Recently in motherhood Category
It's no secret that the poor economy is doing a number on most all of us -- but after years of struggling for equality in the workplace, the realization that women are suffering from layoffs, downsizing, outsourcing and poor wages in much the same way as men is disheartening. What's more concerning is that according to a recent study from the Joint Economic Committee of Congress women are also dropping out of the workforce as a response to these tough times. While some women have opted to stay at home to raise the kids or for other family reasons, the study showed that many are taking a break from work because they are unable to find jobs comparable to the ones they've lost, impacting not only their bottom line, but likely their emotional well-being, too.
Throughout the iVillage community we are seeing women struggle with the choice of working to earn money for their family -- or staying at home to avoid the rising cost of childcare. This has definitely been a hot topic on our Stay at Home vs. Work debate message board, where some moms are saying the income from their jobs and the price of daycare is practically a wash. Member mm05 offers some details:
"In June I quit my job. After returning to work from [maternity] leave and having to pay $600 every two weeks for 3 children, I said NO WAY! My pay cheque was only $645-$650 every 2 weeks. That left me with $50. It made absolutly no sense."
In a recent poll, 56% of iVillage users felt that childcare should be a benefit offered by employers.
In other cases, we're seeing women from our communities decide to go back to work -- even if only part-time, to help the family's bottom line.
How are you coping with the poor economy -- both financially and emotionally? Have you suffered from a layoff or pay cut -- or are you sensing your job is in jeopardy?
The actress and former talk show host, Ricki Lake, is worried that moms-to-be aren’t as educated about the birthing process as they should be. With her new documentary, “The Business of Being Born,” Lake raises questions about obstetrics and whether or not mothers and their babies are being serviced as well as they should be. Lake, who delivers her second son at home and on camera in the film, is an advocate of home births. Many moms feel passionately about this topic and were quick to join the debate on our message boards.
Pain is no deterrent for member themodernmother, who writes, “The epidural is the only reason to go to the hospital, and for me, that's just not enough. I've [given birth] every way except a c section (hosp/epi, birth center, hospital/induced/epi and home), and home was by far the best because of being able to be left alone after.” Member digitalbaby agrees. She even feels that a home birth can be less painful. “Birth at a hospital, in my experience, is more painful. ESPECIALLY if you're given pitocin. At home, you're more relaxed, and it's an environment you know. I'm not going to say labor doesn't hurt, but for me at least, it's magnitudes more manageable than at a hospital.”
For some mothers a home birth is preferable, because their comfort and their desires are a priority. Member cartuin8 says, “I love the idea of not having to worry about making it to the hospital. Of having everything ready to go in your house and not having to go to a hospital full of sick people. Not being pressured to have drugs or to be able to do this on your own. Having someone there just for you instead of sharing nurses with everyone in labor.” Member marissamom believes there is no comparison between a hospital and a home delivery. “For me, it's the hospital that is too dangerous to give birth in. There are far too many interventions that are considered routine and harmless. None of those interventions have ever been shown to improve fetal or maternal outcome. But they have been shown to increase complications and c-sections. There is also a far greater chance of infection in a hospital.”
But not all moms feel the same. Some members, like mommy_nan, know that a home birth is not the right choice for them. “I think the idea of a home birth is wonderful. However, I would never be able to do it. I loved the security of being at the hospital and knowing if something did happen to my baby or me, there was immediate care available to us. If I had a home birth and something went wrong and something happened to my baby because I chose to not go to the hospital, I would never forgive myself.” Member leigh9781 also appreciates the security a hospital can provide. “I totally see the appeal of a home birth and everything, but when you haven't done it before you have no idea how you will react to the birthing process. You may just want to have the safety and security of being in the hospital for your first [baby].”
Money is another concern for some mothers. Member Joshsmomme writes, “For us to have a hospital birth we only pay a small co pay; a home birth we have to pay for everything out of pocket, which is not an option for us.” Member threekangas_plus1, who lives in Australia, has a similar view. “The other great thing about hospital birthing for us was that we had no out of pocket expenses. I love that for the couple of days I stayed, my meals arrived, my baby's laundry was done and the only thing I had to do was care for my baby. I also appreciated the very close breastfeeding support.”
