Strollerderby : work

Talking Taxes: How the Childcare Credit Works

JeanneSager — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:36:00 GMT

Do you send your kids to daycare? Have an in-home sitter?

As long as you work - and pay the nanny/manny/babysitter on the books - families with two kids can claim up to $6,000 in tax credits this year. So how does it work?

Your kids have to be under age thirteen. You may be worried about leaving the fourteen-year-old alone in a house with a well-stocked liquor cabinet, but the IRS doesn't care.
You must be making an income. Ya know, that's why they call it a credit on your INCOME taxes.
If your employer gives you money toward childcare, that must be deducted from the amount you're claiming. If your employer is that type, please give me his number. I want to work there.
You can't write off what you pay to one of your other kids to watch their siblings (sigh) or what you pay your spouse to watch your kids. If you're paying your spouse to watch their own child, you might want to find a new spouse (sorry, just saying).
If you're paying someone to come to your house rather than paying someone who has their own daycare or a sitter who has her own business, you may owe the government more because you're an official employer. This gets a lot of big important big wigs in trouble just as they're about to be confirmed as something even bigger and more important, so check this one closely. It might do to even hire an accountant. Just don't pick this guy.
The kid being babysat must have lived with you for at least half of 2008. If he hasn't, why did you need a babysitter?
Your filing status must be single, married filing jointly, head of household or qualifying widow(er) with a dependent child. In other words? You have to file . . . AND have a kid. Imagine that.
If you didn't pay out $3,000 for childcare for your one child, you don't get a $3,000 credit. If you didn't pay out $6,000 for two kids or more, you don't get a $6,000 credit. Those are simply the top end (try telling that to your daycare provider).

There are more tips over at the IRS Website, but these are the biggies. Are you going to be filing for a tax credit for childcare this year? Is it worth it?

Image: No Time For Laundry

Husband Loses Job, Wife Loses Respect For Him

Brett Singer — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:00:00 GMT

We all know how tough it is out there. The number of jobs is shrinking by the day, and layoffs are common. Many families still follow the traditional model where the husband is the breadwinner and the wife takes care of the children and housekeeping duties. Nothing wrong with that. But let's say dad loses his job. He didn't quit because he missed out on a promotion, nor was he fired for making photocopies of his butt. He was laid off. It happens. Mom should be supportive, right? Flexible. Do what needs to be done to keep the family together.

Well, yes. Of course. But in the case of this couple that was profiled on ABC's Good Morning America, wifey has lost respect for her fella. She's not attracted to him anymore. In fact, they are sleeping in separate beds.

The wife in question, Eleanor Hemmert, had this to say about her husband Rick: "It's the respect. I wish I could say something different, but I've lost so much respect for him. And I think the dynamics with a man and a woman is a woman has to respect her husband. And if she doesn't, that relationship just goes away."

In an illustration of what I meant when I questioned a passage from Kate Gosselin's book, Eleanor also said: "That's one of the basic things that little girls grow up thinking - that the man is going to put the roof over her head, he is going to support the family." And when it doesn't happen, you get angry. Expectations can be bad when the person is inflexible.

I'm not in their marriage, so I don't know what else is going on. But this couple chose to put themselves on TV, so I'm commenting. Anytime I hear a woman complain that her husband isn't doing the manly work that she expects her man to be doing, it really irks me. If a woman were told to stay home and get pregnant, and that her place was in the kitchen, preferably barefoot, would she like that? Or that it was perfectly reasonable to pay her less money than a man who does the same job? Granted, those things happen all the time. But they're wrong. So is this woman's attitude.

Of course, Husband Rick isn't helping matters. "I think it is in every man's DNA to be the breadwinner. It's very humbling for me. It changes the dynamic of our relationship immensely. There is a wedge that has appeared. I feel the anger. I feel the tension. This house is not as joyous as it should be."

See, that's a choice. It's not in any man's "DNA" that he has "to be the breadwinner." It's in his mind, and the mind of his wife. Sometimes things change. Is it unpleasant? Sure. Is it worth ruining your marriage for? No way.

I understand that it's probably very frustrating for any couple when the primary breadwinner loses their job. But it's not like Mr. Man decided to quit being a salesman in order to pursue his dream of being a rodeo clown. Wife Eleanor is also complaining that she has to work more hours now, and that Rick cooks dinner poorly. But is that really fair? If he's just sitting around the house all day with his feet up, I can see being annoyed about that. But that's different from being so furious about something that was outside of you and your husband's control that you can't even sleep in the same room anymore.

Their daughter Elizabeth is "picking up" the tension between mom and dad. While both husband and wife are angry at each other and feel "underappreciated", their daughter is "suffering silently," says ABC News. "If the kids sense that you are unhappy and you don't talk to them about it, they may incorrectly blame themselves," they say. Good advice. Maybe the Hemmerts will take it.

Source: ABC News

Morning News - iPhone Gets Feature Other Phones Already Have

UPDATE - Josef Fritzl Sentenced To Life In Psychiatric Institution

Kate Gosselin Dreamt Of A Husband and Children - Did You?

