Strollerderby : working moms

Which is Harder -- Taming a Tiger or a Three Year Old?

Amy Kuras — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:01:00 GMT

We’re all struggling for work-life balance, but these moms sound like they really have it nailed. Their kids travel with them, are learning a bunch about their parent’s job, and get to see the world as part of routine family life.

Okay, unless you can walk a tightrope or tame a tiger, this may not be for you. These moms are circus moms. Most of them are performers, and several are married to fellow circus performers.

Imagine being Davian Raffo. His mom, Andrea, is an aerialist who does cool things like hang by her hair and perform acrobatic feats high above the crowd. His dad is a tiger tamer. School happens with a traveling teacher, and parents keep an eye on each other’s kids and look out for each other.

Some kids are even beginning to train for their own circus acts. Maria Garcia’s 8 and 12 year old children are learning to be tumblers.

I love this story so much. Imagine living and working with the people you love the most, and seeing the world at the same time. And when your job is something so unique, even better. What great stories these kids will have to tell about their childhoods.

"This is your life. This is your business. You love what you do, and so you just go on with your life, and you have a family," says Raffo.

Stay-At-Home Moms are the Best, Aren't They!

Madeline Holler — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:02:00 GMT

Oh, for God's sake, Dr. Laura, put a lid on it.

The conservative call-in radio show host (and her kid's mom!), Dr. Laura Schlessinger, has written a book that lays out her life's philosophy -- or at least the philosophy she's pounded listeners over the head with since her show first aired 600 years ago.

"In Praise of Stay-at-Home Moms," the introduction of which is excerpted here in the Wall Street Journal, appears to be one unwittingly fortunate woman's hearty pat on her own back for raising her child as she saw fit and admonishing those who didn't follow the same script.

In a nutshell, Dr. Laura thinks children should not be put in daycare and parents should not get divorced. Period. It's not that moms shouldn't work, she argues. It's just that moms shouldn't be away from their kids. (Which gets a little complicated for the widowed forklift operator with a 9-month-old in her lap!)

From the introduction:

My husband and I came to the practical conclusion that I needed to go back to radio work to be our family's primary financial support, while he would manage my career, the home, and our finances. Nonetheless, I refused to take any job which would require me to be out of the home every day while our son was home or awake! I would take care of him all day and then go to work on radio, leaving the home at 9:00 PM after putting him to bed. Eventually, when he started kindergarten, I landed a daytime shift while he was in school.

In order to do the writing and necessary research, I would get up at 5:00 AM and work a few hours before I woke him up to get ready for school. I always worked my career around my family, never the other way around.

She takes on her critics, who call her a hypocrite for having a career when she tells other women not to. She also responds to women who say they simply don't have the kind of flexibility in their work that she had. What makes her different -- and, let's face it, perfect! -- she explains, is that she never waivered from the following tenets (and you shouldn't as well):

It is so very doable if you are:

-- committed to the priority of raising your children yourself;

-- part of a marriage, which obviously provides two parents;

-- willing to sacrifice some opportunities for the sake of family;

-- willing to "do without" many things -- but not family time and attention; and

-- not willing to compromise your conviction, no matter how pressed you get by circumstances or naysayers.

Actually, it's not bad advice. And I don't see where it requires being a SAHM/a radio DJ/unwilling to put kids in daycare to meet these goals.

I think that's what really gets on my nerves and is actually destructive: Dr. Laura found a way of being a mother -- a working mother with a flexible workplace (how about a book "In Praise of the Office Secretary Who was No Doubt Stuck Watching Dr. Laura's Son While She was Working") -- that fit her life, personality and goals. And her philosophy as a mother. It's easy to write a book praising yourself, especially when you're looking back. We should all hope the choices we made work out and are deemed praise-worthy, if not by Dr. Laura, or a book publisher, then at least ourselves.

What I always think about the SAHM/working mom debate is that (1) the labels are way too simple -- I'm sort of a SAHM yet also a working mother with childcare and (2) every mom/family is different. Our kids will be who they are, and, yes, that will have to do in large part with how we raised them, including being half-way up their asses from daybreak to sundown, absent from day break to sundown nearly 24/7, or some other work/home combination. Like us, our kids will all have their own history -- they're own story -- based on their family life, what their parents did with them and for them. And good thing, too. Otherwise, it's all a little Stepford ... right?

