So much has been written about the increase in moms "opting out" of the workplace that I thought surely, this new research by the U.S. Census Bureau would get big play.

In a report released Monday, the U.S. Census found that women who became mothers during 2001 and 2003 were more likely to work during their pregnancy and return to work sooner after giving birth than new mothers past.

How was this story played? USA Today ran a brief. New York Times ran a short item buried in the paper, completely ignoring its own cover story years earlier suggesting there was a widespread desertion of the workplace by educated women. And what about Time Magazine, which also ran a cover story? I did a quick search and couldn't find ANY mention on this study on its web site.

Does this data effectively put to an end to the debate of whether moms are opting out? I don't know (but will return to this subject when I can). But in the meantime, I am wondering: why is it that so much of the media covers with far more relish research that supports one view and gives short shrift to the contradictory evidence?

Labels: opting out

Stumble It!

Why is it that whenever there is an article about a birthparent and adoptee reuniting, the old stereotypes surface? That's what I was thinking when I read this article in USA Today.

I was reading a story USA Today wrote about the decline in international adoptions, when I clicked on the story about an Air Force Colonel Bruce Hollywood, who found his birth mom in Japan.

Here's the quote from Japan's ambassador to the U.S. (who helped in the search):

"Col. Hollywood has found his real mother," Kato said.

Did Col. Hollywood feel this way about his adoptive mom? Probably not, as he didn't feel the desire to search until he became ill, deep into middle age. But without a quote from the adoptee about whether he, in fact, considers the birth mom his "real" mom, the story lets this quote have the last word.

Labels: international adoption

Stumble It!