They Say - Older Fathers Spawn Dumber Kids

GMA Tweets Details On Levi Johnston And Son

4 Year Old Brings Pot To School, School Bans Backpacks

Oprah Gets It Right On Chris Brown

Fired For Pumping Case Reaches Higher Court

Brett Singer — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:30:00 GMT

A woman who worked for Totes/Isotoner Corp. was fired for taking too many bathroom breaks. No, she wasn't snorting coke in there. She was pumping breast milk.

After losing in court in 2008, and again on an appeal, LaNisa Allen is appealing to a higher authority -- the Ohio Supreme Court.

The legal argument seems to be that "the company didn't discriminate because breastfeeding doesn't legally constitute an illness or medical condition." Attorneys for Totes/Isotoner also say that "there is legal precedent showing that employers don't have to give extra breaks to breastfeeding women."

That may be true. But so what? (I mean, it's not like she was driving while she pumped.) No, breast feeding isn't an "illness" but I was surprised to read that someone was fired for doing it at work, sued, and then lost. Twice. It will be interesting to see if the Ohio Supremes are more sympathetic to Allen's cause. Even if the company was legally correct, it seems like bad policy to punish a breast feeding mother like this.

Anyone have any experiences, good or bad, with pumping on the job?

Source: Dayton Daily News via Slate

Image: ymswwc.com

VIDEO-Octo Mom Publicist On GMA

Mom Accused of Feeding Meth-Tainted Breastmilk to Daughter

Salma Hayek Shines Spotlight on Breastfeeding Taboos

Fun Stuff To Do When The Kids Get Older

Breast Milk Cupcakes

Is It Wrong for Parents to Sell Girl Scout Cookies for their Daughters?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:30:00 GMT

In this not exactly neighborly modern world of ours, eight-year-olds in Girl Scout vests are much less likely to go door-to-door pedaling Thin Mints and Somoas than they once were. So how do 200 million boxes of Girl Scout cookies still get sold every year? Their parents, of course!

CNN reports that parents are increasingly relying on their jobs and connections to make cookie sales for their daughters, who then get the credit. Opinion is divided as to whether this is simply a sensible, safe way to get the cookies sold—supporting a good cause and satisfying America’s sweet tooth—or whether this deprives young girls of the intended lessons of cookie-selling, not to mention creating an unfair playing field in which girls are punished or rewarded for their parents’ success.

It seems clear to me that parents selling cookies when their daughters aren’t even present is not right (and it goes against the recommendation of the Girl Scouts organization). Although, come to think of it, I’d probably still buy a box if I was hungry and had five bucks on me....which just shows how wrong it is for parents to exploit a national addiction like that.

But I used to buy all my annual Girl Scout cookies at work, and I couldn’t have been happier about it. My coworker walked around the office with her daughter, who shyly and sweetly did all the talking. I was always grateful for both the distraction and the sugar fix. I mean, who doesn’t want to buy a box of thin mints from an adorable eight-year-old? (And then eat half the pack while slowly blinding yourself in the eerie glow of computer screens and neon lights…but I digress.)

If it had been my boss’s daughter going around selling cookies, then the dynamic would have been more problematic. What employee is going to refuse to buy cookies from the boss’s daughter? This means that girls with parents in more powerful positions are more likely to sell more cookies—and, alas!, even Somoas play a part in perpetrating social inequality.

Perhaps the most ethically unquestionable and effective way to sell cookies is to have girls set up a booth in a public place. This way, they’re doing the work themselves, they’re not in any danger, and they’re offering passersby a very important public service.

Photo: Once Upon a Plate

A Guy’s Take on Stay at Home Moms and Dads (Part 2: The Pros)

Cole Gamble — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:00:00 GMT

Alright, time to get to the good parts about becoming a stay-at-home mommy or daddy:

Childcare is Monstrously Expensive

Our childcare cost over $1,800 a month. For some folks, going to work and paying for child care is nearly a break even proposition. Essentially you work for the privilege to send your kids to childcare so you can work. When you do the numbers you need to consider whether the salary you draw makes it financially worthwhile. And I don't mean if your job pays $5 more a month than child care costs you should go to work. You shouldn't put kids in childcare unless the money you're going to make if significantly greater. Otherwise, why bother?

You are A Consistent Care Provider

At daycares and preschools, staff will come and go. Your child can get easily attached to a teacher and then-poof!-they're gone. You, on the other hand, will always be around (unless there is something you're not telling me). Having that safe sense of consistency helps create a nurturing environment for your kid.

You Won't Miss a "First"

One of the more depressing things about putting kids in childcare is you'll likely miss out on your kids' firsts. The first time your baby laughs. The first steps she takes a step. The first time she tells an off-color joke. There's a pretty decent chance you won't be around when these adorable moments happen.

You Find Work Stressful

There are parents who use staying at home as a good excuse to drop out of the rat race. If your job is making you miserable and you don't see any other opportunities that look better, staying at home can give you the sanity you desperately need.

Raising Your Child is More Fulfilling than Office Work

Once again, this is preferential. As I outlined in the cons section, some adults may feel a loss of satisfaction when they drop out of work. On the other hand, some adults find raising their kid far more gratifying than pushing paper.

