Sometimes it seems like we're so far from a world where equally shared parenting is commonplace. We're getting there, little by little, but women are still considered the default nurturers and most men's identities are still wrapped up primarily in their ability to provide financially for their families. So it is good to step back every so often and realize how very far we've actually come in a few short decades.

Take this piece of history emailed to us by ESP dad, Carl. It's a 1955 newspaper clipping from Clio, Michigan. The newsworthy item? A man (in this case, Carl's sister-in-law's grandfather) actually stepped into an elementary school classroom to talk with the children!

In those days, such an event was worthy of stopping the presses - or at least sending in a reporter and photographer to capture the moment. Kinda makes you think...maybe in the quest for gender equality, the good ol' days may be quaint and sweet, but life just keeps getting better.

We often hear stories about market trends, sociological studies, or government programs aimed at addressing the current workplace and how it deals with work/life balance issues. However, I found it quite interesting to get a glimpse recently at how individuals are making an impact in this arena. A fellow ESP parent shared with me the following e-mail exchange with her CEO.

Employee: I wanted to plant this seed of an idea: if we ever get to the point of having to do layoffs, what about reducing peoples' hours instead? I know that we are actually doing quite well these days, and that our business is relatively strong. I'm really glad about that! However, if things change, and we find ourselves having to consider letting people go, there is another option: we could reduce peoples' work hours instead. For example, if you have 4 people, you could lay one off. Or, you could reduce them all to 30 hrs/wk.

As you know, I have worked here 30 hrs/wk for almost 9 years, and it has worked out quite well, both for the company and for my personal life as a parent. We have so many new parents here now, and some might actually rather reduce their work hours and therefore spend more time with their new kids. So instead of creating a huge problem for one person by laying them off, you could possibly improve the quality of life for 4 employees instead.

CEO: Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I appreciate your sentiment even though I disagree with it.

Let's take your example involving four people. Say we need to cut expenses by 25%. From a cost perspective, it is significantly less expensive for the company to employ three people working full-time than four people working 30 hours/week. There are certain fixed, overhead costs associated with each separate employee. Each employee receives their own health/dental benefits, retirement benefits, and tax withholdings. Each employee needs a computer, a phone, numerous accounts, IT support, etc. Each employee has individual needs and issues.

More importantly, it is unlikely that all four employees will agree to reduce their hours to 30 per week. A more likely scenario is that the strongest of the group will leave to join a stronger company.

We decided to offer you employment at 30 hours/week because you are a unique individual with uncommon skills (plus we and your co-workers like you a lot). If all employees were interchangeable, then it would make much more economic sense for us to employ someone who could work 40 or more hours/week.

I hope my response isn't too harsh, and I don't want to discourage you from making suggestions regarding HR or any other matters in the future.

Marc: Nobody asked for my opinion but I can't resist...

This was one of the more reasonable responses from an HR perspective that I have read. He makes some excellent points but as he says, "I have to disagree" with others.

First, I fully expect that reduced hours employees should receive similarly reduced benefits. Each person's hourly cost including salary, health and dental, retirement, and tax withholdings can all be reduced by the same percentage as the reduction in hours. Yes, it's true that many companies don't have the systems in place to do this but I think that is a weak excuse.

His fixed costs argument is a good one, although I don't believe it is a significant factor in the decision. In this example, phones and computers probably already exist but spares need to be available for more employees, granted. As far as other ancillary costs, IT support, HR accounts, etc. I expect we are talking about minimal dollars. In fact, I expect that employee retention benefits along with reduced salary over time due to the great schedule offerings may easily offset these ancillary costs and may even dwarf them.

Of course, much of this hinges on whether or not the employees want it. I agree with him that reducing employees hours and pay when the employees are trying to maximize their income may cause the best performers to look elsewhere. However, if the best employees want reduced/flexible arrangements, companies should capitalize on this fact and utilize a more diverse compensation package. I have spoken with numerous people who are happy to take a reduction in their maximum market value in exchange for an optimized life.

One point he didn't make that would support his argument is that when reductions in workforce are necessary it is a prime time to eliminate under-performers. In the example, it presumes that all four employees are equally valued whereas that is often not the case. Getting rid of a chronic problem worker has tremendous value on a variety of fronts. With that said, a company that is able to retain a stable of flexible, loyal, and qualified employees at any level of hours paid is in a position to utilize the brainpower of these individuals which is far more valuable than mere time on the clock.

Also, if any of these suggestions have any value to a company they can take advantage of a little-known unemployment law in Massachusetts . In the example of 4 employees below, reducing each to 30 hours in lieu of layoffs, allows the employees to claim prorated unemployment benefits which I expect will greatly reduce the likelihood that the best employees will leave for more money. This option nets a rather small reduction in salary for employees for many months, increases their time for the rest of their life, possibly reduces their childcare costs, creates energized employees willing to go the extra yard for the company (possibly producing full time work at reduced hour pay), and can allow a company to utilize the pool of money they have been contributing towards unemployment for years to meet a portion of their payroll expenses.