Family circumstances influence how kids are raised; parents' personalities matter; there's more to parenting than face time. As long as our kids are safe, fed and educated, why nitpick at the particulars? Why focus on just one thing?

What do you think? Nothing matters more than weekday lunches with Mom? Or did Dr. Laura change your life?

Image: WSJonline

News Anchor Interviews Senator Webb While Holding Baby

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:00:00 GMT

Maybe you can help me puzzle out this video. On Morning Joe yesterday, co-host Mika Brzezinski interviewed Senator Jim Webb while she was holding an adorable baby. At first, I assumed the baby was Mika's--perhaps her babysitter canceled--and I thought it was sort of cool to see the complications of family life so unabashedly portrayed on the news.

Or maybe Mika was going to talk to Senator Webb about the new children's health care bill, and she wanted a live demonstration of its impact. But it turns out the baby belongs to a coworker, and Mika just felt like holding him throughout the interview.

The male anchors ask Senator Webb the real questions, while Mika makes some cute jokes about the baby, gets lipstick all over his forehead, and speaks to him in baby talk. So instead of enforcing the idea that babies and high-profile careers can go hand-in-hand, MSNBC only succeeded in showing how much all women love babies—and don’t really want to talk about that boring political stuff!

Unfortunately, MSNBC won't let me post the video directly to this page, but you can watch it here.

Photo: newcityvegas.com

Report Finds Individualistic Culture Harms Kids—Because It Leads to Working Moms

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:00:00 GMT

A three-year study by a British charity called the Children’s Group has uncovered some unsurprising problems with individualistic culture. The report, called A Good Childhood, found that children are suffering from “a belief among adults that the prime duty of the individual is to make the most of their [sic] own life, rather than contribute to the good of others."

Thanks to a me-first culture, the study contends, people are more accepting of excessive materialism and widespread economic inequality that leaves millions of children in poverty; are unfazed by harmful advertising aimed at children; and see school as a place to compete rather than make friends and have fun.

This all makes sense to me. What boggles my mind is the solution proposed by the study’s authors: keep women in the home. According to the report, “excessive individualism” has lead women to get all uppity, believing they should take on paid jobs other than child-rearing and housecleaning. This is bad for children because clearly all working moms neglect their kids. Plus, women now have the freedom to break up families with their selfish desire to end unhappy marriages.

The study’s authors write: “Women's new economic independence…has made women much less dependent on their male partners, as has the advent of the welfare state.” Hold on a second here. I thought this report signaled the need to have compassion for others, which would mean supporting welfare for needy families and other government programs that help the less fortunate succeed.

Then, of course, there’s the little problem with the assumption (which I thought died circa 1950) that women should be dependent on men for all their basic needs. This way, even if men are physically abusive or alcoholic or can’t hold down a job, women would not be able to divorce them since they would have no means of caring for themselves. This would be good for kids, because divorce is an evil that must be smote out.

Oh, did I mention that the study’s authors have ties to the Church of England?

Image: phawker.com

Why You Should Check Even Little Kids Homework

Brett Singer — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:00:00 GMT

This is making the email rounds and I thought I would share it with you.

In general, I feel like my children should be responsible for their own homework. At the moment they are too young to be doing complex math problems or writing 20 page reports. But they might get an assignment like this one: "Draw a picture of one of your parents at work."

So what exactly is mommy doing in this adorable little example of kiddie art?

Well, get your mind out of the gutter people – according to this blog, Mommy is in retail. She works at Home Depot. And that's a shovel. The other people are customers who would like to purchase the shovel, as well as other home improvement supplies.

Why? Does it look like she's doing something else? What do you mean?

Ann Coulter had no comment on the image. But she would probably say it was a single mother.

Source: yewnorkbabe, and 4,000 email forwards

Obama/Spider-man Comic Book Sold Out, Reprint Planned

Mom Saves Kids From Sinking SUV

Babble Talk: Points For Honesty

Kids to Obama: Read Books, Eat More Ice Cream

UPDATE: Kid Kissing A Pig - The Musical

Organic Dreams or Toxic Nightmares? You Pick

2009 Predictions: Working Wonder Women Will Rule!

Jen Chaney — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:02:00 GMT

The end of one year and the beginning of a new one always brings two things, guaranteed: A proliferation of television montages celebrating the 365-day period that just closed, and plenty of predictions about what the next 365 will bring.

