Strollerderby : Lisa Belkin

Married vs. Single Moms: Who's Got it Easier?

Madeline Holler — Sat, 23 May 2009 19:04:00 GMT

One could hardly envy a single mother if she's struggling emotionally or financially. But what about single mothers who are doing fine? Have you ever found yourself thinking she's lucky? She has it so much better -- so much easier -- than the married mothers out there?

Over at Motherlode blog in the NY Times, Lisa Belkin asked: which is easier, parenting alone or with a partner?

She pulls from a few other blogs and Katie Kowalski, of the Orlando Sentinel, had this argument in favor of being a single mom:

I like that no one complains when I leave my sweaty workout clothes on the bathroom floor overnight, or that no one cares when I decide that it’s going to be cereal for dinner (again). Some might call that a lack of accountability on my part — but hey, don’t we all do better work when someone isn’t looking over our shoulder?

I already have a bossy little girl who demands that I sing the Tigger song 100 times a day, and who regularly bullies me out of my breakfast. The last thing I need is a man who needs…. well, anything that takes effort on my part.

That may be how relationships work for Kowalski, but I would argue some partners may be better than others. Feeling watched and/or burdened by one's other half does make a good case for building a family of just mom and the kids.

That aside, I'll admit I've envied some single moms. Shared custody, to my tired eyes, has its benefits. Namely, visitation! Those nights/weeks/weekends/summers where the kids pack off to live in their other home. Ahhhh, sleep. Ahhhh, benders. Ahhhh, French fries and mayonnaise for dinner.

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying the matter.

Anyway, let's hear it. Single moms? Are you secretly (or openly) relieved to be the only one in charge? Any smug marrieds secretly (no, really, secretly!) jealous of your single-mom/dad friends?

India Baby Boom: Surrogate Birth Every 48 Hours

How Fertile Couples Outsmarted Wall Street

Michael Pollan Doesn't Know if He was Breastfed!

They Say: Moms, It's Still Your Fault. Well, Yours and Daycare

Top 10 Pregnancy and Birth World Records

City's 5th Co-Sleeping Death in 10 Weeks Reported

550-Pound Woman Gives Birth

Photo: single-parent-project.com

NYT Asks: Are There Too Many Ways to Conceive?

Jen Chaney — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:29:00 GMT

Lisa Belkin over at the NYT's Motherlode blog wonders if the pursuit-of-parenthood market may be oversaturated.

Citing the recent examples of the Sarah Jessica Parker/Matthew Broderick surrogate twins and the woman attempting to become a surrogate grandmother by using her dead son's sperm, Belkin asks if science -- with its IVF, egg donations, fertility drugs and other advances -- has perhaps given us too many options. She quotes The Washington Post's Liza Mundy, who recently wrote a book about assisted reproduction: "When there is always something else to try ... there is no permission to stop. That’s the hardest part of the process for couples. For most of them, the ‘permission’ to stop comes when they run out of money."

Mundy mentions a key word there: money. I suspect that the only people who may feel overwhelmed by the vast conception options out there are people with either a. unbelievably awesome health insurance, or b. sizeable amounts of wealth.

For the average, fertility-challenged couple, it's more like: try the old-fashioned way, maybe pursue fertility drugs or IVF for a short period of time, then start looking into adoption. (Which, for the record, ain't cheap either.) As Mundy rightly points out, people usually exhaust their options when the funding runs out, and that can make them feel guilty. But I think most parental hopefuls realize their resources are limited. It's a terrible feeling to spend all that time, energy and cash on one conception option or another and still not have a child as a result. I guess I'm not just sure how many people cope with that feeling by, say, turning from in vitro fertilization to intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

I think it's valid to raise the questions Belkin mentions, for sure. I just think most Americans won't ever have to answer them because practical, economic factors will steer their decisions more than any excess of scientific options ever will. As a commenter on Belkin's blog post put it: "I agree that the possibilities can be wonderful for people who very much want to become parents, but those possibilities right now are only available to those with deep pockets. Insurance does not cover most infertility treatments."

Related Links:

Babble Talk: Can You Detach the Womb from the Woman?

