Working Without Stopping: Mothers Without Borders

Blue Suit Mom

2006-03-17T12:58:00.001-06:00

I just learned about this website for working moms. I have already found a couple of articles really helpful.

Is TV really bad for kids?

2006-02-17T09:12:00.000-06:00

Here's an article from Slate that describes research done by two economists from University of Chicago. The research questions the conventional wisdom that TV is bad for kids.

http://www.slate.com/id/2136372/?nav=fo

How will we ever raise our kids to be perfectly informed well-behaved polite little angels if every day the conventional wisdom changes?

Professional Identity Crisis

2006-02-09T13:22:00.000-06:00

I thought those of you in the area might be interested in speaking with Carrie Yang Costello (Ph.D. Berkely, J.D. Harvard), a UW-Milwaukee sociologist whose recent book examines the importance of "intangibles" favoring white men when it comes to success in professional school. She will be at Schwartz's on Downer this evening. More information about her research is available on the UWM website.
Professor Costello has a Harvard J.D. and a Berkeley Ph.D.

An old adage for new working moms: quality not quantity

2006-02-07T16:27:00.000-06:00

I recently learned of the study described in this article, which finds that mothers employed outside the home don't spend significantly less quality time with their young children than mothers who do not work outside the home.

Being Naked and Loving It

2006-02-03T16:15:00.000-06:00

My daughter considers getting dressed an indignity and a personal insult. When she plays completely naked, she is happy as a clam, but as soon as I start putting clothes on her, she becomes cranky and cries. I have no idea why.

What is "mommy track" behavior?

2006-01-13T09:06:00.000-06:00

First, a disclamer: Scott is the author of this post. He could not post it himself, because he does not have the author privileges on this blog.

There's a great, short law review article by Christine Jolls entitled, "Is There a Glass Ceiling?" It's short and a good read; it runs through some of the social science evidence of ongoing discrimination and job segregation. (The cite is 25 Harvard Women's Law Journal 1 (2002), for those possibly interested in it.) The following is a somewhat long but, trust me, entertaining excerpt from the beginning of the article:

In the spring of 2001, I was asked by the Federalist Society at Harvard Law School to debate Diana Furchtgott-Roth, chief of staff of the Council of Economic Advisers in the George W. Bush Administration, on the question of whether there is a "glass ceiling" for women in the labor market. I was to argue in favor of the glass ceiling's existence, and she was to take the opposing view. As those who attended know, the discussion ranged broadly over widely varying terrain, including some questions that should be silly but apparently aren't--most memorably, whether it is "mommy track" behavior to give one's nanny or babysitter a cell phone number at which one can be reached while at work when one is away from one's desk--to serious academic disputes over the underlying explanations for women's present labor market position....

"Yes," I replied, unhesitatingly, when Ms. Furchtgott-Roth asked whether I provided my children's caregiver with a cell phone number at which I could be
reached during work hours. (My husband, vice-president of marketing at a large corporation, does the same.) "If, for example, one of our children were to need emergency stitches during the work day and I happened to be out of my office for an extended period, I would want to be reachable so that I would know what was happening and be able to be present, and my husband feels the same way." I then asked the same question of Ms. Furchtgott-Roth (whose economic position would surely allow access to a cell phone for use in emergencies): "Doesn't your children's caregiver have a cell phone number at which to reach one or both parents at work?" "No," she replied. "I simply hire a competent caregiver to begin with." (This is either an exact quote or a very close paraphrase.) In Ms. Furchtgott-Roth's view, "serious" business people cannot be interrupted with "home matters" during their work hours.

This exchange was surprising to me on many levels. Part of the surprise came from the way in which the exchange placed me in the entirely new position of "perceived mommy tracker." I also chuckled in thinking about how various Bush Administration officials would react if they had been there to witness the exchange. But what was most surprising--and disturbing--was the way in which the exchange demonstrated a vision of the "appropriate worker" as one who was wholly unencumbered by life outside of work. Even the tiny likelihood of an emergency phone call from a child's caregiver, in Ms. Furchtgott-Roth's view, would radically disrupt the worker's effectiveness and render him or her not "serious" enough to hold down an important job."

As the Baby Grows

2006-01-13T08:36:00.000-06:00

When Piper was born, I loved her and thought she was the most perfect creature that ever graced this planet. I loved being around her, and on many occasions, I just sat there staring at her. However, if I had to be alone with her for more than an hour, I'd get really really bored. I wanted interaction, but all I could do with her was hold her and sing to her; she wasn't interested in toys or anything else (although she did like to listen to Beethoven sonatas - maybe I should start playing them again). So, I just assumed that I was one of those mothers who love their children, but wasn't suited to be around them for too long.

