Wow, it must be summer as there is nothing but dreary puff pieces in the news. Newsweek's Lorraine Ali reported that parents are not as happy as non-parents, but there is a lot of nuance in this article I agree with:

Is it possible that American parents have always been this disillusioned? Anecdotal evidence says no. In pre-industrial America, parents certainly loved their children, but their offspring also served a purpose—to work the farm, contribute to the household. Children were a necessity. Today, we have kids more for emotional reasons, but an increasingly complicated work and social environment has made finding satisfaction far more difficult. A key study by University of Wisconsin-Madison's Sara McLanahan and Julia Adams, conducted some 20 years ago, found that parenthood was perceived as significantly more stressful in the 1970s than in the 1950s; the researchers attribute part of that change to major shifts in employment patterns. The majority of American parents now work outside the home, have less support from extended family and face a deteriorating education and health-care system, so raising children has not only become more complicated—it has become more expensive. Today the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that it costs anywhere from $134,370 to $237,520 to raise a child from birth to the age of 17—and that's not counting school or college tuition. No wonder parents are feeling a little blue.

Yes! This is what gets me: Everyone likes to point out how miserable parents are, but no one is willing to lend a hand -- unless there is payment involved. Thankfully, I can afford the occasional babysitter, which is saving my marriage. But what if you can never leave your home? Of course parenting isn't bliss!

I would disagree with this paragraph in the story though, only because I do believe the lack of help -- a "village" -- is what is ailing parents -- not the fact they have kids:

Societal ills aside, perhaps we also expect too much from the promise of parenting. The National Marriage Project's 2006 "State of Our Unions" report says that parents have significantly lower marital satisfaction than nonparents because they experienced more single and child-free years than previous generations. Twenty-five years ago, women married around the age of 20, and men at 23. Today both sexes are marrying four to five years later. This means the experience of raising kids is now competing with highs in a parent's past, like career wins ("I got a raise!") or a carefree social life ("God, this is a great martini!"). Shuttling cranky kids to school or dashing to work with spit-up on your favorite sweater doesn't skew as romantic.

I don't know. I felt that the puke on my favorite shirts humbled me and I love my children more than any other accomplishment in my life -- which leads me to the often underreported aspect of this story. While the study in question reported that parents experienced "lower levels of emotional well-being, less frequent positive emotions and more frequent negative emotions than their childless peers," it also stated that parents felt a greater sense of purpose and meaning in their lives than their child-free peers. Said Ali:

And there are other rewarding aspects of parenting that are impossible to quantify. For example, I never thought it possible to love someone as deeply as I love my son. As for (Ali's childhood childless neighbors) the Sloans, it's hard to say whether they had a less meaningful existence than my parents, or if my parents were 7 percent less happy than the Sloans. Perhaps it just comes down to how you see the candy dish—half empty or half full. Or at least as a parent, that's what I'll keep telling myself.

What do you think? Have your relationships or happiness suffered because of children? Please take our own internal poll!

A friend and I were kvetching yesterday about our parents and their "favoring" of our younger siblings... in my case, my 28 year old live-at-home brother was just gifted with a hand-me-down 2005 car without second thought, and in hers, well, her sister played the same sport she played in high school and wound up being wildly successful, having received parent-funded private lessons, league play and other aids they couldn't afford when she was a teenager ten years ago. We vacillated between feeling like whiny 15 year olds and rationalizing our frustrations.

In the end, we both agreed on a rather common mantra of young parents- we will strive Not To Be Like The Parents in this area, strive to be "fair and equitable." I realize this is probably a losing battle, or so subjective as to be impossible to gauge.

After the conversation, DH and I discussed what, if anything, we could achieve as parents to feel "successful." We came up with this:

We will consider ourselves successful parents if our children have a healthy self esteem.

Doctor? Factory worker? SAHM? Corporate CEO? We couldn't care less. Gay, Straight? No never mind. As long as our children know they are loved, they are worthy of dignity and respect, and they have a sense of self worth, we will consider ourselves successful. Everything else is gravy.

What is your definition of "successful parenting"? Is the concept even achievable?

My mom is giving me the silent treatment.  Mom has a miniature daschund, Ozzie, who is about 14 years old. Ozzie has been mean his entire life. He has bitten dozens of people. He bit Mary Grace when she was about 15 months old. He's blind and has a host of health problems that have only made him more and more vicious.