And if you can afford it, you may find that staying home reduces your stress level. Many parents decide to stay home after trying unsatisfactorily to balance work and family. The long hours and the feeling of cutting too many corners results in feeling burned out. Staying home will give you more time to spend with your children, maintain your home, and help keep your family life running smoothly.

Epilogue: Nicole's Story

So how did my wife's stay-at-home mommying adventure go? In the end, Nicole discovered the stay-at-home mom thing wasn't for her. She grew too frustrated trying to work on the house or her resume with the kids bouncing off the walls. The kids' attitudes got out of whack as they were not getting the level of socialization, activity and learning they were accustomed to at school. So the kids went back to school and so did Nicole, she's now working on her Master's degree. Since leaving the stay-at-home life behind, Nicole found she actually gets more quality time with the kids because she's no longer as frustrated when she gets to devote a portion of her day to being an adult.

Choosing whether or not to stay at home with the kids is not a matter of how much you love your kids. It's a matter of what works best for your family. Every mother or father must make this choice at some point, and whatever choice you make will undoubtedly be made with what's best for the family in mind.

Go Back to Part 1: the Cons of Staying Home

More by this author:

Banana Dildos and the 10 Worst Toys and Gifts This Christmas (part 1)

Skinny Jeans for Little Boys?

Desert Island Disks – Kid Music Edition

Gangsta’ Muppets: 12 of the Best Kids Show/Rap Mash-Ups

The Worst Baby Products Ever (Part I)

10 Things You May Not Know About Pregnancy (and might shock you)

The 26 Most Disturbing Kids Movies Ever

A Guy’s Take on Stay at Home Moms and Dads (Part 1: The Cons)

Cole Gamble — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:00:00 GMT

Recently my wife went back to school and finished up a bachelor’s degree in psychology. She was thrilled. I was thrilled. Even the damn pets were thrilled. The party, however, ended abruptly when Nicole realized she was, with her still hot from the oven degree in hand, entering the most hostile job market in generations. That’s when she introduced an intriguing proposition. “Hey, how about I keep the kids at home for awhile? If I can’t get a job now, I might as well take them out of child care and be a stay-at-home mom.” This was coming from a woman who started her college career on an education degree track, but then realized she didn’t like kids. This was different though. These were our kids, and your own kids are always infinitely lovelier than other peoples’ kids.

Throughout Nicole’s stay-at-home adventure, we’ve learned a lot about her personality, our kids’ personalities and the realities of staying at home with kids. Here are some of the lessons we learned, starting with the cons. In part two we’ll cover the pros and at the end I’ll let you in on what eventually happened to Nicole and how staying at home (I've heard SAH parent is the term for those in the know) has worked out for her.

The Cons:

Loneliness

Workplaces feed you daily social interaction with adults that we probably all take for granted. Once their daily routine revolves around the kid(s), many stay-at-home parents find themselves isolated. Some turn their child into their best friend, which at times puts the child in a peculiar situation as mommy or daddy gradually engages Jr. in too grown-up talk.

Loss of Identity via Loss of Career

I personally try not to define myself by my work (there are just too many more important aspects of personality), but I cannot deny all of us in the workplace to some degree merge our work into our self-esteem and identity. When you break that source of identity off, you can definitely feel that loss. People also crave the positive feedback one gets from the workplace and approbation is not something you usually get out of a screaming toddler or diaper full of crap.

Hard to Get Back to Work

Many parents find it’s tough to rejoin the job market after a sustained sabbatical.

You Can’t Provide the Activity and Socializing a Good Day Care/Preschool Can:

Hey, you’re a super stay-at-home parent. You go above and beyond the call of duty; you’re a total parenting rock star. Nonetheless, you still can’t compete with a child care program when it comes to activities and socializing. Good programs jam pack your child’s day with fun and educational projects. Also, you can’t underestimate the value of exposing your child to their peers on a daily basis. Interacting with other kids is essential for a child’s emotional and intellectual development. Yes, you can get them out of the house and around kids at the park, but you probably can’t offer them a whole class of kids working, playing and learning together every day.

Loss of Income

Yep, you do save money on child care when you keep the kids at home, but more likely than not that saved money isn’t as much as the income you lose by extracting yourself from work.

How About Losing 1 Million Dollars?

That's the amount economists say the stay-at-home parent who relinquishes a career may lose about $1 million over the years., when you factor in benefits and pensions. Yee-ouch!

Housework and Child Care Can Be Boring and Frustrating

Okay, hold your tomatoes, don’t throw them just yet. I’m not saying parenthood is boring, I’m just saying the diaper changing and tackling endless loads of laundry can be tedious and wearisome. A lot of this is about personality. I know women (and guys) who gain a great deal of satisfaction from mopping the floor and wiping noses. But just because other parents enjoy it doesn’t mean you must as well. You have to be honest with yourself.

Okay, enough doom and gloom. Let’s move on to the positives of staying home.

Click here for PART 2: The Pros.