Fastforward 8 months, she's now almost 9 months old. Guess what? She is a totally different person now. She is happy and engaging. She communicates (she doesn't speak, but she makes very clear what she wants), she plays and she interacts with the world. Not only that, but she does something new every day. All of a sudden, I am saddened that she goes to sleep so early and that I don't get to play with her longer. Now I wish I didn't have a full-time job (I still want a job though) and that I could spend more time with my daughter.

Who would have thought?

Glass Ceiling Still Exists - What a Shocker!

2006-01-10T09:47:00.000-06:00

Here is a NYT article talking about the glass ceiling, and how even women who have broken through it later find that maybe they haven't really.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/09/business/09carr.html?ex=1152421200&en=88a125bd47e6c063&ei=5087&mkt=bizlink1

Valuing Time Differently

2006-01-09T11:20:00.000-06:00

I've always loved reading; I still do. Now that Piper is a little older, some days I find a little time to read. (No, I don't find any time to cook, clean or do laundry - it's all about priorities, people!) However, these days I feel particular impatience with some authors. The reason is that I feel I have so little time alone that every book I read must be worthy of my attention.

For example, a couple of weeks ago I read a book by Maureen Dowd called "Are men necessary?" Dowd is a New York Times columnist, and her columns are witty and sharp. Therefore, I expected a witty and substantive discourse on feminism. The book turned out to be a sloppy compilations of Dowd's rantings. For example, she cites scientific research for the proposition that in 100,000 years the Y chromosome will be extinct. It's pretty obvious that she sat down one afternoon and slapped the book together.

Before Piper was born, I did not feel the same scorn for unworthy literature. I might discard a book, but I'd move on and wouldn't take it as a personal affront. Now, my feeling is, I have so little time, and I'm reading this garbage? Oy.

Competence and Confidence

2006-01-01T18:46:00.000-06:00

I don't know about the rest of you, but my ego as a mother is exceedingly fragile. After 2 weeks of erratic schedules (making for a fussier than usual baby) and exposure to lots of people who feel both the desire and the right to tell me how to raise my child, I am really feeling like I might be just about the worst parent on earth.

Some of the criticism I've endured recently:
1. She's too fussy. If I would just give her a pacifier she'd be quiet.
2. She's too big. I should start her on solids and give up that foolish "feeding on demand."
3. Something's wrong with her. She should be taking 2 two-hour naps instead of 4 one-hour naps and sleeping through the night.
4. She's spoiled. We hold her too much. She should be willing to sit unoccupied for longer.
5. She's anti-social. We need to let strangers hold her even if she is crying.

And, of course, I always try to explain my parenting decisions. They are almost always decisions that my partner and I have consciously made, taking our instincts, the research, and what we remember about our own upbringings into account. Somehow none of that seems to matter to folks who don't care about the link between starting solids early and food allergies (for example) because that's what they did. Although I know it shouldn't, the criticism, especially when people label my daughter, leads me to feel that I am a bad parent.

I'm doing the best I can. There will come a day, or several, when my daughter blames her quirks and dysfunctions on me and I want to be able to look her in the eye and tell her that I did my best. In my mind that means trusting my gut and the research even if it means discounting the wisdom of those who mothered before me.

Long Live the Blog and How Early Motherhood Causes Lower Wages

2005-12-09T14:38:00.000-06:00

First, I'd like to thank everyone for not abandoning the blog, even though, this is what, in effect, I've done. However, I hope that we can continue - I love our discussions.

Rebecca, your story is priceless. I love it, especially the ending where Adam didn't even know you had an iron. My mom, on a recent visit, also asked me where the iron and the ironing board was, I gave her my stock reply - ask Scott. I later found some ironed clothes, so I assume Scott was able to help her out.

Now, to the second part of the post. It seems that an economics professor has established that, for women in their 20s, having a first child a year later will increase the lifetime earnings by 10%. Wow. My question is (tongue-in-cheek, of course), does that also hold true for men?

Here's the article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2131645/

As always, comments and thoughts are welcome. Again, thanks for sticking with the blog. I really appreciate it.

Isn't It Ironic?

2005-11-22T15:45:00.000-06:00

One of the things I found as a working mother is that I don't have time to post on the working mothers blog!

Samuel Alito is retreating from his 1985 memo opposing abortion

2005-11-21T11:24:00.000-06:00

This is not about working moms, I'll admit, but a Slate writer Dahlia Lithwick was really mad about the lack of consistency on the part of the conservatives. First, they clamored for an anti-Roe judge, and now they're backpedaling on his views. Any thoughts?

http://www.slate.com/id/2130599/nav/tap1/

Breaking the Traditional Family Model

2005-11-02T16:43:00.000-06:00

I recently attended a law conference in connection with my job. Since it was in Boston, one of my favorite cities, and since the hotel had a pool, I brought my husband and toddling son along.

Is the pool important to my story? No, but the fact that I noticed and cared whether the hotel had a pool or not was a stark reminder that I constantly walk the line between my dual roles of mother and lawyer. As a lawyer, I couldn't care less whether a hotel has a pool. As a mother, I know that pools are high on the list of hotel priorities.

