AddThis script

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Still feasting on an endless pig

Larry Summers did women a favor by being such a blatant pig.

His verbal blunder made the media start examining women and the workplace and discrimination and change, or the lack there of. Sadly, most media focused on the biology crap, which was a giant load of crap, for sure. But fortunately, even if it is months later, the other issues that Summers' touched on are getting attention.

Along with biological differences, Summers also smacked two other walls blocking women from advancing in a variety of jobs: discrimination and "the reluctance or inability of women who have children to work 80-hour weeks," as reported by the Boston Globe.

That 80-hour BS still agitates me. And I'm still perplexed as to why there are so many people who think that reasonable work hours and success can't and shouldn't co-exist, or that achieving a more hospitable workplace is a feminist issue.

Matt Miller, who is filling in for Maureen Dowd over at the New York Times, most recently volleyed Summers' gristly comments into the spotlight. Even though Miller didn't mention Summers by name, it's hard to read about excessive work hours and not be reminded of his infamous comments.

"Today talented people live in fear of sounding anything less than 24/7. Tell your boss you have to deal with a drinking problem and you'll be fine; say you want more time with your family and you're on the endangered species list," wrote Miller in a column for the New York Times last week called, "Listen to My Wife."

Why are people so against change? Why are people so against society adapting to allow people to work without foregoing everything in their lives? It's sort of like some sick fraternity hazing. Perhaps the mentality is: "I worked 80 hours a week to get where I am today, so why shouldn't everyone else? If they don't, they don't deserve success."

Here are some of the best parts from Miller's piece:
It's hardly news that the issue vexing talented people is the struggle to balance their professional lives with time for fulfilling lives outside of work. The shock is that after decades of wrestling with these tradeoffs, the obvious answer is the one everyone has been too skeptical or afraid to explore: changing the way top jobs are structured.

In a world where most people are struggling, the search for "balance" in high-powered jobs has to be counted a luxury. Still, there is something telling (if not downright dysfunctional) when a society's most talented people feel they have to sacrifice the meaningful relationships every human craves as the price of exercising their talent.

Nowhere is there a greater gulf between the frustration people feel over a dilemma central to their lives and their equally powerful sense that there's nothing to be done. As a result, talented people throw up their hands. Women are "opting out" after deciding that professional success isn't worth the price. Ambitious folks of both sexes "do what they have to," sure there is no other way. That's just life.

My unreasonable wife rejects this choice. If the most interesting and powerful jobs are too consuming, Jody says, then why don't we re-engineer these jobs - and the firms and the culture that sustain them - to make possible the blend of love and work that everyone knows is the true gauge of "success"?...

...Here's the deal: this isn't a "women's" problem; it's a human problem. Yet for 30 years women have tried to crack this largely on their own, and one thing is clear: if the fight isn't joined by men (like me) who want a life, too, any solutions become "women's" solutions. A broader drive to redesign work will take a union-style consciousness that makes it safe for men who secretly want balance to say so....

...Some call this "whining." Others like working 24/7. Still others assert that you can never change the nature of work near the top. But our corporate experience persuades us that change is inevitable. In a globalizing world, many senior jobs are already impossibly big. If they need to be restructured anyway (we're working on how), why not do so in ways that give folks the option to have a life?...

Friday, May 27, 2005

Happy Anniversary R!

Today is the one-year anniversary of R's second open-heart surgery.

I can't believe it's been a whole year.

And what a different kid he is. At 14 months, he could not roll over, sit up on his own, crawl, stand. He did not move and he was rather blue. But he could think. He loved books (and still does, although cars are a current fascination). He could do puzzles and he even mastered 12 different signs. One year later, he's almost running, almost jumping, almost climbing up and down stairs, and has hundreds of words, can count to 20, knows all of his letters (both capital and lowercase). He can even read a couple of words (cat, car, dog, ball, hat, mommy, daddy, and Riley).

And it feels good to have my kid blend in at the park.

What is amazing to me is that we are even talking about turning R into a big brother. After Riley was born and diagnosed with a laundry list of health problems, I thought that we had made a huge mistake. We decided to have kids and look where we ended up. Now a mere 26 months have gone by and we are thinking about doing it again.

Yes, we could just throw caution to the wind (and we just might), but the delivery room is a very dangerous place to be, at least in our experience. And so the idea of having another baby isn't just about having another baby. There are a lot of emotional scars tied to that experience.

