Now I'm curious. I wonder what she does do with the baby while she's at work? Is there a daycare that will take a child for a 10 hour workday? That's at least two meals.

Generally a 10hr day like this is split up, as many salaried types are able to do some work from home... so they go get the kid, and then work after the kid is asleep. Only a few people can keep this up over long years though, you definitely get burnt out. But yes Patrick, you can do daycare for 10 hours easy, but it is usually quite expensive.

There are tons and tons of questions that go along with a driven workload like this, but one I usually wonder is 'did you take a lot of logical steps, and end up someplace you didn't want to go?' That question works for mothers and fathers and the types of lives we choose, and how we support them.

Our LW probably doesn't have a choice but to do as she does to support the life she wants, though she prolly doesn't have much time to live it... I see execs like that every day. Once you get up to your neck in it, you can't stop, or it comes crashing down. By the time the kid starts in their private school, and music lessons and whatever else, it'll just get worse...

I think this whole exchange blew up out of proportion.

You may very well have different experiences.

New York is full of career-oriented workaholics. She may very well have a full time au-pair, and take her job seriously. And you are too clever, Amy, to assert that all working parents are slackers.

But hey, she didn't offer herself as a subject for a piece - so why should she share the details of her home arrangement with an assertive journalist?

If you gave me this kind of treatment, I'd block yer @#$@# email, too.

I See Rude People... wrapping their rudeness in the mantle of journalism.

Good grief, Alkon - get a life. All that effort to jag her about who's watching her child?

Quick - set up a free Hotmail account, and harass her some more. Isn't internet stalking fun??

Please include a long chapter about yourself in the next Rude People masterpiece.

(I'll bet she's also an idiot Christian - better find out about that too.)

You should find out when she stopped beating her husband.

Finally, someone calls out the ladies on the no-work scam they have going. The teamsters would be proud of this scam. And it's a woman who brings it up - no blaming this on "the patriarchy"!

I have witnessed numerous low-performing women in the workplace get themselves knocked up to forestall a pinkslip. And after the brat arrives, the parade of late arrivals, early departures and midday absences begins. "Deadline, shmeadline, I have to take 3 hours off to go buy diapers".

Your kid = your problem.

10 hours per day of work doesn't seem like such a big deal. It could be a regular 8 hour day, plus two hours once her kid is in bed. If her kid is one or two years old, the kid will probably be in bed at around 7 pm. She could work 7 pm to 9 pm and still have an evening to enjoy afterwards.

I think it's pretty obvious that the kid is with a nanny or in daycare. This lady wouldn't of got defensive about what you said unless she felt guilty in some way. After all, your topic was parents who don't do their share at work. If anything, she should have agreed with you, since she claims to work so hard. By the way, I often leave work after 7 hours to pick up my children. But that's because I work part-time, and I only get paid for the hours that I work.

Amy- As usual you are spot on. I have worked several jobs where mommies with children leave early to pick their kids up etc...
It is one of the most powerful trump cards, aka politically correct cards, a person can use.

Who is going to have the balls to question them about it. Our Amy that's who.

Thanks for bringing another subject to the forefront that most people are too intimadated to talk about.

These same people will turn around and bitch when they don't get promoted or when they earn less and will claim there is a wage-gap issue.

Good grief, Alkon - get a life. All that effort to jag her about who's watching her child?

Quick - set up a free Hotmail account, and harass her some more. Isn't internet stalking fun??

Please include a long chapter about yourself in the next Rude People masterpiece.

(I'll bet she's also an idiot Christian - better find out about that too.)

Posted by: Pete the Streak at December 31, 2009 4:01 AM
----------------------------------
Pete seems awfully upset that you didn't let this mommy get away with her special priviledged status. It's pretty simple. If we have to stay longer at work to finish your job, it takes away our time that we could be spending with our friends, family or our choice of free time to do what we want.

But hey, she didn't offer herself as a subject for a piece - so why should she share the details of her home arrangement with an assertive journalist?

I didn't find this woman out of the blue and attack her. She tracked down my e-mail address and attacked me -- repeatedly and nastily. I didn't post all of it here, lest I this thing go on forever. She shared plenty with me (including her name) -- all the stuff she thought aggrandized her, which she used to support her irrational argument that I was "rude."

When I looked at what SHE was bragging about from another angle, "10-hour work day with an infant child?" -- that it's not so nice, not bragging material, she didn't want to deal.

And to the person above who spoke of an au pair -- sorry, unless this woman was widowed, I don't believe you have a baby and dump it off with somebody and go back to the office. I'm not saying the female parent has to stay home with the baby -- Glenn Sacks was an amazing stay-at-home dad when his kids were very young -- but having a baby and ditching the baby to go back to the office all day in the arms of a stranger isn't parenting; it's something else.

Where did these new arrivals with criticism come from? Are we being trolled again?

When my daughter had a car accident and suffered two broken vertebrae in her back, she had to spend three months recovering at home. My wife and I took care of her. Did this affect my work productivity that year? You bet!

The issue I see Amy trying to expose is that you cannot do it all. You cannot have a newborn baby, work 10 hour days, and expect to be as productive as you were before having baby. You cannot. There will be tradeoffs. I knew my productivity would take a hit helping my daughter recover at home. It did. I would do it again if necessary. That is called parenting. Work is not everything. Adding a baby and staying equally productive as before baby is a myth. Life changes happen and they will affect your work.

I do not see such behavior as rude. It is up to a person's boss to decide if it crosses that line of impacting other workers. Most bosses will give a pass for a few times but will also begin calling the person on that behavior if they continue to use the baby excuse. Likely, the result is somebody other than new baby mama becomes the star performer that year and gets recognition and possible bonus.

Now, if baby mama keeps asking others to do some of her work and others do so out of a sense of obligation that is not baby mama's fault for asking. It is up to the other person to set boundaries correctly and not be manipulated by baby mama. The issue isn’t with the person asking but with the person accepting an obligation that they DO NOT OWN.

Amy is right on raising the “life changes will not impact productivity” myth and wrong on blaming baby mama for impacting coworker. If the coworkers allow themselves to be obligated, shame on them.

wow Amy, sounds like whatever you said struck a very tender nerve, doesn't it? hit just a bit close to home there for ya, Irate Mommy?

What I want to know is why does she think working 10+ hour days after having a baby is a good thing? Again, why have a kid if you don't want to raise it? Doesn't have to be the mom, dad works just as well, but a parent needs to raise a kid. People making minimum wage with-at best- a high school diploma are not who you want raising your child, if you care about the child. What I really marvel at, here in texas, are the people with the spanish-speaking-only housekeeper, who just upgrade her to nanny/housekeeper after the baby comes. If your kid is no more important than your kitchen floor, you have no business being a parent.

If workers are efficient and finish their work quickly, who cares if they have kids or not? Don't pick up your coworker's slack on an ongoing basis, and there will be no issue.

Very interesting, the things that bother people. In my experience the people who have been the most difficult to work with are not those with chidren, (then again I haven't known many single moms) but those with unattended-to mental illness, substance abuse problems, and emotional issues. They're everywhere! I've worked many jobs in my life and in all honesty the people who have families at home are the ones I've been able to count on not to leave everyone else high and dry.

All of the above is why I trained to be a teacher aide when my daughter had just started school. The hours and pay were much less than I had earned before children, but my husband and I had agreed years before that we wanted one of us to be available for before and after school stuff, parent/teacher stuff, homework stuff and general parenting stuff Monday to Friday. I chose to stay home, with my husband's emotional and financial support.

I trained to be a teacher aide when my daughter was in Prep. During term time, when I am working, I arrive early every (and yes I do mean every) day and never leave before it is time to leave, I often work through breaks too, but that's just my work ethic (I have to say the team I work with are all very similar in their work ethic too). However, I can do that without any guilt because I get to fulfill my work and home obligations and don't have to skimp on either, as when I am working my children are at school anyway.

I was not "lucky" to get the job I am in. I saw that I had to find a job that suited my children's school hours and I looked around for something that would work. I attended college and spent 230 practical hours of training whilst my daughter was still in Prep. When I couldn't get a teacher aide job immediately, I took a casual job in Outside Hours Care at my children's school and kept looking. Six months later I landed the job that lets me spend the holidays with my children and work around their school hours.

I did all of this to avoid the guilt of having to choose between loyalty to work and loyalty to my children.

My husband (who is in a fairly senior position and works in the city) has had several issues with women who have had children who want to return to the workforce shortly thereafter. However, they don't want to work the same hours, or even the same days, as they used to. Well, tough shite, really. They can do what I did, stay home, or get a job that demands less hours, or they can pay someone else to do everything that they would otherwise be doing. What they cannot do is return to the same job and expect the same remuneration and privileges for less hours and less commitment.

A few years down the line and I am now studying again part time, as well as still working as a teacher aide, because my children are a lot older now and I get a few more hours to myself each week. And that is how it is with parenting, you chart your life according to the needs of your children - at least until one day (hopefully) they are able to look after themselves.

What I want to know is why does she think working 10+ hour days after having a baby is a good thing? Again, why have a kid if you don't want to raise it? Doesn't have to be the mom, dad works just as well, but a parent needs to raise a kid. People making minimum wage with-at best- a high school diploma are not who you want raising your child, if you care about the child.

Exactly, momof4.

