So both Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett died today. It doesn't really have much to do with the rest of this blog, but somehow it would feel weird to talk about anything else. And to be fair, it is a Pretty Big Deal.
I don't know if I can say that either of them had a huge impact on my life, other than I liked a lot of Michael Jackson's songs (at least the earlier ones) and he was probably the most influential musician/performer of our time. I feel sad that he never got to live anything close to a "normal" life. I guess it's just another example that having all the money in the world can't necessarily buy you happiness. By all accounts there were very few adults around him that he could trust, and he would allegedly go for days with no one else to talk to but young children. I'm sure a lot of moms can relate to how that could definitely drive a person crazy.
As for Farrah Fawcett...I never watched the original Charlie's Angels and can't remember seeing her in anything else. She was more of a face to me than anything. Then my sister reminded me about the time, about 15 years ago, when we were on a family vacation in Vancouver. Farrah Fawcett was in town filming a movie with Chevy Chase and Jonathan Taylor Thomas called "Man of the House". Remember it? Didn't think so.
Anyway, we were in some park and noticed that there was some filming going on near the water. This was the closest any of us had been to anyone remotely famous so we walked around trying to get the best view. That was when we noticed that Farrah Fawcett was giving an interview to someone about 100 yards away. Dad immediately got out the video camera and started taping. We couldn't hear any of the conversation, but that didn't really matter. It didn't take too long for her people to notice what we were doing and one girl came down to try to block Dad's shot. I'm sure Mom and Dad still have that tape somewhere. It would be pretty cool to watch it again.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Best We Can
So yesterday, the Minister of Finance for our provincial government, Iris Evans, was quoted as saying the following at at speech given to the Economic Club of Canada in Toronto:
(Speaking about her own children) “They’ve understood perfectly well that when you’re raising children, you don’t both go off to work and leave them for somebody else to raise. This is not a statement against day care. It’s a statement about their belief in the importance of raising children properly.”
She has since clarified her remarks, but in the meantime, has stirred up quite the uproar. (note the 1262 comments on this article on cbc.com)
Personally, I am tired of this whole debate about whether it's better for kids to have one parent stay at home or to have both kids working, or if families where both parents work are doing irreparable harm to their kids. I am even more weary of feeling defensive about my decision to work outside the home and being made to feel like I'm not as good of a mother because that was my decision. Because, you see, even the people who defend working mothers (and while I know that there are more and more stay-at-home dads out there, this is still primarily a "mother" issue) most often justify their decision by saying that they have to work, that if they had a choice, they would be home too.
In our family, it's mostly economics that has led to both of us working, but there's also a personal fulfillment aspect too. Both of us worked hard in university and we each have two university degrees. I enjoy the intellectual challenge that my job presents and I think that being out in the workforce makes me a better mother. I don't think that women who choose to work, even when they could stay home, should be made to feel like they're bad mothers for making that choice.
I think that what we need to do is quit judging each other and realize that we're all doing the best we can for our families. For some families that means that one parent stays at home, for others it means that both parents are working. And what does raising kids "properly"mean anyway?
My main goal as a mother is to make sure that my children know that they are loved and cared for. I think I can do that and still work and if it ever got to the point where that was in issue, then we would have some decisions to make. I try to make sure that the time I spend with my son is "quality" time. We read books and sing songs together, go for walks, take swimming lessons, and sometimes we just play. I guess what I want is for my kids to feel like Taylor Swift does in her song, The Best Day. Here's the video.
(Speaking about her own children) “They’ve understood perfectly well that when you’re raising children, you don’t both go off to work and leave them for somebody else to raise. This is not a statement against day care. It’s a statement about their belief in the importance of raising children properly.”
She has since clarified her remarks, but in the meantime, has stirred up quite the uproar. (note the 1262 comments on this article on cbc.com)
Personally, I am tired of this whole debate about whether it's better for kids to have one parent stay at home or to have both kids working, or if families where both parents work are doing irreparable harm to their kids. I am even more weary of feeling defensive about my decision to work outside the home and being made to feel like I'm not as good of a mother because that was my decision. Because, you see, even the people who defend working mothers (and while I know that there are more and more stay-at-home dads out there, this is still primarily a "mother" issue) most often justify their decision by saying that they have to work, that if they had a choice, they would be home too.
In our family, it's mostly economics that has led to both of us working, but there's also a personal fulfillment aspect too. Both of us worked hard in university and we each have two university degrees. I enjoy the intellectual challenge that my job presents and I think that being out in the workforce makes me a better mother. I don't think that women who choose to work, even when they could stay home, should be made to feel like they're bad mothers for making that choice.
I think that what we need to do is quit judging each other and realize that we're all doing the best we can for our families. For some families that means that one parent stays at home, for others it means that both parents are working. And what does raising kids "properly"mean anyway?
My main goal as a mother is to make sure that my children know that they are loved and cared for. I think I can do that and still work and if it ever got to the point where that was in issue, then we would have some decisions to make. I try to make sure that the time I spend with my son is "quality" time. We read books and sing songs together, go for walks, take swimming lessons, and sometimes we just play. I guess what I want is for my kids to feel like Taylor Swift does in her song, The Best Day. Here's the video.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Balance? What Balance?
It's no secret that law is a demanding profession. At least, I don't think it's a secret. Although, as I think about it, I had no idea just how demanding it was until I got to law school and even that does nothing to prepare you for what it's like to actually practice law. The only lawyer I knew growing up was the lawyer from Lloydminster, (SK/AB, population 17,000) who came to our small town every Wednesday and worked out of the same office as my dad. He was there at 9 or so and usually left by 5. I had no idea what his hours were like the rest of the week; I just assumed that's how all lawyers worked. Ha ha.
