This book operates on the premise that the government and corporations are intentionally victimizing people for their parental status and that parents should be a protected class.

This seems rather paranoid considering that multiple tax breaks are given for children and their needs, and family leave policies insure that parents receive the most comprehensive leave benefits of any group of workers.

The book also ignores how parents are treated as a special class by the government and workforce, receiving more support from those two institutions than their childless counterparts.

Strange book. I just don't buy into the author's victim mentality.

I agree with the first reviewer who said that the authors more accurately define parent's problems, than offer good solutions. Their answers are somewhat inconsistent. To their credit, these authors are liberals who point to a lot of the problems liberalism has spawned, and admit as much. But then, (perhaps predictably) many of their solutions are liberal (government interventionist, income redistributionist) solutions. For instance, they think parents don't spend enough time with their kids. The answer is to force employers to give parents flex time, for school days to be longer, and the government to provide day care. This makes sense? Employers must let employees off, but kids must be in school all day? Then the authors complain about high taxes. They say taxes should be lowered on working families. Who do they think is going to pay for lost work time, longer hours in inefficient schools, and day care? With their legislation, taxes would have to go up, obviously. College professors always think that business can magically supply everything on their wish lists though, (which is what their "Parent's Bill of Rights" is.) Another answer the authors suggest to bolster parent's economic security and solve parent's problems is that Congress should raise the minimum wage to $7 per hour. As an economist, Sylvia Ann Hewlett should know that the higher the minimum wage goes, the more jobs go overseas, and the more companies downsize, or try to automate. Professors rarely think like employers do though, only like employees. Then there are the cultural issues. The authors point to the destructive influences of a "poisonous popular culture", criticizing the numerous depictions on TV and in movies of sex, violence, and bad parents. They denounce the rampant individualism and sexual "liberation" that weakens the family. At the same time, they advocate abortion "rights," gay "rights", and demonstrate the theophobia (fear of religion) that so characterizes liberals. Religion happens to be the main force that encourages strong families and a higher quality culture. But then they concede that conservatives are right about a lot of their "family values" issues, and think divorce should be harder to obtain, the marriage penalty tax should be repealed, other taxes should be lowered on working families, TV watching should be limited, and the media should be cleaned up. I agree with these measures. An even more powerful solution for parents and society, in my opinion though, is legislation for a voucher system for K-12 education. This would really help families. It would make it possible for taxes to be lowered, because education would be delivered more effectively and less expensively. Individual schools would not be subject to government madates as to when they are open or closed. School schedules could be flexible, and more in tune with parent's work schedules. People like these authors could send their children to a "progressive" school, and people who want to could send their children to a religious school, or other kind of school. I think the right to send one's child to a school which is an extension of one's values should have been included in any "Parent's Bill of Rights." This book is an interesting book, and a spawn for discussion. But reader, beware--it is written by two baby-boomer professors, who are trying to have it both ways. They are trying to maintain their liberalism, even though they realize a lot of the faults with it, now that they are parents. It is understandable though--their jobs are dependent on the continuance of the welfare-state educational system.

This book walks a hazardous line, neither liberal nor conservative, and it infuriates some and baffles others who insist on familiar dichotomies.

There's a litmus test for prospective readers, however: if you think parents should be as politically powerful as the AARP, read this book, and anything written or edited by either Hewlett or West. If you think current disparities between the top and bottom deciles in socioeconomic status in the U.S are about right, don't.

Yes, some things are best pursued during young adulthood - college education, career building, baby-making. Hewlett's research makes that point, and it alone is worth two stars. But from this, she makes at least two faulty conclusions: (1) Her high-achieving childless female subjects were too stupid to figure this out until they hit 40. (2) Since men can "have it all", women are entitled to the same. Obviously, our options will diminish over time. And it follows that no one - male or female - can have everything, regardless of how someone's life might look on the surface. Life involves trade-offs.

In this book, Hewlett responds to her interviewees as objects of pity rather than recipients of immense blessing. To have health, freedom, and success is far more than most people have in this world - especially women - and is certainly nothing to snivel about. Hewlett's own story in the Preface about her obessession with bearing a FOURTH child after age 45 along with other stories of the huge self-indulgent waste of time and money on ineffective infertility treatments was enough to make me want to close this book many times while reading it. Can't these women find more important things to worry about? The adage "Count your blessings before you count your troubles" apparently never occurred to anyone in the small, yet largely biased sample of workaholic women.

Also she makes a rather naive - if not irritating - criticism about people being single because they are "unprepared to make the sacrifices necessary to share a life with someone else." Hewlett has been married for over two decades, through life in the '80s and '90s. How current is her knowledge of what those "sacrifices" might be? For example, is she aware that heterosexual women are the fastest growing HIV/AIDS population, yet most those women are/were married?

I think this book stresses the importance of facts and becoming educated on making life decisions. Having children and having a career are both choices and with choices in life there are always consequences. However, what Hewlett points out is that women have been given false information in terms of how long they can wait to have children. Having fertility information at 25 (as opposed to 45 when it's too late) can be helpful when attempting to plan for both career and family and I think her message is just that simple. I agree with her suggestion to look at where you want to be at 45 and plan backwards, however, there is one tiny stipulation. Just because you have a plan, life is full of surprises that cannot be forecast, foreseen, or prevented and plans have to remain flexible enough to change. For example, you can plan to get married at 27, but you may not meet your partner until you are 32.
I think the key is understanding the consequences and potential consequences of making these decisions. I would love to say that in a perfect world, you can have a great career and a great family. However, when maintaining a balance, both areas may not get full attention all the time. Life is a juggling act. You may only be 80% productive on your job and 80% productive on childrearing. But that is much better than neglecting one or the other because both are important.

Finally, someone has the courage to tell the painful truth about the challenges professional women face in the United States. This is a well-researched and thoughtful analysis of the hard, cold facts: many professional women are not having children. The author is providing a service to young women and the country by revealing the stories of so many women who have struggled to have both career and family. Surely, society loses out if we do not enable women to both contribute in their professional lives and to be happy in their personal lives, which may mean finding a mate and raising children. This book presents a challenge not just for women, but for our society to ensure that we provide the supports necessary so that no one has to choose between their job and a life. Creating a life is an eye-opener and a passionate call for reforms that can benefit all of us, but especially all our children, who are the future of this country.