Are you a bad mom?

At some point (perhaps daily), every mom feels like she is doing a shitty job.  Am I spending enough time with them?  Do I do too much/too little for them?  Do they even like me?  There are moments where you feel like you are doing it right (for example, I got home yesterday and my smiley son looked right in my eyes and yelped "happy (to) see you, mama!" - yay!  I guess I'm doing ok!), but then something else happens and you are back to reassessing and doubting your abilities.  When you really think about it, though, it's actually pretty hard to be a "bad mom."  Abuse and neglect would certainly count as bad mom activities, but if you love your kids and are mostly sane, these aren't possibilities for you.  The love part is easy, a given (maybe not the sanity).  There is nothing more natural or unconditional than a mother's love for her child.  Tale as old as time.  One of the main reasons humankind and animalkind persists.  Most moms put their kids first because there is no choice not to, anything else would go against instinct.  This doesn't mean you have to be president of the PTA or that your child never leaves your sight or that you never admit that bedtime is a relief (ha!).  It just means you love your kids, are there for them, and make sure they have everything they need (even if it means you don't have everything YOU want).  Even when you think about the girl friends you have who you can't imagine with kids because they've never taken care of so much as a plant or because they take 2 hours to get ready everyday or have never cooed at a baby, chances are if they actually have one of their own, you'll see a kind of transformation that can only arise from being ultimately responsible for another being.  Will they actually enjoy motherhood?  Maybe not as much as some, but perhaps more than they (and you) thought they would.  And they probably won't be a "bad mom." 

Though raising a kid is hard work (and raising a good kid even harder I think), feeling like a good mom isn't as hard if we just remember what really matters.  I think we are all trained to think we have to do more, be more and have everything figured out at all times.  In reality, if we love our kids and are invested in their happiness, as well as our own, we probably can't screw it up that badly.  So next time you feel like a bad mom because you let your son walk outside barefoot and he screams because his feet are burning.....or, you have to leave for work while he hangs onto your feet crying "mama please sit".......or, you turn on Mickey when you get home from work so you can just sit for 24 minutes..............try the love test.  Do you love him, does he (most of the time) seem to love you?  Are you all safe and (most of the time) happy?  Then you're doing just fine.  And when he tells you he's happy to see you, dammit, believe him and relish in it.       

Traveling WITHOUT Toddler

As a counterpart to my post about traveling with a toddler, I thought I should write about a recent trip my husband and I took without our son.  It was our first weekend away from him, ever.  Without family closeby and because I nursed over a year, it just wasn't easy to be gone for any extended amount of time.  And honestly - although I often fantasized about sleeping in until noon - we never really felt like we "needed" it.  But we did it, a three-night whirlwind weekend in NYC, and it was pretty awesome.  Our nanny stayed with Noah (I highly recommend this if it's an option, no offense to grandparents!).  Here are some things I didn't miss while being away, and some things I did miss. 

Didn't miss....
- Being on an airplane with a toddler.  Remember when you could have a conversation with your spouse, read magazines, slowly sip your beverage (or even order one for that matter) and drift off to sleep on flights???  Oh man, was this one great.  Maybe a vacation in of itself.

- The morning wake-up call.  Unfortunately, I don't think I'll ever physically be able to sleep until noon (or even 10) again, but waking up a few times and going back to sleep, and then lazily starting the day without someone immediately asking for waffles is pretty damn nice. 

- Being high-maintenance.  My husband and I are low-maintenance travelers.  We never used to check bags, we are adept at walking or using public trans in whatever city/country we're in and can fly by the seat of our pants on trips.  Being away reminded me how high maintenance even the lowest maintenance people are forced to be when there are kids involved.  You're working around nap/bedtime schedules, you are looking for particular types of restaurants, carting a stroller, packing snacks and sippies before you can leave, and you can't just be outside all day long.  A couple days of simplicity were highly rejuvenating.

- Being regularly interrupted.  To go 2.5 entire days of talking to your spouse, to friends, to a waiter, to ANYONE without at the same time simultaneously saying "please put that down", handing a little someone a firetruck, and cutting a banana?  Yea, pretty amazing.