I realize that I'm painting a rosy picture but I truly believe that companies have not fully appreciated the power they wield when it comes to compensating employees. They have evolved in many instances to a one bullet revolver. However, if they ignore what essentially all sociological studies of the younger generations conclude, namely, that equal relationships and balanced lives are desired, companies will continue to have to pay higher salaries for certain skills if that's the primary benefit they offer.

Especially now, before a more diversified compensation package becomes commonplace, companies have the opportunity to differentiate themselves in the marketplace to attract and retain the necessary employees to drive their business.

I hope, and fully expect, that these quiet discussions are taking place in an ever-increasing number of instances across the land.

Here we are - Father's Day! The national spotlight is on Dad at the grill, Dad getting his 100th new tie, Dad opening up his homemade cards. And, with a growing sense of authenticity, Dad simply being recognized and celebrated for his hands-on, equal status to Mom. We aren't completely there yet, of course, but the drumbeat of change is getting louder by the year. Fatherhood is becoming understood as worth something akin to motherhood.

Can't you just feel the gender convergence? It is hard to read a newspaper these days without seeing a story of involved fatherhood, or laid-off-Dad-becomes-full-time-father. While some of these portrayals are still focused on how amazing it is that dads are doing so much caregiving, many simply feel as if they are reporting on a trend. Yes!

But something even bigger is afoot than Dads punching the clock at home more often. We're seeing a wearing away of stereotypical gender roles in our society - at a pace that I'd bet hasn't been witnessed before. It's becoming easier for men to be nurturers - not just for the short-term while they wait for their wives to come home to take over - but as a part of their everyday lives. Masculinity is gearing up for a long overdue makeover.

Mother's Day started many centuries ago as a way to honor and appreciate motherhood and mothers. Father's Day, on the other hand, is a relatively recent creation - beginning in the early twentieth century. While Mother's Day has enjoyed generally universal high regard, Father's Day has often been anything from a cheap imitation to a parody that highlights the very unequal role that men have played in childraising.

But how many people are laughing now? Today is a dad's day in the sun. Even though it rained all day here in Boston, somehow it feels warm and bright.

Happy Father's Day, world!

Marc and I, and the kids, are on the cover of our local Boston parents paper this month - Parents + Kids. It has been fun getting calls and emails from friends who picked up the paper and then realized they knew the people on the front! Inside is a nice article about equally shared parenting (you can read an online version of the story here, with less photos).

Meanwhile, we've been busy writing. I swear I would not ever be one of those bloggers who says, "Sorry I haven't been posting very regularly, I've been SO busy but now that will change." Mostly because I know from reading these things myself that readers gain nothing from this type of confession - they just want to read good posts whenever they're available. So I won't apologize or make promises. But we can't wait to get back to our regularly scheduled lives! We just turned in our manuscript last night, and are reveling in a big, calm sigh tonight. It feels good to blog!

I'll leave you with another batch of parenting photographs. Unlike our homey photos of fun with dad in Parents+Kids, this high-end batch of posed photos from the July issue of Harper's Bazaar is designed to push buttons. Can't you just feel the power shift? Gag. How about sharing that power and maybe both parents can skip being either disinterested or overwhelmed by their kids?

I recently came across a Salon.com interview with Claire Shipman and Katty Kay, the authors of Womenomics: Write Your Own Rules for Success. The premise of this just-released book is that highly successful women should stop gunning for top-level careers to create a more balanced existence.

I haven't read the book. But, based on what I can glean from this interview and other web discussions, I'm not sure I'll love it. The reason is not that I disagree with much of their message. In fact, early in the Salon piece I was excited by this quote describing what the authors call the "New All -- enough professional success, balanced by time and freedom." That fits right into the ESP playbook. However, the title of the book gives away their perspective.

The article goes on to quote them in the next paragraph as saying, "We know the solution isn't longer hours at daycare or hiring more babysitters or asking our husbands to stay home. Because we're the ones who want more time -- for our children, our parents, our communities, ourselves."

Of course women want these things...but so do men. If our culture decides to solve the work/life time puzzle by re-enforcing stereotypical gender roles, I'm afraid the promise of the "New All" will ring hollow. Many couples have this arrangement now, but both partners may be missing out on just what the other has plenty of: either time with the kids or a rewarding career.

Now maybe Shipman and Kay don't actually believe their message doesn't apply to men. Maybe they just don't want to bother addressing us guys because, well, we don't tend to buy books. But somehow I think men need to hear their messages even more than women; it is men who have the biggest cultural barrier to stepping back their careers to make time for being with their families.

Let's not sell ourselves short. I'll be the first to wave my flag for careers that fit into our lives. Go for the lives you want! But why do we have to step backward to direct this to women only? And while we're at it, why does this apply only to top-level professionals?

Has anyone else read Womenomics yet? If so, let me know your perspective.

Marc is making his solo debut today as a guest blogger over at Motherlode. I'm excited about his post because I think it brings up a really sneaky barrier to equal partnership. Marc's topic is about the ways in which 'appreciation' can keep us unequal. It is an expansion on the blog post he did earlier right here.

But as might be expected, many of the commenters have interpreted his message as recommending that we skimp on common courtesy and kindness to our partners. There is much poetic talk in their comments about how thanking each other teaches our children manners and demonstrates love. And about how life is sweeter when we lavish appreciation on our partners for the simple things - like loading the dishwasher or cooking a warm meal.

