Life in limbo

So last week, I heard from a colleague at my big client, in  my old department, that he's leaving to go to Sao Paulo and get his MBA—some guys have all the luck! Which meant, for me, an opening to get back in to a full-time, in-office position. I didn't think too, too much of it the first couple days after I'd heard his news, though it did cross my mind. Then, my boss/client lead called me, from her home, while out sick, to tell me they were looking at this opening as an opportunity to bring me back, pending budget and staff need factors. I was pretty stoked. While I'd stated that my ideal would be to go back this fall, at the beginning of the 2013-14 school year (so I could spend "one last summer" with my kid), I'd let them know in no uncertain terms that I'd be willing, at this point, to jump back in whenever they needed me.

After the call, I immediately started figuring out childcare options for after school and summer (both readily available) and sorting out with my husband how we'd manage our schedule, how much they'd need to make in an offer for it to be worth our while, and we were ready. (The boss confirmed they could pay at least what I was making before I'd opted for part-time consulting when my kid was born five years ago, and as an on-ramping mom in a shitty economy, that was good enough for me. She seemed very concerned, too, with not "insulting" me with a lousy offer. Imagine that!)

My heart had been so heavy (for quite a while, weeks...months...) not knowing "my place in the world," having this big empty hole six hours a day when my child's at school, not feeling motivated to do much more than whatever paid work I have (which does not take six hours, and often comes at the wrong time of day, when she is around and I'd rather be focusing on her, but can't)...and then I feel so guilty and lame that I don't make better use of all the free time I have during the days. I was really looking forward to diving into the "back-to-the-office" job, if only as a means to shake me out of this place I'm in.

But, I talked to the boss Friday and she said that they are not going to fill the position right away and that she's just going to send me a contract for another year of the work I've been doing in the mean time (with a "raise" commensurate to the raises other people there got, so that's nice...) She said the soonest they'd have me, or anyone else, in the position is May. Now, I know that if they were going to have someone else, they'd need to put an ad out and start looking, like, now, probably (to find a quality person) and she said they weren't advertising, so....

I don't think they're messing with me, trying to be sneaky, lie about what they're doing. I'm aware of a big budget hit they took recently and I think they are trying to save money by having the position vacant for a while. It's unfortunate because things in the department are already so backlogged, but, it is what it is. The boss tells me they are still very interested in having me back, that "nobody does what you do" and that she's told the president that I want a full-time job and may look elsewhere, with them running the risk of "losing" me...

So, I guess I am in a good place because I really didn't want to, ideally, with regard to my kid, do full-time til after summer and any amount of putting it off while still remaining an option is good, for a while (though they might want me in May, or June, or July...who even knows!) but, at the same time, I am disappointed because I was ready to dive in, like now (as in March, April...) and now I really need to find a new lease on life to shake things up for me because the long days of reading the internet and doing nothing are really, deeply wearing on my soul. I will do it, though...

A great week!

Just wanted to take a minute to note how good I am feeling right now.

I've been doing pretty clean eating this week, sticking to my 30-40 minute, but intense, workouts and I actually lost a few pounds this week.

But that's not all. I had a really good week work-wise and kid-raising wise.

An annual report  I did for a client has gone in draft from the VP to the president and he said: "Haven’t read the Annual Report carefully yet, just flipped through it for “look” and “feel.” The verdict?  I LOVE the look and feel this year. It’s unique and creative and seems to give off a lot of energy – like we’ve really been busy doing something. Can’t wait to get the hard copy and read it more carefully."

The VP said: “I agree it's an amazing look. And I think the print version that [me] envisioned will be very unique and very classy. So glad you like it. [Me] did a great job.”

I suck up praise like a sponge and live for it. (LOL? Need to read and re-read my last post? Or maybe that is just how I am going to be...) So I was really glad to get these comments. And I did all this work (well, not all of it, the design ideas have been several weeks coming, but the crunch work) at the end of this week amidst shortened school days because of snow. And concurrently with my biweekly newsletter writing and publishing for this client.

Meanwhile, my kid had many happy times and fun activities as I juggled snow play amidst my consulting work. She is so happy, healthy and smart and I wake up regularly to her saying "Love you!" I don’t pat myself on the back often (I don’t think) but I’m going to say it: I rocked this week!

(And I'm writing it so I can look back and remember...)

How much do older kids need a hands-on mom?

My last post talked about how other cultures relate to their kids, as described in the recently-published book, How Eskimos Keep Their Babies Warm—And Other Adventures in Parenting. One of the things that struck me was how moms in many cultures get more "hands off" as kids get older—sometimes as young as toddlers. I should mention that there's a chapter, too, on the academic success of Asians, wherein the parenting could not really be described at all as "hands off," and that's an interesting facet to the discussion of parenting older kids. But first, I want to explore the hands off, free-range thing a bit.

Via a tweet from Dan Savage, I came across this post from Susie Bright's journal—Teenagers Can't Seem to Have ANYTHING At All - The Big Lie Behind the Mommy Wars—in response to the unfortunately titled Atlantic article, Why Women Can't Have it All. (I say "unfortunate," because to me it's not about women "having it all" it's about the importance of society supporting mothers being in real leadership roles in government and business to ensure balance.)

I remembered Susie Bright's name from some sex books my husband had and was intrigued.