She didn't like how I turned her positive into a negative, which is why she blocked my e-mail asking about how positively, exactly, this was.

My neighbor is a highly trained architect who worked on important projects on the job, for really good firms. She's spent 9 years as a stay-at-home mom, and her kids are great people because of it. Only now that the little one is in kindergarten is she looking for work, along with teaching math in the mornings at their school (yes, she's qualified for that, too). I respect the hell out of her for understanding that you cannot "do it all" and do it all well.

If you have children, raise them; don't leave it to the South American nanny.

I've worked many jobs in my life and in all honesty the people who have families at home are the ones I've been able to count on not to leave everyone else high and dry.

This isn't a contest of "single people suck more!" or "nutcases suck more!" -- I simply observed that some parents shove their work off on coworkers and it's wrong, just as some bosses steal from their workers by expecting them to respond to messages or calls at all hours.

When you have kids, you will focus less on your work, or at least you *should* focus less on your work, if you were a good worker and now want to be a good parent. That trade-off is simply part of the parenting "deal" you make with the kid.

That said, focusing on worker hours is silly. Some workers are more productive in 5 hours than others are in 15. So some parents will still be better workers than their childless peers, even with the additional distraction of kids.

I have seen few jobs outside no-skilled factory-floor production line work where simple hours clocked is the best measure of a worker's productivity. Even billable-hour professionals are best measured using cash receipts and an eye toward work quality, not just hours logged.

So griping that a particular co-worker doesn't work as long as you is a bad idea. Try to be as productive as you can with the time you have. Worrying about the hours of someone else relative to your hours tends to show you don't really understand how to add value, which can be done in ten minutes by some, and not at all in 1,000 hours by others.

But if you really are comparable to a co-worker in terms of skills and focus, and you put in more time, yeah, you probably are a more productive worker. And you should enjoy a bump for your extra productivity. Move to another job if that is consistently happening. Don't take it out on the co-worker by griping--it is the boss who is screwing up, not the co-worker.

"And that is how it is with parenting, you chart your life according to the needs of your children - at least until one day (hopefully) they are able to look after themselves."

Agreed. I am very slowly working on my RN (already have a bachelors) because as a nurse I can basically work the hours I want, by choosing where I work. I can do weekends only at a hospital, mornings only at a clinic, per diem, school nursing, whatever, and still be home when the kids are. I should be about finished by the time newest baby hits kinder. When the kids go off to college, I can do travel nursing, which will be a lot of fun for DH and me, getting to live short times various places. He'll be retired by then, he gets to retire early (after "only" 35 years working!) while I work fulltime, since I'm not working now and he is. That's our deal. Aided by retirement savings he started at age 18, and that I'll start as soon as I earn.

Good for you, Alison D!

I was not "lucky" to get the job I am in. I saw that I had to find a job that suited my children's school hours and I looked around for something that would work.

...I did all of this to avoid the guilt of having to choose between loyalty to work and loyalty to my children.

This is what my neighbor did as well, and I respect the hell out of her for it.

Want to be a slave to the job? I am. No kids, but my dog sleeps in my lap as I write, occasionally wants to be put on a pillow in front of the heater or taken outside for a nice poo, and is perfectly content.

Quoth Amy:

And to the person above who spoke of an au pair -- sorry, unless this woman was widowed, I don't believe you have a baby and dump it off with somebody and go back to the office. I'm not saying the female parent has to stay home with the baby -- Glenn Sacks was an amazing stay-at-home dad when his kids were very young -- but having a baby and ditching the baby to go back to the office all day in the arms of a stranger isn't parenting; it's something else.

________________________

Why make exceptions for widows - or widowers? What right do you have to have a baby unless you make yourself independently wealthy first, just in case something like this happens?

(end of sarcasm)

Seriously, I do not understand why daycare, On Average, is supposed to have long-term negative effects for middle-class kids but not poor kids whose mothers - or fathers - had no choice.

In the same vein, why can't the above system evolve into parenting?

I don't remember hearing that the common Victorian-era practice of rich British parents letting the servants raise their kids was harmful in the long run - or even the practice of British expatriates sending their kids off to England and boarding school when they were seven or younger. (Heaven forbid they should grow up "Indian," for example, but that's another story.) P.G. Wodehouse was one such kid, IIRC. In the former case, I'm guessing that the rich mothers, at least, weren't all that occupied, either!

End note: In the very funny 1980s book "Brit-Think, Ameri-Think," American journalist Jane Walmsley says (page 57): "Years ago, Victorian (British) parents did not formally meet their children until they'd reached seventeen. The legacy of this system remains in many households......."

Good to hear momof4, good luck to you and yours.

Can't remember if I mentioned this before, but one thing that bothers me about the otherwise excellent comic strip "Zits" is the idea of Connie Duncan being a stay-at-home mom to a teenager, since she has no younger children and the book she was supposed to be writing has all but disappeared. Originally, she was a child psychologist!

So far as I can see, the main purpose of the set-up is to make Connie look petty and stupid whenever she asks Jeremy to do chores outside of his room. That is, he has what very few modern teens have - namely, an excuse to think: "What with school and homework, I'm already working 50 hours a week for no pay, and she expects me to do HOUSEWORK when she could easily get it all done in 35 hours? I don't think so!"

Besides, as Christian leader James Dobson keeps refusing to acknowledge, there are definite hazards to having no skills other than those of a homemaker - or skills that are allowed to rot over more than a year or so.

Which brings me to this Oct. 1987 letter to Ms. Magazine (in response to those critics who complained that feminism wasn't supportive enough of housewives):

"Six months ago I too was a self-described 'happy homemaker.' I baked bread, grew roses, played with my toddler. Then I woke one morning and found my husband ( and our car, our stereo, our checkbook, etc.) gone. I was COMPLETELY surprised; I had assumed he was as happy as I was!

"I had to immediately find a job (which pays a third what his does); arrange for day care: try to scrape together enough money for food, mortgage, and utilities.

"Housewife is NOT a valid career option because you have no control over your own life. If you lose your husband you can’t go down to the employment agency and apply for another one!"

(end)

After all, even the perfect spouse can get hit by a car and become a quadriplegic.

Dear lenona, coming from the UK originally, I must disagree and say that there is a rich vein of literature and comedy about how horrific was (and to some extent still is) the practice of the middle and upper-middle classes in the U.K. of sending their children away to boarding school.

The humour of Monthy Python is often based around how dreadful this practice was. Rowan Atkinson stars in a famous sketch where he is the headmaster of a Public (British for private) school who has just murdered a child and is irritated because he has had to call the father in to tell him about it. Of course, you cannot go past Tom Brown's schooldays for a painful account of the sadism which was often inherent at British Public Schools.

Perhaps the upper classes in Britain still endorse the boarding school system, I doubt anybody else does.

Sorry, should have said middle and upper-middle and of course upper classes - as it was the upper classes who were most concerned with sending their children away to be raised by strangers

Not really sure where you were going with your second comment lenona. Obviously not everybody has the option of being a stay at home mum.

I don't see how that affects the point that parents should not expect special dispensation from bosses and thereby do less work than their co-workers?

RIGHT ON! I am so sick of these women who have kids and leave early ALL THE TIME [because of the kid(s)].

Thank you.

Why do you have children if you are going to leave them 10 hours a day (and more) at daycare? Think about it. HELLO!!

Momof4: I'm not sure how far along you are, or if something along these lines is available in your neck of the woods, but check this out-

www.nioin.org

All theory classes are taught online using PageBurst and Moodle, but clinicals are still in the traditional setting. This has been an absolute Godsend for me with three kids and going back to (nursing) school.

"I've worked many jobs in my life and in all honesty the people who have families at home are the ones I've been able to count on not to leave everyone else high and dry."

This isn't a contest of "single people suck more!" or "nutcases suck more!" -- I simply observed that some parents shove their work off on coworkers and it's wrong, just as some bosses steal from their workers by expecting them to respond to messages or calls at all hours.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 31, 2009 7:34 AM

Amy, you are right it isn't a contest. Speaking in terms of work and people having to pick up the slack of others, I haven't had this particular problem although judging by the comments other people have really had to deal with this issue. However I haven't personally known any single mothers and by the sound of it this woman may be a single mother. I also don't like to hear it when people have babies only to put them in daycare full time so they can go back to work right away.

I wrote to you a few months ago regarding my sister-in-law moving in with us and the problems we were having surrounding the whole issue. Luckily we have struck a deal (and done some relationship building) so we are all happy with the situation, which benefits us all. She now pays her own reduced rent (we cover utilities and house supplies) in return for babysitting.
We have a similar deal worked out with my brother. I, like a few others who have commented here found a job that I am good at and enjoy, one where I have some flexibility with my hours. I have my own workload and keep up very well, in fact was given a paid maternity leave for 6 weeks in a firm where that has never been done before. I was also just given a raise after only being back for three months. My husband and I chose to wait to get pregnant until we were in a good position to do so. He works odd hours so it's always either him, my brother or sister-in-law or myself with the baby. When we get to the point where one of our siblings decides to move then my husband will switch to working nights so he can be with our daughter during the day. That's why he chose the job that he did so we could have our little family.

Everyone has different situations in life, but what is important is being responsible enough to make things work in your life so that you are doing right by yourself and the other people around you, including your children.