As our 6-year-old daughter, M, would say, "Come on, people!" Courtesy should be a given in an ESP relationship (and in all relationships). Marc is hardly advocating rudeness or ignoring our partners' contributions. Kindness, too, is a lovely thing; no couple could live happily together without loads of it. The world would certainly be a better place if we all practiced courtesy, kindness and gratitude continuously.

But showing appreciation for our partners as a means of manipulating them (even with the most innocent of intentions) into doing their share of housework or childcare, or expecting appreciation for doing our share, are what Marc is unearthing with his post.

It's controversial stuff, we know! But that's what makes it so fascinating to dissect.

Marc ends his blog by saying he has no need to be appreciated for cleaning the toilet. As the recipient of this message, I have to say this brings a sense of relief. How great that I don't have to add 'build up husband's esteem' or 'don't forget to tell husband you noticed his efforts' or 'make sure husband knows how much I love him today' to my list of mental to do's. Phew! The best part about this deal is that it frees me to truly and simply love him. That might even include the occasional 'thanks, honey - you're the best' comment, but I know that he'll keep on cleaning those toilets even if I lapse. He's not cleaning them to please the 'boss' or prove he's doing his part (which begs notice from me); he's cleaning them because cleaning them is a part of his (and my) life. And he'll still clean them even on days when I am grumpy or snappy or generally hard to live with.

It's almost enough to lavish him with immense gratitude. But, in Marc's world, that wouldn't be the kind thing to do, so I will do so in the depths of my own heart instead.

Wednesday's Motherlode was a particularly enjoyable read for me. Jeremy Adam Smith is one of my favorite Dad voices around and he was featured in a two-part Q&A with Lisa Belkin. The topics included: gender patterns at home, how has the father role changed in recent generations, barriers to male caregiving, and how men talk about parenting differently than women. This last point was my favorite, not just because he uses me as an example, but because I couldn't agree more. I love hearing men sticking up for their own way of doing things around the home, describing what's important to them about caring for their kids, and generally embracing all the roles that are available to men these days.

Primarily, I appreciate Jeremy's historical perspective and vision for where parenting is going. He is a believer in ESP and paints an optimistic picture of the direction of parenting in his book The Daddy Shift. Not only does he poignantly describe his own struggles and joys of parenthood but is able to clearly articulate how men's choices today compare to generations past.

Jeremy continues to reassure me that ESP is both a reasonable and desirable path on a personal level and may even be a sign of things to come.

Very interesting column in the Wall Street Journal this week by work/family journalist, Sue Shellenbarger. It profiles a few families that have cut back on outside childcare to save money in tough economic times, and have put a kind of ESP in place. I say 'a kind of ESP' because these families have got the equality piece right, but they've not quite embraced the other foundational goal of this lifestyle: balance.

The article starts out with an ominous tone - and the scary title of Extreme Child-Care Maneuvers - as if to warn readers that the economy was forcing couples with kids into a frenzied juggling act that leaves them both gasping for a moment's peace. But as you read further, the real story comes out. These tag-team parents who meet in employer parking lots to hand the kids from one to the other are really prioritizing their time beyond just making the maximum amount of money. And they may be tired, but they are kinda thriving on the challenge. Best of all, they are noticing a silver lining in the creation of an equal partnership:

Says one mother, "Good things can come from hard times. This has taught us to be more of a couple, really. Just managing our work and money and schedules is a skill. ... It takes a conscientious effort. The recession has forced our hand in making that change, which is ultimately really good."

The couples in this story were obviously handpicked for their crazy, hectic lives - lives they are not sure are sustainable. They are, as one of the full-time dual-earner ESP couples we interviewed for our upcoming book says, "in a death march." We don't advocate such an unbalanced life over the long haul, of course, but it contains much that is worthwhile too.

These parents are a true team. The kids get to spend plenty of time with both of their parents, and their parents both get everyday intimate relationships with their children. Both are contributing to the family income in equally meaningful careers. Respect and communication abound.

Now, to make this a happy existence for years to come, I'd prescribe a heavy dose of balance and further prioritization of time and money. Imagine if these parents could shave off a few hours of work each week and dedicate that time to enjoying a hobby or spend it together instead. Would this be worth the cost? Given the high price of overstress, this is definitely food for thought...

Marc and I had the pleasure of being guests on the podcast of Amy Tiemann, aka Mojo Mom, this week. Amy is the author of the newly published book Mojo Mom: Nurturing Yourself While Raising a Family and a terrific parent-blogger/writer we've come to know over the past three years. We had been Amy's podcast guests once in the past, and it was fun to return to her show for a more in-depth discussion of ESP.

Talking with Amy was very satisfying because she 'gets' the important stuff about ESP. She's way past the common media glitch of 'exact' 50/50 chore division and on to topics like what it really means for two partners to take ownership of creating equality and balance in their relationship.

You can listen to her podcast with us here (download the episode dated 5/15/2009).

