I heard the most onerous economic term the other day. “She-session.” A loss of 865,000 female workers in September. Let that sink in. The latest economic downturn disproportionately affects women.

I wish I could say I’m surprised. But no, I am not. One of the biggest points of contention in my marriage was my spouse’s assertion that I did not work “real” jobs.

After my eldest son, Erick, was born with significant health issues, I did work part-time jobs. A lot of this was to have the flexibility to both pick my older daughter up from school, and to stay home with Erick when he was too sick for school or to take him to doctor’s appointments. However, those part-time jobs provided paychecks. Real paychecks. Not that my significant other agreed. If I with my college degree made less than he did, my income was considered irrelevant.

In a small way, that ridiculous perception had some basis in reality. Child care often consumed much of “my” paycheck.

This is a reality that faces too many families today. Women have been major players in the workforce for over 80 years. But due to the high cost of child care, our position is tenuous.

There is childcare assistance available for the lowest income earners, but most people are on their own. And if you are on your own, paying for child care can be a killer.

So it’s not all that surprising that there are 865,000 fewer women working now.

I am fortunate that I have two jobs now, and that Erick, his grandmother and even my soon-to-be-ex are helping care for our youngest son, James, during the hybrid schedule. Many people are not so fortunate.

The pandemic presently has no end in sight, and it’s getting worse. So who knows what the future holds.

What I do know is there should be a substantive discussion about how child care is managed in this country, and how it could be structured to make it affordable for all parents, because when 865,000 people drop out of the economy, everyone suffers.