What kind of mother paints her toddler's toenails?

Me!

Moving on from foolish debates to a more useful focus

I still have alot of good posts in me, but I think for a little while at least I have to move on to other pursuits, those that are more likely to position me to be where I want to be in coming years. Maybe I can post once a month on current mothering/feminist issues and such, but in my day to day, I need to focus back on my career—graphic design.

See, the reason I was well-positioned enough to be able to live out my ideals of staying home with my daughter til she was in school is because I was doing what I should be doing when I should be doing it. In my case, that was working and saving before the baby came. Now that I am home and working part time, I need to use more of my free time to beef up my skills, keep my creativity fresh and maybe even do some networking. There is so much information on the web available to me to enhance my skills and knowledge base with regard to graphic design (this includes web design and related stuff, in my definition) that it really is too much of a waste of time to get embroiled in debates over idiotic questions like is breastfeeding better than formula.

I know I said something like this a last week in my Noise post, but I keep getting roped in!

And, it seems like that crazy beyotch Hanna Rosin is not going to quit. She's like a dog with a bone—as evidenced by her most recent post on Slate: Breastfeed more, earn less. Here she again overinterprets, or misinterprets, a single random (not randomized, or even peer-reviewed as far as one can tell) "study" that tends to conclude that women who breastfeed longer earn less money. That's a shocker.

My unscientific guess is that women who breastfeed longer earn less because they choose to shift their priorities during their child's earliest years. From my perspective, that's just what they should do, ideally. From Rosin's perspective, earning power is the top metric of women's success, apparently. To her, this study "...means that breast-feeding now loses its free pass into the feminist cause." I say, breastfeeding doesn't need a "free pass" into anything. It's how our bodies are programmed to work under normal conditions, as mammals. It is the norm. Secondly, nature and appropriately feeding a baby come before feminism and if they fit in great, if not, then feminism must change. Why expect that biology should be altered or denied in order to "fit in" to some narrow idea of what's best for women?

This discourse is tired and I am not going to give the bitter shrew any more of my attention. Check out the rest of my day's web play on my other blog: Logo My Life. Other than that, I am going to research some new CSS tricks and spend my time building my business so I can maybe continue to work from home even after my kid's in school. The Hana Rosins and other narrow-minded feminists of her ilk can continue the futile (and in my opinion anti-feminist) pursuit of making women's biology fit into man's (the universal sense) constructed constraints of the marketplace. I, on the other hand, am going to figure out how to make the marketplace work for me on my terms.

Dirty diaper secret

Diaper rash!

Until last week I could proudly claim that my 21-month-old daughter had never had a diaper rash. For what that's worth. Whether that was attributable to my astuteness about changing her diapers, the fact that we'd switched to cloth, or just the kind of skin she had, I don't know. But, when she did get her first rash last week, I was horrified. I remembered hearing somewhere that antibiotics could cause diaper rash, so I quickly looked into that possibility and sure enough, it was true. Phew! OK. That probably explained the rash of rash. My kid was on a nine-day course of antibiotics to combat her pneumonia. Now, what to do?

Because of the kind of fabric her cloth diapers—Fuzzi Bunz— are made of, it's a no-no to use any kind of cream or ointment with them. But, I deemed some good, old-fashioned, creamy Desitin, with the zinc-oxide and cod liver oil was necessary to protect her skin and fight the rash, so, I decided we'd temporarily go back to disposables til the rash cleared up. And slather on copius amounts of ointment.

At the grocery store, the child immediately spots some old friends in the baby aisle—Elmo, Bert and Ernie! We grab the pack of Pampers Cruisers (our preferred brand before switching to cloth at 9 months) size 5. Unlike with her cloth diapers, she is very excited about these. The diapers themselves are decorated with pictures of Elmo, Grover, Ernie, and other Sesame Street characters. She now asks for her diaper to be changed instead of running around the room and making me chase her with a Fuzzi Bunz in hand. She'll go over to the linen closet where I've been keeping the temporary supply of disposables and cry out "Elmo! Elmo!" or she will say "Diaper need! Diaper need!" (She probably got this last bit from a song I sing for her where I say "I am here for your diapering needs!" which sprung from a dialogue we used to have with a stuffed rabbit, Clifford, who was there "for all of your diapering needs.") She'll look at the diaper and say "coot" (cute).

So the rash is clearing up and I'm now wondering whether I should just ride out the rest of her diaper-wearing days with disposables. I've kind of enjoyed the lessened laundry load and not having to do battle every time she needs a diaper change. It could be a coincidence that she has found a new awareness and desire to be diapered at the same time we were using disposables, but that's not so likely. I'm about to buy a potty anyway and start heading in that direction, so I'm guessing within a few months she may be out of diapers anyway.