The main problem with the mothers who do take off early and push their work onto others is the fact that they are oftentimes the same women who think they should be able to drop out of the workforce for several months to have a kid, come and go as they please when they do return to the job, and still get the same promotions/benefits/recognition as those who stayed on the job and did the work.

You can't have it all, mommy. If you want a child, your work is going to suffer for awhile. Get over it and quit acting like the world owes you something because you can reproduce.

Ya know, before I had my 2 girls, I worked full time during the day, and sang with a band on weekend nights. Sometimes I had to put in some OT, other times not. Once the girls came along and I went back to work full time (because the ex didn't work much), I was lucky enough that my parents took care of the kids for me. I realize that this was and is an exceptional situation, but there was no way in hell I would have been able to work 10 hour days after having my girls. Every day, as soon as I got home, my life was consumed with taking care of them. Work was really the only break I got from them, but hey, I was working. Being a desk jockey made it a little easier, but there was no way I could put in a 10 hour day, even if I could do some of the work from home. Once I got home from working all day, and then taking care of the girls, feeding them, doing homework, getting them to bed, etc., there were dishes to be done, the house to clean, and laundry to do, among other things. For the longest time there weren't enough hours in the day! Now that they're older, things are much easier, but man, I don't miss those days! The LW must be Superwoman or something! Either that or she's full of shit.

To Alison D:

Quite right - I don't know how I could forget about the horrible abuses by teachers, which are well-remembered by anyone who's ever read any of Roald Dahl's stories about his childhood.

Of COURSE it's inexcusable to let teachers hit kids - other than in self-defense, maybe.

My point was that the idea of sending small kids to boarding school, per se, didn't seem to be harmful. I mean, am I to understand that there was NO corporal punishment in the other British schools, 80 years ago and earlier? That would be strange. If true, then yes, kids would be justified in hating their parents for sending them to boarding school or for feeling traumatized because of it.

And, yes, I went off on something of a tangent regarding housewives. Of course parents shouldn't force other workers to cover for them. My point is that very often, we frown on those who get daycare or nannies for their kids long before the kid turns four, but we shouldn't frown, because just as divorced housecleaners need daycare, so white-collar women need to keep their skills up - and waiting for five years or even fewer to re-enter the paid workforce can be very risky.

As Sylvia Ann Hewlett said, in effect (not that I've read her books): "I was armed to the teeth with degrees, but even I was having a lot of trouble getting respect from future bosses as a mother.....what about those parents with far fewer assets?"

Lenona, you seem to be avoiding the salient points all over the place. Your other name wouldn't perchange by Lovelysoul?

Crap I mean Be Lovelysoul....

RIGHT ON! I am so sick of these women who have kids and leave early ALL THE TIME [because of the kid(s)].

Thank you.

Why do you have children if you are going to leave them 10 hours a day (and more) at daycare? Think about it. HELLO!!

Posted by: Charlotte at December 31, 2009 8:46 AM
---------------------------------------------
Dr. Laura has a great take on this. Women think nothing of turning their children over to have some other women take care of them.

But how many women would turn their man over to another woman to take care of him?

Shit, I mean perchance. What on earth is wrong with my fingers?

For lenona: you said “I don't remember hearing that the common Victorian-era practice of rich British parents letting the servants raise their kids was harmful in the long run - or even the practice of British expatriates sending their kids off to England and boarding school when they were seven or younger”.

I responded to that.

Then there was this: “"Six months ago I too was a self-described 'happy homemaker.'....... Housewife is NOT a valid career option because you have no control over your own life. If you lose your husband you can’t go down to the employment agency and apply for another one!" (end) After all, even the perfect spouse can get hit by a car and become a quadriplegic.

I responded to that too. To both my responses you had no recourse.

Then your next post arrived. Which was a rambling, strange discourse which apparently had nothing to do with anything you had previously posted or anything under discussion, the main point of which mainly seemed to be to try to blur and obfuscate the meaning of both our posts.
Once again, can’t help but wonder, are you the one I call LS who calls yourself lovelysoul?

"I was armed to the teeth with degrees, but even I was having a lot of trouble getting respect from future bosses as a mother"

Whitey be keepin' a mother down.

Men don't give enough respect, Gog. It's a problem!

People need to have some respect.

Once again, can’t help but wonder, are you the one I call LS who calls yourself lovelysoul?

_____________________

No.

And I thought I made myself clear enough, but if not:

What exactly IS wrong with the concept of boarding school, IF corporal punishment is no longer allowed?

Was such punishment so uncommon in free British schools, decades ago?

And originally, I was responding to Amy's argument that using daycare or nannies so you can build a little long-term financial security for yourself and your kids somehow isn't "parenting." If dads "parented" only on weekends in the 1950s and 1960s, wasn't that considered enough parenting on their part?

Other than that, I have nothing to say in defense of mothers who force others to cover for them at the office, in part because I, like Amy, don't have kids.

But if Amy doesn't want to stick to one point only, why should I?

"Crap I mean Be Lovelysoul...."

Why are you attacking me? You're so immature, Alison D, or whatever you've change your name to now. I was just skimming this thread and saw you throwing my name out there. Everyone here knows I never go by aliases. Whatever I say I have the guts to say straight out. Why would I hide behind someone else? Lenona is her own person. Guess you're still mad over the last parenting thread (even when I was trying to be nice to you and give you some helpful advice). Get over it.

"Random [doctors] appointment"?

Isn't that an oxymoron?
And if she's the exception why is she so indignant?

A few weeks ago, after reading the comments LS had made, and after observing how I had swatted LS down on one thread in particular, my husband said to me "look out for LS to pop up soon under a different name...."

Righty ho then.

btw I'm not Lovelysoul. Sorry for the confusion.

Um, sweets, as I said in a previous post - very clearly - I am still Alison Dennehy - unlike yourself my name is out there. Just didn't feel like typing Alison Dennehy every single time when Alison D does just as well. And there was no attack. If it wasn't you.

Happy New Year!

And thanks LS, lovelysoul or whatever you are calling yourself for calling me immature. I haven't heard that in bloody years and it brought back moments from my youth...

If lenona really isn't LS then how lucky are you to have found a soul-mate, and someone who will do their very best to obfuscate at all times and avoid all clarification whenever possible?!

And with that, I really must go.

Cheers

Alison Dennehy - also posting as Alison D (as mentioned clearly in a previous post)

Oh and just one last wee thing - what parenting thread honey? Mad at what? I would set my watch and warrant on the fact that there is not one thing on this earth that you have ever said regarding parenting that would affect me even slightly, even for a few minutes, even if I was paid good money to listen...

Alison Dennehy - also posting as Alison D (just in case you missed the very clear post a few threads back)

My cousin just got promoted at the Justice Dept. She's worked there for many years, all the while raising 3 great sons. One's a journalist; one's a physicist, and one's in med school.

She and her husband both work for the Justice Dept, so she came in early, and he came in late. They worked their schedules out so they could each have time with their boys, pick them up from school, etc, and still do their jobs. They also used babysitters. Big deal.

I think it's extremely presumptious to assume that someone will slack at their work or their parenting just because they have children and a job.

I work from home and I often suffer from that kind of bias about how "hard" I work just because it's not in an office setting. Nevermind that I'm often working until 11 pm, or at 2 am. As long as I get my work done that's what's important.

This is another example of parenting bias. I cannot believe the animosity towards parents here. Stalking on the internet to try to make this mom feel guilty about her mothering and her work when you don't know her at all? Just to be "right"? I agree with Ben-David - how smug and rude! You took that way too far.

As someone else mentioned, the worst co-workers and employees I've had were not parents but people with substance abuse and mental issues. Hands down. I've taken workers to rehab and actually committed one.

My fiance also owns a business, and the young SINGLE people he hires are always the worst - not showing up after wild nights of partying, and often distracted by romantic dramas (one guy's gf tried to kill herself last year, so he left everyone at work stranded, in the busiest time of the year, to rush to her side). They're nowhere near as professional as the older, more responsible employees, many of whom are parents, that have a much stronger interest in their employment.

Yet, I wouldn't suggest single people are bad employees as a group. Maybe it's just our particular experience or locale. I just don't see how you can generalize to this degree.

Shall we try again?

>Oh and just one last wee thing - what parenting thread honey? Mad at what? I would set my watch and warrant on the fact that there is not one thing on this earth that you have ever said regarding parenting that would affect me even slightly, even for a few minutes, even if I was paid good money to listen...

>Alison Dennehy - also posting as Alison D (just in case you missed the very clear post a few threads back).

"A few weeks ago, after reading the comments LS had made, and after observing how I had swatted LS down on one thread in particular, my husband said to me "look out for LS to pop up soon under a different name...."

Righty ho then."

I don't know who you are then. Maybe there's two "Alison Ds". There was an Alison Dennehy in a previous thread about motherhood, and she made a big point of not calling me "lovelysoul" but "LS", which I frankly don't give a shit....except that there IS already an "LS" and there's also a "Lenona", as anyone who is regular here knows.

If you're not that Alison, I apologize, but it's rather confusing. Your husband is wrong though - if I have something to say to you, I will say it. I don't need to hide behind an alias.

And how pathetic that you actually show your husband how you "swat people down" on a blog. Ooooo...do you and he do a victory dance then? Like he would agree with me over you. Need validation much?

