Pages

Showing posts with label Moms on the Verge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Moms on the Verge. Show all posts

March 6, 2010

Mothers behaving very badly to keep their kids from their fathers; sometimes resorting to kidnapping and murder

UPDATE: Since writing my initial post this morning about the arrest of Wendy Hill (left) on charges of kidnapping her 8-year-old daughter--and keeping the girl from her Walnut Creek father for 14 years--I thought more about what this story also says about how divorce and custody cases can get really nasty, and truly terrible things can happen. Angry exes use the kids as weapons, and then maneuver to deny each other access. The victims in all this are the kids; in fact, these custody battles often put the kids in serious danger.

Unfortuantely, some of the most notable recent cases in Contra Costa County involved mothers trying to keep their children from their fathers. So, I'm sure what I'm writing here will probably concern advocates for female victims of domestic violence. They will say these four cases don't reflect all the violent and controlling behavior perpetrated by men in custody battles. I'm sure that's true.

Still, women are capable of causing lots of damage themselves. Remember Kelli Nunuz?

In 2005, Nunez left prison after serving three years for abducting her own children, Anna and Emily, and keeping them from her estranged husband Danny. Kelli Nunez had been involved in a custody battle with her estranged husband Danny since 1999. During that fight she accused her ex-husband of abusing the girls. In 2002, she snatched the girls from a Lafayette daycare center, drove them to New York, flew back to San Francisco, and gave them to strangers, members of a San Jose group who was headed, it was reported by a convicted child molester. For six months, Nunez refused to tell authorities where her daughters were.

Two cases that I have personally written about involved children who wound up dead at the hands of their mothers.  

The first was the case of intelligent, outwardly devoted San Ramon mother, 38, who in 2003 killed her 3-year-old daughter and then herself.  As I learned through talking to her friends and family and reading her writings, Maegan Mundi was upset about having to share custody with her ex-husband, and became alarmed when she learned her ex-husband might block her effort to move out of state and take her daughter, Galadriel, with her.

Last summer, Judith Williams of Walnut Creek drove her 16-year-old son Adam, a Los Lomas High junior, to near the top of Mt. Diablo at dusk on a July Friday.  There, at a picnic area with its view of clear skies, the professional, seemingly happy mother, armed with a .357-caliber revolver, opened fire on her own son. She shot him first on the chest. After he fell to his knees, she put the gun to his head and fired again. Then she turned the gun on herself. Judith Williams' ex-husband described her as "angry" and suggested she was upset that he had moved back to Northern California and might want to spend more time with Adam.

Meanwhile, in the post I originally wrote this morning, I pointed to today's Contra Costa Times which has more details in a follow-up story on the case of Jessica Click-Hill, who was found by authorities this week. 

One point the story makes is that "parental and family abductions account for nearly 97 percent of child abduction reports in the state. In Contra Costa County, all 29 abductions reported in 2008 involved family, and just one of the 64 reported in Alameda County that year was committed by a nonrelative."

What is unusual in this case is the amount of time that passed --15 years--between the time of Click-Hill's disappearance and her recovery. The Times says: "According to Justice Department data culled by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, only 6 percent of children abducted by their parents are found more than six months past their reported disappearances." A Walnut Creek attorney who has specialized in family law for 36 years tells the Times that these cases usually last two or three months.

The mother, Wendy Hill, was found in Monrovia, east of Pasadena Tuesday, following a tip to a missing child center. That tip was forwarded to Walnut Creek police who, with the FBI, learned that Hill was living in Southern California under the alias Gail Jackson. 

Police arrested Hill, and brought her to Contra Costa County where she was booked in County Jail in Martinez on $350,000 bail.  Authorities found Jessica living in another state apart from her mother. In all those years, she had never had contact with her father, Dean Click, with whom she had been living with in 1995 when she was kidnapped.

Click told the Times that he divorced Wendy Hill in the early 1990s, and that he was granted primary custody of his daughter. His ex-wife and daughter disappeared when Jessica went for a visitation with her mother her Redlands.  Click talks about the "void" in his life," all the years with his daughters and milestones he missed out on: birthday parties, school events.

November 16, 2009

When a mother's love is blind

I'm inclined to have sympathy for a certain group of women. These are mothers whose children have committed terrible crimes. Can you imagine what hell such a woman must live in? The child, whom she gave birth to with such hope for his future, turns out to be creep, a monster. This is the boy she saw utter his first words, take his first steps. He may have been sweet and loving in many areas of his life--with her and at home.

But then he grows up, into a teenager or a young man. And he does something terrible. He causes another person terrible suffering, as well as to that person's friends and family. He gets caught, tried, convicted. Maybe he has to go to prison for a long time, maybe the rest of his life. Maybe he receives the death sentence.

The mother of this once promising child loses her promise, her hope. She loses her baby. The grief must be terrible. Add to that the shame and judgment from her community and the criminal justice system. Even though we're supposedly more enlightened about such matters in psychology and child development, we still can't help but wonder whether the mother is to blame when her child turns out to be a creep. She wasn't loving enough. Or she didn't discipline him enough, and she spoiled him. Or she's a sociopath herself. And so on. The rest of this woman's life is lonely, full of grief, and despair.

So, I am inclined to have sympathy for these women. To an extent.

Then there are mothers of men who do horrible things who continue to live in denial, and insist their darlings are innocent. Jackie Peterson comes to mind. She's the mother of Scott Peterson, convicted of killing his wife, Laci, and unborn son. She and other family members have set up a website, insisting that Scott was innocent and wrongfully convicted.

I can think of a few other mothers of recent high-profile murder defendants who continue to insist that their sons have been misjudged and unfairly treated by the system. Their loyalty is somewhat understandable, but I lose sympathy when I hear them blaming everyone else for their son's "misfortunes." And, when you begin to suspect that these women are more interested in protecting their own fragile reputations than in helping their sons "man up" and take responsibility for their crimes and apologize to the families of their victims.

Now we have Charlotte Martin, the mother of Curtis Martin III, 38 of West Oakland. He has been arrested in the killing of 23-year-old Zoelina Williams, whose body was found at Berkeley's Aquatic Park Friday. She had been beaten and shot. And her 17-month-old son, Jashon Williams, was missing.

The body of a toddler was pulled from the waters off the Berkeley Marina Sunday. Although he is still officially "Baby Doe," pending the autopsy, authorities believe he is probably Jashon Williams.

A police officer spotted Curtis Martin walking in Aquatic Park early Friday morning. Ten minutes later, that officer found Zoelina Williams' body. It also turns out that Martin was a convicted child killer. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, he "pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 11 years in prison for the 1994 fatal beating of 3-year-old Devin Brewer of Oakland, the son of his then-girlfriend.

It's unclear whether Curtis Martin and Zoelina Williams were romantically involved or whether she knew of Martin's past conviction. Martin's mother must have known of his past conviction. You'd think, right?

So, why is his mother, Charlotte Martin, understandably devastated by news of her son's latest arrest, telling the the Chronicle: "I don't believe he would hurt a baby." She also asserted that "some things being said about him are not true or have been embellished."

To be fair, she told the Chronicle that she was reserving judgment about the case until she spoke to her son. Also, I'm sure there are things being said about him that have been embellished. That's often the case. Still, to say he would never hurt a baby?

Ms. Martin, with all due respect, he went to prison for just such a crime. Speaking of that crime, why did Curtis Marin only serve 11 years for fatally beating a 3-year-old?

September 7, 2009

Text of President Obama's speech to school kids: pretty dangerous, subversive, anti-American ideas here...

The White House today released the text of the webcast that President Barack Obama will deliver to school children tomorrow. I've just read it, and I'm scared. I'm very, very scared.

Here are some of the more disturbing selections:

--At the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.


--And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it.

--We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.

And the president shares stuff about his own life, like growing up with a single mom who struggled to pay bills and not having a father around. He does a Bill Clinton "I feel your pain" and says he understands what it's like to not have certain advantages, but he says:

--At the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying.

August 12, 2009

"Cheery" front page of today's CoCo Times: Can I go back to bed now...


. . . for about five years?

Oh, not that I'm one to ever deny or postpone reality. . .