In her post, Bright makes some really interesting points about Anne-Marie Slaughter's problems described in her Atlantic piece—namely her "troubled" teenage son—and suggests that more attention within the confining paradigm of the traditional parent-child-school relationship is just what the young man does not need.

"I hope you and your husband aren't going to wear him down, do endless hours of useless homework with him every night, medicate him, diagnose him with god-knows-what. If you follow that path, you will end up with an adult child who wants nothing to do with you, who hides everything that's important to him." Bright warns Slaughter, continuing on about her own experience as a homeschooler/unschooler.

She advises, "By the time you have teenagers, here's what you need to be doing:

• Putting tools in their hands
• Getting them access to the things they want to know and pursue
• Breaking down the barriers they experience as disenfranchised youth
• Encouraging intellectual and physical adventures they take the lead on
• Being there for them while they break a few dishes getting it right"

And all that sounds really good to me, the only problem is it's not entirely clear whether Slaughter could really do all these things and keep her high-powered career or not. Bright's idea that teens need to fly free is a cool one, but the free flying sounds like it, too, needs a bit of orchestration—just how much orchestration is the balancing act that would determine whether Slaughter's choice is to be so easily poo pooed as doting mothering.

Indeed, Bright leaves unanswered (as of right now) a reader's question: "I'm just wondering how an un-schooler can have a job let alone a career? Why you assume that less well off people don't feel being there for there kid is a worthwhile aspiration? I certainly aspire to maintain a good, close relationship with my child and no, not coddling, just a real genuine knowing of each other, something which requires time together. Getting those barriers you speak of out of the way often entails dollars, and as a poor, working, single mother who has no choice but to send my kid to the stupid factory the options are slim. Yes, my kid's school sucks, but I don't see a way out of the situation that doesn't involve more money or time than I have."

Of course, Bright was talking to Slaughter, to whom she says "Your family has a million bucks, literally, and could make that happen: get the barriers out of the way."

But, what about the rest of us? Is being a mom to an older kid a "full time job" or not? I am going to say it just can't be. I mean, my whole plan was that I was going to do this intensive infant/early childhood mothering and let gradually let the child fly, so I can't see myself spending all my time orchestrating learning experiences for my kids for the next 13 years. (Maybe that's not what unschoolers do, I'd have to read more on them.)

And, what about people who live in places that actually have good schools (which, right now, I feel like we are)?

Still, after reading about cultures in which seven-year-olds are caring for babies, ten-year-olds can fish as well as adult men, nine-year-olds are doing beautiful embroideries and such, I am inspired to think that, given just a bit of guidance, kids can do so much more on their own than most American parents let them.

Lots of questions here.

On one hand, I like to think that the more you pour into your kids the earlier in terms of molding them and creating an attachment to your family and the sense of a family tribe, the less difficulty you'll have when they are older—the more you will be able to let them go free, with the knowledge that you've imprinted them with what they need. But, is that being naiive? As the mother of a now five-year-old, I just don't have the experience to know, so I have to wait and see.

Making parenting more 'adventurous'

Want to keep your kid up pall night? Have the neighborhood school kids look after your toddler? Don't feel like playing with your kid? It's all good. Other people do it! Maybe not your neighbors, but other people int the world. Just read How Eskimos Keep Their Babies Warm—And Other Adventures in Parenting.

This totally refreshing "parenting" book (I'm so over that concept, this verb—something we do, implying prescribed behaviors and benchmarks....instead of something we are—a relationship) gives snippets of how parents in other cultures deal with things like bed-time, eating habits, socialization, play. It approaches it all in a very open and à la carte manner, with the main idea not being what American parents do wrong, and aren't we so hapless, but just that there really is not one best way to do anything. So much depends on culture and environment.

One of the chapters I enjoyed most were the one on Argentina and small children not having a strict, set bed time. Whenever I hear about kids going to be at 6 or 7 pm (heck, I've heard of kids going to be in the 5:45 range) it just seems so early to me. Granted, we do the 8–830 range in our home, and everyone has their own schedule, but the strictness of insisting a kid be in bed at X hour, missing socializing, and doing real-world things with family and friends, missing life, is just sad.

In fact, it's more of the ethos of kids being more a part of life—going out to dinner with the family, even if its at 9 pm, going to parties and weddings that may last all night and catching a few zzzzs on chairs pushed together—that I think I love about the Argentina chapter.  Some would argue something like "If I tried to do that with my kid, they'd be a holy terror!" And I would just think, yes, probably, but its only because so many kids in America aren't brought up being a part of adult activities. (Uh-oh, I am sliding into the "what's wrong with America" line...it feels so inevitable, though...)

Another favorite chapter were on indigenous islanders (among other non-Western groups) who, though highly attentive to infants, just didn't play with their kids and thought this was a silly and strange thing. Author Mei-Ling Hopgood gives an interesting brief background on the history of play and toys in America that ties in well with the idea that adults playing with little kids is somewhat not natural and was something foisted on us (mostly moms, of course, as we were the ones at home when all this started mid-20th-century). And she tells of how smaller kids get swooped up into the activities of the older kids and learn socialization from their play in groups.

