• Health Section • Recent stories by Abigail Trafford • Talk: Parachuting From the Mommy Cliff • Talk: Health news message boards • Health Talk Archive • Live Online Transcripts • Subscribe to washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters

Second Opinion:
The Price of Motherhood?
Hosted by Abigail Trafford
Washington Post columnist
Tuesday, April 24, 2001; 2 p.m. EDT

Welcome to Second Opinion, a weekly column and Live Online discussion with Post Health columnist Abigail Trafford.

What kind of choice is it to have a baby? Critics of programs geared to parents say that having a child is a choice, and if women choose to give birth, then they should accept the consequences and stop whining about how tough it is.

Advocates of "family friendly" policies counter that society doesn't have a choice. Having children is a biological neccessity. Each generation has replace itself. That's why society has an interest -- an obligation -- to help parents, especially women, produce and raise their children. What do you think? Our guest is Ann Crittenden, an economics journalist and author of "The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued."

Submit your questions in advance or during the hour.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Abigail Trafford: hello everybody! Motherhood! Parenthood! Familyhood! How about changing the way we value the work parents--mostly women--do to raise their children? This is a hot button issue. Join us with your questions and comments.

Abigail Trafford: Welcome, Ann Crittenden. It's good to have you back. You've written an amazing book. Tell us again what is your basic message--and what has been the response?

Ann Crittendon: Abby, hi again! I would say that the meesage of my book is that raising children is a highly skilled, incredibly important work that needs to be supported by all of us. I am getting an extremely favorable response, on the whole, to that message.

Abigail Trafford: Critics say that having a baby is a choice. I think what may be a person choice for individual women and men is a social imperative. Each generation has to replace itself. What is the controversy over choice?

Ann Crittendon: It may be a personal choice whether or not to have a child, but a well raised child is not a purely personal thing. Children are the greatest assets, and the greatest source of national wealth, that a country can have. So everyone has a stake in how well caregivers do their job.

Alexandria, Va.: I agree that having children and raising them is an extremely important task, and I have no problem with parents receiving additional tax breaks, etc. However, the title of your book interests me. What "value" are you looking for for parents? They choose to have children, and receive their reward every day, love from their children, and the satisfaction that comes with successfully raising a child. What more are you looking for? The United States is not a socialized country, and therefore it does not make sense to seek the family-centered government benefits that many European nations enjoy (unless you plan on doubling our tax rate). So outside of this, what do you want? Why should parents seek and receive outside recognition? Shouldn't the parenting itself be their reward?

Abigail Trafford: Ann, you calculated the price of motherhood to be about 1 million dollars. Can you explain that?

Ann Crittendon: The book goes into great detail to explain how people who spend any time with children, theirs or others, in the case of paid caregivers, are in effect financially penalized. They either earn no income, or minimum wage level income, they receive no credits toward a pension under Social Security if they work at home, and they bear the overwhelming brunt of divorce. this impoversihes women and children. I want to change that, and that isn't socialism.

Dee Cee Mom: What I'm wondering is: Shouldn't the argument be pitched as "The Price of Parenthood"? I'm a feminist, and married to a man who was the stay at home parent for my children's infancies. Now that they are 5 and 7 years old, we both work part time, live in a modest part of town with a modest mortgage, and try our darnedest to put our marriage and parenting first, career and material possessions second and third. Both of us are on the career "Mommy Track" as it were, although while the children are with us (only 13 more years for this shot at greatest parenting influence), we don't mind. I may even go back to grad school in my 50's! (I'm 42.) And we've been lucky to find flexible and stimulating part time jobs.

I have read Peer Marriage by Pepper Schwartz, and in her research she noted that it was the "near-peer" marriages that were the most unhappy, not the traditional ones with moms at home (everyone knows their place) or the peer marriage (where there is somewhat more conflict but greater marital satisfaction because both parents are equally involved in parenting, financial and logistical decision-making).

Somehow, I think that making family-friendly policies for all, coupled with a down-shifting of our frenetic lives, is the way to go, for the sake of our kids and stress levels. (See Juliet Schor's The Overspent American. I also love Graceful Simplicity: Toward a Philosophy and Politics of Simple Living by Jerome Segal) Any thoughts?

