Catching up, with some changes

I've hesitated writing for a while. I had a blip where, again, I was thinking, why do I need to have an opinion about everything, why do I have to (for a very limited, or very anonymous audience) share, share, share my glorious (smirk) thoughts and feelings? Who cares? Maybe I should be more private. Not air any dirty laundry. Change privacy settings. Change them back.

But, I feel like I need an outlet.

Hand-writing in a journal seems so...slow...and closed. I guess I am more used to this by now. Here I have a somewhat continuous tale of life over the past several years, while throughout my house, amongst my things, I have scattered notebooks with a few pages written here and there in fits and starts.

So here I am again.

We just got back last Saturday from a nice trip to St. John for Spring Break. Here, I thought I'd worked through my internet addiction, food addiction and lack of motivation to exercise, but it looks like I have not actually conquered these things completely. Still working on them. I think I could say I am a little better than I was before I left.

The big news is I've accepted a job offer from my big client/former employer to come back and work for them full-time. So, now my off-ramp/on-ramp story will have a nice little full circle thing going on—except for the reality that nothing is really ever settled is it? The whole thing has gone so well, so easy, relatively, that I keep thinking there must be some impending disaster I will face.

It's just not supposed to be this easy. (They are even paying me a significant amount more than when I left—and, riding high on the Sandbergian Lean In ethos, I negotiated for a bit more leave time.)

On the other hand, I have been working really hard for the past six years doing the consulting thing, pretty much being there for them whenever they needed me, staying up late to get things done, feeling, sometimes, like all I ever did was work and take care of my kid. I guess I didn't know how hard I was working, or it didn't hit me, or something...because I was doing exactly what I wanted.

I feel so fortunate to have been able to take the time to be with my daughter when she was a baby, toddler and preschooler.

This year, with her in school most the day, though, it's been really really hard for me. My feelings of missing her overtook any motivation I would have had to do much more than work that I was accountable to others for completing (that would be clients). Marathon training, making art, working out like a madwoman, doing major house-cleaning or repair projects—just really could not find it in me to do them. (Though I did some painting and gardening last year...) Something about work-work, though, writing, designing, organizing, managing, I can do.

As I see my time at home come to a close, I kind of lament the things I had in mind to do these years that I did not accomplish. These things that were not just to be with my child and watch her grow (I can say I feel like I did a good job doing activities with her, setting her up in good stead educationally and emotionally, bonding with her). But things like learning to play guitar, learning Portuguese, getting certified as a personal trainer. I feel, sometimes, guilty for "squandering" my time. But then I think more on it (or rationalize, you might say) and realize all that time I was working a lot for my clients, and that kept me pretty busy, and of course, doing what I was supposed to be doing, just being with my kid. And then there was all the reading and writing I did not for clients over these years, from which I feel as though I nearly completed some independent Women's Studies program! So, overall, not too bad.

I'm excited and nervous about what's to come, but I have a couple months til I start. That time, I don't know if it's good or bad. I am more of a let's-jump-in-right-now-and-do-this kind of person. I don't like being in limbo. But, two months goes by quickly. I want to say I am going to make the most of this time, but I probably won't do that either, as I still have my big client as a client and now of course I won't want to do anything to piss them off so will have to remain very much on. Still, it will allow me to take my child to soccer practice (which starts at 5 pm, so working-parent unfriendly) through the rest of her season.  Next year, the practices are later for older kids, I think, and my husband is going to be on P.M. afterschool duty so it won't be my problem anyway!

He's really going to be stepping up to the plate to make this all work and we are fortunate that he has so much tenure at his job and such a flexible schedule that he will be able to fill in the gaps for me. For example, our child will still have that lazy summer experience instead of a whole summer of camp (she'll just do that for the last couple weeks of June and then in July) because after our trip to Montreal the first week of August for his conference, he will be able to take the rest of the month off and hang out with her at home (popping in to the office on Fridays, my teleworking day). So I think that's the perfect balance. Then when school begins, she'll go to Tae Kwon Do after school for lessons and then hang out in their program til he picks her up. My flexible schedule, with a 10 am start time, will let me have relatively relaxed mornings with her and get her to school without having to use a morning care program.

I couldn't even really go back to work if it wasn't for my husband's flexible schedule, the flexible schedule my job is giving me, and my husband's willingness to help. I read an article recently that told of a woman who asked her husband to go in late one day a week to help her out and he waffled. It's not clear whether the situation at his job was really such that it would be detrimental to him to accommodate her schedule or if he was just not being a team player at home. In any case, I recognize how fortunate I am!


 

What do Sheryl Sandberg and Kate Upton have in common?

A regular chick’s take on Lean In

I am not a career woman. I enjoy my work, I take it seriously and do a good job, but I’m under no delusions. I have a B.A. from a small Liberal Arts university. I’ve never made six-figures. I am working, right now, part time from home. Really, a nobody. And yet, Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In had something for me. I like to take lessons from wherever I can find them.

I’ve been enjoying the many reviews and online discussions about the book, and I  understand, even if I don’t necessarily agree with, many of the criticisms. Other, though, seem preemptively dismissive and angry, as this Salon piece notes.

One of the best commentaries I read on Lean In came from Penelope Trunk who observed, “Sheryl Sandberg is such an incredibly aberrant example of women at work…She is great. Smart. Driven. I get it. I am doing a life that she would hate. I thought I was a high performer, but Sheryl Sandberg has no time for people like me. I spent so many years working hard to get to the top, but the truth is that I’m not even close. I was never in the running. I am nothing like Sheryl Sandberg.” Trunk added, “Sheryl Sandberg gives up her kids like movie stars give up food: she wants a great career more than anything else.” Harsh, I know, but I don’t think she meant it in a mean way or meant that Sandberg doesn’t love her kids. She’s just…different.

I always used to think, regarding women who felt bad that they didn’t measure up to models and actresses, that they were out of their minds even thinking they were in the same league with these women to begin with. Women like Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition cover girl Kate Upton. The complaints about “the media” and women’s body image never quite resonated with me because I had already faced the reality: I am not a super model. Surely, most other women must know this too, shouldn’t they?

I once read a book called The Secrets of Skinny Chicks and found, really, no secrets, but just what one would expect. These women worked out a significant amount of time and they really, really watched what they ate. As one reviewer said “…this book absolutely does not pretend that you can be a Size 6 US without considerable deprivation; we’re talking 1200-1600 calories a day AND a two hour cardio and weights program, ladies. It’s also honest about wishing it could hate food; this is really not the book for anyone with much gusto about mealtime…” I kind of know. Before I had a kid, I worked out, actively, a couple hours a day, plus briskly walked a round trip of four miles to work. I just didn’t have that much else to do at the time. My life is different now and I accept it. You have to put in a certain amount of work to get certain results.

