This article makes sense to me. Money does not correlate with love or happiness.

Those are some pretty heady salaries!

True dat. They do all have MBAs, but still!

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/08/keeping-a-family-together-is-hard-whether-you-opt-out-or-not/278499/

something a friend opines:"that being said, here is the original piece:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/magazine/the-opt-out-generation-wants-back-in.html?pagewanted=all

what's wrong with it isn't necessarily terrible -- i'm mainly just tired of seeing valuable time and analysis wasted on people the vast majority of us can't relate to (the women were very highly educated and in very high-powered positions when they opted out, one of them making half a mil per year and going back to a job that paid "only a fifth" of her previous salary, which is still more than most of us make, boo hoo).

one thing i did want to underscore is this quote: "Many of the women I spoke with were troubled by the gender-role traditionalism that crept into their marriages once they gave up work, transforming them from being their husbands’ intellectual equals into the one member of their partnership uniquely endowed with gifts for laundry or cooking and cleaning; a junior member of the household, who sometimes had to “negotiate” with her husband to get money for child care."

while i am curious as to how this is at all surprising to any of the women who opted out for an extended period of time, it mostly just seems like the wrong choice they made was marrying their husbands. because, like the Atlantic piece states, "In Warner's article, a problem of all people--the economy, stupid--is turned into a problem of women. And when women can't magically solve this problem, any choice they make is given a negative moral weight."

also, i think policing the choices women make and looking for a comeuppance has long proven to be a useless waste of time."