> I think it's extremely presumptious
> to assume that someone will slack at
> their work or their parenting just
> because they have children and a job.

It's at least notable that your cousin is working for the government. Can't beat Uncle Sam & academe for bennies. Just sayin'.

LS, lovelysoul or lenona, like I said, I stated very clearly in a previous thread that I was still Alison Dennehy but would be posting as Alison D.

Of course, you already read that and chose to ignore it :)

I admit to curiosity as to what on earth you meant by this "Guess you're still mad over the last parenting thread". Once again - I would set my watch and warrant on the fact that there is not one thing on this earth that you have ever said regarding parenting that would affect me even slightly, even for a few minutes, even if I was paid good money to listen.

My husband merely observed that I had swatted you down, I didn't have to draw his attention to it. We did have a bit of a laugh over it in fact. Still smarts eh?

LS, as always, provides such excellent entertainment, under whatever pseudonym she/he/it chooses to use.

Thanks, once again, sweets, for ignoring every salient point and introducing lots of irrelevancies. Thank you for attempting to state as factual things which have never been said and for ignoring actual facts in favour of things you have apparently invented in your own mind.

Thanks for entertaining so many by having the sheer audacity to call yourself lovelysoul, which has no doubt caused many a reader before me to crumple in fits of laughter.

Thanks for providing such sheer unmitigated entertainment to those of us on planet Earth who have been following your progress for some time now. Keep up the good fight, don't let anybody change you. Dodge, weave and above all keep obfuscating (I know, I know, but isn’t it a lovely word?)

Whatever you do sweets, never let the truth stand in the way of a good story!

Warmest regards and very best wishes for a Happy New Year.

Alison Dennehy - (also posting as Alison D for the terminally stupid or deliberately obtuse),

Hey, I was thinking I might start signing off as "highly intelligent" or "extremely literate". You don't think that would seem a bit up myself do you Lovely Soul?

Hang on, where's my husband, have to show him this....

Thanks for following my progress. I obviously mean a lot to you. I, however, don't even know what thread you "swatted me down" in, so it must've not registered much significance.

You can call me LS. Plenty of people do. I frankly don't like "lovelysoul" either, but it was a tag name I'd used previously on a dating site, which, of course, has different motivatons than a blog does (like trying to show a potential mate that you are indeed a nice person). Wish I hadn't used that name here, and I'd officially drop it to "LS" if there wasn't already one here.

Happy New Year, Alison D. Keep swatting at me. I enjoy it.

I don't know why all the glorification of mommyhood. (Credit to author Nancy Friday for this phrase.) I find mommies and breeders to be entitled (self-knighted), often breeding thoughtlessly, ignorant of overpopulation, and full of the bigotry author Bella DePaulo calls "singlism".

DePaulo lays out the prejudices well: the notions that "marrieds know best". I find this translates just as well into breeder bias (that's my own term; I guess I can be an author too). It's the notion that breeders are more responsible, or more deserving of time off than singles, that singles or the child-free should cover their work, that they have any more of "a life" than the singles or child-free.

The reverse is just as often true: singles or child-free are more involved in helping their communities than cocooning family-obsessed breeders; plenty of irresponsible breeding has been happening. I've met others who share my opinion that having children is irresponsible. (This is besides the ones who are doing so overtly irresponsibly.)

I love my mother's words: "She should have thought of that before she got married." "She should have thought of that before she had children."

Watch for self-righteous breeders to say, "SEE? What would happen if YOUR mother had decided not to have YOU?" (They use a lot of capital letters, pretend cuss words, and real hostility.)

I find breeders to be very hateful and hostile and self-righteous toward the child-free. And because there are so many of them banding together to reinforce each others' opinions, they never, ever consider that they might be wrong. They simply make the unthought, unchallenged ASSumption that they are right. All of their actions proceed from that.

Mark my words, then watch and wait. You'll see.

Irony of ironies, all is irony. . . http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/03/cell_phone_karm.html .

Alison Dennehy - (also posting as Alison D for the terminally stupid or deliberately obtuse),

Why are you posting under different names and then getting hostile with people if they don't notice? (Or don't care?)

Calling names like "sweets" or "honey" is the kind of pure hatred and assholery that people call "catty", but that diminishes the viciousness and nastiness.

Pete the streak:

Good grief, Alkon - get a life.

As a small business owner I've had the first hand opportunity to repeatedly observe this issue. In my case, I had a mixed bag of employees with children.

Two women, both in their 40's, both happily married, and with 2 & 3 young children respectively, were absolutely super. They understood that at times in the life of startup software company, some major hours had to be worked. And they did!

But on the other side of the coin, one father and one single mother come to mind. In their particular cases, work was by far a secondary or even tertiary priority. Both consistently walked out of meetings, without any advance notice, "just because they had to go". I eventually had to fire both of them and should have done so much earlier. It wasn't specifically because of the situations with their children; that was just one symptom amongst many. The larger problem was that their narcissistic personalities frequently portrayed themselves as permanent victims, so asking them to pull their weight like everyone else had me painted as the capitalist tyrant and them as the overworked, caring parents.

"I find breeders to be very hateful and hostile and self-righteous toward the child-free."

Eh, I certainly qualify as a breeder, and aside form the people who are downright nasty about/to kids, I have no hostility to the kid-free. (except, when I was also single and childless, and coworkers came in late hungover, like that was an acceptable excuse, but that was irresponsibility I hated, not them being child-free) I wish there were lots, lots more of them in the world, as there are plenty of spectacularly crappy parents.

I just don't really see why good parents are told they deserve no acknowledgement because they choose to be parents and you're supposed to do a good job, when people that are good at other jobs get plenty of credit. Why should we be in awe of Monet? He chose to be a painter, and you're supposed to do a good job, no?

A little humanity goes a long way. I don't mind covering for a co-worker who has to leave early or take time off for something kid related. In return, my childed co-worker picks up the slack for me when I need time off for parent-care issues. It makes sense in a small, enclosed environment to do favors for people who can help you in return.

I realize that I'm late to the party, but I'd like to note that one of the reasons that my husband and I decided that I would go to law school (yes, in a marriage a decision that big should be made by both parties), was so that we could have a nice lifestyle and raise kids on a single income. Now, given the legal hiring crisis, our idea of a nice lifestyle may have to reduce a bit, but I think we'll be OK. He'll be a fabulous stay at home daddy, some day.

The idea of dumping a baby off at day care, or even with a nanny or even with grandma, for 50 hours a week (more than likely more awake time with caregivers than with parents) gives me the creeps. It's hardly worth a new car, vacations, or a trendy apartment.

I think all decent people try to help each other out. It's wrong to claim that parents, more than any other group, are less willing to take up slack for co-workers.

I have owned businesses for years, as well as raised children. For a long time, my assistant was a childless woman, but if she needed time to run errands, go to the doctor, or attend to a sick relative, I took up the slack for her, even when it meant getting home later or coming in earlier. She always did the same for me.

I never defined this in "childless" or "breeder" terms. Some people are simply considerate and others are not. Statistically, a larger pecentage of people will be parents, but that's not what makes the inconsiderate ones jerks.

You can define people by the color of their skin too, but that is wrong. Although people who engage in bigotry can always site lots of examples of why such-and-such type people behave badly - and they're real examples. Yet, anyone with any sense of proportion realizes that they're only seeing the negatives they expect to see, which is colored by their bias.

Why take a few examples of inconsiderate people, who may also be parents, and paint all parents that way?

BTW, as a side note, the fact that this usually falls by sex lines drives me crazy, but I won't deny that it is what it is. Most of the young women who I went to law school with wouldn't dream of marrying a man below their station, while the men had no such discretion.

(At one time, a group of male students teamed up with an undergrad sorority to throw a "trophy wife" party- the male law students with the sorority girls. It was silly but in good fun, and the Law Women group (no law men group, of course) were furious. I said they should team up with a frat and throw a trophy husband party; they thought I was crazy. So glad I got married before law school.)

In my experience in less skilled jobs (i.e., waiting tables), parents and moms especially, were good employees (generally), but in office type environments, moms often took advantage in the way Amy describes. So I think a lot of it has to do with class and availability of the dad.

It would also depend on what type of work was being done in the office. When I was in an office environment, we were basically all assigned certain tasks and projects. I couldn't very easily pass those off without being in trouble with the boss, as they were clearly my responsibility. But, if I got through with my work early - made all my client calls - I could leave. This was before I had kids. It didn't matter. I'm not sure what kind of work you can just pass off to a co-worker on a regular basis. I suppose it would be in settings where they work in groups.

Alison D, lovelysoul
I'm an 8th Grader, and I hear more articulate and mature sounding arguments from my peers. Grow up.

At work we were always told we were a team -- and we were -- and so we needed to cover for each other for the good of the team -- and we did. The problem was that the parents needed a lot more covering than the singles. If you complained you were "not being a team player." That kind of changed with the new trouble tracking system which showed I covered calls to one person 45 times in a year where she covered only 1 call for me (My boss covered 6 for me -- when niether one of us were available). The really annoying thing was that her husband worked evenings...why couldn't he take jr to the doctor?