So, I didn't sleep much last night. Psst, ladies, that time of the month. Plus, I had this not massive but still annoying, frustrating, lingering work project that I've been struggling to complete. The annoyance and frustration over that prompted me to wake up extra early, after going to bed late, to finish it.

I pulled myself out of bed, made super strong coffee, and perused the, yes, actual print versions of today's San Francisco Chronicle and Contra Costa Times. And here's the cheery headlines that greeted me, and other home subscribers, of the Times this morning. They were enough to add to my already sleep-deprived, hormonal, emotionally frazzled state--and to make me wonder, will there ever be a silver lining, that light at the end of this tunnel? Will the sun ever really come out tomorrow?

Contra Costa's plight deepens: County forced to slah more than $50 million, leading to lay offs and cuts in health social services.

BART strike threat returns: Agency "ready to impose a contract" after words mine train operators, station agents reject no-raise proposals.

If that work project was frustrating and annoying me, this news was about to send me through the roof. Idiot, self-centered train operators and station agents, everyone of whom probably earns much more than me, especially after my pay cut, and far more generous health and pension benefits. Talk about people who deny reality, or the reality that many of the rest of us are living with. Or who don't care.

"Wave of bad news hits East Bay homeowners: Plummeting prices push more houses in region under water.

Negative equity in Contra Costa County, in the second quarter, is at 49 percent, meaning that this is the percentage of mortgaged homes for which homeowners owe more on their property than what its worth.

Even more cheery online headline for this story: "East Bay homes with negative equity could pull down economy"

And, finally:

"Woman's life thrown into reverse after layoff."
Apparently, this 1990s college grad was enjoying a lucrative career in online wine sales. Now, after getting laid off, she's back to living like a college student, renting a room in someone's house after giving up her apartment, selling most of her furniture, and burning through her savings.

The big story on the homepage of the online Times was of course:
Police seek suspect in Richmond-San Rafael Bridge shooting

The only upside to this story, if you could call it that, given that two people were slain, one in front of lots of shocked and horrified Richmond-San Rafael Bridge commuters is this:
Man connected to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge shootings arrested


Yeah, I know, I know, I shouldn't read the newspapers, or watch TV news, or listening to news headlines on the radio, or worst yet, read online news websites, or check my Twitter. But what can I do? I'm a bit of a news junkie. I can't stay away for long.

July 22, 2009

The death of Adam Williams: Mom described as "angry," and I'm trying to imagine how I could ever kill my son

UPDATE: In an excellent story in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, "No One Saw It Coming," Henry K. Lee has Judith Williams described by ex-husband as “angry woman,” and by the landlord of her Walnut Creek home as “goofy,” and worth were it not for the fact that he was fond of her son, Adam.

"For whatever reason, it didn't seem like she could ever give up her anger," said Jim Williams, who works as a consultant for a laser-printer company. "She would want things to go a certain way, and with Judy, little things can be very, very big."

He said he never fought for custody of Adam because he "didn't want to provoke her."

"It didn't take a whole heck of a lot to make her really upset," he said. "We picked our battles very judiciously."


BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POST:
I’m trying to imagine my son in a few years at age 16.

I’m also trying to see myself being in such a desperate, dark, narrow place that I would be absolutely convinced that I need to take my life—and my son with me.

It is hard to comprehend the logistics of being a mother killing her teen-age son. If you read up on cases of maternal filicide, which I did as part of a research project a few years ago, you’ll learn that most mothers who deliberately kill their children prey on infants or young children, children over whom these women have actual physical control. And, by the way, women who deliberately kill their children are a subset of all maternal killers, and belong in a separate category from mothers guilty of abuse or neglect.

I’m trying to imagine being a woman, like Judith Williams-- professional, living in an affluent Walnut Creek neighborhood, outwardly happy, I assume--coaxing my son, a Las Lomas High junior, into taking a drive with me after dusk up to Mount Diablo. Our destination is a picnic area presumably with a view.

Last Friday—it was a warm night, wasn’t it?

I’ve armed myself with a .357 revolver, and already euthanized my boy’s dog and three cats. But he doesn't know,
according to accounts offered to the Contra Costa Times by Contra Costa Sheriff's and coroner's investigators and family.

I’ve written my note, presumably explaining why I must die, and why my boy, Adam, needs to die, too.

Now, we’re at the picnic area, with its view and the clear skies of a warm July night. He’s walking around the car. I fire into his chest. As he falls to his knees, I put the gun to his head and fire again.

And now, having done the worst thing a mother can do, I can kill myself.

I’m sorry if it hurts anyone for me to dwell on Adam Williams' last horrifying moments. I'm so terribly sorry for Adam Williams--and Judith Williams--and their friends and family.

But I don’t think I am the only mother reading the details of his death—-or the only parent-—who, for even a second or two, is putting herself into Judith Williams’ place in order to understand “how,” “why,” “could I” and “under what circumstances”?

People on the message boards for the
Contra Costa Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and this blog are angry. They call Judith Williams evil, a monster. No decent loving parent would ever contemplate such an act, much less carry it out, they say.

Or there are some who are looking to others to blame: Adam Williams’ dad or other relatives, who perhaps didn’t pick up on warning signs, who didn’t see that she was getting stressed out about custody arrangements with Adams’ father, from whom she was divorced, or about her struggling nurse staffing business. Some will try to blame the recession, or our culture of achievement, in which people can feel like failures when believe they aren't living up to to certain social or economic standards.

The anger and finger-pointing is understandable—when an innocent teen boy, full of promise and love for life—loses his life. Over an act that seems so evil, so insane.

So, perhaps it is right to hate Judith Williams, or to cast blame elsewhere. It’s also understandable to pick apart her actions, and of those close to her or Adam, and to see how anyone failed to pick up on the warning signs, the so-called red flags.

I can say I’ve had moments of wishing I didn’t have a son, when he’s pushed my buttons in a way only he can. This was especially true when he was younger. I’ve had times when I’ve wanted to make him magically vanish for a few minutes, an hour, a few days. I’ve also had moments when I’ve felt down about myself, when I’ve become convinced that I’m a failure, unlovable, a horrible person, wife, mother. I’ve had moments, not too long ago, actually, when I have awakened in the middle of the night, asking, with an almost cold, intellectual scrutiny, what’s the point?

I can’t say, though, that I’ve ever descended slowly or dropped suddenly into that desperate, narrow, dark place of someone who is suicidal. I’ve only thought of suicide in an abstract way. As in, if I ever become terminally ill or so incapacitated in a way that I believe life is no longer worth living. Then, I’ll consider ending my life. Maybe.

I know people who have been suicidal. My husband was suicidal, and I twice had to get him to an emergency room.

I can say that I’ve never been in the place he was, so I guess it's ultimately impossible for me to understand where Judith Williams was coming from.

Still, it's worth trying, and I’m focusing on suicide, because if you read up on the literature of mothers who kill, you will find that these women often are suicidal—with the exception, of course, of someone like Andrea Yates, who was desperately ill and delusional but not necessarily suicidal.

But to begin to understand the how and why of Adam Williams’ death, experts would say, you have to understand suicidal thinking—because Judith Williams’ act, which yes included the murder of her son, was ultimately a plunge into self-destruction.

For those women who kill their children, national experts on ths subject, such as
Philip Resnick, of the Department of Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, say these women often have depresion, psychosis, prior mental health treatment, and suicidal thoughts. He puts their motives into several categories including:

--Altruism: a mother kills her child out of love; she believes death to be in the child's best interest (for example, a suicidal mother may not wish to leave her motherless child to face an intolerable world; or a psychotic mother may believe that she is saving her child from a fate worse than death)

--Psychosis: a psychotic or delirious mother kills her child without any comprehensible motive (for example, a mother may follow command hallucinations to kill)

--In the most rare cases, a spouse revenge filicide occurs when a mother kills her child specifically to emotionally harm that child's father.

Contra Costa County Sheriff’s investigators have Judith Wlliams’ note, which may shed light on how she viewed her self-destruction and Adam’s place in it. From various studies and articles I’ve read about maternal filicide, and from first-hand experience with someone who was in that desperate, dark, narrow place, I’m guessing that Judith Williams saw killing Adam as a necessary step to killing herself. She didn’t want to live anymore, and she, therefore, had to eliminate the one person who is most any mother’s reason to keep living: her child.

