Who's The Boss?

WOHM vs WAHM... The New Mommy War

I am a WAHM.  Work At Home Mom.  I used to be a WOHM. Work Outside (of the) Home Mom.  Same company.  Same job. Same demands.  Same paycheck.

With my new home office, I also get a new title in the blogging world.  And, apparently, a new bulls-eye.

I work in good ole Corporate America.  I work at a company that has somewhere near 90,000 employees.  Our revenues are in the billions of dollars a year.  And I do an important job of streamlining our back-office operations to make sure that the revenue we report to the "street" is accurate and true. 

Sure, I have a little blog and a freelance writing job or two on the side that pays enough to cover my Costco bill every month.  So the way I define being a WAHM mom is a little different than the new WAHM (aka bloggers now freelance writers) versus WOHM (aka all other working moms) firestorm that is blowing through the internets over this last week. 

WAHM, WOHM, SAHM... can we come up with another four-letter acronym for motherhood?  I've been them all and I'll tell you with sincere honesty:

Carrie Prejean, Gay Marriage, and Equal Rights

I watched (and cringed) when Carrie Prejean, Miss California, answered in the Miss USA Pageant that she believes gay marriage is wrong.  Did I think that her beliefs should disqualify her for the title? Not really.  Beauty pageants are like a conservative version of soft porn.  Beautiful women prancing around a stage wearing a pound of make-up and little else.  Does it matter if her views are in sharp contrast to my own?  Absolutely not.  It's not like she's a world leader.  She'll be on the arm of Donald Trump for a year.  Hardly a face of America.  Does anyone really listen to Miss USA anyways?  I thought the main job requirements were to look good in a bikini and the ability to smile for hours on end.

What bothers me more is the firestorm about Carrie Prejean's response (just read some of those comments and you'll probably want to throw up).  I have always believed that gay marriage should be legalized.  I do not think that religious institutions should have to honor or perform same-sex marriages.  I do think that the federal government and state governments should have to recognize same-sex marriage and give same-sex couples the same rights under the law.  It's a civil rights issue.  Cut and dry.  Everyone in this country should have equal rights under the law.

No job is worth your life

I had an entirely different post planned today about Earth Day and what my family does to lower our carbon footprint. 

But as a working mom's blog, I felt compelled to write about the recent suicide of Freddie Mac's CFO, David Kellerman.  There's still a lot of speculation as to why Kellerman would take his own life.  Was it the pressure from the regulators?  Was it the disgrace of knowing that the company made terrible, costly, greedy choices that are now affecting the livelihoods of millions of Americans?  Did he see his situation as utterly hopeless and give up?  Or did he take the easy way out?

thank god for grandparents

I read this article in the NY Times last week and realized just how lucky I am to have the opposite situation.  The story is about uninvolved Grandparents.   I'll give you an excerpt because if I know one thing I know that my readers hate to click over and read just about anything I link (yes, I'm talking to you).

"Women with young children are looking for guidance from their mother or mother-in-law, but these days they are often looking in vain.... In other words, it may take a village to raise a child, but these days the village may be more heavily populated with nannies than nanas."

his mother must be so embarrassed

Didn't his mother ever teach him to use a tissue? Or to at least not pick your nose when being videotaped? I'm sure there are plenty of people that pick their noses in private.  I'd bet money that a bunch of them eat their boogers too.  But on TV?  What an idiot. 

a new spin on gender equality

I'm over at the Silicon Valley Mom's Blog today talking about "manimony."

What? You've never heard of such a thing.  I'll give you a hint.  Someone in the media started calling male nannies "mannies." Now everything that is typically female-centric but has a few token men getting involved has to be re-branded man-whatever.

Manimony is alimony for men.  More and more men are asking (and getting) alimony from their high powered ex-wives.

Neville thinks these guys are heroes while I have a gut reaction that I'm not proud of. Come on over and check it out.

"As long as we are human, there will still be work to do"

I don't know about you, but I am more excited about doing the work now.

Thanks CityMama for the link.

Reflection and hope

When I was in elementary school, there was always a class assembly on Martin Luther King Jr's birthday.  We would learn about Rosa Parks and the bus boycott in Montgomery.  We heard about segregation.  And every year we listened to the famous "I had a Dream" speech. 

In college I studied Feminism with a concentration on Movements, Policy, and Legal Studies.  I engrossed myself in the writings of women scholars who taught about racism and sexism.  I learned about privilege.  I changed the lens through which I saw the world. 

The Dishonor Roll

Ah, how I love living in a digital era.  Check out the Dishonor Roll of people and businesses that supported Prop 8.

There is also a database of contribtors that allows you to see who supported Prop 8 by making monetary donations to the campaign.  I plan on personally boycotting these business (It's not like I ever cared for Denny's anyways).

This is a civil rights issue.  Just as people boycotted buses to end segregration in Montgomery, today we can boycott businesses that supported the elimination of civil rights for a group of people that are different. 

For those that still believe in the "protection of marriage,"  I urge you to watch this.