The same goes for careers. When Sheryl Sandberg was at Harvard, I was waitressing, partying, taking classes a couple at a time at community college and otherwise meandering through my twenties. I somehow made it out the other side with a degree and was able to hold decent jobs, but I don’t expect to be the billionaire superstar Sandberg is (by the way, she was also an aerobics instructor at one point). It really wouldn’t be fair. I can still learn from her, though, just like women can learn from the “Skinny Chicks,” super models and Upton, whose trainer describes her daily double sessions and multiple cleanse diets. Sandberg talks about going home for dinner at 5 and having taken a 3-month maternity leave like these were major breakthrough concessions she made for her family. The dedication to her work and the intensity with which she works is extraordinary and more than I’d be willing to put in, just like double workout sessions and super-strict diets are more than I’m willing to do to look a certain way.

As an aside, Upton’s trainer defends her “porkiness,” which, of course, is laughable, except that I can see that as lean and sexy as she is, Upton is fleshier than many other SI and Victoria’s Secret models. She’s somewhat approachable. Just like Sandberg.  In Lean In, her voice is friendly and diplomatic as she nods to caregiving being important and acknowledges “Many people are not interested in acquiring power, not because they lack ambition, but because they are living their lives as they desire. Some of the most important contributions to our world are made by caring for one person at a time…”

Understanding I’m not Sheryl Sandberg or Kate Upton, and not in their league, I can take notes from aspects of their successes I may be interested in achieving for myself to a lesser degree, keeping in mind the reality that I don’t have the will (or genetics or background at this point in my life) to take it to that level. I can still work out regularly and cut out extra junk and be in nice shape. I can speak up in business situations, be confident and lean in, where appropriate for me, and improve my place in the work world.

So with that, I’ll share some of the best points of Lean In that are applicable to women (anyone, really) in most jobs.

If you want or need something, ask for it. It never occurred to Sandberg, or anyone else at Google, that maybe pregnant employees could use parking spots closer to the building—until, that is, she got pregnant. After a mad rush to the office from a far flung spot, naseuous, she marched into Sergey Brin’s office and made her request. The company set up special parking for pregnant employees. Of course, you might get an answer of no, but you won’t know unless you ask.

Sit at the table. Sandberg tells of a Facebook meeting she hosted for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner in which women on Geithner’s team hung back not even sitting at the table with the rest of the group—even when personally invited to sit there by Sandberg herself. I mean, really, I’m just a schlub and I know better than that. If there’s seats, take one. If you’re invited, gosh, it’s weird and rude not to take one. But, apparently the inferiority complex is so deeply ingrained into some women that they need extra cajoling.

When you don’t feel confident fake it. Pretty straightforward, read the book for more nuance.

Take initiative. Sandberg says, “The ability to learn is the most important quality a leader can have.” She cited data from Hewlett Packard that men will apply for a position if they meet 60 percent of the requirements and women only apply when they think they meet 100 percent of the criteria needed. “Women need to shift from thinking ‘I’m not ready to do that’ to thinking ‘I want to do that—and I’ll learn by doing it,’” she says.
At my first job out of college I was hired as a Communications Coordinator making 30K. I quickly realized I could easily do what they expected and was always asking for more work. I got sick of asking for more so instead I just started looking for things the organization needed and doing them. I took over the website (it was 1999 and having taken one web design class in college, I knew more than anyone else there at the time). Soon after, I outlined what I had been doing, suggested a title change and raise to 45K and they agreed. That’s my little pond story of initiative. As Sandberg notes, “…opportunities are not well defined but, instead, come from someone jumping in to do something. That something then becomes his job.”

Understand and work the system, even if the system is wrong. Sandberg discusses the many challenges women face with regard to powerful women being not well-liked and the trap of women who are nice being assumed incompetent and women who are competent assumed not nice. She acknowledges this is not right, but gives great advice on walking the line, nonetheless. Using a negotiation as an example, she advises women to “think personally, act communally,” prefacing the negotiation by explaining they know women often get paid less than men so they are going to negotiate rather than accept the original offer. “By doing so, women position themselves as connected to a group and not just out for themselves, in effect they are negotiating for all women.” Sandberg advises the use of the word “we” instead of “I” whenever possible. She warns, though, that a communal approach is not enough and women must also provide a legitimate explanation for the negotiation.

Combine niceness with insistence. This piggybacks on the previous idea. Sandberg cites Mary Sue Coleman, president of the University of Michigan, who says this means being “relentlessly pleasant.” This involves “smiling frequently, expressing appreciation and concern, invoking common interests, emphasizing larger goals” and approaching situations as solving a problem as opposed to being critical.

Speak up, stand up. Sandberg talks a lot about how men in power can help women by standing up for them in key situations and she gives many encouraging examples of when this was done for her. She notes Ken Chenault, CEO of American Express, as a leader in this area who acknowledged that “in meetings, both men and women are likely to interrupt a woman and give credit to a man for an idea first proposed by a woman.” Chenault stops meetings to point this out when he sees it—making quite an impression coming from the top. Sandberg advises that anyone can do this, though. “A more junior woman (or man) can also intervene in the situation when a female colleague has been interrupted. She can gently but firmly tell the group, ‘Before we move on, I’d like to hear what [senior woman] had to say.’” Sandberg explains that this not only benefits the senior woman who was interrupted but boosts the junior woman as well, because speaking up for someone else demonstrates a communal spirit—and confidence—and shows the junior woman is both competent and nice.

In Lean In, Sandberg acknowledges the systemic issues women face that can make it more difficult to rise to the top, but also offers a useful mix of overarching ideas for society with nuts and bolts tips for women at work. Just like with the Skinny Chicks‘ secrets and a glimpse into Upton’s regimen, I can incorporate those ideas that fit my lifestyle, not expecting to find myself on the cover of Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Edition or in a C-Suite, but inspiring me to run that extra mile or to speak up with confidence on something I’m knowledgeable about with colleagues.

Beyond Betty: Moving from feminism to human rights

Was the problem that had no name possibly the lack of Wi-Fi?

I wish that line was mine, but I have to give the credit to Noreen Malone, who in a Slate discussion of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique (on the 50th anniversary of its publication this week) noted:

...Work doesn’t automatically put you on the road to self-actualization (as Friedan implies it does), and the degree to which it contributes to it probably waxes and wanes at different points in a person’s life. What about women (or men!) who genuinely do find the bulk, or even part, of their creative fulfillment in more traditional homemaking tasks, or at least less corporate ones, and who derive their sense of mission from helping people—even if mostly the ones related to them? Friedan doesn’t allow for those scenarios, at least among the educated women she’s writing about, and that feels weird. Also oddly missing in the book’s treatment of parenting, was any kind of real consideration of kids’ needs...