Abigail Trafford: I agree that we're talking about parenthood. But isn't it women who pay the the price. Yes a a minority of fathers also contribute to the daily raising of children, but perhaps many more would like to. But the reality is that women do most of the care-taking. Isn't that right, Ann? But there's hope. Certainly peer marriages are a hopeful sign. How realistic is it to think of peer marriages becoming the norm?

Ann Crittendon: I deliberately chose Motherhood in the title because the estimates are that women do about 80 percent of the work of raising their children, and more than 95 percent of the paid caregiving of young children. I think, given that reality, saying "parents" is a bit of a euphemism. One of my hopes is that if the work were were more highly regarded more men would be willing and able to be the kind of father your husband is.

Carbondale, Pa.: I've never had an incredible "must have" desire to have children and now, in my mid-30's, my fiance and I are discussing it. He's of the two kids, Norman Rockwell imagery about it all. I don't think I could do more than one, given the time, energy, cost, and just knowing myself and what I can handle. I don't think he gets how tough it is to have a child. Despite his good intentions (like many men), I have a feeling that (like many women)the childcare stuff will mostly fall on me. This is also another reason why I'm of the one-child philosophy. Both of us will be continuing to work (one quitting is not an option). Is there any way of making him realize just how tough it is? I think as a female, I generally get more exposed to the realities from other women around me, so I feel a few steps ahead of him in the reality department.

Ann Crittendon: I have a lot of empathy for your question, because I myself, for my own reasons, had only one child. And I believe that today more children live in one-child households than in any other arrangements. So don't worry about it -- it's a perfectly legitimate and satisfying choice!

VA: Is there a correlation between women with more education having less kids? What aobut women with less education with more kids?

Ann Crittendon: Yes, women with more education do have fewer children on average. Partly this is because of their enormous investment in education, and the fact that they so much more to lose when they have a child, given the enormous costs in this country. By one estimate, a college-educated woman will lose about one million in lifetime earnings if she has a child. A less educated woman have much less to lose, financially.

va: I agree that some changes need to be made, but looking at Western Europe for a model is not the answer. Yes, they have some great social programs, but the trade-off is that most of these countries also have an enormous unemployment rate. An economy can only support so much.

I personally think that the increasing popularity of telecommuting will do a lot to improve this area, as women will be able to spend less time in the car, and can shuffle their hours to when they're the most convenient.

I also think that when we FINALLY have universal health care, this will make a big difference.

Abigail Trafford: I agree on universal health coverage! And you raise good points. Ann, how could the workplace be restructured to accomodate working parents better? Is telecommuting one option?

Ann Crittendon: My favorite workplace reform woyuld be a shorter work week. The European Union is moving toward a 35 hour week, and I'd love to see the same thing here, although it is utterly unlikely. Alternatively, I support what one might call the rule of proportionality: a person, aprenmt or otherwise, should be able to opt for a shorter work week, with proportionately lower salary, fewer benefits, and slower advancement -- but still have equal pay for the same work.

Somewhere, USA: I agree with you that is MAINLY an issue for mothers, but I think you are doing a disservice to everone to act as if this is never an issue for fathers (or to downplay their role). There was an article in the Post a few days ago discussing the role of day care in children's behavior, and in this study, children who stayed at home with Dad (rather than Mom) were considered to be in day care! I don't understand the idea that men are somehow not "real parents."

Abigail Trafford: Whoa. Men are real parents. And changes are occuring in the structure of the family so that more men are assuming the child-raising roles. But it's not equal yet. And meanwhile, mothers need help. Ann, your thoughts?

Ann Crittendon: Well, I totally agree that a child with its father is not in "day care" he or she is in parental care. And I applaud all efforts to draw fathers in more into their children's lives. ideally, a child needs two aprents. But we also have to be aware of the facts. Mothers are holding families together, for the most part.

Bowie, Md.: I am just curious what the critics mean by "whining"? Don't they make comments, complaints and vent about the one job they have? It is very normal to do this. With two full-time jobs (professional and mother) I've earned the right to whine.

Ann Crittendon: I think you have too! What some people call whining, others might call legitimate protest.

Columbia, Md: It seems that you suggest in your book that employers should put more value (or, perhaps, some value at all) on the experience of raising children when mothers come back to work.

If there is some value in this experience do you believe that the value will be proven on its own merit? Or do you advocate some sort of policy change in this regard?