What does the death of a paralyzed woman in Tennessee have to do with the temporary closure of a private school in El Sobrante? As it turns out, plenty.

I've mentioned before that my inlaws drive me nuts.  However, they are refusing to take this very simple step to ensure my kids' safety in their home, and it is really bothering me.

Parents magazine ran a fun article comparing the pros and cons of having children early, late in life or somewhere in between. It peppered the article with some interesting statistics.

The first mom, Carla Lehrer, had her first baby at 21. She was married in her sophomore year of college, pregnant by second semester and took a year off when the baby was born. By graduation, she was pregnant with her second child.

BEING A YOUNG MOM means that it's hard not be selfish about my time. I used to sleep in, read, or watch TV whenever I wanted and go out with friends any night I pleased. All these freedoms go away when you're a parent.

BOUNCING BACK AFTER pregnancies is easier when you're younger. I've gotten down to my starting weight after each one. Two weeks after I had Aliza I was in a bridesmaid dress.

I'M HAPPY THAT my kids have young grandparents--they're all in their 50s--and seven great-grandparents. I'm always calling my mom and mother-in-law for advice, and I also go to Facebook, where I started my own young moms group called Mommy and Me.

Women ages 20 to 24 give birth to about a quarter of all babies each year.

Wow. I felt like I was still finding myself at this age. I couldn't imagine being pregnant as an undergrad! Then again, I do wish I had the energy from my college days.

(Crossposted at the Quad-City Times)

The baby has been healthy as a horse since she got her ear tubes (knock on wood).

But for months, and I mean MONTHS, she was really sick off and on. Mostly on. And I got sick a few times, too.

Even though my husband and I took turns staying home with her when she was feverish and yucky, I ended up having to take a lot of days off work. In fact, I think I’ve used up all of my sick time and personal days for the year already.

I was really worried about her, but also, I was worried about my job. I didn’t want anyone to think I was using the baby as an excuse to miss work -- because in the past, I didn’t even use ONE sick day all year.

I’m probably crazy, but I was so worried that I even told one of my bosses, "Please remember what it was like before I had the baby, and realize I’ll get back to that point again when she gets a little older and healthier."

She laughed and told me not to worry. She knows I’m a hard worker, she said. That was a relief.

But isn’t it sad that parents with little children feel the need to worry like this at all? If we’re keeping up with our workload, and still doing our best -- even if we aren’t getting the office face time -- we shouldn’t punish ourselves, or get punished by the bosses, right?

That’s not always the case. And for many of us, the worry about getting penalized for our parental status is legit. I read a story today that says motherhood really does count against women trying to get jobs in several states - and shockingly, it’s LEGAL. Check out the story the story by clicking here.

Here’s an excerpt:

"When Kiki Peppard applied for a secretarial job, her prospective employer asked if she was married and had children. After the single mother of two answered, she was told she wouldn’t be hired because she would cost the employer too much in health insurance.

At her next interview, the same questions came up and the Monroe County mom was turned away again because, she was told, "mothers take too many days off."

But the biggest surprise for Peppard, 53, of Effort, was learning this type of questioning is not against the law in Pennsylvania. Employers can and do ask questions about marital and family status and make decisions based on the answers.

Peppard said in more than a dozen job interviews in a row, she was rejected because she was a single mother. She ended up supporting her two children with temporary work supplemented by welfare and food stamps.

"It’s Pennsylvania’s dirty little secret," Peppard said. "I was forced into poverty because of an archaic law."

And Pennsylvania isn’t the only state that allows this. Questions about marital and family status -- and even childcare plans - are allowed in 28 states, according to the story.

The HR people at my job say that line of questioning certainly isn’t legal here in Iowa, and were surprised to hear it was legal anywhere.

What have you experienced? Do you think any form of "parental profiling" should be allowed? Do you think some employers have a point -- that employees with kids really do cost more money and time than maybe they’re worth?

It was a long weekend.  DH came down with the flu on Thursday and went to bed.  By Sunday, I was tired of taking care of him and tired of taking care of everything else. I was counting up the four days he had been out of commission and thinking about the kids catching it from him.

Seriously getting grouchy, I fed the kids an appealing (not really) lunch of whatever leftovers I could dig out of the fridge. After noting a lack of fruit or veg, I sliced up an apple for them and retreated to the loft office upstairs.