To Malone, I say right on!

I won't lie, I enjoy working, and of course I've been lucky to have a very unique situation (enabled by Wi-Fi!) that let me ride the fence of the SAHM thing and having work satisfaction in semi-creatively satisfying work.

But, I don't know that there are sooo many jobs out there that are sooo interesting and stimulating that workers don't have to psych themselves up for just as much as someone at home would have to do some mental gymnastics to make a "baked potato" or "vacumming" interesting. At least when you do those things you're not doing it for "the man" but for yourself and your own family!

I'm also willing to wager that my grandma who worked in a canning factory would have welcomed the life of suburban housewife ennui...

As a friend commented when I posted the Slate article on Facebook, "That's always where the feminist lionization of work breaks down. Those women are writers and academics, which is not the same thing as having a typical job. When your whole job is self aggrandizement, then of course you love your work! When you're scrubbing toilets or asking would you like fries with that?—not so much." So true!

This recent New York Times opinion piece by Stephanie Coontz attempted to answer "Why Gender Equality Stalled" and raises some interesting points. An excerpt illustrates the frustrating bias toward the idea that women necessarily want to work instead of taking on child- and home-care duties:

So, especially when women are married to men who work long hours, it often seems to both partners that they have no choice. Female professionals are twice as likely to quit work as other married mothers when their husbands work 50 hours or more a week and more than three times more likely to quit when their husbands work 60 hours or more.

The sociologist Pamela Stone studied a group of mothers who had made these decisions. Typically, she found, they phrased their decision in terms of a preference. But when they explained their “decision-making process,” it became clear that most had made the “choice” to quit work only as a last resort — when they could not get the flexible hours or part-time work they wanted, when their husbands would not or could not cut back their hours, and when they began to feel that their employers were hostile to their concerns. Under those conditions, Professor Stone notes, what was really a workplace problem for families became a private problem for women.

This is where the political gets really personal. When people are forced to behave in ways that contradict their ideals, they often undergo what sociologists call a “values stretch” — watering down their original expectations and goals to accommodate the things they have to do to get by. This behavior is especially likely if holding on to the original values would exacerbate tensions in the relationships they depend on.

But, it's really not that simple. Pew Research studies show that the majority of women want to work part-time (which is one reason why Obama's recent attention to universal pre-K may be misguided). Most working fathers, though, say they want to work full-time. At least according to this study, it would appear that men and women want different things—and to me, that's OK! It's also fair to note that different men and different women want different things.

No study is going to capture everyone's wishes and no policy is going to necessarily make everyone's path to what they want easier. We have to blaze our own trails a lot of the time.

Coontz observed:

Under present conditions, the intense consciousness raising about the “rightness” of personal choices that worked so well in the early days of the women’s movement will end up escalating the divisive finger-pointing that stands in the way of political reform. 

One one hand, I am skeptical of "political reform" based on almost everything I've read in recently years from feminists that places workforce engagement above caring for young children and goes to far as to view children basically as some sort of commodity or cogs in the capitalist machine. But, the conclusion of the Coontz piece leaves me hopeful that maybe the feminist movement is beginning to see that work is not the be-all-and-end-all of "equality" (or life) and that different people want different things, and that "people" also means men.

Our goal should be to develop work-life policies that enable people to put their gender values into practice. So let’s stop arguing about the hard choices women make and help more women and men avoid such hard choices. To do that, we must stop seeing work-family policy as a women’s issue and start seeing it as a human rights issue that affects parents, children, partners, singles and elders. Feminists should certainly support this campaign. But they don’t need to own it. 

What Coontz might not realize, though, is that for many talented, educated and able women such as myself, putting my "gender values into practice" for me meant scaling back my career when my baby was born, working part-time from home to be with her, and navigating my own on-ramp as she gets older.

I agree that feminists should not own the work-family policy campaign, because based on what we've heard from leading feminist voices in recent years (Linda Hirshman, I am looking at you) they're going to get it wrong!

Grateful or greedy in America

I feel grateful for the material aspects of my life—all the time. Rarely a day goes by that I don't, in at least some small way recognize that I have it really good.

My house is not impressive, but it's in a good neighborhood and is in generally good repair (knock on wood). We don't have cable TV or flat screen/LCD TVs. We don't have smartphones. Our stove should probably be replaced as it doesn't really heat super well or evenly inside, but it can get the job done. Our refrigerator should probably be replaced. I keep a tupperware container in it under a water drip and change it out every so often when it fills. It basically works, though. One of our cars is 17 years old. The air conditioning doesn't work and the ceiling lining has come off, but it runs (full disclosure our other car is just 7 years old and feels luxurious to me). We could probably get new things as we have a significant amount of cash savings in the bank, but we don't. That's just us. If it works, we use it. When it breaks, we'll replace it. So I do get a little twitchy when I read things like this about allegedly poor people in America, redistribution schemes and all the great things government can provide for people.

I do understand, though, that there are other things the poor may not have—health insurance, for example, or savings, or retirement and things like that—that are not mentioned in the following post and study. But still. I'm mildly skeptical of those who say we need big, new overarching programs.

Anyway, I'm not sure why NRO is tweeting this now, as the post and study is over a year old. But, I remember reading about it at the time and it was interesting to me then as it is now, comparing different points about how many "poor" people in America live as compared with how we live in our family.

  The post cites results of a study from The Heritage Foundation (yeah, yeah, I know, conservative, but I think people should be reading and parsing information from many resources) called “Understanding Poverty in the United States” which notes the following tidbits about "the poor":

• Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Fully 92 percent of poor households have a microwave; two-thirds have at least one DVD player and 70 percent have a VCR.
• Nearly 75 percent have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
• Four out of five poor adults assert they were never hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food.
• Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.
• Half have a personal computer; one in seven have two or more computers.
• More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as Xbox or PlayStation.
• Just under half — 43 percent — have Internet access.
• A third have a widescreen plasma or LCD TV.
• One in every four has a digital video recorder such as TiVo. 

And the post observes, "TV newscasts about poverty in America usually picture the poor as homeless or as a destitute family living in an overcrowded, rundown trailer. The actual facts are far different:"

• At a single point in time, only one in 70 poor persons is homeless.
• The vast majority of the houses or apartments of the poor are in good repair; only 6 percent are over-crowded. 
• The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany or the United Kingdom.
• Only 10 percent of the poor live in mobile homes or trailers; half live in detached single-family houses or townhouses, while 40 percent live in apartments.
• Forty-two percent of all poor households own their home; on average, it’s a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

On the other hand, "the rich" are richer than they have ever been before, too, as reporter in this New York Times editorial.