I'd also like to put in a two-thumbs-up rating for Amy's book, which I have just finished reading. While it is not meant to be a book about ESP (it is directly for moms - in any type of parenting arrangement), it is a beautifully written handbook on how to find yourself as a person in a world that wants to label you and treat you only as a mother. It is the book equivalent of a huge, warm hug from a mother who has been there ahead of you, and can give you really useful advice. The perfect read for new moms. Amy even includes a chapter on fathers, which is fully inclusive of their parenting abilities and includes a nice dose of full-out ESP discussion (we're listed as a reference too - thanks, Amy!).

By the way, we're now in the editing phase of our own book - and beginning to talk about exciting steps like cover design. We're going to be hunkering down for the next month to devote ourselves to this project. It is wonderful to see this all coming together, and we can't wait to share the final result with you!

Marc and I have an ongoing battle (lest you think we never fight) about quality. It usually manifests as me insisting on the best of the best when planning for a party - the most bountiful spread, the highest quality ingredients, etc. Marc then automatically takes a stand against my wishes, often going overboard in his assertions that a few crumbs scraped off the floor will be perfectly adequate party food.

So, my ESP challenges are particularly great around party time.

This past week, our son T had his 4th birthday party - a barbeque at a local playground. Marc and I discussed the menu, I wrote up the shopping list, and Marc did the shopping. Then, I saw that Marc had bought store-brand pre-formed burgers in a box rather than hamburger meat we could form ourselves. The horror! I know, I know - some of you are thinking (or so Marc assures me), "What's wrong with that?" Yuck, gag, worse than cat food. Our opinions were not meshing here.

What to do?

I blundered - I acted horrified and insisted that the pressed cardboard be replaced with real meat before the party could go on. Marc reacted as any normal guy might, and defended his purchase by calling me elitist (in so many words) and telling me that this kind of talk is exactly what makes guys not all that anxious to take on the shopping. ESP not!

What could I have done differently? Happily serve what I thought was really bad food to our guests? I could have. But I think that doesn't have to be the answer. Serving good food (even simple hamburgers) is really important to me. Deliberately serving bad food was not Marc's goal, and he didn't buy the boxed meat just to tick me off - he just thought he'd found something convenient at the grocery store that would fit the bill. He didn't prefer his purchase over my wishes either. But somehow, I don't think that ESP means having to settle for a standard so far below your own at any moment's notice - on an issue that really matters to you. This isn't world peace, I know, but bear with me...

Marc and I dissected the issue later that day and came to some useful conclusions. He told me that it would have helped tremendously if I had not been so strongly accusing of him when I first noticed his purchase. If I had instead said something like, "Hmmm...I'd really like to use regular hamburger meat for the party, would you mind if I exchanged it?" Then, we could possibly have preserved our equality in the matter - Marc's choice being viable, and Amy raising a different suggestion - and briefly discussed the matter. We also realized that the important ESP take home message was that while both of us get a full vote in everything about our home and family, we vote in the context of our whole selves - not for the sake of mathematical equality.

When all was smoothed over, I went to the grocery store for my choice of hamburger (and trust me, much of the party was Marc-style too). T had a ball at his birthday bash, and we still both felt we put on the party together.

As luck would have it, I forgot to bring the dreaded burger pucks back to the store. They sit, in all their splendor, in our freezer now. Someday, I know one of them will be smiling up at me from my plate on Marc's night to cook dinner. And I'll smile back.

I have a problem with appreciation. Occasionally I hear well-intentioned parents suggest that the best way to get your partner to do more around the house is to shower them with appreciation when they perform a certain task. At first glance it seems like this is a better option than the "stick" approach of nagging, complaining and the like but something still doesn't fit for me.

Today was a typical Thursday at our home. After biking home from work, I did some food shopping with the kids, went to the local playground, prepared dinner, cleaned the dishes, and packed lunches for tomorrow. Conventional wisdom might advise Amy to heap some praise and loving my way to encourage this behaviour in the future. That might work in the short run if my motivation was fairness or even a sense of obligation to lighten my partner's load. But neither of these factors inspire my actions fully.

My day was filled with exactly what I needed to live a balanced life. I got paid for work I enjoy, I got some exercise, I played a role in keeping my home running smoothly, and got to spend time outdoors laughing with my kids. I don't want appreciation from Amy for doing the dishes (or any other chore) any more than I want appreciation for biking home from work.

ESP gives both partners the opportunity to create balanced lives while they tend to their relationship together. Now that's something I can appreciate!

Tuesday (that's tomorrow) will be a big day in the global ESP discussion! First up, journalist Sharon Jayson, who covered a bit about equally shared parenting recently after our presentation at the Council on Contemporary Families meeting, will be showcasing ESP in more depth in a feature article in USA Today. Sharon interviewed each of us for this piece, as well as two wonderful ESP couples we've come to know as a result of writing our book - Catherine and Silas from Pennsylvania, and Brian and Corinna from Oregon. We haven't seen the article yet, but we'll link it up here once we do. Check it out! Update: Click HERE to view the article, which focuses on how mothers must let go of control at home and with the kids in order to make room for ESP.

