Working on "Not Working"

Before Michael Alexander was born, I never expected to be a stay-at-home mom. I'd spent too many years, made too many sacrifices, to get where I was as a journalist after abandoning my first career pursuit, academia. I'd planned to go back to work after three months, like most (it seems) moms in the city. Now I can't imagine being in an office every day and missing the moments that are most precious, knowing I can care for my son better than anyone else. Not because I'm infinitely more qualified, but because I love him more than anyone else could. I'm unwilling to debate that.

Motherhood with all its joys has its pains, most inflicted by others. There's the worry that you're not giving your child enough. In Manhattan, that's an uber worry as the megarich, and those who drown in debt to feign such wealth, perpetuate a culture that compels you to spend a fortune on childcare. I see nannies every day. I see them tow children from townhouses to pricey play facilities where they chat away with other nannies. I see them shop for cosmetics, for clothes, for anything that's not for the babies. I hear them blab away on their cell phones or with other nannies as the children they are caring for cry, scream, laugh, whatever. The kids are being ignored, at best. In the rare case, I see a nanny abuse a child, like the one who slammed a stroller into the brick wall outside a Babies"R"Us. The toddler was yelling and weeping while the nanny was on the phone. I'm guessing it wasn't the parent/employer on the other line. I am not trying to malign nannies. I am not trying to guilt or scare the parents who fork over a big chunk of non-Wall Street salaries for this service. I am not even trying to make myself feel better. Really, I'm not. At least not by hating on paid childcare workers. I believe those who care for children should be paid -- and treated -- well. And I also believe those who care for their own children should be treated well, or at least with some respect. At least as much respect as they demanded in the workplace they left behind to stay at home.

My biggest struggle isn't keeping up with the Manhattan standard of hemorrhaging money hand over fist for activities that babies don't even understand or enjoy. It's accepting the terms and the tone used to describe my decision to "stay at home." Even my supportive, loving husband has said "Natasha isn't working, so ..." He'll deny it, I'm sure. But I have witnesses. I know Mike means no offense and isn't displeased with my staying at home to raise our son. But hearing anyone say "Natasha isn't working" makes me cringe, and when I'm alone, cry. I do some freelance, as much as I can with a very active son who seems allergic to napping. Michael Alexander demands constant attention and I give it to him. That may be a mistake on my end, at least according to many childcare experts. But I can't abandon my work ethic, even if I'm "not working" by most people's standards, and my job is to care for my son every second he's awake and to check on him every few minutes on the rare occasion he naps for more than half an hour. I'm actively seeking a full-time job, but I'm not sure I want to go back to work, yet. I don't want to take a job just to offset the cost of a nanny. I want to send Michael Alexander to a daycare where he interacts with other children and with other adults. The costs of such daycare in our neighborhood are astronomical.

As I consider when and why I want to return to an office, I try to maintain a positive perspective on my current condition as "not working." A 2010 Kansas State University study found that people value, and do not differentiate between, mothers who stay in the home full time and mothers who find a compromise between working and at-home motherhood after they have a child. People also devalue mothers employed full-time outside the home, relative to their non-employed counterparts, and perceive their children to be troubled and their relationships to be problematic, the study showed. But I'm not in Kansas. I'm in Manhattan, where we're measured by very different criteria. I'm supposed to be a supermom and a superwoman executive and, oh yeah, a size 2 at most, and that's with the baby weight. "The most interesting, and potentially dangerous, finding is the view that if a child has a working mother, people don't like that child as much," said Jennifer Livengood, a graduate student in psychology who did the study for her master's thesis and collaborated with Mark Barnett, professor of psychology. "People really devalue a mom who works full time outside the home in comparison to a mom who doesn't. People like mothers who fulfill traditional stereotypes, like staying at home. That's just not a reality and not a preference for women as much as it used to be." Ha! Well, at least people -- all kinds of people -- like my son, regardless of my work status. He's too charming to be measured against my career path, even when I've careened off course.

Another study published this month in the journal Child Development found that the longer a mother works outside the home, the more likely it is that her kids will become overweight. So far, Michael Alexander is long and lean, like his father's father. I hope Michael Alexander continues to be blessed by those genetics (not my sluggish thyroid), and I will not let him consume poisons such as high fructose corn syrup and will encourage him in any and all athletic pursuits. Researchers from American University in Washington, Cornell University and the University of Chicago studied data on more than 900 children in 10 U.S. cities, focusing on kids in Grades 3, 5, and 6. They found that every five months or so that a mother was employed was linked to an increase in her child's BMI that was 10% higher than other kids their age. Before I take credit for my son's infant fitness, I'll be first to acknowledge such studies are often anecdotal, at best. And lead researcher Taryn Morrissey notes that "We want to emphasize that this is not a maternal employment issue; this is a family balance issue. This is not about maternal employment per se; this is about some other environmental factor or several factors." As for environmental factors, I do take pride that Mike and I are raising our son in a city that bans trans fats and a borough that battles evil behemoths like Walmart.

