Gilvary’s thesis was that the feminization of America has resulted in fewer men acting in stereotypical male roles. These roles are essential to our societal function.

No doubt there are certain important roles a man does fill—father, son, husband, help-mate, etc. The majority of the population still prefers heterosexual relationships. So, while I do not agree with the lamentable diminution of this monolithic creature (such as John Wayne, or the hunter-gatherer-warrior), she raises a valid point.

While we women have been wrestling with expanding the varieties of our identities, men have been discouraged from doing the same. Their roles haven’t expanded; they have shifted towards the feminine ideal. What’s wrong with boys playing with toy guns? Is it any better or worse than their playing with dolls, trucks, or Tinker Toys? I really don’t think so. They should have a choice and so should we.

Defining feminism as the political, social and economic process by which women have equity in access and earned resources in an environment free from harassment, hostility and gender stereotyping means that we have to cut the same slack for men. And for this particular author, it is the gender stereotyping in reverse that is her concern. There is room for everyone’s idea of how women and men should behave.

Having said that, the issue of women having children in the absence of a father, who is more than just a single cell donation, i.e. a sperm, is of serious concern. We might argue the social benefits of a two parent family, but it is more difficult to argue about the economic benefits of one. And, if like most women, you are heterosexual, it’s better to have a supportive male partner at you and your child’s side.

Using hyperbole and extreme examples, the author makes her point. I didn’t see any name calling or derogatory language, unless saying that Maureen Dowd “whines when she opines” counts. I don’t think it does.

And that brings me to my point (finally)—the comments to the post. They are very, very troubling. The use of vulgar language, ad femina attacks and other less than “lady-like” language is more than counter-productive. It lessens the impact of any reasonable arguments.

No, I do not agree that America is becoming overly feminized. But I do think that the discussion has become crude and rude. We don’t have to agree, but we should try to listen respectfully. After all, respect is one of the cornerstones of feminism. If you want it, you have to give it.

So whatever your particular political persuasion, make your comments without name calling and vulgar language. A point well made is far more persuasive.

You might be thinking, “On what planet has she landed this time?” Let me take a step back, so I can give you some idea of how I am going forward.

Several months ago, a random chance meeting of my partner’s husband with a branding expert (Howard Lim) resulted in me being put in touch with Howard’s wife, Kimber Lim who is known to her large cadre of friends and others as the “shamanista.” She, along with a few other west coast women, is building a community of women entrepreneurs—Transformational Women–who will collaborate and help each other realize their dreams of changing the world. Collaborative, cooperative success is the foundation upon which this vision is built.

On Kimber’s website, her intro video ends with “Today’s the day to know that you matter.” Who wouldn’t be swept along with such enthusiasm, with such a vision? I couldn’t resist, so when I was enjoined to join, I put my toe in the water, and after a little prodding and protesting, decided to take the plunge. I eventually dived in with my usual unbridled passion for this model of collaboration that I think is going to change the way we change the world.

Sound far out? It is. It took me months to get my arms, my head and my heart around it. But then, throughout my life, I have had many suggestions made to me that didn’t originate deep within (like going to Bryn Mawr College, becoming a doctor, going into academic medicine, and even becoming a litigant). But once I let these suggestions into my consciousness, they sat there and became part of my destiny. I think it is happening again.

One of the many benefits from this collaboration is getting to know Barbara Wirth. She is one of the 40 featured Transitional Women—each one an entrepreneur or a potential entrepreneur in her own right. Barbara is getting ready to launch her next career as an artist and creator of travel images, not a far leap from her successful career as an interior designer. (When she launches in a few weeks, I will let you know.)

She also has another talent. She helps people explore to find their “essence”—that one word or phrase that not just describes that person, but distills their most important, essential being. For over 90 minutes we talked without pause, as if we had known each other forever. Her “essence” is “dignitary,” which she carries with her into all the aspects of what she does and who she is. Kimber’s is “pearl.” And almost all of the other women have found theirs, too, with Barbara’s coaching.

Finally, it was my turn. How do I approach life? What is it in me that propels me along in this crazy life of mine?

