Apt. 11D

Labors of Love

Arlie Russell Hochschild has a new book, The Outsourced Self: Intimate Life in Market Times, which looks at all the people caught up in the care business.

With women in the office, extended families dispursed, and communities in shambles, the job of care taking of others has been outsourced to professionals for a dollar. Hochschild looks at love coaches, nannies, elder-care managers, surrogate nannies in India. She wonders whether "we are dividing the world into emotional types — order-barking, fast-paced entrepreneurs at the top, and emotionally attuned, human-paced mediators at the bottom?”

Judith Shulevitz has a great review in this week's New York Times book review. I just ordered this book. 

Why Are SAHM's So Bummed Out?

Sharon Lerner looks at the emotional state of stay-at-home moms.

In the latest unfortunate news at the intersection of motherhood and politics, stay-at-home moms are doing worse emotionally than their working counterparts. According to a Gallup pollreleased last week, mothers who don’t work outside the home were far more likely to be depressed, with 28 percent reporting depression, compared with 17 percent of working mothers, and also 17 percent of working women who don’t have children. In fact, stay-at-home moms fare worse than these two groups by every emotional measure in the survey, reporting more anger, sadness, stress, and worry. They were more likely to describe themselves as struggling and suffering and less likely to see themselves as “thriving.”

She says that finances play a huge role in this depression. Also, she says that mothering work is low status and under appreciated. Mothers need longer parental leave policies, protection for part time workers, and affordable child care. 

On Parenting Politics

It turns out the Mayim Bialik is an anti-vaccinater. Credibility lost.

Honestly, I am bored with the never ending parenting books and mother wars. Nobody ever says anything new. I suppose I should check out these two new books. 

Gross or Cool?

Check out the cover of Time Magazine. Reactions?

The articles are here. 

Gender Wage Gap and the Motherhood Penalty

There's been a lot of talk lately about the gender wage gap. On Sunday, Rachel Maddow weighed in on the topic on "Meet the Press." She said that women earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. Alex Castellano replied to her on the show. 

In article for Politico, Kay Hymowitz explains why women earn less - motherhood. After women have kids, they work less hours then men, they take more flexible jobs, or take years off when their children are little. Taking time off is basically a career killer. 

Hymowitz is right about the cause of the gender wage gap. Ann Crittenden covered the same territory in The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued. However, Hymowitz misses the punch line in the discussion, which is that this situation is still wrong. Parents should not be penalized in the workforce for caring for their children. 

Tween Fashion

Last Friday night, I volunteered to chaperone "Spirit Night" at the local middle school. I am trying to get out and meet more people in the community. Also, I wanted to spy on my kid to see how he behaves out in the wild. 

When I walked into the school, I was handed a name tag and given a task chart for the night. When former CEOs become the head of the PTA, school activities become well oiled machines. 

My first task of the night was to hand out neon necklaces to the kids, so they could glow when they danced in the darkened gym. This was a fun job, because I got a good look at all the kids as they came in the doors. 

The boys wore t-shirts and jeans. The middle school boy uniform has not changed, since we were kids. The girls wore identical outfits, but they were different from the tight jeans and feathered hair uniform that we wore during my Disco-era middle school. It was a casual event, so the girls wore super short shorts. Hours and hours must have been spent removing leg and bikini line hair. Their hair was long, straight and parted down the middle, Morticia-style. For formal affairs, I understand the girls go for the sausage casing dress that stops below the bum. 

There must be some ideal beauty that all the girls were trying to replicate, regardless of their body types. I'm not sure where this ideal comes from. The sausage dress and the Daisy Duke shorts are not in Vogue or other fashion magazines. 

I wanted to grab those girls, especially those with the wide hips and the wavy hair, and shout at them, "You're beautiful!" But they wouldn't listen. I try telling my son, who is suddenly desperate to be one of the crowd, that he's a great kid, because he's different. His interests in politics and history are awesome, and he should talk about that stuff at school. But he doesn't listen. He looks at envy at the boys who hit puberty early - the sullen Hulks - and wishes that he was bigger. 

I wanted to save all of those kids from the insecurity of middle school, but I couldn't.

The 1% Nanny

The parenting blogs are all a buzz about Adam Davidson's magazine piece about high priced nannies. He profiles one nanny  who pulls in serious cash. 

As one of New York City’s elite nannies, Muneton commanded around $180,000 a year — plus a Christmas bonus and a $3,000-a-month apartment on Central Park West.

There's an agency in the city that places high priced nannies. These women are not only Mary Poppins with the kids. They also will drop all plans at a moment's notice to watch the kids and have additional skills.

 According to Pavillion’s vice president, Seth Norman Greenberg, a nanny increases her market value if she speaks fluent French (or, increasingly, Mandarin); can cook a four-course meal (and, occasionally, macrobiotic dishes); and ride, wash and groom a horse. Greenberg has also known families to prize nannies who can steer a 32-foot boat, help manage an art collection or, in one case, drive a Zamboni to clean a private ice rink.

A fellow grad student once told me that she worked for a super wealthy family in the city that got off on having an entire staff of ABDs as servants. She worked for them as a personal assistant as she finished her dissertation in English literature. It was better money than adjuncting. 