But we can't live on what-ifs, on the fears of what might happen. Yes it could happen again, just as randomly as it did the first time around. At least we'd be more prepared, more educated on what to expect.

Our kid is amazing. And despite our choppy road, I'm happy I'm here. And I'd like to think I'm a stronger, more compassionate person than I would be without Riley. He's amazing and I wouldn't trade him for anyone.

R's Dad has posted his thoughts as well.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

I need a better reason to get pregnant

So I'm not the only one brave enough to admit it out loud: pregnancy might be an easy out to the parenting-career dilemma.

Bethany was brave enough to admit it--although not to her hubby, apparently. She had contemplated getting pregnant again so that she could get out of her office-job routine. I know that when I was in a rut at my corporate job way back when, I also thought getting pregnant would be a good escape route. And that's how I've been feeling recently too, especially with so many women around me bubbling over with hormones and budding bellies.

I know that getting a jump on the next baby just because I haven't found the perfect paying job that compliments my primary job as parent, Numero Uno, is not a road I want to take. I feel grateful that I didn't take that route the first time around. That we waited and decided until it was the right time. It was not a substitute for a part of my life that wasn't working. And it won't be this time around either, whenever it is that we decide--whatever it is we decide--about adding an extra branch onto the family tree.

But sometimes when I'm feeling down (and I'm surrounded by happy, bloated, large-breasted, albeit somewhat nauseous, glowing, pregnant friends), it seems like a good option.

Getting pregnant doesn't solve problems. It doesn't fill voids. It can't make me forget about wanting a career. The only thing it would do is shift things around a bit, push them to the background for a bit. Voids will still be there. Desires to have another degree will still be there. Hopes of finding the perfect job will still be there.

I guess I try to be comforted by something Paramedic Friend told me during a Moms' Night Out event last year. Even if you wait until you're 40 to get back into a career, you'll have more than 20 years to contribute professionally and to feel accomplished. It's just hard not to wonder how people pull that off with such vast gaps on their resumes.

Monday, May 23, 2005

An easy end this work-home dilemma

A comment from last month has been floating around my thoughts, stewing.

It was a comment in response to being outnumbered. So many of the women around me have either brought a second baby into the world or are on their way to doing so. Then there's me and a increasingly smaller number of friends on the sidelines with our one child trying to figure everything out. For me, I stress about wanting to work, but wishing I could find the perfect part-time job that would nourish my ego while not giving up the parenting-thing altogether. And because I don't have to work, I get to be a little picky about what it is I do.

So I ponder, I wonder, I contemplate, I stress, I fret, I long, I pine. Ah, the luxury of choice.

Anyway, there was a comment that manababies made about making the transition from one child to two children and how that affected her thought process about going back to work.
When I was still a mom-of-one, I often went back and forth... should I go back to work? If so, when? My husband used to ask me that question constantly. After my son came along he stopped asking because it really is too much to think about, especially with all the little things we Mommies have going on in our heads. And the only time I can stop and think is when the kids are in bed. At that point I can't even begin to raise that 'going back to work' issue. Ugh, such a tough thing!
I know she didn't mean it this way, but manababies' comment planted a seed in my head that has sprouted into a full-fledged possibility of postponing my predicament. Instead of trying to figure out how to find this wonderful, perfectly-customizable, part-time job, I could just have another baby. She said that the only time she has to think about work is when the kids are sleeping. Maybe with two babies I won't have time to wonder how to find the perfect work-parenting balance. I'll be too sleepy.

In the first trimester, I'll be sick and achy and irritable. There won't be any energy to think much about work. And then as the pregnancy progresses, there won't be time to think about work because I'll be too busy nesting, etc. And then once a newborn is keeping me awake round the clock, there certainly will be no pining for additional work, even if it is for my poor, deprived ego.

It's the perfect solution! Or at least the perfect procrastination! Or maybe the perfect cop-out.

Friday, May 20, 2005

Penelope Trunk responds to MIC

I sent an email to Penelope Trunk--the writer who offered three easy steps for parenting-career utopia--to let her know that I was disappointed with her suggestions because they offer little-to-no real advice for real life. She was kind enough to write me back. This is her response:
Hi, Suzanne. Thank you for your email. I liked reading your response. I wish all the people I talked to about this topic thought about it as much as you do.