(Forgive me if I mischaracterized your book - I've read the discussion of your book, but not the book itself...yet)

Ann Crittendon: I don't go into this in great detail in the book, but I firmly believe that spending time caring for a two-year-old, or managing a household, or engotiating with a teenager, gives one tremendous experience that is applicable in other lines of work. I would hope that employers would come to agree. and respect that kind of expereince as valuable.

Arlington, Va.: Ms: Crittendon and Ms. Trafford:

A gentle suggestion -- but why not replace "Motherhood" with "Parenthood?"

Being a married, childless male in my mid-30s, I find myself more to the "enough whining already" than to the "how can we help parents more" side of things. I've always voted for school bond issues, have never tried to get the assessment on my home reduced, and support a number of charities that benefit children. At work, I don't know how many times I have covered for co-workers who have to care for the sick children and have turned many a blind eye to their leaving early to attend recitals, sporting events, and other activities with their children. I'm probably missing a few things, but parents already get a few breaks including:

Dependent Care Deductions (up to $5,000 per year) for child care; Recognition of five non-working years in Social Security benefit calculations (and the ability for parents who work very little to get one half of their spouse's benefit);
Deductions for each dependent child; and
Unpaid time off under the Family Leave Act.

Enough's enough, and asking for more is going to fall in my case on some very deaf ears.

P.S. -- yes, I know your kids will paying for my Medicare and Social Security benefits, but in my case those benefits are worth at most 70 cents on the dollar of what I and my employers have contributed in payroll taxes even if those contributions were invested in government bonds. So sorry if I don't feel that I will be a free-rider in my retirement.

Abigail Trafford: I'm all for replacing motherhood with parenthood. I'd go further and say we need a "familyhood" bill--a combination of public private programs and a change of attitude so that taking care of people--children, aging parents, ailing friends and co-workers--will gain real value. Ann, what is your wish list for corrective action?

Ann Crittendon: I'm not sure how to respond. Economist have estimated that something like 95 percent of the costs of children are borne by their families, and within families, the majority of the costs devolve upon the primary caregiver. Children are very expensive, especially in a modern, high tech economy. I think the question is, as a scoiety do we want to make that investment, or do we not? If we don't, we'll either have to import skilled labor, or slip behind. That's one way to look at it.

Fairfax, Va.: I am a married woman with no children (no plans to have them either). When I get old and need care, the people who will take care of me will be -someone else's children-. I'm sure I will pay for their services then, but it seems to me that I should be expected to pay for their -existence- now. Parents pay by bearing and raising their kids, doesn't it make sense for me to pay via taxes, giving up perks that help parents BE parents, and other such things? I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand why non-parents resent parents for getting the little extras that make it possible to raise kids.

Please rephrase this if it doesn't make sense. Thanks.

Ann Crittendon: Thanks for a genrous -- and wise -- spirit!

Centreville, VA: So how do you balance both work and family? My husband and I have been married two years and are just beginning to discuss starting a family. Financially we both need to work. My goal is to work either from home, part-time or a combination of the two. How and what do I propose to my boss? Any suggestions?

Ann Crittendon: This is exactly why I support systemic remedies. Have you heard the phrase "bargaining in the shadow if the law?" If you had a right to work a three-quarter work week, as all new parents do in Sweden, you could go to your boos and say what works best for us? A four day week? A six hour day? Or whateverr. But you would have that right. As it stands now in this country, good luck, you're on your own.

Seattle, Wash.: If the government is going to give lots of money to parents to provide assistance for raising their children, then obviously there must be some way of judging the competence of the parenting in question and handling cases where parents fail at their jobs. Do you think we would need a new government agency to handle the licensing and oversight of parents and the transfer of their children to foster homes when and if they fail at their duties or do you think that existing agencies could handle the job?

Abigail Trafford: You're dreaming. . . . How about starting with training and licensing of professionals who work in child care? How about ensuring high quality standards in child care programs? That's the most immediate need. Ann, did you find that part of the problem is the lack of good options for child care? Tell us more about that.

Ann Crittendon: I like the idea of more parent education, in response to this question -- pediatricians, community health clinics, visiting nurses to new parents. etc., could help people through those first few months especially. Being a good parent doesn't come "naturally" if you have no one around to help show you. And child care is a candal in many cases. You don;t need any education in child development or child pscychology or even health and safety to work with young children. Wrong!

Out there: Hi Ann,

Perhaps people can better understand the "cost" of motherhood if they consider what the price of contracting out everyday Mommy (and/or stay-at-home parent) chores.

