Freelancing numbers - year 2

This is my second year of freelancing, and while I did it full-time my first year, this year I ended up taking a teaching position at UF, and taught full-time last semester, so I'm going to show salary with that included and without it. It took up a bunch of my pitching and writing time, but also gave me a steady paycheck that I could (mostly) earn from home. And I get to teach students about journalism and how to do it! For me, this step was worth it.


This year, I made $47,979 total.
I made $19,412 of that from teaching at UF.
Therefore, I made $28,567 writing this year.

Last year, I only wrote, and I made $23,833.

My lowest income month was April: $1,832 
(Interestingly, last year's lowest income month was also April at $735)

My highest income month was February: $7,743. 
(Last year it was July at $4,566)

On average I made $3,998 a month, which is nearly $1,000 a week.
If I take out the teaching salary, I made $2,381 a month, or $595 a week.

Last year I made $1,986 a month or $496.52 a week.

Remember, though, I still have to do my taxes on $30,000 of this.

I'm happy with my professional decisions this year, and I recommend writers taking on a class or two if they have the time.


THE NUMBERS BEHIND THE MONEY:

We'll focus now on just the writing. To get that $30K, I published 65 pieces this year, down from 80 last year.

My highest number published in a month was July with 11 pieces published.
My lowest number in a months was May with 2 pieces published.

On average, I published 5.4 pieces a month, down from 6.7 pieces a month. (remember, even without the teaching money, I made more money writing this year than last, so inch up your pay rates when you can.)


In terms of publications, I published in 24 different places, down from 30 last year, including websites, newspapers and magazines.

The most pieces I published for one place? 23.


The lowest I wrote for was free. I wrote one piece for free this year. Not counting that, $50. I published two pieces for $50.

The highest check for one piece I received this year was for $4,000.

On average, I made $440 a piece, up from $300 last year. (This number skews high because I counted a few reprints and some blogging revenue in my yearly total.) So, let's probably say I made about $350 a piece this year.


THE EFFORT BEHIND THE NUMBERS:

Let's talk pitches, rejections and acceptances. To publish my 65 pieces this year, I sent out 267 pitches this year, down from 329 pitches last year. 

I was rejected outright 96 times. 
I was accepted 80 times (some are still in edits, and some were killed, which brings the published list to 65). 
I was ignored 91 times (which is a silent rejection, obviously).

So, my percentages work out like this:

Accepted: 30% of the time
Rejected: 36% of the time
Ignored: 34% of the time
Total Rejected: 70% of the time.

I was accepted 30 percent of the time. I was rejected 70 percent of the time.

Keep trying! Keep going! We can do this, freelancers. It is possible.


Last year's complete numbers are here.

Freelancing Numbers - Year 1

At the end of my first year of freelancing, I thought some numbers and stats might help others.


This year, I made $23,833.19.

My lowest income month was April: $735
My highest income month was July: $4,566.81

On average I made $1,986 a month.
That's $496.52 a week.

Remember, though, I still have to do my taxes. So take-home is like two thirds of the total, right? Which leaves me at: $15,729.91.

Okay, so not great. Definitely not great. On the other hand, way better than ZERO. So, that's good. We'll say it's a good start.


To get to that amount, I published 80 pieces this year.

My highest number published in a month was October with 12 pieces published.
My lowest number in a months was February with 4 pieces published.

On average, I published 6.7 pieces a month.
That's 1.5 pieces a week.


In terms of publications, I published in 30 different places, including websites, newspapers and magazines.

The most pieces I published for one place? 17.


The lowest I wrote for was free. I wrote two piece for free this year. Not counting that, $50.
The highest check for one piece I received this year was for $1165.50.

On average, I made $297.91 a piece. (This number skews high because I counted a few reprints and some blogging revenue in my yearly total.) So, let's probably say I made about $250 a piece this year.




Let's talk pitches, rejections and acceptances. To publish my 80 pieces this year, I sent out 329 pitches. I was rejected outright 128 times. I was accepted 97 times (some are still in edits, and some were killed, which brings the published list to 80). I was ignored 104 times (which is a silent rejection, obviously).

So, my percentages work out like this:

Accepted: 29% of the time
Rejected: 39% of the time
Ignored: 32% of the time
Total Rejected: 71% of the time.

I was accepted 29 percent of the time. I was rejected 71 percent of the time.

Please, please, please know that of all the times I was rejected, I never gave up on those pitch ideas. I pitch until an idea is accepted or simply cannot be spun any further.

I've had pieces rejected 10-25 times this year which went on to be published in places like Time, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, Vice and more.

Don't let rejections scare you. A piece can find a home. You can do it.

Good luck this next year, freelancers. We're going to rock this.

An Open Letter to Employers -- Guest Post

An Open Letter To All Employers.

