Leslie Bennetts (2007) vents her rage on the system that compels mothers to stay home and forgo career dreams and opportunities of higher wage in order to care for their children. She also seethes at women who turn their anger and embitterment inwards instead of directing it outwards at a callous and unjust system. I think that Bennetts (2007) has a point, but I also find her conclusions to be too categorical and it seems to me that she may be too generic in her fault-blaming. Ironically she herself may be evidencing the same fault that she accuses her targets of portraying, namely insufficient understanding and empathy of the other.

Bennetts writes that:

Stressed and resentful, the majority of women nonetheless continue to work, many out of financial necessity. Others quit their jobs to stay home, although the price may include conflicted feelings about having had to make such a "choice."

More than one female of my acquaintance has evidenced precisely these same attributes, in various ways. These are intelligent, sophisticated women who have been condemned to settle for activities lower than their abilities or to resign themselves to jobs that they hate for the advancement of their husbands. Some of these end up as tea party artifacts in order to advance their husband's career whilst others are slated to become clergymen's wives or attend pontifical meetings that they -- more comfortable in an introverted role -- detest. Others publicly malign their husband -- half-humorously it is true, but the ire is there.

Bennetts remarks that "Women are indeed giving up too much, which may be why so many are so angry." And yes this is true. I have seen women using all of these typical psychodynamic strategies and more turn in on themselves and condemn themselves for their dissatisfaction. Others, in misplaced religious fervor, devote their energies to persuade other females that domestic living is more important, sacred, Divine (and so forth) than the...

On the contrary, the best and most intelligent of these women may more readily slide into depression and revolution.
So Bennetts, it seems to me, is correct in noting that frustrated women seethe inwardly and that this is a misplaced and unhealthy characteristic. On the other hand, it seems to me that Bennetts may be incorrect in categorically attributing blame of women's condition to male-related shenanigans.

Men have to work just as the women do. The man who told his wife 'Then you leave work' was correct. If the situation were reversed with men being domestic care giver, men would have the same complaints as these women and evidence the same frustration. True, it may be argued, that men should equally share 'burden' with women but then the same situation may apply as was with the woman who was compelled to discontinue her legal career: the man may well lose his high-powered job. There are careers that demand obsessive and focused attention to the work. The man who cuts short his hours due to assisting his wife may well find himself without a job. Neither then man nor the woman is to blame. This is the state of the contemporary work situation.

Is the work situation to blame? Bennetts tells us that:

Even all these years after the women's movement emerged, working mothers must still confront the intransigence of a corporate culture whose extreme hours, inflexible structures and hostility toward caretaking needs can make the juggling act very difficult.

But in today's aggressive, steep peak of competiveness and urgency for survival, workplaces demand a high quality of excellence and mindfulness to one's labor. To progress and…