For obvious reasons (it's the economy, stupid!), hopes for '09 aren't exactly high. Still, this piece in the San Jose Mercury News contains some interesting forecasts, including this: a "female economy," ruled by a growing number of women who serve as chief breadwinners and heads of their households, will emerge. And that could help us start to crawl out of the financial crisis in which we're currently wallowing.

That prediction comes courtesy of Marian Salzman, a futurist and trendspotter (i.e. someone who gets paid to think about stuff). "We've never gone through a recession with so many female heads of household before," she tells the Mercury News. "By definition, that is a big change."

So what does that mean? Well, apparently more women are calling increasingly crucial shots about consumer spending. And that could cause more companies to start catering their products and marketing pitches to the female side of the spectrum. Interesting scenario, considering that men are still running much of corporate America.

Still, it's an empowering notion. We working moms, we Wonder Women minus the golden lassos, we Enjoli ladies of 2009 could be the heroes that save America from financial ruin! That is, of course, if Salzman's prediction turns out to be right. She also thinks that shallowness is out. As she puts it: "Caring about your Manolos and your $250 haircut are gone, maybe forever." Frankly, I only buy one half of that. Yes, thrift may be "in" right now, for obvious reasons. But nothing is ever "out" forever. That comment reminds me of all the gas baggery after 9/11 about how irony was dead and buried for all eternity, a prediction that proved false roughly 30 seconds after it was made.

So Salzman, wise as she is, could be wrong. Still, wouldn't it be cool if she turned out to be on target and, for a little while at least, women actually did rule the financial world?

Image: Cinema Retro

When Every Day is Bring Your Kid to Work Day

Jen Chaney — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:28:00 GMT

Forget maternity leave. Don't bother with daycare. Just bring your children to the office with you every day.

That's a reality for several parents described in this New York Times story, including the head of a Manhattan investment boutique who has equipped her daughter with a playroom just outside her office where the girl can spend the day (with a babysitter) while Mommy slaves away in the financial sector. And she's not the only one. Borshoff, a communications firm in Indianapolis, has a Bring Your Baby to Work program that allows their working parents to do the same thing. The catch: They only get paid 80 percent of their salaries if they enroll because company management has found that employees aren't 100 percent productive when their kids are present. (Well, duh.)

The story raises some obvious issues, such as the distractions such arrangements raise for moms, dads and their colleagues, as well as the potential toll they can take on one's work. But it doesn't ask a very important question: Is it good for kids to essentially be raised every day in an office environment? If the children are all in a separate playroom, the situation probably doesn't differ much from attending a daycare center. But if the kids are literally in their mom's or dad's office all day, I have to wonder whether that's a positive thing for them. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying I'd like to know the answer to that question.

Jacqueline Grace, a publishing company executive, believes the answer is: yes, it's absolutely a positive thing. She tells the Times that having her daughter come to work every day since she was two-months-old (she's now five) has "taught her so much about who she is, who she can be, as well as some amazing office skills in the process."

I am all in favor of companies that take a flexible and creative approach to parenting, and applaud every single one mentioned in this story for doing just that. But even if we can manage to juggle the phone calls, meetings and deadlines with children in the office, we surely owe it to our sons and daughters to find out if that environment is truly what's best for their development.

Image: Fifth Avenue Digital Via The New York Times

Who Buys The Baby Products In Your House?

Brett Singer — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:15:00 GMT

We now present: The Diaper Follies.

Scene: An apartment in Manhattan. There is a stench. It is coming from the baby. The baby's father, a stay at home dad, puts the baby on the changing table and removes his diaper. It is indeed filled with a noxious substance not unlike nuclear waste. After cleaning the baby's tushy, Father notices that there are no clean diapers. He picks up a telephone and calls Mother, who is at work.

Father (very cheerful, abnormally so): Hi Honey.

Mother (working, wary of Father's cheerful mood): Hello dear. What's up?

Father (still cheery but as transparent as a brand-new window): We're out of diapers.

(Pause.)

Mother (calm): You should go buy some.

(Pause.)

Father (still cheerful, hiding his nervousness): Great idea! Thanks hon! See you later!

And… scene.

