Suzanne Southworth ("Career Plus Motherhood Equals Fatigue," May 10) complains that she "had been sold a bill of goods" growing up believing that she should combine a career and motherhood.
As I was reading the article, I couldn't help but wonder where her husband was as she was trying to juggle a part-time job and child rearing. She made no reference to him, and I became convinced she was a single mom, especially when she said her child had ". . . bonded to both me and his baby-sitter . . . it was a great relief to have someone I trust who can help me with the responsibility of caring for him."
At that point I was sure there was no father. But several paragraphs later I learn there is a husband, and Dr. Southworth's concern is that she doesn't have time to spend alone with him. She seems to have no expectation that he equally share responsibility for the care of their children. How did she expect she could "have it all" without seeking out someone who would share the load?
And shame on The Times for running yet another of the "backlash" stories. Why don't you at least devote the space to discussions of the difficulties of involving husbands in child care? Is the problem that some women don't want to give up the area where they traditionally have had power in the family? Or is the problem that there are few men who will willingly share the responsibility and some women prefer to put up with all of the work themselves rather than to go it alone? Tales such as Dr. Southworth's don't help us to understand why her husband can "have it all" and she can't.