In most of these cases, parents just don't have the luxury to sit around playing with their kids, anyway, because they have work to do. And another great chapter talks about how small children in other cultures are enlisted to provide real and valuable help with family work, whether its grinding corn, doing the wash, gathering water or looking after little ones. It was really eye-opening to read about just how much children can do at ages we would never think of giving them work, 3, 4, 5. The children take pride in their work and it instills competence that many kids in America don't have even in college when they're clueless about how to even do their own laundry or cook for themselves.

I really enjoyed the book's approach of simply laying out these cultural differences as items of interest rather than necessarily practices we need to take on wholesale. I mean, obviously, it's not always possible or even safe to let small kids run loose in our cities and suburbs the same way people who live in rural settings without cars can, but there are definitely elements we can take away and incorporate, if we so choose.

The title portion, on how eskimos keep their babies warm, talks a lot about babywearing, which I love. One of the nicest things about this book is that some of the practices it describes are of the attachment parenting suite—especially the babywearing, and she mentions that that same mamas who send their toddlers off to play with the bigger kids and don't talk much to them were appalled by video of Americans who they felt let their babies cry too long and put them to sleep alone in a separate room. I like the way the book takes these "attachment" practices out of the realm of some academic philosophy on child-raising and presents in a simple and natural way of this is just what these people do.

The ideas in this post continue, moving on to a related, but different theme, on what teens need. I feel like being high-touch with infants and freer with kids as they get older is something I can run with, and so it was interesting, too, to stumble on a post from sex writer Susie Bright responding to the Atlantic article on mothers and careers...

New perspectives on family support, no thanks to contemporary feminists

The recent discussion of The Conflict (French "philosopher" Elisabeth Badinter's screed blaming what she calls "natural" and "intensive" mothering for lowering women's status) has predictably turned into a moanfest among Americans on the NYT Motherlode, and other internet venues, that we just don't get the same support they do in France (and other European countries) and doesn't that suck.

In my last post I questioned how so many Americans are saying that they can't afford to stay home OR to put their children in day care. I mean, they afford it because they have to do one or the other, obviously, but is it really such a crunch? I was accused of living in a bubble and so on and so forth and I will admit here and now that maybe that is somewhat true. The people I know all can afford it—either staying home or using childcare. I suspect most of the people who read and post to the NYT can also afford it, which is what gets me so cranky. These are the people who have cable, smart phones, minivans, multiple children, get professional portraits taken of their multiple children, shop at Gymboree for their multiple children, have parties at non-home venues for their multiple children, go on nice vacations, eat premium foods—you get the picture. No slam against these people, but please don't tell me how hard it is to get along. But, maybe that's just my bubble.

Now, if you're talking about seriously poor ghetto or Appalachia types, that's another story. Of course. I guess the problem for me is—where one ends and the other begins. Is there a sharp line, is it just a matter of degree, and, I am sort of coming around to the idea that collective help for everybody might be a good idea. I just can't escape what I know about how everyone I know, and even people with less money than my peers and I, live. It seems like there's a lot of excess there and why can't we just help the people who really need help rather than sign up for some weird feminist/socialist utopia that seems to me to be more about bolstering over-educated women who didn't marry well and want to be assured of their fulfillment that they are not open-minded enough to find in the children that nobody is forcing them to have.

I think yappy feminists have ruined it for me.

Let me just say that I consider myself a feminist in the sense that I think women should have full sovereignty over their own bodies and lives. Articles like this, highlighting the egregious flaws of "personhood" measures, for example, make my blood begin to boil. I think women should be able to do and be whatever they want to be. BUT the voices that proclaim women who want to dedicate themselves to motherhood (or for whatever reason, NOT doing all the stuff feminists say they should want to do) make me seriously want to distance myself from feminism. Those who warn of husbands leaving, women losing themselves, those who say they'd be so bored at home with a small child (implying it's because they are just so intellectual they couldn't bear it), these are the types that ruin it for me.

But then I learn about people that actually are disadvantaged, that actually do need help and I can change my tune about not wanting to support others.

A couple nights ago we watched a doc called The Interruptors. The film tells the story of three "violence interrupters" who try to protect their Chicago communities from the violence they once employed. It examines a year in which Chicago drew national headlines for violence and murder that plagued the city. A key player in the film is Gary Slutkin, M.D., Executive Director of Ceasefire, an organization that uses a public health model to mitigate urban violence in Chicago. Dr. Slutkin, an epidemiologist, explains in the film that violence is like a disease. His group's strategy is to treats it like a disease and prevent its spread. He says "When one event doesn't occur, other events don't occur and the neighborhood remains safer. Treating violence like a disease is something that we began to do about 15 years ago when we began to see that violence had characteristics like other infectious diseases. That is to say, one event, in this case a shooting, leads to another shooting just the way a case of flu or case of measles leads to another case of flu or another case of measles. So therefore, of course, we need to interrupt the spread."

And it dawned on me that these people are the people who need the free quality childcare and got me thinking that problems with education and general development, beyond violence and criminality, can also be viewed as a "disease" and that the people are not necessarily bad people, they are just afflicted with this disease.

I don't want to sound greedy. I don't want it to sound like I don't want to be taxed for a program that might help people who don't really need it—like my peers and those a little "poorer" than us—if such a program would also help those really in need.

