When I clicked on the link provided, I read an article describing how Ms. Geist chose to give up a career in order to find a way life that will serve the needs of her heart. How can this be seen as "very bad news?"

As noted in the article, caregiving is a culturally accepted "excuse" for women to withdraw from the perpetual pursuit of meaningless titles and spend more time looking inward. This is not a "narrative" being imposed on women by any type of vast male conspiracy. It is, instead, a choice increasingly made by women because, by "opting out," they are able to live a more humane and satisfying life. Why do women choose to opt out in greater numbers than men? Because it is culturally acceptable for them to do so.

If you are shooting for numerical gender equality in the workplace, the best plan of attack is not to disparage women who choose to opt out. Instead, I would urge you to encourage the development of conditions and attitudes that would allow more men to opt out until the numbers come out to your satisfaction.

There's another reason why this typical, slighty misogynist NYT trend article is annoying. It bemoans the fact that this daughter had to relocate back to Michigan, to a town in Macomb County where she has to do without urban niceties such as balsamic vinager. Yes, this article is implying that Michiganders living just north of Detroit have never heard of balsamic vinager.

long period of time it is often there own fault, I mean a consequence of their own choices. Overweigh, lack of fitness, emtionally based refusal to modify their environment, anxieity, willingness to accept help, more rather than less sensitivy to problems etc. I know there are many exceptions to this and many of the people who are in this position now got themselves into it before knowledge of what they should do to avoid the problems was less common. Because most caregivers are female lots of women seem to assume most of the cared for are male when this isn't the case. It's true that most caregivers are female, but femaleness disproportionately produces people needing care. If you discount war and accidents (which should decline in the future) the disproportion is greater. It is probably true the the "cost" per patient to take care of men is greater.

It is, instead, a choice increasingly made by women because, by "opting out," they are able to live a more humane and satisfying life. Why do women choose to opt out in greater numbers than men? Because it is culturally acceptable for them to do so.

With all due respect, I think this is bullshit. Plenty of professional-class men opt out. It's just that when male radio anchors leave the rat-race behind, they generally write a book or teach a few classes at the local college, rather than taking care of elderly relatives. I can think of one professional-class man I know who has quit his job and is taking lots of history classes, ostensibly to become a high-school history teacher. Sometimes they call it "early retirement" rather than "opting out of the rat-race," but it's the same thing, except that you get a lot more credit for writing a book or being an adjunct college professor than for changing your mother's diaper. I don't think it's more culturally acceptable for women to opt out. I think it's more culturally acceptable for men to opt out of doing the hard, dirty parts of caregiving.

What is so undignifed and horrible about taking care of your elderly parents when one is able? Is it because life doesn't hand us a medal when we've done the honorable and right thing? Good g*d we are a self absorbed group.

Wow, Rebecca, your comments really hit home with me. That article yanked my chain on so many levels. Maybe it's because some day soon my elderly parents will be moving in with me, my husband and 6 year old son. At age 46, I'm a member of the squeeze generation -- stuck between parents who didn't plan well for their retirement and a family with a young child with her own important needs, and I hold a demanding, full-time, professional job as well. I'm not contemplating the prospect of juggling all this as a wondrous, fun, walk in the park. As a reality based person, I worry about what the increasingly difficult needs of fragile elderly people will do to me as well as my family. So I had trouble relating to this story of single career women blithely chucking it all to change bedpans in the first place -- but that's not what bothered me about the article. Mostly I was just disturbed that this story that purported to treat something so serious -- what to do about elderly people in our fragmented society -- was as shallow as a puddle. Many of the elderly of the WW II and younger generation are not as well off as they are often portrayed in these articles. Many are subsisting on mostly Social Security (if not solely) and Medicare and Medicaid. If their children are even a little bit better off than they are --- these children often feel pressure not just to take care of them physically but financially as well. If these children choose to ignore them, these elderly end up in very bad straits.

But back to the women in the article. What happens to these women who take a break from work to do this? Will they be able to easily slip back into the world of work when they are no longer needed by elderly parents? or are they counting on big inheritences? in many cases, these elderly will outlive their income, even if they start off being affluent -- the costs of assisted living and nursing care will eat it all up. And for many of these single women, returning to work may be quite difficult if not impossible, owing to the ageism and continued sexism in our workplaces. These women will potentially have lost out on years of income and retirement saving, which will adversely impact their own old age.

I'm not saying that these women, or anyone for that matter, shouldn't take on the task of caring for the elderly if that is what makes sense for them, their parents and their families. I'm just so disturbed not to see more written about the downside of this -- as well as how little society helps to support families in this situation. If corporations were more understanding of the needs of workers who have children or the elderly or both to take care of -- this task would be much easier to undertake. If corporations were more flexible on this issue, I daresay some men might be more tempted to join in and take care of elderly parents or children as well. But the vast majority of American companies do not offer flex time, telecommuting or part-time jobs to their workers to make this task easier -- thus the need for many of them, usually women, to quit in order to do the caretaking of the very young or the very old.

And why aren't there more government programs set up to support families? Instead, we have a government looking at taking away benefits (the push to "privatize" SS was all about gutting it, in my opinion). While people live longer and longer, we continue to be a society where it's every man and woman for themselves -- and we're looking at an entire generation of women in their 40s and 50s and up, who will be absolutely wrung out from the physical, emotional, and economic demands of all this caretaking.

But all we got from the NYT was this cutesy trend piece about these lucky women who have happily leaped off the fast track to drive their parents to yoga. I feel this is such a distorted, even irresponsible picture of the reality that exists out there, the reality that is growing.