Typical New York Times, and typical for that kind of discussion. In such discussions, the image is always of a mother resigning from an interesting and importa

Typical New York Times, and typical for that kind of discussion. In such discussions, the image is always of a mother resigning from an interesting and important academic job. Presumably it is mostly academics who discuss such things, and NYT readers are also mostly academics. So when they think of mothers and careers, they think of interesting academic jobs. In reality, most women (and men) don't have such interesting jobs. The most common job for women is shop assistant, followed by nurse (or vice versa, don't remember for sure - numbers from Germany a couple of years ago). Now nurse might be reasonably interesting, but not irreplaceable like that lawyer. And arguably, you would be doing the same job as at home (changing diapers), only not with your children. Sorry it annoys me that this women styles herself like some sort of hero, when other people are forced to make that choice out of financial necessity. Obviously it is a valid choice to prioritize her job, like she did. The annoying part is the claim between the lines that she is somehow special and going against the societal pressure.