Missed....
- My toddler.  Obviously!  I didn't cry when we left and I was happy for the time off, but damn can those rugrats invade your mind.  I can't tell you how many times we said "Noah would really love this" or "we should bring him here when he's older."  No matter what your intentions are, you spend much of your time talking about your little ones.  We spend A LOT of time laughing at him behind his back, fantasizing about his future, and wondering where he gets his smartass attitude (must be Adam, right).  Makes me miss his stinky butt when I'm away from him.

- The morning wake-up call.  As much I appreciated waking up later and lazily starting our day, is there anything sweeter than waking up to the sound  of "mama?  daddy?"  over the baby monitor?  Sorry, there isn't.  So I missed that, and I missed walking into his room and seeing his sleepy smiley face and hearing him say "hi mama" .  I didn't miss him immediately thereafter asking for milk, daddy, Mickey and breakfast (in that order), but all the stuff before it, yeah, I missed all that.

- The afternoon nap.  So it's great being able to be out all day and not tied to a nap schedule, but then you know what you miss?  Your own downtime/nap!  Turns out I've gotten rather used to being "forced" into rest-time on the weekends.  We were exhausted by dinner.

- Family time.  On the weekends, we 3 hardly leave each other's sides.  We play in bed in the mornings, we eat our meals together, we go out, we run errands together, we take afternoon naps.  We try not to have too many weekends in a row w/ external plans/parties/responsibilities because we need "us" time.  This how we've kept a life that is inherently more high maintenance as simple as possible.  So an entire weekend without one member of our threesome feels...unnatural.  I feel the same way when Adam is busy with work and Noah and I are on our own.  We're happiest when we're all together.  I still think you absolutely must have adequate one-on-one time with your spouse, whether it's making the most out of your evenings, making an effort to do date nights and trips like this are great for the relationship.  But do we need an entire weekend very often?  Nah.  I'm thinking that's a good thing.

Lean In, Be Fearless

Ok, so we've all heard of Sheryl Sandberg's book Lean In by now and many of us have read it.  If you haven't yet, in a nutshell, she's encouraging women to "lean in" to their careers by, among other things, reaching for opportunities, taking a seat at the table, raising expectations, managing fear of failure, and making "real partners" out of their spouses.  I first have to say, thank the Lord someone important is starting a public dialogue about working women's issues.  A big part of the reason I started a blog was to do that and it feels like the public conversation has recently exploded.  The book is not just for those who are striving for CEO status (forget all of the "Lean Back" or "Stand Straight" or whatever talk), you can take whatever you need from it.   

My greatest takeaway from the book was that we need to take personal ownership of our success and be fearless.  Fearless in setting goals, fearless in going after them and fearless in structuring our lives to have all of the things we want.  She sends this message mostly through a retelling of the internal struggles and insecurities she has overcome (that she believes most women face).  If you think the biggest challenge to your career advancement tends to be you (how you set your goals, thinking you're not as capable as you are), then this book will be really helpful for you.  But if you are generally not afraid to sit at the table (proverbial and literal), but feel that your biggest challenges are instead institutional barriers and the ability to structure your career such that you still have a personal life, then you may find yourself wanting more from the book.  To her credit, she makes clear that it was not meant to be focused on the external, institutional issues, but I think as you read you still hope it may be.  At least I did.  I don't really feel stifled by most of the self-limitations that Sandberg discussed.  Not that I'm always confident, or speak up as much as I should or am immune to wanting to be liked, I just don't feel that limited by those things.  To me, it's not just about the "faults" women should improve upon and the personal choices we have to be really careful about when making ("choose the right guy" being one of her examples, oof), it's more about the faults we have institutionally and as a society that make it difficult for women AND men to live and work to the greatest of their abilities.  I don't believe that blindly hoping that pioneering women who reach the top will change the rules is enough (See my post about Marissa Mayer -- and btw I utterly disagree with Sandberg's opinion that knocking Mayer's latest decisions is in itself anti-feminist, nice try defending your friend).  