More by this author:

Banana Dildos and the 10 Worst Toys and Gifts This Christmas (part 1)

Gangsta’ Muppets: 12 of the Best Kids Show/Rap Mash-Ups

The Worst Baby Products Ever (Part I)

Desert Island Disks – Kid Music Edition

10 Things You May Not Know About Pregnancy (and might shock you)

The 26 Most Disturbing Kids Movies Ever

Post-Election, Women Hate Sexism Almost as Much as Feminism

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:34:00 GMT

A recent survey on post-election attitudes to sexism reveals that a majority of Americans live in La La Land. For starters: While most men don’t believe there is gender bias in the media or at home, almost half (4 in 10) “freely admit to having sexist attitudes towards a female president.”

Espousing similarly mind-boggling contradictions, the vast majority of women believe that Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton were treated unfairly by the media—but would be mortified to call themselves “feminists.” Only 20 percent of women identify as feminist, and even fewer (17 percent) would be supportive of their daughters’ using the label.

Merriam Webster defines feminism as “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” In other words, most women are embarrassed to label themselves as people who believe in gender equality, but are outraged over the media’s coverage of Palin’s hair. Only 48 percent of women believe that the media treated Clinton fairly, and far fewer female respondents (29 percent) believe that Palin got fair treatment. (Perhaps Palin seemed to get harsher gender-based media coverage because Clinton wasn’t, say, buying $150,000 worth of clothes on the GOP’s dime?)

Sure, some high-profile activists may have given the term “feminist” a more extremist connotation than many women would like it to have, but that doesn’t necessitate rejecting the whole theory. I don’t agree with many of PETA’s over-the-top tactics, but that doesn’t mean I stop calling myself a vegetarian.

Ready for more oblivious sexism? 39 percent of men feel that the role of president is more “naturally suited” to a man than to a woman. I guess that explains why so many more men than women (two-thirds to less than half) believe there is gender equality in the home—the wife just does all the housework because she is more “naturally suited” to it.

On the upside, the poll was relatively small, with 1,000 respondents.

Photo: Jezebel

Dudes for Palin: Vote for the Hot Chick!

They Say: How To Work From Home More Effectively

Kelly Mills — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:02:00 GMT

Being a work-at-home mom has plenty of perks, like the flexibility to pick up the kid from school and the ability to do dentist's appointments and teacher conference days without begging a boss for the time off. But there's serious downsides too: As I detailed here, it's hard to escape from work when it stares at you 24-7; the household tasks beg for my time; and no one is paying me to surf the ol' 'net, though that doesn't stop me. So when I hear there's ways to be more productive at home, I think, "Yeah! Sign me up!"

Only after reading this, I'm skeptical. Not because these are terrible, but because it sounds a little like slapping a band-aid on top of a giant wound infected with flesh-eating strep.

The tips. 1. Clean up the clutter. Yeah, if I had time to do that I might actually wanna use that time to hit the five deadlines I'm behind on. 2. Move your desk so it's away from the door in a commanding position. Dude, you have a desk? I schlepp my laptop from surface to surface so I can do five things at once! Though I like the idea of my kid walking in as I swivel my chair around from behind my imposing oak desk. I should make her schedule an appointment for snack. 3. Get a plant. Oh god, one more thing to water and care for. No. Way. 4. Get good lighting. Uh, who has fluorescent lights in their house? 5. Move the TV out of the office. Right. I may not be the most disciplined person ever, but I don't actually watch TV during my "work" hours. The internet is another story, but if I get rid of my computer, I'm SOL for work.

Sorry, the feng shui fixes are not cutting it for a working mom with so much to do, so little time. Frankly, the best thing I could do for my productivity is probably lose the kid. Cough. Screw productivity.

Do You Play With Your Kids' Toys?

A Third of Parents No Longer Saving for College

The U.S. of A: Fertility Capital of the World

Jen Chaney — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:33:00 GMT

If you've got at least 20 minutes to spare and a few cups of coffee to drink, take some time to read this week's cover story in the New York Times Magazine. The subject: The fact that the birth rate in Europe is declining so drastically, particularly in places like Italy and Greece, that the world may run out of Europeans in the not-too-distant future.

Personally, I zeroed in on the portion of the story that attempts to explain why America's birth rate is higher than pretty much everywhere else in the developed world. (This section is located on page six of the online version, for those of you reading along at home.) Several potential explanations are offered, but Carl Haub of the Population Reference Board believes the most significant factor may be -- and do try not to spit up your coffee as you're reading -- the flexibility that exists in the American workplace. "An American woman might choose to suspend her career for three or five years to raise a family, expecting to be able to resume working; that happens far less easily in Europe," the story notes.

It also notes that, compared with some European nations, office culture here is allegedly more open to flexible hours. It's an interesting point. In general, I think American companies have made great strides in this area in the past decade. More of my friends now have at least partial work-from-home situations that make it easier for them to manage parenthood. But on the whole, I feel like we still have a long way to go.

Maybe I see things the way I do because I work in a particularly competitive industry (media) in a particularly ambitious town (Washington, D.C.). But even though some companies make huge efforts to accommodate the needs of parents, it still seems to me that we are a very career-focused culture, so much so that making time to spend with kids, much less have more of them, is an enormous challenge. In fact, the very technology that allows so many of us the flexibility to work from home also means that it's next to impossible to fully unplug and disconnect from our offices. I'm also not convinced that it's that easy for women to exit and re-enter the work force, either.

