Strollerderby : mommy wars

We're Not Judging You, Pinky Swear

JeanneSager — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:32:00 GMT

If there was any parent who might have taken exception with Kate Haas' piece on being TV free right here on Babble, it was one who penned a piece about letting her daughter watch a heckuva lot of TV.

Yes, that would be me.

Honestly? I loved it. Because while Haas shared all the wonderful reasons her family's TV-free (similar, actually, to my own completely TV-free upbringing), she focused in on something that a lot of parents today just don't get. She doesn't make parenting decisions because she wants you to make the same ones. She makes them because that's how SHE wants to parent.

Imagine that. It isn't about you.

What first attracted me to Babble's Bad Parent column, back before I started writing for the site, was the fact that parents could tell the stories of alternate ways they've found to parent. Not because they think EVERYONE has to do it that way, but because there are too darn many people out there who think it's their way or the highway. Bad Parent has opened up an avenue for really not so bad parents like me (and the dozens of other Bad Parent writers, including several of my colleagues here on Strollerderby) to very simply offer another option. Haas can keep the TV out of the house. I can leave it on all day.

Do we talk about the benefits of our way? Of course! If we didn't think there were benefits, frankly, why would we be doing it? It's why I've shared the story of how I juggle sending my kid to daycare a few days a week and taking her to work with me other days, the reasons I won't use the "v" word with my kid, the reasons I refuse to make holidays into an extended family hell.

Often writing about these choices draws criticism, offering you all a computer-side seat to the so-called mommy wars, where judgement reigns supreme. It happens. As a writer, that's what happens when you share your words with other people. Sometimes, judging people is OK. We all do it.

But a comment on a recent Bad Parent compelled me to answer back for the first time ever. The reader took issue with the use of the word "park." As in parking my kid in daycare.

"Why can't writers explore these issues without insulting those who have chosen differently," she asked.

My question? Why is expressing an alternate opinion an insult? The true mommy wars come from parents who are unable to simply say "eh, they do it that way, I do it my way."

It's a point Haas makes very clear in her essay this week. She's TV-free by choice. She's not walking into other people's homes and yanking out the cord on their idiot boxes. Sure, she'll tell you all the benefits. But at the end of the day, she's not going home to her husband to say "Oh my Gawd, can you believe those people let their kids watch Dora?"

As Haas says, "Believe me, I'm not sitting in judgment. Isn't raising kids hard enough without that?" So why don't you take a gander at some alternate parenting choices over at our Bad Parent Column? You might find some new ideas about how to parent. Or you might just get annoyed.

Finish Line - Cars, Baby Food, Panties

Brett Singer — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:00:00 GMT

Wow, what a week. For reasons that I don't completely understand, this one was very draining. For me. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Here's some of the excitement on the 'Derby the past few days:

Keri told us about a mom who actually went through with the threat we've all made -- "I'll stop this car and throw you right out!" Some people took her side, implying that this was just another example of "free-range kids." The only time my mother ever tossed me out of the car was when she was teaching me how to drive. But I was 17 at the time. (Of course, I still don't have my license. That's not her fault, though.)
One word: PANTIES! Thank you Madeline.
Amy wrote about homemade baby food, and judging by the comments, this is the next battle in the Mommy Wars. Note to self: if you want to get people going, use the phrase "get a grip." Seems to work wonders. (Which is fine, by the way.)
Kate wrote about some proposed new rules for corporal punishment, aka spanking. See, spanking the kids is one thing, but what about the more recrational forms of spanking? Will there be laws against that? (Don't answer that question, actually.)
Hannah tugged at our heartstrings (no pun intended) by telling us about a little boy named Tucker, with Parents Find Unique Way to Pay for Child's Heart Surgery.
Sunny wins the Headline of the Week award with Pregnant Woman Escapes Bear Attack - Gets Hit By Car. I have to agree with maeby, who questioned why a pregnant woman went for a hike in "bear heaven."
Jeanne told us that chewing gum is a GOOD thing, despite what your teachers told you. So there, Mrs. Morrison! Take that!
As for me, in honor of food week, I told you what I served my kids every day. I even tweeted it. No really. I did. There are pictures and everything.

More to come next week, I'm sure. Now go take a nap, will ya? Oh wait, I meant to say that to myself. Sorry.

Read more:

Jamie Foxx Jokes Miley Cyrus Should Make A Sex Tape

Boy Calls 911 When Mom Drives Drunk

Finish Line - April Fools And More

Finish Line - Pirates Are Back

More Ammunition for the Mommy Wars

KeriF — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:37:00 GMT

Working mothers have it so great... They get to spend all day on their own, talking to other adults, eating their lunch without a child hanging off of one leg, being able to use words longer than two syllables. Sure, they might miss the occasional school play, but at least they don't have to smell like baby poop all day.

Stay-at-home mothers have it so great... They get to spend all day with their precious children, witnessing every milestone as it happens rather than as reported by a nanny or day care provider. They can spend the day in the park, enjoying the beautiful day as their children scamper on the playground equipment. They can wear sweats and t-shirts all day... heck, they can wear pajamas all day!

Which side of the war are you on?

Of course it isn't that simple. Most working mothers and many stay-at-home mothers do so because they have to, not because they choose to. But what if you could choose? Which would you do?