I actually find there is not much disagreement between us. I think it's more of a lifestyle choice: Some people find a partner early some people don't. If you do find a partner early, you can plan early and then you have a better chance of success at shared parenting. Some people choose to dedicate their lives to changing corporate policies and some people say forget it, I need to concentrate on my own life. I think all those decisions are fine, but some lend themselves to setting up shared parenting more than others.

In terms of trends, a relatively new one is for young people to find a partner and a career early-on that accommodate shared parenting. (This was especially interesting to me because I found a partner late, had kids late, and my own version of shared parenting is that we both are at home all day, but my husband had to give up his career completely to do that. Not ideal.)

I found that I actually learned a lot from talking to twenty-two-year-olds about their career aspirations and how they relate to parenting aspirations. Sure, they were idealistic, but there's a lot to be said for idealism -- it raises the bar for everyone, I think.

I hope you keep writing about this topic. More discussion is helpful to everyone. And if you do write more, please let me know- I'd like to read it.

- Penelope
Again, I think it's great for young people to be planning, but I still think that life can so often get in the way of great plans. There were several frothy comments worth reading on Trunk's article as well. Here are a couple of snippets:
Geeky Mom wrote: "I tried to be smart and realist in my late 20s when we were planning babies, but our careers hadn't gotten off the ground yet--and mine hadn't even started yet. We had no idea. There's no way to know..."

Chip wrote: "These people must be very young if they actually think they can plan their life out in such detail in advance...On the other hand, I do think it's important for partners to be on the same page about this kind of thing..."

Angry Pregnant Lawyer wrote: "If the advice the writer is doling out is for folks in their early and mid-20s, that's completely unrealistic. Career aspirations change. In my early to mid-20s, I was in a completely different field than I am now. And at that age, I certainly had no intention of becoming a lawyer...

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Girl power will bury Lawrence Summers

Thankfully Harvard President Lawrence Summers hasn't had a negative impact on high school girls' desire to success in math in science.

On Monday, the California Academy of Sciences was the backdrop for a daylong seminar for 113 scientifically-inclined Bay Area high school girls, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. Lawrence ignited an explosive debate after he said in January that women may not be biologically hardwired to handle math and science as well as men. He later apologized for his comments.

The high school students participated in a variety of scientific experiments. They withdrew "saliva from their cheeks, for example, then using pipettes and centrifuges to extract its whitish threads of DNA, the carrier of the body's heredity code." They also listened to a accomplished female scientists talk and joke about how they succeeded as scientists and researchers.

The students' interests at the seminar spanned the science spectrum, from curing AIDS to researching photosynthesis and studying marine biology. And the girls were enthusiastic and confident in their chances for succeeding.

While men tend to dominate fields like physics, and Summers had to back pedal on his comments, there is progress to be made. And thankfully today's girls aren't easily discouraged. We can only hope their enthusiasm will power them through their studies and project them into these male-dominated fields.

Monday, May 16, 2005

Survey says? Validate me!

Perhaps too many people learned about surveys by watching Richard Dawson on Family Feud. Contestants on the hugely popular 80s quiz show didn't just answer trivia questions. Rather they tried to match their answers to the most popular answers in an audience survey. If the question was, "Name an animal you might see at the zoo," lemurs, capybaras, and mandrills are correct answers. But they probably aren't the most correct.

Lesson: giving the popular answers is good.

Although I imagine participating in a poll about parenting for the Washington Post tends to lead people to the safe, popular answers too. It also, sadly, leads to the safe, popular, shiny, happy questions.

On Mothers' Day, the Post ran an article about motherhood and parenting, called Children, Career and Choices that included some data from a recent poll of mothers. I was excited to read that overall, women were happy with their choices, although sometimes frustrated and guilty. I even agree with those sentiments. I'm mostly happy and feel fortunate that I'm home raising my kid. But I do have frustrations because I don't have the perfect part-time career budding in the background, though I am trying.

But once I got past that glossy overview (More than nine in 10 said they were satisfied with the arrangements they had made to care for their children. Seven in 10 described themselves as "very satisfied."), I felt like I was in TV Land. Here are two of the highlights (or low lights):
Fifty-two percent of those who stay at home think a mother should be allowed to work for pay if it makes her happier. (Allowed??!!)

Three in four feel that, given their financial situation, the work-home balance they have constructed is the best they could do both for their children and for themselves. (Given their financial situation? Sounds like they don't have many other choices. How could things be better?)
Where were meaty, gutsy questions: Does your employer offers enough flexible time? Would you like to see more on-site childcare? Do you have access to high-quality, affordable child care options? Before leaving your job to become an at-home parent, did your employer offer a part-time option? Or flexible hours? Or a job-share? Would you have stayed in the workforce if you had been given those options?

