In 2007, sociologist Pamela Stone published a book entitled, Opting Out: Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home that described the experiences of 54 urban, mostly white women in the United States who had worked in professional or executive positions and left those jobs for full-time motherhood. The main finding of the study was that, contrary to depictions in the popular media, these women had not exactly “opted out,” but rather had left their jobs in an attempt to ease the conflicting demands of family, motherhood, and high-pressure employment. Many had immersed themselves in full-time motherhood, sometimes with significant volunteer commitments, and/or redirected their careers towards professions that are more historically female, such as teaching.

Opting Back In describes the results of a follow-up study by Stone and co-author Meg Lovejoy that is based on interviews with 43 of the original group of women roughly 12 years later. At the time of the second interview, the study participant's median age was 54. We learn that the majority of the group had resumed, or tried to resume, paid employment in some form. Much of the book is devoted to detailed accounts of the pathways of their lives, beginning with six women who exemplify common patterns. The book then turns to women's lives at home with compelling depictions of the rewards and challenges of motherhood, household management, and community volunteering. The heart of the book lies in the three chapters that outline the women's navigation of the return to work. The concluding chapter revisits the six representative women's lives and reviews their ongoing efforts to confront choices constrained by the demands of work and family, ending with policy recommendations for change.

The impact of gendered expectations, not only of employers but within households, on the women's actions is striking. There are multiple examples of husbands who seem to happily take advantage of their wives’ willingness to shoulder full responsibility for the household and children so they can devote themselves entirely to their careers. (It would have been fascinating to hear from these husbands.) Only two of the 43 women who stopped working to stay home are divorced; almost all are still in intact marriages. It is likely that a study sample that included women who did not stop working given the demands of high-level jobs would have resulted in a different yet equally important story, one that would no doubt have included more dissolved marriages but also some stories of successful two career households.

The authors sum up the dilemma faced by women as they weigh the trade-offs by the phrase, “the paradox of privilege - the phenomenon whereby the gender-based interests of high-achieving women—for professional accomplishment, gender egalitarianism, and economic independence—are at odds with their class interests, which place a high premium on full-time caregiving as a means of class transmission within the family” (p. 20). The class-based demand for and rewards of highly involved and time-intensive mothering is clearly a major factor in women's narratives about their choices. At the same time, their marriages to successful men made it possible for these women to leave the workforce with few consequences for their economic well-being.

The paths taken by the women who returned to work were varied and often circuitous, with multiple starts and restarts. Some opted to move towards careers that are seen to be more flexible and more meaningful (e.g., teaching, nonprofit work). Others worked part time or as freelancers in their previous fields. A decrease in the amount of money women earned compared to their former employment was common. Only a few returned to full-time work in their previous professions.

The policy recommendations are familiar (as the authors say, “depressingly familiar”). They include changing the corporate culture that demands long hours and near-constant availability, reducing gender discrimination in pay and a gender-segregated labor market, and encouraging men to participate more in household management and childcare. Yet, the authors argue that the #MeToo movement and its attendant activism provide an opening to pursue these policy directions with renewed vigor and perhaps more success. The book was published just prior to the moment when the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the stark effects of the persistence of traditional gender roles and rigid corporate work cultures for women's careers, especially those with small children. Now, the choice to opt out or to opt back in is even more complicated, but perhaps there is increased understanding that, for sustainable improvement, it is institutions rather than individuals that need to adjust to accommodate current realities.

2007 年，社会学家帕梅拉·斯通 (Pamela Stone) 出版了一本书，题为《选择退出：为什么女性真正放弃职业和回家》，描述了 54 名美国城市女性（主要是白人女性）的经历，她们曾担任过专业或行政职位，并离开了这些工作岗位。全职母亲。该研究的主要发现是，与大众媒体的描述相反，这些女性并没有完全“选择退出”，而是为了缓解家庭、母性和高压的相互冲突的需求而离职。就业。许多人沉浸在全职母亲的生活中，有时还承担了重要的志愿者承诺，和/或将自己的职业重新定向到历史上更女性化的职业，例如教学。

选择重新加入描述了斯通和合著者梅格·洛夫乔伊 (Meg Lovejoy) 进行的一项后续研究的结果，该研究基于大约 12 年后对原始女性群体中的 43 名进行的采访。在第二次采访时，研究参与者的中位年龄为 54 岁。我们了解到，该组的大多数人已经恢复或试图恢复某种形式的带薪工作。这本书的大部分内容都详细描述了她们的生活轨迹，从六位女性的共同模式开始。然后，这本书转向了女性在家中的生活，对母性、家庭管理和社区志愿服务的回报和挑战进行了引人注目的描述。这本书的核心在于概述女性重返工作岗位的三章。最后一章重温了六位女性代表

性别期望对女性行为的影响是惊人的，不仅是雇主的期望，而且是家庭内部的期望。有许多丈夫似乎很乐意利用妻子愿意承担家庭和孩子的全部责任，这样他们就可以完全投入到自己的事业中的例子。（听到这些丈夫的消息会很有趣。）43 名停止工作留在家中的女性中只有两人离婚；几乎所有人都还处于完整的婚姻中。一个研究样本包括那些因为高层次工作的要求而没有停止工作的女性，这可能会导致一个不同但同样重要的故事，这个故事无疑会包括更多的解散婚姻，但也包括一些成功的故事两个职业家庭。

作者总结了女性在权衡权衡时面临的困境，即“特权悖论 - 成就卓越的女性基于性别的利益的现象 - 对职业成就、性别平等主义和经济独立” ——与他们的阶级利益不一致，他们高度重视全职照顾作为家庭内部阶级传播的手段”（第 20 页）。对高度参与和时间密集的母亲的基于阶级的需求和回报显然是女性对其选择的叙述中的一个主要因素。与此同时，她们与成功男性的婚姻使这些女性有可能离开劳动力市场，而对她们的经济福祉几乎没有影响。

重返工作岗位的女性所走的道路各不相同，而且往往是迂回曲折，多次开始和重新开始。一些人选择转向更灵活、更有意义的职业（例如，教学、非营利工作）。其他人在以前的领域兼职或作为自由职业者。与以前的工作相比，女性挣的钱减少是很常见的。只有少数人恢复了以前的全职工作。

政策建议很熟悉（正如作者所说，“令人沮丧地熟悉”）。它们包括改变要求长时间工作和几乎不间断的可用性的企业文化，减少薪酬中的性别歧视和性别隔离的劳动力市场，并鼓励男性更多地参与家庭管理和儿童保育。然而，作者认为#MeToo 运动及其随之而来的激进主义为以新的活力和可能取得更大的成功来追求这些政策方向提供了机会。这本书是在 COVID-19 大流行暴露了传统性别角色的持续存在和僵化的企业工作文化对女性职业生涯（尤其是那些有小孩的女性）的严重影响之前出版的。现在，选择退出还是选择重新加入变得更加复杂，