So it's been quite a struggle for me to try to fit into a profession that demands so much when I always knew that my family would come first. I never aspired to be a stay-at-home Mom - I worked hard for my education and want to put it to good use - but I also don't ever want my kids to think that they came second to my job. I was kind of lucky because when I graduated from law school, "work/life balance" was a term thrown around by all the firms (all of whom insisted that their firm was the only one that "really meant it.") and I guess I believed them. Still, I didn't even apply to work at any of the BigLaw firms because I knew that lifestyle wasn't for me. I've been fortunate to work at places where I can keep fairly regular hours and still get my work done.
So it was with interest that I read Jordan Furlong's column today over at Law21. Most of the time I agree with Jordan's analysis of an issue, but this time I'm not so sure. He says that the term "work-life balance" will soon be a phrase of the past, and that it's always been about the choices that lawyers have to make, not something that firms really have to adjust too. While I agree with his assessment that the idea of work-life balance has a lot to do with trade-offs, I don't think that it's just young lawyers starting out who are denied the ability to make this choice in the first place.
I know that there are several female lawyers - mothers - at top-tier firms who have managed to make it in private practice without sacrificing their family life. At least, I don't know that they haven't sacrificed their family life. But there aren't many. Study after study has been commissioned to try and figure out why women are leaving private practice to go work in-house or for the government. It's not rocket science. Any mother practicing law who is either single or part of a two-earner household has probably had to manage the collision between their professional and personal life at least once, likely several times. If firms want to keep these parents on staff, they are going to need to be more flexible in what expectations they have of their employees. It doesn't necessarily mean that these lawyers will have lower billable hour targets or anything, but it does mean that firms open themselves up to things like telecommuting. After all, I'm sure the client doesn't care where the work gets done, as long as it's done. And if the firms don't adjust? Well, then I guess we'll all lose because a lot of great legal talent will go work elsewhere. As a profession, we'd have no one to blame but ourselves.
So it's been quite a struggle for me to try to fit into a profession that demands so much when I always knew that my family would come first. I never aspired to be a stay-at-home Mom - I worked hard for my education and want to put it to good use - but I also don't ever want my kids to think that they came second to my job. I was kind of lucky because when I graduated from law school, "work/life balance" was a term thrown around by all the firms (all of whom insisted that their firm was the only one that "really meant it.") and I guess I believed them. Still, I didn't even apply to work at any of the BigLaw firms because I knew that lifestyle wasn't for me. I've been fortunate to work at places where I can keep fairly regular hours and still get my work done.
So it was with interest that I read Jordan Furlong's column today over at Law21. Most of the time I agree with Jordan's analysis of an issue, but this time I'm not so sure. He says that the term "work-life balance" will soon be a phrase of the past, and that it's always been about the choices that lawyers have to make, not something that firms really have to adjust too. While I agree with his assessment that the idea of work-life balance has a lot to do with trade-offs, I don't think that it's just young lawyers starting out who are denied the ability to make this choice in the first place.
I know that there are several female lawyers - mothers - at top-tier firms who have managed to make it in private practice without sacrificing their family life. At least, I don't know that they haven't sacrificed their family life. But there aren't many. Study after study has been commissioned to try and figure out why women are leaving private practice to go work in-house or for the government. It's not rocket science. Any mother practicing law who is either single or part of a two-earner household has probably had to manage the collision between their professional and personal life at least once, likely several times. If firms want to keep these parents on staff, they are going to need to be more flexible in what expectations they have of their employees. It doesn't necessarily mean that these lawyers will have lower billable hour targets or anything, but it does mean that firms open themselves up to things like telecommuting. After all, I'm sure the client doesn't care where the work gets done, as long as it's done. And if the firms don't adjust? Well, then I guess we'll all lose because a lot of great legal talent will go work elsewhere. As a profession, we'd have no one to blame but ourselves.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
It's Supposed to be a Happy Time
So after having several doctors tell Murray and I that we would never be able to procreate without spending gobs of money and using way too many drugs, I have found myself in the family way. Yippee! Sort of.
For various reasons, which I don't really want to get into here, I'd been given the impression that my employer would be less than thrilled about hearing that I'm planning a maternity leave. Unfortunately, I was not wrong. There was no congratulations (not even a half-hearted one), just a discussion on how they're supposed to deal with this "problem."
Part of me is kind of mad because this baby is something that I should be really excited about and instead I had to spend the last couple of months in a state of extreme anxiety about how my bosses would take it. And now that it's out in the open...well let's just say that it's hard to be happy about something when the people around you are making it obvious that what you're happy about is a huge inconvenience for them. Actually, it really sucks.
At least I get to come home to a supportive husband and a great kid who remind me every day of what's really important. Jobs (and bosses) may come and go, but your family is yours forever.
For various reasons, which I don't really want to get into here, I'd been given the impression that my employer would be less than thrilled about hearing that I'm planning a maternity leave. Unfortunately, I was not wrong. There was no congratulations (not even a half-hearted one), just a discussion on how they're supposed to deal with this "problem."
Part of me is kind of mad because this baby is something that I should be really excited about and instead I had to spend the last couple of months in a state of extreme anxiety about how my bosses would take it. And now that it's out in the open...well let's just say that it's hard to be happy about something when the people around you are making it obvious that what you're happy about is a huge inconvenience for them. Actually, it really sucks.
At least I get to come home to a supportive husband and a great kid who remind me every day of what's really important. Jobs (and bosses) may come and go, but your family is yours forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)