Or, are they?

It's hard to say.

But, I have to admit, I get fearful and whipped up sometimes over worry about becoming poor, or not being able to get back into the workforce full-time, or our retirement, or my kid's prospects growing up. Or I jump on conversational and link-posting bandwagons crying out for help for these poor, poor people. But maybe I just really don't need to worry so much. (Yes, yes, yes, I know, middle-class privilege, I've got it, but I've been working in some capacity since I was, like, 13 years old and moved out of parents' house at 18, so I'm no stranger to taking care of myself, either.)

Then there's this article from the Boston Review, "Before Greed: Americans Didn’t Always Yearn for Riches." That talks about how  in the time of Lincoln, people strove for a level of "competency," that is, "the ability to support a family and have enough in reserve to sustain it through hard times at an accustomed level of prosperity. When, through effort or luck, a person amassed not only a competency but enough to support himself and his family for his lifetime, he very often retired." I love this.

I feel, to a great extent, that's how we live in our household.

But, the Boston Review article notes, "Most Americans have come to think of the American dream not as a competency but rather as the accumulation of great wealth." So, it seems to me that those on both ends of the spectrum, and the policy people need to tuck things in a bit on each end. People don't need the lifestyles seen in the Queen of Versailles movie (pre-crash), but it can also be argued that "poor" people don't need flat screen TVs, Tivos, new cars, and all those trappings, either.  What they do need, of course, is affordable healthcare (this links to a must-read, loooong read TIME article) and to not have to bail out banks (much shorter must-read), so, it's a mixed bag.

I just have to wonder if things are ever as dire, across the boards, as the media makes things out to be, and I think, maybe an understanding of the mixed bag can alleviate some anxiety. Gratitude works.

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...)

Stop trying to impress everyone

Last week I came across this article in a print magazine at the hair salon and it really struck me. I cried. "My Boss Taught Me to Stop Trying to Impress Everyone" it said, and went on to tell the anecdote of a former outgoing, overachiever who'd always reach out to people. It reminded me of someone. "Why don’t you try sitting still and letting other people come to you? That way, they can discover the real, wonderful person you are for themselves," the boss tells her.

Now, I'm not an overachiever in the true NY/DC sense. I'm not a lawyer or lobbyist. I don't have an advanced degree. To many, I'm probably small potatoes. But, I am always on it. I'm the one who picks up the slack. I'm the one who never forgets something. I'm the one who never misses a deadline. I make mistakes now and then, so I'm not saying I am perfect, but I am dogged and always trying very hard to please. It's not just because I am self-employed and have clients. I was this way at work when I was an in-house employee, too.

So, I get an email from my big client/former boss that "I'm probably not going to get edits to you on the annual report til Tuesday, and am going to ask for it back by noon Wednesday, do you think that's doable?" She admits jokingly it may be hard to say given I don't know what the edits are, and I agree, also pointing out I don't know when on Tuesday she's getting back to me. "But, I usually have a way of getting you what you need when you need it!" I replied, cheerfully.

Well, it's 5:30 Tuesday and still nothing from her. I'm not going to work on it this evening, so whatever I can get done from 9:00 am til noon tomorrow is what she is getting. I actually think she'll be fine with that. She's never been unreasonable. It's me who has had a way of setting myself up as some kind of superwoman. I'm tired of it, though, and slowly, I am going to change.

I don't want to end up like this (overworked and underpaid in the "great speedup").

We have to strategically make our boundaries and protect them.

Mothers—and others—do best when they're allowed to be whole people

I used to say you can have it all, but not at the same time—a cliché with some truth to it, though not my own concept, of course. Now more and more women with experience are coming out with this truth, following years of trying to pull it off. In the past, I didn't think it was so important for mothers to hold high-level positions, I mean, being a mom is very important in itself, right? I've changed my mind, though. Yes, raising children is important, but women who are mothers really do need to be part of business and government at the highest levels in order to ensure balanced policymaking. Here's a very good article wherein one woman from the highest ranks shares her experience and notes what needs to change.

  

Reading comments online to this and corollary articles, I'm struck by the lack of big-picture thinking many people seem to have. I really appreciated this article in terms of it being another voice coming out in support of work-life balance in general—and for moms/parents in particular. I think it's part of the slow, but certain, wheel of change that will bring us to a better place.

I am reading Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy by Chris Hayes and it discusses the problem we have in America now with a relatively small and non-diverse leadership of our institutions, insulated at the top, who've failed us. Hyper-competitiveness and ego (the whole work-time machismo thing of being there grinding away into the night is an example) plays a role in causing these folks to actually not have the best or even good solutions to many of the challenges we face as society.

Ensuring there are mothers in high-level government and business positions will help diversify the leadership and balance policymaking. So, to me, it's not really so much about whether or not I personally "have it all." I may not want "it all," but some people do and being a parent should not keep them from achieving it.

In the bigger picture for women who may be more ambitious than I and have it in them to do bigger things, it must not be at the expense of their families—we need them in these positions of power.

Regarding work-life balance for all and in general, also revealed in comments is how some people just can't get their heads around this the concept at all. "Is it fair for childless people to have to work extra hours..." they ask. No! Nobody needs to work so much. Perhaps even more people are hired (thereby helping unemployment) and we all work a little less. Europeans seem to have a handle on this. Why, oh why, is there this assumption here in American that there is always so much very urgent work to be done that can't wait til 9-5 tomorrow? Or, maybe 9-12 pm after the kids are in bed, before which an employee took off at 2 pm? The world is not going to fall apart if certain things happen a little later instead of now. Of course, there are exceptions in emergency responder fields, certain service jobs that are less of "emergencies" but are based on timing, but don't be ridiculous, like I said, they seem to manage in other countries.

Those already well-positioned in life have to take the leap to claim it and we have to make it such that it's socially unacceptable and gauche to grind for hours and hours and hours all the time at the expense of everything else. For example, one commenter on the New York Times Motherlode blog's coverage observed, "I've learned that, in Germany, staying back late at the office too often raises questions about competency. My former boss got plenty of unpleasant scrutiny because he chose to stay back every night until 10pm, rather than go home and face his marital situation. Unfortunately, it made him look incompetent and unable to do the job in the allocated time and didn't help him when it was time to renew his contract; he was let go."

NPR did a series on work-life balance a couple of years ago. The concept has definitely been floating around for at least a few years now, so please, take it down a notch, America! We'll probably get better results anyway.

Being the best mom I can be, by focusing on other things

Following up on my recent posts where I've been trying to figure out what to do, who to be, I am again creating a point of closure here, which I hopefully can live up to, adhere to, in order to make room to do the things I need to do.