At first we came upon the phrase “unbridled passion.” I have been criticized (yes, part of the gender stereotyping stuff way back in litigation land) for being too passionate, putting my all into people and things I think are important, people and things about whom I care. I wore it and then shed it after a few days and some feedback from unlikely sources. Then I was trying on “relentless crusader.” Not sure quite yet. “Sometimes it takes time, but you will know it when it comes,” says Barbara. Now it is “impassioned crusader.” Hmmm, I think we have a winner!

Okay, feedback time. For those of you who know me, either personally or through this blog, what say you? I know my “essence” has to sit in my heart and soul comfortably without the need of validation, but what’s wrong with a little give and take?

First, check out this article. The headline is the question: What is one easy way that women can earn more than men?

Answer: Don’t have kids. They repeat this over and over and over and over (and maybe even once more). Hmmm, not very encouraging. And certainly very short sighted. After all, if women don’t have kids, who will? Let’s face it, there are only a limited number of foreign adoptees we can bring over to fuel the economy of consumers that keeps us well fed and with a roof over our heads.

The second article has a bit more meat. In typical fashion, a few statistics and a few interviews/case studies are presented as it explins why there are no women on Wall Street.

The title of the article: Casualties of the Crisis: Stress, Sexism and Layoffs Thin the Ranks of Women on Wall Street. Is the “Crisis” the decline of Wall Street or the lack of women there, or both?

Answer: Both. Change a few statements, a few scenarios, and a very few statistics and have a ready-made, more or less accurate, on-line version describing most American workplaces.

What can we learn from our sisters on Wall Street? This article would be ho-hum, heard this all before, except for eight of the most ridiculous reasons I have heard to date. You tell me if this sounds all too familiar or just internet fluff and filler.

1. Women bore the brunt of the layoffs even before the market down turn. Reason: Technology. Women were replaced by computers. Hmmm. Is this true only on Wall Street? I don’t think so.

2. Wall Street has too much scandal and the delicate sensibilities of women drove them away. That’s a really hard one to buy.

3. Finance is scary, less predictable and less exciting. Women got scared. (Sounds to me like the reason women are steered away from surgery—we are too delicate and might faint at the sight of blood).

4. There is a seamy side to finance. Women are more scrupulous than men. Then how come the Queen of Mean, Leona Helmsley and Martha Stewart, big, bad inside trader, both spent time in prison for their scruples?

5. It’s too gut wrenching. Teaching might be easier. One example was given. Must be a trend. Where are the stats?

6. Women are becoming entrepreneurs. Maybe true. But I remember the college grad last year who told me she wanted to be a trader but was told by the company that she had to be in operations. (And how much less scary is the uncertainty of entrepreneurship than finance, huh?)

7. Women have a work-life balance problem. I have already said enough about that, but apparently the solutions for this haven’t yet hit Wall Street.

8. Subtle sexism still exists. Really? Could have fooled me. Going out for drinks, smoking cigars, talking about the sports teams, and having company sponsored dinners at steak houses where only a man could down a 16 ounce portion of beef overflowing the already over-sized plate. No where a salad in sight. And let’s not forget to mention the golf links linked to the bonus bonanza.

But one good piece of news, if you landed on Wall Street in the 70’s you are likely to still be there. How well you are doing, well that is another matter.

So, ladies, it’s time to have a good laugh. And fear not, into whichever ring you throw your hat, you will be relegated to less pay, lower positions, and plenty of not-so-subtle exclusion from the insiders who rule the roost (unless you choose to remain childless and then you might make 8-21% more than that man). Sound like a good deal?

Maybe Wall Street would not be in such dire financial straits if women ruled the roost. Now that idea would really make a good article. Any takers?

This week an article was sent to me by five loyal readers and colleagues. It’s title, “Gender Differences in Leadership Amongst First Year Medical Students in a Small Group Setting,” at first made me chuckle (okay, laugh out loud was more like it). And then it made me roll my eyes.

Why? Because, I thought, how much more circumscribed does the study question have to get before we have said enough about this topic? We need not just information but interventions that will work to change the imbalance in the opportunities available to women in all medical settings.

Well, given all the effort everyone put forth to send me this article, I sighed and then I actually read it. Merely minutes into the text, my heart started to race and I began to see a small glimmer of evidence that insight and information were going to be supplemented with action. Hooray!

This study, published this week in Academic Medicine, is very well designed. It had a control (non-interventional arm) and an interventional arm. The study was preformed twice, during two different academic years, and so the validity of its findings is strong.