Thanks to the economic downturn, many women are now finding out how the other half lives. The Associated Press reported recently on a new trend: laid-off women becoming stay-at-home moms, at least temporarily. According to the article, more than 800,000 women have lost their jobs since the end of 2007.

Sasha Emmons was laid off in January but found a job only a month later. While she admits she enjoyed spending more time with her daughter, she was happy to go back to work. "I just felt kind of lost without a job," she said. "Everyone talks about the mommy wars, and you always have that question as a mother: Is the grass greener on the other side? For me, the question was answered."

Other mothers report loving the role reversal. "It's been one of my greatest joys," said Shelley Ziech, who's been laid off for a year. "Now I get to do the Mom things--making the lunches, taking my daughter to school. It's been fabulous." But would it be so fabulous if she did it every day for five years? Or ten?

Who do you think has it easier, the stay-at-home or working mother? Would you switch roles if you could?

Photo: Erlc.com

I'm Not a Brat, I'm Autistic

Black Mothers Underrepresented in Momoir Genre

Amy Kuras — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:32:00 GMT

If you're a modern 21st Century mother, you’ve read at least one "momoir" — books written by mothers that capture, with varying degrees of success, the nature of motherhood in these times.

But as Deesha Philyaw points out in the brilliantly titled "Ain't I A Mommy" article from Bitch (via Alternet), few, if any, such books have been written by black women. Why, she wonders, aren't black women's experiences of parenting considered something that would sell to the mainstream book buyer? After all, Anne Lamott's Operating Instructions started the trend (and in my option remains the best of the genre), and there aren’t a huge number of dreadlocked, single, Christian, liberal, recovering alcoholic moms out there who'd buy the book out of affinity. Good writing sold the book and that's hardly limited to whitefolks.

Philyaw makes several interesting points, one of which is that black women tend to just stay out of the "mommy wars" because of a broader understanding of the myriad reasons women go to work or choose to stay home.

This is my favorite quote from the whole lengthy piece, and a very astute summing up of the reason I roll my eyes when people go on about the "mommy wars":

"Low-income and working-class women, black women, and other women of color don't see their mothering experiences and concerns reflected in the mommy media machine, and we get the cultural message loud and clear: Affluent white women are the only mothers who really matter. Further, media overexposure of these women bolsters the perception of them as self-absorbed brewers of tempests in teapots."

Damn straight. The rest of the article is just this good. Read it, and think.

Nation's First Breastfeeder Dead at 93

Madeline Holler — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:31:00 GMT

Fine, she wasn't the first breastfeeder in the U.S., but Edwina Froelich was one of the big pioneers of breastfeeding support and a founding member of that subversive group of nursing coercers, La Leche League. She died this week after suffering a stroke. She was 93.

Now, we can (and do) argue about nipple Nazism, sancti-nursers and cold, cold formula-feeding, but it's tough to argue that this woman DIDN'T make a big mark on how we parent -- and how we think about early parenting -- no matter what we feed our babies. At the very least, Froelich and the other founders of La Leche League helped to give moms choices, even though the option to breastfeed was always right there under our noses (actually, our necks, but whatever). Her nursing story started when, after having her first baby at 35, docs said she'd never make enough milk "at her age."

True American hero, all that. But here's what I'm actually thinking when I read her obit:

It says she is survived by her three sons (all of whom were breastfed) and nine grandchildren. Come on, aren't you wondering whether all nine were breastfed? And don't you pity the daughter-in-law who decided to go with Enfamil? Tension!

Photo: NYTimes.com

Babble Talk: Judging Stay-at-Home Moms

Jen Chaney — Wed, 21 May 2008 13:02:00 GMT

Author Meg Wolitzer, who recently wrote the novel "The Ten-Year Nap," makes a candid confession in this Babble essay.

In the piece, entitled "Baby vs. Career," Wolitzer writes: "For a long time, I think I had been somewhat judgmental about women who stayed at home. I went by the easy assumption that someone who worked was by nature more interesting than someone who didn't."

She goes on to say that she has since realized that assumption is wrong: "Work itself doesn’t make you interesting, I saw, though interesting work can."

All of which raises a question that I'd like to pose to you Strollerderby readers: How many of you have either a. made the same assumption, that stay-at-home moms are a first-class ticket to snoozetown; or b. been the victim of such an assumption? I will admit I have stood on both sides of that equation. Prior to joining the mommyhood kingdom, I sometimes presumed that anyone who stayed at home with kids all day probably wouldn't share much in common with me. Which is stupid.

And now that I am a mom, I have certainly spoken to people at parties who, upon learning that I have a child, assumed I was not working full-time, probably not worth talking to or both. Which doesn't feel so hot.

How have either of these scenarios played out in your life? And why can't we mommys all just get along?

Photo: Getty via Babble.com

Working Moms: Not Guilty Enough? Read This

Amy Kuras — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:02:00 GMT

I'm of the belief, as the cheesy 80s saying went, "every mother is a working mother" – and as a work at home mother I have a foot firmly in both camps of the so-called "Mommy Wars."

So I found this CNN.com story on CareerBuilder.com's annual Mother's Day study to be awfully scoldy in its tone for work-for-pay mothers – citing stats that 17 percent of working moms have missed three or more significant events in the lives of their children over the last year. Which means that 83 percent didn’t, but where's that stat in the story? Because damn, ladies, that's pretty amazing that you can balance a work schedule and your kid's schedule and not miss much.