This article is getting so much attention, because most people can't afford basic daycare costs for their kids. It's the largest item on monthly budget, after the rent or mortgage payment. Other luxury goods that the rich enjoy like cars and boats are annoying, but accepted. There is a lot of irritation about inequality around childcare.  

Explaining Annette Lareau

Jonah, did you ask your French teacher about why you got that B on that assignment? At 5:00 p.m. today, you have an orthodontist appointment. We'll pick up Thai food on the way home and then you'll finish your English homework. Don't forget to put a book cover on your essay. A book cover always bumps a grade up half a point. Your dad can check your math when he gets home. Do you want tofu in your green curry or chicken? Ian, do you want noodles?

Every once in a while, you step back from yourself as a parent and say, "Dude! Did I actually just say that? I used to be cool. Did some alien take over my brain and turn me into this Mom Machine?"

No crab-faced alien can be blamed for transforming me from a slacker in a black dress into what I am today. According to sociologist Annette Lareau, I'm a product of my social class.

More here... 

How Does She Do It?

Sunday's New York Times Business Section often profiles a CEO of a Fortune 500. I always look forward to these profiles, because I'm curious what makes such driven individuals tick. What are their unique personality traits or talents that propelled them to the top of the business world? Do they have a unique vision for the business world? Did they see opportunities that everyone else missed? 

 This Sunday, the New York Times focused on Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook. With Facebook's recent IPO offering, a profile on Sandberg was an obvious choice.

Nearly the entire article was devoted to the subject of how she combines her role as a mom with her career. Work-family balance is an important topic. As a mom, I have struggled with combining a career with my family's needs. However, the New York Times seems obsessed with this topic when it comes to women CEOs. They never ask a male CEO how he balances work-family, just the women. Don't men have kids, too? 

I guess I'm not the only one who was annoyed by this column. Rebecca Rosen is annoyed that the New York Times credits Sandberg's success with good "luck," rather than hard work. Penelope Trunk says that the New York Times failed to give the complete picture of what child-care looks like in a family with two hard driven inviduals who work in the tech industry. Multiple nannies are required to watch the kids. She says that you can't run a startup and expect to see your kids. She doesn't think that most women would be willing to make that trade off. Others, like Jezebel, are annoyed that Sandberg blames the victim, women, for lack of ambition for their lack of corporate accomplishments. Katy Waldman says that women do need to fight to get to the top and defends Sandberg. 

Sandberg made it to the top, not only because of luck and ambition, but because she played by rules. She didn't take off time to watch the kids when they were young. She didn't take lower positions or refuse to travel for business. She played by the rules. The trouble is that the rules don't work for most families. I would rather see a focus on leaders, both male and female, who made it to the top and did NOT play by the rules.  Because the rules suck. 

 

Other links: Sheryl Sandberg's TED speech. 

Stay at Home Spouses and Their Critics

I have long been a fan of Nancy Folbre's blog posts at the New York Times. She typically discusses the economics of parenthood, and I've regarded her as a champion of families in all their various shapes and sizes. Today's column was unneccessarily nasty. 

She refers to the recent article in Bloomberg about the rise of stay-at-home dads and their role in supporting successful career women. A reader forwarded me the article a few weeks ago, and I believe I threw out a quick link on the blog. The article discusses how many dads either slow down their own careers or stop them entirely to watch the children, as the wife works the long hours or travels for her job. 

The article was mildly interesting. I have several friends who took on the role of primary caregiver with the wives taking on the role of primary breadwinner. I didn't really need an article to be aware of this trend, but I was happy to see the guys getting props for their work. 

Folbre seems to not like anyone staying home, regardless of their gender. She prefers the Scandinavian model where the state makes it easier for both parents to work. She says that American tax policies have created unfair incentives for stay-at-home parents. 

Professor McCluskey asserts that the marriage tax bonus should be termed “aid for affluent husband care.” Given the existence of homemaker dads, a more accurate term is “aid for affluent spouse care.”

Whatever we call it, there is no reason to subsidize it. Beautifully decorated living rooms and gourmet meals are delightful after a long day at the office – but they shouldn’t come at taxpayers’ expense.

Excuse me? Excuse me? Is that what Prof. Folbre thinks that I'm doing in this house? Does she really believe that any stay-at-home parent is home and forgoing thousands of dollars of salary, because they get an extra $20 in their tax return? Folbre needs to get out of the university and actually talk to some real parents. 

I'm home, because there are no jobs that will allow me to leave at 3:00 when the school bus pulls up and for parent-teacher conferences or illnesses. The job that I was trained for, no longer exists. I am only qualified to work at jobs that pay $20,000, which would never cover the amount of childcare that I would require for school vacations and summer breaks. (Not even discussing the extra work involved with raising a special needs child.) I am not preparing gourmet meals most nights. Think hotdogs and Annie's Mac and Cheese. I am helping with homework projects and driving kids to swim practice. I'm making a few dollars here and there with writing projects when they happen. I am volunteering at the school. 

It's a huge sacrifice to be home like this. My 401K nest egg is pitiful. I feel guilty buying new shoes for myself. It took me a couple of years to get over the huge loss of prestige of dropping from a university professor to the untouchable status of stay at home parent. It's completely bizarre, mean spirited, and ignorant to think that anyone does this job for $20 on their tax return.