Back to the story . . . While at the conference, I was discussing my family with an older, male attorney. When I told him that my husband stays home with our son while I work full-time (my husband is a writer, which affords him flexibility), he said, "Oh. He's a house-husband!"

Now, if the term "housewife" is insulting, what makes him think that "house-husband" is any less so? How repugnant! Luckily, I live in New York City where it is not unusual for parents to take a dual role in the raising of their children. In fact, so many fathers stay home with their children or share childcare responsibilities with their spouses, that my husband hosts a weekly dad's group. Times are a changin'.

Growing up in the rural Midwest, our neighbors across the street had three boys. Bud stayed home with the kids, while Cyndi worked outside the home. Each of the boys struggled to explain to their friends why their dad was home with them. Each went through a period of embarrassment, anger, and confusion regarding the family's failure to fit within society's traditional model of family life. In the end, each of the children came to peace with their situation and ended up being well-adjusted, forward-thinking adults.

My son will have a different experience. His friends will not question why his mom goes to work each day while his father stays home. His friends will not wonder why his dad cleans the house and his mother does the bills. And hopefully, one day, my son, together with his spouse, will decide the best model for his own family--whatever that means.

In a recent conversation with a group of attorneys, we discussed the impetus for the rise in sexual discrimination cases. I proposed that societal attitutes towards the family are changing, and women are affronted when the workplace fails to follow suit. In other words, "If my husband and I are fine with me working full-time and him staying home, then who are you to tell me that the workplace is not the right place for a mother?!"

I'm not saying that I don't miss my child when I am at work (I do), nor do I mean that I love my son less than I love my job (I don't). [The fact that I even feel the need to mention this is a sad reminder of how deeply engrained societal roles are--people would never assume that a man who works loves his family less].

It's just that the workplace is the right place for me.

If Confirmed, Alito Will Cause the Costs of Babysitting to Skyrocket

2005-11-01T08:32:00.000-06:00

I was racking my brain trying to come up with a way to make the Alito debacle (or, as I affectionately call him, Adolph junior) relevant to this blog, and I have finally come up with one!

Alito's views on Congressional interstate commerce power is that Congress may not enact constitutionally gun control (at least, when it comes to machine guns) and environmental laws. This will finally give me a legitimate excuse to keep my daughter locked in the house until she is 35. After all, who wants their child to breathe polluted air and be in danger of being shot? Of course, that means that instead of saving up for college, Scott and I will have to save for the babysitter, since we both have to work.

Ah, good to get that out of my system.

Finally, a Guy Who is Willing to Tell Women How to Lead Their Sex Lives

2005-10-27T16:08:00.000-05:00

It's been so long since men were brave enough to tell women that pursuing sex without marriage will make them unhappy, and that having sex before marriage will make their partner less likely to marry them. Finally, someome stepped up to the plate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2128818/?nav=tap3

New Generation of Women Rejects Old-Age Feminism

2005-10-25T08:27:00.000-05:00

Here is a conversation I had with Angela Riley, a law professor in California and Scott's former law school classmate:

Angela:

Did anyone hear on NPR a few days ago a commentary about new commercials that re-entrench stereotypical gender roles for women? Apparently, there are TV commercials that play off an "aging" woman's maternal urges as well as one making fun of women with PMS. the commentator (about our age, I think) spoke about how she was appalled and offended by the commercials and how you would never have seen them 10 years ago. But test audiences of women in their 20s (and younger) LIKE these commercials. They think they're funny and they're ready to embrace their baby-hungriness and find nothing disempowering about men laughing at pms or women in general. The commentator's conclusion -- which I found interesting and kind of sad -- was that it's partly a matter of age/generational thinking. She basically said she's "too old" to think this public "take" on women is acceptable. But, apparently, the days of women vigilantly defending our equality in the public and private spheres is no longer en vogue or, according to women a decade or so younger than us, even necessary.

So, the more entrenched i get in my own views about women's power and trying to live a life that i think respects what's come before me and, of course, trying to set an example for younger women out there, i begin to wonder if this is merely me showing my age....... according to the 16-25 year olds, maybe i am supposed to just "get over it already."

Marianna:

I MUST be pointing out something obvious, but maybe it's a good thing that the next generation of women isn't offended by stereotypes; maybe they feel secure enough to find them funny. After all, guys don't get offended by playgirl-type magazines, or by jokes stereotyping them as macho duds. They know they run the world, and no amount of jokes canchange that. Maybe today's young women are so sure of their future (perhaps wrongly so, as we, older and wiser women know :)) and that they are on equal footing with the men that the commercials don't bother them. Because the only reason all those commercials and jokes are offensive is because they reinforce the notion that women are driven by hormones (the PMS references) and can't be trusted with serious jobs. If the commercials and the jokes didn't have that effect, then who cares about their existence? Maybe today's young women rightly or wrongly don't believe that the image of women as hormonal sissies exists anymore. So they laugh at the jokes. Hopefully, they are right and Title VII will be this archaic law that no one remembers.