There is, however, an alternative to both home and hospital births for those who aren’t comfortable with either one: a birthing center. Member marrymeflyfree has decided to give birth at a birthing center. “We are [using a birthing center], and I'm really looking forward to it. I would have considered birthing at home, but [my boyfriend] was really not up for that—so this is a perfect compromise for us ... And it's directly across the street from the hospital if a problem should come up.”
Expectant mothers, check out this iVillage quiz and find out which childbirth method is right for you.
What do you think? How did you choose to give birth? Do you have any regrets? Share your thoughts below.
Community Producer Stephanie is fairly new to our team, but she already knows how to push my buttons! This, of course, is exactly why she's so good at what she does. After my last rant about the school fundraisers, I think she knew she had an easy mark when she tipped me off to the conversations happening around this article about fingerprinting children at school to use biometric technology to speed up the lunch line. Say what? In order to get the kids moving through the line a bit faster, a school district in Colorado planned to use fingerprint scanning to store information about the kids' lunch accounts and remove the need for lunch tickets, ID numbers or cards. That is until some parents found out about the approach and cried foul, citing privacy concerns. Finger scanning is already in place in some schools in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and West Virginia, while other states have explicitly barred schools from collecting this information for such purposes. I'll just come right out and say that I'm not for the use of biometrics in schools to speed up the lunch lines. Sure, there are valid privacy concerns and I could easily veer off into "Well why don't we just MICROCHIP everyone", but there's an easier less-paranoid argument to be made. And that's simply that I feel the expense, implementation and upkeep of a finger scan system is an overreaction to a relatively simple problem. So I was all set to get my rant on when I realized ... I don't even have to: our iVillage community is already on the case!
I imagine iVillage member jagl1 on the In the News message board speaks for many, saying "I am against this whole using biometrics for identifying minor children, with the exception of police departments. NO ONE should be trusted with this kind of unique information." She then points out (very astutely I might add): "How many times have I heard about some government entity having its a laptop swiped? No thank you. ... Do I have a better idea? What's wrong with ID cards? If the ID card is lost, a new ID card and # should be issued." Exactly!
While I was busy nodding along with jagl1's comments, along comes my2craigs who pretty much took the rest of the words out of my mouth with this comment: "There are a lot of other ways to speed up a lunch line." Indeed -- like high-speed conveyor belts and only serving bread and water, for starters. Ok maybe not, but she goes on to put her finger on (ahem) what is probably the real issue here: "Maybe the problem is with too short a lunch period. Come on..20 minutes?? That's just crazy. Are we so desperate for class time to try to cram more info into children or give them a standardized test that we can't give them enough time to eat or play or just have some down time?" Oh don't even get me started, my2craigs ... don't even get me started!
There's also been some talk about the issue of fingerprinting on the November 2006 Ginger Snaps playgroup. flmanatee23 is somewhat torn about this issue: "At first I was all for it, this just seemed like a great piece of advancement schools should be utilizing… then I started to think about the future of identification and of course identification theft…and my other side isn’t so sure anymore. While as a school teacher I am all for adding valuable time to lunch lol, I am not sure if I would want the school board keeping such sensitive records."
So what do you think? Is fingerprint scanning a great idea to keep the lines moving and store kids' info at school or is it one step closer to total government control? Or maybe somewhere in the less extreme middle? How does your child's school handle lunchtime? Do you feel they get enough time to eat their lunch? Of course if your school district is already using this technology, I'm especially interested in hearing from you! Look, I'm not against using technology to improve our lives and make things more efficient, but I say let's hold off on applying it to the school lunch line until we all get our flying cars. Who's with me?
Ah ... the kids are back in school, that feeling of fall is in the air and jumbo bags of Halloween candy are lining every aisle at your local drugstore. Before you're lulled into a false sense of security with the promise of "fun size" Snickers, I do need to remind you that it's also the season for something much more sinister.