Resources, other reading on suicide and maternal filicide:

Contra Costa Crisis Center, (800) 263-TALK, (800) SUICIDE: Suicide Warning Signs and helping a suicidal person.

Suicide Warning Signs, American Society of Suicidology

Cheryl Meyer, Kelly White, Jim Franz, Tara Proano, Michelle Oberman, others
Mothers Who Kill Their Children: Understanding the Acts of Moms from Susan Smith to the "Prom Mom," New York University Press, 2001

Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford, and Shanna L. Beasley, Floriday Atlantic University,
An Exploratory Analysis of the Contexts and Circumstances of Filicide-Suicide in Chicago, 1965-1994.

June 1, 2009

"Bad" Baseball Mom reveals how, like many of us, she struggles to encourage her son while quieting private thoughts of disappointment, despair


I'm honored to post this honest, heartfelt confession from a long-time friend and fellow sports mom. She expresses some difficult feelings that I, too, have wrestled with:

I’m happy to post as a guest blogger for my buddy Crazy, whom I’ve known for years. While she’s Crazy in Suburbia, I’m Crazy on Suburbia’s fringe, as I live on the other side of the tunnel. The foggy side.

I’m going to title this post, “Bad Mommy,” because of a pressing matter. To get to the point, I have a son in Little League. He’s in fifth grade. (Same era as Crazy’s kid.) His team is having one of those roller coaster seasons with lots of ups and downs. Maybe I should say lots of downs and some ups.

Now, I’m a good mom about Little League and competitive sports: meaning I don’t push my son hard; it’s his choice whether to play; I encourage him to have fun, relax, enjoy his team, aim for his personal best, and not worry about the scores.

"It’s only a game," I say. "Win some, lose some; this is life."

But. ... I confess to having a bit of a competitive streak. And while I truly believe all the above, especially when we’re talking about kids’ sports, I’m also vulnerable to emotional ups and downs based on my son’s team’s performance. I feel high when they win; low when they lose. I try hard to hide these feelings from my son, because I know they aren’t helpful. He feels bad enough after a bad game. He certainly doesn’t need to his mom to feel bad, too.

But last night I struggled, teetering on the edge of Bad Momdom. My son’s team got beat really badly in a dragged-out game. They gave up a healthy lead in the last two innings, completely falling apart; their third loss in a row, and this mom felt like crap all evening. It was low-grade crappy feeling, but crappy nonetheless.

I tried super hard not to let it show. I said lots of upbeat things about “bad luck” and the “damned heat.” I remarked on his good plays. Lots of versions of “tomorrow’s another day.”

Yet, inside, I still feel, well, disappointed. Bummed. I was even embarrassed when a couple of neighbors asked later how the game had gone. Try as I might, I’m sure my son picked up on this. I was a little testy all night. Bad mommy.

Do any of you know this place?

I sincerely believe that us parents, we really need to get over it, and not hinge our emotions on the sports wins and losses of our kids. All this does is pressure them to perform for us—on top of all they’re learning about their game and team play.

I know there are really Bad Moms and Dads out there who get so emotionally invested in their kids’ sports that they start fistfights at games, or worse. Spit on refs. Throw tantrums. I read these stories with horror, and pity their kids. But hey, I woke this morning feeling guilty about my own self-indulgence last night; vowing to adjust my attitude for the rest of the season. I hope I can.

May 5, 2009

"The Soloist," schizophrenia, and my family

On Friday night, I took my 11-year-old son to see The Soloist, the new film starring Robert Downey Jr. as Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez who befriends a homeless, schizophrenic man named Nathanial Ayers (played by Jamie Foxx), who also happens to be a gifted Julliard-trained classical musician.

Some might question my maternal judgment in taking an 11-year-old boy to see a movie that deals with such adult topics as homelessness, poverty, street life, and mental illness.


I had my reasons, and not just because, at his age, he wants to experience thought-provoking works of art and entertainment. I figured he might want to see a movie that tries to honestly depict mental illness.

That’s because he and I live with someone who has schizophrenia.

That someone would be his father and my husband.

My husband of 18 years has given me permission to disclose information about his illness in this blog. He’s at a point in his life when he wants to become more public about himself, his struggles and his successes with living with his illness. He wants to help the public better understand a disease that afflicts about 1 percent of the population, or 2.2 million Americans.

My husband has what’s more specifically called schizoaffective disorder. In simple terms, schizoaffective disorder is a combination of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. He hears voices and experiences delusions and paranoia—the disorders of thought—that are typical of schizophrenia. He also suffers the mania and severe depression and anxiety—the disorders of mood—that come with bipolar disorder. In his form of bipolar, he has more of the depression and less of the mania.

He has been dealing with these symptoms in one form or another most of his life—since early childhood, as he has come to recognize. Mental health experts talk about schizophrenia and bipolar striking people in their late teens and twenties. But more and more, these experts are learning that the onset of these symptoms can begin much earlier. Young kids, or kids in early adolescence, may not be ready to understand that the strange things going on inside their heads mean they need help. They also don’t have the language to explain it. Kids, starting in pre-teens, also are so eager to fit in and be “normal” that they might not be willing to reveal private thoughts that would label them as anything but “normal.”

In support groups I attended, sponsored by the Contra Costa chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, I heard parents talk about how they knew that their children—later diagnosed with serious illnesses—were “different,” even at a young age. One mom, whose now adult son was in and out of hospitals with bipolar disorder, said she knew something was different about her son when he was an infant. She said the way he cried was much more “intense” than her other kids.

My husband knew he was pretty sick by his early teens.

But he kept it to himself. Even at 12, 13, he was perfectly aware what was going on, and could express it. But he didn’t seek help. Why? When he was growing up in the ‘70s and ‘80s, the medical and mental health community was still very much in the dark about how to deal with people who hear voices. He had an aunt with schizophrenia who was locked up the rest of her life in a mental hospital (Yes, these illnesses do run in families).

My husband was terrified of suffering the same fate.

I recently read an amazing book, The Center Cannot Hold: My Journey Through Madness. This 2007 book is a beautifully written memoir of suffering from and learning to live with schizophrenia. The author is Elyn Saks, a Yale- and Oxford-educated professor of law, psychology, and psychiatry and the behavioral sciences at the University of Southern California. She describes how, in the ‘70s and ‘80s, in between studying philosophy and law at top international universities, she was locked up in hospitals, restrained, straight-jacketed, misdiagnosed, and under-treated.

It wasn’t until the ‘90s that she started to 1) accept that she had an illness that required medication and 2) much more effective medication came along to treat psychosis.

There are some key things I learned from this book, and which my husband affirms from his own experience.

--Even with medication, the voices don’t always go away. Also, Saks effectively describes the experience of “voices.” She says in every waking moment, we all have sights, sounds, smells, and sensations vying for our attention, but the brains of non-ill people have “regulators” that help them decide what to focus their attention on. For mentally ill people, that “regulator that funnels certain information and filters out other information” suddenly shuts off. “Immediately, every sight, every sound, every smell coming at you carries equal weight; every thought, feeling, memory and idea presents itself to you with an equally strong and demanding intensity.” You live with a constant din, like being in a room with the TV, stereo, and a video game turned up full blast. Add a group of crying children to the mix.

--With my husband, he hears voices that are not “real,” but that—in his head—sound very real. My husband said his voices constantly told him cruel and abusive things like “you are a piece of shit. You should never have been born.”

When we started going out and when we were first married, I didn’t know what my husband was dealing with. He didn’t tell me, perhaps out of shame, but also thinking, correctly, that I wouldn’t “get it.”

He only told me about bouts of depression. My attitude then was “just snap out of it,” “adjust your attitude.” Why should he be depressed, I wondered, if he has such a great wife, a good career, and good friends?

I was very ignorant then. When it comes to mental illness, most of us just don’t get it. Why should we, if we ourselves have never had minds and bodies overtaken by the sound of these voices? If we’ve never been given basic health information about what mental illness is about? That it is ultimately a physical, biological illness—like diabetes or heart disease. That is has nothing to do with someone having a weak or low moral character. On the contrary, at least with my husband, he is one of the strongest people I know.