One thing that the U.S. government doesn't do to simplify life for parents: Provide subsidies for daycare or payments for the birth of a child. In Norway, the government doles out 4,000 euros when a family has a new addition. And the village of Laviano, Italy, where the birth rate is particularly low, may soon recommit to a previous plan -- offering 10,000 euros, or about $15K, to any woman who conceives and raises a child there. (Hell, for $15,000, I'll stop writing this post and try to make a baby right now.)

Obviously America doesn't need to resort to such dire measure since we seem to have plenty of kids to go around. The bigger question: Are the experts in this article right about what makes our population in the U.S. continue to grow? Is it the flexibility and the attitude that both moms and dad need to share the responsibilities of parenting? Is it that moms can take breaks from their careers without consequences? Is it something ingrained in our culture, with all its talk of "family values"? Or is it door No. 3: Americans just like to get it on like jack rabbits?

Mr. Gwen Stefani wants to feel more manly

Brett Singer — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:00:00 GMT

The other day on the streets of Manhattan I saw a sign advertising Gavin Rossdale's new album. Who, you may ask, is Gavin Rossdale? You might know him by his married name: Mr. Gwen Stefani. Back in the dark days of the 1990's, Gavin was actually more famous than his now-wife; he was the lead singer of a band called Bush. They had a few unlistenable hits. (Actually, they were pretty popular, but not really my thing.) Then he married Gwen, who has gone from being the lead singer of No Doubt to a world-wide superstar of the kind not seen since Madonna.

When I saw the poster, I thought to myself, I wonder if he gets annoyed about the fact that his wife is sooo much more successful than he is. I mean, people have busted my chops (usually in a good natured way) about the fact that my wife brings home more pastrami (we're Jewish, so we don't eat much bacon) than I do. In truth, it doesn't bother me. I'd be lying if I said I had never once felt a little funny about the reversal of traditional roles, but its pretty rare and not terribly serious. Besides, um, I get to stay home. So I was curious whether Mr. Stefani was equally enlightened.

Well, there are problems, but not exactly the kind I described. Gwen is reportedly annoyed at her hubby for going out on tour to promote his new record rather than staying home with the rug rats, current and pending (Gwen is about to give birth). See, she has put her career on hold for the moment, and doesn't understand why her husband can't do the same.

Gwen (she lets me call her Gwen – no, she doesn't), I'm going to tell you why. Because he feels completely emasculated. You are one of the biggest stars EVER. Who knows if it will last but you've completely surpassed any musical success that he has ever known, not only with No Doubt but also as a solo artist. You made a clothing line. You have Japanese backup dancers who follow you everywhere. You think he doesn't want that (especially the backup dancers)? Let him go out on the road. See if Gavin can change his schedule a bit so he's at home more often while the kids are still little, and maybe he can play some dates near where you live when you get close to your due date.

And Gavin? Get over yourself. You had your shot, you did OK, but what're you, Bob Dylan? Yes, you're "the man". But it's not 1952. You are married to an incredibly hot and talented woman who has made a pile of dough. Enjoy it. Plus, being around for the birth of your child, even the second or third time, is a great thing.

In other words: talk to each other, figure out a way that Gavin can do whatever promotion he has to do, and still be there when the baby is born.

Gwen. Gavin. If you want to talk, you know where to find me.

image: Star.com

Greatdad.com's Husband Of The Year awards

Jennifer Aniston Is A Hater

FIRST LOOK: Jessica Alba In Genlux Magazine

Chris Martin Might Have Been Gay, Had It Not Been for Boobs!

Working Women Wisdom From An Unexpected Source

Adrienne Martini — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:30:00 GMT

I have a reality TV problem. The shows where stupid people do stupid things - like the now defunct Fear Factor - have never scratched my itch. Watching folks vomit has never been my idea of a good time.

Give me a show where there are skilled people testing themselves against other skilled people, I'm going to watch it. Especially when the judges are also smart and skilled, like chef/restauranteur Tom Colicchio, a panelist on Bravo's Top Chef and a guy who can articulately explain why the glass ceiling is still so hard to break.

Even if you don't give a rip about who won this season, Colicchio's blog about the finale this week proves that a) he's a guy you'd love to have a beer with and b) it is possible to coherently explain why there aren't more women with kids in traditionally male-dominated fields.

I offer this merely as proof that the reality TV oeuvre isn't full of knuckleheads: compare Colicchio's musings with those of Penelope Trunk, who attempts to say the same things. Neither will solve the problem, of course, but one does make it clear what the problem actually is, yes?

Photo credit.

Parenting Propaganda and Mommy Porn

Adrienne Martini — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:00:00 GMT

Just when I thought I'd found a sister-in-spirit, a mom who understands how hard it is to juggle kids, jobs and life, she had to break my heart with some wonky interpretations of the data and a general inability to write a coherent sentence. I hate it when columnists let me down -- which means I'm in a perpetual snit.

Witness Penelope Trunk's latest Brazen Careerist column about parenting propaganda. Trunk starts strongly, with nods to celebs who make the whole working mom thing look like a piece of delightful cake. And I'm sure it is when you have a staff of 20.