The best idea for achieving a work-life balance, for me, will be to work for myself and continue to build my business. So, to that end, I am re-dedicating myself to my design career. This means not wasting time debating SAHM vs working on the web, not wasting time worrying about what the feminists are saying or doing, this means spending my time working or figuring out how to work better, nourishing my creativity, building my skills.

I have felt a rising level of anxiety for some time. There is no specific crisis or nothing so majorly big in my life that I can pinpoint. Just a general sense of concern. Part of it now may be being in a funk for missing my man and having anxiety about what the future holds for me as a working mom who wants a good life balance and who will not make my child number two on the list of priorities. OK, well, maybe I am on to a little something there, and maybe that ties into a bigger matter of anxiety. I have felt a lot of anxiety lately of womens issues and things on TV, the web, the news. I don't want to get into it here, I don't want to take the time, I just feel like the best thing for me to do is focus on making my life the best it can be. If I was to dig in and focus on these bigger, world-wide issues, I would feel so overwhelmed and horrible. That's not to say I don't care (about the plight of women in other countries, about how our own Western society seems in decline as we place everything—money—above children and family) but I have to just be as good a mother as I can be and find ways within my own realm to show kindness and be a good person.

So, what can I really dig into and hang onto that's material and that can actually help me be a better mom by empowering me to have a good work-life balance? Bolster my skills so that I can build my business.

I am less angry.

Transitioning: Erudio Interruptus

A while back I wrote about transitioning to working from home. While I've worked part-time from home ever since my child was born over three years ago, I've always felt like a "stay-at-home-mom" anyway. I know, though, that my days as a SAHM are numbered. It won't end next month or even next year, but in upcoming years—kindergarten, first grade (?) my child is going to be in school several hours a day and it just doesn't make sense for me not to work. Besides, my husband thinks we need the money. He is less of a "living with less" scrabbler than I am, on one hand, even though he is, in reality more frugal than me, I know, if I had to, I could cut back. He is more concerned about retirement, nice vacations, paying for our kid's college. I guess I am on board with those needs for money, too. But, after all, we are dealing with all those things now, even on my more limited salary, and so I feel less urgency to give more of myself over to earning wages. Not because I am lazy, but because I want to be a good mom.

This leads to my big quandary to be faced when it comes time to ramp up. How can I hold a job that brings in the money I "deserve" (so to speak) that utilizes my skills, but that is not so demanding that I cannot make my kid my priority? I don't want her to go to afterschool programs (if she doesn't want to, and certainly not in kindergarten). I don't want her to have to go to day camp all day in the summer (if she doesn't want to...maybe she will want to?). But, I do want to work for money.

The Radical Homemakers ethos appeals to me. Cut back. Be frugal. Grown your own veggies. Put them up. Live on less. Don't be a slave to the extractive economy. However, I do enjoy graphic design and communications quite a bit and it is a good wage-earning career. And I'm crunchy and non-materialistic, but I don't know how ready I am to go that far off the grid. My husband is a good barometer of sensibility and I don't know how on board he'd be with that, either. Balance, is important to me, too. I guess the very word "radical" moves away from the idea of "balance" on one hand, but on the other, maybe the way the world is is so off balance that we need something radical to put it back in balance. Anyway, I'll do my part, but I still am going to have to work.

One idea I have is to continue to work as an independent consultant–a freelancer. I worry about what would happen if I lost by biggest client. I guess I would get more clients. I wonder if I could get enough to make enough. It's nice that I have the safety net of my husband's steady job, that's true. But, I want to be solid, as well. It's possible to do this on my own, as a consultant. Or, maybe, by then, there will be a turning in the culture of work and it will be possible to get a job that's, say, 30 hours a week or something. I just don't want to be like the so many middle class people I hear about who are scrambling around juggling hectic schedules and having their kids fall through the cracks.

My concern about this of late even got me to considering, for like a day, getting a Master's in Education and becoming a teacher. I figured the hours would be great for a mom. Most of the information I got from those in the field who I polled said otherwise. My brother said, "If, as you admitted, your interest in becoming a professional early childhood, elementary, or secondary educator is to improve or seek a 'work-life balance' that appeals to someone wanting more flexibility in their family life, your motives are at great risk of resulting in disappointment. While the "value to society" motive is a driving force, it sometimes—make that often times—has become a divisive element in my home. I do not have any free time."

My husband, who was a teacher in his past life said, "You say it would be good as a mother, but I completely disagree. It's a profession that goes way beyond the hours of 9-5, and dealing with kids all day may zap you of the energy and enthusiasm you need to share with you onw in the evening. When I was teaching, I always said I didn't think I could deal with kids all day, then have to go home and deal with my own...that I'd either have to quit teaching, or never have kids. But that's me...Sorry for throwing in my two cents, but it's a topic that I have very strong feelings about...not that I'm trying to control you, but rather from my very own experiences in teaching that made me a very, very unhappy person for quite some time."

A friend said, "The idea of being a positive influence in kids lives is pretty uplifting...but in actuality, i'm with your husband. I personally don't like it. I also think it depends on what you want to teach. I think that elementary vs. high school is something to consider. I was an elementary (young-2/3rd grades) and it's very draining. He's right, you don't have much free time, and even when you're not in school working, you feel like you should be. I imagine High School is very different in the day to day teaching, but the same outside of school...always feeling like you should be grading papers, lesson planning, etc. It can also be very frustrating, as there are many demands put on you outside of your actual 'job' of teaching...paper work and such."

Another said, "I'm still struggling to find that work-life balance. I haven't been too successful as of yet, but I am still a relatively new teacher, so I'm hoping this year will calm down a little more for me. I work 12 or more hour days most days. For me, the balance has come in the summer and in the plentiful vacation time that I get. Yes, I am off by 3:00 every day, but there are papers, lesson plans, paperwork, bulletin boards, tests, phone calls, etc etc to do. You are never done. There are some teachers who manage to walk out the door at 3:02, but honestly, they are not the type of teacher you would probably want to be. The first two years are hell."

OK. So. Not gonna do it.

Why is talk of our children 'taboo' in the business world?

I'm a "work at home" mom to a young one now, but someday, when my kid's a little older I will probably go back to being a salary slave to someone else's operation, unless I decide to grow my business and continue working for myself. So, I really enjoyed these musings in the Wash Post about "one of the deep cultural rifts of our time"...where the write notes that "the business of raising humans is an inextricable part of our daily world, whether we're parents or not. And, too often, we shun writing or even talking about it because our workplace culture doesn't want to hear that every coin has two sides." I'm beginning to see things in new ways myself...

Yeah.

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.