For us, it all came crashing down for us in 2001, and that's when I started to learn how sick my husband was. Up until then, he had maintained this façade of happiness and success. But he had reached a point in his life and in his illness when he couldn’t hold it together. Our son was two, turning three. My husband started to wake up every morning thinking, “this is the day I’m going to kill himself.”

There are many complexities to this 2001 crisis, which are, yes, too complex to go into right now. Simple version: there was a breakdown, two hospitalizations, an incarceration, and consultations with a series of mental health experts—psychoanalysts, psychologists, psychiatrists, marriage and family counselors, researchers at Stanford University. This process, and his current psychiatrist, led him to his current diagnosis, his course of treatment, and his “cocktail” of medications, some of which I don’t think were available 10 years ago.

One point that Saks accurately makes, which was the case with my husband: “A common misunderstanding is that people with schizophrenia are wildly psychotic all the time. Most, like myself, are not. When I am symptomatic, I suffer from delusions and hallucinations, and my thinking becomes confused and disorganized.”

The psychosis can float in and out, unexpectedly, even at different points in the day. The fact that psychosis is not constant means that some people can seem to function quite well and at high levels at school, work, and in personal relationships—like Elyn Saks or my husband.
And like Saks, my husband was very determined to accomplish certain things in life. He did well in school and in college, where we met. He studied at a top US university and had professors who wanted him to stay in school and earn a PhD in his field.

But he had other ideas. He wanted to travel, live overseas, see the world. He also wanted to do community service, and he wanted to fall in love, get married, become a father.

So, he worked hard to keep his voices in check, his outer mask of mental wellness on display. Maintaining that façade of sanity was pretty exhausting, but he had to do it, he says, because “I don’t like to lose.”

The cocktail of medications he now takes allows him to function pretty well—with some irksome side effects (fatigue, weight gain, shakes in his hands). Still, I am lucky that he is one of those people with mental illness who is able to comprehend that he is sick—many are not able to make this connection—and that he wants to do what’s necessary to stay as well as possible, for as long as possible.

He now works in a pretty demanding job. Actually, it’s a job that a lot of us would find stressful and exhausting, because he has to deal with big egos and works a lot of hours. He’s able to manage, he jokes, because he’s so medicated. His bosses know about his illness. They are pretty progressive in this regard.

So, he’s dealt with some pretty horrific things throughout his life. At the same time, he is a wonderful, loving man, with a lot of friends and family who helped us out when things got bad. It was a shock to everyone who knew him to learn he had been struggling much of his life with such private turmoil.

Seeing The Soloist on Friday prompted a family discussion on Saturday. My husband didn’t accompany us to the movie. He rarely goes to see movies these days, he says, because they make him psychotic.

But he was happy to hear what we had to say about the film. One thing, he immediately said is that my son has scolded him for referring to himself as “crazy.” My son doesn’t mind if his father talks openly about having a mental illness, but believes that his dad referring to himself as “crazy” is demeaning, and my son doesn’t like his dad putting himself down.

(I asked my son if he minded me having this blog, Crazy in Suburbia, or referring to myself as “crazy” Soccer Mom. No, he said, with a shrug and a smile. Even at 11, he understands that my “crazy” moniker is my own silliness, though, yes, I’ve got my issues. Ultimately, my son is able to distinguish between his mom’s brand of craziness and what’s going on with his father, which is very real and very serious. )

We told my husband about the need of Jamie Foxx’s character, Nathanial Ayers, to live outside on the streets, and to play his music amidst the noise of the city and of traffic. As he gets to know Ayers and to understand schizophrenia, Downey’s Lopez learns why Ayers needs to be outside. The city noise drowns out the much more troubling and scattered cacophony of voices inside Ayers’ own head. My husband said, yes, that’s the way it can be. The voices can be multi-layered, relentless, contradictory, and confusing. It’s not like the sound loop of thoughts that non-ill people have playing in our heads throughout the day.

My husband also understood Ayers’ need to constantly play music. My husband played French horn in high school, and he said playing music quieted his voices. He also said that he didn’t hear voices when he played tennis or read. So, growing up, he played a lot of music, did a lot of reading, and played a lot of tennis.


I told my husband how the film also shows Ayers, in flashback as a boy, beginning to withdraw into his music—as the illness and the voices begin to descend upon him.

Some critics have poked at The Soloist for not having a more “dramatic” or “uplifting” resolution. I think they were looking for Downey’s columnist character to get Ayers into treatment, where Ayers would “see the light,” start taking meds, resume his professional music career, and have a stellar debut at Carnegie Hall. Or some such nonsense.

I loved how the film showed that there is no cure—no easy resolution—when you’re dealing with something like schizophrenia. I found the delicate and unconventional connection made between these two men to be truthful, and therefore dramatic and uplifting. No, Foxx’s Ayers does not become cured. He doesn’t even accept that he has schizophrenia and start taking medication. But he makes a friend, reconnects with his sister, and continues to play his music, privately and on his own terms.

Saks points out the long list of people with mood disorders, such as depression or bipolar, who have led full and famously productive lives: Writers, artists, even historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln.

Unfortunately, there is no such list for people with schizophrenia. Saks says few people with schizophrenia lead happy and productive lives, or “those who do aren’t in a hurry to tell the world about themselves.”

My husband sometimes mentions various statistics, not to scare me, but to keep it real between us: such as about how half of people with this illness can’t live or function independently, and suicide is the leading cause of death. He also tells me that, all of a sudden and without warning, his meds could stop working, and he could wake up one morning with full blown psychosis. And not know where he is, who he is, who we are. That happened with a woman he met in a support group he attended.

But he’s pretty happy with his meds right now, feel that they are doing what they need to do, and more and more he shares things with me about what it was like for him growing up, what it is like for him now. Most of all, he feels immense gratitude: for being sane. For being in the place in life he is now. That’s my dramatic, uplifting ending to this story. For now anyway.

To be continued ...

For more information about mental illness and schizophrenia, visit:

April 16, 2009

Am I an addict mom--to blogging and the Internet, I mean?

Am I am addict? Let me count the ways...

But the question before us are my blogging habits, and my need to be connected and tapped into current news, events, ideas, etc.

And this question came up when another Crazy friend (a mom who lives WOC-West of the Caldecott), passed along this story about...


I'd heard about Internet addiction before, but always assumed it was something limited to socially challenged guys who played too much World of Warcraft. Now it seemed my Internet "habit" was slowly but surely crossing the line. Sometimes I found myself up into the wee hours of the morning, surfing the Web while my family slept. I read the news, kept up with friends, and looked up answers to endless questions. I wrote my personal blog and read dozens of others, just for something to do.


>>Expert being quoted alert!>> It turns out I'm not the only mama who plugs in and zones out. Coleen Moore, coordinator of resource development at the Illinois Institute for Addiction Recovery in Peoria, says that she's seeing more and more women coming in for Internet addiction. They're young, they're often new mothers, and they're addicted to blogs, message boards, and Second Life, she says.


These moms are contributing to a growing global addiction. There's a movement
among psychiatrists to recognize
Internet addiction as an official mental disorder (just like alcohol dependency).

(Oh, dear! Not internet addiction, too! )


>>Study/authoritative statistics alert! >> And a recent Stanford University national survey found that 14 percent of Internet users find it hard to stay away from it for several days at a time (No kidding!); 9 percent try to hide their "nonessential Internet use" from their loved ones; 8 percent admit they use the Web as a way to escape problems.
You're likely not the kind of addict that Moore has seen -- women who don't bathe and abuse drugs to help them stay "up" for more online time. You may have noticed, though, that going online has become an imposing part of your life, which, at the least, means a load or two of laundry goes unwashed (and who cares
about that?).
(Yeah, who cares about that?)

But it may also mean you're missing out on time with your baby-- something you probably do care about. Here, why we're so susceptible as new moms to that blue glow of the screen.

Well, maybe I've got a bit of a problem. I mean, when I should be paying close attention to the performances of the contestants on American Idol and to the astute comments by Simon, Paula, Randy, and Kara, I've got my laptop popped open, and I'm checking breaking news on my Twitter accont.

