What bugged me about the article:
1. No attempt was made to convey the views of the women's husbands, or any other father for that matter. What are these men, paychecks that walk around? This reason alone makes it very hard for me to take the article seriously.
2. All the women involved are dealing with very "high power" careers--they're all MBAs or law school grads from the ivy league. So fine, it's not practical to be a mom and senior partner in a prestigious Manhattan law firm. What about more modest (economically at least) careers--what about the mother who's an accountant at a bank, or the manager of a Sears store? Do they have the same problems or is this a "class" thing? They tried to be a partner in a big law firm and found they had to work insane hours, and this is news? What's next, doctors who are shocked, SHOCKED! that they sometimes get phone calls in the middle of the night?
3. The photography all involves harsh direct lighting. This makes the women look very washed out and pale. They don't look like confident, in-control women, they look like deer in headlights. I wonder what the intention was on the part of the photographer and the editors.
|