Motherhood is a pain

I apparently was living under rock this weekend when a firestorm of Moms Who Twitter attacked Motrin and their latest ad campaign about motherhood.  Or more specifically about how "baby wearing" is pain in the... back. 

If you were also living under a rock, you can watch the ad on YouTube.  Thank heavens for YouTube - Motrin has already pulled the ad online.

I've watched the ad a couple of times now.  And for the most part, I get the sarcastic tone of ad.  Sort of reminds me of the weird VW commercials with Brooke Shields.  Alright, I'll agree that it makes babywearers out to be superficial pains and is borderline condescending.  And I'm positive that Motrin and other companies will be taking a closer look at the power of social media. 

But there was also some truth to the ad.  No, I'm not talking about the part where you are an "official mom" when you "bjorn" your baby.  Motherhood is a pain.

Yes, it's a joy and a miracle and rewarding and blah blah blah.  It's also a life of headaches from listening to all those annoying toys where the batteries just never seen to run out.  It's an eternity of backaches from carrying a 22lb toddler.   I swear I have done permanent damage to my knees from all those pony rides on our hardwood floors. 

I'm sure that there were many who were pleased with Motrin's action to issue an apology and remove the ad.   While I always think that saying sorry is the best policy, I'm not sure that Motrin needed to pull the ad entirely from online and print (in their apology, they did state that getting the print ads out of circulation would take time).  Once the weekend had passed, the Twittering Moms were moving on to new tweets and there even was a the start of a backlash against those who attacked Motrin.  Was the ad in bad taste?  Yes.  Was the "offense" blown out of proportion?  Yes, I think so.

I hope that the debacle with Motrin's ad proves the power of online social media.  I would think that advertisers and marketers will now take more time to reach out to their target audience.  I would also think that mommybloggers would learn to say something more constructive than "That's offense, I'm never buying Motrin again!" 

If social media is powerful, if mommybloggers are powerful... then let's act like leaders.  Let's engage in a conversation with businesses and marketing agencies.  And let's not get our feelings hurt so darn easily.

Because, really, all this noise is just giving me a headache.

Whose marriage are we "PROTECTING" anyways?

I had an entirely different post planned for today but lately haven't been able to think about much after Proposition 8 passed.  Since Wednesday, I've been ashamed to be a Californian, to be an American.  For this country and this state claim to be free from religious persecution, and then vote based on religious pursuasion to actively eliminate rights to somebody who is different from you.  That is wrong.  No matter how you try to spin it, it's wrong. 

54% of Californians voted against homosexuality by saying they were for the "protection of marriage."  Whose marriage are you protecting anyways?

It certainly isn't your own.  Last time I checked, this proposition doesn't eliminate the rights of heterosexual couples to marry.  Or for inter-racial couples to marry.  Or for Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus to marry.  YOUR marriage is already protected under the law.  YOUR marriage is still valid in this state.  NOTHING has changed for you.

Yet, you vote in favor of discrimination.  You vote in favor of religion in government.  You vote to make gays and lesbians second-class citizens.  WHY? Are you ignorant, bigoted, spiteful, angry, or misinformed? I don't understand.  Help me understand.  Please.  

This ballot really has nothing to do with marriage.  It has everything to do with equal rights.  Everyone deserves the same rights under the law.  You don't have to morally agree with "it."  Your church doesn't have to recognize "it" or be forced to officiate "it." And you already know that "it" won't be taught in schools.

For those of you who voted no against Prop 8....  For those who voted Yes and realize now that you've made a mistake.... I urge you to sign a petition against the passing of Prop 8. 

This is a battle for full civil rights, full equality, and full inclusion.  All Americans should have the same civil rights no matter their race, religion, gender, or sexuality. I thought that was established a long time ago.

Why I Voted for Obama

It's no secret that I was a Hillary Clinton supporter.  As a woman, I was thrilled to finally be able to vote for a qualified person that shares my gender.  As a feminist, I was hopeful that we would finally break through the glass ceiling that has oppressed women since the founding of this great country.  So needless to say, I was disappointed when Hillary called it quits and asked her supporters to join the ranks of the Obama camp. 

I know that many people assume I am a Democrat.  In fact, I am not.  I am an independent.  I do not believe in "big government."  I am fiscally conservative.  I don't want my taxes raised. While I believe in many of the federal social programs and those offered in California, I also believe that major finance reform is necessary in this country. 

I also believe in reproductive freedom, gay marriage, and the death penalty.  I think Affirmative Action should still be in place in California.  I think we need to tighten immigration in this country and properly deal with the tremendous amount of illegals (and not by granting them amnesty).  I believe that education funding should never be allowed to be cut or reduced.  And I think private-school vouchers are a stupid way of dealing with an education problem.

In other words, I don't fall neatly into either the Republican or the Democrat camp.  I'm in that independent category that all Presidential candidates are supposed to be woo-ing over to their side.

When Hillary said to support Obama, I didn't just blindly say "Okay, whatever you say!"  I looked at both sides - McCain and Obama.  Until McCain literally slapped every woman in the face by announcing Sarah Palin as his running-mate.