But then Trunk starts to wander off into wackyland, weakening her own argument by citing data (the bit about childless women earning more than childless men) that doesn't mean what she thinks it means. Read the story for yourself right here.

Frankly, Trunk's column wouldn't phase me in the least -- lots of bloggers wander off into the logical underbrush every now and again -- but for one thing: this is a topic that hits my house in a big, fat way. And I'd imagine it hits your homes, too. It's too important to let get muddied by well-intentioned but imprecise and crappily written screeds.

Is it just me? Or does Trunk rub you in a weird way, too?

Words Have Many Meanings, Part 2

Adrienne Martini — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:00:00 GMT

A couple of days ago, I groused about the use of the word "mompreneurs." My issue with this smooshing together of two other perfectly good words is that it makes businesswomen who happen to be mothers sound like they are somehow different than entrepreneurs who are child-free and/or male. Fortunately, someone has explained how a mompreneur is different from anyone else who starts a business.

The difference is that mompreneurs work every minute of every day, squeezing their chosen vocation into the corners around soccer games, taxi duty and sleeping. It also means that you squeeze phone calls around videos and tv shows. Or, if you can't find a convenient time to talk to another person in real time, taking care of most of your business via electronic channels when everyone else in the house is asleep.

So the difference is that "entrepreneurs" don't have to juggle schedules, watch kids and obsess about face time with everyone while "mompreneurs" spend 24/7 wearing a different hat every second of every day? How is this different from what other working mothers face? Or am I missing something?

Hide Your Motherhood to Get Ahead

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:27:00 GMT

My wife remembers well a lecture she once attended about how to become a law firm partner while balancing a family at home. A newly minted partner and mother was giving the talk and apparently didn't notice jaws drop and eyes go wide when she informed the assembled mass that she had to make a few calls during labor and then had to leave her new baby and husband at home -- for two months -- to seal a business deal.

But that, she said, was the way to do it -- the way to get ahead.

The lecture came to mind this morning when I was reading the Wall Street Journal's excellent work-life blog, The Juggle. This article on recently fired Morgan Stanley co-prez Zoe Cruz -- the almost-CEO of Wall Street -- talks about how she would play down or "hide" her mothering while at work and apparently accepted all manner of duties that were take her away from home or force her to make some tough compromises, such as baking cupcakes at 4 a.m.

It's an interesting article and worth checking out. I'd be curious to hear if this is still considered the way to get ahead for working moms or whether more people are choosing more family friendly paths.

Office plus Baby = No Work?

Brett Singer — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:30:00 GMT

As an experiment, three Guardian staffers brought their rugrats to the office and blogged about the experience. The result? Not much work got done. Zoe Williams, who brought 6 month old Thurston (love those British names) to the Guardian offices, points out that letting babies hang out at the workplace "irks non-parents," acknowledges that "parents are annoying," and quotes something called the Parenting in the Workplace institute, which is so enthusiastic about parents bringing babies to work they sound like a group funded by companies that don't want to pay for extended maternity leave (note: I don't know if I'm right about that, that's just a guess.) Bottom line: none of the three people in this particular group dug the experience, at least in terms of productivity. Williams puts it best when she says that Thurston is, "a nuisance. A lovely nuisance, but nevertheless..."

As someone who brought Thing 1 to my place of business a few times when he was very young, I can say that there is a way to get stuff done and also have the kid there. One is the Baby Bjorn. I developed a knack for answering email while Thing 1 napped away peacefully (I have long arms). I could even take phone calls using a headset, which prompted a colleague down the hall to joke, "The kid's first words are going to be 'can you hold, please?'" (For what it's worth, they weren't.)

Admittedly, I was in a small office, and I was the boss, so everyone just had to deal. But the fact is that no one minded; if anything, they seemed to enjoy it. Of course, Thing 1 was THE GREATEST BABY EVER. But he still pooped, required bottles of expressed milk (which I stored in the office fridge), and all that good stuff. I didn't do it every day, just sometimes, when it was realistic. But any loss in productivity was offset by the fact that I was able to spend more time with my son and also give my wife a much-needed break while she was on maternity leave.

One idea that never seems to get enough attention is onsite daycare. There was an episode of 'Desperate Housewives' where Lynette's employer adds a facility for employees, and I think it worked out OK (although, if memory serves, she and her husband are now running a pizza place, so maybe it was a nightmare. I don't watch that show anymore.) Some companies will pay for offsite day care at a facility such as Bright Horizons; sometimes you can even visit your little one for lunch if you are so inclined. In this case, I'm talking about Manhattan, which doesn't have affordable childcare; your choices are a nanny, a pricey pre-school or an almost-as-pricey day care. The little amount of telecommuting I've seen first-hand is basically paying people to stay home with the kids, since very little work actually gets done. (Of course, your experience may be different.)

Anyone had any experience with kids at the office -- yours or other people's? And does anyone's company offer onsite daycare?

image: guardian.co.uk

The More Things Change

Adrienne Martini — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:30:00 GMT

When it comes to mixing work and pregnancy, I have been extremely lucky. With baby number one, I worked for a weekly paper whose maternity leave policy was, in essence, do what you need to do and come back when you're ready. With baby number two, I was (and, um, am) a freelance writer who also taught at a university and was off during the summer that I delivered. Hooray for me!