A sizable minority bring work home a few days a week or more, which the article treats as solely responsible for the decline of the American family or whatever. Of course, how are we supposed to both be there for every soccer game AND get our jobs done, exactly, otherwise?

And I reserve special scorn for this: "Perhaps unsurprisingly, 24 percent of mothers cited work as having a negative impact on their relationships with their children." Which, again, means three-quarters do not think so, and I'd be willing to bet at least some of the moms who said it was damaging their relationships with their kids were just having a shitty day at work or home or both.

In other words, working moms are actually doing a pretty good job balancing everything --but the story focuses on the minority who feel they are not.

Here's what I think work-for-pay moms – and probably a good bit of work-for-free moms too – really wish for: Viable part-time work options. Good, affordable child care.
And oh yeah, no more asinine news stories that serve to pile more guilt on moms who deserve better.

What's a Mommy Wars Foot Soldier to do?

Madeline Holler — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:03:00 GMT

There's a new Mommy Wars book on the market, this one issuing an order to cease and desist with all the trivial fighting between working and lounging mothers. Opting In: Having a Child Without Losing Yourself, has a "Calgon, take me away" title, but it's written by feminist author Amy Richards so, you know, it's surely not all about the power of the mani-pedi.

However! As a ground soldier in the Mommy Wars, having been stopped-lossed with my second kid just as things were easing up with the first, I have to say I was taken aback with this description of the book's aim, as summarized by an interviewer who spoke to the author on Salon:

If motherhood is going to be a less harried and more equal enterprise, she suggests, it has to be about more than changing diapers. It has to be about changing ourselves.

Well, see, I don't want to change myself so much.

Sure, I'm an imperfect mess. And I can accept that. But after seven years and two tours of duty -- with no end in sight -- I would submit that change starts -- or at least picks up -- outside the home, not within it.

I'm not asking "society" to fetishize my kids. No, I don't want you to fill in for me -- just one more time -- while I run out for a soccer game and ballet performance. But I would like this culture of personal responsiblity over societal obligations to change just enough that let's me and my husband (and you and your partner) work and have a family and afford a house and good -- no, we'll settle for decent -- schools for the kids and, for God's sake, some fucking affordable, flexible, quality (and, yes, I mean subsidized) childcare for the babies, all babies, and preschoolers, each and everyone that wants some!

I think that would go a long way in letting women decide for themselves -- as the author encourages -- what they want. Because there would be actual options available to the masses. I would submit that work/career issues are the catalyst for all the personal shit that can take over our new lives as parents.

Here's what Richards says:

When I titled the book "Opting In," I meant to say, opt in to your own life, make yourselves aware of the options that are available to you. Because I think women approach motherhood rather passively and just let it happen instead of seeing themselves as the active agents they are or could be. So I have chapters about our relationships with our friends and mothers, as well as our husbands or our same-sex partners. I'm trying to show how parenting affects all aspects. Assuming it only affects the workplace trivializes how much parenting takes over our whole lives.

I haven't read the book and maybe she's all over the idea that women with the biggie jobs have more options than those who don't. In which case, yay. And maybe her book really isn't coaching us on evenly splitting housework (the LEAST of my worries). I hope her take on the Mommy Wars conflict winds up being less about me, the mom, and more about us, all of us, the adults -- the ones who make stuff happen, the ones who are in charge.

What do you think? Does our culture keep us in the trenches, fighting battle after battle in an unwinnable war? Or am I being a big baby?

Photo: defenselink.mil

The Truth About the Fighters of the Mommy Wars

Jen Chaney — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:32:00 GMT

Meg Wolitzer has written a new novel called "The Ten-Year Nap," the story of several stay-at-home moms who, a decade into the gig, begin to question their lifestyles. In this interview with Salon, Wolitzer insists she is not taking sides in the so-called Mommy Wars and genuinely wants to show what life is like for women who opt out of the workforce.

I have not read "The Ten-Year Nap," although now I am certainly intrigued. But I do want to draw your attention to a point on page two of the article, which notes that most of the women guiding the whole stay-at-home-mother vs. stay-in-the-office-mother debate are writers who have always worked from home. Wolitzer admits she falls into that category, and that her husband works from home, too.

Of course, that doesn't mean she is unqualified to write a novel about the full-time momma experience. But it is an important reminder that some of the people stirring the pot on this controversial topic -- one that has been known to drive wedges between friends and fire up hateful comments on blogs -- have never been forced to make the stark choice between full-time work or no work at all. I can think of plenty of people (me! me!) who would be happy to make a reasonable living by working at home full-time with their husbands doing the same. If only all of us were so lucky.

Photo: Random House UK

Welcome to the Mommy World, Ms Levit

Adrienne Martini — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:30:00 GMT

It is entirely possible that I am too mean. Know that I know this.

As much as I want to be all mommy-chummy with every woman who makes the startling discovery that having a baby isn't exactly like you thought it would be, I just can't do it. Sisterhood is beyond me, especially when my "sister" is just so damn smug.

Read Alexandra Levit's piece in the HuffingtonPost and tell me that your immediate reaction isn't "oh, you poor thing" but rather "oh, for fuck's sake."