*-*-*

Obviously that's not exactly what happened. I would never leave a baby on the changing table while I made a phone call, for example. But I did email my wife (I didn't call, that would be weird) and inform her that we were out of diapers. We just, I don't know. We didn't have any. And I didn't know where she got them from.

Does that make me a dummy? I was probably tired and it was my first time. The point is, despite the fact that my wife is the primary wage earner and I am the primary childcare person, she's still in charge of stuff like diaper purchases.

While I never called my wife at work to tell her we were out of diapers or other baby products, that still isn't really my department. Another example: I am at the drugstore to buy diapers. Upon arriving, I realize that I have no idea what size diaper my children wear. Rather than buy the wrong size (which has happened before and may happen again – would those kids just start using the freakin' bathroom? Sheesh) I call home and say, "Honey? What size diapers should I buy?" I am mocked for not knowing, but that's better than the beating I receive for buying the wrong size. (Note: my wife has never actually beaten me for buying the wrong diapers. Mocked me, yes. Forced me to wear the diaper on my head…OK, that's not true either. But mocking. Oh, the mocking.)

Anyway, I was wondering – who's in charge of baby product buying at your house?

Image: Amazon

Baby Bikini and Pregnant Man Top 2008 Weird News List

Announce Your New Addition With Panties: Male Perspective

A Quiverfull Of Kids

Working Parents Smackdown Part 2 – Dads With Jobs vs Moms With Jobs

Working Parents Smackdown Part 1 - SAHD vs SAHM

Balancing Work and Parenting—When You’re a Campaign Reporter

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:05:00 GMT

Anyone who has ever felt guilty about missing a child's bedtime because of work will benefit from Jodi Kantor’s reminiscences on covering the presidential campaign during the first two years of her daughter’s life.

Kantor’s honesty about her own guilt—and sometimes lack thereof—over her demanding work life offers a refreshing look at the myriad ways one can be a good mother. Kantor openly admits that, despite missing her daughter horribly, she loved campaign trips, when she could fully focus on her work—and on being an adult, doing such novel things as going for drinks with her colleagues.

Most importantly, Kantor writes, “[T]here is no maternally correct way to say this, but the things I saw on the road—Obama’s world, the Edwards family trying to hold it together, the Huckabee surge, Iowa, African American voters in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton’s last stand, Denver—were worth the hours away from my daughter.”

I would add that that time apart was probably justified for the daughter as well. Growing up with a parent who has such rich work experiences to share surely opens children up to the world in important ways. And the fact that Kantor is also a devoted, loving mother who is home most of the time can't hurt, either.

Related articles on Babble:

No Country for New Mothers: A war reporter's first post-baby trip to Iraq.

Photo: HBD Marketing

Pregnant Women? Still Discriminated Against

Jen Chaney — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:28:00 GMT

It's 2008. In many ways, the American workplace has become a far more progressive place than it ever has been. Except, perhaps, when it comes to treatment of pregnant women.

This fascinating piece on Time.com reports that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has seen a 65 percent increase in complaints about discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace between 1992 and 2007. The number of claims hit a record of 5,597 last year, all from women who believe they are being treated differently because they have babies in their bellies. Those claims still only account for a fraction of the EEOC's total complaints, but that number is still much higher than I would have imagined.

The National Partnership for Women and Families studied some of the stats and found that the industries that generated the most concern were retail, services, finance, real estate and insurance. (Award for most egregious treatment of women-with-child? A maternity store that refused to hire pregnant employees. Nice. What's next? Book stores that won't consider literate applicants?)

The reasons behind the alleged discrimination vary, but the main one seems to be the belief that mothers won't be as interested in their work once that baby is born, an assumption that leads to them having less responsibility at the office. The Time article also notes some studies that suggest people are "grossed out" by pregnant women, a response that may make managers subconsciously averse to entrusting those employees with important tasks.

Working moms and pregnant ladies, talk to me. Have you gotten the sense since announcing your pregnancy or giving birth that your bosses don't see you the same way? Even though you are working full-time, do you feel your parenthood is holding you back in some way that -- whether actual or perceived -- carries the whiff of discrimination? Do you get the vibe that people are grossed out by you? (I get that vibe sometimes, but it's usually when I didn't have time to shower that morning. Which is technically a byproduct of motherhood, but probably doesn't count as discrimination against me because I have a kid.)