Handy Tips for Infertility Awareness Week

Genetic Mom Gets OK to Adopt Baby Carried by Partner

Mom Gets OK to Collect Dead Son's Sperm

Getting Lost: Funny Story or Major Tragedy?

Kate Tuttle — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:31:00 GMT

Have you ever lost your child -- in the park, the mall, or even your backyard? Or were you ever lost as a child -- or rather, did you wander away happily, only to find later that your parents were searching high and low? Are today's parents more easily freaked out by lost kids (due to hyped up fears of stranger danger and so forth), or is the misplaced child one of those universal and timeless parental fears? And are today's kids less well prepared for what to do when they get lost, less well prepared for taking care of themselves in general than when we were kids?

Two recent mom-bloggers have explored this topic, inspired at least in part by the news story from a few days back of the five-year-old who ended up riding the subway alone in New York. As Lisa Belkin says in her New York Times Motherlode blog, it's useful to focus on what didn't happen: "The child was not kidnapped, or crushed by a train, or gone forever." Belkin then touts the work of Lenore Skenazy, author of Free Range Kids: Giving Our Kids The Freedom We Had Without Going Nuts With Worry. On Skenazy's blog, she invited readers to share their stories of losing kids in public places, and ends by reminding us that "even one of parenting’s biggest fears - being separated in a public place from your child - usually ends up with a big sigh of relief. And, when possible, ice cream." Both posts are followed by dozens of great stories (hilarious and harrowing in equal measure), many of which include fantastic advice. Boiling it down here:

Parents should establish basic rules about what they want their kids to do if separated from them, and TELL THEIR KIDS.
While there's no one right method, some popular ones are: child should go to a cash register and wait there/ask for help, child should go to a mother with kids and ask for help, child should go to a person in uniform (mall cop, cop) and ask for help.
On public transportation, the subway rule rules:
a. If you are on the train, and the grown-up(s) are NOT on the train, get off at the next stop and wait. The grown-ups will come to you.

b. If you are off the train, and the grown-ups are ON the train, stand still and wait. DO NOT GET ON THE NEXT TRAIN. The grown-ups will come to you.

c. If you’re just lost, in general, stand still and wait. The grown-ups will come to you.

d. If you’re exceedingly lost and grown-ups haven’t shown up, it’s okay to ask a store employee or a cop or another grown-up to call security to have us paged. (children should learn their parents' cellphone numbers as young as possible) Do not hold anybody’s hand or go wandering off - there’s a good chance we’ll still show up exactly where you are.
For the very very rare times in which your child might actually be in danger, it's a good idea to have a recent photo of your child -- one parent points out that with today's cellphones, if you take a picture of your child that day, in that day's clothes, before you set off for the mall or the zoo, it could be helpful later.

So how about you, Babble readers? Have you lost a kid yet? Or do you remember being lost yourself as a child? What are your worst fears and best tips? For me, I worry far less about abduction by a stranger -- statistically the chances are nearly nil -- but a lost child can be in danger from more common threats (cars, drowning, exposure). So I think it's a great idea to have a set of family rules, covering both how not to get lost (stick with me, make sure you can see me, come when I call you) and what to do if you are.

photo: Weegee, "Lost Children," 1941

More by this author:

They Say: Bilingual Babies Learn Better

Why Are We So Shocked When Women Kill?

(Public) Breastfeeding Now Legal in Massachusetts

Another Hospital Baby Mix-Up, Now With Added Racism!

How Slow Can You Go? Is This New Parenting Movement For You?

Kate Tuttle — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:31:00 GMT

In this fast-paced world, where life can often feel like it's spiralling out of control, and the only thing more overloaded than your checking account is your kid's jam-packed activity schedule, the idea of some downtime is increasingly appealing. Maybe during this econonmic low it's the perfect time to scale back on both the time and money we're spending trying to push our kids into high-status, high stakes perfection, and just let them be kids.