And, just last weekend, my husband and I were both ailing from that crud of a cold that's going around. We had big noble plans and/or invites for the weekend: A museum trip to San Francisco on Saturday, a family picnic in some beautiful, scenic Bay Area location Sunday. Did we make it? No. We needed to be lumps, sitting or lying around on the couch or in bed. Were we disappointed? Well, my husband was bummed about being sick, while I felt kinda sorta bad about not spending time with my siblings and nieces and nephew.


On the other hand.... I had my laptop, and my wireless connection. As I confessed to my husband, I could spend much of the weekend on my laptop, searching, digging, writing, posting. I was, however, able to break away from my laptop for long enough to watch a movie with my son (and not be online at the same time), to go for a walk with him around our 'hood, go to the grocery store, and make some stir-fry dinner. So, I am able to fulfill my other responsibilities in my life, and I do them--okay, not as thoroughly as I could. After all, there the garage that needs a major cleaning, and the voicemail on our phone that needs reprogramming, and a part of our yard that needs weeding....
I'd rather be on my laptop...So, maybe I should be saying, "Hi, I'm Soccer Mom, and I'm a blog-o-holic."

But 12-stepping my way out of this 24/7 connection to a constant stream--or tsunami--of information? I don't know. I've found my calling, and I feel it more strongly at this point in my life than ever before. I've been a writer and journalist for a while. Not the most lucrative profession, especially these days. But I can't help it. I'm curious. I love nosing around, digging, telling stories, giving voice to situations in the community that others might have noticed and feel strongly about. I've done my writing in a variety of media. Now I have this blog, and I feel even more alive with my calling then ever before.

12-stepping my way of this "addiction"? No thanks, I'm not ready.

February 28, 2009

An Anthem for All Us Moms on the Verge

Crazy in Suburbia regular reader "David" passed this along, saying it made him think of me. Am I that wacked out? Yeah, I guess I am. Anyway, "David," I love it. It's genius, and I think it's a song a lot of my other mom readers could identify with.

Thanks "David" for thinking of me and all us ladies out here.

January 2, 2009

Sara Jane Moore: the Link between this Danville Mom on the Verge and Wanna-be Presidential Assassin to the Patty Hearst Kidnapping

A while back the Mayor of Claycord uncovered an interesting story about the notorious radical terrorist group, the Symbionese Liberation Army—how, in their early days, the group was headquartered in Concord. Between 1973 and 1975, the SLA—“a self-styled urban guerilla warfare group,” as described by Wikipedia—committed bank robberies, two murders, and, most famously, the kidnapping of newspaper heiress Patricia Hearst in February 1974.


As they often say, it’s a small world, especially in the East Bay suburbs and especially when we’re dealing with famous local criminals and their acts. A new book uncovers another intriguing SLA/Patty Hearst kidnapping link to the East Bay suburbs—specifically in the form of Sara Jane Moore, the middle-aged Danville housewife and mom who, in September 1975, tried to assassinate President Gerald Ford.



The new book is a biography of Moore, who a year ago was paroled from the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, where she had been serving a life sentencing for taking a shot at the president outside a San Francisco hotel. The new book is called Taking Aim at the President: The Remarkable Story of the Woman Who Shot at Gerald Ford. The author is Bay Area investigative journalist Geri Spieler, and it hits the book stores January 12.


Before I tell you about what Spieler learned about Moore’s connection to the Hearst kidnapping case, I’ll mention that Diablo magazine in September 2005 published an article by Spieler, “Don’t Blame it On Danville,” that chronicled Moore’s time in Danville, where she lived between 1967 and 1974. In that article, as in the book, Spieler explains that Moore’s decision to kill the president didn’t come from some experience in her suburban life that pushed her over the edge.

Rather, Spieler wrote, “Information that until recently had never been released—from reams of investigative reports generated in her case, as well as interviews with her former Danville neighbors—tells a somewhat different story. It becomes clear that Moore’s attempt to kill the president was just the latest outburst in a stormy life, one driven by a constant need to be the center of attention.”


Still, if you want to read about Moore’s time in Danville, you can read the Diablo magazine article or pick up Spieler’s book and read the chapter called “The Doctor’s Wife.”


Yes, Moore was married to a doctor who worked at Kaiser hospital in Walnut Creek. The couple and Moore’s young son settled into a new upscale housing development in Danville. Spieler tells how Moore had been married twice before and earlier given birth to four other children, whom she abandoned to her parents in West Virginia to raise. Now settled in Danville, Moore dressed well and attempted to fit in with the other Danville wives by using her Southern-bred charm and good manners. Ultimately, her personality and poor social skills, that haunted her throughout her life, turned off her neighbors and the other Danville moms in her son’s play group. In time, Moore’s marriage to the doctor also deteriorated and the break-up became contentious.


Meanwhile, Moore had become bored with her suburban routine and was looking for her next big project that would allow her brilliance to shine. Like a few other bored, middle-class suburbanites, Moore had become intrigued by the politics of the counter-culture movement of the 1960s and 1970s. The counter-culture movement emerged from campaigns for Civil Rights, women’s rights and gay rights, and against the Vietnam War. The Bay Area, with its Summer of Love and groups like the Oakland-based Black Panthers, was a hotbed of counter-culture agitation. In her book’s most compelling chapters, Spieler documents how all sorts of groups, some more legitimate than others, formed around the more established progressive organizations.


Some groups on the outer fringes embraced Mao-ist, Communist doctrines, hated the prevailing white-dominated establishment, and even embraced the idea that violence was necessary to shake up the status quo and usher in the revolution that would remake American society. The SLA was one such fringe group.


No, Moore didn’t join the SLA, but she jumped into the middle of the action after Patty Hearst was kidnapped. One of the SLA’s demands for Patty Hearst’s release was that her father, San Francisco Examiner publisher, William Randolph Hearst, set up a program to distribute food to the Bay Area’s poor. The program was called People In Need (PIN). Hearst set its operations up at a warehouse in San Francisco’s China basin and hired some staff. But PIN was mostly run by a motley assortment of volunteers, including militant blacks, teenagers, pensioners, hippies, graduate students professionals, society matrons, ex-cons, and even some former prison gang members.


Spieler says that Moore eagerly volunteered to become PIN’s accountant, but also pushed her way into the forefront of the organization by becoming its self-designated public information officer. She sent out press releases and "commandeered all of the press questions about the food distribution program; by doing so, she made the name of Sara Jane Moore known to most of the newspapaper reporters in the Bay Area."


She eventually caught the eye of William Randolph Hearst himself, who noticed her at work in the warehouse and summoned her for a private chat. The father, desperate to secure his daughter’s release, thought Moore might be able to get close to some of the less than savory volunteers whom, he suspected, might have contacts with the SLA.


Unbeknownst to Hearst, Moore had already attracted the attention of the FBI, who recruited her to become an informant in a similar way. As Spieler notes, the FBI had a long tradition, thanks to J. Edgar Hoover, of trying to infiltrate and destabilize organizations it deemed a threat to U.S. domestic security. The FBI’s targets included Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., anti-Vietnam War groups, and the Black Panthers.


Spieler contends that Moore, in her usual craving to be the center of attention, was flattered both by the notice of the FBI and William Randolph Hearst. She happily agreed to become a protégé of Wilbert “Popeye” Jackson, “a muscular and charismatic” ex-con and black revolutionary who had known Donald “Cinque” DeFreeze while both were serving time in San Quentin. Cinque started the SLA in 1973 after escaping from Soledad prison, where he had been serving time for armed robbery.


From Danville doctor’s wife to radical study groups held in storefronts, apartments, and church basements of then-seedy San Francisco neighborhoods. That was the path Moore was careening down. And then to wanna-be presidential assassination. Spieler explains the “duality” that emerged in Moore’s ideology and actions and that ultimately contributed to her decision to try to kill President Ford in September 1975.


“In the beginning, she idealized her FBI work and saw informing on the radical left as work for the greater good,” Spieler writes. “But the deeper she went, the more she found herself agreeing with the movement’s agendas.”


