One of the dictionaries we use at home defines conundrum as (1) "A riddle in which a fanciful question is answered by a pun" or (2) "A problem admitting of no satisfactory solution." While the issues around childcare may constitute a riddle, there is nothing fanciful about this subject. Childcare is an obvious candidate for the second definition.

I think Betty Friedan's observation, made years ago during the opening session of one of the annual conferences of the American Society on Aging still applies - perhaps more now than then: This country expects parents to pour themselves into their employment during the very years when their children need them the most. [This has the potential to become even more irritating when you consider that during WWII, "Rosie the Riveter" had childcare available at the worksite.]

A report published recently stirred a substantial amount of conversation and re-ignited the controversial debate between the merits of at-home parental care versus non-parental daycare for children. This report included comments about good day care being a better environment for children than a home with poor parenting. It also initiated criticism to the effect that lacking a specific solution for the problems it identified, it should not tar all efforts with the same brush.

The report became the backdrop for a classroom exploration of the childcare issue in one of my courses. (The course, Psychology of Work, was offered for the first time in the Spring semester just concluded. One of the books we used as a text is Hochschild's The Time Bind…) Because the course met on Tuesday evenings, I had a mix of students - all women - representing both traditional college-age learners and adult/returning learners. Of the 20 students, the number of those less than age 25 was about equal to the number of those over 35. (Three students in this latter group observed their 50th birthday during the semester, so we definitely had a quotient of "boomers.")

None of the younger women were mothers, and a few of them had not yet held serious employment - or any job, for that matter. All of the age +35 students were mothers and employed outside of their home. To a person, the younger students delivered their unflinching expectations that (1) they would have children; (2) they would be employed outside of their homes and in professional capacities; and (3) their children would not be placed in daycare. "How" you may be wondering do these young women intend to accomplish all this? Easy. They have decided their family members - read that "Mom" - will take care of the children. No "dreaded" daycare for these youngsters. "My mother" will take care of the children. In some prospective scenarios, Mom will be aided by other family members. What's going on here?

When Dr. Lillian Rubin published Women of A Certain Age in 1979, she wrote about the "empty nest" syndrome. About 20 years later, we began to hear about "boomerang babies" - children who left home, (usually to attend college), returning as adults to live with their parent/s. The "empty nest" repopulated. There were and are some compelling reasons for the boomerang effect - downsizing in the world of work and/or divorce being leading explanations; but the young women students weren't articulating a boomerang event. They forthrightly expressed the "certainty" that they would parent children for whom family would provide the day care while professions were pursued.

The older members of the class tried politely but firmly to explain just how far removed from reality this notion was. Some of these older women indicated that at one point or another while their children were growing up they considered this "fanciful" option, but it didn't work out; in most instances, it didn't even materialize. One major benefit of any intergenerational classroom is the means it provides for information to flow between younger students and more mature students. Even if the various points of view are rejected, they are at least heard and often analyzed. This time, however, no matter how intentional the more experienced students were in their effort to explain how unlikely it was that family would become caregivers to these future children, the younger women simply "weren't having it." Some of the younger women indicated that they hadn't discussed this expectation with the targeted caregivers - since no children were close to arriving on the scene, it didn't seem necessary - yet they were firm in their conviction regarding the ultimate plan.

What does this mean? Is there a portion of today's female college population which thinks that the step after "be all that you can be" is to expect family members are awaiting the opportunity to give their time and other resources even more than they have already? Is the chasm between today's very young adults and today's maturing adults so wide that the former thinks the latter has nothing better to do? The "sandwich generation" is not a phenomenon; it's a fact. The "sandwich" effect is elongating, not shrinking. I attended a major conference (in May of this year) arranged by WorldatWork. The majority of the attendees represented the compensation and benefits aspects of a range of businesses. I co-presented on the topic of recruiting and retaining the older worker. Our presentation was fully in tune with many of the other presentations; i.e. conversations around the need to accommodate the caregiving demands being made on the maturing employee. Business is having a difficult time making the more obvious adjustments - legislation in this area notwithstanding - but the expectation that older parents will be able to fold childcare into their lives is a new twist. It most certainly does qualify as a conundrum.