Enter the slow parenting idea. Although he did not coin the phrase, author Carl Honoré just might be its patron saint. The author of The Power of Slow: Finding Balance and Fulfillment Beyond the Cult of Speed and Under Pressure: Rescuing Our Children from the Culture of Hyper-Parenting spoke by email with Lisa Belkin on her New York Times blog, Motherlode. One snippet:

Slow parents give their children plenty of time and space to explore the world on their own terms. They keep the family schedule under control so that everyone has enough downtime to rest, reflect and just hang out together. They accept that bending over backwards to give children the best of everything may not always be the best policy. Slow parenting means allowing our children to work out who they are rather than what we want them to be.

For more, check out Motherlode. And don't forget to skim the comments, most of them laudatory, some hilarious (one simply says, "Dear God, please make sure Judith Warner reads this!").

I hope a lot of people do. As fun as it can be to take your toddler to classes and enjoy her burgeoning intelligence and enthusiasm, you'll see it just as clearly (and for no money, and with no time constraints) when you take her to a local park, or just walk down to the library together.

More by this author:

Exploited and Discarded? Seeking Protection for Egg Donors

Another Hospital Baby Mix-Up, Now With Added Racism!

Spurred to Action by Natasha Richardson Death, Parents Save Girl

Child Support Suffers in a Recession, Too

Letting Kids See Watchmen

Brett Singer — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Lisa Belkin wonders if her 15-year old should see "Watchmen," this weekend's number one movie. His 18-year old brother saw it and pronounced it brilliant. I won't keep you in suspense (I know, you were on the edge of your seat), but Lisa eventually capitulated and let the younger son go. Spoiler: he liked it.

Having seen the film, I can say that it is definitely not for kids. The R rating should deter parents, but really it's the subject matter that they should be looking at. For the record, I enjoyed the film version of "Watchmen"; it's very faithful to the original comics (aka "graphic novel"), has some flaws, but overall is very much worth seeing. This column at The Onion AV Club by Tasha Robinson does a great job of breaking down the differences between the two, points out some missteps, and is good reading if you're interested.

For our purposes, the question is "how do I decide whether or not a movie is appropriate for my child?" Movie ratings help, but only up to a point. A commenter at the Times' website points out that "Dark Knight" was rated PG-13, which in my opinion is absurd. Great film, one of the best I've seen, and Heath Ledger's performance was incredible and deserving of an Oscar. Part of what makes his Joker so amazing is that he is really, truly disturbing, more so than the bone-popping-out-of-an-arm style of violence on display in "Watchmen." To me, and I believe to my kids, psychological violence is more troubling than physical violence. Not that I want them to see the extreme grossness that "Watchmen" has. But a movie's rating doesn't always tell the whole story.

What I do with superhero movies is see them first. I know. I make the ultimate sacrifice, go on opening weekend with a bunch of guys wearing Captain America t-shirts, and decide whether or not the flick is kid-friendly enough. "Iron Man" was, although the opening sequence is questionable. "Hulk" was borderline, but my then 7-year-old didn't want to see that one anyway. (Although he does love my blog post written from Hulk's point of view.) I thought "Spider-Man 3" would be too scary for him (Venom), but he was unfazed; actually, I think he was a little bored (the bizarre musical number).

What makes this part of my parenting job easier is that I actually want to see superhero movies. Belkin, not so much: when asked by a commenter why she didn't just see "Watchmen" first if she was so concerned, she replied: "You are right, I should have seen it if I felt so strongly about helping to give context to the message, but, frankly, I couldnt [sic] stand the thought of sitting through it." At two and a half hours, I can't really blame her. But if she had seen it, she would have found out that along with the cartoonishly graphic violence (not a lot, but what's there includes someone having their hands cut off with a power saw) is a very violent rape scene, a moment is that is much more graphic than the one in the original comic. Do I think most fifteen year olds have seen something like that in a movie already? Probably. Does that mean I want them to see that without me telling them what's wrong with that behavior? Probably not. For me, seeing a film is the best way to determine whether or not you want your child to see it, no matter what age they are. Fifteen may be too old to be concerned about what sort of entertainment your kids consume. But even if you don't censor it, it's probably a good idea to know what they watch.