Of babies and bathwater

OK, so this is one example of the kind of annoying voices of feminism out there that I reference in my last post. It seems so petty and so desperately clawing to "save one's identity".

Katie Roiphe writes on the new Double X website from Slate about why women shouldn't use their kid(s)' image as their Facebook avatars. She writes:

What, some future historian may very well ask, do all of these babies on our Facebook pages say about the construction of women’s identity at this particular moment in time?

Sigh.

I know these writers have to come up with new ideas for articles all the time, but this is why I have to STOP reading these things. They are just so ridiculous.

Maybe the women are just proud of their kids. Maybe they are fat and ugly and not comfortable with their own picture. Or maybe they are beautiful and still not comfortable with their own picture. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

One of my Facebook friends actually had a picture of her nieces and nephews instead of herself. So? Maybe she thinks they are cute.

What about people like me who have a picture of me with my kid? Where's my husband? Uhm, he was the man behind the camera.

What about those people who don't bother to upload a picture at all, but keep the Facebook blue and white head silhouette? Do they have no identity?

Who cares!

Like so many of the commenters said, it's just Facebook. Some of my favorite other comments:

To me it sounds like someone is trying to invent ways to be even more superior to her equally-educated female peers....

I don't know who this writer is but I have to say that I take offence at the idea that wearing sneakers every day and forgetting to get your hair cut makes a woman dowdy and invisible. To be honest I would feel at lot more dowdy and invisible having to stick to the ancient "etiqutte" rules that say a woman has to wear neat court shoes, have a neat manageable haircut and a pretty frock to be someone. I thought feminism was all about having freedom to express yourself even in the way you look or don't look. It strikes me that this writer has a very narrow view of what women should and should not do. It's like going back to the 1950s for god's sake...

...my problem isn't with people who do or do not use whatever picture they choose, or how they express their identity. It's that the article reinforces the notion that they 1)pick the kid's picture because they value being a parent above something else and 2) that this is wrong. If (the hypothetical) she had posted a picture of her dissertation would we be having this discussion? No. WHY? That's what you keep jumping away from. The why of how we view certain accomplishments as more valid, specifically because they are traditionally male accomplishments.

But, alongside all her petty annoying bullshit, Roiphe made some interesting points about how parents may have become a little too doting or child-centric:

Our parents, I can’t help thinking, would never have tolerated the squeaky sneakers, or conversations revolving entirely around children. They loved us as much as we love our children, but they had their own lives, as I remember it, and we played around the margins. They did not plan weekend days solely around children’s concerts and art lessons and piano lessons and birthday parties. Why, many of us wonder, don’t our children play on their own? Why do they lack the inner resources that we seem to remember, dimly, from our own childhoods? The answer seems clear: because with all good intentions we have over-devoted ourselves to our children’s education and entertainment and general formation. Because we have chipped away at the idea of independent adult life, of letting children dream up a place for themselves, in their rooms, on the carpets, in our gardens, on their own.

I would argue with her last sentence a bit, though, and wonder if people weren't trying to overcompensate for a day-to-day lack of involvement in their kids' lives. If they choose to, or are forced to, leave them with caregivers all day, or for more hours than they are comfortable with, perhaps they are compelled to "make it up to them" in other ways. (I am not judging whether they should feel this way or not, just making an observation that they might.) As a work-at-home mom who is basically on 24-7, I don't have so much guilt and so much drive to do so much for my toddler. I feel like I deserve the break and the treat. Because I do! From my perspective, kids do need to be allowed—trained even— to play on their own and spend time cultivating independence. Sadly, this more interesting discussion gets lost in Roiphe's petty Facebook/identity blurb.

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.

Let's call the whole thing off

It dawned on me today that I want to officially drop out of any discourse involving "Mommy Wars"...that debate between stay-at-home moms and go-to-work moms and anyone else with an opinion to spout off. I never really wanted to be in such a war, or on one side or another anyway, but just in case there was any confusion, here are my latest thoughts.

I recently read "How She Really Does It" by Wendy Sachs, where Sachs talks with a number of professional women about how they juggle motherhood with work. I enjoyed the book immensely—maybe for the wrong reasons. To be honest, it made me feel so lucky and it made me realize how easy I have it, being a work-at-home mom to one lovely daughter. Now, it's not always easy to be home all day with a toddler and try to get 3-5 hours of office work in as well...but, it beats having to feel guilty about leaving her—which I would. It beats having to worry about her all day. It beats being pissed off that I can't see her cute smiling face and hear her laugh whenever I want.

With my work, I do have deadlines, but for my day-to-day schedule, I can often work when I can, if my daughter is playing independently, work while she naps, or when my husband gets home from work and watches her. Or, I can always put off work til late night when she is in bed and my husband's in bed, too. My preferred time slot, other than naps, of 9-ish p.m. to 12 a.m. I just don't need that much sleep. I realize that this situation is somewhat unusual and I'd love to find a way to talk about it more and maybe encourage others to explore how they could set up a similar situation if they were interested, but I'm not sure of the best venue (continued blogging, book, gatherings?) or the finer points and details of my message.

I intend to either work more hours developing my own business or go back to a full time office job when my daughter is older—school age. But, the infant and toddler years at home are really special to me personally. That's more of a personal choice that makes me happy than anything I want to politicize or lord over anyone else.

Reading about the lives of other women made me feel like not arguing anymore—if I ever did. I don't know, I think I was just expressing an opinion, but now, somehow I want to soften it. The book made me feel compassionate. Whether or not these working women feel sad about leaving their young kids, I feel sad for them because of how *I* would have felt. But that's more about me than about them or anyone's kids. Even if they make a shitload more money than I do. I have enough. I feel like I don't need to judge or comment on anyone else's life choices. But, I can celebrate my own.

Trading in baby books for tax guides

Well, it's official. I will be working as a consultant for my former employer. The contract's been signed for the remainder of 2007 and we've talked about 2008 a bit as well. I even have some other clients, too. Pretty much just what I wanted, but now, of course, I'm beginning to feel overwhelmed. But, not with work-work. Rather, I'm concerned about figuring out taxes as a self-employed worker and what to do about my retirement investments. And then there's the matter of the new baby.

My child is a dream, though. She's a "good" baby as babies go, although I don't believe there are "bad" babies, just those that somehow need more and may not be getting what they need. Lucky for me, I think my baby is about average in terms of her level of need, and perhaps I am above average in what I am willing to give. So it works out—most of the time.