These researchers gave basic instructions (control arm) about how the small groups were to form, each group having leaders and non-leaders. In the interventional arm the same basic instructions were supplemented with a “pep talk” about how important leadership experience was in a “safe” environment.

What happened? With this small “pep talk,” women stepped up to the plate and served in leadership roles at the same rate as the men. Without this “pep talk” gender “bias” occurred and women were significantly absent from leadership. (Their use of the word “bias” troubles me a tad except if they mean in this case, “pre-disposition”.)

I was astounded. How could such a simple intervention be so extraordinarily powerful? A little “pep talk,” a reminder that “yeah, ladies, you can (and must) do it, too.” It was subtle but profoundly important. Except perhaps it was the reassurance of the “safe” place that hit the home run for some.

So, like all good research, more questions remain than are answered. Here are but a few of the thoughts swirling around in my brain just ready to burst into the blogosphere.

Do women have to be reminded (and implicitly encouraged) that they can do it and, more importantly, that they need to do it? Why? Have men been primed at an early age to see leadership as necessary for advancement?

Are the structures governing the House of Medicine as yet untried, strange or uncomfortable for women? Do women need a safe place to try out their skills? Research shows that women have different leadership styles and groups of women govern themselves differently than groups of men. If the structure of the small group relied more on a male model than a female model, women might be unfamiliar, uncomfortable and hesitant, unless encouraged. Eventually, for some, the competitive spirit that got them into medical school in the first place was roused by a small reminder (a nudge) that assuming leadership roles is important (implicitly for their advancement). Competition to rise to the top trumps their inexperience or discomfort with this model of group dynamics.

Clearly “pep talks” are not enough to change the status quo in its entirety. And clearly both the individual and the institutions need to take action. So what are the actions, both large and small, that will result in change? This question is key to breaking through barriers, cracking the glass ceiling, navigating the labyrinth, and marching from understanding to action. Let’s expedite the inevitable. Women are not lacking the skills, the strength or the savvy. It behooves us to find all the ways, both large and small, that will lead to a not so distant future where gender bias is moot for women in medicine to the benefit of all who need their care.

The following post was an email sent to me by my mother-in-law, Joan Greenfield. She is politically involved, an artist, a mother, a grandmother, and for nearly 60 years a wife. She sends me some of the best emails on the subject of women in their different roles. This one I think should be shared everyone. I do not know the author, so if anyone does, please share it with all of us!

The email was entitled: Were They Insane and Are They Still That Way?

Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity.

This is the story of our mothers and grandmothers who lived only 90 years ago.

Remember, it was not until 1920 that women were granted the rights to go to the polls and to vote.


These women were innocent and defenseless, but none the less they were jailed for picketing the White House, carrying signs asking for the vote. And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden’s blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of ‘obstructing sidewalk traffic.’

Lucy Burns

They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air.

Dora Lewis

They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack. Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.

Thus unfolded the ‘Night of Terror’ on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson’s White House for the right to vote. For weeks, the women’s only water came from an open pail. Their food–all of it colorless slop–was infested with worms.

Alice Paul

When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.

So, refresh my memory. Some women won’t vote this year because—why exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn’t matter? It’s raining?

Mrs. Pauline Adams in the prison garb she wore while serving a sixty-day sentence.

Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO’s new movie ‘Iron Jawed Angels.’ It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. I am ashamed to say I needed the reminder.

Miss Edith Ainge, of Jamestown , New York

All these years later, voter registration is still my passion. But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes it was inconvenient.

Berthe Arnold, CSU graduate

My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women’s history, saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry. She was–with herself. ‘One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie,’ she said.

‘What would those women think of the way I use, or don’t use, my right to vote? All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn.’ The right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her ‘all over again.’ HBO released the movie on video and DVD . I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum. I want it shown on Bunco night, too, and anywhere else women gather. I realize this isn’t our usual idea of socializing, but we are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think a little shock therapy is in order.

Conferring over ratification [of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution] at [National Woman's Party] headquarters, Jackson Pl [ace] [ Washington , D.C. ]. L-R Mrs. Lawrence Lewis, Mrs. Abby Scott Baker, Anita Pollitzer, Alice Paul, Florence Boeckel, Mabel Vernon (standing, right)

It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn’t make her crazy.