If a both parents work, they not only have to hire a nanny, but often a lawn care specialist, a housekeeper/cook -- we're talking lots of bucks here. And then you've got to add in the psychologist bills -- the guilt involved in leaving one's child with someone else can be quite draining.

Ann Crittendon: Yes, the cost can easily be $50,000 -- I understand insurance companies try tpo sell policies on mothers; lives that value their annual replacement cost at up to six figures!

Washington, DC: As an expectant mom, I'm beginning to consider staying at home, but really have concerns about what this means to me personally and professionally (I have a graduate degree). I suspect that that's a big issue with a lot of women. What do you suggest for women grappling with this concept of being "just a housewife?" Especially when you've been raised to "succeed" as a career woman. (I also assume that that's the main issue raised in your book, but do you have some practical advice on how to deal with some of those issues.)

Abigail Trafford: Ann, there's an anecdote in your book about yourself. You had stopped working at the New York Times to raise your son. And someone said: "Weren't you once Ann Crittenden?" . . . . What's your advice here?

Ann Crittendon: Yes, someone said "didn't you used to be Ann Crittenden?" That hurt! I guess the best advice, if you want to stop paid work for awhile, is to try to keep your hand in in some way, either through part-time work or more education or some related volunteer work.

Washington, DC: I haven't read your book (yet) but I've read enough about it to know that you are right on the money -- particularly with regard to Social Security credit. Are there any groups out there working to make this idea a reality and how can we move the agenda along, with our time, talents, and/or financial resources?

Ann Crittendon: I would say if you belong to any women's groups or community groups, top try to interest them in one or a few of these issues and put the pressure on your local legislators and Congress. I see you're from Washington, so the last is a bit hard, but it doesn't hurt to write other influential Congress people. They really do pay attention to letters from real people.

Arlington, VA: Following up on the "mothers" vs. "parents" questions... Yes, of course it's true that in our current culture more women than men are primary caregivers. But casting the problem in terms of "valuing mothers" leads to very different policy recommendations than "valuing parenting." I haven't read your book, but it sounds like you're recommending extra compensation, flexibility, health coverage, etc. for mothers. But if you oriented the policy recommendations toward more gender-neutral policies such as parental leave, more men would be ABLE (both economically and socially) to bear more of the childcare burden. Another policy goal could be to encourage young women in their educational and career paths. This would (as you pointed out) increase the relative financial cost for women of taking time off; also, men (husbands) would be more likely to be the lesser earners and therefore more likely to take time off themselves.

Ann Crittendon: My book definitely does make all of its policy recommendations gender neutral. I agree that might help change the imbalance in the caregiving responsibilities.

Derwood, MD: Have I been asleep for the past 20 years and women just started having children? My children are in their teens and early 20's and I worked before during and after all of them with no special concession made for me or my coworker moms. I'm glad that flex time, job sharing and working at home now exists for new moms, but that's enough already. I think that, just like a lot of kids these days, they're getting this "gimme attitude". It's also important to foster hard work ethic in the younger generations.

Abigail Trafford: I did it the old-fashioned way, too. And I was lucky. My daughters are grown and wonderful and starting their own lives. But I know how hard it is. I'd like it to be better for my daughters' generation and for future generations of parents. Ann, your thoughts? Is one of the problems here the tension between women and between generations?

Ann Crittendon: I agree with you abby. I wantr to leave the world a little less difficult for women especially.

Wheaton, Md., Mom: I am a mom of four -- 1-year-old triplets and an adopted 13-year-old son. I chose to have these children, yes. But no matter how children got here, or why they are here its takes more than parents to raise them. There is something very wrong with the richest country in the world not seeing its citizens as #1. Not only are we poor on test scores, quality education isnt affordable, millions of our children (and a lot of other citizens) are without healthcare, youth suicide is on the rise, the American family is no longer proud to be American.

Should I go on?

Ann Crittendon: Your mention of # 1 is interesting. We love to say American is No. 1, but actually we're # 23 in terms of infant mortality, and lower than that in terms of support for child-rearing. As just one example, we're one of only six countries in the world that doesn't offer new parents any leave after a child is born or adopted.

Arlington, Va.: I think your idea of proportionality is interesting and probably the most logical. It explains there are consequences -- which is not necessarily a negative but a reality -- to decisions. If I decide to work less because of other interests or demands, then a consequence of that is that I will make less, etc., but it will be proportionate.