Yes, that's right: the school fundraiser.
It's that time again, folks, and there's nowhere you can hide to escape the lure of children selling reams of holiday wrapping paper, $20 a pound chocolate covered cherries or giant tubs of cookie dough. (Not that I have anything against giant tubs of cookie dough, mind you.) Over the past few days, the iVillage Community Moderators have been swapping stories and lamenting over the yearly fundraising onslaught.
Of course we all can relate, especially those of us with kids in school. I will admit, I was mildly amused by this shared annoyance ... until my daughter came home yesterday with the dreaded fundraising catalog from her school. What is it about these fundraisers that make us cringe? Is it the products themselves? The pricing? The chintzy little "prizes" they use to motivate the kids ... so they can sell 20 items and get a light-up pen that also is a clock? Or is it the notion of fundraising in general?
Member aquagrl914 probably speaks for many iVillagers when she posted this on the Frugal Families message board: "I really hate school fundraisers GRRRRRRR!! My kids have been in school about a month now and they have already come home with pictures, 3 fundraisers, 2 book orders and 2 different fairs and silent auctions in the next two weeks."
Member e13lorena is feeling the pinch as well: "Fundrasiers are also crazy here and those darned book order forms - I don't buy any of it. I let the girls do the fund raisers if they want to ask people, but I don't buy from them. The school only gets 1/2 the money anyway and the stuff is soooo over-priced and the kids only want to sell it to get some stupid plastic prize if they sell so much."
On the 4th, 5th & 6th Grade message board janetis40 puts her finger on some of the awkwardness: "I hate asking family all the time to buy stuff that they really don't want ... so my Mom bought one thing and then my DH and I bought up the rest so she could at least go to the big party." and my2kidsmom199498 points out that it's even worse for the kids in after-school activities or other youth groups, "... it isn't just my kids' two schools running fundraisers, but they are both in scouts, so we have fall product, popcorn, cookies, and wreaths for both kids."
Enough is enough already? I bet there are several of you out there right now nodding your head, because you're going through the same thing. Go on, how many of you have kids with multiple fundraisers right now?
When the topic of school fundraisers came up on the Latter-Day Saint Families message board packofkids offered this perspective as a former PTA president:
"Back when I was PTA president I conducted a survey concerning fund raisers. 84% of the parents said they hated Sally Foster. Sally Foster is one of those "crap from China" companies, where the school/PTA gets 50% of the money. At our school parents buy $10,000 worth of crap and the school gets $5000. And that's with 84% hating it! The problem with those crap from China companies is they work, or else schools wouldn't use them."She then goes on to say, "Remember that any fund raiser you participate in is basically saying, "I like this fund raiser, please bring it back next year."
Hmmm... she does have a point. So what's the answer here? Just suck it up, buy your wrapping paper and some cookie dough and get over it? How do you feel about the ubiquitous school fundraiser? Are you buying or balking? Making a cash donation instead? Are there fundraisers that you actually like? Share your opinions on school fundraising here, or join the discussion on the Frugal Families board.
Now... anyone in the market for some holiday gift tags or a giant summer sausage?
what's this?
A few weeks ago the topic of girly gadgets came up in a discussion about the practice of marketing pink versions of electronics, appliances and other gadgets (say, tasers) to women. Some of the gals at work didn't mind and liked the option to coordinate their accessories, while others are getting a little irritable about the whole trend. Who says girls automatically like pink anyway? Well, the neuroscientists, apparently. Now it turns out there may actually be some deep-seated ancestral reason that might explain why girls may naturally be drawn to pink -- and it has absolutely nothing to do with Barbie! What the science-y types had to say about gender-specific color preferences:
It's no secret that I love a good study about moms and the way they think, why they do what they do and how they approach parenting and life in general. You know, so then I can measure myself against said study and cross my fingers that it doesn't make me crumple into a ball of inadequacy. You mean I'm the only one who does that? Ah, well ... The latest study conducted by the Pew Research Center reveals that 60% of working moms would prefer working part-time over working full-time or not working at all -- but the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 24% of moms actually work part-time. There are a lot of factors that could contribute to this gap -- financial concerns, lack of part-time opportunities, etc. but the gap that has me more intrigued is the opinion gap between working moms and stay-at-home moms. Check it out:
Meantime, even as mothers have grown less enamored with full-time work, a new division of opinion has opened up between working moms and at-home moms on the question of whether it's good or bad for society that more mothers are working outside the home.