At the same time, I feel like my way of life and the way I grew up with—mom at home with small children, the freedom, the creativity, the opportunity to bolster individuality—is under attack to some extent. We are called "privileged" when all we've done is work, get an education and prioritize, things that seemingly anyone could do, but for some reasons they don't. We are derided as living in a bubble when what we are doing is focusing on making our lives work.

All I can say at this point is that I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to give my kid the kind of early childhood I want for her. The rest will have to simmer in the murky gurglings of my brain for a while, because I don't have a clear cut position.

Nobody wants to really talk about it

I really enjoyed yesterday's Penelope Trunk post on a key to productivity being choosing phone calls wisely—and saying no to things (I would carry this to things in general that are not satisfying or helping you get closer to your goals, not just phone calls). I am all over this practice in my day-to-day dealings and actually treat phone calls as client massaging (or friendship maintenance when it's personal) NOT as a truly effective way to exchange information or get things done. There are some people who, if you get on the phone with them, will suck an hour of your time away, just like that.

What really stood out for me, though, was something a little more buried in her post—"...that group child care for kids under two is very bad for the kids and people should spend their money solving that problem." (Wiki link included in her post.)

This stood out because not a lot of non-religious or non-conservative, non-old-fashioned types (see my re-run of a Dr. Laura-based-post below) really go around saying things like this nowadays. I agree with this statement myself but always feel like I can't speak my mind on it in general company because daycare is, like, the number two holy grail of feminism, under abortion rights. You'll make people feel guilty for their choices, you'll look like a weirdo for caring what other people do with their kids, things like that. They'll assume you're a crazy Mommy Wars lady, when all you want is to have an honest, intelligent discourse about choices and what's good for children.

But, I still think what I think, and it's uncomfortable to so often not be able to say what I think and so very gratifying to hear someone else (who is not religious or conservative or housewifey) say it, especially on the heels of another post I read yesterday on The Hidden Benefits of Daycare. Here we have a non-low-income person claiming benefits observed for low-income people as a benefit in general. It may be of some benefit to the mothers, but is it great for the kids, really? And do studies showing benefits for a low-income group translate to something beneficial to middle-class people? And furthermore should we be even saying "well, this is good for low income people" and keep them in that less than ideal, band-aid situation rather than tackling the core problems that make daycare really just a societal band-aid?

Penelope Trunk has another post on The Big Lie Homeschoolers Tell that discusses this notion of something being good for some people but not good for other people, only with homeschool (not daycare) and she uses breastfeeding as an analogy. It's pretty fascinating. It also is watering the seeds in my mind that have already been planted about homeschooling—which I sort of think I might like to do, but oh, I could not do.

Anyway, these issues have been on my mind for a while—and I've come to the conclusion that they key question for moms shouldn't be to work or not to work, but when to work and how much—and I recalled some relevant posts from the past on them: questioning why progressives assume that mothers of young children should work and scarily finding ways I kind of agree with Dr. Laura on some things (but not all).

Going for it—Training to become a trainer—OR NOT

I've been reading Diary of a Mad Housewife and just watched Kramer vs Kramer the other day, both prompted by my reading of The Mommy Myth, and I must admit I was struck by the seeming lack of options for women and the way men seemed to hold women back as little as 20 years ago (Kramer) and of course over 40 years ago (Diary). I have not felt any such limitations in my own life, and in fact, felt I was only limited by my own frivolousness and lack of direction and maybe a lack of being implanted with intense ambitiousness from parents who were curious and creative post-hippies.

Anyway, now as I've pondered options for my future employment, daydreaming about part-time office gigs, shuffling schedules with my husband, perhaps continuing to build my business—or come up with a new business, one of my ideas was to get certified as a personal trainer and see if that, coupled with my current line of communications consulting, might be a good fit in terms of a flexible schedule for being home in the mornings before school and in the afternoons after school. (Since the wacky school hours simply do not accommodate a typical 8 hour day plus commute, I'd have to use before and/or after-school care.) I've had an interest in it on and off for a while and have been super-athletic and average at different times in my life so I know both sides. Friends say they think I'd do well. I know I can talk to people. Why not?

In the past when I'd talked of going to graduate school or pursuing some other line of work, my husband was not entirely receptive. He, understandably, questioned the cost-benefit of the whole deal (not to mention I wasn't exactly sure what it was I'd get the degree in), and also, quite realistically, wondered when I would really have time to pursue school while also doing my consulting (now) or working for someone else (later) and caring for a child. He also wasn't that receptive of my personal trainer idea at first.

But recently, when discussing scenarios for our child's entrée into school—kindergarten, first grade—he said that trying out the training for a year might be a good idea, since I wasn't going to go back to any kind of full-time office job anyway til she was through with her first year of school (kindergarten) and into first grade, you know, to give her a chance to first get acclimated to full-day school before having any before or after-care tacked onto the day.

So, I am going to go for it. I really need something new to focus on so I can force myself to pull away from all the parenting/issues commentary obsession and dig into something more profitable and productive. For this, I also need to dig into books I've had on my shelf for a while that I've been neglecting, on web design and development subjects (Wordpress, Drupal) so I can bolster my existing business acumen, as well. I know I won't be able to tear myself away completely from the social commentary, but maybe I can try to do this on a weekly or bi-weekly basis only.

