On a slightly different note, a co-worker and I were talking about job hunting, since we'll both be out of work in June when our company goes under, and we're both hoping jobs with a competitor will open up. He met with some people at the rival company and gave me a tip: that they're all very big on family, and it won him points to be a "family man."

I had to explain that it doesn't work that way for women.

A man says he's big on family and people assume he's stable and hardworking. A woman says the same thing, especially if she doesn't already have kids, and people assume she's going to get pregnant and quit, or spend a lot of time leaving early.

To retain these productive women, wise employers should offer more flexibility, including part-time arrangements.

Would it really be to a company's advantage to do this? Or is it just a case of someone saying "This is what I want, so accommodate me!"?

This is not a rhetorical question; I honestly don't know the answer.

I agree that there could be more give-and-take between corporations and mothers of young children. Schwartz's idea of putting them in management is a non-starter; management isn't something you can do on a part-time basis. (In fairness to Schwartz, she wrote that in 1989, before telecommuting was an option.) One idea that would work better would be to seek these women to perform a lot of "back office" functions, such as accounting; that's work that can be done virtually and with some time flexibility. Another option is some technical jobs like programming, for the women in those fields.

There are reasons why companies don't do that more; some reasons are valid and some not. One thing that is a problem is that I think a lot of companies see women like this as lawsuits in the making. They are concerned that the woman will be able to claim in a lawsuit that there was some implied promise of a full-time job that will be waiting for them when they come back to work, or that the woman will claim discrimination if she doesn't get the same raises and promotions as her colleagues who work full time. I'm not sure how often this actually happens (probably not that often), but the perception of it is a problem.

The thing is, it's NOT fair to treat women who take time off work to have kids the same as women who stayed on the job and did the work. It's just not. There's a trade-off if you want kids, and it's your career. If you're not wiling to make that trade-off, then don't have kids.

You CAN have it all, just not all at the same time.

Would it really be to a company's advantage to do this?

Rex Little: I'd say that would depend on the company. But if you're someone who's, say, willing to work 35 hours per week without benefits (except maybe a 401(k) with no company matching), I think there would be a place for you at many a workforce. Also, companies that require a very specific skill set or have a very specific culture may want to keep people around. On top of that, there is always going to be a role at companies for people who don't have enormous ambition, but are reliable workers. Combine all that, and I could see why a company would be willing to accommodate a woman (or man) who wants a more flexible working schedule, as long as that woman (or man) doesn't whine about how she/he isn't getting paid or promoted the way her/his full-time workaholic colleagues are.

@marion A 401(k) without company matching is called a Roth IRA. :)

No, there are some companies that offer 401(k)s, but provide no company match. Google "401(k) no company match" if you don't believe me. Though Roth IRAs are nothing to sneeze at if that's your only option.

My boss does about 60 hours a week. Part of it is she's a micro manager. But at the same time she has a 15 and 7 year old. She was complaining she couldn't get her older kid or husband on the cell phone on a Saturday afternoon.

Hubby works 40 a week. When she gets home the kids are generally in bed.

Why do I see a bad future for her family?

Plain and simple -- management or hi-tech, outer edge jobs and family aren't compatible.

Roth IRA= no deductible contributions and no tax on distribution.

401k = deductible contributions and taxable distributions. Higher annual contribution limits, too.

Both feature tax-free growth and are good ideas, regardless of the availability of employer matches.

now that it's 20 years on... there is NO incentive for a company to do this, unless they will be forced to. They don't need that kind of experience, they need someone who is there all the time, and has the experience you get, because you are there all the time.

And it is correct to assume that there are lawsuits in the offing. You can't exactly say to a woman; 'you must stay until this setup is complete' But a MGR. won't think twice saying that to a man. That's just the way soft power works.

Many similar types of problem have what's called a 'cooling effect' That is to avoid possible trouble you simply avoid a situation all together. And that would mean hiring a part time woman on a different footing than traditional employees.