While I, myself, am not a mother, I work for mothers. Or, should we say in the past I have worked for them. Between daycare jobs and nannying jobs, moms have been my bosses for the majority of my work life. And there’s one thing that always comes up. And I do mean always. This is very much a solid happening. I get at least one call per month from a mother who needs me to come sit at home with her sick kid because the daycare won’t let them in and mom can’t stay home from work without being penalized in some way.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind filling in for mamas when it comes to sick littles. But it’s not the same thing. I have a friend who will remain anonymous, along with her company, who could still lose her job even with a doctor’s note. Now, I get it … to a point. You need your workers so that your company can be productive. But how productive is it when you have four workers show up with various flus and pneumonias and other contagious illnesses that they are now passing around to each other. Nobody can ever get well because the moment their immune system tries to make a comeback, it gets hit by another germ.

As some of you know, little kids are germ factories. If one gets sick, they’re pretty much all going to get sick. You want to know why? Because they’re too little to understand how to taking universal precautions. I mean, let’s be real here - there are plenty of adults who don’t follow universal precautions themselves. How can we expect a child under the age of say … 5 to be able to take them. Sure, as daycare teachers we do our best to sanitize everything every chance we get. We seclude the sickies at naptime away from the healthy kids in hopes of creating a barrier. We even wash their hands and faces as much as we can.

But that’s not the problem. No, the problem lies with you, dear Employer. Because there are parents who have such strict sick day/personal day/time off policies that they will dose their feverish child up before bringing them to school. Do you know how long Motrin lasts? 6 hours. That means that if they drop their child off at 8am, we won’t find out until said child wakes up from their nap that they’re running a fever. And guess what? A fever masked by medicine doesn’t mask the germs they have. They’re going to make other children sick.

At the age of 28, I came down with a virus usually only seen in toddlers and infants because so many of my toddlers had it, that I just couldn’t escape it. And even though it was my own illness and not a child’s, it cost me my job because of how sick I was. My Hand, Foot, and Mouth turned into bronchitis which lead to me still running a fever. The doctor would allow me to go back to work and DCYF’s attitude is “well, you better be in ratio” so they had to let me go and find someone that could help keep them in ratio.

And again, I go back. I really do understand that you need your workers there. I understand that if they don’t do their jobs, you can’t do yours, and your company fails. But there has to be something that can be done. Leeways that can be put into place. For office jobs - let your secretaries and clerks and accountants come in on a Saturday to get work from the week done. Yes, I know, you’re going to have to pay them, but the day(s) they took off during the week were either sick time or personal days and in a lot of jobs, if you don’t have any hours logged, you don’t get paid.

If your employee can work from home, please let them. Maybe it’s not the most professional thing in the world, but it is the best of both worlds. Baby isn’t Patient Zero at daycare and while Baby is napping, mom (or dad, but I see this happening more with the moms) can get her work done. There has to be a solution that you, the Employer, can come up with that will make you, your employee, and the sick wee bairn (sorry, I went Scottish for a moment) all happy at the same time.

It’s tough out there these days. I understand that better than anyone. There’s so many unemployed people and not enough jobs to go around. So you, the Employer, can give the ultimatum. “If you can’t do this job, I’ll find someone else who can.” But you know what. Stop for a moment and think about that. Think about your employee. Will you really be able to find someone as good as them? Aren’t they with you company because they do good work and you like how they get along with the rest of the staff?

In the end, it comes down to people. We have to stop looking at people as employees and nothing else. We have to start appreciating their whole. Their value to their employer, their family, and to themselves. I bet more people wouldn’t need anti-anxiety drugs if we could all start treating each other like humans and less like cogs in a machine. A little understanding, in my experience, is going to go a very, very long way.

Kindness is free. Sprinkle it wherever you may go.

...

Bridget Frazier:

A twenty-something young woman who, over the years, has come to realize that hopes and dreams don't always coincide with reality. Take a journey through what it means to accept what life has given you, to be happy with the blessing bestowed, all while mourning the loss of dreams once passed.

It's not men keeping women back in the workforce

When women speak up in the workplace, they are viewed in a negative light, that is, when they're not interrupted by men first, according to a new piece in the New York Times. Women who contribute new ideas and expand upon business management information are viewed as aggressive and suspicious, whereas men doing the same thing are considered driven and 'take charge'.

Women are considered incompetent until they prove otherwise, which they do by working 2.5 times as hard as men, while men are considered competent until proven otherwise. This is the way of the world, and more and more studies on leadership and business are backing it up.

I posted this piece on my Facebook the other day, and immediately a nice guy (a real nice guy, not a Nice Guy) I went to high school with started hemming and hawwing about semantics and scientific methods and research. All in the name of 'finding the root of the problem.'

That root, for so long, has been considered to be a problem with women themselves. They're not as committed as men. They're forced to make life choices that don't suit the business world (have a family), they can't be as available as men, etc. Or, sometimes, it's blamed on the system. The glass ceiling, the relatively new phenomenon of women in management needing to rid itself of the training wheels, certain overtly sexist individuals throwing up barriers to woman success, and etc.