That said, I do not discount the research that suggests that women negotiate salaries less, are less likely to ask for promotions, etc, but let's think about why that may be.  Is it because we inherently underestimate our abilities?  Maybe.  But I think Sandberg hit the nail on the head when she said that women "leave before they leave".  That is, women might be afraid that aggressively going after a promotion will mean that if they get it, their superiors will be unwilling to give them flexibility or time off in the next 5 years when they may start a family.  Or maybe they are reluctant to start down a particular career path around child-bearing/rearing years because they are unsure of how their life will be affected.  Sandberg says to put those concerns out of your head and keep your foot on the gas pedal until you absolutely have to slow down.  I don't find that to be very realistic.  The truth is, you do often have to plan ahead and make choices before you start a family.  For example, if you are a physician, you might have to pick a specialty in medical school, and perhaps you choose a specialty that has more predictable hours knowing that in the future that will be more suited to family life.  Or if you are a lawyer working at a big firm like I did, you may choose to take a great in-house opportunity when it comes rather than slave for 10 years on the partner track only to realize you don't actually want the partner lifestyle and are now overqualified for many in-house jobs.  There is often a "right" time to make career choices, and depending on your career it might come before you establish a family.  I think that if you keep your foot on the gas like Sandberg suggests, you may end up so invested down a particular path that you give up on some of the things you thought were important before.  I think if, institutionally and as a society, companies made it easier for their employees to give 110% even if they have kids or other external responsibilities, it would help people stay in the game.  If you knew that getting that promotion would not meaningfully affect your ability to have a balanced personal life, wouldn't you go for it no holds barred?  I have faith that most women - whether they doubt their abilities or lack assertiveness - would.  It's just not our reality, yet.  A good example of not being forced to leave before you want to leave is a friend of mine who was due to have a baby right when the state representative for whom she was working was running for state congress in Austin a few hours away from where she lived.  She let him know that she wanted to work on his campaign, but she and her new son couldn't realistically live hours away from her husband for 6 months.  The state representative let her work on the campaign remotely 2 days a week and she traveled to Austin for the other 3 days to make it work.  Though she probably would describe it now as some of the hardest months of her life, she was not only able to keep her job, but her boss is now a U.S. Congressman and she is one of his district directors.  Not being afraid to ask for what you need AND having a boss who values you enough to work with you and adjust as necessary is key. 

Sandberg also proposes that men should split household duties 50/50 for women to be able to optimize their careers.  But do you know of any families where this actually happens?  I speculate that Sandberg and her husband don't really share all of their family's responsibilities, but instead rely on a great deal of outside help for the day-to-day and then share the rest.  And she's probably the one who manages that outside help.  It's all just a guess, but a good guess I think.  Even if husbands pitch in with housework/childcare, women still tend to do more (they do 2/3 of it, say the stats) and also tend to be the primary planner of the family's lives (managing kids' schools/extracurriculars, planning vacations/holidays/special events, ensuring a social life).  And I'd even venture to say that women generally prefer to be the master of the household in these ways.  They may care more about certain things than their husbands, hell they may even care more about their husbands than their husbands (hence the reason why I pack my husband's lunch every morning, he'd be fine w/ Arby's everyday).  I also think for the most part women are just better at multi-tasking work and home, so from an efficiency perspective it often makes more "sense" for women to have more home responsibilities.  These are obviously huge generalizations, but I think they ring true for many families.  I know moms who make more money than their husbands (and whose husbands are home a lot) who still opt for less demanding jobs after kids so they can be more in the home.  Doesn't make economic sense, so what is it?  When I worked for a law firm, I knew several women who were married to other big firm lawyers (so they made similar salaries/had similar career potential) and when they had kids, it was the wives who went part-time, not their husbands.  Maybe women actually prefer that the home responsibilities not be split 50/50 even if in theory that seems fair.  I 100% agree that responsibilities have to be shared as much as possible and couples can strive to get better at that, I just think that ultimately women will always do more.  Maybe that means acknowledging that the working mom's situation is unique.  Maybe it means accepting that the gender wage gap partially represents different preferences and therefore may always exist.  It could mean a lot of things.  But calling for a 50/50 split in the majority of families who don't have a lot of outside help as an essential way for women to succeed just isn't that realistic to me.  (Btw, I caveat this with the fact that when I started my new job after maternity leave, my husband stayed home with our son for a few months while he studied for the bar, so of course I know it's possible for dads to step up when they need to.  I just don't think in most families' day-to-day lives it quite works out that way). 

