I obviously disagree with her on abortion and economic issues, but Myers mostly includes common-sense solutions to our problems. She acknowledges the we don’t have to reach parity in every. single. job. field. to achieve balance in the working world as the recent Shriver Report recommends. Myers also approaches the issue as a woman who appears to have actually worked in the real world and likes men (unlike many of her peers in this field). I actually agreed with her on some points, such as her chapter on “The Confidence Gap.”

Myers does a good job of demonstrating that a third way is possible in the mommywars. After leaving the White House, she was able to carve out a career of public speaking, punditry and writing. Now that isn’t available to most women, but technology has dramatically altered the way that we view work. I truly believe that much of the hyped mommywars will be insignificant within the next decade. Offices are much more flexible for men and women, and working from home, telecommuting, flex time and alternative schedules will be the norm in the coming years.

She also devotes time to explore ways to stop the gap in science, technology, engineering and math fields. (In a previous job, I worked extensively on this issue, so I follow it closely.) Myers presents interesting facts that I had not seen.

Myers shares that people who think with both spheres of their brain are overwhelmingly likely to go into liberal arts. Since the majority of women think with both sides of the brain, they are more drawn to psychology, history, art, English, etc.

There’s also research that women are drawn to “people-focused” careers because our brains are wired for discussion and empathy. Because science is presented to kids as stark, boring and lonely, women aren’t drawn to it. Meyer’s shares an idea that would feasibly work:

…much of math is now theoretical, and physics doesn’t require as many “people” skills as, say, medicine. Which may mean fewer girls will be interested. Or it may mean we need to find new ways to make disciplines like physics and engineering more appealing to women’s more diverse interests. Maybe if the field’s most visible leaders talked about the practical, “people-oriented” benefits of the physical sciences–like how rural villages in Africa might get clean water and affordable energy–more girls might be interested.

On gender roles:

The hardcore ideologues on the left flank of feminist thinking insist that gender roles are not just artificial, but designed to hold women back. So until their desroyed, women will continue to be victims of a patriarchy, virtual slaves in their own homes. But most women–even many who call themselves feminists–don’t want to be “the same” as men. Nor do they believe that equality demands it. That’s not to say that questions about what equality means or how it might be achieved have been resolved. Far from it. But the vision of a one-size-fits-all world simply denies too many women’s experiences–and their aspiration.

On equality in the workforce:

For starters,  I think we have to abandon the idea that even if all the obstacles were eliminated, there would be an equal number of men and women in virtually every profession. We don’t need gender parity among elementary school teachers or bond traders before we can declare victory. We don’t even need it among physicists. That’s not to say that it won’t happen. It could. But isn’t it more likely that even if we eliminate the conflict between having a high-powered job and having a family, unravel the mysteries of innate aptitude and interest, and root out discrimination, there will still be more women in social psychology and more men in engineering? And isn’t that okay? I think it is.

Is this a book that will dramatically alter the landscape of gender politics? No. But is refreshing to remember that there are common sense Democrats out there.