March 19, 2008 7:30 PM

Why opting out can make for some very bad boys
Posted by Diane Danielsonat 7:30 PM

Laura Vanderkam over at the Huffington Post had an interesting item on the Spitzer scandal and how it relates to the ever-controversial "opting out" movement.  After qualifying that there are some advantages for children when a woman "opts out;" she brings up some very realistic downsides:

But there is definitely a downside to this bargain. For starters, the existence in the workplace of men with no family duties makes life that much harder for moms who don't opt out - and for the men who choose to be involved in the care of their families. People who don't have to think about what time the babysitter goes home don't mind so much if the meeting runs late - even if nothing important is getting done.

And second, while men have learned to be careful about saying their wives "work in the home" rather than "outside the home," switching from two careers to one in high-powered couples changes the power dynamic. Though this probably isn't the case with the independently wealthy Spitzers, in other families, a sole breadwinner can claim anything related to work is important because hey, if he loses his job, it's bad news for everyone. He knows he can get away with a little bit of bad behavior, because if his wife has severely compromised her ability to make a living, it will be that much harder for her to leave.

I have to admit, I'm not surprised about the scandal.  Men like him do things like that.  However, I was disgusted by his wife standing by him.  Should the roles have been reversed, do you think he'd stand by her?  Not in a New York City minute.

Click here to read the full article.