So those were some of my thoughts.  Sandberg's book was a good reminder to not hold myself back and be more aware of things I may I do or think that could get in my own way. And as much as I didn't think I really needed the reminder, I realized half way through it that everytime I read the book in a public place, I'd subconciously set it down cover-down, as if it were embarassing to be reading about my interest in succeeding.  It's currently sitting on my desk, cover-up.

Would love to hear others' opinions on the book or any of these issues!

Traveling with Toddler

We somehow ended up with 4 trips in 7 weeks.  3 of them involve flying.  All of them include an 18 month old.  Sound insane?  It is, absolutely, but has been totally doable with some preparation and forethought.  Here are some tips I've amassed on traveling with a wild little one:

1)  Don't expect your kid to sleep on the flight.  This means not scheduling a flight during regular naptime or in the evening post-bedtime.  The downside is you will likely be entertaining them the whole flight (but if they happen to fall asleep, yay).  The upside is they won't be an overtired disaster because they are unable to fall asleep in your lap, and you won't be stressed out about trying to make them fall asleep.  We made this mistake when we first flew with Noah at 4 months old.  He cried for about 2 hours.  We almost killed ourselves.

2)  Plan on your kid eating on the flight.  Even if this means skimping on their prior meal.  Snacking/eating is a great way to pass time.  The sticky placemats don't work on the trays, but take paper towel/tape or a little plate.  Small things that they can eat slowly work well.

3)  Don't forget your f'n iPad.  No matter what your opinion is on tv, video games, blah blah blah, let it go for your sanity and the greater good of other passengers.  Download a movie they like before you leave and make sure their fave apps are on there (if they don't use iPad regularly, show them bits of a movie or apps prior to the trip so they will be excited to play w/ them on the plane).  This doesn't buy you a ton of time when your kid is under 1, but it still helps as part of the rotation (see #5) and only gets better as they get older.

4)  Toys:  dont bring ones that make noise, but ones that take some dexterity/time to use.  A big book of stickers and a couple sheets of paper work well.  Books, crayons, an empty little box to take stuff in/out of, kids' laptop turned on low volume.  Variety is key.

5)  Switch between #2-4 constantly.  So eat for 30 mins, then do toys for 30 mins, then iPad, and then repeat.  Don't start it until you are in the air, because until then they can be quite entertained with what's outside the airplane window.

6)  Bring 2 or 3 changes of clothes, and one for you/your spouse too.  Out of the 12 flights we've taken Noah on, only 2 were total disasters (not bad, right? but the bad ones were epic).  The first I mentioned in #1.  The second was on our way to Texas this past Thanksgiving when Noah conveniently began to show signs of the stomach flu on our way to the airport and threw up all over himself and the car seat we were taking with us on the plane (see # 7).  So, because I was SO prepared (ha!), I had a second outfit handy and did a quick change at the airport.  Then he threw up again ON the plane, all over his second (and last) outfit and me.  We had to change him back into the first outfit because it was less pukey (but still pukey, mind you) and I had to rinse my jeans off as best I could...all in the wonderful confines of the airplane bathroom.  So....yeah....third outfit.  Maybe a fourth. 

7)  Keep packing SIMPLE -- Rent a car seat with your rental car when you get to your destination, and buy a cheap light umbrella stroller for travel.  If you go to a destination often (like grandparents' house), keep a pack n play, car seat and high chair there so you don't have to bring any of it.  We usually just check 1 big suitcase and just carry on 2 backpacks full of #2-6.

8)  Be reasonable about your plans.  If you are traveling w/ a baby under 3 months or so, a driving trip is great because they can sleep on and off much of the time (we drove to Nashville at 6 weeks with 1 overnight stop in between and it worked fine).  If you have a toddler who can't sit still for very long, don't think that a long flight will be smooth sailing.  Be careful about scheduling trips with layovers.  3 hour non-stop flights have worked well for us so far, and since we're centrally located we've still been able to go to a variety of places like Texas many times, Florida a couple times and Maine.  There is plenty of time for longer trips.

9)  When you get where you're going, chill out and go w/ the flow.  Let them be off their schedule if it works out that way, know that they may not sleep well while away (again, this gets better when they're toddlers), let them eat ice cream at night, just don't stress about any of it.  It will all go back to normal once you get home. 