One idea that intrigued her was that violent action might be necessary for the revolution that would lead to real social change. And, most likely, with her need to be the center of attention, Moore hit on one way to become truly famous and respected by her radical compatriots: kill the president.


And, as Spieler describes in her Diablo piece, “On September 22, 1975, the 45-year-old Moore stood in a powder-blue trench coat outside San Francisco’s St. Francis Hotel and aimed a .38 at President Gerald Ford as he walked out. When she opened fire and sent a bullet whizzing past Ford’s forehead, Moore became the ninth person in history to attempt to kill a U.S. president, and proved unquestionably that she was not your typical housewife after all.”


If you want more information about Spieler, her book, or her appearances in the Bay Area visit her website at www.gerispieler.com.

December 31, 2008

Blaze that left woman seriously injured ruled “suspicious,” while she and her husband were in bankruptcy and their house was in foreclosure

Police are being tight-lipped about their investigation into what caused the December 8 explosion near downtown Pleasanton that totally destroyed an East Angela Street house and left one of its residents, a 40-year-old mother of two sons with second- and third-degree burns.

The Pleasanton Weekly reports that police will only say that the fire, which they have labeled “suspicious,” was not caused by a natural gas explosion.

Meanwhile, the Weekly has uncovered documents showing that the woman, Deonna Zuffa, and her husband, Keith Zuffa, had sold their house for $75,000 in a foreclosure sale on September 30 to Marilyn and Richard Greenberg, or the Greenberg Trust. The 2,300-square-foot home, which was built in 1996, has a market value of $940,000, the Weekly says.

Three months early, on June 2, the Zuffas filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the Weekly says, citing records from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Oakland. “The case was dismissed on Oct. 30, but it is still considered an open matter and a future court date of Feb. 9, 2009 exists, a deputy court commissioner confirmed. A notice of trustee sale was issued for the home last May 2.”

The Weekly also said that police wouldn’t comment on the relationship the Zuffas had with the Greenbergs, the new owners of their home. Police also haven’t been in touch with Deona Zuffa, who was last listed in serious, but stable condition at the St. Francis Memorial Hospital burn center in San Francisco.

Firefighters’ rescue of Deona Zuffa from her burning home was caught on video by a Contra Costa Times photographer. She was the only one at home at the time the explosion and fire broke out that morning. The flames also spread to two other homes and displaced another family.

The Zuffas’ situation prompted an outpouring of support—financial and otherwise—by the Pleasanton Middle School community, where the younger of the Zuffa’s two sons was a student. The older son attends Amador Valley High School

December 21, 2008

More than Just a Housewife: Considering the Contributions of Local Stay-at-Home Moms, Now, and in the Past



TV and movies are having fun these days examining the dark side of the America suburban dream, especially its origins in the 1950s and 1960s.
This was the era that suburban life moved into the forefront or our culture, demographically and culturally. And, shows like Mad Men and the upcoming Revolutionary Road (based on the classic Richard Yates' 1961 novel) pay particular attention to what they see as the quietly miserable lives led by suburban housewives and moms of that era.


Many of these women were bright and had been educated at top colleges but they gave up any aspirations for careers and financial independence to talk to toddlers, iron clothes, and nourish their families with well-balanced dinners (meat, potatoes, and vegetables), served promptly at 6.

It’s fashionable to feel sorry for these women or to sigh at the waste of all their potential, misdirected by societal norms into the supposedly stultifying domestic routine of caring for babies and running a home. Actually, I'm not saying that many women of that generation didn't feel miserable and frustrated. But I wonder if there is also a different, more positive way to look at the lives of women of my mother’s generation and of contemporary women, including those here in Contra Costa and my niece up in Washington state, who are staying at home to their kids. These contemporary women were not expected by society to be housewives—or in today’s parlance--to “off-ramp” and be stay-at-home moms. They have chosen it.


As I write this, a vague memory pops into my head of, when I was a girl, watching an episode of The Donna Reed Show. Remember that show? It ran from 1958 to 1966, was re-run on TV when I was growing up, and starred Academy Award-winning actress Donna Reed as the quintessential post-World War II suburban wife and mom. In one episode, which originally aired in January 1960, the host of a radio show called “Housewives Corner” pays a visit to a market in the hometown of Donna Reed’s character, Donna Stone. The condescending host begins asking the female shoppers such questions as “While baking an upside-down cake, do you recommend standing on your head?”

Ha-ha-ha. What a cutup! Donna Stone, feisty and opinionated behind her Donna Reed veneer of grace and perfect manners, takes offense and goes on the show to defend homemakers like herself as being "more than just a housewife.”

And in giving housewives, or, rather stay-at-home moms, their due, it’s not that I’ve been drinking the Dr. Laura Schlessinger Kool-Aid. I admit that listening to her show was a guilty pleasure (especially for me, given my politics) back when I was staying at home with my son, when he was between the ages of 0 and 3. Dr. Laura praised families that made it work for one parent to stay at home with the kids, instead of “farming” them out to daycare. She actually expressed views that described mothers and fathers as greedy and self-centered for sacrificing their kids’ well-being if they chose to have both parents work--either because mom wanted to feel “fulfilled” or so that the family could earn enough money to buy stuff and attain a certain sense of an affluent American life-style.

I didn’t have any Dr. Laura-esque philosophical ideas about staying home after my son was born. And I don’t intend to get into a debate right now about whether kids fare better-- psychologically, intellectually, socially--with a stay-at-home parent than with being put in daycare. Me being home: That’s just how it worked for me, my husband, and my son. It turns out that I would have been mentally and physically incapable of being away from my son for longer than a few hours. It’s not that I am this self-sacrificing Earth Mom. It’s just that, at that point in my life, I couldn’t multi-task in the way that other women can, some of whom nurture successful careers while raising kids.


Sure, it was sometimes boring to be at home with a baby and then a toddler, the routine of talking, playing, and soothing him, minute after minute, hour after hour, day after day. Sure, I felt stifled at times, that I wasn’t living up to my “potential,” that I wasn’t using my brain enough, that any future career ambitions would be permanently stalled.


But I wouldn’t trade those first three years at home with my son for anything. Being with him, the routine we did have and we did enjoy: those were magical times, among some of the best of my life. If I was suddenly given an hour to live, that time I spent with my son would rank at the top of my greatest joys and accomplishments as a human being. I would have continued doing the stay-at-home mom thing longer, had family circumstances not intervened. And, in the end, I enjoyed going back to work.


Last year, I did an interview with my mother about being a ‘50s housewife, here in Contra Costa County. It was an oral history project that I typed up, edited, and gave to my siblings and nieces and nephews for Christmas presents. My mother revealed some of her own private miseries about her life at the time, miseries that might fit into the Mad Men view of suburban housewives quietly growing crazy amid the piles of laundry, kids crying in the background, and the emotionally disengaged husband, expecting a martini and dinner when he arrives home from the office. In my mother’s case—according to her, at least—few of those miseries had to do with being a housewife and at home with three small kids. She says that being a mom was and is her greatest pride and accomplishment.


She talked about how “that’s just the way it was” for most women back then: They stayed home with the kids and ran the households. But like other housewives of the era, my mother got involved in the community once her kids began school. She joined the Diablo Valley chapter of the League of Women Voters that was getting started in the early 1950s. As a student at UC-Berkeley, she had heard that the league was a good organization for socially minded women to join. So she did.


In the 1950s and early 1960s, each member of the league was formally referred to by her husband’s name--as in Mrs. John Smith, rather than Joan Smith. But whether they were Mrs. John Smith or Joan Smith, some of these women were marvels of community organizing and political intellect, according to my mother. If you’re not familiar with the league, you should be. Then and now, the league is a grassroots organization that provides citizen education and advocacy on local, state, and national issues.The Diablo Valley chapter hosts political debates and invites speakers to talk about local issues. Most useful to me is that the league studies candidates and issues that we are asked to vote on--particularly those pesky state propositions that come up every few years and few of us have time to analyze on our own. The league recommends which way to vote and explains how it comes to its conclusions. So, the League of Women voters was, in the 1950s and now, pushing for political dialogue in our community.