Of course, this has long been a hot debate between moms on iVillage -- but what is the real root of the rift? Is it that we really believe that there is one "right way" to balance the work vs. home situation or is it that we're defensive about our own choices? Maybe because we're not sure about what we're doing either? (I know I'm not -- and I'm ok with admitting that.) Something else in the study that caught my eye:
There are also differences in the way working moms and at-home moms assess the job they're doing as parents. Mothers working full-time give themselves slightly lower ratings as parents, on average, than do at-home mothers or mothers employed part-time.
At the same time, the study notices a trend in more moms not wanting to work altogether:
Nearly half (48%) of all at-home moms now say that not working at all outside the home is the ideal situation for them, up from the 39% who felt that way in 1997.
Of course the part-time preference isn't all it's cracked up to be for some moms. A lot to digest, for sure. What does it all mean? Are these trends just natural cycles in society or are moms changing their outlook along with a rapidly changing world. Moms in our communities share their thoughts...
On the Stay at Home vs. Work Debate message board sabinamarianne says, "I got my excellent PT job by working it FT for many years and then asking for PT when I adopted my second baby. With PT, there's not much of a problem balancing work, family, and everything else because there's enough time for everything."
From mjt2007 on the Work-at-Home Moms message board "I would consider a lower salary, no benefits (don't need them) in order to arrange a position where I could wah (work at home) some of the time"
On the Working Moms message board mom-mai24 probably speaks for many moms when she says, "If I could afford to, I would; but my full-time salary is keeping my family afloat! My DH couldn't afford to go part-time either. We both have to work full-time to keep a home and our tummies full. Electricity is nice, too!"
What do you think? Are you working full time or staying at home and would prefer a part-time work situation? Why or why not? If you're a mom working part-time, how's that going for you? And finally -- what do you see as the underlying issue causing a widening gap between the opinions of working and stay-at-home moms?
Two sippy cup-related news items in one week? Is this a sippy cup conspiracy or perhaps the work of a sippy cup buzz agent gone awry?
Sippy Cups on a Plane! First it was snakes, then TB; now ... everyone's favorite toddler accessory is inciting terror and outrage at a security checkpoint near you! After a former Secret Service agent (yes, seriously) was allegedly mistreated during a security screening at Washington, DC's Reagan National Airport, a blogger (eek -- not a blogger!) got wind of the incident and started spreading the news. Monica Emmerson was stopped as she entered a security screening area to be questioned about the liquid in her toddler son's sippy cup. From there, she claims she was unnecessarily harassed by the security officers and because she was frazzled due to traveling with a young child, she accidentally spilled the cup's contents on the floor. Which didn't really impress the already jittery-about-liquids security staff. Only there seems to be a huge discrepancy between Emmerson's account of the event and the TSA's -- surprise, surprise! The TSA's version of the story alleges that Emmerson dumped, not spilled, the water onto the floor in frustration and then proceeded to hassle the agents about the policy and flash her "credentials", causing a scene. The best part? The TSA has posted the related security video and incident report on their site, in the "Mythbusters" section. Uh oh ... I have a feeling we haven't heard the last of this one, now that I see that Ms. Emmerson is posing with the sippy cup in question in televised interviews. But what do iVillage moms, no strangers to sippy cups, think about this? There's a bit of a backlash, but not in the way you might think:
One mom's take on the December 2006 playgroup:
"It's against policy and she shouldn't have tried to go against it. Give the kid some water, drink/dump the rest and THEN go to security and afterwards she could have bought more. The kid would have been w/o water for 5min. There's no reason for her to have made such a big deal about it, seriously the video is over 10 min long!!"