The doctor admonished the men: ‘Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity.’ Please, if you are so inclined, pass this on to all the women you know. We need to get out and vote and use this right that was fought so hard for by these very courageous women. Whether you vote democratic, republican or independent party - remember to vote.

Helena Hill Weed, Norwalk , Conn. Serving 3 day sentence in D.C. prison for carrying banner, ‘Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.’

We are “celebrating” the 90th anniversary of women’s suffrage. We got the vote. So what? Still the lawmakers (men and women) relegate the laws regarding gender equity at a much lower level of oversight than other laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is not a fully empowered governmental oversight agency. It is but another hoop through which women, minorities and the disabled have to jump before they are allowed to exercise their right to bring their grievances before the court. Unlike other governmental agencies (e.g. FEMA, FCC, FTC, OSHA) the EEOC does not have true oversight capabilities to enforce these laws.

Meanwhile, it is just about 20 months since President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. This act only brought us back to where we were before the misguided Supreme Court decision. Now there is the Paycheck Fairness Act which has been before a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party for a long, long time. It has not yet passed.

The clarion call to action: “Don’t let Women’s Equality Day (Thursday, Aug. 26), pass you by without taking action to demand the next step in gender equity,” say the women from the AAUW. The “next step” is passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Is this really the next step in gender equity? Maybe from a legal point of view it is another step leading to additional venues for litigation. But is litigation the best or even a desirable way to optimize the productivity and lives of everyone in society? Litigation does not optimize anything but the system it creates. It is a radical and all too often hurtful step, that is, for the litigant.

No, change is not a linear process. The road to gender equity is a multi-faceted process. And a multi-faceted process requires a multi-pronged approach. And for a multi-pronged approach we need cooperation, collaboration and partnership, one with the other, not only women with women.

We all need to embrace a new paradigm. A paradigm shift can drive change in the culture, change which is both good business and good social policy. First, recognize that work and life are not dichotomous spheres. Life/work balance causes conflict as one pulls at the other. Life/work integration has the opposite effect. One enhances the other so that both are optimized.

So you think I have lost my mind? Not quite. Juggling and balancing are tough to do and take a lot of extra energy. Energy we don’t really have. But integration, cooperation and collaboration are self-sustaining actions. Each one brings energy to the other. Just ask anyone who has served on a well functioning team that sets goals and meets them.

So the short answer to the “next step” in gender equity is that workers and employers need to find a better way to help all workers adapt to the workplace and the workplace adapt to the new expectations we all have for a better life. Certainly a life that is best spent outside the courtroom.

The Ladies of the Court have reconvened. We are bigger and better than ever. New faces, new friends, and new fodder for fierce competition or friendly play. What’s not new is the great job performed by the “Queen of Matakesett Tennis,” Iremla Fitzgerald. She and George, the tennis pro, take such good care making sure everyone has people to play, everyday.

But what really makes this group so great is that we talk to each other—before matches, between games, and when switching sides as we wipe off the sweat and quench our thirst. Catching up on careers (varied as are our hometowns and ages), kids/grandkids, and the challenges of life is almost as therapeutic as whacking that tennis ball back at your opponent (and winning that critical point).

Therapy is free as we help solve each other’s problems. One regular, a long-time Vineyarder, mentioned she was having trouble telling her winter league tennis partner she wanted to move on to another partner, to another level of play. Devoting more time to her game than her friend from early childhood had made the match uneven. Non-confrontational, she was agonizing over the time when she would inevitably have to share with her friend her plans to find a new partner. After teasing out her feelings and the facts, we all helped her to formulate (and then practice) the words which she could feel most comfortable with while making this transition but not damaging the friendship. (I really think men do not agonize over these things the way we do!) Mission was accomplished; bruises are minimal, at least at last report.

So last Friday, 16 of us played a two hour round robin. Much fun! This year I (thankfully) placed somewhere in the middle of the group (I am improving after all those lessons, finally.) But the real fun began after the tournament was over. Under the pergola (which acted like a wind tunnel, but served the purpose of keeping the hot almost noon sun from beating down on our already sweated brows), a brunch feast was set out, each one of us having made a small contribution. Cheeses from France by Francine and her daughter Katherine. Fresh red and green peppers adorned the caponata provided by our nutrition and health expert, Nancy Javaras. It was as beautiful as it was delicious. Delicious quiche from Morning Glory Farms from Susan, and, of course, let’s not forget the champagne provided by Nan Tull (and others? Forgive me if I didn’t get that credit exactly right—leave a comment, please).