Angela:

I think you're absolutely right. I work with a woman who is about 55, was in a class of something like 6 women at stanford law, etc., and I have found that I am much less sensitive is that the right word?) to some issues of gender than she is precisely because, as you suggested, I feel less threateneed by the blurring of these lines than she does. And I think that's probably what's happening with this younger generation of women. At least I do hope that's what's happening. And I wonder how I could evolve my own thinking -- or if it's even possible to do so -- so as not to lose touch with the women who are "coming up."

Marianna:

Don't evolve your thinking. You'll need to be there when the younger generation realizes that gender equality is a myth and runs to you for comfort. As a discrimination lawyer, Scott has met many women who've sued their employers for discrimination and said "I never thought I'd be filing a discrimination lawsuit." They thought women who claim discrimination are whiners - i.e., they didn't think discrimination existed. I was among those women (although I've never actually sued); I thought that America is the land of milk and honey and, unlike Belarus, where everyone hates the Jews, everything is perfect here, and eternal love rules the land. Fast forward 16 years later, and I'm the older woman who knows that the younger women will soon come to the same realization I've experienced.

What does everyone think?

Stay-at-home Moms: What's Wrong with This Definition?

2005-10-21T10:49:00.000-05:00

I think this point deserved an oritinal posting. By now, it is obvious to everyone that what parents do inside and outside the home is work. Whoever does not understand that, let me know, and I will yell at you (I'm very good at that).

However, whoever coined the phrase "stay-at-home mom"? When I hear "stay-at-home," the image that comes to mind is not frantic running around with the diapers, feeding, cleaning, cooking. It's a leisurly lunch followed by shopping and some light reading in the afternoon. Which "stay-at-home mom" does that?

So I think 2 things:

1. Forgive the sexism, but a guy must have coined the term "stay-at-home" mom.
2. If it were the "work-at-home" mom, not "stay-at-home" mom, there would be much less animosity among the women who work inside and outside the home. Basically, they (I don't exactly know who "they" are, but still . . . ) got us to doubt each other by the oldest "divide and conquer" trick.

I find this sad (ok, it pisses me off, but I thought it was more refined to say "I find this sad").

Mothers of the world, unite!

2005-10-20T21:15:00.000-05:00

I submit that it's time to do away with all the negativity that, intentionally or not, appears to characterize many of this blog’s posts and comments regarding women who stay at home with their children. Let’s stop hinting that stay-at-home moms are, perhaps, a little less intelligent than the rest of us and, hence, able to handle the brain-numbing monotony some believe characterize day-to-day child-rearing. Enough of the claims that folks who eschew disposable diapers in favor of infant potty training as neo-luddites (come on!). Just as the conversation on this blog is often characterized by skepticism and even hostility when it comes “staying at home,” discussions in my “new moms’ group” - attended primarily by those who do not work outside the home at all- tend to be openly critical of those who leave their children with others so that they can go to work. Perhaps we should pause to identify the underlying cause of all this hostility.

In contemporary American society there is little space for women with children to live up to all the role requirements of motherhood while remaining active in the world of work. Whatever choice we make when it comes to raising our children, be it staying at home, opting for daycare so we can work full-time or something in between, there is someone out there standing in judgment of us. Worse still, we ourselves feel keenly that we have given up something in choosing which brand of motherhood to adopt. It is not surprising, although it is still a travesty, that mothers are defensively critical of others who made the choice forgone.

I would like to have it all. I find caring for my child immensely challenging and rewarding work. I don’t want to hand my baby off to anyone else despite what Bazelon suggests in her Slate article. In fact, it actually hurts when I leave her with my partner so I can spend a few hours at the office. Why is it that I cannot bring her with me? Why is a baby’s occasional fussing inappropriate for the workplace while the ringing of phones, clicking of keyboards, constant conversations and other assorted workplace noises are tolerated without a thought? My office even makes it difficult for me to pump as there is no private space available short of sitting on one of the many toilets in the ladies’ room.

Instead of casting critical glances at one another, stay-at-home mothers and working mothers should recognize that we are all working desperately to do right by our children and ourselves. Our criticism should be directed toward the social order that places us in such a difficult position.

Babies Without Diapers: Mothers Without Lives

2005-10-19T09:15:00.000-05:00

I stole the title to this posting from the article below. It was written in response to a New York Times article on the advantages of toilet-training children from infanthood. I'll let the article speak for itself.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2128061/

Misogynism, 21-century style

2005-10-18T15:36:00.000-05:00

Today, I attended a lunch organized by Association of Women Lawyers (AWL). At the event, a magistrate judge Gorrence (Eastern District of Wisconsin) said that when she applied for her first job out of law school (20-odd years ago), a male interviewer (there were few, if any, female interviewers back then) asked her if she is one of those "feminists." Another member (a state court judge) noted that for those times, that was an enlightened question. Everyone at the table agreed.