Did McCain think that women are really that stupid?  Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton.  Palin has little experience, no foreign relations, and stands up for many hard-core conservative issues.  Sure, she was a woman and a working mother.  But it takes more than uterus to get my vote.  I could see that this was a desperate attempt by McCain to get both female voters and the conservative-Right voters that he has alienated year after year.

Still not entirely enamored with Obama, I watched all of the debates.  I watched as McCain acted like a grumpy old man when Obama spoke of McCain's alignment with the Bush Administration.  I watched as Sarah Palin arrogantly refused to answer the moderator's questions and push her own agenda.  I watched Obama speak about a real attempt at a healthcare plan for the uninsured.  I listened to Obama's tax plan.  I listened to McCain who kept trying to dodge that it would be "more of the same" without actually talking about how he would truly fix the economy or get us out of Iraq. 

I also know that both of these candidates already may not be able to live up to their campaign promises due to the credit crisis in this country.  The first year of this new Presidency will be consumed with avoiding a major recession or, worse, a depression. 

And so, I decided that I don't want a President who's weakness is economic policy.  I don't want a President that thinks "staying the course" in Iraq is acceptable.  I don't want a President who is going to tax my employer-provided healthcare benefits. 

My vote goes to Obama.  This country needs a change.  Big Time. When I casted my vote there was a part of me that wished I was selecting my preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton. But Obama will do.  Yes, we can change.  Yes, we can recover from these hard times.  Yes, we can send our troops home. 

Yes We Can.

No on Prop 4

There are times in which I am glad I haven't given birth to a daughter.  And when it comes to discussing birth control and abortion, I know that the same talk should be given to my son as would be given had he been born a girl.  But the truth of the matter, whether we want to admit it or not, is that reproductive responsibilities are burdened on the female species. 

Our bodies, our choices.  While some men may claim that reproductive rights should be a decision that fathers gets to make too, we women will bear the children and, in most cases, be the primary caregivers.  Is this fair?  No, not at all.  But it's reality. 

As a grown woman, if I get pregnant, I can choose to have an abortion without a single family member knowing about it.  If I was molested or raped, I wouldn't have to tell my parents or my neighbor or my spouse that I sought an abortion because I have the right to my body and my privacy.

In California, for the third time, there is a proposition that is trying to remove that right for teen girls.  The proposition imposes a 48-hr waiting period where a parent or guardian will be notified of the teen's request to have an abortion. 

And while you may think that if your teen daughter was ever in this position that you would want to know and you would want to be there for her, remember that your teen still has the ability to come forward and tell you.  We do not need to make laws for communicating to our minor teens.

Think about the girls who don't have a great relationship with their parents.  Girls who may have been raped by their own fathers or a family member.  Girls whose families are so religious that they will force her to remain pregnant.

Prop 4 cannot force teens to talk to their parents, but it may force them to do something dangerous out of desperation.  Under the guise of protecting teenage girls, Prop 4 is really the latest attempt to impose restrictions on reproductive freedom.

Californians did the right thing in 2005 and 2006 by voting No on similar propositions.  Let's defeat this campaign once and for all. 

Yes on Prop 2

 All of my Grandparents were rasied on farms.  They always had animals that would be put up for slaughter.  It was a way of life.  But they never were cruel to their animals.  They didn't keep their animals in cages barely bigger than the animal.  Animals were allowed to stand up and *gasp* even be able to walk around.

I'm not saying that animals that are raised for food should be treated like our pets.  But every animal deserves to live a humane life.

The stories of my grandparents are similar to the stories of small farmers today.  I believe it's the factory farms that care more about their profits than they do about animal welfare or public health. 

Proposition 2 prevents animal cruelty, plain and simple. Beginning in 2015, pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens will not be confined in manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and full extend their limbs.  It gives these factory farms 7 years to replace their severe confinement methods with human practices. 

Food quality and food safety are enhanced by better farming practices.  The price of an egg will only go up one PENNY.  I think every Californian can afford a penny increase to know that the hen laying the egg is humanely treated.

No on Prop 8

A "Yes" vote on Proposition 8 changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry but stipulating that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.  In a nutshell, Proposition 8 discriminates against the GLBT community by eliminating equal rights under the law. 

Equality under the law is a fundamental freedom. Regardless of your personal or religious views on marriage, we all deserve to have the same rights as law abiding citizens.  No one group should be singled out and treated differently under the law. 

America has a long tainted past of discriminating against minorities in this country.  We have shameful history of promoting a "separate but equal" stance to continue to discriminate against those different from ourselves.  Whether it has been people of color, women, and those with different religious views, those in the majority have not always acted with the interests of the people. This is the reason why we have checks and balances in our government. 

Voting Yes on Prop 8 does not mean that you are keeping the sanctity of marriage.  In fact, the court ruling on gay marriage already stated that “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”  Your church does not have to marry gay couples and  tax-exemption is not at risk. 

The government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married.  We do NOT need more government in our lives. 