In each of these scenarios, there is an implication that it is mostly men who are concerned with holding women back, whether consciously or not. That we are on one team, and men are on the other. That men can support us or not, but that all women wish for and are fighting for the right to be viewed as just as competent as men in their field, should they deserve it.

Because of this misconception, we get men from all walks of life rallying up in defense of their kind, either partaking in one of the two scenarios above: ("if you look at it on an individual level, there are hundreds, nay, thousands of women, who can't commit to the job, who choose to raise families in lieu of their careers; this is not men's faults!") or ("I fight for women in my work place! I know their value and try to help whenever I can. These messages are no longer valid. So many men have come around! We're fighting with you! Stop stabbing us in the back!")

My friend summed it up nicely with his comment on the article

: "What struck me is how often the phrase "...and women" comes up. It seems men and women alike are guilty of the same thing. I wonder if there's any industry where this is less of a problem? I doubt there's any place it isn't... But why is this becoming 'worse' of a problem? Is it a particular generation of manager that is the problem? Is this a problem in other similar countries? IE: is it just America?"

Here's the thing that nearly everyone forgets: Women can be and often are guilty of sexism and misogyny. Because they hate other women? No. Just like most men don't engage in sexism because they hate women.

Feminism is frequently attacked because men feel defensive, as if by wanting equal rights, we are somehow implying that they personally are stopping that from happening. Women will defend men who feel this way, too, and the whole thing goes off the rails because suddenly we're not even talking about feminism. We're talking about a section of society getting their feelings hurt over something they're not guilty of, over something feminists never said they were guilty of.

So if it's not men, and it's not women, and it's not the newness of the system, then, my friend rightly wonders, what the heck is it? Why do both women and men view an ambitious, talkative, creative woman as a threat, where they view the same kind of man as a boon to their organization?

This intensely interesting piece, which shines light on the change of treatment due to gender in transgender people, shows clearly that throughout life, throughout careers, throughout industries, this different framing thrives. Men are simply treated better. By everyone.

Why?

Because we are not fighting the conscious thoughts and desires of men determined to keep women off their turf. Those days are gone, and most feminists know that. We don't need to defend the fact that "not all men" treat women as less-than in the workforce.

We are fighting a finely tuned and deeply ingrained notion of gender roles and gender traits in society. We are up against an institutionalized problem of unconscious or subconscious ideas about what women should be and what women are. We have ingested since birth the tenets that women are more scatterbrained than men, that they don't have forward-thinking ideas, that they are catty and vindictive, that they simply don't do the same caliber work.

No one thinks this. I know you don't think this.

It doesn't matter. You've eaten the pie. You had no choice. I had no choice.

It's not us against them. It's not women versus men. It's not men holding women back in the work place. It's not women holding themselves back. It's not managers holding them back.

It is the patriarchy. And the patriarchy, I repeat, is not men. It's not you. The patriarchy is the basest organizational structure our society and cultural has depended on for centuries that has etched a pattern in our brains as to how things should be, so powerful that our conscious and acute efforts to counteract that pattern only skim the surface.

Women are held back in the work place because we haven't yet broken out of the mental pattern that tells us that's how it should be. Writings like this aren't meant as complaints, or whining, or to pit one gender against another, or blame any one sect of people for our problems. Writings like this are meant to shift the conversation from the surface of the issue to the deeply ingrained underbelly where the problem really sits. It's a call to action, not because we are guilty of sexism, but because we have control over how this dialogue continues, and we can work together, men and women, managers and employees, to make it better over the generations.

It's not our fault we are where we are, but it is our duty to do better.

Equal Pay Day Controversy

So, Tuesday was equal pay day. For those of you who somehow don't know about this, it represents the day women have to work up to before they've made as much as men made the previous year.

At 77 cents to the dollar, we have to work an extra 98 days.

Anyway, if you want more information about how this came about or what it actually measures, click on the link above, because what I'm doing in this post is taking on these two bullshit questions from this post over here.

Question 1:

Do women go into lower-paying sectors because they prefer them, or because employers discriminate against them? 

I don't know about you, but I don't know too many people in general who look at themselves and think, you know what I'm worth? Very little money.

There are more women in teaching and administrative work than men, and you know what, when asking many of them, they'd say they do enjoy the work. They are where they want to be. Great! Let's pay them more.

The women workforce also has a lot more part-time workers, which apparently messes up the average? They're working part time usually because they have a family at home, right? And daycare is incredibly expensive...more expensive than college.

And having families is something that people do, don't you know. And our society is still set up in such a way where the responsibility usually falls on the woman to care for the child, and if alternate care is used, the woman actually has to be making some money. However, since she only makes 77 cents to a man's dollar, she often saves money by not going to work.

Not to mention that we are constantly saying we need more women in science, yet to be in science you need a PhD and to get a PhD plus some experience, you need to not have kids until about your mid-30s.

