This is counter-effective to getting changes in the workplace, and it even hurts women.

First of all, with a title like "Womenomics," and the risk explanation that she has, she assumes that women are innately not likely to be evil, ambitious, and alway to want to have children. Sure, women can be evil, ambitious and may NOT want to have children. To urge all women to downshift to match her speed, is not going to be productive to promoting the cause of women.

This is working for change by asking women to put their careers at risk by pushing work away. I'll hang in there with her on the point that women often get the unrewarded scut work and don't say no to work that many men would. But as an overall theme, she is basically telling women who are full throttle that that are making her look bad and if we all faux unionize and throttle back...no body gets hurt. Except those women who really would like to put a full throttle effort in.... And of course, the men will continue to work long hours if they want that promotion... Unless she visualizes only jobs where it is solely women and your competition for promotion are those heartless women who have not fallen into Womenomics.

I think it would be far more activist to push for fathers to be more involved, so that women don't do a solely do a second shift when they get home from work. She kind of makes this a woman's problem, when clearly, if she is arguing that children are the reason then dads need to push back. And we need to recognize that kids are not the only life balance issue. But by putting "Womenomics" on the title...it's kind of like her point is to say if all those hard throttle women would just stop showing her up...then she could balance her life more with no career penality. How about the men who work overtime...what if they continue to show her up? I think this argument that it is "Womenomics" hurts the promotion of women in the workplace.

I think it would be far more activist to unionize and put in work rules for ALL workers, male AND female. This is something I can get behind. Even as a business owner.

I think these authors are ignoring the fact that the higher up on the food chain you are in the corporate world, the less work you do and the more flexibility you have. Ironically, "shifting down" will keep some women chained to their laptops while, if they got a promotion or two, they might be able to call the shots, work from home or another remote location, be empowered and get paid more money.

It was my observation in the corporate world that the middle managers end up working terrible hours, while the VPs-and-ups were off working from wherever they wanted and taking long vacations with many perks. I had to downshift because of my health, and while I do like what I do now (part-time teaching,) I wish I had the empowerment and paycheck that I had when I was a corporate manager. Don't discount the benefits of putting some long hours early on and then reaping the perks later. You might end up more fulfilled, happier, and better off. Just saying.

It's easy to "downshift" your career when you've already reached a significant level of success and you have a high-earning husband to fall back on.

Before taking on full time jobs, women were already busy at home raising children, keeping the household running and taking "care of" their husbands. Then, on top of all of that work women were "allowed" to join the work force and add 40+ hours on top of their busy lives, with nothing taken off their plate.

Men who have jobs expect to relax when they get home. Women who have jobs go home to another full time job. These 2 women sound out of touch with the rest of us.

The unspeakable reality is that even diminishing returns are returns, extra effort only becomes a problem if you actually reached negative returns. So spending less time on family and more on work has the potential to result in slightly more "success", if you define success as work-related and not family-related. As a boy, I plant the seed quickly but I don't _have_ to nurture it, so I have a fundamental advantage over women who want children if I am willing to sacrifice all family payoff for work payoff over the 18 to 40 age range.

The situation isn't any different for women (or men) who yearn to be champion gymnasts or chessmasters or whatever. During the period when you are working 24/7 on your goal, you just don't have time for relationships and especially for children. The problem with careers as they end to be is that they don't let up. From 22 until retirement is all (more or less) meteoric rise unless you take a couple years off to follow a swami in India...or have children.

You have to wrestle with that sense of entitlement (I _know_ that men don't get to be pregnant and bear children, but I am entitled to the same career path despite any non-work excursions I choose) and decide whether you really want to go for the central-planning model where employers are forced to treat women who work eight years straight are forced to the same level as women who work six of the eight years and contribute two brats to global overpopulation.

Some people take a year off to write a novel and feel the slight reduction in their career arc is worth it; some take a year off to have a kid and bitterly resent any impact on their careers. I guess they regret their kids.

As CParis! already points out here, there are as many problems in so-called "womenomics" as there are in the much criticized "opt out revolution" of a few years ago. Folks can only opt out of the work force as financially able.

Moreover, it's interesting here that the authors acknowledge that men -- or fathers, specifically -- would also like this kind of flexibility, but it's less often available to them. And let's call that what it is -- sexism. In part, many dads cannot be the partner to "opt out" (If they are part of a household than can run on less than two full time salaries) because they are the partner that earns more, which is another component of sexism.

I'm tired of hearing analysis that purports that men and women want different things out of jobs when studies that asks men specifically about gender roles and time with their kids say otherwise.

Lots of parents want more flexible schedules. But in the end, most families -- especially in this economic climate -- cannot afford these kinds of things. As the American Community Survey shows, it's grandparents as caretakers who are getting more time with kids these days, in part of out economic necessity.