It's interesting that these women who are so happy and content and fulfilled by their choice to be stay-at-home moms should feel it necessary to "celebrate" their status with a magazine that is more about their martyrdom than their joy.

But what really scares me is their parroting of the mantra of "putting family first" while they describe a life that is basically about putting women last in the family heirarchy. The husbands don't help. They make all the sacrifices so that their children can have a perfect existence free from want of their attention. And the things they want only come when everyone else is satisfied. What they describe is not liberation, it's servitude.

I am a mom who gave up a six-figure salary and a high-powered job, so that I could live a more family-centered life. But the thought that I might be "Gettin' CHOey" makes me want to vomit. Putting family first is about everyone pitching in to the family, everyone making compromises to make sure that each member of the family can fulfill their potential. That means that my husband participates in childcare, and I run a small business out of my home in the afternoons. Our child spends part of the day in child care. Everyone takes turns at being the priority and at being the servant.

It's more complicated than a faux nostalgia for a 1950's ideal that didn't even exist in the 1950's, and maybe it's a little "weird" by Debbie Klett's standard. But in the end it's the only way to make sure that all of us keep our self-esteem intact. And while Ms. Klett may not want to "slam anyone who has to work" she's certainly made it clear that she considers herself infinitely superior to women like me who choose to work. How nice for her. But in the end, being a "CHO" is not a "positive wave of change." These women are not innovators -- they've simply relegated themselves to a tired and outdated ideal of womanhood.

No wonder they are publishing a magazine -- it's a pathetic attempt to give meaning to their existence, to make themselves relevant again. It's not going to be that easy, ladies. You see, you can't have it both ways. You can't spend your life negating your own importance in order to "put family first" and then insist that somehow you merit the ink spilt to write about yourself in a magazine.

I was really torn reading this. I'm a stay-and-work-at-home mom who really wants to be with her kids but also has periods of intense frustration. My husband is superb; it's not that I'm the house slave and have to beg to be "let out" every now and then. He helps with the kids, with the house, will go do the grocery shopping if I ask, will take the kids out so I can get some freelance work done and he encourages me to take time for myself. He is a fully evolved partner. But being home with young children IS a really hard job. And it IS a really important one too.

Most people who haven't stayed home with children really don't get how difficult it is. I have two girls (4 and 2) who are wonderful and I would be very sad if I had to work outside the house and be away from them all day. But at the same time, sometimes I think I will go nuts if I can't have a minute to go to the bathroom alone or check my email or formulate a freakin' thought in my head because there is someone who is talking/crying/running/fighting/yelling/demanding nonstop. It is hard. But it is my choice.

I'm sure I romanticized "staying home" when I first started thinking about it when my oldest was seven months old. I planned, we sacrificed and we somehow make it work. And just because it is the best solution for us, doesn't mean I think all families should do it this way. Conversely, just because I chose it doesn't mean it is perfect and happy all the time. I'm not asking for sympathy. But mothers are reluctant to talk about the dark side for fear that they will be branded a "bad mom". [What? You don't love every minute with your kids?! You must be a terrible mom!].

I haven't read this magazine, but the information in it from the interview sounds on target and realistic. Yes, I am often too tired for sex (although my helpful husband would qualify for sex around the clock if I filled out one of those scorecards). Yes, I'm on call 24/7 and have been since I was pregnant. That's just part of the deal when you take on raising another person. Yes, I feel that since I'm home I should take on the bulk of domestic duties.

Although Rebecca is terrified by the stay-at-home lifestyle, I think this magazine may just be comforting to those moms who are home and feeing overwhelmed, and who think they are the only ones. There's no need to pit the working moms vs. the SAH moms. Every mom I know is just trying her best. And it sounds like this magazine is trying to fill a need, not start a culture war.

As a stay-at-home mom for the past seven years who has only recently gone back to work (very part time, with flexible hours), all I can say is aaarrrgghhh! Yes, SAHMs need a magazine that speaks to the reality: staying at home full time can feel like a 24/7 drudgery. What I don't understand is why no one ever asks the obvious questions: Why is it only women who suffer from wanting to "have it all?" Why is it mostly women who are now "opting out?" Why is it only women who have to make this either/or choice about family and career? Men have "had it all" since time immemorial, and no one ever mentions how much they suffer for it.

Why is it that so many women, like the one interviewed, seem to think it's only their responsibility to "put families first?" Is there really a biological difference between men and women that makes women want to stay home and men want to put in a 60-hour work week? I don't buy it. Until and unless men are encouraged and rewarded for doing an equal share of the (mostly invisible) "home" work traditionally done by women, and women are equally rewarded in the workplace, staying home full-time will never really be about "choice."