I love the Fuzzi Bunz and am happy to do my part for the environment, however, I'm not super-committed to it. As I mentioned, we used disposables for my kid's first 9 months. My thinking was that I'd be busy enough as a new mom and I didn't want to deal with laundering diapers. I thought cloth diapering was crazy. I figured, since we were only having one child and used limited energy, were otherwise not putting a big drain on the environment, this could be our "pass", our allowed transgression. Then, at 9 months, my little one's thighs had gotten pretty chunked out and the disposables were cutting into them and leaving marks. This, I could not tolerate, so I started researching cloth and fell in love with the cute styles and accoutrements of cloth diapering. It was fun. Like with so many things, though, the fun wears off. I don't mind the laundry that much, and if she showed no preference, I'd probably go back to cloth once the rash was all cleared, but now, I just don't know...

My crunchy credentials may be tarnishing!

Noise

I am fairly sensitive to noise and I have really good hearing. So, when there was some unidentified droning coming from...where...the other night when my husband and I were trying to have sex, I found it very distracting. I kept getting up and having a look around, going to different windows to see if I could determine where it was coming from. I gave up and came to the conclusion that the neighbor was playing a saxophone or something and with that thought was able to get back to what I was doing.

Later that night, when I went to check on the baby who'd woken up and lay down with her for a while, I couldn't relax and sleep because I heard another droning sound. It was different from the first one. It had odd pitch changes and was really driving me crazy. I remembered once that a lightly running sink downstairs made a noise that got on my nerves before, so I went down there to check it and discovered that the noise was coming from a clock radio that was blasting pretty loudly in the extra bedroom. When I was dusting earlier that day, I must have moved the knobs on the clock radio from "off" to "alarm" or something. What could it mean that that noise I thought was coming from somewhere else was actually originating from inside my own house—from a radio I had unwittingly turned on?

When I was laying there with the baby, before I identified what it was, I was really disturbed by the strange sound and not knowing what it was. This same night, my daughter wouldn't sleep for almost 4 hours, about 9:30 pm til after 1 am. She kept tossing and turning, getting off and on the breast. I have to admit she really upset me and I got mad. Previously she acted really bratty at dinner and I had really had enough. After a little over 3 hours trying to help her sleep, I ended up having to leave her room and make her fall asleep on her own, crying her eyes out, wailing, til she finally slept. It took about 45 minutes of crying. I had tried to lay with her, tried to nurse her. I even tried the reset button, turning on the lights, reading her a couple stories, to do the bedtime process all over again. But she was just too restless.

I didn't realize til going over my utter frustration the next day that maybe the weird sound had gotten to her. I wonder if it had anything to do with her problems going to sleep. I mean, she probably had heard the sounds and maybe her unruly behavior persisted even after I turned the radio off because she didn't know, like I did, where it came from and that it was over? I know she has very sensitive ears, like I do.

That night, amidst all the aggravation and sadness, and the day after, I was also thinking of the virtual "noise" I've been exposing myself to lately in the form of my near obsessive searching out and reading bits on the web about babies, children and parenting. The more controversial the better. Bottle or breast. Homebirth or C-section. Who hits their kids? Who's doing AP? How to get toddlers to do what you want. How to love them unconditionally. Parents are too lenient today. We coddle them too much, are too focused on their self-esteem. If you don't discipline them now, they will sour forever. Blah blah blah. What can get me riled up? What can stir me to expound my opinion about something? Why was I so into all that?

Then, there was my own "noise"—from within my own house, just like that radio. I had to really listen and look inside my own realm to find out where the truly annoying droning was coming from. I felt like such a loser and a hypocrite because I didn't really like the negative feelings I had about my daughter that day, nor did I like the way I acted or the way I treated her.

In my "talk", I had vowed to eschew authoritarian parenting, yelling, hitting, etc., but in my "walk", I was being brutish and not at all the strategic, gently guiding force in her life that I wanted to be. I decided I needed a serious break from the noise and that I myself would not add to it for at least a little while til I found time to get my heart right and my head right about my kid.

Hopefully when I come back I will be less confrontational and snarky, have a more positive outlook and can be more honest.

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.

Husbands say the darnedest things

My husband sent me the nicest e-mail a couple days ago. I'd confided in him that I was feeling a little out of sorts reminiscing about a time in my life when I wanted to move back home with my parents after splitting up with my abusive husband at age 20. They said no. I had to make it on my own. I would be too much of a disruption to their house. Now my sister, who is 27, is moving back home. I guess things change. Times have changed. We're in a recession now. They don't have any kids living there any more. Me and my sister are different people. Anyway, my husband wrote alot of sweet things to me and applauded my strength for making it on my own saying, "you may not be a feminist, but you are a strong woman, which is more important." This was also in response to my sharing with him my ambivalence about and disappointment in the feminist movement, especially with regard to how it interfaces with mothering young children.