For those planning on voting Yes on Prop 8, I urge you to think of the gay and lesbians in your life that you are discriminating against.  I urge you to think of your children.  What if they fall in love with a person of the same sex?  Don't you want them to have the same rights as you?  Doesn't every person have the right to dignity and respect with the same freedoms as every other Californian?

Do not vote to take away the equality, freedom, and fairness that everyone in Calfornia - straight or gay - deserves.  Vote No on Prop 8.

Political Week at "Who's the Boss?"

With the Presidential Election just days away and some very important Props on the California ballot, this week I’ll be focusing on everything political. I will not apologize for my “liberal” views and encourage a healthy debate.  I ask that everyone keeps their hands to themselves - no mud slinging or throwing punches across the aisle.  I will be closely moderating comments and will delete any that are offensive.  After all, this is my blog and we’ve already established that I am The Boss. 

The wonderful part of the political process is that each and every single person can make their voice heard.  So let’s be civil, let’s debate the issues, and then let’s all go vote on November 4th. 

Talking About What is on Everybody's Minds

And no, for once, that wouldn't be S-E-X.  We are in a financial crisis, people! Get your head out of the gutter.

I'm over at the Silicon Valley Mom's Blog today, writing about this economic situation.  What are we doing in my family to ride out the storm?  Basically what your parents should have taught you about money.  That's save more, spend less, and don't buy on credit.  I say should because apparently not enough people, including CEOs of many banks, seemed to understand that lesson. 

Come on over and join other moms in the discussion.

No More Steak Dinners

Anyone else watch, in total fear and disgust, the stock market crash yesterday?  I haven't checked any financial news this morning - I can't handle any more bad news right now.

I don't have a lot of money invested in the stock market.  Sure, my 401K is filled with stocks - none of which are financial stocks.  Since I don't plan on retiring for, oh, another 30+ years, I'm feeling comfortable that my retirement isn't going to be squandered by this economic situation.  Yet I worry about my mother who is already on retirement.  She is physically disabled and cannot simply go back to work.  She doesn't have 30 years to wait this out. 

We've been lucky to have the ability to pay of our credit cards every month, not be required to clip coupons to feed our family, and have a 30-yr fixed mortgage that won't change interest rates.  But I still worry.  I worry about if Neville and I could be facing lay-offs as the high-tech industry will eventually be affected by yesterday's news.  I worry that we haven't saved enough.

I pulled out some steaks last night for dinner.  While Neville was rushing through eating to finish a project in the garage, I told him to slow down.  "This is your last steak dinner for a while." Until I know that we are going to be OK, spending in this house is frozen.

90s Comeback

First, The New Kids on the Block make a comeback.

Then 90210 returns.

And Katie Holmes starts the old fashion trend of pegging your pants.

What's next?  Hammer pants?  MTV playing videos? Grunge?

My Feminist Perspective on Sarah Palin

I heard about McCain's choice for the VP slot on the ticket on the way to pediatrician with Darius.  My gut reaction was slightly positive but apprehensive.  When the newscaster on the radio says "You've probably never heard of Sarah Palin" you've got to be a little concerned that McCain picked her for all the wrong reasons.

To me, the nomination felt like a desperate move on McCain’s part.  The party had lost older, white women voters who changed to Democrats in order to vote for Hillary in the primary.  McCain’s long standing moderate Republican record doesn’t sit well with Religious Right.  So why not pick a woman with staunch conservative values?  Seems to me like he’s trying to kill two birds with one stone. 

I’m not so sure that women will once again cross party lines to vote Palin into office.  If they moved over to vote for Hillary, then they must understand that Palin stands for everything that Hillary is against.  And while I want a woman in the White House just as much as any other woman, I want the person to be fully qualified.  I’m not sure that Palin was the right candidate - regardless of her gender.  If she was a man, I’m pretty certain that this Republican ticket would guarantee a win for Obama/Biden.

Personally, I still believe that Hillary Clinton was the right person to be President.  I’m still not 100% sold on Obama.  A part of me still wishes that it was an Obama/Clinton ticket.  However, it would certainly take a lot for me to forgive McCain for his sexist views on women and equal pay before I could ever circle his name on the ballot.  Am I undecided?  No.  I’ll vote for Obama.  It won’t matter much in my blue state - Obama will win no matter what here in California.  But I want to believe in Obama.  I want to see real change in this country. 

I’m not going attack Palin for her stance on abstinence-only sex education or her views on abortion or gun-control or creationism.  In order to be Republican, she practically has to have those views - especially if she is so highly revered in the conservative right.  I’m not going to question her mothering abilities to a pregnant teen-aged daughter.  I’m not going to go there.  Honestly, I wish that every pregnant teenager would have a loving supportive family to cushion the fall.

Instead of looking at Palin as a beauty queen turned working mother turned Vice Presidential nominee, I urge all Republicans and Undecided’s to look at Palin’s public service record.  She may be able to talk like a feminist, but is she one? 
What has she done for the advancement of women?  Women supported Hillary not just because she was a woman but because she was a champion on women’s issues. If you look closely, you will surely find Sarah Palin is NOT advocate for women.

McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate is a last-ditch effort to appeal to disappointed Hillary voters and get them to vote for another woman.  Ultimately, a vote for Palin is a vote against a woman’s own self-interest.

Is it an Opt-Out Revolution or a Career Assassination?

Did you read the latest article in the NY Times aptly titled "The Other Home Equity Crisis"?  Go over and read the whole article (but let me tell you, the comments are carrying on a most interesting discussion too).

There has been no meaningful large-scale generational trend toward stay-at-home motherhood, [Economists] say. While women’s workforce participation did start to decline in 2000, interrupting decades of continual progress, this wasn’t because women chose joyfully to go home. Women left the workforce when the cost of child care ate up their entire after-tax salaries, or when family-unfriendly workplaces pushed them out. Or when, like women without children or men with and without children, they were laid off in a bad economy.

So why is it then that we all know of women who have "opted-out."  Are our SAHM-sistahs really just making lemonade of the career lemons?  An unsupportive husband, childcare that costs more than the average salary, a workplace that is still an old-boys club... are these the REAL REASONS why mothers leave the workforce? 

The evidence says YES.  So why are member of the "Opt-Out Revolution" saying NO?

Perhaps it is easier to say that you wanted to be a SAHM all along.  Perhaps its like giving birth - it is only raw and painful in the moment but after a few years you don't remember the pain and instead just focus on the baby.  Perhaps it's because we women have a horrible pattern of internalizing external forces and therefore feel guilty or ashamed for being forced out.

I'm not talking about all SAHMs.  I know plenty of women that truly feel there is no other place for them to be than in the home.  And while I cannot totally relate, I respect their choice.  I am talking here specifically of woman that claim they are opting out for a few years but plan on returning to the workforce when, presumably, their children are older, childcare costs are not sky-rocketling high as with infant/toddler care, and they find an employer who allows for flexibility. 

Why are these mothers being forced out of corporate world and then vehemently touting that this was a CHOICE? 

What are the reasons mothers are leaving the workforce?  Come out and say it.  If we expect the working world to be any different when mothers decide to opt-in (or better for those of us still in the trenches), you cannot pretend that there weren't real issues that kept you away to begin with.  You cannot stick your head in the sand and think that male-dominated fields will get better with time.  The Old Boys Club has been around since the beginning of time.  Speak the truth. 

We can't expect change if we aren't being honest with ourselves about the reasons why women are leaving the workforce.   Let's cut the warm-fuzzies and get to root cause. 

Is "Opting-Out" a Myth?

Raise your hand if you know of a new mother who has opted out for  a year or more after having children?  Yes, that's what I thought.  We all know of women who became moms and ditched the rest of us in the workforce.  I can name off former co-workers who've opted out just as fast as I can name Thomas the Train engines.  Being a full-time working mom it sometimes feels like "another one bites the dust" when you see another protruding belly in the office and the distant responses about "not really sure" if they'll be returing to work. 

So when I read about a new study that de-bunks the "opt-out revolution" as a myth, I was shocked.  Yes, I know of plenty of working mothers.  In fact, nearly all of the women who are on my project are working mothers.  But I also know plenty of professional women that are taking 3-10 years off to focus on motherhood.  When you belong to mother's club that seems to only cater to SAHMs, you can get a little jaded about the opt-out revolution. 

According to Christine Percheski, the revolution is more like a drop in the bucket.  Using cross-sectional data from the US Census, Percheski examined trends of college-educated professional and managerial women in the US from 1960 to 2005. 

Despite all the anecdotal evidence of working women leaving their career to stay home, she found that less than 8 percent of professional women leave the workforce for a year or more during their prime childbearing years. 

More women in my generation (that's Gen X if you are curious) work full-time year-round than our counterparts in any previous generation.

So why does it feel like there are more moms at home than in the work force if the evidence proves otherwise?

Many women who end up working part-time still consider themselves to have "opted-out."  While Percheski's study does look at the number of full-time women who took a year or more off in pursuit of motherhood, it does not compare the number of full-time women who decided to work fewer hours.  I'd be curious to see how that would change the number.

Percheski only examined college-educated professional women. Of course the Opt-Out Revolution typically only looks at white, affluent, educated women.  I suppose the assumption is that those without college degrees never had the choice to opt-out.  Or perhaps their wage was so low that having children didn't give them the choice to opt-in.  Same goes for single moms.  I'm pretty sure that those women who are "opting out" are relying on their spouse's income.   How many single moms do you know of that have opted out?  I don't know of one.

Census-data is just not enough data.  The idea of opting out is still a new one.  Even the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't agree.  It reports that 60 percent of married mothers are now in the work force, 4 percentage points lower than in 1997. The rate of married mothers of infants who work fell 6 percentage points to 53 percent. Which one is right? 

Regardless of whether working mommas are staying in the workforce or opting out, corporations could do a lot more to make sure that we stick around.  The workplace fails working mothers -  inflexible scheduling, maternal profiling, lack of child care, lack of paid maternity leave, lack of sick leave -  just to name a few. 