Yes, it is hard to not be able to jet off to Connecticut for a speaking event at a Fortune 500 company at a moment's notice. Yes, you won't be as effective at keeping up with trends or taking advantages of opportunities. Yes, you will probably watch those younger than you zip up the corporate ladder. Certainly you have been a corporate career expert long enough to know this would happen.

You ask for advice. I can give it because I was once in the same place you are -- 32, new mom, proud of my workplace accomplishments and convinced that they mattered in this new phase of my life. You are embarking on something that is going to be really hard in ways you've not anticipated. I don't envy where you are and wish you the best of luck.

While I'd like to say what most moms say, which is "but having my baby made all of the career setbacks worthwhile because he is just so precious," I won't. You know as well as I do that is both profoundly true and a load of crap. When you have kids, you learn quickly that two seemingly opposite things almost always exist simultaneously. Perhaps the first set up words to consider are "humility" and "pride."

Photo credit: www.ubergizmo.com

'Soccer Mom' Showdown

Jen Chaney — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:04:00 GMT

Somehow, Tracey Gold has fired up the dreaded Mommy Wars again.

The former "Growing Pains" star is the host of a new series on TLC called "The Secret Life of a Soccer Mom." The premise: Stay-at-home moms get one week to try their dream jobs, then, once the seven days are up, must decide whether to return to SAHM status or re-enter the workforce. It's a structure that allows for plenty of upbeat moments (the mom/chef succeeds at making an awesome tart!) and tear-jerking ones (husband breaks down because he misses his wife). All in all, pretty harmless, right? Uh, wrong.

This Newsweek article notes that the message boards on TLC's Web site have overflowed with missives from mothers offended by the show's premise. Newsweek quotes one poster: "Let's show the other side of the story … how the kids' world is going to be turned upside down by having to go to day care." And another, even juicier one: "Unless you're about to starve there is no reason for you to be at work. If you didn't want to raise your children, you should not have had them. It's child abandonment."

Whenever I hear or read mommy rhetoric like this, whether it's a working mom calling a SAHM "lazy" and "empty-headed" or a SAHM accusing a career woman of not caring about her kids, I can only think one thing about the source of the rhetoric: This is really more about you than it is about women as a whole. Any stay-at-home mom who would say something as outlandish as "there is no reason to be at work" clearly has some unresolved issues about the fact that she is not working. And any working mom small-minded enough to think less of a non-working mother probably has some guilt she is dealing with as well.

Seriously, ladies: Take a close look at your group of mom friends. I bet some of them stay at home, some work part-time and some work full-time, right? And do you dislike any of them because of it? Do you think any one of those women, all of whom are undoubtedly using 100 percent of their hearts and minds to do what they think is best for their kids as well as themselves, is really a bad person? Of course you don't. But when you're on a message board or posting comments on a blog (and feel free to let them fly here), people are suddenly more critical and divisive, and less constructive, than they would ever be under other circumstances.

The funniest thing about all of this is that the anger has been inspired by a little 'ol reality show. A series like "Soccer Mom" is meant to provide gentle escapism and maybe provoke a thought or two (maybe). The idea that any woman can decide between work and home within the span of an hour is clearly absurd. But then, so was the notion that four gay guys could make a clod stylish in 60 minutes. I mean, does anyone use these female-geared reality shows as a blueprint for how to live their lives? If I did, I'd be asking my neighbors to redecorate my living room, getting shopping advice from a pair of snippy British ladies, constantly telling my dog that I'm his pack leader and letting Carson Kressley see me naked.

Let me remind you, this is a show hosted by Carol Seaver. And while she seems like a perfectly nice person, I'm not sure even she would tell you to take this so seriously. In fact, she would probably say: Don't waste another minute on your crying.

Photo Credit: TLC

Dispatch from the Parent Wars: Who is Right?

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:05:00 GMT

Take a look at this picture. Slim lines, sweaty and taut, probably post-coital. Perhaps Mom and Dad after fighting about who needs to pick up Billy from daycare?

Likely not... Everyone knows the only people fighting about parenting philosophies are mommies. Not parents (and certainly not parents who look like this). Mommy Wars imply that the only people clashing about raising chilluns are women, when in fact the real war is between parents.

Couples, now that all bets are off about the person raising the children being free from responsibility for bringing home the bacon, have a lot more to fight about these days. And it's more than whether dads are 'nice' for taking care of their kids (or even better, whether they "babysit" their kids).

It goes to the facts about childrearing (rewarding, tiring, time-consuming, life-enriching) and the truth about raising children (especially more than one) as a couple -- It's plain hard work. There is more than enough of everything but time and rest to go around.

So all this bickering among women that supposedly underscores the Mommy Wars is only a small piece of the real problem. The war between parents who are overtaxed and under-appreciated. And that goes for moms as well as dads.

Are Dads 'Nice' For Acting Like Parents?

Madeline Holler — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 22:28:00 GMT

A blogger mom over at Slate's XX Factor is in a twist about one of the central tensions inside the Mommy Wars: the role of fathers.

The Slate blogger, Melinda Henneberger, transcribes a conversation between her -- a mom who works at home -- and another woman, whom she calls, quite carefully, a non-salaried mom.

Non-salaried Mom says Hennberger's husband is "nice" for agreeing to pick up the kids since Henneberger was bogged down and on deadline the day of the conversation.