Second, Catherine and Silas are also scheduled to Skype in for a followup piece on the TODAY Show tomorrow morning (scheduled to air around 8:00am EST)! If you're up and near a TV tomorrow morning (or can set your DVR tonight), you may want to tune in to see this segment. We'll link this up too, assuming it is available online after airing. Update: Click HERE to view the segment.

And we welcome new readers to this website who may have found us from either of these venues. Please have a look around and let us know what you think. We'd love to be a part of helping other parents think about how to create and sustain a life of equality and balance. Could that be you?

Lastly, we have an official title for our upcoming book! Drumroll, please....

Equally Shared Parenting: Rewriting the Rules for a New Generation of Parents

Over the last few years ESP has been covered in a variety of publications from magazines, newspapers, radio, blogs, and even TV. Truth be told, we have learned quite a bit from these varied perspectives but rarely has the piece caused us to laugh. However, back in December we found such a piece created by journalist, Russ Litten, for The Independent (UK) newspaper. It was one of a few articles of the type where a reporter was given the assignment to follow the ESP "rules" for a week, as opposed to their traditional arrangement, and report on the experiment.

At the end of the article Russ jokes that he may write us a thank you note. Apparently, our worksheet on the sharing of household chores exposed the fact that he never writes them. Well, I would like to recognize that Russ has followed through. I received a note from Russ today stating, "I actually learnt a lot from the experiment and my wife and have tried to take on board many of your principles - and in time, and with practice and continued concentration, they have become an intrinsic part of our lives."

Russ, we are thrilled to have you along for the ride that is ESP. You have helped us make the point that ESP is not a quick-fix for any problem a different family model may have but rather a model that allows both parents the opportunity to walk in each other's shoes on a regular basis along with a decent shot at a balanced life.

We would be happy to hear the wisdom of your ESP successes sometime in the future!

Here's a cute article by Paula Spencer in Parenting magazine about how she learned that her husband was a fully competent parent during her third pregnancy's medically-enforced week of bedrest. She starts out doubting he is able to handle the kids for more than a few hours, and he ends up blowing her theory out of the water in a big way.

I look forward to the day when stories like this, however adorable, are no longer needed. When men's capability is not automatically in question, and when women are not set up to automatically assume primary parenting duties in the first place. But, for today, I'll be happy with an article that highlights how mothers need not think of ourselves as essential for our parenting prowess - and that a world of good can come when we step aside and make room for our partners to do their thing.

Marc and I are just back from the fantastic Council on Contemporary Families annual conference in Chicago. It's been a whirlwind couple of days of connecting with the leaders in gender research - many of our most admired mentors and fore-parents in gender equality studies were there in the flesh, and we felt honored to be among them. Some of the highlights for us were finally meeting marriage historian Stephanie Coontz (author of Marriage, A History), psychologist Diane Ehrensaft (author of Parenting Together), sociologist Pepper Schwartz (author of the dearly beloved Love Between Equals), Daddy Dialectic's Jeremy Adam Smith and Chicago Pop, Carolyn Pape Cowan and Philip Cowan (authors of When Parents Become Partners), Joshua Coleman (author of The Lazy Husband) and Deborah Siegel (of www.girlwpen.com). And we reconnected with our friends and mentors, Barbara Risman (author of Gender Vertigo) and Kathleen Gerson (author of the forthcoming The Unfinished Revolution: How a New Generation is Reshaping Family, Work and Gender in America).

We also spoke on a panel devoted to gender convergence, which is the idea that feminine and masculine behaviors cease to be separated by actual gender - as evidenced by such trends as women in the workplace, male caregiving, salary equity, etc. Some of the news here was less than refreshing - and points to how we're definitely not 'there yet' even as we inch closer. In our time at the podium, we focused on the good news that many couples are reaching for ESP even when our culture and our workplaces don't yet make this easy. And that ESP is far more about a dedication to equality and balance than it is about a focus on task division or getting men to 'do more' around the house and with the kids. It felt good to clarify these points, and some of our comments made it to an even wider audience - USA Today (many thanks to Sharon Jayson!).

Other topics at this jam-packed conference included work-life balance policies and their effect on gender equality, and gender issues in specific populations (e.g., African Americans, lesbian couples, Latina mothers/daughters, gender-crossing children, middle-school children, GLBTQQA2 youth - I hope I got that last term correct!).

We came away from the conference energized more than ever to spread the word about ESP. We heard from leading researchers that our philosophies match their findings, and this validation means the world to us. We made new friends and connections that will keep us busy for many months and years to come. We brought home a brand new book called Couples, Gender and Power by Carmen Knudson-Martin and Anne Rankin Mahoney (both of whom we met at the conference) that we can't wait to read.

Phew! How grateful we both feel to be a part of all of this!

To read more about the research findings presented at this conference, check out the CCF's press release entitled Unconventional Wisdom: A Survey of Recent Research and Clinical Findings on Gender, Families and Equality.

After a number of months with our heads down working on our manuscript, it was a joy to get the opportunity to speak out about ESP at a conference offered by Yale Law School on March 27th and 28th. Amy and I were speakers, along with Francine Deutsch and Kathleen Gerson, discussing Parenthood and Gender Roles. Here is the recap of the session (Part V) along with a full Quicktime video. If you don't have the time, or interest, in watching the full 1 hour and 20 minute clip, here is how it breaks down.