Some are pushed out, some have the luxury of choice, many would like to stay but leave because their employer won’t provide the flexibility. Once women leave, they often struggle to return.  Flexibility is the secret sauce and once employers figure this out, opting in and out will become much more fluid and acceptable.

The Food-Dye Rebellion - are YOU in?

My BlogHer '07 roommate is starting a revolution.  And I think we should all join.  I'm ready to make arm bands that unite us all to the cause.  Although I suspect checkbook bands would be more appropriate.

Did you know that artificial dyes are particularly prevalent in the sugary cereals, candies, sodas, and snack foods pitched to kids.  Don't believe me?  Just check out the labels. Did you also know that many fo these artificial dyes are made from crude oil? 

General Mills' Fruit Roll-ups and Fruit-by-the-Foot flavored snacks get their fruity colors from Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Red 40, and Blue 1. General Mills' Fruity Cheerios also contain the dyes. *Source: CSPI

And to think I bought Fruity Cheerios because they had less sugar than Fruit Loops!  In fact, we have a box sitting in our pantry right this instant.   Want to know where it will end up?  Not in my child's body, thats for damn sure.  I'll be pouring those "Fruit O's" into the trash.  Thanks for wasting my money, General Mills.

But what really kills me isn't the chemicals.  Those have been in our foods for the last thirty years.  It's the fact that when the UK bitches loud enough, many of these companies have changed their formulas to remove the chemicals.  But here in good ole USA, the land of opportunity, the land of the free and the home of the brave, we are just a bunch of suckers.  I'm sure that's what these mega-billion companies think. 

The UK gets the new and improved while the USA gets the artificial dyes.  Nice.  Thanks Coca-Cola for leaving my kid with the crude oil.  Appreciate that.  Really.  Makes me want to never buy any of your products again.  What I just don't get about Coca-Cola and other companies that have made changes across the Atlantic but not here, is this... If you know that the dyes are harmful AND if you have made changes to formulas for some of the consumers of your products, then why the hell are you not changing the formuals for everyone????  It's lunacy to me.  It's seems unethical, deviant, just plain wrong.

So until you corporate big-wigs get together and decide that the US deserves to be chemical-free as well, I'll be reading every damned label at Safeway.  And I won't buy a single product,   NOT A SINGLE ONE that contains artificial dyes.  If you won't listen to my voice, you'll certainly be hearing from my checkbook.

For those of you who just don't have the time or energy to read every darned label, Trader Joe's and Whole Foods that already requires every single product in their stores to be chemical free.   

Seventy-Seven Cents

Today marks the 45th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act. Signed into law by President Kennedy, the EPA made it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform substantially equal work.  At the time, women earned a mere 59 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts.  Before you start thinking "we've come along way, baby,"  think again.

Women working full-time, year-round earn only about 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, virtually the same amount women earned in 2005.

An earnings gap exists between women and men across a wide spectrum of occupations. In 2006, for example, the median weekly wages earned by women in computer and mathematical occupations had weekly earnings that were 85% of the wages paid their male counterparts.

In some occupations, women have actually lost ground. For example, in a study of management positions in 10 industries that together employ over 70% of women in the workforce found that women managers consistently made less than their male counterparts; in seven of the 10 industries, the pay gap had increased between 1995 and 2000.

As women get older, the wage gap for them widens. When women start their careers, the pay gap is relatively small: females aged 15 to 24 working full-time, year-round have median annual earnings that are 94% of what their male counterparts earn. However, by the time we reach the critical years leading up to retirement, that 6% pay gap has increased almost five times: women aged 45 to 64 who work full-time, year-round earn only 71% of what men do.

The wage gap cannot be dismissed as the result of "women’s choices" in career and family matters. In fact, recent authoritative studies show that even when all relevant career and family attributes are taken into account, there is still a significant, unexplained gap in men’s and women’s earnings. Thus, even when women make the same career choices as men and work the same hours, they still earn less.

So what can you do?  For one, you can support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which requires employers to no longer segregate jobs based on sex, race or national origin but require equivalent skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions to be the basis for compensation.  The bill also gives punitive and compensatory damages to victims of wage discrimination while prohibiting retaliation.  And it requires employers to keep records of the methods they use to set wages including a yearly report to the EEOC that describes their workforce by position and salary as well as gender and ethnicity.

Plus,iIf you live in one of the following states, at least one of your Senators voted against moving the bill forward: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Florida, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia, you can write your Senator asking them to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.   Don't have a pen an paper handy? No problem;  you can write them online. 

This isn't just a women's issue.  Menfolk - this affects your wives, your sisters, your mothers, your daughters.  Everyone deserves to earn a fair wage.   We should all be fighting for equal pay.

All of these stastics are from the NWLC Pay Equity Fact Sheet.  There, you can read more about the alarming wage gap. 

