Fair warning: I am leaving for a mini-vacation tomorrow (returning Sunday night) and don't expect to be able to provide much in the way of RD updates while I'm gone.

As I leave, I'll throw out one thing I've been chewing on -- a new group called M.O.T.H.E.R.. It's backed by the still-on-my-mind Ann Crittenden and advocates for a number of wonderful ideas to better value motherhood (or, I suppose fatherhood), both socially and financially. They're audacious in a don't-hold-your-breath kind of way, but it's nice to see them listed: give social security benefits to caregivers. Extend leave ... and make it paid. Count unpaid labor in the GDP.

And it's worth noting that dads aren't ignored in the discussion. "Aren't fathers important caregivers too? What about their role?," reads the FAQ. The response: "Fathers are incredibly important, and this initiative will help them be better caregivers as well. Because of long hours and anti-family workplace policies, many fathers are prevented from spending the time they would like with their families. They can take advantage of parental leave and the option of a shorter workweek. They will gain if mothers have higher incomes. And maybe, if caregiving were not so costly to the caregivers, more men might be motivated to do more of it."

Does this ring true to you? Is the obstacle for fathers economic? Societal? Some of both? I've been trying to figure out why there are so few at-home dads in this age of equality. Economics only gets me part of the way. There's an assumption, still implicit, that dads will work and moms can work if they choose (leaving aside, for a moment, the problems women still face in the workplace). Is money all we need to give dads more of that choice?