Meanwhile, other 1950s and 1960s housewives were volunteering in the schools, campaigning for more parks and open space in our area, and organizing arts and cultural events. Around the time I interviewed my mother, I met another Walnut Creek woman who had been involved in a citywide movement to devote undeveloped hills and valleys around town to parks and open space. She was also instrumental in raising money to get the Lesher Center for the Arts which opened in 1990. Many would say that the arts center transformed Walnut Creek’s downtown.


What I learned from my mother and this woman is that it’s likely that those 1950s and 1960s housewives laid the foundation and set in motion the programs that raised the quality of life here in Walnut Creek and in surrounding suburbs. These days, many stay-at-home moms I know through my son’s school are former professionals who got onto the the Mommy Track and are now using their skills, which they honed in the business world, to raise money for our schools or worthy nonprofits in the area.


I have a full-time job. It’s one that I enjoy and that challenges me, but, to be honest, I often wish I could be there every day to pick up my son from school and be at home when he has a friend over. I'd love to hang out and watch his soccer practices or take him to cool places in the area and do things with him.


We women today have more choices, thanks to those feminists who challenged the status quo in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s. But we can’t have it all—no matter that line we were handed by those early, pioneering feminists. There just isn’t enough time in the day to do and have it all.



So even if we still have more choices, we still live with regrets. That’s true for me anyway. How about you?

December 18, 2008

I Woke Up This Morning Crying

This morning I dreamt I went back to the house where my husband and I lived when our son was small. It was a beautiful house with lots of glass. It sat in the woods on a hill a few miles from the Pacific Ocean. But we had to leave that house, in part because of some traumatic event in our lives that I don't want to go into now.

In this dream, which, like most dreams made little sense, I had the opportunity to stay in the house again. The family that was now living in it had offered to give it up for a week, to rent it out to me and some co-workers because we were attending a work-related conference in the town where the house is located.

I woke up in my old bedroom, but not in the bed that my husband and I had once shared. I wandered downstairs to the living room, which had other people's furniture, and around the kitchen, stocked with other people's dishes and pots and glassware. I looked out onto the deck. Different table and chairs, and, on the lawn, backing up to the forest, there was no little plastic slide and climbing set that my son, then 2, liked to play on.

Then I wandered back upstairs to the room that had been my son's. One of the remarkable things about this house was that the original owners had hired a well-known local artist to paint child-friendly murals on the walls of this bedroom. So, one wall had a portrait of a collection of smiling animals, including a big male lion. We always called him "lazy lion." Another wall was covered with a scene of a happy squirrel sitting beside a sparkling blue lake, backed by a tall, snow-covered peak. The sky above the whole scene was blue and filled with white puffy clouds.

But as I entered the bedroom, the murals were gone, painted over with yellow. It didn't look like a child's bedroom anymore but an adult guest room, with a bed covered with a silky gold and red comforter.

"No," I cried. "This isn't right. This isn't where I lived." I wandered back to my old bedroom, and then back through all the other rooms. "No, this isn't right," I kept saying. I started to sob in my dream. I felt the tears hot on my cheeks. I was feeling overwhelmed with a sense of helplessness and displacement. I told my co-workers, "We have to leave. I can't stay here. Why did I think we could?"

I woke up, and there were tears in my eyes. I had been crying silently in my sleep. The sadness in my dream held fast to my emerging wakefulness. "No, this isn't right," I kept thinking. But what wasn't right? I didn't know. I couldn't say. I looked over my clock. It was 4 a.m. The room was dark. I was warm and comfortable in my bed, but feeling cold and dispirited in my heart.

Over the past week, I've been waking with a similar, heavy feeling of sadness and weariness, of not wanting to get out of bed. I think it's a feeling of what the Germans call Weltschmerz. I actually studied German in college. People ask me why I chose German to study--if I'm of German ancestry. I'm not. I don't know why I studied German but in any event I came to appreciate the German language's capacity for coming up with these monumental words that describe in poetic, all-encompassing ways, various states of the human condition, usually states marked by often indescribable unease, pain, despair.

Weltschmerz. Literally: World pain. But more accurately, a general feeling of sadness for the sorrows of the world.

I'm sorry to write such a downer. These are the holidays. The tree is up in our living room, and my husband, son, and I had fun decorating it. There is a winter frost covering our front walkway and the windshield of my car. It feels as close to a white Christmas as you can get in the suburbs of the Bay Area.

Honestly, this is usually the happiest time of the year for me. But, of course, this year, things are different for many people. Last week, I heard that one friend got laid off from her lucrative writing job, then my husband had to lay off a valued employee at his work, and then a co-worker's mother learned she has terminal cancer. Then, this week, I learned that another friend was being laid off as of December 31.

And, it's not just economic woes that have got me down. It's all this uncertainty in our community, nation, and world, and that sense of helplessness and displacement I experienced in my dream. And, as I did in my dream, I want to keep crying, "No, this isn't right."

December 15, 2008

Is the Gilded Age Over for Some Contra Costa Housewives?


The other week I met an old high school friend at Yellow Wood Coffee and Tea in Alamo. We hadn’t seen each other in a while, and she was telling me about her success with her new home-based business. It involves direct sales of personal care products. She used to work in the corporate worked but left that world when she started to have kids.


A year or so ago, she learned about this home-based business opportunity and went for it. It was hard work at first, she says, but now she’s available when her kids come home from school, is able to set her own hours, and is earning enough to keep her family going when her husband was recently laid off from his corporate job. Fortunately, he found another job, but my friend’s dream is to one day earn enough money to let him get out of the corporate rat race himself.


One of the more interesting things she mentioned was how some other moms in her neighborhood and at her kids’ school pooh-poohed her venture into self-employment, as if it was little hobby, or as if they just didn’t understand her need to “go back to work” if her husband was providing well for her and her kids. These women were presumably living the very good life, with high-earning breadwinners of husbands, nice big houses, and no worries about plunking down big bucks at spas and at high-end boutiques on clothes and shoes. Well, things have changed for these women, my friend said. Now these women are approaching her, asking her how they might get into her line of work. It seems their fortunes have fallen. Maybe their husbands aren’t getting their big year-end bonuses. Maybe their husbands have even lost their top-earning jobs.


I was reminded of this conversation while reading “Profiles in Panic,” an article in the new January Vanity Fair:

“With Wall Street hemorrhaging jobs and assets, even many of the wealthiest players are retrenching,’ so reads its sub-head. “Hedge-fund managers try to sell their luxury homes, while trophy wives are hocking their jewelry.” The world of the “Big Rich” is “in shock,” and its values are “in question.”


The article goes on to describe how “even those with plenty to spend aren’t spending”:
“One high-end Manhattan department store reportedly had the biggest day of returns in its history the day after Lehman Brothers went down. … [Wives rushed to return their recent purchases, because they] ‘didn’t want the husbands to get the credit-card bills,’ says one fashion-world insider …


[Meanwhile] an Upper East Side woman often goes to lunch at Michael’s restaurant on West 55th Street to Manolo Blahnik a block away to pick up a $600 or $700 pair of shoes as ‘retail therapy’ No more. ‘I was at Michael’s yesterday and was thinking, Oh, Manolo’s … But then I thought, Why? It just doesn’t feel good.’ ”


Oh, poor woman! Sorry to sound snarky, but, really, I never got into “retail therapy.” Also, we’re not in the income bracket where we could ever indulge in that kind of therapy. We save our money for me to do the real kind.

“Prudence is the new watchword now,” the article goes on to say in that gilded Vanity Fair prose. “Sack-cloth after brilliant silks and brocades of the gilded age.” It also describes how Greenwich housewives are looking for bargains and even scouring newspaper ads for coupons.

What has the world come to? If the gilded age is over for the the super-rich in Manhattan and its affluent suburbs, is the gilded age also over in the affluent communities of the East Bay suburbs? Are the gilded housewives of Lamorinda, Walnut Creek, Alamo, Danville, and Blackhawk also adopting this new frugality? It could be likely, given the eagerness shown by local high-end boutiques to boast of sales and bargains. For example, Walnut Creek’s Hush boutique is putting items for sale on eBay. In a style blog mentioned on the website for Diablo magazine, Hush is auctioning off a dress, originally priced at $965, at a price starting for $475.


If I were into this kind of “retail therapy,” it sounds like a good deal to me.