Q&A with Pamela Paul

I had the great opportunity to interview author and fellow working mom, Pamela Paul, about her new book Parenting, Inc.  The book is an examination of the pressures that distort good sense and lead normally sane and smart people to reach into their pocketbooks to puchase all sorts of products and services related to parenting, babies, and "educational" entertainment.  It is a must read for all parents. I personally believe the book should be standard issued at maternity wards all around Silicon Valley  where we seem to be teaching our children only lessons in lavish consumerism and entitlement.  Below is a lightly edited version of my conversation with Ms Paul.

What made you decide to research and write about the “Parenting Industry?”

It’s very personal to me.  I actually had my second baby in the middle of working on this book.  Like so many parents, I felt like I was being indoctrinated into a cult when I went into my first baby store as a pregnant person and was overwhelmed by just how much stuff there is.  I felt like parents aren’t aware of the blatant marketing strategies and how parents are suckered into to a lot of things.  Is it even possible for a toy to make a child smarter? Raising kids is such a fortune.  Why are we making this more difficult for ourselves?

Some of the entrepreneurs and marketing agencies were very honest about their tactics and intentions.  Have you experienced any backlash from those that contributed to the research?
[Laughs]  Not Yet!  It could happen.   

A lot of writing for moms can be very condescending, like we don’t have brains of our own.  I just felt like I’m just going to tell [moms] what these people said and they can see for themselves.  I put forth what they were telling me. And it’s pretty damning a lot of times.   They out right say “Yeah, we’re working off parent’s guilt.  We can’t really say that but that’s what we are doing.”

I’ve been on a mission to change our spending habits.  The book was very validating. Did researching and writing the book change your spending habits as a mother?
More than anything, the research that was eye opening to me what the environmental information and becoming more conscientious of the amount of waste I was generating and also the chemicals contained in so much baby gear. Temperamentally I am not a shopper.  But like so many others, it is so much easier to get suckered into to things for the kids.  It’s easier to rationalize “Oh its not for me, it’s not for my baby.”  I did cut back a lot.

Do you have any advice for parents that read the book and realized that you’ve just described them? How they can break that cycle?

I think it’s about becoming better informed.  One thing I would suggest parents do before they buy something is to question their motivations.  Why I am buying this?  Am I getting this to minimize frustration?  To make my child happier?  To make them smarter?  As parents I think we focus on where children are going rather than they are in any given moment.  I don’t think that does anybody any good.

I call it the “anxiety of under-spending.” You think that if you don’t get this stuff, then your child isn’t going to be as successful or happy or well adjusted and it’s silly.  And so untrue.

Finding Courage with Maria Shriver

Last night, I not only got to hang out with the fabulous writers of the Silicon Valley Mom’s Blog and eat ice cream.  I also had the great opportunity to meet and speak with Maria Shriver.

The night was a blur.  A whirlwind, really.  But a quiet one.  Maria is not a storm.  Her energy didn’t overpower the rest of us.  For a moment it was as if we were all just old friends sharing a bowl of ice cream and gabbing about our ambitious husbands. 

She was totally honest about what it is like growing up in the Kennedy clan where nearly all of her role models were either in office or running for office.  The amount of pressure to be successful was more than intense.  I couldn’t imagine growing up in a family where your father founded the Peace Corps and your mother founded the Special Olympics.  How could you ever do something grand enough to top that? I loved when she said the gift to her children is the message that “you are enough. That they don’t have to do something for me to love them.” 

One of the last questions asked of Maria was about how she juggled her high profile job with her family.  Being a working mother, I was so curious to hear her response.  She spoke of how at first she thought she could juggle it all.  After four months of bringing her baby with her around the country and world, she had enough and tried to quit.  NBC moved her out of the primetime news and into special projects.  With each child, her job responsibilities decreased by choice. 

Her response felt so real to me.  I often wonder if we ever decide to have more kids how I will juggle working full-time with being a full-time mom.  It seems like the only way to do that is to give up being my full-time self.  How can I possible put myself above work and family?  I’ve been fantasizing about getting laid-off and starting out for myself.  Becoming an independent contractor.  Setting my own hours.  Billing my own clients.  Having my own business cards that don’t reference a position at a multi-billion dollar company. 

Honestly I’ve been too afraid to make the jump.  Fear of not making enough money to support my family.  Fear of not having enough connections to find work.  Fear that I’m really not as good as I thought I was.  Fear of failure.  It’s been holding me back.  The fear of not succeeding on my own keeps me in a safe place.  I know I am a successful employee.  But can I make it as a successful business?

Maria went on to say “I shouldn’t have tried to shove it all together.  I didn’t have the courage to say that I wasn’t going to work at all.”  And that’s when I knew that I need to be courageous.  We can’t afford for me to not work at all – we’ve done the math, it’s not possible.  But we can afford for me to find a way to go into business for myself.  To finally be THE boss of my own life and career.  Will I quit my job tomorrow and dive deep into consulting?  Probably not.  But I’m feeling a whole lot braver about taking that leap. 

I don’t need to be the cowardly lion.  I am working on finding the courage to make the leap of faith. 