In fact Freeman Dyson, the world-renowned mathematical physicist who helped found quantum electrodynamics thinks academia is bunk:

"I’m very proud of not having a Ph.D. I think the Ph.D. system is an abomination. It was invented as a system for educating German professors in the 19th century, and it works well under those conditions. It’s good for a very small number of people who are going to spend their lives being professors. But it has become now a kind of union card that you have to have in order to have a job, whether it’s being a professor or other things, and it’s quite inappropriate for that. It forces people to waste years and years of their lives sort of pretending to do research for which they’re not at all well-suited. In the end, they have this piece of paper which says they’re qualified, but it really doesn’t mean anything. The Ph.D. takes far too long and discourages women from becoming scientists, which I consider a great tragedy. So I have opposed it all my life without any success at all."

Question 2:

Do women stay home with the kids because of cultural norms, or because of the way parental leave policies are set up?
I don't understand this question. I mean, both? First of all, don't kid yourself, we don't have any  parental leave in this country so there is no "way it is set up" because it does not exist. Secondly, yeah, there are definitely cultural norms still in place that need to go away because they are annoying and they make people feel bad. Not to mention that they perpetuate stereotypes that women cannot hold positions of power because "they won't give as much to the company" or women "choose not to make as much" because they "chose to have children."

Okay, well, since we're the only ones who can have children, how about you help us out and not put us through those shitty choices.

The long and short of it is that women are still struggling to be seen as a serious force in the workplace because of outmoded ideas of family, cost of childcare, and doucheheads who think if a woman chose to birth a child, she decided she didn't want to work for a lot of money so she should shut up.

We need future people, right? And to get them to the adult stage, we need to feed them. And if we're going to feed them and teach them healthy things about the world, we deserve a livable wage for doing something we have been trained in.

And if a woman works as hard as a man in her profession, she should make as much money as he does. Period.

As my friend on Facebook said:


" If you are too much of a goddamn pithy simple-minded asshole to see the structural problem with putting a tax on working women of as much as $1000/month per child, there's nothing anyone can say to talk you to a place of reason.

I never want another person coming at me about the "personal choice" of mothers to take low-paying jobs who doesn't have a solution to this nightmare of a decision-making process we put women through."

Pay equity. Because we're effing worth it. And so are our kids.

 

Seven Decidedly Normal Fashions That Could Get You in Big Trouble

Looking around at the working and school world, it seems to me there are an awful lot of rules about what one should and shouldn't wear, and some of them, honestly, are downright ridiculous.

In this world of third-wave feminism, where individual choice is at the forefront of the women rights debates, we're still having debates about appropriate woman fashion.

Many are having trouble distinguishing personal style from work-wear, and it's the women that are suffering on all counts. Some are getting fired, some are losing out on promotions, and some aren't even getting hired in the first place, all thanks to their "look".

While private employers and other bastions of authority can set their dress codes as they see fit, there are some losses in the battle. Here are some of the total banal rejects. Is it stuffy in here?

1) Peep-toed Shoes




Like it or not, toes can be the subject of intense debate, even in (or especially in) a court of law. That's right. If you're a lawyer and you're arguing your heart out for a decision on the floor, other people are probably arguing about what you're putting on the floor. The debate in 2008 took off in several legal blogs, including Above the Law, and The American Bar Association Journal, spurring hundreds of comments about lawyers and their footwear.

The blogs found that women professionals may risk losing their credibility by showing their toes in the office.

Former Cahill Gordon associate Kat Griffin, the founder of the Corporette fashion blog for lawyers, said peep-toe shoes may be inappropriate. "Peep toes are marginally better than flat-out open-toe shoes, but even then a closed-toe shoe is the preference.”

That's right, women, you tell your little piggies to stay the hell home because they're not wanted in the workplace.

Judge Kim McClane Wardlaw had this to say to Above the Law:

"My view is that if you have a question about the appropriateness of your attire, don’t risk it. Women appearing in court should never wear anything that draws attention to their anatomy over the merits of their case. You just never know how your audience — judges, jurors, clients or senior partners — will react. It’s better to play it safe in formal settings and save the peep-toes for after hours."

Now, this may have to do entirely with location. In California, apparently lawyers just go nuts, letting their toes hang out all over the place...as long as their nails are painted.

Or maybe it's just seniority-based. Even on the East Coast, perhaps it's okay to show your lower-most regions, so long as everybody else is doing it. (This is a huge boost for women's self-esteems, don't you think?)

Former Cahill Gordon associate Kat Griffin, the founder of the Corporette fashion blog for lawyers says on the American Bar Association's website,

"Don't wear open-toe shoes unless you've seen a much more senior lawyer do it."

Alas, it's probably all for the best. It must be easier to climb that corporate ladder in running shoes, right?

2) Yoga Pants

You don't have to be a career-minded woman to get into sexy, sexy trouble with clothing. Even teenage girls are suspect, but not for the mini-skirts we used to see in the early nineties. Oh, no. Now it's yoga pants in the hot-seat (see what I did there?)