The problem of motherhood being politicized

I work for clients, for money, and you could say I run my own business as an independent consultant, so I may not be the one feminists criticize when they criticize stay-at-home moms or "housewives." But although I bring in 25-30% of our household income (not an insignificant portion), I do identify as a SAHM and, to some extent, a housewife. I'm not sure why I identify as such, especially given that when my child is school age I intend to work more in pursuits outside of the home, for money. I think part of it may be the way that I was raised—by a SAHM, as well as the value I put on a mother being highly involved in the earliest years of a child's life that necessitates, at least for a period of time, the prioritizing of home and children over career. So, even if I did not have this golden opportunity to work part time from home while raising my child in her early years, I would choose to be at home and take the financial and ego and career hit because I do think the kid is more important and there's no substitute suitable for my child, for whom I want the best.

It angers me, then, to read the views of Nancy J. Hirschman, and fellow feminists, who, in various ways, over-complicate some things that I feel are pretty common sense and basic: First, that many (if not most) women would want to nurture their small children and build a home, if they could afford not to go to work when the child is very young—unless they, of course, have been brainwashed by feminism to think that this is a non-progressive choice and actually care about such things more than the welfare of their children. Second, that a young child is truly best cared for in a home setting, with a parent (their parent, preferably, and in my opinion, their mother, as the top preference, certainly for those under a year who should be breastfeeding) providing their care and nurturing. Third, that life is long and a woman can choose to take a 3-5 year "sabbatical" to care for her young child and get him or her off to a strong start, then jump back in and build, or rebuild her career or a new vocation/profession.

(For those women who would choose to have more than one or two children, I'd say they would really have to be able to carve more time than the 3-5 years out, then, and a career might not be as realistic for a while, or forever, if you're going to do right by your kids, as more children require more of your time and attention, naturally. Further, in today's ecological climate I bristle a bit at those who choose to have several children. I wonder about their environmental awareness, their awareness of the level of attention children need and their hubris in thinking they are either so great they can handle it or they are so great that it is somehow their right to overpopulate the world with their wonderful seed. But, that is another post, and I digress...and I must be careful not to judge—too harshly—and I realize that last bit was pretty judgmental).

The staunches of these essayists call for "true feminists" to put their babies in daycare so they can carry the torch for the sisterhood. Equal pay, workplace rights, etc. etc. are more important than their children, who can easily be cared for by a low-wage daycare worker or nanny or whatever. Especially the well-educated should do this. They should not squander their education. Thing is, why work if you don't have to? Moreover, why work if you don't want to (and don't need to)? This post is going to run out of steam because I'm already on to other things, but I felt like I needed to sort of get this one out and get it posted so if anyone was interested they could see the link and read the essays.

There is a good one up there by Shannon Hayes, author of Radical Homemakers, a book I read recently, coincidentally, that has all kinds of inspirational stuff about breaking away from the work-a-day world of the extractive economy and instead doing work that builds up the "Earth Community." In her essay, she says "The Real Battle is Elsewhere" and this really resonates with me. She says, "Worrying about the fight for equality in an extractive economy is like attempting to save a sinking ship by mending a sail. Neither sex is winning the fight. "

And, she says, "The race to see who can bring home more of them has left us bereft as a nation. We lead the world in reckless consumption, we are in the midst of a depression epidemic, we are no longer one of the healthiest populations, we work more hours than residents of most other industrialized countries, and we have one of the highest school dropout rates in the industrialized world.

The sad irony is that as we worry about who gets to climb higher and earn more money, income disparity grows larger, and, for most, the bottom line never seems to improve. Household net worth dropped dramatically in recent years, and Americans’ personal savings rates currently hover at just above a paltry 3 percent.

I agree with Hirschmann that negotiation for shared domestic responsibility is important. But it seems that the scorekeepers are always authorities external to ourselves—especially employers who stand to gain from our struggles to prove who will be the more loyal slave."

The problem is when you politicize something like motherhood and take it beyond the individual relationships and try to make it a weapon in some wage war for equality, you destroy individuals' rights to do what they want to do. Isn't feminism about women doing what they want to do and not being forced to do something else? Children and mothers shouldn't be victims (again) in labor wars. It seems many in America (who are actually working) are overworked and are compelled either by some intrinsic competitive pathology or by fear of unemployment to be squeezed by employers. That, and they work too many hours because American corporate culture is highly wasteful (another digression, another post, a great conversation among experts on this on the NYT website).

For my part, I feel like I am lucky, during my kid's early years, to have a husband who makes most of the money, allowing me to have a more laid-back job from home, but who is still is very hands-on with our kid when he is home. When she is older, I will ramp back up with the outside earnings (we often joke, too, about me being a VP—because I am to some extent ambitious—and him staying a steadfast civil servant with lots of vacation time to spend with her).

Again, one of the things that bothers me so much about some of the feminist rhetoric is that it ignores that there are seasons to life and that staying home with a small child does not necessarily mean a woman is finished with pursuing any kind of career forever. In fact, I think the difficulty of jumping back in is often over-stated by hard-core feminists (either that, or I am just not aiming for that high-level of a career when I do go back, actually).

Going back to work has been on my mind alot, lately, which I'll address in another post. But, for now, I cherish my time at home and know I am doing a wonderful thing for my daughter.