At first I laughed to myself sarcastically...of course, a man would say it is more important that I am a strong woman. That means less for the man to do. He doesn't have to worry about me. He knows that when push comes to shove, I can take care of my damn self. But, I think I agree with him, actually. It is more important to be a strong woman than a "feminist". Maybe I say this because so much of what I encounter in feminist voices I read doesn't sound so much strong as it sounds whiny. I have become so turned off by all the whining that I am compelled to take any amount of crap and unequal distribution of work and childcare in my relationship with my husband just so I am not one of those whiny women. This is an issue that's come to a head as of late. On one hand, I know this is kind of lame, but on the other hand, if time and again the whining (or complaining, or whatever you want to call it) doesn't work, then it just gets old and life is much more pleasant if I just suck it up and deal with it. Be happy, be strong and move on. At the end of the day, I love him and its not his fault if I choose to work, work, work. I guess I just want someone to notice and say how good I am. But maybe him saying I am a strong woman is his way of saying this. I wish he could be more specific and direct, though, and yes, sometimes give me a little more help than he does, or have his help me a little more competent.

In another conversation, the one where I was telling him about how I was irritated at the question always being what women lose when they have kids, versus what they can gain, he listened and observed that some people just don't like that parenthood is all about sacrifice. Whoa, I thought. This is exactly what I didn't think. That was my whole point, that it's wonderful. Hard work sometimes, yes, but in the final analysis wonderful, with everything to gain and nothing to lose. He said it was a sacrifice that was worth it, but still a sacrifice. I think this is a little funny, since, as I said, my life has changed a whole lot more than his. Maybe the thing he has "sacrificed" most is me.

I asked him what he meant and he just gave a list of all the things we "couldn't" do anymore. It seemed like alot of these things were things I couldn't do anymore, not him. Like go to rock shows. Like work in an office. (In reality, I could do both of these if I really wanted to but I chose not to right now). But, he mentioned, we can't go to Cap D'Adge (a nude town in France with sex clubs that we went to on our honeymoon, and no, we did not sleep with other people, and yes, we went other more "pure" places on our honeymoon trip, too, like Florence, Venice, Barcelona and Paris), stuff like that. And I was like, I don't even want to do that right now, do you? Sure, he says! It's not that I don't want to do that ever, just not now. I can see us doing that when Ava is in college or something. But, I digress. There's plenty of things we can do in the mean time. But not everything can be done. right. now. That's just the reality of having a child. It's just another example of there being "a season for all things", like I keep saying about being a part-time work-at-home mom, extended breastfeeding and all those things that seem like they tie women down. We only really need to do them for such a relatively short time.

It's interesting, though, how some people consider it a sacrifice and others don't. Or, maybe the word "sacrifice" means different things to different people. It's funny, though, when I look it up, the very definition mentions parenting in its example:

"3 a: destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b: something given up or lost <sacrifices made by parents>"

I guess I just don't see it that way. I will be honest, in moments of frustration and weakness when I have given my all and then some, I may have cried to Ava "but I've sacrificed so much for you, can't you just go to sleep for today..." or something like that. But, when I really think about it intellectually not emotionally, it's no sacrifice at all. (Uh oh, isn't that an Elton John song? Yikes!)

I recently came across something in the Ariel Gore book, The Mother Trip, that quoted Muriel Rukeyser from The Life of Poetry, that said:

I think there is a choice possible at any moment to us, as long as we live. But there is no sacrifice. There is a choice and the rest falls away. Second choice does not exist. Beware of those who talk of sacrifice.

Beware, indeed. We are in a phase where I don't like him very much, sweet e-mail notwithstanding. I blew up at him, as I am wont to do. I think in the course of my crazy day I forgot to take any vitamins, or my valerian. So it was one of those high-anxiety blow ups. For his part, he said stupid things that undermined what is most important to me in life. A little he said/she said, as recalled by me:

Him: You only work and stay home because of your big ego to show you can do it and other people can't. Our lives would be easier if you were like normal people. Our lives would be easier if you didn't work.

Me: My life would be easier if you just helped me in the ways I asked. I like working and I need to work. I like the connection I have to the outside world. I like to earn my own money. It's good for my self-esteem.

Him: See, self-esteem=ego.

Me: That's just one part of it.

Him: You would be nicer to me if you weren't so stressed from work.

Me: Work doesn't stress me out. I enjoy it. You stress me out.

Arghhhhhh! With all my praise of work, I am sounding quite like the angry feminist! Seriously, though. He once implied that if I didn't work from home I'd have more time to play with his dog and clean. (He doesn't want a cleaner house, he justs me not to nag him about being a slob or helping me keep it clean.) Well, those are not things I want to do. I love the balance of my time spent with Ava and my time spent working from home. His comments are just so off-base and insulting.

I know he doesn't mean them in a bad way, though, and he is just frustrated. I know if I am nice, then all the argument points will be moot because he never starts an argument. It's always usually me, when I ask for more or when I blow because I am not getting more. So I will do what everyone else is doing these days and get by with less. I know we will make it out of this phase, and probably quickly. We'll be fucking by the weekend (its Friday). But it will involve mostly me "sucking it up" and just being nice in order to move on. I can do it. I am a strong woman, after all. And it's no sacrifice.