Yes, yoga pants. Long the bane of the stay-at-home-mom's existence, apparently when put on a teenager's body, they become so incredibly attractive that teachers can no longer teach and students can no longer learn.

In Loveland, Ohio, for example, one high school instituted a ban on the stretching, distracting pants which look more at home with spaghetti sauce stains on them than on a teenager anyway.

Loveland's student handbook prohibits "revealing clothing" and does not permit clothing that is "distracting."

Fifty students wore those racy-as-hell sweatpants the next day to make a point. When told to change, 17 of them didn't.

On the students' side of the stretchy-pants debate, Olivia Legg (no, I didn't make that one up) had this to say.

"We ended up in 'in-school' suspension for most of the day and weren't allowed to go to any of our classes"

3) The Maxi Dress

What could be more conservative than covering your entire body in a loose garment, head to toe? While maxi dresses don't show off a woman's curves, it appears people find them "too bohemian for the workplace."

Forbes Magazine lists the maxi dress as one of the worst women's fashion faux pas in the office. They go so far as to indicate that a woman's reputation may be irreparably damage by the offending material.

If you are going to go the trail-blazing route, Dianna Baros writing for The Grindstone has some advice:

"Nothing too revealing, too clingy or too loud – Hawaiian prints and hippy tie-dyes are a no-no."

But, really, that's just good advice for anyone, at any time, isn't it?

4) Anything that's not a bathrobe

Seriously, sometimes your body is just so sexy that regular clothing cannot even handle it.

Laura Odes claims she was fired from her job due to her curves within her first week.

Her employers at Native Intimates (Again, not a joke. They are a lingerie wholesaler.) apparently gave her all sorts of work-attire suggestions after she tried wearing a purple dress, a boxy tunic-style dress and then a knee-length black dress to the job. Eventually, she says they made her wear a bathrobe over her clothing.

She says she tried another outfit that she thought would be appropriate, but was then fired. The irony, she says, is that the company markets very sexy clothes.

While her bosses were Orthodox Jewish men, Odes remains unimpressed by their religious fervor.

"I do not feel any employer has the right to impose their religious beliefs on me when I'm working in a business that is not a synagogue, but instead selling thongs with hearts placed in the female genital area, and boy shorts for women saying 'hot' in the buttocks area."

In fact, in Iowa, you can be fired for being too pretty, and it doesn't matter what you are wearing. The Iowa Supreme Court upheld its decision that Fort Dodge dentist James Knight had the right to fire his long-time dental assistant, Melissa Nelson, because he claimed she posed a threat to his marriage.

Nelson's provocative faults? Showing up for work.

Apparently Knight sent her some off-colored text messages, which she ignored, and came up with a whole little fantasy world involving her, then fired her when he couldn't handle his own putrid thoughts.

"Bosses can fire employees they see as threats to their marriages, even if the subordinates have not engaged in flirtatious or other inappropriate behavior. The court said such firings do not count as illegal sex discrimination because they are motivated by feelings, not gender."

This case was decided by an all-male panel in December of 2012, then reopened as the decision came under righteous national fire, then upheld by the same court six months later.

Aces.

5) Curly hair, pencil skirts or turtlenecks

The jury is still out on whether Debrahlee Lorenzana was fired for dressing too provocatively, or for simply being a bad employee. The former Citibank employee filed a lawsuit against them in 2009. Amid other trouble, she says she was told she had to straighten her hair before coming into work.

"[Her two male] managers gave her a list of clothing items she would not be allowed to wear: turtlenecks, pencil skirts, and fitted suits. And three-inch heels.

"As a result of her tall stature, coupled with her curvaceous figure," her suit says, Lorenzana was told "she should not wear classic high-heeled business shoes, as this purportedly drew attention to her body in a manner that was upsetting to her easily distracted male managers."

Citibank says her poor performance is the reason she was fired.

6) Matching shirts

That's right. Stop calling your work bestie and coordinating outfits. It could be labelled as a protest and get you fired.

Fourteen workers at the Deerfield Beach law firm of Elizabeth R. Wellborn P.A. were called into the conference room one Friday in 2012 after they all wore orange collared shirts to prepare for payday Friday happy hour. Four of the workers said they dressed like that so they'd look like a group for the festivities and had been doing so for the past few months before the firing.

None of the employees were aware of any protest involving the color orange (and bear in mind, this was well before the Texas shenanigans), but an executive said there was and fired all of them on the spot.


"There is no office policy against wearing orange shirts. We had no warning. We got no severance, no package, no nothing," said Lou Erik Ambert. "I feel so violated."

Meloney McLeod, 39, of North Lauderdale, said her choice of shirt puts her in a tough spot: "I'm a single mom with four kids, and I'm out of a job just because I wore orange today."

Florida is an "at will" state, meaning an employer can fire you for any reason--good, bad or even wrong--provided it's not unlawful. Which is up for debate in this case, isn't it?

7) A Skirt

One would think that refusing to wear pants would be legitimate grounds for firing. But shouldn't a skirt also be acceptable? Not according to Burger King who fired a Pentacostal teenager when she refused to wear pants to work.