By "above average" I mean that I nurse on demand, I let her sleep with me as needed, and I don't let her cry for very long without going to her. I put her first. At times, I've felt the pressure (from where, exactly, I don't know) to get her on a schedule or to sleep on her own. I've done some reading on both sides of the scheduling/training philosophies and I've come to the conclusion that it's just not worth trying to force babies into adult modes of life. Things are much more peaceful, feel better and are just plain easier when I approach baby care with sensitivity and careful observation rather than trying to force her to do what I want her to do when I want her to do it.

For instance, we can try napping at set times, but sometimes, she just doesn't seem to want to nap, or, she needs to nap in my arms. Same thing about sleeping for the night, or "through the night" as is the big goal for so many new parents. I don't do the same thing all the time or feel the same way all the time, so why should I expect a baby to?

Still, I know a baby needs sleep, and today she would not nap at all. Then finally when she was really petering out for the day and it was time to sleep for the night, but she still wouldn't sleep. She'd drift off a bit during "nursing" and I while don't mind nursing her to sleep, she wasn't really going to sleep and she wasn't really nursing either, but just sucking on me, the human pacifier. I tried to stop this by rocking her to sleep instead, but she wasn't too keen on that. Finally, I got pretty frustrated and just had to put her in her co-sleeper and let her cry, if only to pull myself together. I told my husband I'd give her five minutes and vented some of my frustrations to him. It took more than five minutes, but less than ten, and she gradually stopped crying and fell asleep. I hope this doesn't count as "crying it out" because I hate that, but I really did need to step away from the situation. I don't think this is something I'll make a habit of doing, that's for sure. I hope she understands and knows from all the other stuff I do for her that I love her.

Focusing on training for things that are as primal as eating and sleeping just serves to make me feel bad in the end because the baby doesn't always do it, then I get mad because I'm focused on the training goal instead of what the baby needs or is trying to communicate, and then I feel horrible for getting mad at a baby—and resolve it by realizing I am really just mad at myself. But what kind of resolution is that?

When I observe her behavior and try to be responsive by helping her with what she's experiencing instead of fighting it, she is in turn much more responsive to my efforts and often, we can almost have a semblance of a "schedule"—for what that's worth. And, working from home, it is worth something.

Back to working, then. I'm going to need to trade in the baby books for some books on how to do taxes when you're self-employed. I know I have to pay some kind of estimated tax in advance and pay my own social security. I know that I might be able to deduct some stuff, like my Internet service and such. I'm glad. I know I can figure it all out, but I will need some outside expertise to navigate the technical world of taxes. With the baby, though, I'm done with outside expertise and instead will trust my heart and my instincts.

Parents looking for work-life balance, use your bargaining power to turn the tides

Yesterday was a gorgeous late summer/early fall day with a strong breeze that makes you think…change is in the air. I spent most of the day inside taking care of my baby and working on the laptop, but managed to get out for a run before the day began and a nice walk after my work was done. I had the chance to reflect on the sense of change in the season, my life, and hopefully on a larger scale in society.

A timely segment this morning on Good Morning America sparked my thoughts yesterday morning. The topic—“Ways to Get Your Voice Heard on Paid Leave From Work Policies”. I actually had received an e-mail from the Mom’s Rising group, calling for moms to head to Capitol Hill for the segment, but I had my baby and my work deadlines, so it wasn’t in the cards for me, and I’m not sure I would have been completely comfortable in the mix.

I do support legislation that would protect families and children by allowing moms and dads to stay home with their babies longer without suffering financial hardships. However, there are so many unanswered questions about how such legislation would work. Who would pay for the paid leave? What about people who choose to have only one child versus those who have five? What about people who don’t have children at all? Are programs like this fair to them?

I believe all Americans have to come together and work for the common good, supporting policies that will help families and nurture our kids so future generations are healthy in mind, body and spirit. To me, this means policies that, at minimum, create an environment that allows a parent to be in the home with their child until they are preschool age (three years old) and for the child to be breastfed, if possible, until the age of one, at least. However, I also believe that people—parents—have power beyond what legislation or regulation might provide.

Skilled professionals command certain benefits in a free marketplace, but these people must also demand these benefits. A recent U.S. News & Word Report article highlighted companies like PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte & Touche that now have special programs for employees who want to take time off for their families when a baby is born, but still keep their careers on track. These companies created their programs because they made sense from a business perspective. As the article states of PwC, “The company did not start the program out of a spirit of generosity: In 2001, it faced a 24 percent turnover rate.” A PwC exec estimates the cost of losing a client services' employee to be around $80,000, so their program pays for itself.

Naturally, the employees who can take advantage of such programs are going to be very talented and highly in-demand. But, other professionals, too, might also be able to negotiate deals with their employers to let them telecommute, work part time, work on a freelance basis, or take sabbaticals with mentoring and skill development programs while tending to young children. If they’re worth it, they might get the deal. Others strike out on their own as entrepreneurs or consultants.

That’s what I’m hoping for with my soon-to-be former employer—a freelance gig that I might eventually springboard into a full-fledged freelance practice with even more clients. This is just one way people can help shape the way business works to make it more family-friendly. The more professionals with bargaining power use their influence to shape the marketplace to suit their wants and needs, the more businesses will operate this way. People have the power to make demands on the market, but it takes planning, guts, tenacity—and sometimes sacrifice. Over time, we might make this the norm, and even help it trickle down to less-skilled workers…at least until legislation can get pushed through.

Here are some pieces to the puzzle of balancing babies and work I can note from my own experience:

Plan ahead
For our family, we worked hard for several years and saved in advance to allow me the option to stay home or work part time during our daughter’s earliest years. We socked away a nice nest egg before getting pregnant. Plus, I did almost eight years at my job, racking up sick leave that I was able to use so that during my FMLA leave so I was able to still take home my entire salary.

Work hard/Be talented
Over the years at my job, I worked to position myself as close to indispensable as possible. Of course, everyone knows nobody is indispensable, but being a key member of the team and trying to bring something extra to the table will help in negotiations for flexible work arrangements later. I even agreed to work part-time from home during my actual maternity leave because I wanted to stay in the mix of what was going on at the office and continue to position myself as a valuable asset. I’m now awaiting my office’s decision on how they might use me on a freelance basis, part time, from home, and my chances look good.

Be prepared to make tough choices
Of course, we realize we may have to set some priorities (I originally said "make sacrifices, but I don't believe that is a good term to use). We might not have the newest cars or clothes. We don’t get every single new little baby gadget. And, I know our bank accounts and my contributions to my retirement savings will take a hit for a little while. But, we decided it was worth it for us.

Stand firm
Once we made our decision not to put our baby in daycare, we knew that there was no turning back and we weren’t willing to compromise on it. This was what we believed, and short of a crisis situation, one of us would be home with the baby. If they can afford it, families with two in-demand workers might make the choice to walk away from one of their full-time jobs, or negotiate part-time work. If enough people with power and money make these choices, the market might follow.