My gradual descent and saving myself from it

I noticed today while packing up the Christmas tree and decorations that my day-to-day life has become way too housewifey. Somehow, I was cooler when my kid was a tiny baby. Somehow, I've gotten dragged into a situation where I am doing an awful lot of cleaning and picking up, reorganizing of the house—and too, too many trips to the grocery store and Target.

Enough!

I hereby declare, with 2010 upon us, that I will return to my bohemianism and get in touch with myself. And myself is not a housewife.

Not that there's anything wrong with it.

No, I chose to quit my job after maternity leave to stay home with my little one. I chose to take the salary cut and the cut from connection with lots of grown-up people each day to work from home in my spare time. But, somewhere along the line I started doing more housework, and this, I do not like. I don't know if its because housework is one of the few things that is relatively easy to do when you have a toddler/preschooler around, because they either like to help, or they think that you are playing, OR if its because there is more of a need for it with all the messes that toddlers/preschoolers make, but it has taken over my life. And housework makes me want to drink...and get high...because, it is boring! Even playing with a toddler/preschooler, to me, is probably less boring than housework, but it is sometimes less gratifying, or, maybe I am just compelled to do the work because I see this mess building around me all the time and I am obsessive/compulsive like that. But, I often feel like I have spent the whole day picking up stuff and cleaning and thinking, man, if only I didn't have to pick up and clean so much I'd be able to spend more time actually playing with my kid.

This is what it's come down to? I lament the fact that I do too much housework to play with my kid? What happened to learning guitar and Portuguese? (These things I mentioned to a friend I would do in my "spare" time during my sabbatical from work, staying home with my kid, of course, while I freelanced, too...WTF was I thinking?!?)

The worse parts of all this are that I have gotten too fat and I have turned into a bitch. Being around here all day, making countless mini meals for someone who doesn't seem to like anything but yogurt and cookies (OK, I am exaggerating) and eating and drinking out of boredom and frustration has added up. As for being a bitch, without a decent release, without good breaks or good mental maintenance, I blame my husband for my discontent. If he would only pick up his shit...if he would only this...only that....I hate myself for all this. It's not his fault I'm a nut.

I kind of feel like I've turned a corner just by making these observations, but, what to do next? What direction can I take, now that I have saved myself by seeing the problem state that I've arrived at? I'll have to think about that. I will probably blog a bit about some things I've been wrestling with over the past couple weeks of the holidaze, and then usher in the New Year with some kinda fresh attitude I hope will last.

Maternal Desire

I’ve been reading Maternal Desire by Daphne de Marneffe, a book that looks at motherhood as something worthy of desire, that brings pleasure, rather than an obligation. I often ask myself why I stay home with my child. I do believe in my choice as being better for very small babies, and probably to some extent better for her even at this age, but there’s so much more to it. I do it for me. I like it. It’s hard. There are lots of challenges and long days. I do think working outside of the home in an office is definitely easier. But, I would not give this up. A phrase in the book describes one small part of it, saying “many mothers endorse the value of intensive mothering in part as an explicit protest against the dehumanizing aspects of the marketplace.” And yes, I do stay home partially because I believe a family should be able to make it on one salary. (The fact that many can’t being more a problem with U.S. policy and programs than with the people struggling on two incomes to raise families.) However, I have to be honest and say that when my child is a little older…4, 5? who knows…I will go back to working full time.

The book has some other interesting information about how even though we Americans feel like we have a time famine, we actually have reduced work hours and gained free time in the last 30 years. (OK, this seems unbelievable to me, but I will go with it.) The researchers, Robinson and Godbey, looked into what people actually do moment to moment with their time, and as it turns out, they watch alot of TV. Yeah, me, too. And then there’s the Internet. Double the time suck because online you can take it in as well as dish it out. So, I am going to try and cut down (this means TV, unnecessary and excessive checking of e-mails and Facebook and other stuff, no more watching the Dow plummet all day, etc.)

One more excerpt from the book before I go. It talks about how our culture has become one of having rather than being. “We consume not only material goods, but also information, education, and experiences, and we define ourselves by what we consume,” it says. The book provides a lovely example of the being mode as illustrated by a children’s book, which I found heartwarming and charming.

In the book, Peek-a-Boo, “a baby plays peek-a-boo with his family throughout the day—when he wakes up, at breakfast, during chores, at the park, at supper, at bath and at bedtime. What charms me as a reader is how messy the house is. The mother and father in every fram are tending to the tasks of life—washing the windows, ironing, cooking, feeding children, bathing the baby—with no illusion of completion; around them are a jumble of children’s toys and shoes, heaps of dirty laundry, open drawers, and sponges soaking in the sink. The pictures burst with the process of living, with the thousand undone jobs that betoken the priority of responsiveness over efficiency that makes for a happy family.” De Marneffe adds, “A starker contrast to the pristine, lifeless tableaux of Martha Stewart Living could not be found. Though Martha’s surfaces seduce, you need no more than a nanosecond to determine which emotional world you’d rather live in.”

All this, I find very encouraging!

Probably not going to go out for a beer with Dr. Laura, but...

Ugh. The latest taking head in the, ahem, discourse, between working moms and stay-at-home moms, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, is making the rounds on daytime TV and in print interviews promoting her new book, "In Praise of Stay-at-Home Moms." In the book, she "unapologetically urges mothers to remain at home instead of juggle a career and motherhood." O.K...but...