Sadly, my experience has been the exception rather than the rule. Pamela Paul's impassioned column is a reminder that announcing you're pregnant can be a career killer. Hell, even just being female and therefore potentially pregnant is enough sometimes.

Have we really come a long way, baby?

Photo credit: abc.net.au

Dads Aren't Slacking, Are Getting Some

Kelly Mills — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:29:00 GMT

There has been a glut of "guys do housework, get laid" stories out lately, and some of them frankly sound like a bid to get laundry help. You know, men who do housework are hot, if women aren't tired they feel more in the mood, and so on. If it doesn't make you feel like a low-paid call girl, I suppose you could even work out some sort of direct exchange of chores for hummada hummada, but I doubt either party really wants to feel like there's an ulterior motive behind the acts of cleanliness and love.

No matter how you look at it though, a new report says guys are pitching in on housework and childcare more, and possibly getting laid for it. They cite that men's contributions to housework have doubled since the 60's, and pitching in on childcare has tripled since 1965. Great. Maybe now people will stop asking dads with kids in tow, "Oh, are you babysitting?" And if there's a happy ending (in every sense) to this more equitable division of labor, then three cheers for parents today.

Canadians Soon to be Even Happier

Madeline Holler — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:48:00 GMT

When you're Canadian, do you wake up every morning happy ... cold, but happy? I ask because it seems to me that Canadians get it when it comes to families -- healthcare, maternity leave, education. Canadians are just so together, cold but together.

Take this as an example: national lawmakers there are seriously considering an overhaul of their lawmaking schedule in order to make it more family friendly. The goal? Getting more parents of young children involved in public office.

Now, I don't know the workings of the Canadian legislature, but basically they're ending a requirement to be there on Fridays, cutting out evening and late-night sessions and taking advantage of Blackberrys and other technology so that they can be present while also being absent. The rescheduling, proponents claim, simply packs more work in to a shorter amount of office time. Sounds good to me.

Here in the U.S., we certainly talk about making work, government and society family friendly. But we're very short on action. We're someone to mention this in the U.S., we'd have to have a totally polarizing argument that shamed working parents, belittled stay-at-home parents, called into question the motives of those who didn't want to be around on Fridays while ignoring/unduly burdening the chosen lives of the child-free -- and calling into question the productivity of public officials who may actually like hanging out with their kids.

It's as if the best we get down here, even from the Democratic presidential candidates who seem positively pro-pro-family with their healthcare plans, is a vague mention of universal pre-K. Which is fine. Just not enough, it seems to me.

But those Canadians! They just overhaul their outdated Victorian ways and call it a family-friendly night. A cold but family-friendly night.

Night Owl Kids Are Suffering

Kelly Mills — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:03:00 GMT

Oh, we working parents are so mean and selfish. It turns out that many folks who get home from work late are pushing back their children's bedtimes so they can spend time with them. While this story is tied to New York, it's a phenomenon I've seen here on the other coast as well. There's mention of a couple parents who don't get home till 8 p.m. and keep the kids up till 9 or even 10. And of course, we've documented that lack of sleep in kids has been linked to behavioral problems, obesity, hyperactivity, cognitive issues, and we'll probably find out soon it's responsible for global warming and lead in toys as well. Sigh.

The advice from the expert is to keep an early bedtime for the kids, but to come home early from work a day or two, or make breakfast the family meal if necessary. Hmmm. Okay, could we working parents also start lobbying for more reasonable hours at jobs, and even a later school start time if necessary? Both those would benefit everybody, and I think it's time we looked at some of this crap as a social problem born out of a workaholic society rather than the issue of a few parents who are trying to balance career and family.

Stay-At-Home-Dads: Career Suicide?

Karen Murphy — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:38:00 GMT

Hey dads, want to be branded as "unmanly" in the workplace? It's easy! Just become a stay-at-home dad and suddenly your manhood will come into question, no problem. How about that? Not only that, but, uh, you don't exactly like your job, do you? Well, great, because by becoming a SAHD you can call into question your commitment to your career, and be considered by your higher-ups as a person "not having the kind of drive or seriousness of purpose that they would want in leadership positions". Yay you!

Yep, simply by spending some fleeting quality-time moments at home with your children instead of off whacking wooly mammoths over the head with huge clubs, you can later earn yourself a trip into a work vacuum. When you do go back to work, you can count on zero support or understanding, because it's very likely no one will understand your choice to actually spend time with your kids. After all, we're still struggling as a society with moms staying home, but dads? Come on!

SAHDs, speak up! What's your experience been like? Is it as bad as all that? Or worse?

Lights, Camera, APGAR! When To Get Your Baby Into Acting

Jessica Ashley (Sassafrass) — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:04:00 GMT

You know that moment when you've finally delivered your newborn, when the glaring fluorescent lights and OB massaging the placenta out of your weary body seem to fade away and you have that first glorious parental epiphany that your screaming, slippery child is the most beautiful baby on the planet? Just so you know, you can start cashing in on that pretty face right away.