As someone who is destined to be in the full-time workforce the rest of my life, I am less sympathetic to the "revolving door" careerists who expect everything to be the same, including their workplace status, after a three-month or three-year hiatus while they stayed home and parented.

Abigail Trafford: My question, Ann, is this: Can mothers ever catch up in the workplace if they take time "out" to raise their children? A working life stretches 40 50 60 years. If you take a few years out--or work part time for 10 years, why should that penalize you forever?

Ann Crittendon: I don't know if there will ever be NO penalty to taking some time off -- it probably depends on your field. if you take time out and come back and write a terrfici novel and make aterrific film or recording, maybe not! But there's no doubt in my mind that there will be some penalty -- my point is that right now, there's also no doubt that that penalty is way too high. We still have an enormous amount of prejudice against anyone who doesn't put their"career" first all their lives. It's crazy, because down time can be very enriching and creative and broadening.

Bethesda: When did motherhood become such a burden?

I'm expecting my first child in June and know all about the challenges of parenthood--it's one reason my husband and I waited until our mid 30s to start a family. But good Lord, I can't imagine having a child with this attitude that I'm going to be burdened with raising him/her.

Parenthood used to be a joy--something adults looked forward to and cherished. And now we have these kids, moan and groan about it, and ship them off to daycare.

I worry about the next generation...

Ann Crittendon: I think the issue is biggesr now because women have what economist call "opportunity costs" today. Thirty years ago, women were barred from the best professions and had very little earning power. Getting married was one of their very best choices in life. this is no longer true. Objectively, women do have much more to lose, financially, when they decide to have a chi8ld. That';s not complaining, it's a fact.

Alexandria: I had never really thought about the 'cost of motherhood' until I was expecting and my husband and I went to get life insurance. The agent suggested my husband to insure himself at $500,000 but I should only be insured at $100,000 because I was going to stay home with the baby! I was shocked and humilated by his suggestion and told him so!!

Ann Crittendon: he was talking about the cost pof replacing your work. But it does give you some idea of how socoiety lavues your relative contributions. In divorce, for instance, your unpaid work on behalf of the family will be valued very little.

Washington, D.C.: I am a busy litigation attorney. I recognize that the price I MUST pay to rise in my profession is long hours and off-hours availability. I'm sorry, but a mommy -- or daddy -- who wants to spend a lot of time/regular time with his or her children CANNOT do my job. How then, can that person ask to have the same benefits/promotion possibilities as me?

Abigail Trafford: A mommy or daddy who spends a lot of regular time with children can't compete with you head-to-head, minute-to-minute at this period of your career. But what about 10 or 15 years down the line, when the children a well on their way, and parents can devote the kind of focus you are now putting on your job. And what about you. Do you want to keep up this pace for the next 50 years? Maybe you'd like to alter the balance between work and life at a later date? Ann, how can this tension between "total time" and "balance time" be resolved?nhinaypr. But what

Ann Crittendon: Again, I have never said that such a person should have the SAME salary or benefits or rate of advancement as you do, if you never slow down. It shoudl be proportionate. But people should have a right to chose that slower pace. otherwise, how do you suggest we ever take care of those who need care in our society? Where would family life fit in? or is it just too old-fashioed to survive in this brave new 24/7 world?

Virginia: I think the questions are an either/or. If we are not for parents having all of the breaks suggested in Ms. Crittendon's book, we are boors and short-minded. If we are parents who need certain things and want society to change, we are visionaries, etc.

I think this kind of thinking polarizes the issues. Personally I do not have children, I do not mind paying taxes, help out at the office and wish we had universal health care coverage for everyone.

However, I wish I had time off to do things that could benefit children like volunteering as a book buddy in an elementary school (I was fortunate enough to work for a very nice employer at the time although I had to use my annual leave). Why am I a villain to question all of Ms. Crittendon's suggestions?

I think some fairness needs to be recognized for the non-parents instead of responding in a knee jerk way that this is tomorrow's future, resource. I keep thinking of that Simpsons episode where every response was "Think of the children."

Abigail Trafford: I agree with you that the workplace has to become more flexible to people's lives. With longevity, we're all going to be working for more than half a century. We don't have to cram it all in before we're 40. Ann, what will it take to change the workplace? Maybe a mothers bill or a parents bill can pave the way for a much more holistic work environment.

