I'm confused, though, at the assertion of the author that a women who does enter the workforce must do so for the purpose of "women's advancement." At least, a woman who enters an elite field like Harvard-trained lawyer, or Senator, must do this. Presumably, waitresses and administrative assistants can work merely for the grubby purpose of actually earning a living. But when she mentions that a woman can attend Harvard or Yale, become a lawyer, Senator or even POTUS, and then turns around and says that women need help advancing, she loses me. What else do women in this country need? Most charitably, I would say that leftists get caught up in some imaginary dream of perfection. Some woman somewhere suffered something that we can fix, so we must work harder to make things right for All Women Everywhere.
Less charitably, it seems like the professional left always needs a victim to stand before the cameras and cry, so that the left can push more of its issues forward. Whatever women have, it's not enough, it would seem. Honestly, if women have the freedom to choose their vocation, I think they should be able to choose not to devote their lives to "women's advancement."