Source: NY Times

Image: AVClub.com

Cookie Monster Cupcake

Angelina Jolie Could Always Use an Extra Baby

Should Chris Brown Be Getting Out the Kids' Vote?

Soldier Gives Birth At Army Barracks

Kid Won't Friend You on Facebook? Get a Life

JeanneSager — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:23:00 GMT

We all want our kids to love us even a smidge as much as we love them. But needing our kids to verify we're cool enough to be their "friends" on Facebook? Maybe it's time you get off the internet and MEET your kid.

I laughed at Lisa Belkin's essay a few months back in the Times about her kid refusing to friend her online. She even joined a group of moms whose kids are embarrased to find them on Facebook. Now the kids are getting back - with a group that's five thousand strong and growing, dubbed "For the love of god -- don't let parents join Facebook."

I've got news for you kids, not every mom wants her kid sending her a friend request. If they do, there's a fair amount of us who wouldn't hesitate to hit "deny."

I have always been one of the big proponents of kids getting on social networks, especially kids who need to reach outside of the limited social group in their own schools. Remember middle and high school anyone? It sucked. So why shouldn't our kids get a chance at something a little bit better - you know, like finding friends who share their interests, goals, secrets . . . and know nothing about the day they pissed their pants in the first grade?

But there's Facebook for kids. Then there's Facebook for the rest of us. (or Myspace or Twitter . . . or whatever social media you kids are using these days). Those of us who have opted for a "private" page, wherein we allow only those we've "confirmed" to see status updates and goofy pictures, have done so to keep out anyone who would judge what we have to say on there. For smart folks, that includes their bosses. For parents, it can also include their kids.

The flippant comment in the office becomes permanent when typed up and left on Facebook - by one of your "friends." But where you can earmuff the kids when your sloshed best friend starts talking about the good ol' days at a family party, the cat's out of the bag online. So who wants their kids to see that?

I'm a fully-grown, responsible adult and mother. OK, according to my mortgage coupon book, I am. According to Facebook, where I just wrapped up a discussion with a friend about Pillow Pants, the vagina troll (Clerks ringing a bell for you Kevin Smith fans?), well. . . you be the judge. What my kid doesn't know won't hurt her.

Image:

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

Why Do Pacifiers Piss So Many People Off?

Breastfeeding Moms Fighting Facebook Ban

Man Says Drinking Breastmilk Cured His Cancer

How About Some Placenta in that IV Drip?

A Rose is a Rose Unless She's A Smith-Rose

Adrienne Martini — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:30:00 GMT

Yes, "Martini" is my real last name. I come from a long line of Martinis, in fact. And, no, I tend not to drink them because I'm a wimp. Neither my children nor my spouse, however, are Martinis and it's a decision that we all feel fairly comfortable with. But the whole last name thing can cause all kinds of hand wringing for women my age -- I can see 40 from here -- and younger.

The New York Times' Lisa Belkin chats about the who-gets-whose last name question on her equal parenting blog, which was spun out of her latest cover story. For me, it was interesting how few women she talked to kept their "maiden" names. But then I started to think about all of the married women I knew. Most of them took their husband's last name, which was surprising.

So am I the only one surprised by this? How many of you changed your name at marriage? Added a hyphen? Did something else? Do you think your expectations have anything to do with when you got married?

Photo credit: Necropolitan Tours

Distilled: Sunday New York Times Magazine

Adrienne Martini — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:30:00 GMT

As a service to the harried Strollerderby reader, I've read the Sunday Times' Magazine cover story on equal parenting and have distilled it down to four words. You can thank me later.

The four words: We all make choices.

Of course, the argument that writer, Lisa Belkin, makes is full of subtleties that those four words don't even begin to touch. However, they do sum up the nub of what the story says. When it comes to parenting, we all make choices, whether they be socially supported or not.

If you have all sorts of time, feel free to read it yourself and tell me how close I've come. Or, if there's something you'd like me to sum up for you so that you don't have to read it yourself (keep it parenting-related, please), leave a comment.

And, yes, you're welcome.

Photo credit: Achim Lippoth for The New York Times