The one thing this article does not tell us is how many of those EEOC complaints were resolved. Were they found to be legitimate? And if so, how were the issues dealt with? As the story states, many women are afraid to report on such cases because they fear long-term damage to their career, which means discimination against pregnant women could be more widespread than even these statistics indicate. This is an incredibly important issue, so please share your thoughts and experiences in the comments section.

Oh, and P.S.: Don't shop at any maternity stores that refuse to hire pregnant women. Seriously. That's some stone-cold b.s. right there.

Image: Helen King/Corbia Via Time.com

They Say: Rich Kids of Working Moms Suffer More Than the Rest

Madeline Holler — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:53:00 GMT

First, let's agree that each study on how the children of working moms fare is contradicted by another. That said, there's some delightful news for middle- and working-class moms who worry that their days of scrapping away, building careers and bringing home a paycheck are making the kids way worse off than their more privileged peers.

A new study by an economist concludes that any negative harms are even worse for kids who have more.

From Newsweek:

"... kids from high-socioeconomic-status families take a long-term hit when their moms work outside the home—at ages 10 and 11, they perform more poorly on cognitive tests and are also more likely to be overweight than those whose high-status mothers leave the workforce. Children from low-status families, on the other hand, don't seem to suffer as much when their moms work. In fact, many of them do better on the same tests, and they're more fit, than similarly disadvantaged kids with stay-at-home moms."

Wow. Even with the nannies and the fancy schools and all that extra stuff?

Precisely, the economist hypothesizes. He says one reason may be that day care provides better stimulation than the home environment in low and middle-class moms. Whereas the home environment of "high-status" moms maybe be so enriching that school or daycare just doesn't measure up.

The fact that rich kids with working moms had a bigger chance of being overweight is because their affluence affords them all those things that are linked to obesity: TVs, video games, computers in the bedroom, etc.

Still, the study doesn't break down the fathers' roles in any of this, the type of childcare the kids get (nanny's vs. group daycare), whether extended family is involved and more.

And the author of the article is quick to point out, this shouldn't be taken as a warning for highly educated, affluent mothers to stay home instead of work. Rather, as with any socio-economic group, balance is key.

Yes, but how?

What do you think? Are these results surprising? A relief? Something you've totally observed at the nanny parks? In your schools?

'Palin Should Go Back to the Kitchen' and 4 More WTF Comments About the VP Pick

Political Nanny: What Are Palin Supporters Thinking?

Political Nanny: Is Sarah Palin a New and Improved Cindy McCain?

Photo: theage.com.au

Someone Owes Moms $117K

Jen Chaney — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:02:00 GMT

According to a "study" released by salary.com, stay-at-home moms would make close to $117,000 a year if they were compensated for their work. That figure was calculated based on the salaries of 10 jobs -- including housekeeper and CEO -- whose duties share something in common with motherhood.

Working moms, on the other hand, only earn $68,405 for their kid-rearing efforts. Because, you know, they're just mothering "part-time." These figures are slightly higher than the ones quoted in Brett's recent blog post about New York moms, who apparently are only worth $70K per year even when they're working the maternal shift full-time. (Don't they know how high the cost-of-living is in New York? Momma needs to pay the rent and buy a new pair of shoes, you know.)

It's fun to speculate about how much money each of us could earn if only we got paid for running a family.But it's also a depressing reminder that women in general, whether they are mothers or not, still aren't compensated at the same level as most men. And as a society, our attitude toward ambitious women is still pretty conflicted. (No, I'm not referring to Hillary Clinton, overtly or covertly, with these comments. But someone will probably assume I am, so whatev.)

It would be nice if SAHMs, working moms or even working women period actually were paid the money they deserve. Until that day comes, well, we always have another survey from salary.com to look forward to. Next time, I'd like them to look into how much money moms deserve to spend on their non-existent corporate credit cards. I think we have another pretend-$10 Grand coming our way.

My Top Five Office Perks for Parents

Jen Chaney — Mon, 26 May 2008 15:02:00 GMT

Would you continue working at a company primarily because it provides onsite, backup childcare? What if your bosses allowed you to telecommute in order to spend more time with your kids?