As long as your baby's not born prematurely, gets a work permit and note from the doctor, they are free to appear on stage or set or silver screen almost immediately. This will give you minutes to forecast how your acting prodigy will dazzle the world with their spit-up and cradle cap and eventually make you their high-earning manager.

If you're living in California, your barely-born child can begin working in the movies when they are 15 days old. If you can't possibly wait that long, move to Wyoming, West Virginia, New Mexico or another state where baby stardom begins as soon as the umbilical cord is cut (there's a funny director with a clapboard joke there somewhere that I haven't quite formulated yet, but you get the...ummm, picture). Apparently at this age when newborns startle whenever their parent inhales, they are perfectly capable of handling lights, makeup and the other "stress of filmmaking." Since babies in movies don't generally have lines, I suppose that stress is limited to being smeared with birthing-gunk replicators like grape jelly (no strawberry! no K-Y! remember allergies!), collecting on your meager day rate and dealing with your stage mother who is still applying ice packs and sitting on a blow-up donut. Who's complaining? It's a hell of a lot better than hanging out in a co-sleeper and snuggling up to grandma all day, right?

U.S. Woefully Lacking in Family Workplace Policies

Karen Murphy — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:14:00 GMT

A new study to be released this week tells us what U.S parents already know -- that U.S. companies suck at providing support for parents. For instance, joining only four other countries out of the 173 surveyed, the U.S. fails to guarantee some form of paid maternity leave. Workplace policies for families in the U.S. are weaker than those of all high-income countries and many middle- and low-income countries.

Among more of the findings:

1. Fathers are granted paid paternity leave or paid parental leave in 65 countries. But not in the U.S.

2. At least 107 countries protect working women's right to breast-feed; the breaks are paid in at least 73 of them. Again, not in the U.S.

3. At least 145 countries provide paid sick days, with 127 providing a week or more annually. The U.S. only provides unpaid leave through the Family and Medical Leave Act, which doesn't even cover all workers.

4. At least 134 countries have laws setting the maximum length of the work week, while U.S. parents can work 24/7, woot!

Of course, some U.S. companies do go above and beyond in providing parents with a supportive work environment, but they unfortunately are the exception and not the norm. How does your employer stack up? And more importantly, what can U.S. parents do to change this?

UK Parents Claim They're Second Class Drones on Return to Work

thezeroboss — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:34:00 GMT

It's hard out there for a pimp. But apparently, it's even harder for parents who return to work after taking time off to be with their children. A survey by UK Web site mother@work reports that only 1 out of 10 parents who returned to work did so because they loved their job; most went back purely for financial reasons. Additionally, 7% of parents claim that they were passed over for promotions because of their brood, while a full 10% said that they could feel the cold, icy stares of their childless colleagues piercing them to the marrow.

I have to wonder how representative those digits are of American parents, though. Most of the moms and dads I know who returned to work after doign the stay-at-home gig did so because they felt something was missing in their lives. Most of them, in other words, love to work. My own wife is a former stay at home mom turned work at home mom, who's written eloquently about her reasons for going back to the grind.

Let's hear from the peanut gallery. (And I mean that in the most affectionate way possible.) If you used to stay home with the kids, why did you repatriate? Did you miss working? Or was it strictly a matter of the dinero?

Fortune Magazine Names Parent-Friendly Google As Best Employer

JasonAvant — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:00:00 GMT

My day job as an HR Guy means that I'm always on the lookout for ways to improve life for my fellow co-workers. I'd do well to look no further than Google. Fortune has recently released its list of the top 100 companies to work for, and Google deservedly took the top spot. The Silicon Valley-based company, currently employing over 10,000 very lucky and very talented souls (the minimum requirement for an engineer is 3.7 from a top-tier school, so Debbie Dootson Driving School alums may want to send their resumes elsewhere, and a pre-employment survey geared to see if prospectives will fit in with the company's goals and culture bears an eerie resemblance to the Voight-Kampff Test), offers some great perks for employees. Along with the 11 free on-campus (one of which is all-organic) cafeterias, the $5,000 allowance you get if you want to buy a hybrid car, and the gym featuring a lap pool and rock climbing wall, the Google leadership provides some thoughtful (and relatively cheap and easy) amenities to make Google parents' lives a bit easier.

For starters, parents who are taking time off for the birth of a child receive up to $500 in reimbursement for take-out meals while on maternity leave. Employees have the option of dropping off their kids at the company-run child center. Googlers having difficulty navigating around the mountain of soiled onesies occupying their living rooms can bring it to the Googleplex and use the company's laundry facilities. The company provides on-site medical and dental care. And parents of "furbabies" have the option of bringing their dog to work.

The perks are great, but what's more refreshing is the mindset behind them; that the company's founders want to provide an environment that makes the often long hours not only bearable, but enjoyable. And there's good business sense at work here as well: the ROI is that Google has an extraordinary retention rate, meaning that fewer company dollars, resources, and hours are spent replacing employees who've left for other jobs. A hot button issue for working parents is the ability to maintain a work-life balance, and Google appears to excel at providing that. And yes, they're hiring.