No, slocum, they’re not. You provided a link to a business-magazine article, not to “published research”. That article looks at a handful of women who graduted from elite institutions in 1981. It does not compare one of those groups to similarly-situated men. It does not, actually, say ‘these women quit because of a man’—from all we know, and consistent with the rest of the article, they grew frustrated with sexist supervisors blocking their career path. Which, by the way, is consistent with my anecdotal experience.

You can point to your wife all you like, slocum, and sneer that we should “deal with” the notion that some women leave the workforce. I’m still waiting for you to explain why this justifies forcing women (only) to prove to their bosses that they should be allowed to do their normal job functions. And I wonder who really wanted Mrs. Slocum out of the full-time workforce.

Slocum, a statement like this should, IMHO, remove what little credibility you had left.

Ah, I love being beyond the pale—it’s peaceful out here. My anecdotal data are consistent with published research for which I provided a link. Both point in the direction of at least as substantial percentage and probably a majority of such women opting out of full time work.

So how did I ‘remove what little credibility I had left’ how? By just making stuff up? No—apparently by heresy.

Look—in the U.S. in this era, many educated women choose to leave the full-time workforce. Not because they have no other choice, not because they’re forced out, not because of financial constraints, not because of social pressures—but because they WANT TO and because they CAN. Deal with it.

How about another link—is there no credibility here, either?

“This isn’t only about day care. Half my Times brides quit before the first baby came. In interviews, at least half of them expressed a hope never to work again. None had realistic plans to work. More importantly, when they quit, they were already alienated from their work or at least not committed to a life of work. One, a female MBA, said she could never figure out why the men at her workplace, which fired her, were so excited about making deals. “It’s only money,” she mused. Not surprisingly, even where employers offered them part-time work, they were not interested in taking it.”

“But elite women aren’t resisting tradition. None of the stay-at-home brides I interviewed saw the second shift as unjust; they agree that the household is women’s work. As one lawyer-bride put it in explaining her decision to quit practicing law after four years, “I had a wedding to plan.” Another, an Ivy Leaguer with a master’s degree, described it in management terms: “He’s the CEO and I’m the CFO. He sees to it that the money rolls in and I decide how to spend it.” It’s their work, and they must do it perfectly. “We’re all in here making fresh apple pie,” said one, explaining her reluctance to leave her daughters in order to be interviewed. The family CFO described her activities at home: “I take my [3-year-old] daughter to all the major museums. We go to little movement classes.””

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10646

I know lots of these women—they make perfectly good neighbors, but I wouldn’t want to be married to one of ‘em (and happily I’m not).

Umm, rickd already explained quite eloquently why in the particular case at hand this is a VERY VERY LONG WAY from being true.

Nothing online involving words in capital letters is eloquent, no more than someone boiling over with rage in close conversation can be. And nothing in any context involving a writer confusing pronouns is eloquent.

Asking about Pam’s likelihood of leaving her position to move to a more prestigious university would have been entirely in order; asking about the likelihood of her leaving for personal reasons would have been entirely in order; phrasing it as this academic did was not.

Even if ‘How committed are you?’ is forbidden, ‘Just how committed is she?’ is a rational thought.

The dept chair should have known that it was unacceptable to ask it.

And Slocum agrees with you; from #7:

The dept chair should have known that it was unacceptable to ask [the question]

The point he’s putting forward is distinct from that, viz.:

[…] Even if ‘How committed are you?’ is forbidden, ‘Just how committed is she?’ is a rational thought.

If you think that shouldn’t be addressed or discussed, I have to say that although normally not a fan of Steven Pinker, I’ve always liked his formulation that everything should be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it’s presented with some degree of rigour—that’s the difference between a university and a madrassa.

Slocum, a statement like this should, IMHO, remove what little credibility you had left.

We almost dignify his question to me with all of this discussion.