The Wall Street Journal's Juggle blog recently tackled the issue of office perks; writer Jennifer Merritt notes that her previous job offered free backup childcare that she could use 20 days out of the year, a fact that almost made her reconsider switching employers.

We read all the time about how corporate America isn't doing enough to encourage workers with families to stay on the job. Of course, given the current state of the economy, I suspect most companies are more focused on avoiding layoffs and being able to give raises that meet the industry standard.

Still, the Juggle post got me thinking about which office perks would be most enticing to moms and dads. Here's a list of my top five.

1. Flex Time/Telecommuting: What impacts employees, more than anything, is the notion that their work/life balance has been knocked out of whack. Allowing them to work from home two or three days a week -- a huge cost-savings given the price of gas, not to mention a green-friendly policy -- makes parents feel like they're keeping tabs on their kids while still getting their jobs done. At the very least, an open-minded attitude toward flexible schedules, when possible, makes it easier to file that brief and get to soccer practice on time.

2. Onsite Daycare and/or Daycare Partnerships: If you're a working parent who takes the toddler to a daycare center every day, you probably know how much time is wasted driving to and from that center, especially if it's nowhere near the office. A company that offers onsite daycare is tremendously attractive to employees with kids and also sends the message to employees without kids that, hey, when you decide to have them, you're covered. If housing a daycare center in the same building as the office isn't feasible, companies should try to form partnerships with nearby facilities, offering cost savings and bumps up the waitlist to employees.

3. Discounts at Baby Stores: How sweet would it be to walk into a baby store and find out you get a 10 percent discount because of a partnership brokered by your company? Pretty sweet, especially once you see how much those dang Robeez cost. At a time when it may be hard to justify raises, working out these sorts of arrangements helps workers save money and also emphasizes the sense that the company is looking out for Mom's and Dad's interests.

4.Free Lactation Consultant Services: This one's strictly for the moms -- at least I, um, hope so. In those blurry days after giving birth, when breastfeeding has turned into a crisis of epic proportions, it would be nice to have lactation resources readily available and free of charge. Six months of paid maternity leave would be nice, too, but I am not going to ask for the cow when I just want to give my kid milk for free.

5. Fitness Reimbursement That Covers the Kids, Too: A lot of companies partially reimburse the cost of gym memberships and fitness classes in an effort to encourage employees to stay fit and healthy. Given all the hand-wringing about child obesity, how nice would it be if The Job paid for a portion of Gymboree or karate classes? Like all of these perks, it's yet another way to send a message to staff that the company cares about their well-being. And it's those little things that can sometimes stop an employee from walking out the door when life at work reaches a stressful breaking point.

Photo: Womenlifestyle.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

Words Have Many Meanings, Part 2

Adrienne Martini — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:00:00 GMT

A couple of days ago, I groused about the use of the word "mompreneurs." My issue with this smooshing together of two other perfectly good words is that it makes businesswomen who happen to be mothers sound like they are somehow different than entrepreneurs who are child-free and/or male. Fortunately, someone has explained how a mompreneur is different from anyone else who starts a business.

The difference is that mompreneurs work every minute of every day, squeezing their chosen vocation into the corners around soccer games, taxi duty and sleeping. It also means that you squeeze phone calls around videos and tv shows. Or, if you can't find a convenient time to talk to another person in real time, taking care of most of your business via electronic channels when everyone else in the house is asleep.

So the difference is that "entrepreneurs" don't have to juggle schedules, watch kids and obsess about face time with everyone while "mompreneurs" spend 24/7 wearing a different hat every second of every day? How is this different from what other working mothers face? Or am I missing something?

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

Iron Man Meets Lactacting Woman

Adrienne Martini — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:00:00 GMT

Journalist Zorianna Kit faced a working mom's thorniest dilemma. How do you keep up production without holding up the production? Most moms, however, don't have millions of dollars riding on the state of their breasts.

Kit details her day on the Iron Man set for the Huffington Post. Her biggest challenge wasn't remembering her lines or hitting her marks, it was keeping her girls empty enough to stay in the Gucci dress wardrobe fitted her in. The true hero in this tale isn't Kit herself but her breast pump.

No word yet on whether the pump will get some SAG credits for its work in Iron Man.

Photo credit: www.womens-health.org.nz

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

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.

