Another trip back to important things that I missed or ignored the first time around: today, I'm reading a month-old Chicago Tribune story about the "Mommy Track." The story is centered around what should seem like an encouraging number for Rebel Dads: the number of at-home parents is up from 28.9 percent in 1995 to 41.3 percent last year, according to the government.

The discouraging spin is that parents are staying home more because the workplace is just as family-unfriendly as ever. Who wants to work just as hard for less credit, less recognition and a negligible amount of money. (I praised it a few days ago, but the analysis of Ann Crittenden in The Price of Motherhood is worth another mention. With a perspective on the tax code too detailed for this space, she makes the compelling point that working is an extraordinarily expensive proposition for the at-home parent.)

Corporate America, in the story, defends itself, pointing to the expanding number of businesses that allow flexible work arrangements. But I'm not sure that reflects the real world, and I'd be curious to hear from anyone with a front-lines perspective.