My next life is here today

“A woman’s life can really be a succession of lives, each revolving around some emotionally compelling situation or challenge, and each marked off by some intense experience.”

I got a card the other day from my mom printed with that quotation from Wallis Simpson, the American wife of Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor in the 30s. Read about her. She oughta know about change.

Anyway, inside, it said, “thinking of you with love during this challenging time.” And she added, “knowing that challenges help us discover what we are capable of accomplishing.”

I think she sent it to me in response to my venting to her about my feelings over leaving work to take care of my baby, as well as taking care of the baby in and of itself. But, actually, we did discuss how it’s not that hard to take care of a baby, just hard to do other things we’re expected to do in addition to taking care of a baby. Even “housewives” have housework to do, cooking, cleaning, etc. And those of us who are trying to do other kinds of work as well—writing, design, and personal upkeep things like reading and working out—can find it even more challenging. Still, it’s not that bad. I feel really grateful for my life.

I just think somewhere along the line something went awry in society in terms of how motherhood and raising kids is viewed. The mere fact that there was a decision at all to be made about staying home with the baby or going back to work is both great (for those women who want to work outside the home) and a little disturbing (because, for me, I believe that it's best for babies to have the individualized attention from their own parent, when parents have the financial wherewithal to do so). When did it become throw-away work, of those “less skilled” than we college-grad “professionals” to raise children? Why is it not the most important job? To me, right now, it is. I wish we lived in a society where everyone who desires could comfortably live a decent life on one adult income. I am just very grateful that we set the stage so that we can, for at least a limited time.

But, back to the “challenges helping us discover what we are capable of accomplishing” and all that about my “succession of lives.”

I told my office today officially that I would not be returning after maternity leave. For me, that’s a big change. I've worked there for nearly eight years. I am used to working outside the home. I even enjoy it, as a concept, even though I’ve been known to grouse about petty details. But, as I told my boss and our president in my resignation letter, “this truly is a time in my daughter’s life that I must focus on her care and development in such a way that working outside the home would not allow.”

I am going to pursue freelance work as a designer and writer, so I’m hoping over time to build on that from home, as I am able, and usher in the next in my succession of lives. What could be more “emotionally compelling” or more of an “intense experience” than giving birth? I’m hoping that this leap I’m making can truly spring forth with the same creativity and vitality that was inherent in my natural birth of my beautiful daughter and that she can continue to be an inspiration to me in the years to come.

I am truly grateful for her, for my husband and for my life and the next one and the next one...

On Keeping Up and Keeping On

September's here. It's one of my favorite months and it's off to a good start...even though I had a quiet meltdown today. It's Labor Day, last day of the long weekend. We kept busy, a music festival Saturday, baby's first hike yesterday (with me carrying her for the 7 miler in the Maya) getting back on track with my running today, etc. Problem is, trying to suck the last delicious drops of the weekend out before going back to "work" tomorrow, with a sore back. Plus, it was frustrating because the baby didn't nap well Saturday or today (though she slept alot Sunday during our hike). And so, today , when I was trying to just...get...a few things...done, damnit...I felt so tired and angry.

The baby wanted to be held soooo much and wouldn't sleep outside of my arms. One of the things I was trying to get done was to make a new carrier so I could hold her more easily with my sore shoulder. I managed to do it, with a milk break for baby in the middle, cutting some 6 yards of cotton/spandex rib knit down the middle to essentially make my own Moby wrap. I have high hopes for this carrier, and already tried it out around the house. I'm thinking the weight distribution over both shoulders will be a boon when hiking, or when I'm carrying her for longer periods of time. I still love the Maya, and my Hotslings, but I'm glad I looked into this other style of carrier, as well. I actually ordered a Moby online last night after hiking, since that's how I am--gotta have it right away. But then, I had to have one even sooner and so dashed over to the fabric store this morning, and you know the rest...I probably won't bother returning the Moby, since it's a different color (Moss) and as you can probably already tell, I am baby-carrier-crazy. (We have an Ergo, too, but I'm thinking that will work out more for Daddy's use when she's a little bigger.)

Anyway, I've been reflecting lately on how much I'm trying to get done all the time, how I am now always trying to "keep up" and I realized that I may have to post less frequently to the blogs as I get more "real" work to do, so I wanted to check in and give a progress report on some of the stuff I've mentioned earlier on the blog.

Generally, my busy schedule is working pretty well. I've been putting in between 16 and 20 hours a week at my office job from home (more to come on this subject later this month). I've been giving the baby plenty of care and attention, even as she begins to demand more active, engaging play as she grows. I've been lacking a bit in the fitness department, though, slacking off completely on my runs last week. I had appointments four days in a row, plus a pretty heavy work-workload considering I'm actually on maternity leave, and I just didn't feel up to it. But now I have a new goal. I'm going to lose my 15 lbs. by the end of December. (It may only be 13, but my weight seems to fluctuate day to day by a couple of pounds.) It should be fairly easy since I've been stuffing my face with abandon pretty much since I've had the baby and working out moderately. I figure if I just control myself a bit, and up the workout commitment, I'll hit my goal.

As far as the IYADWYADTYAGWYAG post, my first one, I have to say, things have improved with my husband. I think we are getting into the groove of life with a baby. Plus, he is really a wonderful man and a great dad. He is really into the baby. Playing with her, doing diaper duty, watching her when I go on my morning runs, and even when I went to the fabric store today. He tried to give me a massage today, too, but baby wasn't havin' none of that. At least we got to do some other stuff during one of her very brief catnaps. I think I learned, or re-learned, that things are better if you ask for things sweetly and show appreciation rather than nag and ridicule. Sounds simple enough, but it's so easy to slip into a downward spiral of negativity.

Now, for my review of library books...the books and CDs I checked out for my "Destination" post were mostly set aside for books from subsequent library trips that demanded my attention sooner. Sadly, I never listened to the French CDs once. (I will, though!) What I did read were The Wonder Weeks and A Thousand Splendid Suns. I wrote a little about Wonder Weeks on my other blog. Both valuable and incredible books. (More on both later.) I had to make these books priorities and read them quickly since they're in the cue for others to check out, and have holds on them!

So, I realize this is a terrible post, writing-wise. It's crazy and rambling, and who cares about all this? Well, it's just an example of how sometimes things fall apart. Life is full and wonderful, but it can't always be documented and described in a neat, clever, little package. So there. I'm pretty tired and disorganized from baby care and all my other tasks and attempts at fun and keeping a personality, but I am happy, meltdowns and all. I hope that though my posts may become fewer as I try to re-organize a bit, I can come back with some improvements and growth to show.