Some reaction from the October 2006 playgroup:
"I watched to video, too, where she is outraged and asks "A mother and her toddler, are we a threat?" Um, yes, you are!! If we let you go, then how great is it for terrorists to pose as mothers with toddlers. I think she was being a jerk!!"
... and more from the September 2007 Expecting Club:
"I think it's just silly. I mean who is going to put explosives or poisons in a sippy cup? I think they are getting out of hand with airport security.""It looks to me like the mom is the one who went bananas. What I saw looked like her dumping the sippy cup on the floor, shaking it out. Granted, it can be frustrating to feel like you're being accused of being a terrorist, but you know what? Better safe than sorry."
"I definitely think the US is getting out of control with fear and paranoia, especially in the airports, but in this case it certainly looks like mom was being obnoxious about the whole thing."
It's definitely no picnic traveling with a toddler or trying to expertly navigate your way through security and it's always frustrating to be asked to step aside, to be searched or to be questioned (and yes -- it's happened to me!). In most cases, though, I think that there are things we can do to make this go more smoothly ... and then things we can do to make them worse. Unfortunately I think many times we tend to opt for the latter, as our nerves and annoyance get the best of us. What do you think? Was this mom out of control or should the security officers have handled this differently?
Moms have a lot on their minds -- that's no real surprise, is it? But how do they feel about being connected to their families, their parenting style vs. that of their mothers' and staying at home vs. work (yes, that!). Take a peek at the results of a recent national survey that delves into what today's moms are thinking. Honestly, most moms I know are thinking, "What is so hard about putting dirty clothes IN the hamper, people??" -- that is if they can get that Dora the Explorer theme song out of their head. And that's a big if. Beyond the day-to-day distractions, how moms feel about the "big" questions offers a snapshot of today's parents.
Only 64% of women surveyed said they felt very connected to their spouse/partner.
79% of women say working moms still feel guilty about not staying home with their children.
61% of moms with children under 18 say they spend more time with their children than their mothers did.
Check out the full report and share your reaction to the survey and the findings. Do you these results represent your reality or do they even begin to scratch the surface of who you are as a woman/wife/mother? What questions would you like to see asked? Let me know what you think!
Is opting to be a stay at home mom a risky business? Of course there are the day to day struggles and the dangers of being eternally exhausted - not to mention ending up on the receiving end of projectile vomit, stray Legos and mountains of laundry. But are there bigger issues lurking under the surface for women who put their careers on hold for motherhood? Just when you think there couldn't be more to add to this long-running debate, enter The Feminine Mistake. Ostensibly a sardonic twist on Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique, The Feminine Mistake offers a grave warning to moms who leave the breadwinning up to dad: by choosing to shelve your career, you are also shelving your ability to provide financially for your children in the event of being widowed or divorced. Author Leslie Bennetts discussed her book last week on the Today Show, and as you can probably imagine, it's stirred up quite a bit of discussion on our message boards.
Of course they're talking about this on the Feminism Today board. There's no shortage of opinions or side debates here:
"I'm so happy to see someone brave enough to publish this information. I've been saying this for years, it's a very unpopular position. I think every woman should know the economic risks to both herself and her children should she choose to be a stay at home parent."
"I think both parents ought to be capable of caring for their child(ren) (financially, physically, emotionally, etc.) on one's own should the other spouse suddenly be out of the picture for whatever reason."
"I'm grateful that my mother continued working so she could fund my college education, and so she could retire at age 57 and care for my ailing father, rather than having to continue to work and putting him in a nursing home. I'm failing to see how funding one's children's education and preparing for retirement so one's children don't need to support their parents in their old age can be considered selfish. If my mother had chosen to SAH, I certainly would have paid the price -- literally."
"Too many kids are being raised by outside forces such as daycare programs and after care. Kids end up away from home more than they are in it. If this can be avoided society as a whole will benefit. Kids are worth the risk and sacrifice. "
The responses on the Current Debates board tend to be less forgiving to Bennetts, but the reactions vary:
"As far as what I've read so far in that book, I find it very fear based and "what if" based and I don't think that's anyway to live your life. There are many benefits to staying at home and although she might cringe at the idea it works well for a lot of families."