The environment certainly is going to affect how this can play out. Where I have worked there is some work that is assigned to individuals and then there is some that is up for whoever has time. Also, alot of work is interdependant so I may need something done to continue, so I may end up doing work that is in another persons area just so I can move ahead - even though it will likely take me longer to do it than it would them.

The ones with mental issues, calling in because they are too hung-over (or showing up and not being able to work) get fired. The parents leaving to do something for the kids got a huge a mount of slack. The only one I know of who got talked to about it was because she had 12 weeks in a row where she was not their for her full scheduled time.

In our lifetimes, we're going to encounter and, perhaps be, all of these:

The single worker who watches a parent worker use having a child as an excuse to arrive late, leave early, miss meetings, and avoid overtime.

The married (and/or parent) worker who watches single coworkers come into the workplace tired and/or hung over from mid-week parties, dates, and outings. And watches the single coworker spend a non-productive morning drinking coffee and looking busy. And watches the single coworker, who finally recovered from the hangover around 2 or 3 that afternoon, stay late and get a hearty thanks from the boss for doing so.

The married (and/or parent) worker who leaves after the standard quitting time but before the single worker (who will be meeting friends or a date later downtown and, therefore, decided not to bother going home first); making the married (and/or parent) worker feel that the boss looks upon the single worker as a harder worker due to the longer hours.

The single worker who watches a parent coworker shove pens and paper into a briefcase to take home as "school supplies."

The single worker who has to cancel a long-planned trip in order to work the holidays since the married and parent coworkers "have a family."

The single worker who knows the summer and holiday vacation days will be taken by the parent coworkers because the kids are out school.

The parent worker who knows that, due to a limited number of personal days, mid-week mental health days are a thing of the past and that vacation options will be limited to the summer (and, maybe a day or two during the holidays) because that's when the kids are out of school.

The parent worker who has to juggle a one-person allotment of sick days to cover two or more people while listening to single coworkers brag about not using all of their sick days.

Happy New Year to Any and all the regular posters here at her blog!

Happy New Year to Amy, Greg, Cridmiester, Patrick, lujlp, old rpm daddy, LoneStarJeff, Gog, Conan, Feebie (where you at, anyways?), lovelysoul, and all the rest of all y'all! Wishing everyone much love, happiness, and prosperity in 2010 and beyond, whether you breed, have been bred, don't care to breed, or were hatched.

o.O

I prefer parthenogenesis, myself. ;)

"So, there's a stay-at-home daddy and you leave the baby -- maybe 2 now, according to google -- with his stay-at-home daddy? If there is no stay-at-home daddy or devoted granny, should you really be congratulating yourself for, apparently, neglecting your child instead of your coworkers?"

The worst thing you can say, or even imply, to a mother is that she's not a good mother. It's the equivalent of someone calling you "ugly" or "manly" or a "cross-dresser"...or any of the other below the belt insults you often get.

I could maybe see you stooping to that level if she had called you any of those names, or insulted you in a personal way, but her message to you, at least as far as you've quoted, was just an articulate disagreement with your point of view. Am I the only one here who finds it alarming that just disagreeing with your point of view elicits such an extreme reaction? That you would look this woman up on the internet, detail her life and child's age, make her the subject of this blog, then essentially call her a bad mother?

Either she's a bad employee or a bad mother - according to your posturing, you've "got her" either way. If she says she's a good employee, you'll charge she's neglecting her child. If she says she's an attentive mom, you'll say she's neglecing her work - it's a no-win situation for her, and, of course, a win-win for you.

I don't blame this woman from blocking you. I think you took this one too far, and it would be refreshing to see you admit it, but I don't expect that. Yet, really, other than writing you a respectful message of disgreement, what did this mom do to deserve the personal insults you are heaping upon her?

MonicaP: A little humanity goes a long way. I don't mind covering for a co-worker who has to leave early or take time off for something kid related. In return, my childed co-worker picks up the slack for me when I need time off for parent-care issues. It makes sense in a small, enclosed environment to do favors for people who can help you in return.

What about those of us who decided not to have kids? How often should we be allowed to leave early and let you do our work for us?

By the way, why is she emailing you in the middle of her 10 hour workday? Unless her job description reads, "Issue challenges to advice columnists," she stole the time from her employer to have an email exchange with you.

"I don't blame this woman from blocking you. I think you took this one too far, and it would be refreshing to see you admit it, but I don't expect that. Yet, really, other than writing you a respectful message of disgreement, what did this mom do to deserve the personal insults you are heaping upon her?"

oh please, give me a freaking break here! Irate Mommy started the exchange with Amy by sending her initial irritating e-mail. she just didn't think that Amy would finish it. or that she would be held up to ridicule as she has been here. Amy never said that Irate Mommy was a slacking mom. Amy never heard of her until Irate Mommy chose to send her e-mail. guess Amy touched some kind of nerve.

"she just didn't think that Amy would finish it. or that she would be held up to ridicule as she has been here."

That's actually my point. I don't think anyone who simply writes a message of disagreement with a point of view expects to be "held up to ridicule" like this. If she was personally insulting, maybe, but I don't see anything like that in what she wrote.

The mom is very clearly in a no-win situation with this "who's watching your kid?" line of questioning. She may have the best babysitter in the world, but if she answers that, she'll be condemned for "neglecting" her child.

Like I said, she's either a bad employee or a bad mother. Apparently, it's incomprehensible that a parent could handle both obligations well.

And it's all so ridiculous when you consider how little attention kids received from parents throughout most of history. Parents ALWAYS worked. They were plowing fields, churning butter, sewing clothes, baking bread - and they often had 10 kids or more! They didn't have time to coddle and or give much individual attention.

I'm willing to bet this mom gives her son more one-on-one attention than moms typically did 200 years ago. Yet, she's labeled a "bad mom" because she's not there to coddle him every minute of the day, which is only the modern (and, some would say, screwed up) standard.

Why do you think we have so many spoiled, overly-coddled kids, who can't do anything for themselves? It's because people make parents like this feel guilty for actually going to work instead of doting on their children all day. Then, we complain about "helicopter parents". Nobody ever heard of such a thing 200 years ago - that's because parents weren't expected to be doting constantly on their children. They were expected to provide for them, put a roof over their heads, and be a good role model.

I, for one, think this mother seems to be doing all that. She doesn't deserve to be held up to ridicule.

Lovelysoul declares: "I, for one, think this mother seems to be doing all that."

Based on...what?

Go back under your bridge, troll.

"Based on...what?"

Based on the fact she's working hard to provide for him.

What do you base the assertion that she's bad mother on? Nothing. There's absolutely NO evidence that she's a neglectful mother, so I see absolutely no reason to call her one.

I sometimes admit when I'm wrong. . . .

FTFY.

All right then, Amy; yet again I ask. . .

. . .wait, how many times have I pointed this out now? It's up to five total counting this one, without you ever once even just acknowledging the mere existence of the point. . .

. . .anyways, has Glenn Sacks, whom I believe you've not only cited approvingly in the past, but have actually used as a good example in this very thread, hurt the men's issues movement by pointing out the sexism in ads similar to the Kyocera one and successfully campaigning against them?

Was Glenn Sacks taking offense at every turn and making it look like the men's issues movement is about trivial stuff, too?

(for those arriving late to this rodeo, the backstory is here: http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/03/cell_phone_karm.html )

As I said on that entry:

Again, let's review:

You think this commercial is horrible. I don't. Boohoo.

...Aksiom, see luj's comment. There are commercials (by this company) poking fun of women on cell phones, too. It isn't a cruel plot by the patriarchy, nor a plot against women at all, nor is it part of some societal scheme against men. It's HUMOR, and one of the rare commercials that's actually FUNNY.

Sorry your sense of humor is broken.

Shockingly, probably because Glenn Sacks and I are two different people (he's got short black hair and he shaves his face, and not his legs) we sometimes have a difference of opinion!

Um, Amy. . .the comparison wasn't between you and Glenn. It was between Glenn and me, or more accurately, our actions and intentions, or, most accurately, the contrast between your behaviors in response to our very similar actions and intentions.

I.e., do you accuse Glenn of the same things you've accused me, for doing basically the same things he did?

Of somehow hurting the men's issues movement just by pointing out the sexism in ads similar to the Kyocera one and successfully campaigning against them?

Do you think Glenn Sacks is taking offense at every turn and making it look like the men's issues movement is about trivial stuff, too, when he campaigns against such sexist ads?

Is it possible you're dodging those questions and their for the same reasons the woman you criticize is dodging yours?

Also, your further use of tactics from the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics is noted -- a combination of Codes Blue and Lavender both, I think:

Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) - The Crybaby Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing “Chicken Little”). Examples:

* “Stop whining!”
* “Get over it!”
* “Suck it up like a man!”
* “You guys don’t have it as nearly as bad as us women!”
* “You’re just afraid of losing your male privileges.”
* “Your fragile male ego …”
* “Wow! You guys need to get a grip!”

Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not (”yes” or “no”), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser’s welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.

Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)

Discussion: The target’s sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question. Examples:

* “Are you gay?”
* “I need a real man, not a sissy.”
* “You’re such a wimp.”

Response: Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation.

Ok, I've agreed with lovelysoul on a lot, and disagreed some, but you're right. She DOES always side with whoever Amy's against! I disagree plenty with Amy too, but am with her on this. Career-woman sought HER out, and emailed HER, and you're criticizing Amy for stating her views to this woman? And for not letting her off when Amy didn't cave? Sorry, when you initiate the email, you have no right to privacy from the response.