December 14, 2008

What I Want For Christmas: A Sexy Dick Cheney Calendar

The publisher of Halfway to Concord recently came across a great idea for those of struggling to find a gift for that friend or relative who seems to have everything. In poking around the Republican National Committee website, the publisher came across the 2009 Official RNC Calendar ($25), which the RNC calls a ”stirring tribute to our nation’s 43rd Presidency,” and features photos of George W. in a variety of happy, friendly settings.

On the comment section for this Halfway to Concord post, I suggested that it would be cool if all the heroes of the GOP posed for a 2009 calendar.

But you know what would really get me into a frenzy of sending bucks to the RNC? A Dick Cheney calendar!

Can you imagine? Twelve or more photos of the soon-to-be-ex-president (er, vice president), also in a variety of happy, friendly settings: hunting, sitting behind his desk in the Oval Office, hanging with his neocon buddies, doing grandfatherly things with the son of his lesbian daughter. Just the thought of 12 images of Dick to carry me through 2009, after this Obama guy takes office, just, well, gets my heart pounding and a warm, tingling feeling rising up from deep inside.

True confession time: I have a big, fat, sloppy crush on Dick. I can’t explain why. It’s not like he’s going to be voted People magazine’s next Sexiest Man Alive. He’s a little too, um, mature, for this honor, and, yes, pudgy, and bald. Also, he wears glasses. Of course, his glasses could transform him into a “thinking woman’s sex symbol.” I might rate as a “thinking woman” 'cause I read books once in a while and stuff.

At any rate, I am just wild about Dick. And I’m struggling to figure out why.

No, I don’t think it’s a weird father fixation.

Okay, here’s what it could be. I think back to the 2004 presidential campaign and his debate against John Edwards, whom other women might have found hunky until it was revealed that he cheated on his cancer-stricken wife.

With regard to Dick, I remember sitting there riveted by his performance. I thought, this guy’s smart, he’s got all the answers, he’s so damned sure of himself. For example, when Edwards accused Dick of falsely suggesting a link between Iraq and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Dick replied , with perfect, silky ease: "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror."

Oh, baby!

The thing is, I find so many of the positions that Dick supports reprehensible. Evil. And that’s it! He’s a bad boy. He’s a very, very bad boy, the baddest of them all: his stealth ways of consolidating power into our nation’s executive branch, his advocacy for violating the Geneva Conventions and for inhumane methods of interrogating alleged terrorism suspects. He’s the puppet master of all puppet masters. He's our modern American Marquis de Sade.

Shh, don’t tell my husband, but I have this fantasy. It's a little twisted, but so is Dick. It is this, to be personally waterboarded by Dick Cheney. 

Oh, I’m shaking at that thought, and I don’t think I can write much more or, well, you know. I’ll just end by saying that a lot of us gals have our Bad Boy fantasies, and Dick fulfills mine. So, please, please, please, Republican National Committee: Line up a Dick Cheney calendar and I’ll be sending that $25 check.

November 29, 2008

Mom on the Verge: “I can’t talk to anyone. It’s so horrible. I’m so sad.”


These are the poignant lines uttered by a suburban mom on the verge. She’s Betty Draper, the young, blond, pretty seemingly perfect 1960 housewife in the critically acclaimed TV show Mad Men.


I woke up early this morning, couldn’t get back to sleep, so I burned through the final two episodes of the first season of Mad Men. This Thanksgiving weekend, I finally decided to get on the Mad Men TV-viewing bandwagon. There are many reasons to watch this show, but, given the title of this blog, Crazy in Suburbia, I was particularly intrigued to acquaint myself with the drama, because, among its many features, it depicts American suburban life, at that post-World War II time when the suburbs were moving to the forefront of our nation’s cultural consciousness.


Despite my Soccer Mom nom de plume and the photo of the skinny, prosperous looking blond at the top corner of this site (Yes, it’s Victoria Beckham), I’m not that woman and I'm no Betty Draper. I’m not as young as Betty, who is 28. I’m also not blond; rather I’m a wanna-be-blond, as my son teases me. In fact, after delaying my usual routine of feminine maintenance, I’ve got an appointment today to get my highlights retouched. Not sure when I’ll get around to the rest of my routine: leg waxing and pedicure. Like a lot of families these days in these tough economic times, ours is feeling a little tight on money.


Also, unlike Betty, I’m not a housewife, perfect or otherwise. I’m a working mom, and don't do housekeeping all that well.


I should despise this Betty Draper character, and I should be brimming with Schadenfreude, taking delight in her suffering. In a way, I am, I must confess, but I suspect that other fans of the show are also gaining satisfaction in learning her life ain't so great after all.
Because she seems to have much to envy, so much going for her. She comes from a well-off East Coast family, graduated from top college, and was beautiful enough, in a Grace Kelly way, to model for a while in Manhattan before meeting her Prince Charming, the handsome, successful Don Draper. She also has a natural flair for keeping her house in beautiful shape, as well as herself. She certainly doesn’t put off her feminine maintenance routine.


Actually, I see a lot of women around Walnut Creek, in my neighborhood, or at community events, who appear to also have Betty’s gift for looking good and, more than that, for looking happy.


I confess to being bitter at times that I’m not these women. I confess to feeling envy, and then spite, and of trying to convince myself that I have other qualities that make me superior to these seemingly perfect women. I know that’s not a good way to think, and, when I’m in envy mode, I despise myself so much than I could ever despise Betty Draper or the Betty Drapers of central Contra Costa County.


But as the first season of Mad Men goes on, Betty reveals an actually not-so-surprising level of depth, humanity, and misery. She’s quietly going crazy in her seemingly perfect life. She, of course, would have made a perfect case study for the groundbreaking book, The Feminine Mystique, by Betty Friedan.


Her psychiatrist--Betty Draper's, that is--labels her as highly anxious. Her husband, Don, is mystified, but then he’s off working most of the time, drinking, smoking, and having affairs.


Betty terrifies and surprises herself with sudden displays of anger. Over the past year or so, I've terrified and surprised myself in similar ways (though I've done nothing to get myself arrested for). She gets mad as hell and decides she’s not going to take it anymore. She slaps a neighbor in the grocery store who has insulted her. Then, after losing a chance to return to her modeling career part time, she takes a rifle and opens fire on pigeons belonging to her next-door neighbor, out of revenge for his threatening to shoot her children’s dog. She also takes to sipping glasses of red wine during the day (If only she'd had Trader Joe's Two-Buck Chuck around back then) and fantasizes about luring the door-to-door air-conditioning salesman into her home for a quickie.


Betty really loses it after it dawns on her that, yes, her husband isn’t the man he has always pretended to be and that he has been unfaithful to her for a long time. That’s when she suddenly breaks down in a bank parking lot on a cold November morning and confides her misery to a 9-year-old neighbor boy, with whom she has formed an unconventional, yet sympathetic bond.


Betty walks up to him as he sits in the car waiting for his mother to come out of the bank. She blurts out: “I can’t talk to anyone. It’s so horrible. I’m so sad.” Then she pleads to the boy, who, with his own dysfunctional family life, also has reasons to be sad, “Please tell me I’ll be okay.”


I don’t know about you, but I’ve had moments when I have felt just like Betty Draper. Actually, lots of moments, particularly in the past few years. When I just want to open up to someone and say, this is horrible—whatever this is. Life itself? And I just feel so sad, and I want someone to just tell me it’s going to be okay.


Yes, it’s Thanksgiving weekend, and I should not be feeling sad, but I should be feeling an overwhelming sense of gratitude for all the good things in my life.


It’s Saturday morning. When the sky became light, I could see that a thick cold gray mist lay heavy around my house and over my cul-de-sac. The mist has since lifted. The leaves on the trees outside my bedroom window are sparkling bright yellow in orange in the sun. It could be another beautiful fall day here in suburbia. I told my husband I was feeling sad, we talked, and now he’s preparing chocolate chip waffles for my son. I’ll go running and breathe in the cold, clear air.


I can't wait for Season 2 of Mad Men to come out on DVD. I missed the second season when it actually aired on AMC. I’ll have to get the DVDs and see if things start to get better for Betty Draper. I hope so.