Flowers, wine and a beautiful necklace were the group’s gifts to Irmela. As usual, she acted surprised (as she has for at least the past 5 years), and overwhelmingly pleased. Her usual bright smile was bigger and brighter than ever.

As we posed for the annual picture, I could not help think about how much more than tennis is played out on these courts. Deb started mentoring Amanda, both interested in fashion design and marketing. Dana and I talked to Susan’s daughter Haley about becoming a doctor. Felice keeps us limber (and yes, sometimes sore) with her early morning yoga classes. And Nancy keeps us up to date with the newest (pharmaceutical grade) supplements she so graciously provides as gifts for the winners. We have expanded and have quite a reputation now.

I could go on and on. But it’s time to put on my tennis shoes and go out and enjoy our little group—the “Ladies of the Court.”

Resolutions offered to women physicians in response to these deadly experiences are entirely inadequate; the real problems never discussed. We cannot accept cookie-cutter solutions—mentoring, maternity leave, part time work, and the like. These do not get to the heart of the matter, which is to give women same resources and access to the full range of experiences so she can fill her role to the highest level.

We women have to understand our own particular needs and our own specific situations. This requires time and effort to sort out needs and desires, strengths and weaknesses. Self-exploration is never easy. Many voices, not our own, bear down upon us heavily, and steer our expectations and choices away from rightful and full participation. Many of us need and seek help. Surgeons in particular don’t like to admit this, and seeking help is not their strength.

Conflicting messages from cultural cues and our inner psyche confound the situation. Dedicated doctors, willing wives, steadfast friends, loving daughters, and ever-present mothers—these are images and expectations that are often portrayed as mutually exclusive. The popular phrase, “You can have it all, but not all at once,” guides us into greater conflict with ourselves. Its message is one I reject, because it is just not true.

Integrate all these aspects of one’s life. Fragmentation of work-life is unproductive and produces conflict. Conflict which can lead to depression and suicide. Many conflicts are within the culture of medicine and we are led to believe are beyond our control. Not true. It is tough to change a lousy environment. Meanwhile, deprive those places of your skills and find a gender friendly workplace—a workplace which allows everyone to reach their best potential.

Carefully research the “gender friendliness” of any environment that you are considering no matter how much time you spend there: undergraduate school, medical school, residency training and your eventual place of work. If there are even hints of steadfast hierarchical structures, limitation of opportunities, hostility or harassment, stay away. As far away as you possibly can.

Get help. (Sound like a recurring theme?) Colleagues, friends, family, role models, attorneys, and mentors may at times play different roles in allowing you to work out your own unique “plan of action” and “place of refuge” for your life as a doctor/mother/wife/friend/daughter/self-promoter, etc. Women physicians are often lauded as “super-women.” This is to their great disadvantage. Many believe that they don’t need support or help. That’s just not true.

Never devalue yourself to anyone or in any situation. Do not accept less than your worth, which is quite a lot. Pursue private practice with a non-traditional schedule, but don’t forego any chance of partnership. Insist on claiming your stake and share in the practice. In academics, the environment should mold to your needs so you move up the ladder at the right pace.

Make sure you have all the other wonderful things life has to offer, such as family and friends and time to refresh yourself. It takes work and planning, but it is attainable, and will make you healthier and hopefully less vulnerable.

And if you have a family or personal history of depression, find a good psychiatrist and take medications if recommended. We are lucky to live in an era where medical therapy is available. When combined with behavioral/cognitive therapy, life is safer for those at risk. Keep yourself in good health so that illness does not sap your physical or emotional energy.

Suicide is a terrible tragedy. And when it happens to be one of my colleagues, someone who has devoted her energies to taking care of others, I can only think, “What could we have done?” So if you’re already a doctor or want to become one, beware of this additional risk so you can take every precaution to avoid such a hopeless outcome.

Becoming a doctor is very difficult no matter if you are a man or a woman. You must climb a series of scientific and emotional mountains. You must care about the needs of others over your own, even when you are tired, hungry or have other worries in your life. And above all, you must sustain an incredibly high level of self-confidence and internalize the value of health and healing you are going to bring to the lives of others.