LS (short for lovelysoul): people worked all through human history, true, but WITH their kids WITH them, not gone 10+ hours. The kids worked too. Working can be good quality time, and was certainly a learning experience for when they were grown.

If you have to or want to work 10+ hours days, do it. Don't have kids. They aren't some accessory to kiss goodnight after they're asleep. And if some nanny is so awesome she raises your kids better than you, she should be the one having kids, not you.

I don't think poor people get a pass on daycare, either. Have kids? Find a way to raise them yourself. You can be poor and be a good parent who's there. Widows get a pass.

Acksiom, not going to read your long, dull-looking diatribe above.

In a nutshell: I don't care, and you're boring.

Thanks, momof4, it seems that way to me, too, where you sometimes disagree with me and sometimes agree, and it's always pretty consistent with the views you post.

With you on all of it above.

Lovelysoul: Then, we complain about "helicopter parents". Nobody ever heard of such a thing 200 years ago

No one had ever heard of helicopters 200 years ago. I'm sure they had their own terms for overly-protective, overly-involved parents.

Momof4: Ok, I've agreed with lovelysoul on a lot, and disagreed some, but you're right. She DOES always side with whoever Amy's against!

Not sure that's entirely fair. They do both support gay marriage.

Thanks, Patrick. I don't always disagree with Amy - am with her on gay marriage, as well as almost all of her relationship advice, and have sided with her often on other things.

But she obviously has weird prejudices against parents. On one hand, she's always criticizing parents for hovering too much - not letting their kids "roam free" and develop more independence. Yet, in the next breath, she's bashing parents like this for daring to focus on something else besides their children for a few hours.

Those two positions conflict with each other.

And this conflicting message is WHY we have "helicopter parents" and many spoiled rotten kids, because our society sends the same message: You're spending too much time with your kids...no, make that not enough...no, too much...no, too little...

Is it any wonder that many parents opt for the overkill of hovering attention because they fear being labeled a "bad parent"? Maybe even called out in a public forum for a group whipping or stalked on the interent to find out their childcare arrangements?

Today's children, whether raised by working or non-working parents, receive more individual attention than any generation before them. Most have few siblings to share the parental focus.

What parents before us understood is that a little neglect is not such a bad thing. Beyond the basics - food, water, shelter and love - kids usually thrive when they are expected to develop independence. They do not need parents hovering over them. Having a BUSY parent is not neglect - it wasn't 200 years ago, and it's not now.

Amy can do what she wants, but "neglect" is a serious charge. As a GAL, I've seen neglectful parents, who do not feed, shelter, or care for their children adequately. It's not a charge anyone should just throw around. I feel Amy is absolutely wrong to call this mom, who she does not even know, a neglectful parent.

She gets all crazy when someone calls her names, but she has no shame at all for stabbing this mom in the heart. That's what the charge "bad parent" does to any mom. You better be certain before calling names like that. Otherwise, you're just being emotionally abusive.

P.S.I didn't call this woman anything (because, unlike the woman, who made a number of assumptions about me -- not detailed here, for the most part), I don't make assumptions about people. I merely asked if she was neglecting her child.

Again, legit question for a woman with an infant who brags about working 10-hours a day. These types do tend to get a little teary-eyed when Baby thinks Conchita is mommy, and that stranger in the office attire is...is...wait, it'll come to the little feller...just give him time. (Like maybe a lifetime in therapy?)

"for a few hours."

10+ hours a day (more, with commute time, if she's working 10+ hours) is not a few hours. A few hours is seeing a movie while the sitter's there. I know a mom who rarely sees her kids awake. Why, again, does she have them? Beats me, but they were intentionally had. Oh, but they live in a 3200 sq foot house and drive nice cars, so at least the important things are covered.

My Gma was a widow, when her youngest was 2. She worked whenever she could. Kids stayed with their Gma who lived with them. And when widowed mom wasn't working, she was raising animals and food. And the kids were right there with her, picking cotton etc. So yes, parents worked all through history, but again, they weren't dumping kids with a person with no attachment to them or interest in how they develop for essentially months at a time. They had their kids next to them working as well, or with family.

Baby's awake from nap now, so I have to go "helicopter parent".

"These types do tend to get a little teary-eyed when Baby thinks Conchita is mommy, and that stranger in the office attire is...is...wait, it'll come to the little feller...just give him time. (Like maybe a lifetime in therapy?)"

And you "don't make assumptions about people"? You've got it all decided. She's "dumping" her kid for 10 hrs and probably never reads to or plays with him...the caregiver is likely an uncaring and incompetent immigrant...and the kid is destined for therapy.

What proof do you offer that this child is going to be messed up simply because his mother works?Anectodal evidence from your observations?

Clearly, you are biased against working parents. You're usually biased against most SAHM parents too (except those, like your neighbor, that you happen to know and see are doing a great job), because they're enjoying the laid-back lifestyle and living off one breadwinner's income.

This mom probably has to work. You know, we're in a recession. People are struggling to hang on to their jobs so their children can have really important things like food and shelter.

Oh, I know...she should've foreseen the economic collapse before deciding to have a child. Dumb lady. Why can't she be all-knowing and foresightful? Bad situations never happen to those who are well-prepared.

You don't know what kind of mother she is. You can't possibly know whether her child will be messed up and need therapy. You have no right to blithely charge her with screwing up her son - and don't claim that's not what you were doing, because it is. You were just itching for her answer so you could call her neglectful.

There are a lot of fine working parents on this blog, who have successfully raised good, productive kids. I guess they're afraid to speak up. But you are wrong about this. You are wrong to characterize parents as automatically "bad" or "neglectful" just because they work.

It may not be what you would've chosen - or think you would've chosen in the perfect, well-planned world that you would've had children in, if you'd had them - but you need to get over this judgmental attitude towards people you don't even know just because they choose differently - or have different circumstances - than you.

Again, ditch your infant for a 10-hour day, and not because you're widowed, and you're a bad mother.

______________________

And again, I ask, why make exceptions for widowed parents? Why not simply say that anyone who doesn't become independently wealthy before having a kid, so as to prepare for those and similar disasters is a bad/neglectful parent?

And here are the last paragraphs of a letter to Salon dot com from a writer who, I suspect, would agree with me. (It's from 2003, BTW.) She is one of four children. Her family was plunged into poverty after her parents divorced.

(You can find the whole letter easily - I'm just afraid to post the link. There are three other letters - one is by a mother who had a much-wanted child with her husband, only to see the boy turn near-psychotic, starting in kindergarten. He's grown now, things are worse, and she admits she would not have had him if she knew what would happen.)

"...........When I was 13, I started working about 20-25 hours a week after school just to have money for clothes and books. There was never enough money ... I felt like I always, always, always had to work. I suppose poverty and hard work help build character, but it also breeds bitterness, anger and a pervasive sense of insecurity and shame. This has left me deeply ambivalent about creating children that I fear I won't be able to care for properly. And by properly, I don't mean having their own TV and DVD player and car, I mean growing up without a constant sense of the dread I felt. I just can't describe the horrible sense of knowing that at any minute our family could fall apart due to simple lack of money, or the utter shame of realizing that my parents were about as helpless in dealing with life's hard knocks as the children they were supposed to protect.

"I love my mother. She did the best she could do. It's just that sometimes I find it hard to understand, much less respect, the mistakes and decisions she made -- even when one of those decisions was me. Why on earth would you even want to have children you know you cannot afford? How selfish is that? What kind of life do you plan on giving them?

"I feel like my childhood was spent in a cloud of anxiety and tension that has carried over into my adult life. A large part of my decision to postpone, and possibly avoid, having children was my own impoverished upbringing. Call me selfish, but I think I've already made my sacrifices. Now that I'm finally, somewhat, financially stable at age 29, I want to relax and enjoy my life.

"I am not some snobbish elitist, just a kid who's been there. I think if you're poor and must have kids, have one -- not four."

(I assume that when she says "why on earth would you even want to have children you know you cannot afford" she also means "able to afford them before a divorce but not afterwards.")

"You're usually biased against most SAHM parents too"

Pardon my ignogrance, but the TLA SAHM -- what is that? Single Asian Hispanic Muslim? Standard Armament Helicopter Mother? Slightly Asymmetrical Highlighted Mullet?

SAHM = stay at home moms. It should've just been "SAH parents".

Kids are more resilient than most people, especially those without kids, presume. Believe me, it takes a lot to screw a kid up for life. It usually takes pretty sustained abuse - even though I've seen kids do well even after that. Having a working parent isn't, in itself, going to mess a child up so bad they'll require therapy.

The philosophy that kids are so emotionally fragile that they can be scarred for life was started by the psychological community (which had a vested interest) about 30 or 40 years ago, and, if you ask me, it has done as much damage as good.

Parenting and familes became much too child-centered as a result. Parents developed guilt over things they have no need to feel guilty over, and the constant focus on building self-esteem resulted in narcissistic children who cannot deal at all with failure.

The reality is that parenting isn't an exact science. Kids raised in stable, loving homes, often find a bad peer group, get bullied at school, or fall into drugs, and still end up a mess, whereas kids raised in poverty or other disadvantaged conditions end up doing very well.

