This story was a real disappointment. Statistics are used very selectively (deceptively so) to suggest that this is a discrimination against women, when in fact it better reflects discrimination against *families*. There are also many logical flaws in the author's arguments. Apparently the only form of "opt-out" that is legitimate in the author's eyes is a case in which the employer wil give the woman anything and everything she desires to remain, but the woman nonetheless leaves. Anytime an employer is unable to accomodate a woman's request for changes in her work schedule/status, this apparently constitutes being "forced out." Aren't employers of women justified in asking why it is that *they* have to make accomodations for the mother, while the father's employer gets a free pass? Of course there is a problem here, but the author does as much of a disservice to the problem by framing it as (yet another) discrimination against women issue as the NYT does by whitewashing the problem away with "opt-out" stories. In the author's own words, "Here’s why that matters: if journalism repeatedly frames the wrong problem, then the folks who make public policy may very well deliver the wrong solution." Exactly, so stop framing this as a discrimination against women issue and start framing it as a discrimination against families issue. That way, maybe the *real* problem will get addressed.