Anyone who knows me or has read my blog knows that I have made the choice to work at home so I can be with my daughter. I know this is a fairly uncommon arrangement, and that some women need to work full time to support their families. That said, I do think it is best for a child UNDER THREE to be with his or her mom all the time, just like Dr. Laura says. Because I am lucky and we've done some planning, I think I will be able to extend this period to age five. Beyond that age, I don't really agree as strongly with Dr. Laura about the necessity or importance of a mom being at home all the time.

Here's what she says, from a Wall Street Journal interview:

WSJ: At what point do you advise mothers to go back to work?

Dr. Schlessinger: The answer is never. One woman asked me the other day when I think mothers should be home, and I told her, "Whenever your kid is at home." When [my son] Deryk started kindergarten, it was from 8 to 3. So I arranged to be on the air from 11 to 2. That was it. He always had a mom. Quite frankly, my mom was one of the least warm mommies out there. Nonetheless, when I came home from school, she was always there and it made me feel safe.

I'm happy for her that she was able to work just when her kid was in school and that's something that I am going to try and do, too, to some extent. I might continue to pursue building my independent consulting, taking on more hours gradually as my daughter gets older. Or, if I do work for someone else, outside the home, my husband and I have discussed doing slightly staggered work schedules so he might go in for a 7-3:30 and I might go for a 9-5:30 or something like that. Still, we may have to take advantage of at least part of the hours of an after school program. I honestly think school-age kids enjoy such programs and benefit from being able to bond more with their friends outside the structure of classrooms during the school day. I think maybe the kids that aren't in the after school programs could be left out, even. I don't really know, but what I do know is that I want to be able to send my daughter to a good college. I want to be able to take her abroad on vacations. Maybe even buy her a (modest) car (don't tell Dad I said that). We're really more into experiences than things, but sometimes experiences cost, too. And, in reality, I am not sure we could really afford even an average life without me working more, for like 18 years! In addition, I want my daughter to see her mom working at things other than "the home". And, I like to work! I like to make money and I like for people to notice me for the work I do. There, I said it.

That's not to say that raising a child is not important work. Or, that, if we were totally rich, I wouldn't NOT work. I think I would not work for money, maybe, but would do more artsy things, you know, fine art instead of design. Or do charity work. Or I'd start a restaurant or something. I like to do stuff. I think kids like when their parents do stuff, you know, have lives. That's why the path I've take is the perfect solution—for me anyway. But, I would highly recommend it to others, if they can make it happen: the three to five year "sabbatical". Be close to your babies when they're babies, then ramp up. Of course, this is not for everyone, and I am well aware that not everyone has been so fortunate to have the luxury to make the choices I, or ol' Dr. Laura, have made. That's why I bristle a little to hear her talk. And she, too, talks of sacrifice, a concept I have become very wary of.

The editorial notes for her book say that by reading it one will learn, among other things, "to realize that the sacrifices you endure now will make for lasting bonds and a stronger family, in addition to a more cohesive community." What's with the sacrifice? I hate that word when it comes to women's choices and their families. I am doing exactly what I want to do. It's no sacrifice. It's a luxury, as I said before. For her to act like people just aren't willing to make the sacrifice is mean, and naiive, I think. And some women just aren't cut out to be home with their kids all day. One might argue that perhaps they should not have had kids, but that's a whole other discussion and one that I don't want to get into.

Bottom line, people need to do what they want and what works for them. Women should, though, look deeply into their hearts—and minds—and budgets, and if they can afford it, consider being with their babies when they're babies. At the very least for one year! I wish this country would give us just that, one year of paid or highly-subsidized maternity leave. Beyond subsidizing maternity leaves, I would observe that many Americans have probably become a little too materialistic. However, I'm not sure Dr. Laura does as good a job as she should in differentiating those who would have both parents working 50, 60, 70, 80 hours a week in order to afford Hummers, designer clothes and Cristal from those who have to each hold down a job just in order to make rent or student loan payments. She says her heart aches for the moms who want to stay home but can't, but...what about the suggestions for policy change? I keep asking, when did it become necessary for two adults to work full time (or more) in order to maintain an average middle class home? And why do we tolerate it? That's another post, I guess.

Dr. Laura did make some interesting comments on the Mike and Juliet Show, which I saw while on the treadmill this morning. She was asking, how low does a woman's confidence about herself as a mother have to be for her to think that hired help could give her child as much love as she could? That struck a chord with me, as I wondered how much the confidence question comes in to play with some moms today who choose to go to work very early in their child's life. I had the example of a stay-at-home mom (who later when on to get a Masters and is now a speech pathologist). Many women did not. A friend of mine confided that she was glad to go back to work because, frankly, she just didn't know what to do with the baby all day—this was at, like fourth months!

One reason I have chosen to stay at home during my daughter's youngest years is that I really believe nobody could do a better job with her than I can, right now. To me, there is just something very primal, animalistic and intimate about mothers and babies, much linked to the nursing relationship. And I want the chance to get her attached to me, to build that trust and to give her the balls to know who she is so that when she does go out into the world for kindergarten, she is strong, knows where she comes from, who's got her back (me!) and won't take crap from anybody. As far as teaching her math, how to get along with her peers, chemistry and all that stuff, I will leave that to the schoolteachers and to her and the other kids, when that time comes, supporting her with homework help—although Dad will most likely deal with the calculus. I will be there for her in the morning and at the end of the day to give her what I can in the way of love, support, advice, companionship, direction, and will go out into the world (or reach out to clients in the world) during the day while she is at school to be a good example in that regard. And, I will always be a cell phone call away. (My husband and I had a good argument about phones before she was even born, and I insisted, no matter what the school rules are, my daughter will carry a phone so she can get me if she needs to. As a former teacher, he is big on school rules, I am not.)