There was some job information:
About 4 in 10 have changed jobs, and a similar proportion have turned down a promotion or new responsibilities; Five in 10 have cut back their hours; Three in 10 have worked from home on a regular basis.
I have seen women give up their careers for lesser work-from-home substitutes because there were no family-friendly options. In that case, a job change is not good news. And is turning down a promotion good for women? Do we really need to hold ourselves back in order to right by our families? If you want to see good stuff in these numbers, you will. But it's all about the context of these changes. I'm not trying to be a downer, but I've known too many women who have been in these situations, and rarely are these changes positive.

Ask women a bunch of canned questions about their "choices" and their "balance," and get a bunch of useless data. Motherhood has been so targeted lately with "mommy wars" and "hyper-parenting" that women probably just want to feel good about themselves. Give the popular answers. Give the answers the survey conductor wants to hear.
Fifty-one percent think it's better for the child if one parent stays home.
I wonder how many of the people surveyed are working vs. at-home parents? And if you're not one of the ones staying home and deep down you think it's better if one parent is at home, would you say that out loud? Admit to a stranger you wish things were different? And vice-versa, how many at-home parents put on happy faces to the outside world, but are really struggling with their identity and wish they could work? Shock! Horror! That would mean that they aren't willing to sacrafice for their children! And public opinion already thinks mothers are doing a bad job:
Although 68 percent of Americans in a recent Post-ABC News national survey agreed that motherhood is more demanding today than it was a generation ago, 48 percent think mothers are doing a worse job, compared with 12 percent who feel they were doing better.
But who wants to hear that mothers aren't happy? So without the opportunity to answer real questions, women are going to say they are happy and content (I did a few paragraphs ago, even though that's not totally true). Let's just say we're satisfied because if we say it out loud, we just might believe it. Then if we read it in the newspaper, it must be true.

Maybe the Post should have done a preliminary survey to find out what mothers really wanted to know about other women. They most definitely would NOT have said, "I'd like to know if other women are somewhat satisfied, satisfied, or very satisfied.

But then it wouldn't have been a warm, fuzzy Mothers' Day story. Survey says: You let us down again.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

I've got my village, but where's my family?

It's the people in your life that make life worth living. Yes, I've been thinking about family again. And how I miss them terribly.

For a while there I thought my mom was going to move out here. (JOY!) There was this man...but things didn't end up working out. I was more upset about it than she was. In addition to being my mother, she is one of my absolute best friends. My whole life she has been an encouragement, a companion, a teacher, a listener, a presence. And I hate that we aren't a part of each other's lives on a regular basis. Yes we talk on the phone. Yes we email each other. But it's just not the same. It just makes me so sad to long for something so tremendously. I try to explain my feelings to her when we are together--and it usually results in a heaping helping of sappiness.

I'm sure the family-thing is lingering in my mind because Grampy in Chief has been staying with us. He's been interviewing for a job out here too. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. And next to Grampy, I'm probably the next most excited person. It would be amazing to have this grandparent live nearby for so many reasons. Toddler in Chief would have some more family in his life on a regular basis; we would always have family to celebrate holidays and TIC's milestones with; a willing babysitter. And he is a champion with TIC.

When there is only one parent working, that puts a lot of pressure on. This notion also carries over into when there isn't any extended family around. When the parents are the only people raising a child, this puts a lot of pressure on, a pressure that parents with willingly helpful relatives around don't have. When you are the only people raising a child, it puts the pressure to do the right thing, to be the best you can be, to sacrifice for the benefit of your kid. Yes, I'm sure all parents experience this to a degree. But the responsibilities become amplified when there are no grandparents, or aunts, or other relatives around to share their wisdom and experience.

And being the at-home parent means that most of that responsibility falls to me. And I often struggle with whether I'm offering enough of me, or at least an adequate chunk of me to TIC. Maybe having another relative here would take some of that pressure off? Maybe I could spread around the parental responsibility a little.

If more family lived here, I probably wouldn't feel so guilty about doing more things for me. Maybe a little more work, maybe a graduate degree? Thinking about doing that stuff now seems like robbing time from TIC. But being able to spread around the parental responsibility makes those other things seem more attainable.

But then again, maybe that's just my excuse for procrastinating.