0.0 - 20.5 minutes Introductions
2.5 - 20.5 minutes Kathleen Gerson
20.5 - 35 minutes Francine Deutsch
35 - 48.5 minutes Amy and Marc
48.5 - 80 minutes Questions

In addition, this coming weekend we will be speaking at the 12th Annual Conference for Council on Contemporary Families in Chicago. We don't expect any video at this event so come on by if you're in the Chicago area.

I'm not sure if all the recent discussion of breastfeeding had anything to do with it, but the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, the La Leche League International, the International Lactation Consultant Association and the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action have gotten together to issue an official statement entitled Breastfeeding and the Equal Sharing of Responsibilities Between Women and Men.

I'm so happy to see such an issue addressed by the foremost advocates of breastfeeding. This means that ESP is really being considered as a major way of life - something that these groups realize could bump up against mom-centric feeding preferences and a topic that needs attention.

The statement is short, less than 2 printed pages. It starts by acknowledging the challenge of breastfeeding for couples who strive for gender equality. So far, so good. The rest of the document, however, I found to be...well...a bit condescending of the true value of equal sharing. "It makes good sense to share the responsibility of assuring that women can succeed at breastfeeding," is their answer to how gender equality should be approached in the early days of parenthood. "For most mothers, equal sharing of the work within the household is a dream, not a reality." Ah, yes, ESP is next to impossible, so let's just move on. "There are many fathers who take care of their newly-born and older children, but they are still a minority." I'm starting to get annoyed now; do these statements (fact or not) mean that we shouldn't bother with the issue for those fathers who do want to care for their own kids?

I realize that these organizations are taking a global view, literally speaking for all people in all countries - poor, wealthy, industrialized, third-world.

But it gets worse.

The paper then focuses for three paragraphs on reproduction itself, and how women are uniquely able to bear children. Duh. The gist here is that women should be supported to carry this physical burden within an enabling environment. Finally, they get to breastfeeding itself. They slam any "technology" that enables parents to utilize formula or pumped milk for situations that are anything less than life-saving. "The existence of new techniques must not be allowed to de-value, or worse, to erase, the breastfeeding lore that mothers and grandmothers pass to their daughters."

We're avoiding pumps and even a drop of formula because it's our duty to pass on the lore of breastfeeding? That's the best they can do? What about starting the lore of equal sharing - two parents becoming fully capable and intimately involved in caring for their newborn from Day 1? I know, I know. Breastfeeding is not the crux of ESP. ESP doesn't require, by any stretch of the imagination, equally sharing the feeding duties at any point. Plenty of ESP moms exclusively breastfeed their children for long periods of time. But this statement really irks me nonetheless.

The last paragraphs read more pleasantly. Here, the sentiment is that dads can take primary responsibility for other tasks if they want to even out the overall childcare duties, and can take the lead on 'complementary feeding' (solids) after their babies are 6 months old. And that equal sharing means fairness and respect, and meeting everyone's needs.

What do you think of the advice of these authorities?

For another view, check out Judith Warner's column from last Friday - she advocates total destruction of breast pumps (not for lore-preservation, but because she thinks they are torture devices) and liberally supplementing breastfeeding with formula to make mothers' lives easier.

I just finished reading the new book Getting to 50/50: How Working Couples Can Have It All by Sharing It All by Sharon Meers and Joanna Strober. Sharon (former managing director at Goldman Sachs) and Joanna (managing director of a private equity firm) are two moms with a strong message about equal sharing as a means to juggling work and family, and their book speaks to many working mothers who want reassurance that their chosen path will neither hurt their kids nor their spouse (and can even be the best option for their marriage).

Much of Getting to 50/50 centers around the breadwinning domain - why it is important for women to stick with their careers after they become mothers, why two careers make for happy partners, why outside childcare is not harmful to children. But they also cover many of the benefits to sharing the housework and childraising too, with lots of quotes and anecdotes from working moms and stories from their own marriages.

One thing I especially like about Getting to 50/50 is that it provides the reader with lots of data to support an egalitarian marriage and describe the state of American families - something our own forthcoming book will not focus on but is important to understand. At times this book feels like an argument against stay-at-home motherhood - which, of course, doesn't mesh with an equal relationship unless both parents don't work at all - but it makes these points in the context of partnership with one's husband rather than in a vacuum (avoiding one of the faults of so many other parenting books). Also, the book feels rather weighted toward full-time careers - not uber-power ones that the authors name '24/7' careers, but regular 40-hour jobs nonetheless - although examples of meaningful reduced-hours careers are sprinkled throughout.

In Getting to 50/50, Sharon and Joanna have offered themselves up as a cheerleading squad for women who want to believe that their careers should be equally valued and their role as mothers can be remolded to fit the vision of equality at home. Ditch the guilt! Embrace your partner as your equal and ask that he do the same for you! Stay on top of your game at work despite the odds! You can do it!

Overall, we are thrilled to see Getting to 50/50 enter the scene. It will appeal most to women who desire equality and a shot at high-level careers for both partners. It skillfully portrays highly accessible equality for the career woman, and does so in a manner that is respectful of men. The fact that it lists ESP.com in the back as an online resource is a bonus, of course. We'll be adding Getting to 50/50 to our Resources section as well.