Even if your little one does great traveling, it's never easy.  Don't be too embarassed if your kid cries on the flight, anyone around you with kids will understand.  And the ones who don't will be listening to music with their noise elimination headphones while reading on their iPads - God that sounds like a vacation within itself.

Manners and Mysteries of Marriage

Next week is a big week for marriage.  The Supreme Court will be reviewing same-sex marriage laws for the first time ever and its ultimate decision on these issues could be as influential as Roe v. Wade has been to the abortion (and anti-abortion) rights movements.  Tuesday's question is whether California may define marriage as only between a man and a woman (Prop 8), and Wednesday's arguments will focus on whether DOMA (already declared unconst by Obama - can he do that?) can deny benefits to married gay and lesbian couples that are a right of heterosexual married couples.  As gay marriage is one of the most politically charged issues of our day, often debated in terms of religion and social custom, I think we have to ask, what is marriage really? 

At a recent wedding I attended, the pastor gave a beautiful homily on the definition of marriage.  I believe borrowing from a female writer Flannery O'Connor, the pastor talked about marriage as a combination of mystery and manners.  The mystery, as I interpret it, helps define the abstract fundamentals of marriage.  Marriage is, fundamentally, a promise.  It's a promise to live life as a unit, take care of one another always, and share in life's inevitable joy, disappointment, sadness and triumph.  Being able to keep that promise and endure in a such a way that each person is able to experience overall happiness is somewhat of a mystery.  After all, you aren't happy every single day, people evolve, and you have no idea what's coming at you 5, 10, 15, 20 years down the road.  But we keep faith in the mystery.  No one, Supreme Court or otherwise, can dictate who we share that with.  It is intimate, intangible and a couple's journey to take alone. 

But there are many tangibles that breathe life into a marriage.  Manners that serve the mystery.  They are the everyday things like starting the car for your wife so it's warm by the time she gets in it, packing your husband's lunch, and saying I love you (or something ridiculous like me and mine do) before you leave the house.   There is calling each other husband and wife to other people (seems small, but there's something so meaningful about that, isn't there?).  There are also the legal ramifications that have long-lasting impacts on your life.  Perhaps sharing a last name, making financial decisions that bind the unit, having or adopting children together.  Or being able to cover your spouse on your insurance, spend the night w/ your spouse if he/she is in the hospital, and be assured you won't lose your house or children if your spouse dies.  No matter how long you date your sig other before you get married (and I dated mine for a LONG time), there is a distinct and wonderful shift that occurs once you say "I do."  I no longer believe in the, "we're basically married" concept.  You either are, or you are not, I think in large part because of all of the tangible rights marriage affords you and how those rights change the shape of your relationship.

A friend of mine getting married next month told me that she was most excited about the "little" things like being able to file a joint tax return and merging bank accounts.  Another two engaged friends are technically getting married in court well before their actual ceremonial weddings so their parents will be comfortable with them living together during their engagements.  But these things are not little, they are not technicalities.  These are just a few of the rights afforded to married couples so they can make joint decisions, and take care of each other and their children in life and after one passes on.  They allow couples to truly live a unified life, to fully trust in the mystery that otherwise binds them.  They are what gay rights activitists are fighting so hard for because getting married is much more than making a simple promise.  You need manners to keep it. 

Essentially Disappointed

My post about workplace flexibility was apparently very well-timed, as days later the work/life balance debate became front and center in the media when Marissa Mayer, the new Yahoo! CEO, announced that Yahoo! would no longer allow telecommuting.  Mayer also happens to be a new mother.  Many are outraged, they fear that such a rule sends the wrong message about workplace flexibility in corporate America and will disproportionately affect working mothers.  Others, even if they disagree with the ban, feel that judging Mayer for making such a choice is a bunch of feminist essentialism.  That is, if we wouldn't have questioned the decision if a working dad made it, we shouldn't be questioning Mayer (interestingly, the two women I found who shared this sentiment have had work-from-home careers and admit they wouldn't be in the workforce without that type of arrangement.  See here). 