Today, misogynism is much more subtle. For example, one of Scott's former law school classmates - she is a law professor now - says that students ask her to substantiate her propositions of law. That, by itself, is ok, except that students do not ask male professors questions like that. I am guessing that students themselves do not realize that they treat female professors differently from the male ones. This is an innate subconscious mistrust of women. (Does she really know what she's talking about? Sounds like she's making it up.)

I am not sure if this is progress. On the one hand, it is not ok to denigrate women overtly. On the other hand, the subconscious mistrust of women is harder to eradicate. First, people would have to acknowledge it, and no one would, because it is simply not cool anymore. Everyone considers himself enlightened, and who wants to be uncool?

I am happy to report that I myself do not have this prejudice. In law school, I gave a hard time to all professors. Just ask Johnson - he still has nightmares about me raising my hand in class every two minutes and making all kinds of unintelligent statements (ok, I was going to say "all kinds of stupid crap," but that would be uncool, and, as this posting demonstrates, it's not cool being uncool).

Harriet Miers, continued...

2005-10-14T08:05:00.000-05:00

I go back and forth between thinking that Harriet Miers is a joke and feeling bad because other people (read: Scott) won't stop trashing her. On the one hand, her dubious distinction on the Supreme Court will be the lack of any academic honors and Constitutional law experience; on the other hand, she is not evil, so people should not make fun of her for sport. I also feel very unsure of her views. Yes, I know, Supreme Court appointments are all about legal brilliance regardless of ideology, but everyone knows that's not true. The last time a President appointed a Justice of opposite ideology (his name rhymes with "Footer") was when the President was wrong about that Justice's ideology.

Some say she's evangelical and will definitely overturn Roe v. Wade. Others (Democrats) are watching the discord within the Republican party and are sitting back and enjoying the show. The Democrats think "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," i.e., if a lot of Republicans hate her, she can't be that bad. As a side note, this is the first time that Republicans are behaving like Democrats: they can't agree and are weakening themselves by airing their disagreement in public.

Yes, I'm ambivalent about Miers. Anyone who knows me even a little knows that ambivalence is a rare state of mind for me. Here's an interesting thought: if we're going to have unqualified people on the Supreme Court, why not appoint me?

Maureen Reagan, Your Moment Has Arrived!

2005-10-05T22:00:00.000-05:00

Maureen Reagan has said:

I will feel equality has arrived when we can elect to office women who are as incompetent as some of the men who are already there.

Well, my friends: the equality is finally here. The men have Justice Thomas, and the women will now have Harriet Miers.

On a related topic, here's what my friend Christine said about Ms. Miers's qualifications:

I am reminded of a joke that played in the 1980s, when Elizabeth Taylor was a plump matron married to Sen. John Warner: We all dreamed of looking like Elizabeth Taylor, and now, God help us, we do. Well, we all dreamed of being qualified to be Supreme Court Justices. . . .

The things our daughters (hopefully) will take for granted

2005-10-03T10:01:00.000-05:00

I'd like to wish mothers everywhere a very hapy new year. (I do not necessarily want fathers to have a rotten year, but this is a mothers' blog. The fathers can go and start their own blog).

Today, we take it for granted that a woman could, if she chose to, have a career. She might hit a glass ceiling somewhere (or make it "she probably will hit a glass ceiling somewhere), but until then, she could have a rewarding career. We forget that it was not always so. Here's a story from my friend Melissa whose baby shower I attended last weekend:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's great to have a place to think about and discuss work and being a mom. I'm proud to be able to show my daughter that I'm a woman who has a career. As a very small child (maybe three years old), I remember thinking how I wished I was a "boy" so I could be a lawyer or doctor. Thank goodness I didn't let my gender stop me! :) I'm glad our daughters are living in a time when it's accepted and in many ways expected that a woman develop her own career.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having grown up in the Soviet Union, I didn't have the apprehension that I won't have a career because I am a woman (over there, they hate Jews, not women, which is much better). Of course, my adult life is here, and my husband and I spend hours and hours figuring out how I could be a mother to Piper and not have a paper clip counting job.

Such are my thoughts on a bright morning the day before Rosh Hashana.

Young women turning to full-time motherhood, Or eeks there goes fifty years of feminism

2005-10-01T00:54:00.000-05:00

My fellow blogger writes:

"...these women could have careers (as much as Title VII will protect from bumps on the career path), but they're choosing motherhood...".

This is a serious bias against motherhood which I find disturbing. Why is motherhood set versus having a career.

The 1950's are criticized because gender roles were clearly identified with little room for movement. Women were returned to the home after their foray into the working world of WWII Rosie the rivitor when the men returned from war and needed the jobs.