Judgment Day: Raising Resilient Kids Means Leaving Them Alone

Karen Murphy — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:03:00 GMT

Okay, a show of hands here: how many of you have had your kids in day care? And how many of you stayed home and played with your kids? (no judgment either way.)

Okay, next question: do you have clingy-ish kids or adaptable kids?

Anecdotal evidence suggests that kids grow up to be more resourceful, resilient, adaptable, and independent if they're left alone.

Case in point: I stayed home with kids #2 and 3 and now they come to me and wail, "What can I dooooooooo?", expecting me to somehow magically entertain them because that's what I did when they were smaller. Like All.The.Time. Kid #1 was in day care and was content to play on her own a good bit of the time and kid #4, an early preschool-goer, is pretty cool about being on his own. And I've talked to other parents who've had similar experiences with multiple kids, and in every case it was the kids who got 24/7 attention that turned out clingy while the kids who had babysitters and multiple caregivers became more independent. So there must be something to this.

This isn't a working-parent vs. stay-at-home parent thing. This is a letting-kids-find-their-own-way vs. feeling-you-have-to-do-and-be-everything for them thing. It's a lesson I wish I saw coming much earlier, as I sort of created a monster (three of them) while doing what I thought was the best thing. I mean, we all want what's best for our kids! It's just that having a parent 24/7 might not be that best thing, you know? Who knew?

So the time has come to wean them away, to unpeel them from my legs. Have any of you gone through this process, either by choice or circumstance? How did it work out?

Photo: www.steppingstoneslearning.org

Moms Suffer From Stressorexia, Lose Weight

Karen Murphy — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:45:00 GMT

Does this describe you: drained, anxious and stressed-out? How about: motivated and intelligent, and with high expectations?

Could be you're a candidate for "stressorexia", a "new" eating disorder affecting women in their late 20's to 40's, often resulting in dramatic weight loss. Oh, it's insidious: a skipped lunch here for lack of time, feeding the kids mac and cheese while you dine on air one night, then liking the resulting weight loss and going for more. And more. And more.

And continuing to push yourself farther and farther all the while.

Sound familiar? It does for me. I rarely sit down and eat with my kids any more. And I deal wth stress with exercise. Uh. Great role model, eh? (the not-eating part)

But it could be you, too, without you hardly realizing it.

"Regular" anorexia is thought to stem from control issues and negative self-image blah blah blah, but this newish angle is thought to combine issues of anxiety and depression. Anxiety can curb the appetite by releasing a corticotropin-releasing hormone, which regulates the nervous system's response to stress, as well as adrenaline, which speeds up your metabolism and makes you feel shaky and hyper. When I feel shaky and hyper, I don't eat. (Of course, there's a flip side as lots of people eat MORE when they're anxious.)(And there's a part of me that's saying, "Lose weight? What's wrong with that?")

And it's thought that moms are especially prone to this disorder, having 1.) the whole media-fueled body image thing to contend with (hey! weight loss is good, right??), and 2.) often a desire to "do it all" in terms of being a mother and working at the same time, feeling pressure to Do All and Be All plus be great in bed, blah blah blah.

It's an effing lot of pressure, and admittedly often mainly self-inflicted.

So pretty soon we'll all be looking fabulous but feeling like shit.

Photo: www.dailymail.co.uk

Wealthy TV Chef Says Her Kids Must Work for Money

Madeline Holler — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:23:00 GMT

Hot British celebrity cook Nigella Lawson, who has more money than God thanks to her upbringing, her commercial success and her marriage to a super rich ad man, says none of her wealth will be passed on to her two kids, Cosima and Bruno, now 13 and 11. None of it. They'll have to get out there and work if they're going to maintain the lifestyles of children whose parents are, as described above, extremely wealthy.

My first thought is, damn, what a meanie! But then if I spend two seconds reflecting on the not terribly meaningful lives of those who become entitled to their parents' riches, like Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, the Greek tycoon's kids ... you know where this is going, all those aimless poor little rich kids ... and I think, damn, what a favor!

She has a combined wealth with her second husband, marketing guru Charles Saatchi, of more than $218 million. Alone, she's thought to be worth more than $30 million. But when she dies, she says not a penny of it will go to the kids.

From the Daily Telegraph:

Asked what she hoped the children would learn from her, Miss Lawson told the magazine My Weekly: "To know that I am working and that you have to work in order to earn money. I am determined that my children should have no financial security. It ruins people not having to earn money.