From Slate:

N: Well that's awfully nice of him. I hate for him to have to do that.

M: It's not nice; he's their dad.

N: But, you can't come?

Henneberger asks when this conversation will change. The transcription feels truncated and we don't know the nature of the two moms' relationship, so it's difficult to answer her question. But I assume she means to ask when people will stop thinking a dad is nice for being a parent or else start thinking of moms as being nice whenever they pick kids up from school.

My guess is the conversation will change when Henneberger's husband picks the kids up even when she's not on deadline.

My Breasts Are My Business

Adrienne Martini — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Over here at the 'derby, we've talked plenty of smack about how it's impossible to escape the sancti-mommies. It starts from the moment folks find out that you're pregnant and never really ends until you're dead.

You'd think you'd at least get a reprieve while you're recovering from the actual birth. You'd be wrong.

My experience with my second baby was almost the same as Fed Up Mom's, whose letter to "Dear Prudence" at Slate today brought back unpleasant memories. Rather than explaining, I've found it's much easier to simply glare at Nosy Nancies as if you are deciding which part of their face to eat first. Others might prefer to be more direct on the subject of breastfeeding.

If I were the sort to have a column at Slate, my advice would be similar to Prudence's. I would, however, tell Fed Up Mom to not bother with the whole "medical condition" bit. Those who are going to judge your choices about breastfeeding won't believe you anyway. Better to save that energy for the next thing you'll be screwing up, like chosing plastic over cloth.

In Defense of Judgmental Mothers

Madeline Holler — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:26:00 GMT

She takes a lot of crap, Judgmental Mother. Or maybe you know her as Sanctimommy or, more generically, “that asshole who offered unsolicited parenting advice.”

Andi over at “Poot and Cubby” (would it be judgmental to say that blog name makes me shudder?), calls Judgmental Mother “HOB” -- Hateful, Opinionated Bitch or, alternately, Horribly Obnoxious Bitch. And Andi runs in to HOB everywhere. Understandably, Andi thinks she's a real menace.

Not only does HOB judge Andi for dressing her child too warmly (typical HOB), she thinks the baby is going to fall out of the sling (typical aging HOB). I don’t need to recount the details, because you have your own experiences with the gal (or, sometimes, guy). We all do.

For me, she told me my baby would suffocate in a sling, while I strolled through the airport; he said that my 1-year-old needed shoes (didn’t notice the double-layer of socks) one cold spring day in D.C. She proclaimed my 2-year-old ready to use the potty (I was changing her diaper at the science center), and that I shouldn’t highlight a 4-year-old’s hair (we don’t. Good genes.)

I seethed about these incidents loooooong after they happened. (And for any of you who had to hear my rant – real sorry. I must have seemed a tad defensive.) But that was then. I’m sure I’ve been HOBed loads since, but somewhere along the line, it stopped bothering me. And I actually think – from a much broader perspective – is kind of cool if not a little misdirected.

Recently, a parent at my daughter’s preschool cried, “oh, aren’t you chilly!” to my toddler, who was wearing a skirt without tights and quite possibly a short-sleeved shirt. In December, sure, but it’s Los Angeles County. She’s a cold-weather kid by heritage, so 67 degrees doesn’t merit the parka and multiple layers of her native peers. Anyway, the morning shirt battle is one we stopped waging months ago so if it's February and you see spaghetti straps, you'll understand. In any case, I smiled at the lady and signed my daughter in.

I’m pretty sure I would have been savagely pissed off at the self-badged sweater cop had this happened early in my mothering career. But I gotta tell you. Right now? Nearly 7 years and two kids into it? I could give a shit less. In fact, I’m oddly comforted.

So the lady had never seen a bare-legged kid withstand Southern California's punishing winter weather. She spoke up! I kind of like that. Maybe she’ll speak up too if she sees something shitty going on at that preschool (which, except for drop-off hours and monthly tuition, I know soooo little about). Maybe she’ll look out for my kid in other situations, not just wardrobe ones, like if a teacher is mean to her or if she’s pissed herself and not immediately changed.

A person who butts into someone’s business regarding socks or slings or snowsuits – or breastfeeding or immunizations or signs of autism -- would certainly say something to a parent slapping around kids at the mall. It takes a loud-mouthed, judgmental, butting-in type to want to call someone out on a perceived danger with the big stuff. Sometimes (often?), they’re going to cross a line in the smaller, none-of-their-business stuff too.

I’d rather cheer on the one and just smile ignore the other. I'm not saying we should usher them in as True American Heroes. I'm just saying there is something good below all that undermining. So I won't let it get to me. I've got enough to make me angry. You know, like my kids.

Stay-at-Home-Dads Raising Dumb Sons

Madeline Holler — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:39:00 GMT

Have I got some fuel for the Daddy Wars! (As a battle-weary veteran of the Mommy Wars – breast is best! breast is best! – I feel fully within my rights to fan the flames on the paternal frontlines).

Forget about this guy who pulled the classic competi-mommy tactic of appealing to parents’ sense of responsibility and questioning their devotion to precious offspring. What really works in parenting wars are statistics. Like these:

A large-scale survey of stay-at-home dad’s offspring shows that sons of said career-leavers are slower and less ready for school than other children. (Ka-pow!) As if men who chose to stay at home weren’t emasculated enough by their society and, often, peers, here’s the worst of the news: their daughters were just fine. (Doh! Who wants a dumb son?)