"After seeing the interview with Ann Curry, I have no doubt author Bennetts is simply trying to hit the best-seller list. She has to be aggressive and closed-minded to SAHMs."
"Every mother has to make those kinds of choices for themselves and if you are happy working outside the home then do it, if you want to be a SAHM and can make it work, that's wonderful. To say that Motherhood is a Feminine Mistake is very offensive to me."
"Even women who choose to stay home should know the possible consequences, and take steps to minimize their impact on their families, and their own future lives. Unfortunately it has become taboo to bring up any possible negative consequences of choosing to stay home. It's "an attack on the family"."
Family finances are a big topic on the Frugal Living message board and the moms there offer their own experiences and worries regarding staying at home and planning a future:
"I think everyone must take into account her own goals. I agree that completely relying on a husband (or anyone) to take care of you forever is a mistake."
"I think ultimately it's extremely difficult when divorce, death or disability happens and it doesn't matter whether you are at home or working full-time."
"Don't come into being a SAHM or an adult for that matter without a plan for the things in life that can take us by surprise."
"I think every mom needs a back up plan. I have a graduate degree and I worked full time before my daughter was born. The plan was for me to stay home full time. Then our financial situation changed and I had to go back to work part time when our daughter was 18 months old. A short time later DH and I separated and I had to go back to work full time. It's not what I planned."
For even more on the book and the debate, you can catch an exclusive interview with Bennetts right here on iVillage. What are your thoughts? Is The Feminine Mistake an important wake-up call for moms? Or just a superfluous missive of doom and gloom? Chime in here with your reactions and share your own experiences on this issue.
Now really ... When will people learn to not mess with breastfeeding moms? I mean, haven't we gone through this song and dance before? Apparently the folks over at MySpace didn't get the memo. Amanda tipped me off to this story about moms who are outraged over the removal of photos depicting nursing infants. The pictures are reportedly considered "indecent" or "sexually suggestive". This is supposedly against the social networking site's "policies". Really? Tell that to "^~2Sexy4U~^" who, along with her leather-thonged bottom, is constantly asking to be my "friend". Plenty of iVillage moms are not amused, and you know the women posting to our playgroups and breastfeeding boards have a thing or two to say about this:
"How is breastfeeding sexual??!! Um, they need to take down all the girls showing their cleavage then and the other trampy pictures I see on there all the time."More than one mom finds the double standard unacceptable: "It just doesn't make any sense, ESPECIALLY when they allow plenty of skin when the context is clearly sexual." Another writes: "Some people are so sensitive. I'm more covered up when breast feeding in public then some teenage girls out with their families, esp. in summer. I have a right to feed my child however I choose and I always cover up, in fact I probably have more cleavage showing when NOT nursing." Good point. More reaction:
"I can't even believe that there could be a debate about this! Some of the pictures they put on there are disgusting! I've seen more boobs on that board from women and cartoon pictures than you would ever see while breastfeeding! "Many of the moms talking on our parenting message boards are also taking part in an online petition against the photo removals. One posted the letter she wrote to MySpace in protest. Here's a portion:
"Some of them show the crudest pictures or cartoons, but yet, you have the nerve to take on nursing mothers, calling us offensive and inappropriate. Well, shame on you.YOU are now part of the problem that us nursing mothers face everyday. YOU are now part of the reason that we have to fight for the right to feed our children the way God intended without being harassed. YOU are now part of the reason women are being asked to leave planes for trying to feed their child."
Seriously, MySpace? You want to mess with these women? Do you not realize that along with being passionate moms they are also, in many cases, sleep-deprived?
What does everyone else think about this controversy? Have we still not come to a point where breastfeeding is a common, natural, everyday non-sexual occurrence? Or, do you think moms should cover up and keep their breasts offline? Give it to me straight and let me know your thoughts!
