Are we back in the barefoot and pregnant days? When it was unseemly and unsavory for women to work outside the home? This furor over Massachusetts' Acting Governor, Jane Swift, who just gave birth to twins, is truly astonishing.

Some columnists criticize her for bad planning. Bad planning! When Jane Swift became pregnant, did George Bush know he'd be President? Did Massachusetts' governor know he'd be U.S. Ambassador to Canada? No, and Jane Swift didn't know she'd become Acting Governor of Massachusetts.

Other columnists tell her to resign, go home and take care of her kids. This, despite the fact that her husband is a stay-at-home dad. Governor Swift's children do have a parent at home-it just isn't their mom. Is a father unfit to be a full-time parent? Would anyone say a word if a male governor had newborn twins and worked while his wife took care of the kids?

A National Public Radio talk show host, a man, kept saying, "But, this isn't just any job. It's a governor. It's really important." As if that meant that a new mom couldn't and shouldn't handle such a responsibility. Not once did he suggest new dads might have difficulty juggling the major responsibilities of CEO and father. He certainly didn't claim British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, couldn't be both a world leader and father to a new son.

There are some disturbing biases underlying this discussion. One is the implicit assumption that women must choose between having children and being executives. Sure, it's tough to do both, but since when is that society's, rather than an individual's, choice? No one assumes that men should have to make that choice.

An equally troublesome presumption is that men can't be adequate parents. The growing number of single dads certainly ought to put that assertion to rest. It's an absurd theory that only women can take care of children, while men should be relegated to a peripheral role in child rearing.

It's also puzzling that this outcry seems to relate only to professional or executive women. Welfare mothers are not only expected, but required, to work, even if they have babies at home. Many of these moms work several jobs to hold their families together. And many don't have any reliable child care at all. Are those who are so critical of Governor Swift calling for better child care for poor working women? Are they suggesting that welfare moms should stay home and take care of their babies? Or, are they just alarmed to see that a woman can be a governor and also a mother, a responsible political leader and a capable parent?

Mothers have long been criticized for going to work for selfish reasons-either for personal fulfillment or economic gain. Yet, it is perfectly fine for men to have exciting careers or earn large salaries. It comes back to the childbearing role of women. We seem still to be ambivalent about whether women can or should have lives outside their families, at least when it comes to women who may not "have to work". If most of us believe women should make their own choices, why is there such a hullabaloo over one woman who, with her husband, has made a choice?

Finally, there seems to be a belief that families can't make the best decisions for themselves about who works and who stays at home. Or about both parents working outside the home. We can have a public debate about motherhood and fatherhood, about what's best for kids, about money and power versus child rearing. But, let's remember that these are not society's decisions. They are individual and family decisions.

Maybe it's time to stop bashing Governor Swift and give her a chance to do both her jobs as she thinks best. Voters don't get to vote on whether she's a perfect mother. But, they do get to decide if she's a good governor. Let's hope they judge her on her professional job performance. Her mothering proficiency is her family's business.