I can’t speak for men, but I believe that women often equate their value as a person to their ability to nurture others.  Our self confidence and identity is commonly tied to our roles as mothers, spouses or friends – all roles that typically involve a good deal of nurturing.

Interesting.  I thought I was the only one who equated the two!  Apparently there are more of us out there.   And the post has a good point – taking care of yourself.  I mean, there are the basics like brushing your teeth, washing your hair, etc. and then there the more “luxurious” things like taking the time to read scripture, or setting aside time to exercise.  None of which I do – even the basics (which I do) take time away from the kids and other tasks.  I am sure most mothers of toddlers feel this way, right?  I mean, if I ever get the opportunity to take a  long, hot bath again, I think I will be a changed woman.  Until then, I will take fast showers, bathe the children and make sure the bath tub is clean.

So, in terms of “deserving” this time or “need”, I don’t quite  buy it – yet.

“The growing ranks of working women–half of the workforce is female, filling 51% of management and professional positions, and they are the primary or co-breadwinners in two-thirds of American families with children–opens up a new and increasingly heated debate that moves past the working mother vs. stay-at-home-mother battlefield.”

• The battlefield is not between mothers who work outside the home and those who do not.  The battlefield, I think, is making sure everyone is happy and all the bills are paid.

“Currently, U.S. Census Bureau statistics show that the national average age for women’s first birth is 25, which can be higher on a state-by-state basis (in Massachusetts it’s 28). However, there’s no doubt that the numbers of women who wait are growing. In 2006 about one out of 12 first births were to women age 35 and over, compared to only one out of 100 in 1970. The American Fertility Association (AFA) uses an even higher number. It reports that 20% of American women now wait to have their first child until after age 35.”

• Well, I only have my own experience here, and had my first at the age of 31, but have got to believe that it’s easier (fiscally) as you age, but easier (physically) when you are young

“The idea of having to balance young children at the same time that you’re up for a high-pressure executive position (with the added possibility that your aging parents may need help, too) might make some working women reconsider having children in her late 30s or 40s. Starting earlier would allow them to raise children during a career period when they have less responsibility and more time and, as the average age of an executive is often in the 40s or more, their children would be nearly independent. The perfect solution, right?”

• I am certainly not an executive at all, but I do find it extremely challenging some days to manage work responsibilities and two toddlers.

In summary, as with all important things in life, a lot of things can’t be planned.  So, hey, whatever works.

Why?  Is it the ever-present need for Americans to be “comfortable” at the risk of being appropriate?  Also, if you are schleping around town, sitting on bus seats and God knows what else, do you really want to track that into your sheets???

Like the poster on The Juggle, Michelle Gerdes, I remember not so long ago when (depending on where you worked), everyone wore a suit and jeans were not an option, never mind HOUSE CLOTHES.  And I too have been through pregnancies and even at my most uncomforatble times, ALWAYS got dressed.  And am fluffy and would rather be in comfortable clothes, but think that being appropriate is more important.

I don’t get it – it’s one of life’s mysteries like why some people think it’s ok to cut in line on the highway.  C’est la vie.  There are other things to worry about.

In one example cited in this story, a senior manager at IBM said she has often been too wiped out at the end of a workday to fix healthy, low-fat meals for her 3-year-old daughter. Under the company’s health plan, she was offered a “children’s health rebate.” Now, instead of zoning out in front of the TV and ordering pizza, pasta or fried chicken with her daughter at night, this single mom follows weekly menus provided by her employer. She says she has lost 10 pounds, and her daughter is snacking healthier, munching on fruit and pita instead of Gummi bears and chips.

I get it, I do.  We all want our kids to be healthy and on one hand I think it’s great that there are incentives to do that.  On the other hand, parents SHOULD be doing this whether or not there are incentives.  I try not to get too political here, but I see this as a stepping stone to some sort of national healthcare system where someone else decides, a government-appointed body of sorts, on who gets healthcare and who doesn’t based on particular health issues.  Not good folks, not good.