The 60's counter culture railed against this pidgeon-holing of women and feminism emerged once again. Women could do it all, was the theme. Wonderful! Except doing it all can be exhausting. Perhaps these young women are making a choice to do both options-have a career and have children, but not at the same time.

Feminism is about choice for women. Does motherhood have such low value in our culture as to be distained. That is a sad commentary. Becoming a mother is a powerful act by a women's body. Being a mother is challenging to the very core emotionally, physically and hopefully intellectually. Successful nuturing of human beings from birth onward is valuable to society but apparently not as valuable as, say making decisions as a CEO. Perhaps it is devalued because it is not a paid position and any poor, uneducated, unintelligent woman can become a mother.

Husband has the Mornings

2005-09-30T19:34:00.000-05:00

My husband works as a consultant in computer programming which means he accepts projects that may last a couple of years or just a few months. In between assignments there can be several days, weeks or even months.

This year, the year we had our baby, he has been off work for four months.

My work, on the other hand, is every week throughout the year. Now with baby, I work part-time and have primary child care responsibilities. Somehow, the housework, managing the baby's MD appointment, laundry, houshold bills and so forth get shouldered by the stay-at-home (even if it's only part-time) parent.

When husband is working, wife handles all the duties listed. The funny part is when the husband is between assignments. Then, the work load is seriously skewed.

In any given day, my husband will watch the television news and a couple of news commentary programs, go for an heart-pumping bike ride, network with work collegues, you know, the single man's life.

My day resembles a long and varied list of activities that goes uninterupted from mid-morning till ten or eleven o'clock in the evening. Oh, did I mention that my lovely husband will get up with baby and let me sleep in an hour or two after being up a couple of times during the night. It truly is lovely...until that moment he breaks the spell and complains that he had the baby all morning.

All two hours of it. Sigh

Staying at home v. working

2005-09-30T18:54:00.000-05:00

The article discussing the pros and cons of staying at home with your child v. working outside of the home was a very generalized read. No new information was garnered, for even the most modest reader.

I am missing the slant that was felt by my fellow blogger, e.g., wanting to work outside the home equals selfish parent. Could be an unresolved feeling about the decision to work outside the home?

Parenting is a skill and can be successful with many different styles. A parent at home with a child full-time may or may not be able to provide the best environment for physical, social, coginitve and emotional and development. Parenting requires an awareness of your own psyche, mindful behavior and the desire to provide the important elements for your child's optimal development. I would add that a parent must also understand the profound role he/she has as parent to this child and behave accordingly.

Being an at-home parent does not insure by default that your child will have these critical elements.

Staying at home with the baby vs. Returning to Work: a skewed perspective

2005-09-28T08:41:00.000-05:00

http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/baby/babychildcare/6025.html?scid=momsbaby:20050926:2399:15672:6355

This is an article from babycenter.com that discusses the pros (great for baby) and cons (mom gets lonely) of staying at home with the baby. Nothing was mentioned about the benefits the children get from going to daycare. The unspoken message of the article is that moms who return to work are selfish.

It mentions a stay-at-home mom of 24 years and seven children who is on the board of a non-profit "Mothers at Home" - an organization encouraging women to stay home with their kids. Strangely enough, they didn't interview the president of "Abandon your child and go to work" organization.

I have only one question: When the board of "Mothers at Home" convenes, who watches the poor unloved abandoned children of its members?

Young women turning to full-time motherhood, Or how I aspired to be a concert pianist

2005-09-21T14:45:00.000-05:00

There is a NY Times article about young women in elite colleges planning to abandon career aspirations in favor of home-making. Here's the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html?incamp=article_popular_1

My reaction to it is as follows:

On the one hand, I am disturbed by what seems to me as a regression to the 1950s: these women could have careers (as much as Title VII will protect from bumps on the career path), but they're choosing motherhood. However, several things are worth noting:

1. These women are in their late teens - at that age, I still thought I'd be a concert pianist (I was unusually dense for my age).

2. Maybe most of them will marry men who could support such a lifestyle, but some of them will realize that they have to work, or else they eat poorly. (I realized that when I married my husband, a former civil rights lawyer and currently a professor, that if we want Piper to have the kind of education Scott had, we both better work).

3. The way the choice is articulated ("working" vs. "staying home") means that these women clearly have no idea that raising children is more than walking to the park or baking cookies. I have had to take care of Piper for more than half a day only on a few occasions. Once, I called Scott and asked him to leave his meeting early, because I was exhausted and so inept that I could not figure out how to go to the bathroom while watching Piper. Taking care of Piper is more work than I've ever done in my life - and she is a fairly undemanding baby.

4. I love Piper more than I thought possible. But taking care of her all day bored me to tears, and I was sitting there feeling sorry for myself and holding a funeral for my dead neurons. Scott reports the same feeling. Feeling bored taking care of my beloved baby sends me into the pit of guilt, but honesty will prevail.