Said one concerned researcher: "We should not simply assume that children will be unaffected by the dismantling of traditional gender roles but consider their needs, as well as those of their parents."

Indeed! (Hang on, the casserole’s done and my happy, smart girly-girls are hungry!)

Okay, where was I. Oh! Mom’s stay home for a reason, Dad’s stay home because they’re bad role models for their boys.

Searching for reasons, the article sites a likely lack of breastfeeding if Mom works and Dad doesn’t. (See, didn’t I SAY breast is best!) And also, Booboo misses his mommy.

“There might be ‘harmful emotional effects’ from the absence of a mother. These effects may be magnified if maternal absence is due to employment that increases tiredness and stress, and hence reduces a mother's sensitivity to a child's needs."

Nothing in the survey showed whether the poor, idiot sons eventually caught up in school. Also, no word on what exactly constituted school readiness. But who cares. It’s ammo for the battle, and this Mom wants to win! (Wait, what are the stakes again?)

Strollerderby Smackdown! We Fight the Co-Sleeping Wars So You Don't Have To

Madeline Holler — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:02:00 GMT

I don’t remember when my husband and I decided to co-sleep with our firstborn. I know it was well before her birth, because I remember turning down the offer of a crib from a work friend on the same day I announced to the office that I was pregnant. How I knew anything about co-sleeping or that it was even an option, I have no idea.

Which, really, doesn’t that just prove that it’s the most natural thing to do?

Oh, but time to sharpen the claws, because my colleagues here at Strollerderby mostly don’t agree. Two-thirds of them have been caging their babies since birth – though Jessica mentioned (rather defensively) that she “used a crib bumper.” Mmmmhmmmm. Was it stuffed with downy-soft love and security?

This Strollerderby Smackdown: Co-sleepers Rumble came to a head when I innocently mentioned a New York Times article about how 15 percent of us admit to sleeping with baby and many, many more do it in secret. The author, for example, still shares a pillow with her third-grader. (Hey, did I just hear you judge her?)

Anyway, a doctor who studies these things says there are three kinds of co-sleepers – those who want to breastfeed and think bed-sharing is good for their emotional development (that’s me!); those who have to because there aren’t enough beds; and those who just wind up doing it, because the kid comes in at night or there’s a thunderstorm or the child is sick (that’s Karen!). See? Isn’t co-sleeping great.

The doctor didn’t create categories for baby-cagers, probably because it’s just too sad to think about a child all alone in a dark room “crying it out.” That quivering baby finger’s pointing at you, Mike (our resident stay-at-home "dad")! “My tips for co-sleeping: Buy bottle of wine. Buy steak. Send wife away for the night. Put kid in crib and shut the door. Yes, there were tears from both of us. But the steak was also really good.” You know, I’m just not seeing the sacrifice, Mike. (The steak sounds good, though. Medium rare?)

Rachael feels strongly that infants need to learn early to not be “such needy, needy babies.” She’s got her young ones in a “gated bunk bed” (aka: toddler cage, hello!). She defends her choices (see? It’s all about her! What about her children?!) and says families who co-sleep have a higher rate of divorce. I’m pretty sure she made that up. She also mentions “healthy boundaries.” Whatever. Spoken like a true prison warden.

Kelly not only abandoned her baby every night and twice daily for naps in a cold, dark, private room -- she Ferberized her. Something about, well, in her words: "I put my kid in the crib and let her cry, because that's what babies do, they cry, all the damn time, so let ‘em do it in another room so I can get some sleep. Plus I didn't want her to turn into some weak-chinned namby-pamby still begging for my teat when she turned twelve.” With that attitude, you're making ME cry! I'm just saying ... (What does crying sound like, anyway? My kids, with their emotionally met needs, never did.)

In Kelly’s defense, Jessica’s incessant politicization of this likely steered her from making the better choice: “Thousands of years and hundreds of cultures say you are right. But this is America!!!!, dudes, and we do shit differently here.” Save it for the election, Jessica, save it for the election.

And that’s it, folks. A major battle in the Mommy Wars fought out here on Strollerderby. (Karen, I think co-sleepers totally won!)

Readers on the frontline, which side are you on (and yes, according to international treaties, all parents are required to choose a side)?

Working Mom Woes: Another Study, More Venom

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:32:00 GMT

A recent British study reveals non-breeder people resent the hell out of working moms (not dads, mind you) and all their sick time, maternity leave, kid-meeting-going ways. Or so it appears at first glance. Over at Broadsheet, Carol Lloyd rightly points out that "...it's a shame that this survey almost exclusively nabs headlines as a catfight in the making because a couple of its findings are truly disturbing."

Nevertheless, I still don't understand why everyone is so bent out of shape about people taking time off to care for family members (small, innocent, cute ones even)?? Perhaps someone can explain it to me....

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that working mamas get their unfair share of heat. Whether we choose to work or not, or stay home or not, there is no escaping the Eye of Sauron watching our every move. So how is it that we're given a hard time when the kids have strep throat, or a fever, or a cold, or an appointment (God forbid) at the dentist. Is it so difficult to understand that employers remain inflexible at their own peril?

Workplace inflexibility pits people against each other (men against women, breeders against non-breeders, bosses against employees). We end up fighting like rats in a cage and missing the main point. At some point, everyone will need workplace flexibility, even if they don't have children. We should drop this warring and start trying to make the system better for all concerned.