Sometimes I catch myself being turned off by talk of gender equality. Maybe it's just my mood or perhaps my frustration at the lack of progress toward this goal, but lately I'm starting to understand some of our critics when they say, "Why do we care so much about being equal?" OK, it's time to come clean...we don't!

Well, let me clarify. I have never had much interest in convincing couples that they should equally share all the household chores or even have equal time with the kids for that matter. If, however, they want to be equally happy and care about creating a team of equally valued parents, then I'm more than motivated to discuss ESP. Not as an artificial way to keep score, but rather as an equivalently valuable path to a balanced and enjoyable life.

I am encouraged today after reading in Motherlode about a study released by the Families and Work Institute. In particular, this study looks at the "ambition level" of both men and women age 29 or younger, as defined by a desire to achieve greater responsibility at work. It turns out that the responses are closing in on gender equality and reflect a downward adjustment to the importance of paid work in their lives. Lisa Belkin calls this "a change that seems consistent with a growing desire by both men and women for balance in their lives."

Desire for this kind of balance at a high level is the foundation that will make sharing in all life's domains more equitable. This is fertile ground for ESP.

Interesting Domestic Disturbances column today. Judith Warner tackles the idea that the recession has led to SAHMs complaining about having less disposable income and laid-off power career fathers sitting around like slugs instead of embracing the nurturing duties at home. Judith isn't buying this scenario - one that she says has been given way too much attention in the media. It may be true (or partly true) for a small percentage of the most wealthy families (the 'yummy mummies' and the $800,000/year investment bankers who support them), but the vast majority of families affected by the recession are caught up in simply keeping themselves afloat.

Judith interviews marriage historian extraordinaire, Stephanie Coontz, on the topic and says: "Increasing numbers of working class women now - in a downturn where 82 percent of the job losses have been among men - have become their family's sole wage-earners, it's true. But their husbands, very often, are holding their own at home just fine. For while the stereotype has long been that working class men won't do "women's work," Coontz said, the truth is that in recent years they've had a better track record than the most high-income men in sharing domestic duties. Twenty percent of these men, in fact, actually do more housework and child care now than their wives. "These people have been doing it for some time and they're much more ideologically committed to doing it," she said. "I think your worst offenders are in that top 5 percent. I've been a little irritated by the slams on men."

We have often suspected that the wealthiest of families are among the least likely to create - or desire - ESP. Dr. Coontz's words add meat to that suspicion, and a ray of brilliant hope in this crummy recession...that men are ready to embrace and value their full share of down-and-dirty childraising and housework, and are doing so. And as they decide how to figure out their best return to the work world, we hope they'll get a chance to realize their home duties are far more than chores - they are a means to a balanced and enjoyable partnership.

Since there are so many ways to be equal partners, we don't often dive into the specifics of any one detail of parenting. We prefer to focus on the building blocks and philosophies behind creating an ESP lifestyle. However, in the recent flurry of news around breast-feeding we were honored to weigh in on the NY Times online column, Motherlode, as to how an ESP-minded couple might deal with the early days of feeding their children. You can check out our comments here.

Personally, we decided to feed both our children breast milk up until they were about 8 months old. Most of this was delivered via the breast while a consistent bottle per day allowed me to be involved as well. This was by no means a requirement, or even a substantial aid to creating our ESP lives, but I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. I didn't love getting up in the middle of the night, as I'm sure very few people do, but I saw it as a small sacrifice to have access to the fundamental nurturing of our children.

I have no idea if spending that time in the early morning hours with my children paved the way for a closer relationship with them. I'd like to believe that all the moments in the last many years are more important than a few months of once-a-day feedings. However, I'm quite certain that my participation in those early days was beneficial for me. Nurturing was never my strong suit being a typical, logical male, but feeding an infant at 2:00 in the morning did wonders for getting me out of my head and into the game. Logic told me that I was providing nourishment to my child but I couldn't escape the fact that more was happening in those moments.

Owning my participation in those early days of childcare felt like the only way to honor my promise of partnership with Amy. I didn't marry her to solve the problem of "who would raise the kids" but rather to share an enjoyable life. For me, that meant embracing the challenges of sleep deprivation, gender expectations, and the resulting uncomfortable scenarios.

Yes, I wanted to participate.
No, I did not love it all the time.
Yes, I would do it all again.

I just finished reading an article entitled 'The Case Against Breastfeeding' in the Atlantic. And although I'm by myself in my quiet kitchen (the kids are asleep and Marc is away for a few days), I want to stand up and applaud. Bravo to journalist Hanna Rosin!

Lest any of you get too uncomfortable, I breastfed both M and T just as any new mother is bound to do in this day and age in our culture. I bought the arguments that 'breast is best' and did my best to make it work. My pump was a big part of my life once I returned to work each time (although I figured out a way not to pump at work the second time around - an accomplishment of which I'm particularly proud). I gritted my teeth through those tough first few (make that six) weeks of soreness and pain, a bout of mastitis, nursing bras, leaking, etc. I made it through to when it becomes easy and quick - and it was pretty smooth sailing for the many months I breastfed after that. I never quite made it through to not wincing if I needed to feed in public; although I fully support the rights of breastfeeding mothers, I personally felt I needed to protect my own rights not to have to breastfeed in front of strangers sometimes.