So, to summarize my long tirade: there is no telling where these women will end up. Right now it is all talk for them. As they say, "man plans, god laughs."

P.S. Here is Slate's critique of the article.
http://www.slate.com/id/2126636/

To summarize it in one sentence, the article's references to "many" women are misleading, the NYT author did a sloppy job, and her "studies" are fatally flawed.

Toddlers love babies!

2005-09-20T11:38:00.000-05:00

Last Sunday, Scott, Piper and I attended a barbeque at a friend's house. Present were many of Scott's collegues and their children. This is an e-mail Scott received from his collegue Rebecca the day after the barbeque. Rebecca's daughter, Kate, is adorable and energetic. I hope Piper displays Kate's maturity when she is Kate's age (a mature two).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My 2-yr-old has never had the slightest interest in baby dolls, but she has one or two that people have given her as gifts. When we got home from Andrea’s party last night, Kate pulled out a doll and told us it was “Baby Piper.” All night Kate kept saying she loves Baby Piper, and Kate took Baby Piper to bed with her. Your daughter made quite an impression on my daughter! I’m glad we got to meet Piper. She’s beautiful!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To answer the obvious question, no, I would not have posted Rebecca's e-mail if Kate said "that Piper is a brat, I hope we do not see her again."

The dog is dead; long live the dog!

2005-09-20T11:33:00.000-05:00

First, I wanted to welcome Cameron Danes to the blog. Her (or is it his?) arrival has been much anticipated.

Second, husbands can, admittedly, be a pain in the neck. Everyone who is married can attest to that. My husband, for example, only does the laundry and cooks, but refuses to do the dishes (so I do them, or more accurately, put the dishes in the dishwasher - sometimes, I break a nail). So, I make no bones about the husband part.

But what, pray tell, did the dog do to the poor woman that she's glad the dog is dead?

The dog is dead

2005-09-17T01:14:00.000-05:00

It occurred to me on the way to work that I was in an emotional state that was "lifted" from my husband. He knew he was in a state, but apparently is content to just be in it without much reflection. Me, on the other hand...not so happy to be in an emotional state without figuring the damn thing out. It took me some time to sort out the fact that it was my husband's grumblings that were creating havoc in my mind, not my own. Happy at my revelation, I shared it with my co-worker. She replied, boy am I glad I'm divorced, the kids are grown and the dog is dead.

Mother's guilt; child's guilt

2005-09-10T19:04:00.000-05:00

The topic is supposed to be a play on the title "Rich man, poor man." Problem is, I am not very good at this, so I thought I should make clear what I am trying to do. Everyone please comment on how clever I am.

The Greene Machine talked about feeling guilty about leaving her son for a week to go on vacation. I bet this isn't the only time she felt guilty about her mothering. Mothers, like Jews, feel guilty all the time. It's in the blood.

When our children grow up enough to understand emotions, mothers start guilting the children into doing as told. This probably works well for a while (not sure, Piper isn't old enough to try it), but eventually it stops working (that I know for sure, because I've been on the receiving end of guilt trips). I wonder, however, if we (1) guilt our children because it seems the easiest way to make them do what we want; or (2) resent the feelings of guilt they inflicted on us, and subconsciously try to pay them back for the turmoil we felt.

All thoughts are welcome.

First day of work - great for mom; horror for dad

2005-09-06T15:32:00.000-05:00

My first day at work went great. I started by driving my car over a huge rock and could not get the car off the rock - it was stuck. It would've been a disaster if a neighbor weren't walking by at the exact moment I drove over the afore-mentioned huge rock. He (1) knew what to do (jack up the car and put a ramp under a wheel so I could drive off), and (2) had the right instruments to get my car off the rock.

Then, Scott called me at work to say that Piper was kicked out of daycare because she had thrush. He had to teach that day, so the question is what to do with baby while dad is teaching. Luckily, my boss the judge said that I could have her in chambers while Scott was teaching - now that's a model employer. Also, as a general matter, I can have her with me after 5 pm any time.

Piper did not cooperate much that day. She refused to take the bottle, so Scott had to drive her to the courthouse to nurse. She hadn't eaten in 5 hours, but curiously enough, she was ok and not crying much. That means babies are born manipulators. With me, she barely lasts 2 hours, but when breast milk is nowhere in sight, she's perfectly fine - what a weasel (albeit a cute one).

My first day on the job was hell for Scott (he went from home to daycare to drop off Piper, then to work, then back to daycare to pick her up, then to the doctor, then to the courthouse, then back to daycare, then finally, back to work). My day, on the other hand, went great. Go girlpower!

Mexico sans the bambino

2005-08-23T20:09:00.000-05:00

So, it's tradition that between completing the bar and commencing work at a law firm, law school grads celebrate with a really fabulous trip to somewhere exotic. For months, Jason and I had dreamed of white beaches, snorkeling, and of course, sleeping in -- hours and hours of sleeping in. That's right. We were leaving Wyatt at home. Babies are just like cats; extra food, water, and litter and they're good to go.