Ann Crittendon: One thing I would like to see is the right for employees hired to work a 40 hour week to refuse mandatory overtime. I just think we've gone off the deep end glorifying the Work Uber Alles mentality. Americans now work longer hours than anyone else in the developed world. Why? Whay are we on this treadmill that leaves so little room for anything else?

Washington, D.C.: I don't understand the (usually childless) folks who go on a torrent about having children as a "choice." Yes, whether or not to conceive in modern times often is a choice, but that's where one's free will ends. I know too many moms who have given up lucrative careers because their children have emotional or physical special needs that society simply does not or cannot meet. Some have developmental delays, autism spectrum disorders, etc. One mom I know has basically made a second career of organizing her son's therapies and researching the best possible treatments for him. So, to all of those "free-willers" out there, everything in life is NOT a choice!

Ann Crittendon: You know the old saying that goes something like: life is what happens after your plans fail.

Wheaton, Md., Mom: I dont care what number we are, we should be proud of our country and support the future generation. All children need and deserve a chance.

By the way, not only am I a lesbian mom living in a very nice neighborhood, but I run my own business from home while my partner runs a law firm in D.C., I do fostercare, I vote and I'm proud to be an American.

Ann Crittendon: Appreciate your comments.

Gaithersburg, Md.: I left my full-time job for a part-time job. In doing so I took a pay cut, benefits cut and a job title cut. I felt I had no choice to this because I desired more time with my 2-year-old versus what I gave up to have that time. I do strongly feel that the United States is "anti-family" in many ways. It is easy to say what is wrong. I think it is much harder to change things How can things be changed (without higher taxes)? Caregivers do not get paid that much; however, almost have of what I am earning now after taxes goes to our daycare provider.

Abigail Trafford: Ann, is this a common scenario?

Ann Crittendon: Well, higher taxes will be necesary if we are to have better childcare, because family budgets can't pay for skilled, trained caregivers, just as families couldn't afford to send their kids to school if they had to pay the cost. But there are other ways to protect and support family caregivers -- through fairer divorce laws, for example.

Charlotte, N.C.: I didn't realize how difficult it is to find a good part-time situation. I'd really like to work four days/week instead of five but, frankly, I'm scared to ask my boss. If she says no now, then I feel like I won't be able to ask her again later. Also, I fear that my salary will be cut disproportionately. Any thoughts on salary cuts or timing a part-time request. I really think I could get my work done in four days, but I'm not sure the higher ups would agree!

Ann Crittendon: You're in a very typical situation -- most companies with family=friendly policies leave them up to individual managers to imlement. And many are reluctant to grant shorter hours. I hope you are successful.

Washington, D.C.: Are you familiar with the legal scholarship of Prof. Martha Ertman, who has proposed such devices as premarital security agreements to give some financial value to traditionally "women's work"? Regardless, who are the scholars/theorists/feminists that have influenced your thoughts?

Ann Crittendon: I am familiar with Prof. Marthe Fineman's work. There is a whole group of family law scholars who have written a great deal in the legal jounrals about the need for fairer divorce laws -- for reform that would make both partners share equally in the financial losses of divorce. They include Joan Williams of American University and Anne Estin of the University of Iowa, among many others. I list all of the scholars whose work I relied upon in the book.

Arlington: One thing that has made the dilemma even worse for many women is the lack of a family network for most of us. There was a time when you stayed in the neighborhood or town where you grew up, where your parents, in-laws, maybe siblings lived with their families and you could all help each other out with child care at various stages of your life. Now we just don't have that anymore and need to turn to strangers to raise our kids or make great sacrifices (to our careers) to stay home with them. It may be a romanticization but there is something to be said for the "good old days."

Ann Crittendon: Yes, this is so true. Another very interesting book is Mother Nature by Sara Hrdy of UCDavis, who looks at the maternal instinct. She finds that in almost all human and other primate societties, the young are reared by a group of "allomothers," their birth mothers and other females in the group. We have definitely lost our allomothers!

Somewhere, USA: My suggestion:

If you are really worried about catching up while you are away from work, schlepp the kid off to Grandma's for a couple of hours a week and take some classes at the local JC to learn new skills and keep the old ones fresh. Time off from work can be used for lots of different purposes.

Ann Crittendon: Unfortunately many mothers have no Grandma nearby, or even still living.

Abigail Trafford: Alas our time is up. so many questions! I'm sorry not to get to them all. This is an important issue. We'll talk about it again.

   |       |