Seventeen-year-old Ashanti McShan was sent home on her first day at the job because her Christian faith prohibited her from wearing the uniform which included pants. Skirts are not acceptable (which probably makes sense, since Burger King probably doesn't want its employees accidentally spilling super-hot oil on their skin). But she was being hired as a cashier.

She filed a religious discrimination lawsuit in 2012 and according to that documentation, Burger King management assured her that no pants were no problem.

"At the time of her interview for the job, Ms. McShan asked to wear a skirt instead of uniform pants as a religiousaccommodation. Defendant assured her that she could wear a skirt to work."

According to the Washington Times, these incidents are rising.

"Religious discrimination complaints to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have been rising over the past 10 years. Last year, the EEOC received 2,541 complaints, up 48 percent from 1,709 in 1997."

Basically, what all these examples show us is that there is no way to go right when trying to get dressed.

Always remember, ladies, it's not just the outside world you've got to impress, but also your bosses and coworkers!

Okay, got it? Ready to go? Then those potato sacks, and let's get some work done!

 

Worn Out, but What Do You Do All Day?

I'm worn out.

There, I said it.

I'm tired.

I want to play with my kids more, but I don't have the time.

I work from home, and the deadlines pile up, deadlines for little if any money. And at every turn there's another employer beckoning for my attention, threatening to pull the plug on the relationship, wondering, 'why can't you just do this for me NOW? You're sitting at home while I'm at the office, working my ass off. Why don't you write, or edit, or research, or blog for me somewhere between your morning bath, your soap operas and bon bons and your third cup of coffee taken leisurely on the porch?'

As if my time is meaningless. As if the tasks I perform are worth less than the nothingness I get paid. As if I'm on vacation.

This is no vacation, people. This is my life. And I love it, I do, but I'm tired, and my priorities belong to my children. I know that's not going to make me successful in this world. I get it, I do. But I am stretched to my limit. I work all through nap, all through Sesame St., all through the hours after bedtime to get your assignments into you, and they get there, don't they?

Yes. They do.

And I know I'm whining, but how many other mothers feel the same pressures with different specifics? My bet is almost all of them. Having young children is not a magical playland for adults. It disrupts life as we know it, for most of us.

Just now, in fact, I had to leave this post to help my daughter use the bathroom in the middle of her nap. I took care of a tantrum, of her sister that had awoken and sang to them. It took a half hour. Will they go back to sleep? I doubt it. Nap time work time gone.

Anyway, I'm not saying to allow me to turn in shoddy work, or go past deadline, I'm just asking for a little more slack, a little less condescension. Understand that I can't show up to your business in person to interview you unless you want two three year olds tagging along. Know that email works best for me, not because I don't like you, but because no one wants to hear a tantrum on the other end of the phone, right?

And I know what you are saying. 'So, then, just quit a few of those things.'

It's hard to understand, but I just can't. I can't and I don't want to. I already feel marginalized enough in my current role. At least if I have to do 50 things for 50 different people, I'll feel as if I've done something. Anything. I can't give up. I can't admit defeat. I will not. One of these enterprises is going to get me on my feet, is going to get me back into the working world when I have to go. I must be prepared. And since I don't know which job it's going to be, I need them all. I need you, employers. Yes, I do.

And let's not forget that none of this would be possible if I didn't have a partner who understands that the house won't be immaculate, even though I'm home and should be on top of it.

Whether it's keeping a home, freelancing your time while you watch your little ones, or running back and forth to the office, wondering how your children's days are going, every parent of young kids is under enormous pressure.

Sometimes, in fact, we feel so rundown that we can't even manage a coherent blog post that's not us whining about how hard it is.

Sorry about that. I'll be back tomorrow, chipper as ever. I promise.

What Do You Even Do All Day?

This isn't your typical post about stay at home moms and how hard they work. I won't be going on about how we're teachers, janitors, nurses, etc. Though that's all very true, this post is about my surprise about how hard I actually work now that I don't work. I can't compare myself to anyone else. I'm sure I fall short in the grand scheme of things. There are so many mothers out there, working and not, who are able to accomplish so very much in each short day. No, I can't compare to them. I can only compare my past working self to my current self, and doing that, I can say with absolute certainty that I am working harder now than I ever have in my life.

When I was working for a weekly paycheck, I was being paid for my time. My work was deadline oriented, and I didn't need 40 hours a week to do it. I worked, really worked, for a few hours a day, finding other ways to fill the gaps in between. Perhaps that's why I didn't climb the ladder as fast as I would have liked to.

Having to work for myself this past year has been an eye-opening experience. My deadline work is now paid for by the project, meaning, those six extra hours of money coming in for nothing is gone. The projects usually don't pay so well. The economy is rough now, and after an entire year of networking and expanding my base for freelance jobs, I am just now being paid what I was being paid in 2005 for freelance work, when money flowed more freely.