For women, the lack of self-confidence and failure of internalization of one’s own value often erode during the long haul through the years of schooling, training, and then practice. Certainly we have no shortage of self-confidence and self-worth as we start out on this path. And physically women physicians take good care of themselves. They exercise more, eat healthier foods, and have healthier behaviors than the average woman. And yet, compared to women in the general population, they are more likely to become depressed and commit suicide. What happens on the way?

The two most common reasons are heavy work-life burdens and gender bias. Add these to the usual stressors of being a physician and one could readily see a recipe for disaster. And while these two very broad categories might seem to cover the gamut of possibilities, there are other, additional conflicts, which lay deep and simmer only to be brought to the surface with the ongoing subliminal and open abuse women physicians receive from both internal and external sources.

Gender bias in medicine has not gone away. That’s the bad news. The good news is that women are no longer accepting the usual anti-dotes. Sensitivity and/or cultural diversity training has been found to have no positive, and perhaps even a negative effect. Going through a pregnancy and even with a generous maternity leave (and even paternity leave) does not alleviate the gender stereotyping that erodes our confidence, not to mention our position in the rigid medical heirarchy. Working “part time” all too often comes with additional sacrifices that are way out of proportion to the hours and effort expended. The list could go on, but you get the gist.

So what could physicians do to dampen the effects that could lead to such a tragic outcome? Know your own personal risk factors such as family history and personal medical history. Know your own demons and conflicts. Know what gender bias looks like. Know what a toxic environment looks like.
Stay tuned for details.

But, as the old saying goes, the only constant thing in life is change. So we knew that new arrangements would have to be made as Aline started to feel the additional stress of our third child and the ever increasing schlepping needs of the older two. Robin was going off to another phase in her life after the University.

Without agencies that helped find household help, I was set adrift. First the local Bees—Tonawanda, Amherst, Cheektowaga. Mistake #1. Gave phone number for response. Lots of calls, but mostly teens looking for a babysitting job. Never mind the first line—“full time/live in five days/week.”

Next strategy: advertisement in both The Buffalo News and the Bees. This time we asked for a letter of interest and a resume sent to a post-office box. We received dozens of responses, many still inappropriate, but a few worthwhile. Less stressful than my previous experience.

I did the calling and screened several on the phone. A few we interviewed in person. I was getting discouraged. We went back over the pile. We thought of running additional ads. Time was getting short. I was getting anxious.

When we first saw Sonia’s letter and resume, I was unsure. Her work history and trajectory seemed odd. But Saul reminded me there was no harm in having an interview. She had been a factory worker, midnight shift, for most of her recent working life. The factory closed and when she was laid off, she took advantage of a government re-training program. She got her associate’s degree in food management and child care. As we later found out, having raised 5 kids herself, she could have taught the courses in how to raise healthy, productive kids, run a busy household and cook up a kosher storm.

At our first meeting, Sonia was very nervous. She really wanted and needed a job. I was still unsure. But Saul thought she would be good and said we should give her a chance. He saw the spark of someone special that was hidden from me by my own worries. After all, I was in charge of the training and overseeing the household chores. Teaching about keeping a kosher kitchen and a Jewish home is always challenging. (BTW, if you are worried about an unequal balance in our division of labor, don’t. Saul has responsibility for all the maintenance, planning of travel, worrying about everything big and small and other things I don’t do too well.)

The kids also liked her from the start. Kind and thoughtful, Sonia has the uncanny ability to remember everyone’s little idiosyncrasies. And generous in spirit, she usually overlooks each one’s annoying quirks.

She made my job easy. Readily taking suggestions and diplomatically making suggestions (often to forestall calamities in the making) were no problem. My comfort level rose quickly.

Sonia became part of our family 19 years ago. She just celebrated her 70th birthday with her family and her friends and with us. She wants to work for as long as we will have her. And that will be for as long as she wants to be part of our family. The kids are now all grown, but still they call and talk to Sonia even when (or because?) they know she is always around; she is also a great, non-judgmental listener.

Everyone who meets Sonia loves Sonia. Especially me and my family who are so lucky to have such a wonderful family care giver in our lives. Forever.