Sancti-Nursers: We Must Concede

Madeline Holler — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:00:00 GMT

As Captain of Team Breastfeeding, I’m calling on our officers to revise the propaganda: breastfeeding does not protect against asthma or allergies!

A study to be published in the British Journal of Medicine followed 13,889 Belarussian children from birth until 6 ½ years old, with randomized samples and control groups and everything. Researchers found that the group of mothers who received extra education on extended and exclusive breastfeeding – and presumably followed through -- had babies who were no better protected against asthma, hayfever or eczema than the group that continued with “traditional practices.” The Science Daily article doesn’t explain “traditional practices,” but I assume it means feeding babies formula or breastfeeding for only a short time.

Before you get all over Belarussia as the place for the study, apparently it has one of the lowest asthma and allergy rates in the world, which allowed scientists to rule out environmental factors that might have contributed to these annoying and/or life-threatening conditions. Nursing moms, I feel we have no choice but to concede this point in the Battle of Breast vs. Bottle.

But all is not lost, devoted lactaters. One researcher said that the breastfed babies in the study suffered fewer gastrointestinal infections and atopic eczema for the first year of life. Put that in your Comfort Proteins and drink it!

Perpetuating the Mommy Wars

Karen Murphy — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:48:00 GMT

Hello, I thought we were done with this. I guess I was wrong. But there's something about this piece over at The Imperfect Parent trashing stay-at-home moms who complain abut their lives and the judgment they receive that rubs me the wrong way. Is it possible I am looking for someone else to make me feel good about myself, because I have been a stay-at-home mom (and now a work-at-home mom, woo) for the past 12 years and have no self-esteem as a result?

Probably, at least according to the Imperfect Parent piece.

After all, we all derive our identities from our jobs, don't we? (<-- sarcasm) And if our jobs are [in the eyes of others] nothing but wiping butts and noses, guess what that makes us??

Yeah, yeah, I know. You can feel fulfilled by staying at home and raising children. I should know, I did it. And it was fulfilling, for awhile.

But I beg to differ with the premise that the feeling of being judged, that so many SAHMs perceive, is of their own making. I know first-hand that many husbands, for instance, regard wiping butts and noses and cooking and cleaning as something less than, WAY less than, earning actual money from an actual job. And if you don't get respect at home, you're not going to get it from the wider world, trust me. Oh sure, you can say, "Well, many working moms would give their eyeteeth/right arms/first-born to stay at home like YOU GET TO DO [you lazy complaining person who doesn't know a good thing when it's RIGHT THERE IN HER LAP], but they don't get to. And they would TOTALLY appreciate the opportunity, too (unlike you). So why don't YOU get a job and let some OTHER MOM stay at home??!"

The fact is, we all make choices. Some of us feel less freedom, or have less freedom, to make those choices. Some moms and of course dads have to work or want to work. That's fine. Some can stay home. That's fine too. But seriously, neither situation is completely ideal, is it? If you work you can derive satisfaction from being rewarded in a tangible way for something you did. But you often don't have time to be with the people you love. If you stay home, there's less of a tangible reward (unless you are counting kisses and hugs, which of course are wonderful but are more difficult to use when paying the bills, and frankly, I expect them whether I work outside the home or not) but more opportunity for meaningful interaction with people you love. There's no one right way to be a parent.

In my Happy Bubble Land, we would all feel supported for our choices, and we would all have the ability to choose the lifestyle that really made us feel fulfilled and happy while affording financial opportunities as well.

But until that happens, I totally reserve the right to bitch once in awhile about my life and I grant you the right to do the same about yours.

Who's Afraid of the Mommy Wars?

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:49:00 GMT

Had enough of the mommy wars? Despite the fact that many of us claim to be all done with the slings and arrows, there is no way around the fact that motherhood is incendiary. Newsweek's article "Enough with the Mommy Wars" is case in point.

Mojo Mom takes author Kathleen Deveny to task for neglecting the deeper issues and sticking to the shallow end of mom-theory typified by mommy lit lite. Expecting Executive demands an apology and encourages Newsweek to turn to better sources for the real story on motherhood, including BlogHer. Last week, Kelly wondered if we've become narcissist mommies.

But really, what is the big deal? Ms. Deveny commits heresy by claiming she's bored to death of the mommy wars and the snobbiness on message boards ( the Internet makes mommy mean) as well as the tiresome taxonomy of motherhood represented by mom lit (rocker mamas, MILFs, momzillas, slummy mummies...). I say go ahead and be bored and oversimplify as much as you like. Write about how dull it all is in Times, Newsweek and the New York Times. You're missing the point.

That the Mommy Wars exist primarily online and in print doesn't mean they aren't real. They provide a safer (and less confrontational) outlet for people to yell about childrearing. Just take a look over at the comments generated on Babble by the hospital formula ban and one easily sees what all the fuss is about.

These debates serve a real useful purpose. They help us parent better. They help us articulate and define our positions. They help us understand different approaches and viewpoints more effectively. And yes, they are also silly and catty and petty. But the Mommy Wars are also empowering and enlightening. And that is why I hope they continue for a long long time.

Motherhood: Losing Your Identity or Finding Your Joy?