Anyway, my own story is not the point here. Rosin's article is long, but it is excellent. I urge to you to click over and read it if the topic interests you at all. From an ESP perspective, breastfeeding can often interfere with a father establishing himself as an equal parent early on. It doesn't have to, by any means, but even well-meaning mothers and fathers can use breastfeeding's intimate and time-consuming bonding opportunity to set mothers on the course of being the 'better' parent if they don't consciously work to overcome this issue.

Rosin describes a friend who refused to breastfeed because she "felt that breast-feeding would set up an unequal dynamic in her marriage - one in which the mother, who was responsible for the very sustenance of the infant, would naturally become responsible for everything else as well." Rosin goes on to say: "We were raised to expect that co-parenting was an attainable goal. But who were we kidding? Even in the best of marriages, the domestic burden shifts, in incremental, mostly unacknowledged ways, onto the woman. Breast-feeding plays a central role in the shift. Then other, logical decisions follow: she alone fed the child, so she naturally knows better how to comfort the child, so she is the better judge to pick a school for the child and the better nurse when the child is sick, and so on."

I think that the breastfeeding effect on keeping couples from ESP is much larger than most of us realize. And somehow, the La Leche League, Dr. Sears, and so many others have made it taboo to even speak of not breastfeeding our children. Given the paucity of actual well-done scientific research to prove any true benefits to breastfeeding, not breastfeeding ought to be an option. This would sure make ESP a whole lot easier in the first year of parenthood. There, I said it!

But I know most of us aren't quite ready for that message. And we don't have to be. There are many ways to get around the breastfeeding period with your equal parenting intact. In fact, I've yet to meet an ESP mom who didn't breastfeed at all, and I know many who have done so well beyond the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended time period. How they did so is a subject for another post. But today, I'm just glad to see one journalist explore the issue so that perhaps we can all be better armed to get through it.

President Obama announced that he has established a new White House Council on Women and Girls. This mission of this new committee is "to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls and to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families." Issues such as equal pay, family leave, and childcare will be on the group's agenda.

On the one hand, this is yet a bit more tangible proof that our new Administration is taking family issues seriously and wants to put action behind Obama's campaign trail promises. Hooray! On the other hand, the title of this new Council is a bit dismaying. Why are these issues (except for equal pay) women's or girl's issues rather than parents' and children's issues?

Obama even says the right words himself: "...I want to be clear that issues like equal pay, family leave, child care and others are not just women's issues, they are family issues and economic issues. Our progress in these areas is an important measure of whether we are truly fulfilling the promise of our democracy for all our people. "

As long as we keep labeling these topics as 'women's and girl's' issues, we'll marginalize them. And heaven forbid that the solutions developed by this extremely worthy Council focus on just one gender! Come on, Obama - harness the power of BOTH parents!

Hat tip to Lisa Belkin for her the excellent coverage of this topic on the Motherlode blog.

Today, we have the pleasure of being the landing place for Liz Funk's Supergirls Speak Out blog tour! This new book, subtitled 'Inside the Secret Crisis of Overachieving Girls,' is a fascinating look at young women who turn themselves inside out to be perfect at everything - their looks, their grades, their extracurricular resumes, their social status.

A new study was released online today in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry that examines the effect of co-parenting on the behavior of hard-to-manage 4-year olds. Ninety-two sets of parents were videotaped interacting with their children for 1.5 hours, while researchers judged the quality of their relationship - as a cooperative 'co-parenting' one vs a critical or one-up one. The children were evaluated on their behavior at this time, and then one year later; this evaluation was done by asking the children's mothers (which I'll begrudgingly agree makes sense since the non-co-parenting families in the study probably had mom-focused childraising).

It turns out that the strength of the co-parenting relationship was a strong determinant of the behavior of the child at the end of the study. While levels of aggressive behaviors increased during that year in many children, the notable exception was children whose parents showed supportive co-parenting. Primary researcher, Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan at Ohio State University, doesn't know exactly why cooperative and supportive parenting worked this magic, but points to a fairly obvious theory: "...it may be that good co-parenting promotes a sense of family security in children that makes it easier for them to focus on controlling their own behaviors and emotions."

These findings extend previous work by Schoppe-Sullivan and others that showed supportive co-parenting also strengthens marital relationships and leads to better individual parenting. "Co-parenting has a central role in families with children," she said. "If you can improve that relationship, there are all kinds of positive effects on the children and on the other family relationships."

Now, 'co-parenting' is just a piece of full ESP, and it is not necessarily fully equal parenting. And we generally don't like to take a stand on the effects of ESP on children because it hasn't yet been studied (and because we believe that any parenting lifestyle can produce happy kids). But it is nice to see this study lend some science to what we believe - if two parents team up to care for their children as peers, good things are bound to happen.

We'll continue to keep an eye out for more co-parenting research and keep you up-to-date as we discover it.