Should we ignore the fact that she's a woman and new mother in the name of feminist non-essentialism?  I don't think so.  We only have a handful of Fortune 500 companies run by women (18 maybe, and that is a record high) and this one was juicy because, as the media kept pointing out, she was the youngest female CEO of a Fortune 500 and she was pregnant when she accepted the Yahoo! job.  I don't think that information is irrelevant or anti-feminist to talk about.  I think people's interest in watching how a young mother of a newborn would handle running a large company shows how important of an issue work/life balance is to men and women in this country.  It is true that if the new Yahoo! CEO were a man whose wife was having a baby, there would be no headlines.  But I think that is ok, because the headlines acknowledge the reality that balancing childcare and career is more of a woman's issue, and that  a new-mom CEO of a large Fortune 500 company may be able to set a great example for a more balanced perspective in corporate America.  If only she were interested in doing so.

Instead, she publicly commited to and took only two weeks of maternity leave and now has ended telecommuting at a company in a poster-child industry for workplace flexbility.  I don't think she decided either because she wanted to hurt working moms/dads - everyone experiences parenthood in different ways, so maybe 2 weeks was enough for her (what!) and she had very reasoned business justifications for the ban, but the message Americans are forced to swallow is, this is what it takes.  Seems daunting and most of us won't make the cut, as not all of us can build a nursery next to our offices like she did or have the help she probably does.  So it is disappointing, at least to me, not because I think she "owes" me anything, but because I made the assumption that if women ruled corporate America, it would look different.  Turns out that may not be the case.

The Balancing Act

The second question I'm almost always asked by other moms about my relatively new job after "How's your job going" is, "Do you have flexibility"?  There are many aspects to one's career -- how challenging and interesting the work is, what your future potential/plans may be, how you handle managing others/being managed, etc -- yet a primary concern for working moms is figuring out how others are balancing full-time careers, young children, and otherwise full lives.  It's that elusive, mythical, "work-life balance" we are all after.  I think the balance looks different to every parent, but one common thread in attempting to achieve it is the need for workplace flexibility.  This sounds like a dreaded term to an employer, doesn't it?  It sounds like it may require an employer to lower expectations, or make exceptions for an employee.  The need for it can come across as a sign of weakness, of not being able to handle the job.  So as common as it is to talk about it among other working women, and as necessary as it is for most to getting closer to that balance, many feel hesitant and anxious to talk to their employer about it.  Should women have to wait to be perceived as indispensable before they can bring such issues up?   Should they feel less valuable as an employee or like their future potential with the employer is diminished for needing such an accommodation? 

As I expressed in my lament about the misdirection of Mitt Romney's "binders full of women" comment, I don't think that women will have equal pay/status in this country until we get better about workplace flexibility and address a host of other working women's issues (paid maternity leave, child care benefits etc).  Flexibility might mean different things, and not all jobs allow for the same types of flexibility.  It does not, however, mean decreased expectations or requirements.  It means being creative.  For example, you can't work from home in your regular duties as a physician, but maybe there are administrative tasks that can be done remotely or an earlier or nighttime shift that would work better with your kid's schedule.  If you frequently have evening client events, possibly a later morning start time or a longer break midday would help.  Maybe you'd prefer to work more on the weekend and have shorter weekdays.  You're not "entitled" to these things, of course, but thinking through the possibilities may prevent valuable women from being forced to leave their full-time professional careers or the workforce generally. 

Of course, the choice to have a child is a personal one.  So I understand the argument that if you make that choice, you have to be prepared for consequences, including some to your career.  This is a fair point, but stopping there ignores the impact on women, families, employers and society as a whole.  The truth is, the majority of Americans make the choice to have kids.  Women make up about 47% of the labor force and the vast majority of them are or will become mothers (over 80% of women aged 35-44 have at least one child).  And 77% of moms choose to be in the labor force.  Working moms, therefore, are a powerful group and keeping them in the labor force full-time and allowing them to advance is advantageous to the economy as a whole.  For employers, happier employees likely make for more productive, enthusiastic and long-term employees.  And think about the recruitment and retention benefits if an employer is forward-thinking on these issues.  Plus, parents being able to spend more time with their kids while also being successful in their careers has societal benefits we should all be interested in.  It will never be perfect, but it's something we can improve.  At a minimum, we should stop being afraid to ask for it.  (And, by the way, I'm all for dads and those who take care of aging/sick parents or other loved ones having options, as well.) 

I'm curious to hear from others what kind of flexibility you have, what you would like, what has worked best for you, etc, either offline or on the blog.