So, what did I do all day, and what do I do all day?

When I worked, I showed up. I had a cup of coffee. I opened a rundown and  selected news stories to go in that rundown in whichever order I preferred. I stayed on top of reporters to make sure they kept their scripts to length and made their deadline for the show. I wrote the news stories in the blocks, often times simply rewriting earlier stories because not much changes between news casts, believe it or not. I chose graphics, video and sound for my pieces, except for those that were already cut. And that's basically it. I was responsible for a half hour of news a day. I was done in a few hours, to be honest.

My work was given to me, handed to me on  a platter. All I had to do was do it. There was no thinking involved, no networking, no pitching. I didn't have to come up with ideas, I didn't have to play nice, I didn't have to create my own projects to bring in my money. I was paid for my time.

These days, I still get up and have a cup of coffee. But in addition to cooking, cleaning and taking care of the kids, I work. Some days it feels as though I will drown from it all. I pound out article after article, some for hardly any pay, some for reasonable prices. Some for free. I edit book after book after book, barely closing out of one first draft before starting on another. Every moment that my children are sleeping or otherwise occupied, I am typing. Sometimes I take a break to clean.

I think being a stay at home mom has really brought me far as a person. If and when I do go back to the working world, I hope I'll be able to self-motivate the way I have been doing in my year of freelance. It takes time and patience to get the projects, but once they arrive, they come in waves. Then it takes diligence and time-management to get it all done while playing dollhouse, riding trikes, and building castles. My days run together, but that's okay. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm writing this because I often complain about and worry about my new line of work / not work. I feel like I'm missing out on real life by not punching a clock. That I've perhaps sacrificed my career and will never get it back.

I want to remind myself that even if I don't get it back, I haven't been wasting my time here. If anything, I've become a better worker, not a worse one.

This is true, I think, for all stay at home moms, not just freelancers. Even if you stay at home in the true sense of the term, caring for your kids and keeping your house, you are working as you've never worked before. You're efficient and loving and creating your own future in your happy home. You are probably the best worker you've ever been. And since your boss is yourself and your family, you get to reap all the benefits.

And it goes for working moms, too, even moreso. It's no joyride to leave your kids for hours a day, only to come home to cook, clean and care for them after you've worked all day. But, again, you're efficient and loving and creating your own future in your happy home. No matter which road you decide to travel down, you are making the best life for your family through your hard work and tenacity and your love.

Don't ever let anyone tell you differently...especially not yourself.

___

If you like this blog, please vote on Babble.com. Tales of an Unlikely Mother is number 17, just scroll down and click on the thumbs up! Thank you so, so much.

Redefining Roles - Guest Blog

Jessica Wallace is a working mother and blogger extraordinaire who finds herself home for a short time, and trying to make the best of it. She's over at Geekmama! Go take a peek!

___

I've held a paid job for as long as I've been legally allowed to. In high school and during college breaks I worked in fast food, from drive-though cashier to trainer to shift manager. Before that, I had a daily paper route. While at college I worked part-time in the evenings, and when my then-husband and I completed grad school it was my job offer, not his, that determined where we would relocate. For more than 20 years, my job has been an integral part of my self-identity.

Even when my son was born almost two years ago, I returned to work full-time after my maternity leave ended. My plan was to keep working until he and any future kids started their school years. But life throws curveballs sometimes. In April I chose to leave the company to which I'd given almost 12 years of my life. Since I wasn't ready to retire just yet, my husband and I opted to keep our son in daycare for another month so I could focus on my job search.

So for the past few weeks, I've gotten to experience the other side of the coin - what it's like for someone whose weekday doesn't revolve around a nine-to-five (sometimes nine-to-eight or nine-to-midnight) job outside the home. It's not a true stay-at-home mom experience, since there's no kiddo to manage on top of everything else, but it's something I haven't dealt with since I was in high school.

I had all these grand plans at the beginning of my at-home time. I could relax, I could get caught up on housekeeping, I could work on those projects that have been teasing me forever! I was positive I'd get so much done this month. Silly me. Things haven't gone exactly as I expected.

My first reality check was when my son woke me up at his usual time that first Monday morning. Apparently he'd missed the memo that Mom was supposed to get to sleep late when not working. Since then, our mornings have consisted of me getting up with him and getting him dressed, fed, and ready for daycare--pretty much the same as when I was working. The only difference is that I wait to get myself ready for the day until after the guys have left, unless I have a job interview or appointment that morning.

The next big surprise was all that housework that I thought I'd "catch up" on. Guess what? There's always more housework. There's always another room to clean, or more laundry to do. I'm sure that if I'd been at home full-time for the past couple years I'd have a comfortable routine by now, and the chores wouldn't expand to fill all my free time. But for now, I have to limit myself. Finish the kitchen, put in a load of laundry, and work on just one other task at a time. Most importantly, don't beat myself up for not having it all completed those first couple days. The clutter and unfinished projects have had years to accumulate; they aren't going to be dealt with instantaneously.

