Whats frustrating about these analysis is they ignore the reality of children and family life. The bias' mentioned, which are appear real and well evidenced, ar

Whats frustrating about these analysis is they ignore the reality of children and family life. The bias' mentioned, which are appear real and well evidenced, are secondary and complicating factors to the general problem of adapting family life to an urban, specialized economies. Prior to the 1900's the largest companies in the world were only a few hundred employees and over 50% of the population farmed. That meant a significant amount of the economic activity occurred in family run farms and business where all family members worked together. The trend towards men working outside the home and women staying at home was a somewhat unique phenomena in the 20th century and in some ways-not all-a natural progression since manual labor jobs favor men. While bias are real and need to be dealt with, I think attributing everything to them does little to solve the real challenge of how to harmonize specialized technical work, which at the current scale is unique to our time period, for large corporations, which did not exist prior to the 20th century, with the demands and realities of family life. Having kids below the age of schooling is a unique time and one that many very competent women are not willing to sacrifice for career advancement. And since there is almost no part-time work for STEM careers, this has the effect of limiting career advancement for those women who choose to prioritize family life and may also account for the perceptions that create the types of bias' listed in the article. I don't think theres an easy solution, and maybe not one at all, but without considering the very real component of family these types of accounts fall short.