And, almost of us, whether raised by loving, attentive parents or not, develop some sort of neurosis or less than ideal behaviors. Fear of poverty, fear of germs, OCD, ADHD, etc. Some may become smug and intolerant, for instance. Having an "ideal" background doesn't always result in the best human beings. You've got the christian right, for instance, who maintain their way of childrearing is "ideal", but often, those kids become hypocritical, self-righteous jerks.

So, the main thing I've learned as a parent for 20 years, as well as being a GAL, is that the outcome is generally NOT predictable. You can look at certain situations and say, "That child will do poorly...or that child will do well." Check back years later and you may find you're completely wrong.

Therefore, I see it as plain foolish and cruel to suggest that a parent one doesn't even know is bound to screw up their child just because they're working. That really tells you nothing about the family dynamic or love and communication between parent and child.

Why exempt widows (and yes widowers)? Because sometimes life throws shit at you, and you have to deal with it. This is not "gee, I'm unfulfilled, I want a divorce" this is a phone call from someone you assume is your husband telling you he's late and why, and it's really a state trooper telling you he's dead.

It's not "gee, I want a Lexus, and have to have my paycheck for that" either. A vast majority of those who "have to work" are either single, or really mean "to keep myself in the style I want". Which is fine, but don't have kids if your car is more important than raising them.

Must I spell everything out?

My point was that ANYONE can lose a beloved spouse in the wink of an eye due to a car crash or something else, so what right does anyone have to have a kid before becoming independently wealthy, since all truly important material bases NEED to be covered?

In the same vein, divorces aren't all about boredom, either. Some are about adultery or abuse.

Not to mention that nowadays, even women who don't plan on having children are expected to be ABLE at least, even after marriage, to support themselves in jobs that don't make them too miserable - and if their husbands are suddenly injured and are now quadriplegics, that means supporting them as well. (I'm sure this has always been an unspoken part of the vow "in sickness and in health," but in the past, of course, women who wanted to train for any high-paying jobs, per se, were likely to be accused of trying to "steal" men's jobs.) So failing to have the skills, at least, to make yourself relatively rich is considered pretty foolish nowadays, whether you have children or not.

Bottom line: If it's such a disaster for any child under 3, especially, to be in day care, why are we kind to the parents who use day care under ANY circumstances when they could have avoided it, in theory? These circumstances are hardly unheard of, after all.

No, Lenona, you don't need to spell it out, you made your absurd and extreme point quite clear the first time. We're telling you it's crap. We're saying that popping the kids in daycare should not ever be your plan A. It's a crappy plan, and far from ideal, and one should strive for the ideal in life. Especially with kids.

You don't have to be independently wealthy to have a kid, even if you end up widowed. You need life insurance on the breadwinning spouse, and life insurance on the stay at home spouse. Failure to have life insurance if you have kids is as stupid as not having car insurance and driving. If my husband died tomorrow, I could stay home with the kiddos until the littlest is in school, and even then my house would be paid off, so we could live on a not-time-demanding-job. It's called planning ahead, more people should do it.

If he walked out tomorrow, I'd have made a serious error in judgement, and I'd have child support and alimony per our prenump. The prenump we made with neither of us entering the marriage with anything but debt and hope. If he was so deranged as to quit working at all, just to not pay me, well, that's an extreme situation and one can't plan for every contingency in life. If my kids ended up in daycare while I worked then, at least I had tried to do everything possible to avoid it.

Life and shit happens. Lenora and lovelysoul has a point.

Sorry, I meant Lenona.

Amy, I am genuinely confused. You often rail against women you call foolish for choosing lower-paying careers with the hopes of landing a man who makes good money. You often rail against women foolish enough to take time out of their careers for motherhood and who then expect to step back in when they are ready. Which is it? What happens if your architect neighbor -- who has lost pretty much all her professional standing in nine years at home with her kids -- comes home one day and, gasp, finds hubby has thrown her over? How can she ever expect to support herself and her family (plus architects don't make much money anyway)? And all the life insurance in the world isn't going to help her.

Not every woman -- or man -- works to own a Lexus or any luxuries at all. Sometimes mom works because dad doesn't make much money, or vice versa. Maybe he isn't motivated, or maybe he's got a job where he does tons of good but isn't well-rewarded. Maybe they both got laid off two years ago and are now scrambling at jobs where they earn less than half what they used to earn. Maybe their parents didn't plan wisely enough and now in addition to caring for little kids they are caring for elderly folks, too.

Every single time in my life I've believed I had every contingency covered, something unexpected happened. Sometimes I've had to deal by taking a leave of absence from work; others by working twice as many hours to pay for the emergency.

I'm working minimum 12-hour days right now. So the kid is in school from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., then childcare to 5:30 p.m. That's 9.5 hours right there. Then it's all-kid time until bedtime at 8:30 p.m., when I get back to work. Weekends she sometimes has to be with a sitter. The luxuries this buys me include the $200 a month in non-generic medicines she needs to breathe and the $3000 in equipment/etc. I needed this year to keep my house as sterile as possible for her.

Does that make me a crappy mom?

Amy
People change.

After they married, by the way, they waited maybe eight years to have kids

And that is relavent how?

Oh no, he would never have a mid-life crisis and throw her over for someone younger. Not him. He's your neighbor. lol.

Gosh, it must be exhausting to be so perfect and have such perfect neighbors and perfect asian assistants and perfect boyfriends and know how everything in life is going to turn out 20, 30 years in advance.

You're in the wrong business. You should have one of those fortune telling places. Share your amazing ability to know how people are going to behave and change (or never change) over decades. And you could sell life-insurance on the side.

BTW, who watches Sargeant Heather's autistic son while she is out fighting crime? Is she neglecting him?

Of course not. I bet her husband or babysitter is perfect...because they KNOW you and you know them. Anyone in your life has been tested and approved, so whatever arrangement they have must be great...no, make that, perfect.

But that couldn't possibly happen to anyone else, like, say, a working mom who just writes a message to you. She's "neglectful", her caregiver must be awful, and her son is destined for therapy...because, after all, you don't know them. They don't live next to you.

Sorry, Amy, but people do change. And people act differently when their desires change.

But you evade my point: Which is that circumstances change -- sometimes when both mom and dad are still together -- and force people to work incredible hours just to feed with families.

And then you evade another: Should women choose low-paying jobs, then give up their careers to raise their families, all the while relying on someone else to take care of them -- or not, as you so often argue?

Are you for self-sufficiency or complete reliance on another person?

I never argue that I shouldn't have chosen better. But. . he changed. There isn't a day I'm not shocked (or saddened) by it.

Oh, and for the record, there isn't a single person who knows my ex who isn't as shocked as I am. I guess each and every person I know lacks your character-dar. . .Still, that doesn't have anything to do with whether moms should never work long hours or at meaningful careers and instead rely on hubby to provide and to never never ever change -- which you mock on a regular basis. Hey, at least this woman you attacked isn't asking colleagues to pick up the slack while she parents. You hate that too. Contradictions abound.

I think some women prioritize looks more than they should. My husband isn't Brad Pitt by any means, but he wanted to be married, wanted kids, and we recheck our happiness levels periodically. A few days ago, in fact, when I told him calmly I could not do everything I was doing anymore. He's done more housework since then (this has to be repeated every few months) and in return I have more energy for sex. Talking is a great thing. Not assuming your partner is on the same page as you is too. Choosing people for who they are and not what they look like is great too. Bad boys are all exciting and women love them, until they are shocked that they continue to be bad boys.

One day we were at Wendy's eating, and DH got up and went to the counter for a minute. I assumed he was getting ketchup or something. Later, I asked, and he'd been buying dinner for a family (of katrina refs, I think, it was around then) who had been standing by the door counting their money and discussing what they could afford. Someone who does that quietly with no mention is a good person. He does that sort of thing not infrequently, and always quietly. .

Yes, sometimes shit happens, so you plan as best you can. No one's saying daycares should be outlawed, some people will have to use them. We're saying don't make it plan A. Don't pop that kid out and right into The Learning Tree. That's poor planning.

Gosh, it must be exhausting to be so perfect and have such perfect neighbors and perfect asian assistants and perfect boyfriends and know how everything in life is going to turn out 20, 30 years in advance.

So sorry you resent me, lovelysoul.

I think I make it quite clear in what I write about myself (and how I tell people who interview me about my book that I'm a rude jerk, too -- it's the human condition -- I just try to recognize ways I am a rude jerk and try to be better).

No, I'm not perfect, nor are my friends. I've made plenty of mistakes as a human being -- and continue to, and will continue to, and will continue to try to learn from them and do better. I've also made mistakes in hiring assistants, but I learned from them, too. My Asian assistant worked for me years ago, but we're still in touch, and I'm thrilled at how well she's doing and plan to take her out for a drink in February, in case you're interested.

That's wonderful, Amy. I just don't understand how you can presume to know that this mother doesn't have equally good child care and isn't an equally great mother.

Sergeant Heather is obviously a working mother too...and also a very good one. She might have written that message to you herself - to say that your characterization of working parents is unfair. And, without knowing anything about her, you might've attacked her in the same way, especially since she has a special needs child. Heaven forbid this mother admitted something like that to you!

As a GAL, I was trained never to judge a family without gathering all the facts and getting to know them first. I've been in some pretty funky-looking homes, and had I made a snap judgment on my first impression, I would've been very wrong many times.

