There seem to be two major narratives, when it comes to women's attempts to combine work and family. One is the "opt out" notion, which suggests that more highly educated women who have the "choice" are choosing to be at-home mothers. The other is the "backlash" theory, which holds that the overall, long-term trend shows that women are continuing to work while having kids and that critics, as part of a backlash, are blowing small stats out of proportion.

The media has popularized the first view, while feminist academics are holding strong to the latter theory. Case in point: Barbara Risman, Ph.D., and Monahan Lang, Ph.D., both sociologists, argue that, if anything, men and women's roles are becoming more similar. They marshall lots of stats to buttress their case.

Having attended many of these work-family conferences and written umpteen articles on the subject, my feeling is that both sides have it half right and wrong. There is no doubt that many husbands are more actively in caregiving and household chores than previous generations, and certainly we're never going to go back to a 1950s model (if only because a globalization and other economic pressures will make that impossible.)

But, to say that we're anywhere near gender equality is to ignore mountains of evidence. If you look closely at most working couples, you'll still find that mothers are doing the "mental work" of running the household and shoulder much of responsibility for home life. Just yesterday, a mom was complaining to me about how her husband, who gets five weeks vacation, refuses to use it for the half days and host of school parties and events that parents are now expected to attend. My guess is, if a sociologist interviewed this husband, he'd probably appear to hold the same attitudes and concerns as his wife, too.



Stumble It!

Why is it that the Apple stores became a runaway success at a time when all the experts were declaring "retail is dead"? Randall Stross addresses that question in his New York Times column.
This piece isn't likely to win any business journalism awards. It doesn't say anything that hasn't been said before in many business mags, but what's interesting is it once again highlights how little corporate competitors have learned from Apple's example. Even when companies, like Sony, invest in design, they ignore the critical component driving Apple stores' popularity: customer service.
It's not just that Apple salespeople are knowledgeable about the products that they sell. It's that the store makes it easy to get products fixed and questions answered. At a time when people can spend literally hours on hold on the phone, waiting for "customer service" that never materializes or delivers, people are willing to pay a premium for genuine customer service.
I've always found Apple Care, the extended warranty for Apple products, worth every penny because it comes with seven day a week phone support. If I have a question, I call an 800 number, and rarely wait more than a minute or two for a service rep. If that rep can't answer my question, I get transferred to someone who usually can. I'm willing to bet that Apple numbers show a very high number of repeat customers because of this kind of service.
Stumble It!

This is the kind of crazy headline that, years ago, you'd find in one of those tabloids that specialized in freaky news. But now, thanks to all kinds of new medical advances, we're seeing more and more stories like this.

The 60-year-old woman has been married for 38 years, has two grown children, and a six-year-old. She and her husband thought their younger child needed siblings close in age...so rather than adopt, they decided to have IVF (and donor eggs, no doubt...though the story doesn't say so.)

I know this story is going to provoke the usual tsking from people. And I can't imagine doing what this couple is doing, but there are plenty of 60-year-olds raising their children's children and doing a fine job, too.

For me, what's interesting about this much-later-in-life-parenthood story is it is one more indication of how families are being redefined. In fact, the very same day, there were stories about Vice President Cheney's daughter, Mary, who gave birth to a child she plans to raise with her long-time lesbian partner. (No one is saying who is the genetic father of the baby.)

Of course, there are some who are up in arms about gay couples (and there is the hypocrisy of Cheney being part of an administration that wanted to ban gay marriage). These kinds of objections (or backlashes, depending on your point of view) always occur whenever there is rapid social change. But the trend is clear: new technology is helping to change and broaden the old, traditional notions of what a family should look like.

And to most of us, that tolerance and openness is a very good thing--even if we don't want to pursue parenthood when we get our AARP cards.


Stumble It!

Newsweek has been infamous for its trend stories. When they're good, they're really ground-breaking, but when they're bad....they're dangerous. (Anyone remember the classic cover, "single women have a better chance of getting killed by a terrorist"...which Newsweek retracted 20 years later?)
Well, this week's story on mothers going back to work isn't quite as egregious, but it certainly is in the category of dubious trend. The fact that mothers are trying to return to the workforce is nothing new. (Divorce and boredom sent many of my friends' moms into the workforce in the 1970s and 1980s.) The writer doesn't even bother citing any hard numbers to support this as "new."
Her larger claim--that these women may be finding some success--is also supported by the flimsiest of evidence (authors hawking books and a few anecdotes).
Last week, Lisa Belkin wrote a piece about mothers returning to the workforce. Again she relied on "hopeful" stories from a handful of women she interviewed....but then acknowledged that it might not portend a trend at all.
Why these stories are dangerous is that they present an unrealistic view of what the labor market now offers for mothers. Certainly, employment gaps are not the death knell, but spending five years at home is going to mean rusty skills, especially in a world in which new technology is forcing change in nearly every field. And high-paying, meaningful part-time work still is the Holy Grail--highly sought after, but very hard to find.



Stumble It!

I'm ripping this headline off of someone--but it's an apropos lead in to this news: The U.S. is the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't guarantee paid vacation days and paid holidays for workers, according to a Center for Economic and Policy Research study.

In France, workers are guaranteed 30 days paid leave; employees in most other European nations get at least 20. In the U.S., there are no guarantees, and the study estimates that leaves 28 million Americans with no paid vacation or holidays.

Coupled that with the fact that the U.S. has one of the worst maternity leave policies of any industrialized nation, along with the equally appalling fact that more than half of U.S. workers do not receive any paid sick days (NYT subscribers: read Bob Herbert's column), and you will understand why so many American women want to leave their jobs after having children.




