Bennetts blames media and society for failing to caution women about the risks of sacrificing financial independence, and for an “inexplicable” hostility toward women’s professional achievements while “glorifying” stay-at-home motherhood. In describing research that combining work and family really is the best choice for most women, Bennett dryly observes that “No one says a man isn’t a good father if he doesn’t stay home with his kids.” The Feminine Mistake has sparked ferocious debate in the blogosphere, much of it in the form of blistering and personal attacks on Bennetts from stay-at-home mothers. But there is much ardent support, too.

The book plays on the title of the 1963 Betty Friedan classic, The Feminine Mystique, which inspired baby boomers in the ‘60s and ‘70s to battle gender discrimination in employment. (In 1967 the minimum wage – for men – was $1.65. For women it was $1.45. This blatant inequity would be unthinkable today.)

But The Feminine Mistake really started life in response to a 2005 New York Times story about female Yale undergraduates who planned to cut back on work, or stop entirely, once they had children. This belief that work and family are an either/or choice for women is the classic “feminine mistake,” Bennetts says, arguing that women are too quick to jettison their careers for economic dependency when they start having children.

Bennetts’ facts are sobering -- opting in and out of the workforce costs women, over the long-term, years of lost wages, work experience, pension benefits, credits toward Social Security and opportunities to contribute to corporate savings plans. Not to mention that 50 percent of these women will divorce or be widowed or experience the illness or unemployment of a spouse that will threaten economic security for the entire family. Yet few women stop to consider the financial implications of leaving the workforce. Devoting themselves to raising children and subordinating their own financial interests to their husbands, they underestimate the toll this will take on their lifetime earnings and their ability to keep up in a field. They also overestimate their chances of getting back in the game.

The work/family balancing act, which affects females disproportionately more than males, is the central issue for millions of working American women. So where’s the outrage? I couldn’t help but remember how women in my generation had to fight hard just for the opportunity to get a low-paying job. When I graduated from college in 1977, the classified ads listed “Jobs for Men” and “Jobs for Women” separately. With every job application, I had to take a typing test. There is no historical memory of that world among my younger coworkers.

And where are the role models for this generation? At least baby boomers had Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug and Carol Gilligan. The women of Gen X and Gen Y seem to feel no obligation to fight for the social and political changes that would help make the workforce more hospitable to mothers – or fathers. There is more admiration for Sarah Jessica Parker than for Susan Faludi. Could it be that our society does not celebrate the financial, intellectual, creative and personal growth rewards of work for mothers in the same way we do child-rearing? Duh.

I hope the debate sparked by Bennetts’ book rages on for a while – we need a good airing out on this issue. And I hope the women of Gen X and Y consider new strategies for overcoming workplace frustrations instead of exiting the arena entirely. They might ask their older boomer sisters for advice about changing social norms. We’ve had some experience in that area.

Lauren Letellier