still, if we posit that mothers are fundamentally better than fathers at raising children(which has troubling implications for equality in custody battles, among other things) we’re still left with the assumption that is a bit of a leap: Women are better parents, ergo they should dedicate 100% of their time to their children.

This is silly on a number of levels. Throughout most of history and in most cultures, children have been raised by several adults, not mothers exclusively. Also, the quality of the time spent with kids means more than the quantity. Spending all waking hours with a toddler can turn loving engaged mom into harsh short-tempered mom in short order, which is hardly good for the kid.

There’s a happy middle ground between childcare and work, and it is possible with the right kind of support. That support depends on letting go of the idea that kids are “mom’s job” exclusively.

Still, if we posit that mothers are fundamentally better than fathers at raising children(which has troubling implications for equality in custody battles, among other things) we’re still left with the assumption that is a bit of a leap: Women are better parents, ergo they should dedicate 100% of their time to their children.

This is silly on a number of levels. Throughout most of history and in most cultures, children have been raised by several adults, not mothers exclusively. Also, the quality of the time spent with kids means more than the quantity. Spending all waking hours with a toddler can turn loving engaged mom into harsh short-tempered mom in short order, which is hardly good for the kid.

There’s a happy middle ground between childcare and work, and it is possible with the right kind of support. That support depends on letting go of the idea that kids are “mom’s job” exclusively.

I think it’s part of a fantasy life that she lays the blame of a lack of women leaders on babies. She probably has the fantasy of: “if only I didn’t have kids, I’d be a CEO” “if only for this kid, I’d be known as a freaking genius.” “if not for this kid, who knows what I would have done?” Then she can feel all noble and stuff for her sacrifice. It even makes the men feel better. Of course it’s NOT really discrimination when it’s women chosing to be mommies! It’s nature! And to blame babies makes everyone feel better. The Noble sacrifice of women…the natural nature of the female vs the male (who doesn’t think family is important)…and really, people who discriminate aren’t to blame, they are just following…nature. And really, discrimination is a personal problem where the womens just need to negotiate in their personal marriages….see, pat it all over, now, doesn’t everyone feel empowered?

Except…discrimination occurs to childless women and women who are past childbearing age – actually the MOST discriminated group. I suggest the author pull her head out of the diaper bag and really address discrimination. It will make us all uncomfortable that it is NOT all about the babies, because that would make people bigots instead of nature followers, but it would be real and honest.

“The Babies” – it’s a false and sad place to lay the blame and pat over the adults who discriminate against women. As Dr. Phil says, it bad to give your child a job to do even before it is born. And to lay the blame of lack of achievement on your kid is really too much for a kid to have to take. The loving look at a child, “if not for you…” argument saves face, but it’s not the root of discrimination, stupid.

When the truth is: as research has shown, whether women have children or not, they are held back.

Men are taught to promote their own achievements. Women are taught it’s better to be humble or people will think you’re egotistical.

But getting back to your original point – indeed. No one worries that a dad will leave his job in order to care for his kids and yet women are asked that question all the time.

I think women are as capable as men in every regard, and parents with children need to figure out who the caregiver is, and what works for their marriage. If that is the man, great. But I think parenting deserves much more time and attention than whatever “remains” when both parents have fulltime careers. It’s an incredibly personal decision, where somebody sacrifices somewhere.

Perhaps this is familiar and perahps not:

Try dating super-achieving career women and you’ll see that a lot of them harbor a major conflict between their desire for maintaining a very demanding career (surgeon, CEO, etc) and having to settle for a non-alpha male, who makes less than she does and will actually share the burdens of the boring stuff, as is the stated desired outcome in this article: Childcare, dishes, etc, leading to 50/50.

Until you’ve experienced the seething resentment of a career woman who hates you for being what she claims she wanted (helpful, supportive, etc) then you haven’t fully explored this problem…

Sad but true, a lot of women divorce or leave men that ARE the ideal of supportive, helpful and caring, because these men are not as exciting or high-achieving as they’re supposed to be in the superwoman’s fantasy of an alpha-male achiever, you know, the one who doesn’t mind doing the 50/50 thing when it’s her career that comes first, but simultaneously has his own money and career stuff in turbo mode.

Ladies, reconcile (or at least acknowledge and explore) your own conflict about this issue, or you’re surely running into a brick wall of misery for you and your man, whom you will unceremoniously dump or drive away with your impossible expectations.

It’s not that (just) that good men aren’t out there who do what it takes to get to 50/50, they are out there, more and more. It’s also the fact that women often mistake these men for suckers/betas and kick the men out of their lives for being liberated men.

As a tech woman founder and entrepreneur, I wanted to also weigh in on the childcare dilemma. I launched Sittercity.com 8 years ago because I realized that moms were at the mercy of their social networks or expensive nanny agencies when they needed to find caregivers. Today, my company, Sittercity.com, has over a million caregivers nationwide, babysitters, nannies, petsitters, etc. We also have a corporate program that companies like Avon, Mastercard, etc have been purchasing for their employee bases. It’s roughly $10 a month to use our site, and connect with hundreds or thousands of great caregivers all around you, and our 4-step screening process allows you to see feedback, references, background checks and interview tips on the caregivers.

So I think we might be able to help! If there’s any women reading this that need childcare, either a sitter, nanny or similar, let me know and I can send you a discount code. If it gets you back “out there,” it’s worth it.

There’s a perception out there, still, that you need to trade being a mom for a career. I’m working to change that and I think that as women, we’ll need to be the ones spearheading this change. As a woman tech entrepreneur, I think that the more of us that do get in the game, create companies, make the right VC relationships and promote and mentor each other, the less of a problem there will be.

I suspect, given that the majority of workers in the US are now women, that the road might not be as long as we think:)

I’m not saying there isn’t gender bias in many aspects of the professional world. But completely ignoring one of the key factors in this for many women is just sticking your head in the sand to avoid an inconvenient truth. And more than that, making women who choose to stay home with their kids feel marginalized is itself a form of sexism. All choices should be valid, even if it (gasp!) takes a woman off the professional fast-track.

To say women don’t have to choose any more than men in this case is called reality distortion.