Karen Murphy — Fri, 18 May 2007 17:34:00 GMT

For a long time I would have been incensed if anyone implied that I didn't receive 100% total satisfaction from being a mother. But I can feel the painful conundrum that many moms face these days: is it okay to want more out of life than "just" being a mother? And if you say anything negative, anything at all, about your experiences raising children, does that make you a bad mother? I recently blogged about this crisis of identity that I feel many women are facing today.

Personally, I feel that there's room in the world for all sorts of parents who take their parenting roles to varying degrees. It's a personal choice that shouldn't be dictated by social pressure to be "perfect". However, the real world is far from my little bubble-world utopia, as we often find ourselves casting aspersion, if not downright judgement, upon those who make different choices than ours. That's what the Mommy Wars are all about. I used to be one of those judgmental parents (and likely still am; it's hard to shake all that away instantly) whose own fears of less-than-perfection were mirrored in the actions of others.

The problem is, there are so many expectations about what makes a good mother that it's nearly impossible to be free of them entirely. They creep in and insinuate themselves into your brain, making you question your own judgement about things like breast vs. bottle, or family bed vs. sleep management. The thing is, each one of us has the innate ability to be the best mother we can be for our children, if only we stop and listen to what's inside ourselves.

And by letting go to a certain extent of the quest for perfection, I think we can also allow ourselves to begin to rise to the surface again, allowing the self to take control again of the Stepford Mom we've been unsuccessfully striving to be. I know I'm looking forward to finding myself again, while learning to balance being a mother with being myself.

Motherhood Is Not Career Suicide.

Melissa Summers — Wed, 02 May 2007 19:31:00 GMT

In answer to Leslie Bennetts claim (called 'Fear Mongering' here) that women leaving the workforce to raise children is career suicide and places women and their children in financial peril. I think she also said something about it making you fat. Or giving you acne....or something. But not so say Carol Fishman Cohen and Vivian Steir Rabin in this Op/Ed piece from the Christian Science Monitor. They say they've never felt so optimistic about the opportunities at-home mothers will find when they decide the time is right to restart a career.

The authors, who also have a book called, "Back On The Career Track: "A Guide for Stay-at-Home Moms who Want to Return to Work", claim there are more options for mothers than the two (dismal ones) Bennetts lays out. According to Bennetts women can either, juggle a full time career while raising a family or choose a lifetime of financial dependency on a spouse who might leave, die or be really annoying about taking out the trash.

The third option is what they call a career "Relaunching", women taking a break from their career and resuming it later. Employers are, according to Cohen and Rabin, more open to alternative employment arrangements (remote work, flex time, non traditional career paths) as they face the Baby Boomers starting to retire.

It's an interesting look at the issue which, unlike Bennetts book, won't require a Xanax and a brown paper bag to breath into after reading.

Cocktail Playdates Redux on the Today Show

Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:02:00 GMT

Because of the heated reaction to The Today Show's segment on cocktail playdates which aired on 1/26/07 Meredith Viera and company decided to update the segment this morning by bringing back Dr. Janet Taylor (the mental health professional-slash-mother of four) and Stefanie Wilder-Taylor, the author who was featured drinking white wine while her kids played in her back yard.

The Today Show must have received an overwhelming number of emails and letters in support of "martini moms" because today's piece was livelier and less judgmental. Instead of focusing on "what if something should happen...you're a bad mom..." it was more about showing that one drink at a playdate is not a huge deal. Dr. Taylor even seemed to have softened her stance by saying that she doesn't have a problem with playdate drinking, but if you are drinking to self-medicate, then you might have a problem. Well, duh.

I'm happy they addressed the gender bias and how no one talks about men drinking at a party, but the moment women are involved, judgments are flying. I'm also happy there were no lame references to iVillage polls. All they had to do was take a stroll around the internet to see how moms and dads felt about this NONissue.

Wilder-Taylor even got a laugh out of the set when she said that modelling responsible drinking was not "splitting a beer" with your husband. She thinks everyone should "get their own beer." Meredith Viera even closed the segment by saying she could use a drink "right now." Oh really, at 8:00AM, Meredith? Do we need to talk?

[graphic credit: Suburban Bliss]

Linda Hirshman Pisses Me Off Yet Again

Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:01:00 GMT

This time Hirshman is saying that Stay-at-home-mom's have to ask their husbands how to vote! In her article on Washingtonpost.com she called "We've Come a Long Way, Maybe" she says that in her small poll of Washington D.C. SAHMs she learned that people vote like their fathers do, or read the Style section of the paper and ask their husbands what the rest of the news is and she insinuates that we don't care about or understand policy. Grrrrrrrrr. Hey Linda! I'm a SAHM. I live near D.C. I happen to have a college degree in political science. I also have the amazing abilities that including reading, watching the news and forming my own opinions.

I thought the Mommy Wars were over. Why is this woman out there trying to make other mothers look stupid? Is she still pissed because I don't work out of an office? Is this because I don't have to wear pantyhose? Choosing to stay home with your children does not make one apolitical or unthinking.

As with most of Linda Hirshman's writings, I find this offensive as a woman and as a mother. I'm guessing that the article was meant to illustrate that people won't vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman (which may or may not be true) but I think she just set the feminists back another couple of years.

(Thanks to this fabulous post by Pundit Mom where I first found out about this outrage.)