Just because it appears to us that she "survived and thrived" through one pregnancy doesn't mean that she actually did. And even if she did, are these groups saying that every pregnancy, and every child, is the same? I don't think so! It also doesn't mean that she didn't regret not staying home with her new baby. She's aged three years since the last child was born. Maybe she has changed her mind about her priorities.

The only groups listed here as complaining about this are outsiders. There's not even a hint of a rumor from network personnel that Vargas asked for but did not receive flexibility. I'm all for these groups helping women that need help that aren't getting it. But I'm completely against these groups trying to force individual women into roles they don't appear to want. Isn't that what the women's movement is about - letting us choose for ourselves?

Of course, we can't really know what Vargas's situation is from the outside looking in, but under the circumstances, it seems like too much interference to be protesting something that Vargas has said is her choice.

Having a second child when you already have a toddler might really be more than doubling the childcare effort, and if Vargas has had more difficulties with this pregnancy, she might need more time to recuperate, as well as to regroup.

It's too much of a burden to put on one woman to be the standard bearer or symbol of women being able to "have it all." As far as I can tell, the jury is still out on that one. What still bears repeating, though, is the importance of each woman being able to exercise as much choice as is available to her. Vargas may have more options available to her than the rest of us, but that doesn't excuse projecting all of the insecurities of a movement onto her.

As I recall, the job originally looked like Charlie Gibson's, until the network decided to go "younger." Being "mature" myself, it was a tough choice whether to be more offended by the "agism" of bypassing Gibson or the "sexism" (implied by Vargas's needing a co-anchor). I'm just glad that I'm finally past that dilemma. ;~)

As I was mulling these things over on the weekend, I also posted something that I thought would be a far more practical reaction... ;~)

http://lyssa-strada.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-it-will-take-perhaps-more.html

I'm sorry to see her go. I ish her and her family all the best.

My sense though is that she gave up the job with the hope that once it becomes vacant again, she would be considered for the role of 'sole' anchor. I think this (in part) a strategic retreat on her part. She stepped up after Bob Woodard got hurt and she showing that she can be a team player by giving up the job.

In a way I think it is a positive for the women's movement where a woman can make a decision based on family and not get ridiculed for it. Merridith Vierra made a similar choice year ago to look after her family and now that they are older she can go back to hard news as co-anchor of the Today Show.

Good heavens.

Has it occurred to NOW and their allies that Vargas was fired for incompetence?

Man or woman, if an anchor is unable to ask unscripted, informed, intelligent questions, he or she is let go. If an anchor lacks gravitas, he or she is let go. Or never hired in the first place.

There are women at World News Tonight who do the real heavy lifting. Their names are Martha Raddatz, Judy Muller, Betsy Stark, and Linda Douglass.

Vargas wasn't up to the job. Period.

It's about time she was let go. It was painful to watch her.

Whatever Vargas' reasons for stepping down from the anchor job, her situation is in no way indicative of what most women encounter. How many women (or men) can negociate as less "stressful" schedule while keeping the same pay & benefits? NOW and other organizations should be focusing on how the vast majority of women who are not on-air network personalities are dealing with discrimination and true lack of job mobility.

I've been a faithful WNT watcher for years, and while no one will ever replace Peter Jennings, the fact is that Vargas did her job admirably. The job of anchor has changed a lot in the past 10 years, and Vargas seems very well qualified to assume the chair, and in fact, did so admirably while her partner Bob Wooddruff was fighting for his life.

But as every mother will tell you, the second child nearly always changes the parenting equation, because now you're dividing your attention between two very needy beings who are at two entirely separate stages of development. SHe has the right to make her choice, her way, without being second-guessed by anyone, even the feminist movement.

I don't think the point was ever that women should "have it all" -- women should be able to have what they want.

I think the question is why would you quit your job? It seems that she does intende to return to work, but not at the job she has been doing. I don't know about employment law, but doesn't the employer have to hold your job open while you are on maternity leave?

While we can't be sure as to what her motivations are, I think it is fair to question this move in light of all the options open to parents today.

They are all interchangeable heads - all of them male and female alike. The only talking heads I pay attention to are the ones on weekend duty because I always think how much that must suck at the network being the weekend gal or the 2am gal or the three day weekend gal. I'm sure it's a good paycheck being the weekend weathergirl but careerwise it probably sucks. Otherwise they are all interchangeable blonde, light blonde or brunette heads. Or the guys can have that silver helmet thing going on. And the more 'senior' they become the softer and more innane they sound.