On the upside, I've found that I'm enjoying cooking more than I expected. When my husband and I are both working, and getting the family home only a short time before our son's bedtime, we tend to do quick-prep meals or pick up takeout. This past month I've been able to plan meals that are more time-intensive or require the kind of prep that isn't easily done with a little boy hanging on to your knees.

The biggest eye-opener was less of a new discovery and more of a confirmation. A couple days into my second week at home, I watched my guys drive away and realized that I really did miss it. I'd been worried that I would find myself unmotivated to return to work after a couple weeks without it. It wouldn't have been a bad thing, but it would have meant significant changes for our family. But I've realized that the stay-at-home gig isn't quite the right fit for me right now, and I'm happy about that. I'm enjoying the break, but I don't plan to make it permanent.

When I do return to full-time outside work, I hope I'll take with me what I've learned, and that I'll be less stressed about not being able to keep up with housework, projects, and everything else. After all, there's always more to do, whatever role you play.

-----
Jessica writes at Geekamama about the fun and challenges of raising a family while working full-time in the software industry.

Please vote for us here or on Babble!!! It takes mere seconds and would mean the world to me!





If you enjoy this blog, please vote for Tales of an Unlikely Mother on Babble.com. We're number 14, just scroll down and click on the thumbs up!

edited

It was rightfully mentioned to me that I should be careful about what I am deciding to share here.  Here are the pictures from today's post, instead!

__________

We're doing a DITL!  Don't forget to submit your pictures!

And if you like this blog, please vote for it at Tales of an Unlikely Mother on Babble.com.  We're number 15, just scroll down and click on the thumbs up!  It's quick and easy to do!

Social Media and Moms - An Introduction

Social media has revolutionized what it means to be a mother.  Sure, the basics of mothering remain the same throughout the ages, but with all the information of the internet at our fingertips, new theories catch steam quickly, unsafe practices are brought to light in front of large audiences, and people can pick and choose which parenting methods work best for them in real time, as these methods are being used and tested by others.

One of the largest drawbacks to staying at home with your kids is the broad-stroked isolation you feel as your friends continue on their paths while you stop your own development to jump start your babies' development.  Though spending hours upon hours with your kids is fulfilling in a way nothing else can be, it is also lonely, as your main mode of conversation becomes: "Do you want this or that?  Do you have to use the potty?  Please, stop crying."

Gone are the days of idle chat with your peers, the coffee shops, the restaurants, the heart-to-hearts.  You can barely get an entire sentence out without addressing your kids in some manner, which is off-putting to conversational attempts to say the least.

Social media and Web sites bring the world to you.  If you want to talk about parenting, there are sites devoted to parents sharing pictures and stories of their little ones.  If you want to read the newspaper, you can catch up on current events with the click of a button.  You can interact with others and discuss the stories you're reading in the comments section.  You can keep in touch with friends via Facebook.  Most importantly, you can devote just minutes at a time to any of these activities and go right back to your kids without looking socially awkward.  A thread on Facebook, or in a forum, can develop slowly throughout the day, so that you can comment on something interesting to you, leave to play with your kids, and come back to comment again on the thread when you have time, without missing any of the conversation.  Drive-by internet conversations are practically tailor-made for the stay at home parent.  It caters precisely to the kind of chatter we can handle.  The kind that takes just two minutes at a time and can handle long lapses in between.

As the world catches up to the technology available to us, work from home opportunities abound - moms can invent, can create, and can produce viable products and ideas in their spare time, possibly making money, but, more importantly, keeping their foot in the business world's door, as more and more employers respect and desire the know-how necessary to keep online projects afloat, the marketing and networking skills acquired through creating a brand for yourself online.

Back in the 1970s and 80s, women were still struggling to prove themselves in the workplace.  Taking a year or two off to start a family stunted progress in that battle, and individuals often felt not only isolated in their choice, but ostracized as they tried to get back into the career they'd worked so hard to be a part of.  As much as staying at home with your children is given lip-service, it's rarely looked upon positively behind closed corner-office doors.  How can a woman who's left the working world for an extended period of time be as efficient or as appealing as a person who has been working and growing with the industry all along?

I must admit, when I made the decision to start staying home, these fears weighed heavily on me.  Would I be hirable after my hiatus?  Would the technology have completely changed?  Would all my backbreaking work throughout my childless years be forgotten or obsolete?  What could I possibly have to offer after such a long "vacation?"

I worried I may well be putting the nails in my only half-built coffin by leaving television journalism when I did.

I no longer worry, though, and tomorrow, I'll tell you why.  It has to do with the internet.  It has to do with social media.  It has to do with this blog and the desireable skills I have, quite accidentally, honed each morning while Sesame St. is on.


(If you are interested in this topic, you may also enjoy the Parenting Online Series: 1 and 2)


___
Don't forget to vote for Tales of an Unlikely Mother if you like it.  We're number 15, just scroll down and click on the thumbs up!  It's quick and easy to do!