This is the best the NYT can do?

(So I'm fine and will be back to normal posts soon - just a bit overwhelmed with work, feeding the baby, getting enough sleep, and spending all evening talking to an almost 7-month old who occasionally responds "Gee!")

The NYT has yet another infertility article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/health/07endo.html?ref=health. And while I do appreciate their attention to the issue, this article is everything I despise in infertility reporting.

It can be summed up quite simply: There's an easily treated diagnosis that some people don't know about. YOU might have it. If you do, you can be cured in no time. Here's a silly woman who spent loads of money on unsuccessful treatment all because no one ever treated her for this (in this particular case C.A.H.). Oh yeah, and Ashkenazi Jews, you have a much higher risk of having it.

And when I log in later today this article will inevitably be among the most e-mailed, as concerned mothers and friends forward this to their 'poor, infertile' friends.

Argh! Dear readers, get yourself to a good RE. If you're RE doesn't know about a disease that may affect some significant number of women (no numbers given, obviously), find a new one. And dear NYT, do not throw false home to endless women reading at home by talking this up as an easy to identify and treat condition: not only are the examples you provide non-typical presentation, the clinical diagnosis seems to have nothing to do with the blood test, the test does not indicate the severity of the disease but ... there have been no peer-reviewed good scientific articles on dexa.meth.oso.ne (suppression) since the 1960s. I know, I've looked (not because I have C.A.H., but because dexa.meth.os.one was once used to treat co.rt.is.ol issues).

And for that matter, the online op-ed about becoming a SAHM also made me mad. The article was fine albeit trite, but the comments fell into the same predictable piles:
a. "Quit work now! You don't want to miss a moment" (Ignoring all the little things like financial security and that many careers have no on-ramp. Yes, I'd love to be home this year but no, I don't want to spend my mornings home alone while the fusspot runs off to elementary school, high school and hopefully someday her own home)
b. "You can do it all, but it is so, so tough" (Working mothers, if you are so, so busy why waste your time with endless predictable comments?)
c. "I am a MAN and I want my wife at home" (subtext: But I would never consider it myself because I am a MAN)
d. a few quiet pleas for an article about how to balance work/parenting

All the usual thing were missing:
- Many (probably most) careers have no so-called on ramp. While there are other jobs out there, I've spent 9 years preparing for this career and I really don't want to become yet another super overqualified high school teacher (or sales floor supervisor)
- My husband doesn't want the responsibilty of being the sole wage-earner. He makes a lot of money, but he's also at a fairly high risk of getting laid off at some point in his career and it terrifies him that I might not have the necessary income to keep us afloat for a while.
- I want the fusspot to know that she can have a career and family. Hence, I need to do it myself. And to do it well.

Honestly, I think the reason the SAHM/working mom debate bothered me so much (and I read pages of comments while pumping) is because I am a bit disappointed in aspects of the fusspot's daycare. To be precise, they are letting her CIO at naptime, and it just makes me sad. I really feel like I haven't spent 6 months practice every aspect of attachment parenting (breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing, responinding to the baby's every cry) to have them undo it in a few short weeks.

Also, during the tour we were promised that there would also be 2 teachers in the classroom. I counted the staff and the hours they are open and was puzzled, but figured they must have a floating teacher to cover lunches and shorten the day. Nope. There are 2 teachers from 9 to 5, but the daycare is open from 8 am to 6 pm. So when I picked the fusspot up at 5:30 yesterday night there were 3 babies strapped into bouncers (I am endlessly thankful that they have no mechanical swings/bouncers/etc at the daycare), 2 toddlers strapped into their high chairs playing, and my fusspot in a (baby-safe) hammock swinging away. Needless to say, all of the babies except mine were shrieking. And yes, just one teacher. Beats me how they'd pass a fire inspection with 4 non-mobile babies, 2 toddlers and 1 teacher post-5 pm, but it is what it is.

And then I spent a while thinking about a few of the comments on the article, including one by a teacher who made some negative comment about how babies with SAHM were so used to be spoiled. While I don't necessarily believe that, when I taught religious school and summer camp, I absolutely could not tell which kids had stay at home moms. And I do remember loving daycare as a child. And JD never had time home with his mother during the day and he seems to have survived. So I just have to recognize that daycare is going to be tough until the fusspot has mobility (she gets so annoyed when she pushes her toys out of reach or wants to move), but this is a temporary phase and thereafter she will almost certainly be happier on a daily basis for the company and games and endless child-safe toys.

Sorry about the rambling, I'm pretty sure the fusspot is either sick or has already become a 'reverse feeder.' She's been taking less than 2 bottles at daycare and waking me every 2 hours to eat since JD left.