The false language of choice

The big picture shows a long-term steady rise in mothers' labor force participation between the 1940s and late 1990s. For example, the percentage of mothers of preschoolers who worked rose from 12 percent in 1947 to 65.3 percent in 2000. True, mothers' labor force participation rates declined slightly in the past couple of years, but so did the rates for men aged 25-44 (the ones most likely to have small children at home). Both declines are likely due to a tough post-9/11 economy. Neither the statistics nor the anecdotes offered by the IDS and others -- as gripping as they might be -- demonstrate that increasing numbers of women are rejecting high-powered careers.\nFurther, most mothers work outside the home. \nMothers and fathers do make choices about work vs. family, but within a very limited range. The choices of parents have not changed appreciably since the 1950s, when most workers were men who could leave family responsibilities behind when they set off to work in the morning. The language of "choice" today suggests more options truly exist. \nThe significant number of single parents (especially mothers) cannot "choose" between home and work: They must find a way to do both, without much help from their employers or the government. \nCulturally, most fathers do not feel they have the choice to stay home and raise their children, even if their wives are employed; the few stay-at-home dads report that co-workers, family and friends disapprove. Stay-at-home moms, however, are often celebrated. \nThe only group that really gets to "choose" between home vs. work, then, is married mothers. However, even married mothers basically have only two choices: working at a job that allows little room for parenting or staying home to raise children. Most other modern democratic societies (and many non-democratic ones) make available options that are virtually nonexistent in the U.S., such as paid family leave, universal paid maternity or paternity leave (in some cases up to three years in length), subsidized quality childcare, cash allowances to help with the costs of childrearing and shorter work weeks with more weeks of vacation.\nThe extended choices make it less likely that married parents (especially mothers) think they must choose between children and work and makes it easier for single parents to work and raise their children.\nIn sum, when we focus primarily on the home vs. work choice that mothers make, we ignore the most important question of all about "home vs. work": Why aren't more choices available to American mothers and fathers? Those few working parents who are fortunate enough to have flexible careers (like us) cope, albeit at the cost of sleep and personal time; most working parents, however, find themselves between the proverbial rock and a hard place. It's time for Americans to reject the false language of choice used in most public discussions of home vs. work today and to urge government and businesses to offer workable options for working parents. Instead of mistaking slight blips for an "opt-out" revolution, let's work toward a real revolution: one that allows both women and men to make real choices about home and work.