Interestingly, her hubby, Lawson's kids' step-dad, doesn't agree. And he has a 12-year-old daughter from another marriage who will get a windfall when papa's gone. Hmmmm. There's an interesting dynamic.

So all of you readers who are worth $30 million, will you leave any of it to your children? What about those of us with lesser means? Will you bequeath your over-mortgaged estate to the kids? Is Nigella being stingy or smart? I mean, it's not like they're going to have to work shitty jobs -- ever.

TV- and Parent-Free Activities For Kids. Help!

Madeline Holler — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:05:00 GMT

I promise myself every year (every month? every day? every hour?) that I'm going to buck up and quit relying TV to numb the kids' minds and keep them away from me in half-hour increments. But it's hard, so hard. Because sometimes, a mom just wants to sit and email!

So I was excited about Parents magazine's 25 TV-Free Activities, which I figured would freshen up some of the options (go outside! draw a picture!).

Problem is, these 25 activities all include me! Argh! They suggest a tickle party (sob!), having friends over (the work!), have a dance party (the noise!), fix the sink (who's got time?), family letter writing party (but I want to email!), museums, the library, doing something for someone else (but what about me!). Actually, we do these things kind of. What we don't do is sit quietly on the couch with our hands folded, while Mommy surfs the web.

I think Parents has missed the point of TV for parents: it's the replacement parent, not the supplement parent, at least in our house. I use it to numb their minds, quiet thier mouths, kill the dead time between afterschool and dinner when I really, really, really want to get something done. So 25 TV-free activities need to be parent-free too.

Hey, I'm not looking for handouts here, just a little peace and quiet. So help me out with this, readers. What are your favorite TV(and parent-)-free activities. And hiring a babysitter doesn't count.

Photo: Telegraph.co.uk

Work Family Balance is Crap

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:58:00 GMT

Work-family balance often seems like the domain of the ~~crack-addict~~ super cheerful tailored clothing parents. You know the ones. Well-groomed. Peaceful. Soft-voiced and centered. Attendees of weekend tantra workshops and instigators of afternoon craft projects with children that actually turn out. Where I come from, work-family balance is more like "you work, I'll have a family" and balance doesn't really come into it. Besides, who needs balance (and really what the hell is balance anyway?) when one enjoys the temperamental things in life -- the hurry-scurry of a million little peanut-buttery feet and stepping on very sharp toys at 2AM.

According to Working Dad this is what it's all about anyway...

...and he is one mega-sharp blogdaddio. He rightly points out that "... the work-family balance debate is a dangerous sport. It implies there is some magical formula, a mix of just the right amount of job hours, family time and date nights, that creates a harmonious family."

Like the rest of us with very young children, Working Dad has discovered that chaos is more in play than order or balance. because of this, most parents would be well-advised to surrender idealized notions of work-family balance in favor of something softer and more covered in spaghetti: real life with small kids.

Elizabeth Hasselbeck's Maternity Leave Brings Second Showers?

Kelly Mills — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:32:00 GMT

It is very important that you know this: Elizabeth Hasselbeck is going on maternity leave from The View in early November. Something about toxic fumes... Okay, I don't begrudge her the leave at all even if she is utterly stupid, I think working while pregnant sucks. And those of you who have come to rely on her wise words to carry you through the day will just have to read tea boxes or pamphlets the government dropped out of planes or something for a while to get you through. But of course there is a big dilemma facing the ladies she's leaving behind--since this is kid number two, is a shower in order?

Now, Jessica told me she's heard the second-child shower referred to as a "sprinkle" (gack) but whatever you wanna call it, many folks have very strong opinions as to whether it is appropriate or not. I'm more Ms. Ill-Mannered than in the Judith Martin camp, so I always think a party is fine, even the ever-awkward work shower, just make the gifts optional. But other people believe the expectation that they should have to visit the baby registry for the same person on more than one occasion is gauche. I'm guessing Babs will oppose the idea, Whoopi will be good-naturedly in favor of the second shower, that Sherri thing will bump into walls a bunch, and Rosie will make a special guest appearance and leap out of the cake shaking a rattle. Remember, you heard it here first.

But feel free to weigh in on shower for second and third kids: yea or nay. And whether you think she's about to kill Elmo with her eyes.