Again, calling a mom you don't even know "neglectful" is unnecessarily cruel. There's not a mother here that won't tell you that's like cutting out hearts out. We already worry 24/7 about our kids - when we're with them and when we're not. Our hearts are on the outside of our bodies.

You can't know what that feels like, so maybe you don't realize how cruel you're being, but I urge you to think about it next time. You can make your point without ripping someone apart personally. She didn't do that to you, so you shouldn't have done it to her.

"So sorry you resent me, lovelysoul."

I don't resent you, Amy. I just think you can be a little less smug sometimes. You can do better. You have a great way with words - you're hilarious - but you can use them like a sword too. It's easy to get carried away and forget your target is a person.

She probably has a babysitter, which she didn't want to admit to you because you would obviously assume a house husband is better than a babysitter.

My aunt, and ex teacher, had a daycare in her home for years. She kept maybe 6 or 7 kids at a time - infants to preschool age - and she was absolutely amazing with them. They had books galore, healthy snacks, long walks, and pretend adventures. Lots of socialization and early learning. I used to love to visit her just to join in and play with the kids. We took them to plays and museums.

She lived just outside of DC, so the parents all had pretty important government jobs - actually careers, not jobs - the kind of careers you encourage women to have. She's kept in touch with those kids, who are grown now, and they've all done well. Many went to ivy league schools. They were not harmed - and, I suspect, they greatly benefited from their time there.

Probably a much better situation than many stay-at-home dads, with no teaching experience, would've provided. Even many grandmothers, who might've been watching soaps all afternoon.

You cannot presume this mother's child isn't being loved and well-cared for while she's at work. If you KNOW that, then you can say so, but just because you think "babysitter" is an ugly word, compared to "stay-at-home-daddy" or "granny" doesn't mean you're right.

She would've still had to say "babysitter". That was what parents called my aunt. Yes, she might've been able to describe how wondrous the situation was, compared to others, but most people are not as articulate as you, and they're also intimidated. Plus, why should she really have to do that? So, you would approve of her?

You were being condescending, trying to peg her as either a bad worker or a bad mommy. She wrote in defense of her work ethic, which is what you were criticizing, and you seized upon that as an opportunity to slam her as a mom.

Some people realize when they're in a no-win situation, and they have boundaries when they're being abused. That's healthy. She wasn't going to play your game of "I'm right!", but that doesn't mean you won. I think you came off looking extremely smug and rude. Ben-David caught it, and so did I.

lovelysoul, I think you are completely right. Amy will never admit there is even a chance she might be wrong. So you might just want to drop this. You’re wasting your time trying to talk to someone who is so convinced in her own beliefs, that she won't hear a word your saying.

lovelysoul, I think you are completely right. Amy will never admit there is even a chance she might be wrong.

Hah! Amy's whole view about what children need is BASED on Amy admitting she was wrong. I'm actually eager for people to prove me wrong, so I can make what I believe in better, more evidence-based.

Crid was the one, about five years ago, who told me I was an idiot for thinking it's okay to be a single parent. I read a bunch of stuff and saw he was right.

But, nice try, Ginny!

Okay, correction. you can admit your wrong, but will not in this case.

As I often tell my staff, you may be right, but you didn't need to handle it that way. Hunting a woman down on the internet to try to find out details about her life, like the age of her child, just so you could criticize her as a mother is over the top.

Her life details were irrelevant to the point she was making anyway - just as your looks or relationship status should have no bearing on the arguments you make, though people try to play dirty pool with you all the time and call you "ugly" and claim you "probably don't have a man", etc.

Don't you see that saying, "you probably have Conchita take care of your child..." is the same kind of dirty pool? You know nothing about this woman's life, just as those who try to label you know nothing about yours.

There's a point you shouldn't go just to win an argument, and I think you went there. We all do. I did, not long ago, with Patrick - attacking him personally because of a stand he was taking - but I realized I was wrong and apologized.

You're not doing anything most of us haven't done, it's just that you have a certain power here, with a public forum, to take it to another level.

Depends on what you're looking for. Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect you were trying to find out her marital status, or some personal vulnerability like that, so you could say, "Aha, you're a single mom...with probably a wetback 'Conchita' taking care of your baby!"

Is that really necessary? Do you really feel good about yourself for doing that?

Again, you weren't "winning" the argument. She probably just decided you were a psycho. She writes to you about work and tells you she doesn't slack off and burden her co-workers - that not every working parent is inconsiderate and irresponsible, and you google her for personal info you can use to attack.

Don't you think she'd rather be with her child? But she's obviously a responsible employee. That says to me she's a good person, and probably a good mom. At least I see no evidence to claim otherwise.

Plus, I find your positions conflicting. You tell women they shouldn't be SAHMs - that they need to work and be independent, not rely on a man's income, even when they have a husband. Yet, you slam working moms for not being with their children more. Or, conversely, if they work less to be with their children, you slam them for being bad co-workers.

Should women work or not? If they have children, can they can only work if they have a stay-at-home daddy or if their mother is still alive and can babysit?

That will seriously limit women from being in the workplace and shut them out of almost all career opportunities and advancement. You're basically saying women should either have careers or children; not both.

Conchita (assuming she exists), may be an excellent caregiver, like my aunt.

Truth is, some parents are great at doing the early pre-school kind of stuff, and some truly suck at it.

I can tell that, if you'd chosen to have kids, you would've gone absolutely insane staying home during the pre-school years. "Itsy bitsy spider" and changing diapers all day would've bored you out of your mind! Especially with ADD. Your mind moves too fast and doesn't tolerate boredom well.

In your case, and that of a lot of parents, it would probably be better for you to find someone like my aunt, who LOVES that kind of thing, to care for your child during the pre-school years, while you do what you do best, which is work.

However, you'd probably be great in the later years, when the child can converse intelligently and do more things. You'd be a wonderful role model as a parent, especially for a young girl. And that's one thing you seem to negate about working parents. They are teaching self-sufficiency by example.

Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. Parents are human beings. I would never say you shouldn't have children. That's your choice. I can see that you would have different strengths and weaknesses as a parent, but that doesn't mean you'd be a bad one. And it doesn't mean this woman is a bad parent either.

To me, it's much worse when parents try to shove themselves into some sort of "Suzie homemaker" box they're not innately cut out for. That's when you see overwhelmed, frustrated parents, and kids who would probably be much better off with a different caregiver...like Conchita.

I'll just add that it's no accident that most of the kids my aunt cared for in her daycare have gone on to successful careers themselves. Kids emulate their parents. They don't just become doctors, lawyers, or astronauts because someone tells them to. It helps immensely for them to have the example of a career-oriented parent (or two) in their own homes.

Especially if we want girls to grow up to be self-sufficient, they need to see women who work. Having a working parent is not the detriment you make it out to be.

"Don't you think she'd rather be with her child? But she's obviously a responsible employee."

Then be an employee, not a parent. Or marry a great nurturing man, if you want kids and a career.

"To me, it's much worse when parents try to shove themselves into some sort of "Suzie homemaker" box they're not innately cut out for. That's when you see overwhelmed, frustrated parents, and kids who would probably be much better off with a different caregiver...like Conchita"

Then let Conchita have the kids. You aren't doing the world a favor having kids and paying someone "better" to raise them. You need something warm to snuggle right before bed? Get a dog. Want to be a role model for an older kid? Be a mentor, not a parent. Parenting starts at that first breath, and never really ends. That boring diaper-changing peekaboo is what bonds parents to their kids and vice versa, and is how they learn to trust and be taken care of. But yeah, pawn all that early bonding care off on someone else, intentionally. Great.

Look, I loved the peekaboo stage. But not everybody is like us, momoffour. It's unrealistic to say that no one can have children unless they're cut out for the mundane stuff of early childhood. That doesn't mean they can't "bond" with their child. We SAHMs have to guard against becoming too smug about that ourselves.

Like I said, it's no accident that the kids from my aunt's daycare went on to achieve high levels of education and have successful careers.

In the end, we don't judge parents by how many times they played peekaboo. We judge them by how well their child does overall. By that measure, many working parents have done (and are doing) an outstanding job.

>>Especially if we want girls to grow up to be self-sufficient, they need to see women who work. Having a working parent is not the detriment you make it out to be.

So warmly agree, lovelysoul.

It's a very good lesson for boys too.

I don't pretend I remotely got the work/childcare balance perfect when our sons were young, and I've also known (and envied) some brilliant stay-at-home-parents. But looking back, the mad scramble of those early years taught our boys some valuable truths about how loving, committed parents work hard together to share the difficult, domestic grind.

Because it was our mutual choice.

Funniest article ever!!! It made me throw up in my mouth a little ...

"But, more than all the things we want, we actually need our children; they complete us as women, they are our light and our love and our legacy."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1185128/Why-bosses-right-distrust-women-dont-want-children--VERY-outspoken-mother-ex-boss(dot)html

I got the work/childcare balance perfect... none of both! No work and no childcare (and no child).

The art class, their own experiences, in order to form a clear answer to them, helps to clarify the recognition of their good student. When you learn to appreciate the shape and color, to learn that self-confidence and, it is to set up its own image of the world around them is how important is a good self-discipline of the children they you was achieved.