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Discouraged but not derailed

It only took one five-minute conversation to take me from energized to totally discouraged. I wanted to write about this yesterday, but was feeling way too down on myself.

Got up the courage to call Editor yesterday and left a somewhat coherent, albeit rambling, message on her voicemail about my interest in pursuing additional stories for her. Was very encouraged when she returned my call less than an hour later. I felt it was a good sign. But, sadly, stories have already been planned for the magazine through the fall.

I'm not sure what I was expecting...perhaps something like: "Oh, so glad you called. Can't wait for you to whip up the next cover story." Okay, I wasn't really expecting that to be the conversation. And I know it's totally my own fault for not jumping in right away while still working on the last piece. But I was at least hoping to hear that they were still interested in my gripping piece on Bay Area c-sections.

Even though I didn't hang up with a new assignment, I suppose that I'm in a much better place than I was a couple of months ago. A couple of months ago, I didn't have an assignment. I didn't have a fabulous magazine cover story in boxes all over the Bay Area. I didn't my foot in the door at any publications. So, really I'm in a pretty good place. This way just means additional work on my end. And what I'd really like is to just have more work lined up automatically for whenever I'm feeling energized enough to jump on it. I guess that's just one more reason I need a personal assistant.

So I can still pitch stories for later this year, if not to preempt the current magazine line-up.

And Father in Chief, in all his soothing husbandry wisdom, said now is the time to approach other publications as well. The current exposure should help open doors elsewhere too. It just means a little more work on my end, which is all good. Except that it is actual work.

Sunday, May 08, 2005

Feeling energized, taking on a new project

I've written a lot about wanting to work more, wishing that I was able to make a step to get that next story going, but excuses no more! Tomorrow I'll be calling my editor to say that I'm ready to take on that next project, if they'll still have me.

Yes, it's true. Editor asked me to do some additional reporting on one of my story ideas more than two months ago. And I was too busy, or too scared to actually get into the regular-work-schedule thing. I was in the middle of reporting one project and it was too much to take on another task before that one was completed. Maybe I was afraid of getting what I wanted. It's weird, but the status quo is so comfortable a place to be sometimes. Even though I complained about wanting to work more. Even though I complained when I didn't hear back from magazines that I pitched. Even though I complained when national magazines declined my story ideas.

But no more sitting back on my laurels and basking in the byline of my recent magazine piece.

Maybe I feel energized because Father in Chief is emotionally in a better place at his new job. Maybe I feel energized because Grampy in Chief is visiting. It's amazing how many projects can be taken on (and accomplished!!) when there is an extra set of loving eyes on Toddler in Chief. I can focus on making important telephone calls. I can use a hammer and nails while on a six-foot ladder and not worry that TIC will start climbing up the ladder while I'm perched several feet off the ground.

So I'm feeling good and ready to do something for me.

Maybe I'm energized because I've inspired someone. Maybe I'm energized because of a fabulous Mothers' Day. Doing something decadent for myself today was perhaps just the thing to rebalance the work/parenting conundrum. I had some serious me time with friends and it was a chance to step back and realize I like doing things for me. I love TIC, but if I'm not happy, then he won't be getting a good, positive, productive mom. Same for FIC. If I'm not happy, he's not getting a good, productive wife ;-)

And today was the perfect day. A delicious breakfast was prepared: french toast with fresh berries (or fresh berries with french toast, to be more accurate), a decaf latte, and a bouquet of white roses (picked out by Toddler in Chief, apparently). After that, lounging around with the New York Times. Then FIC took TIC to the aviation museum while I got together with other mom friends at a local watering hole. We had cocktails and dessert. Glorious, indeed.

Let's hope this positive vibe/drive carries through the night and I'm actually able to pick up the phone tomorrow.

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Excuses emoi, women are just bored

It seems that mainstream media is hell-bent on convincing us that everything for women is all worked out. Last week, we found out we could find work/career balance utopia in three easy steps, and this past Sunday the New York Times published an article called, "Behind the Exodus of Executive Women: Boredom."

So it's not lack of choice or support from companies after all. Phew.

I've been feeling like I bitch a lot at the media lately, but they just give me so much material! Plus, since I used to be a reporter, I feel somewhat entitled to take on the role of ombudsman just a bit. So as much as I wanted to ignore it, this NY Times piece has just been eating at me. So I couldn't let it go after all.