Actually, we left Wyatt with my sister's family. We both felt guilty about foisting our son on my sister (who is, herself, the mother of a toddler and a preschooler). But, Hey! The Bar Trip is tradition. As the hour of our departure drew close, I felt physically ill. I was about to abandon my lovely son, the one who trusted me so completely. Of course, all pangs of quilt evaporated upon seeing the turqoise waters off the coast of Cozumel.

I should have known the trip wouldn't be everything I'd hoped for on the first morning there. No baby means sleep -- only we were both wide-awake at 7:30. All around us were adorable Mexican children with angelic smiles. We couldn't escape our longing for Wyatt. After four days we were ready to come home; after five we were at the airport begging them to let us leave. No deal, airlines only fly out on the weekend. I left in tears. We looked joyously forward to our reunion with Wyatt. He would giggle and smile and reach out his arms for us . . .

. . . or he would scream and shake in terror. Not quite what I expected, but exactly what happened. It wasn't that he'd forgotten us, he doesn't react that way to strangers. No, he was furious at us. We'd abandoned him and then materialized from the dead. My niece and nephew assured me that he'd had a wonderful time and he learned sign language and overcame a fear of bath water in our absence.

After a few hours, he had forgiven us. Whether I've forgiven myself is another question altogether.

Preparing for work: babysitters and bottles

2005-08-20T12:58:00.000-05:00

It's two weeks before I start my job, and Piper starts daycare. Scott and I found a babysitter to pick her up from daycare twice a week, and we started her on the bottle long ago (it was no small victory, trust me). Things were going great and we were oh-so-proud of ourselves for taking care of everything in advance.

You know there will be a snag here, or I wouldn't be blogging about it. We forgot to explain to Piper that we're great parents and that she's supposed to love the babysitter and the bottle. The babysitter - Kate - came yesterday to meet the baby. Kate is a senior in high school, and she is a lovely girl. Piper took one look at Kate and started screaming her lungs out. Her cries were piercing, and Scott and I were horrified. When we took her away from Kate, she'd calm down in a minute, but as soon as Kate took her back, she'd start screaming again. How does she know who's holding her? Who knows?

Eventually, she cried herself to sleep, and the torture - for the moment - was over. Then, this morning we decided to give her a bottle just to make sure she still remembers how to take it. Well, she acted like she'd never seen the bottle before, and even spit out the milk that somehow ended up in her mouth. She did it peacefully, however, with no major outbursts. For the first five minutes, that is. Then, when the bottle wouldn't go away, she started arching her body away from the bottle and, two minutes later, the now-familiar piercing scream came. I ended up breastfeeding her. So much for preparedness.

In conclusion, to paraphrase a famous saying, the baby always wins.

Shopping with Piper

2005-08-15T23:27:00.000-05:00

Today, Piper and I went shopping to the outlet mall with my friend Angie. Ok, so shopping doesn't technically count as "work," but I was shopping for clothes for work, so it should fall under the "work" category. Besides, it turns out, that with a 3-month-old, even shopping for clothes is work.

Piper was fine on the trip to the mall, but once we reached the mall, she turned into a proverbial pumpkin. Maybe she hates shopping, or maybe she hated the fact that I was buying clothes for myself and not for her.

I used to love shopping. What happens on a shopping trip with a friend is that you go from store to store sampling the offerings and talk girltalk (translation: girltalk is French for "guess what stupid thing my husband said today"). Then you buy a lot of stuff and leave happy and satisfied, only to wonder three days later, really? that shirt?

Now, shopping was all about keeping Piper happy. Angie and I took turns going into stores while one of us stayed outside with Piper. When either of us needed advice, we'd come close to the glass door (not so close, of course, as to set the theft alarm off), and watch the other one give thumbs up or thumbs down. There was practically no time to complain about our significant others.

I am never shopping again. (Ok, Andrea and I are going shopping tomorrow, but that wouldn't be the dramatic ending this posting deserves, so I am mentioning it parenthetically).

Beginning of the working mom life

2005-08-11T15:02:00.000-05:00

My daughter Piper was born on the last day of law school - how very compliant of her. As soon as I got over labor and started sleeping two hours at a time, I started studying for the bar. Studying for the bar counts as working, right? Everyone who's ever studied for the bar (or married to someone who's studied for the bar) knows that future lawyers would rather do anything - take out the garbage, wash the dishes, get the mail - than study for the bar. All I wanted to do was play with the baby. I do not know whether my desire to be with Piper came from maternal instincts or from trying to avoid studying. Suffice it to say, I did not get much studying done. Now that the bar is behind me (for now, anyway - I may have failed), I am playing with the baby guilt-free. She is fun and a handful at the same time. I am starting a new job in September, and I am looking forward to it and dreading leaving Piper at the same time.