So, odd as is may be, this progressive, bohemian hipster has a few things in common with ol' Dr. Laura. That's a little scary, but at the same time, it's cool. I'm not a big fan of her style, though, and so I don't think we will become BFFs any time soon, though.

True luxuries come at a different price

Today in the Post, I read about how "Luxury Services for Pregnant Women are Booming" and became nauseated by more "news" illustrating how Americans think they are due these outrageous luxuries because they are "taking care of themselves" or "taking time for themselves" when they're really just spending loads of money on bullshit.

As the mama of an eleven month old, I still remember pregnancy. Ah, these were glory days. Sure, I wasn't able to run as much or weight train or drink, but boy did my husband treat me well. He brought me my nightly snacks, rubbed my back and feet. He was nice! Plus, I could still go to movies, I could still dine out without wrestling a little one in and out of a high chair. I enjoyed getting special care and attention and I took good care of myself. I even got a few massages down on my lunch breaks (I worked up til the day before I gave birth). But, all this over-the-top spa culture of extreme pampering, at crazy prices, to me seems nutso. The article even cites posh preggos paying $25 to take a nap. Come on!

The article also gives voice to one woman carrying on about how she was obsessing about where to get apple green bedding for her baby's crib, and I had to laugh. I remember I spent a weekend furiously web surfing for special crib bedding, marveling at all the cute designs out there, but stopping short and just getting a cute jungle set from Target once I saw the price tags. Good thing. We don't use the crib for much more than storage, or a cooling off jail cell for the baby when she can't calm down before bed. Instead, we do a sort of transitional co-sleeping dealio on a futon. It's the best.

I believe that the non-marketed, figure-it-out yourself discoveries and other variations on "official" philosophies/practices (attachment parenting, etc.) are what makes my life my own, what keeps it real and authentic. A little pampering is good, of course, but Americans are becoming more and more luxury-driven (when we can afford it less and less) while at the same time becoming dumber about how to do anything for ourselves and think things through practically.

What about women who read articles like this and think, "I deserve to feel good about myself. I need that, too. I am worth it..." and then they go chasing after these pricey extravagances to try and feel something? I ask, what kind of births will these women have? What kind of motherhood will they experience? I wonder, after they get sucked into the accoutrements and trappings of pregnancy and motherhood, how engaged will they be in their babies' births and their babies' lives? How many will be drugged out and turn over the power of their birth experience to more service people (doctors, nurses, etc.)? How many will then turn over the very caring for of their babies to service people (daycare, nannies)?

I know, some people have to have medicated births and some have to send their infants to daycare, but many choose to, and of course, it's their choice. But how many even consider other options? My view is that they are only cheating themselves out of truly priceless experiences when you have other people do so much for you. Are you really living your own life, or are you just in a constant cycle of earning and spending. I think people need to get reacquainted with the simpler pleasures in life—give me a foot massage from my husband and a pint of Häagen-Dazs and I'm good!

Honestly, what provided me with the best luxury of all—taking this special time in my life to relish being mama to a baby by working part time from home, rather than shipping her off to daycare as an infant—was being prudent with savings and working hard before she was born. Not blowing thousands of dollars on pampering.

Childcare Crisis

Two beautiful children are dead because a young mother couldn’t find a babysitter.

The tragic story of one-year-old Triniti Campbell and her four-year-old brother, Shawn Campbell Jr. dying after being left in a hot car when their mom couldn’t find someone to look after them while she went to work shines a truly hideous light on the childcare crisis in America today. This may be an extreme case, with a mentally unstable woman making an unusually deadly mistake, but often it takes something this dramatic to get people to sit up and take notice.

I can picture the beleaguered young mother as described in the Associated Press report, and my heart breaks for her and the children. Police found her crying and yelling, "Oh, my babies" and said she stated she wanted to die and asked officers to kill her.

I’m sure if her employer had to choose between giving her a pass on work that day or having her children dead, he or she would have made the right choice. Of course, the mother is responsible for her actions, certainly not the employer, but to a troubled single mom the choice may have been to lose a job that fed and housed the kids or take a chance and hope they’re OK in the car for a while. Was she not sane? Was she temporarily flustered? Where was the father? The grandparents? It’s clear she’s remorseful and as the case unfolds in the media we may learn more about her and what really happened. It’s also clear that she needed a little help.

Most people will probably sit back and say what a monster she was or how stupid, but instead I would encourage them to check out MomsRising, a grassroots, online effort to mobilize people to build a more family-friendly America, together as a non-partisan force for 2008 and beyond. As Illinois Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama said, “Despite all the rhetoric about being family-friendly, we have structured a society that is decidedly unfriendly... What's missing now is a movement. What's missing now is an organization. That's why MomsRising is so important."

Today, I ordered their book The Motherhood Manifesto and will begin my journey to try and do something about the poor way mothers and children often fare in our contemporary culture.