The first paragraphs starts out: "Women now outnumber men in managerial and professional positions, and most companies have installed policies that aim to help their leaders balance the demands of job and family."

The fact that Claudia Deutsch whitewashes over a significant issues facing millions of women is infuriating. Yes, more women are getting degrees and landing better-paying jobs, but I'm not sure it would lead me to the roof-tops hollering that women have finally reached parity.

Also, saying that most companies have installed policies to help their leaders balance job and family is also a joke. First of all, who is Deutsch talking about when she says leaders? Executives? Board directors? All managers? Not clear. So if companies having policies to help their leaders, does that mean that they are doing little to nothing for the rest of the parents pursuing a balance? And aren't those "non-leaders" the people who probably need the onsite childcare or flexible schedules more than anything.

Finding good, affordable, and reliable child care is a ongoing struggle for working parents. If a child gets a snow day or if a child is sick and needs to be sent home from school, what do working parents do? It often forces parents "to juggle a host of unpalatable options - stay home from work, bring kids to the office, foist them on the neighbors, hire an unfamiliar sitter," wrote Maggie Jackson, a columnist for the Boston Globe in February.

I'm sure it these "leaders" who likely earn enough money to have a full-time nanny with their kids, or who can just take the afternoon off without getting the hairy eyeball from their boss. But that is just the beginning.

"So much for the idea that women stay home to run families," said Cathleen A. Benko in the article. Benko runs Deloitte & Touche's high-technology sector and its Initiative for the Retention and Advancement of Women. Sure, if you interview women in their late 40s, I'm not surprised that many of them are in the workforce pursing their careers instead of families. The women Deutsch interviewed for this "boredom" article are 48, 49, and 53 years old. If they have kids, they are probably all grown up or at least in school full-time. These aren't pregnant women or women with toddlers trying to figure out how to mesh a career into their lives while raising little kids.

To be fair, the article did interview two women of childbearing age, a 34-year-old attorney at Booz Allen Hamilton. Another was a women who left Ernst & Young six years ago when she was pregnant, only to be wooed back with a special project. Both of these women were fortunate to be at companies that valued these women enough to get creative about finding jobs that keep these women engaged at work without completely foregoing their other job as parent.

But let's be honest here, it isn't the norm and most women don't walk away from their careers because they were bored.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

New job, positive impact on family

It doesn't matter if you are the father or the mother, when there is only one parent working, that puts a lot of pressure on. That means don't rock the boat at work, don't think about leaving your job, don't walk away from your cushy benefits.

Unless you're totally miserable.

We were in this situation. Father in Chief was very unhappy with his job, but since I am at home with Toddler in Chief, even thinking about changing jobs was a big stress for both of us. He was working at Yahoo and it wasn't working for our family. Long hours, stressful, unhappy Father in Chief was making everyone unhappy. Plus, it just didn't seem that families were a big priority at Yahoo. Yes, they have lots of family events during the year, like the Halloween parade, the Easter egg hunt, but his boss didn't have kids (and those people never understand), and his other boss has his kids in daycare for 10 or more hours a day while both parents work long hours.

But even more than that, his heart was with a start-up. But along with lower salaries, start-ups come with a lot or risk, i.e. the possibility of going out of business leaving the employees to wade through the help-wanted ads. But he needed to make a change.

So Father in Chief started a new job yesterday at a 12-person start up called JotSpot. It's a little closer to home and the founders have little kids. I had the luxury to interview Joe Kraus and Graham Spencer (who were also the co-founders of Excite) before Father in Chief accepted the job, and it was a great relief to hear how both of them carve time into their schedules to have time with their families. One gets up early and spent time with his daughter before work and the other is always home for bath time and bedtime.

I know that there will be long hours and lots of work at a start-up, but being at a company where the culture is currently being defined by families with kids, I feel that we are in a good place. Sure there is still a lot of financial risk, but making a positive change for our home-life is a calculated risk worth taking.

Sunday, May 01, 2005

Bay Area Parent Magazine debut

I've been alluding to this event for months. And finally, I can point you to my much-anticipated cover story for Bay Area Parent Magazine.

And wouldn't you know it that I was out of town when the publication's boxes were first filled last Monday with this month's issue?

Without further adu, you can read my story online here: Moms' Clubs Come of Age*

*Warning: BAP's web site has a confusing user interface. And you must register for the site and download a plug-in to get access to the article online. For an easier experience, pick up a hard copy (if you're local)...It's free.