Mostly I just sat up there, staring into space and listening to them talk to each other.  They get along pretty well but like most siblings, know exactly how to push each other's buttons.

My DS turned the converstation to eating habits. Neither kid is a picky eater, but his sister has a couple quirks that he likes to point out.

Yet, another good diary. Thanks, Alice! -Elisa

Recently a mall near us started a curfew for kids 16 & under. They can't go to the mall on Friday or Saturday after 4pm unless accompanied by an adult over 21. What do you think of this? The mall's position is that the kids are using the mall as a hangout & are disruptive.They claim business has suffered as a result.

The mall is not one of the more popular ones & the big draw is the movie theater inside. I have been to this mall on weekend evenings before the curfew & noticed the typical gathering of young people waiting in the adjoining food area near the movie entrance.My thought is the reason the mall is losing business is because it is an older mall & the biggest store in it is Target.

The mall is basing the policy on one used by malls in other cities such as Mall of the Americas. Have you run into issues with kids overrunning the malls in your area? Do you drop off your young teens or allow them to go to the mall without "adult" supervision?

Taking advantage of my first time "front paging" to share this story from New York Magazine.  It's a very interesting story about how kids learn to lie (did you know it's a sign of intelligence?), why they continue to lie, and what they lie about.

(Unfortunately, the teaser headline - "they're copying their parents" is only a small part of the story - just another stab at parent-guilt)

Like many, I was flabbergasted when I heard Heath ledger had died.

My first thought was, "He's so young and so talented!"

My second was, "Oh God, he has a baby girl who will grow up without her father."

His family has handled the media onslaught with as much grace as possible, and his former fiancee Michelle Williams released a single, heartbreaking statement on the unexpected loss of a brilliant young man.

His final memorial service was in his hometown of Perth, Australia, and ended with the mourners wading into the ocean at sunset. The news reports I read noted that 2-year-old Matilda wasn't present.

Initially I assumed her mom wanted to protect her from the glare of the paparazzi. Then I realized maybe she just didn't want her young daughter at such an emotional event. Maybe she wanted to shield her from the grief and tears of all the people who loved her father the most gathered in one place, opting instead to explain her father's absence gradually and privately.

It all got me to thinking: how have you handled deciding whether or not to take your children to funerals? Do you base the decision on your child's age? Personality? Relation to the deceased?

So far, I have opted to shield Maya from funerals. My father's cousin, whom I hadn't seen in several years, passed away unexpectedly last fall. I went to the open-casket viewing alone, while Maya stayed home with her father.

My main concern was that my rambunctious then-2-year-old would have a hard time sitting still during the rosary and keeping her voice down in general. But truth be told, I also didn't want her to see a dead body and dreaded the questions that could arise. She has no clue about the concept of death yet, and quite frankly I have no idea how to introduce it without freaking her out.

I am mindful of the freak-out factor because as a child, I was TERRIFIED of death. I could bring myself to tears just thinking about the fact that someday, somehow, my parents would pass away. I wept at the inevitability.

And I still remember the first funeral I attended: the son of a family friend was struck by a car and died. I was about 8 years old, and he was around my age. I still remember seeing his body in the satin-lined coffin, and the crushing grief on his weeping mother's face. No one really prepared me for what I was about to see, and it left quite an impression on me.

MomLogic interviewed an expert who said the decision on whether to take a child to a funeral should be strictly individual, but gave these tips:

• Don't rule it out. The ritual can be a good way to help a child express feelings as well as giving the chance to say goodbye.

• Get a backup plan. If you're going to have a child attend, you definitely must take their needs into consideration. A babysitter or caregiver should be at the ready--someone trusted, who can provide the child comfort; someone who is there to take them outside or home, if and when necessary.

• It's up to the family. Whether a small child should be part of a service or not is really a family's call. Do they have to be there? No. But it's a personal decision. Some parents feel they can't grieve as intensely as they'd like to with their child present; others feel a child provides a source of hope and inspiration at such a difficult time.

What do you all think? How have you handled death and funerals with your own children? Any tips or insight to share?

With all our talk about exposing our kids to the political process....who's taking their children to the polls today?  If you do, post a photo.  Who's got the cutest "pre-voter" out there?  How did the poll workers and other voters treat your little one?  Any reactions from the kids about the voting process?

This is an exciting Super Tuesday - any selection on the Democratic side is a winner, so share the excitement (and the photos) here!