It's taken me over an hour to bang this out, as I steal seconds while Michael Alexander engages in toys instead of tapping the keys. If I were "working" in an office I could have banged out thousands of words of copy in that hour or so. Back in the AP days, I'd have filed dozens of stories in the first hour of a busy shift. It's tough to recall more than a dozen stories that stood out in that frenzy. But now that I'm "not working" I can count every word that I manage to bang out. And every one of those words count, even if they don't command a salary. I'm not working, but I am working on being the best mother I can, and if Michael Alexander's disposition and development is any indicator then I can take pride in my joblessness.

First Lady of Walmartians

Shame on you, Michelle Obama, for selling out -- again -- to the evil empire that is crippling the nation and chipping away at any goodness in the world. The White House announced that "First Lady Michelle Obama joined Walmart executives today to help launch the company’s Nutrition Charter, a groundbreaking new initiative that has the potential to have a transformative impact on the market place and help families across America put healthier, more affordable food on their tables." Even less appetizing are the *news* reports that rewrite this repulsive release without any mention of how this is another crime against our citizens. You'll need to read The Telegraph for anything more than a gratuitous endorsement masquerading as news: "The apparent contradiction between Sen Obama's political calculation to join the Wal-Mart-bashing lobby, and his wife's profitable role with a company that makes money from Wal-Mart, is being closely scrutinised by "opposition" research teams working for rival White House candidates, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt." For more on Obama's re-election to the board of Treehouse Foods, the Illinois-based union- and worker-hating pickles and peppers producer, click here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1551441/Obama-called-hypocrite-for-wifes-Wal-Mart-link.html

Walmartians aren't looking for "healthier" food. They consume processed crap in lieu of anything that resembles whole food. The socially conscious aren't going to trade down from their local farmer's market or Whole Foods to be fooled into believing they are saving money at the behemoth that sucks dry any semblance of humanity from the masses. The world's biggest retailer claims it is "reformulating thousands of everyday packaged food items by 2015 by reducing sodium 25 percent and added sugars 10 percent, and by removing all remaining industrially produced trans fats." Why is this poison loaded with so much sodium, sugar (no doubt mostly high fructose corn syrup) and trans fat to begin with? And why is it taking until 2015? Because the chemical concoctions on the shelves are forever fossilized in their processed state and "good" for years after they come off the production lines. Specifically, Walmart has vowed to "reduce sodium by 25 percent in a broad category of grocery items, including grain products, luncheon meats, salad dressings and frozen entrees." This death by diet campaign is acknowledging it doesn't stock whole grains but "grain products." Good luck finding lean protein at any price in this mecca of mock. There you'll find "luncheon meats." Luncheon meats? I guess that's what you serve with American cheese, a blend of milk, milk fats and solids, with other fats and whey protein concentrates. I'm too nauseous to even comment on the contents of the "salad dressings and frozen entrees." Walmart also promises to "reduce added sugars by 10 percent in dairy items, sauces and fruit drinks." Added sugars in "dairy items?" Want to commit to health Walmart? Don't sell diabetes causing "dairy items, sauces and fruit drinks" to human beings! Even fruit juice (just fruit without any of the fiber reduced to a "healthy" sugar) needs to be doled out in moderation. That something called "fruit drinks" is even legal is heinous. To round out the trinity of "reformulation," Walmart says it will "remove all remaining industrially produced trans fats (partially hydrogenated fats and oils) in all packaged food products." Thanks, Walmart, for introducing me to an even deeper, darker circle of dietary hell known as "industrially produced trans fats."

I dare doubters who still think I'm a snob to show me any evidence that even the slightest improvement in any packaged Walmart product will transform it into anything approaching healthy. Take a serving of Sam's Club frozen pizza. The store brand supreme pie packs 350 calories per serving. Sounds OK, right? That serving is a tenth of the pie, or 5.57 ounces. How many Walmartians really eat one slice? Let's be conservative and say a family of four shares the pie, with three slices doled out to dad, the biggest eater of the bunch. That means dad's scarfing down 1,050 calories, 48 grams of fat (24 saturated), 120 mg of cholesterol, 2,340 mg of sodium and 42 grams of sugar. And that's before the fruit drink. And what if mom, who's only eating two slices, decides to serve a healthy salad with store bought dressing? I'll spare you the staggering statistics.

Since I'm nowhere near a Walmart (one legitimate reason for paying astronomical rent) and I have vowed to never step foot in one, I can't give you a price comparison. But I assure you that you can find bulk items of whole foods like grains and legumes much cheaper at Whole Foods. I tried to search online for Walmart prices. Funny that a site search for "organic" in the grocery department yields just 10 results. Those items include tea, coffee, infant formula and diapers. What more do you need for a healthy, organic diet?

The press photos of the First Lady and Walmart President and CEO Bill Simon against a backdrop of super shiny peppers and tomatoes makes me squint (from the grotesque glossy veneer) and shudder. I challenge any Walmartian to monitor that produce pile, watch for any takers or any turnover of the shellacked racks.