The difference is key in explaining the misery factor of parents.

Seems to me parents are miserable because they made their children the center of their lives. Not the family, of which children are only a part, but the kids themselves are the center of everything. Most parents I know do not socialize untless the kids are somehow involved - a playdate with another couple while everyone eats and watches the kids, who disrupt the meal and make adult conversation impossible.

Most parents are so over-involved and so over-identify with their kids that they've given up nearly all their interests, never mind cultivating new ones. How many parents pick up a new hobby - a sport or language or even just a new favorite author - after their kids are born? Not very many. They'll say 'Oh it's because I have NO time." Sure you have less time with kids. But NO time for yourself and your spouse and your friends? None at all? How is this healthy and blanced, to give up all of your adult stimulation, relationships and pleasures in favor of kids?

Familes weren't as child centric as when I was growing up. My mom didn't drive me to a hundred activities a week. I played one sport, and carpooled as frequently with other kids as my parents doing the driving. I rode my bike everywhere. And no - it's not more dangerous now than it was then. The number of predators did not dramatically increase. It's still far more likely a kid will get molested by a neighbor or relative than be kidnapped by a stranger. We're just more hyper-vigilant now, and keep kids from doing stuff like riding their bike a few blocks becuase it makes us feel like better parents to be worried all the time.

I've never known a single parent spending significant time traveling and drinking and then, because of this, been unable to adapt/adjust to the demands of parenting. It's the opposite - I know every few if any paretns who spend significant time doing anything for themselves or their marriage or adult relationships. Everything focuses around the kids. Everything. Who can expect children to fill every gap in their life? Of course they are unhappy. Kids can't make up for a sexless marriage or failing intimacy/communication, or the loss of the identify of the self beyond 'I'm a parent'.

Clearly all women don't fall into either the femmebot or feminazi compartment. But Ms. Daum does make a valid point, in that our culture has great difficulty with how to deal with (or not) the femininity of women whose accomplishments and reason for being in the public eye have nothing to do with their femininity. Hilary Clinton, Oprah, Condolezza Rice, Madeline Albright et all are all famous for their accomplishments, and rightly so -they've succeed in rarefied air and they've done it as groundbreaking women.

But the culture is nervous when it can't talk about women in terms of sexiness, attractiveness, or motherliness. And all of these women are single and/or child free (not sure about Albright though), so people are stumped. How to talk about these women? Eventually everyone will figure it out - you talk about them the same way you'd talk about men in the same positions. After all, it's rare for us to hear about a man in a high-ranking position and wonder, is he good looking? Has he had many lovers? Does he have a nice figure? Is he a good dad? We usually judge men in such positions by their performance in those positions and sort of let the gender thing slide. This isn't quite happening for women, at least not yet. But it will.

Leibovich asks if I've ever fouond myself talking to anyone - by which she means everyone about the maddening lack of good work options for women.

Um, no. I've never had any trouble getting a job. I didn't go to a fancy school, either, just a midwestern university.

I've held executive positions in packed goods, high tech and marketing services industries. Being a woman was never once an issue in getting a job or advancing, for that matter.

This question belongs in the 50s, not the year 2006. What professions, please, make a habit and a point to bar women? I'm not seeing it. I have female friends who are lawyers, doctors, judges, accountants, musicians, City Hall workers, architects, engineers and entrepreneurs. Not one of us has ever bemoaned the 'lack of good work options for women'. We have all the same options men have. Now maybe we don't get paid quite as much as some men in some of these professions - but that doesn't mean they still aren't being paid well, and anyway that wasn't the question (besides, I've always made more than my engineer husband, and about half the couples I know have a woman making the higher salary).

Who is this question targeted to? It seems to be worded to a universal female audience. But I don't know a single female who thinks her work options are limited *because* she is a female.