Stumble It!

The "mommy wars" don't exist. That is just a media fiction, invented to sell books, newspapers, and TV shows. This is what E.J. Graff argues in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post.

All I can say is, She must never have visited my town.

And forgive me for thinking this, but she can't be a mom.

Yes, the notion that working mothers and at-home mothers are at "war" is silly, retrograde, and unproductive, but it also happens to hit at a truth. There isn't a full scale war going on between those who work and those who are at home, but there are these skirmishes, fueled by resentments and judgments, about who is doing it right. And that involves everyone--mothers who work part time or full time, as well as those who are at home moms.

Example: My friend, who works full time from home, was complaining about a school employee's treatment of her son, when another mom, who works (from home, part-time), said, "Well, perhaps if you were around more and got to know the teacher better you'd have a better handle on the situation." Ouch.

I hear (and witness) these kinds of interactions at least a couple times a month, and I'm probably a culprit more than I want to admit. Yet, if Graff interviewed many of these women, I'm sure they'd spout some PC cliches about how we all just want the best for our children.

That isn't to say Graff isn't right in suggesting that the media stokes the fires, in part, because it wants to sell. But arguing the other side--that there is no Mommy War--also helps stoke the fires too, if only by continuing the pointless debate.

Because let's get real: It's probably more productive to talk about what's really underneath all of this back-biting. What is causing this insecurity, this nagging sense that no matter what we do as mothers, we're doing something not quite right enough? Maybe if the conversation began there, we'd really find ourselves to a solution.




Stumble It!

Yesterday, my husband and I dragged our two daughters on a hike in a reservation near our house. I say "dragged" because both our kids put up a fuss about how they "hate" hikes. But I kept repeating, "It's Mother's Day--not children's day," so we were going to do what I wanted that day. And we got out a trail map and were on our way.

About an hour later, our kids were holding hands and chatting happily, coming up with names for the rocks my 5-year-old was collecting. A few minutes later, they were sitting by a stream, running their fingers through the sand, engrossed in conversation. "I can see how much they hate this," my husband said to me, laughing.

Everyone's moods lifted and stay lifted, even when we returned home two hours later, completely exhausted. Turns out there is some science supporting hikes as "ecotherapy."

Okay, this study is kind of silly (is it any surprise that a walk through the woods would lift your spirits more than a walk through a mall?). But with more schools eliminating outdoor recess (or doing what ours does: sending the kids indoor if it the temperature drops below 40s, I kid you not), and more kids spending time indoors on computer and video games, it is worth reminding people how beneficial and therapeutic time outdoors can be. Especially at a time when the number of kids (as well as adults) being treated with medication for depression is growing.

Of course, a walk in the woods isn't going to do away with the need for treatment for many, but it could be of help to some. While organized sports, no doubt, offers many benefits, it isn't a replacement for a quiet walk in nature. Now studies are recognizing that.





Stumble It!

Last night, I went to a wonderful event, the last involving the late, sadly departed Child magazine. The Children's Champions Awards were started by Child editor-in-chief Miriam Arond to honor individuals who have done outstanding work on behalf of children. Last night, the honorees were an inspiring bunch, making you feel that there is more that we all can and should do to better children's lives, particularly those who are disadvantaged.

Speaking of imperfect parents, I just read an interesting USA Today article
about "beta moms," mothers who proudly admit they fall short of the ideal. You know us (yes, I'm in that camp): we lose permission slips, don't show up for every school event, and will shoo away our kids to play outside--without adults.

I enjoyed reading the story because it's a validation of what I'm doing, but what I wished the writer had explored is why parents, especially mothers, feel so much pressure to be perfect these days. The way it's written, you'd think it was all a result of us being high achievers in the workplace--not some larger cultural force. It's not just the Ivy League, ex-investment banker moms succumbing to this mythology and guilt. Most of us feel it because of intense social pressures and messages that we receive everywhere...and which, by the way, are reinforced by the school system. But I've discussed this before.


Stumble It!

I put off letting my kids watch TV as long as possible, working on the theory that they would soon enough get plenty of it. I've read that there are virtuous parents out there whose kids watch no TV, ever. I just don't know any of them.

Turns out I'm not alone. A new study found that 90% of children under the age of 2 are watching TV and 40% of three-month-old babies are sitting in front of the tube too-despite recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics that parents prohibit any TV watching until after age 2.

Undoubtedly, this report will prompt the usual amount of finger wagging from experts. And who can't be slightly aghast at the notion that babies are watching TV? But, it's worth asking some questions:

1. What are kids watching? Is it MTV or "Sesame Street"? And does that make a difference?

2. And if they weren't watching high quality children's TV, what would they be doing instead? (Researchers like to imagine that they'd be engaged in "meaningful play" with Mom, but if Mom is stressed out, maybe the 30 minute DVD means she won't lose her cool with them. Or maybe she'd be leaving her child in a crib, wailing, while she cleans.)

3. What about computer usage? Are "educational" computer games for toddlers any better?

Surprisingly, researchers don't have the answers to these questions yet. They know that a lot of the claims made by marketers that Baby Einstein-like videos would make their kids smarter were bogus. But the dangers of media consumption in young kids--which media is harmful and under which circumstances---is a big unknown still.

In the meantime, AAP's recommendations are being rejected by large swaths of parents. And that means some kids are probably getting way too much TV time. The prospect of 20% of young kids having a TV in their room is truly an unsettling thought. On the other hand, it says that their parents probably are watching too much TV too. And maybe we need to stop wagging our fingers at parents and look at what constitutes responsible and sensible media consumption.


Stumble It!