(group) A newspaper item reported that two-thirds of all mothers who work outside the home "do it for the money, not by choice." Are those really alternatives? Either for the money or by choice?
This depends on the framework under which a person is evaluating these mothers' actions. Under an economic framework, these mothers are making a exchanging remuneration for time and effort. They could make other choices as well, such as starvation. Or they could choose to exchange using less liquid resources, such as trading affection toward a partner for support from that partner's surplus earnings. Under an economic framework, everything is a choice.
Under a social justice framework though, we might consider these choices to be not realistic. Some options are considered so onerous as to not present a valid choice.
Under the view of choice picked by the newspaper article writer, a course of action is only considered a choice if the actor has more than one option that appears to be equally viable. Essentially, only if an external actor would have a difficult time predicting individual action would they consider it a real choice. Other actions would not be considered voluntary and thus not choices.