You can read more about what Maria Shriver said during our Mom's Night Out at Silicon Valley Mom's Blog.   A review of her new book, Just Who Will You Be?, is over at my very neglected review blog.

John McCain's Guide for Women in the Workplace

Remember the royal a-hole that told me that women don't have to worry about our careers. I should have realized that he was just a good old boy Republican.

Senator John McCain opposes a bill that makes it easier for women to sue for pay equity in the face of gender discrimination.

Clearly for me to get ahead, I just need to be giving head.  I can't believe this guy even stands a chance at the Presidency.

Image from Comedy Central

Challenge: No TV for a week

This week is a national TV Turnoff Week challenge.  At first glance, I figured our household hardly qualifies in the too much TV watching category.

When Darius is awake, we don't watch much TV.  If he's lucky, he'll get to watch part of a 30 minute show on PBS one morning during the week.   On Saturdays, we walk to our local library where we check out videos to watch during the weekend.  We pick out non-kid movies for the adults to watch after he's gone to bed.  And he gets to pick his own DVD - my only rules are that they cannot be violent (no Power Rangers) and that they can't be one we've picked before.  Because, really, what parent needs to watch The Wiggles Down Under in Syndney more than once?  If he's lucky, he'll get to watch the video twice before we return to the library the following Saturday. 

So on an average week, I'd say that my child watches under two hours of TV a week.  Not bad considering the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends under two hours PER DAY. 

But when you factor in how often the TV is on when Darius is not around, well, then you can deduce that the adults in our household have a problem.  From the moment Darius' bedtime routine starts, my MIL has the TV on.  If I'm not the one reading the dozen books to Darius, I'm probably right next to her on the couch.  I've found that the sitting down and vegging out has become my way of dealing with the stresses in life.  I'm on the go from the moment I wake up and stay in GO-Mode for my day at work, to cooking dinner the second I walk in the door, getting tomorrow's lunches packed, and trying to squeeze in a few more emails before it's 8:00pm.  Some days are down right exhausting from dealing with whiny people at work to a whiny toddler at home.  And that big screen TV has become my comfort blanket. 

So this week, I am turning off the TV for me.  Darius too, but he doesn't get enough TV to even know what he's missing.  I plan on reading some books, finally putting away the rest of the laundry, finishing a magazine that I bought 2 months ago and still haven't opened, and taking an evening walk around the block.  The TV in our house will most likely still be on come 8:00pm.  But it won't be me watching.   

The engagement gap - employers need to do more to keep the worker bees, well, working

Towers Perrin recently released their 2007-2008 Global Workforce Study in which they claim that the corporate world is experiencing a significant "engagement gap" amognst its employees. 

38% [of employees] are either wholly or partly disengaged, meaning they might not know the right things to do to add value to the company or they might be doing just the minimum to get by. Play those percentages out across a large workforce, and it’s easy to see the implications for performance, especially if large numbers of those disengaged people are in customer-facing or strategically important roles.

But the biggest threat (or opportunity, if you are a glass-half-full type) is that the majority of employees are neither engaged nor disengaged.  They are stuck in the middle.  Stuck in limbo land of employment.  Going through the motions of their job.  Not sure how to add value to the organization.  That's quite scary when you think about it.

It always slight irks me that we need common sense studies and reports to tell corporations what many of us know already.  Employees care about what kind of leaders they have and leadership’s focus and commitment. They care about what their company stands for, and their ability to build skills and advance in their careers. Pay isn't everything.  We want good, honest managers that aren't looking for ways to take credit for their team's work.  We want a company that values its employees by promoting within and truly having a family friendly culture.  We want VPs that don't just talk about the bottom line but actively try to get to know the people in their organization.

You can see for yourself the employee drivers when being recruited, being retained, and staying engaged.  Each stage is all very different from the others. 

(click on the image to expand)

When I changed companies, I was honest about my decisions for leaving.  But I had mentally disengaged way before I gave notice.  Before I had even updated my resume.  Some of the reasons I disengaged are on this list.  Some are more personal.  By the time I was looking for a new job, I was completely disillusioned with my organization and the company at large.

Could things have been different?  Of course.  There are many woulda, coulda, shoulda moments in those months leading up to my decision.  My former manager felt like I didn't speak up enough about my dis-satisfaction in my position.  I felt, like short of standing up and screaming it in a meeting, it was painfully obvious that I was unhappy.  Clearly we weren't communicating to the best of our abilities.  I learned a lot about myself during those trying months.  Hopefully, my manager learned some things about her management style as well.  Hopefully, we both changed for the better.  Afterall, that is what this study is all about.  Managers and employees making changes to better, not only the company, but themselves.

Companies should pay close attention to programs and trainings that help workers balance personal and life responsibilities.   A major take-away from this study is that many employees voice their frustrations with their feet.  By walking out and finding somewhere new - the next organization that enables work/life flexibility or whatever it is that is lacking at their current company.  Senior leaders best heed the cry of the workplace: we seek ethical decisions, transparency, clarity and visibility. 

Happy Easter