Archive for the ‘home’ Category

‘i want my mommy!’

Monday, October 27th, 2008

Normally, this phrase is a desperate cry, often through tears, in times of frustration, sadness, fear, disappointment. From a little kid.

Now, it’s often a soft internal utterance. Just stating a fact. From the part of me who will always be your daughter. From the little me for whom you will always be ‘my mommy.’

When I want to ask you a question about something that happened, that no one else would know, to clarify my memories, I want my mommy.

When I feel a new appreciation for something you did or who you were, when I want to thank you, I want my mommy.

When I want to share, mother-to-mother, I want my mommy.

When my son does or says something I am proud about,  I want my mommy.

When I see the late autumn day sun illuminating wildly colored leaves, I want my mommy.

When I realize no one has critiqued the recording on my answering machine, I want my mommy.

When I want to revisit a conversation we had 45 years ago, I want my mommy.

I know, I know. I can speak to her. I can hear her. She is alive in me, certainly. In a way.

Still, I want to see her make a goofy face, hear her sing quietly to my son as he falls asleep. I want to hold her hand and play with it during services, hear her talk in funny dialects and watch her laugh till the tears come.  I want to see her (my) feet. I want to smell her skin, smooth her eyebrow with my finger, to give her head a scratch and scratch that same place on her back under the bra strap, to love her.

Still, I want to give you happiness. Make you happy. See you being happy. Give you love. Love you. Lay with my head in your lap, your hand stroking my hair. Get your love.  That unique, uplifting, universe-filling, life-saving love I always got, could only get, from You and Dad.

I want my mommy. I want my mommy. I want my mommy.

HardWorking Woman writes to Cheryl Lavin’s Tales from the Front in the Chicago Tribune

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

Give this woman a HWW tee!

Women respond to ‘Sad’ men about lack of sex

Cheryl Lavin

Tales from the Front

June 4, 2008

Recently, men like “Sad” and “I’m Sad Too” have complained about their wives for not wanting sex more than once a full moon, at best. They said they’ve contemplated everything from divorce to affairs to suicide. Today we hear from wives of men like “Sad” and “I’m Sad Too” …

Mia: My husband put “Sad’s” letter in front of me and said that he could have written it. He’s right. And this is my reply to him. Things were good when we dated, then we married and had, by today’s standards, a large family.

Now my responsibilities include cooking and baking, shopping on a very tight budget, cleaning the house, taking care of the pets, doing all household repairs and upkeep (including minor wood and tile working).

Also, planting the flower and vegetable gardens (I moved eight 100-pound railroad ties), all the gardening, everything concerning the kids, including homework, behavior, illness, school functions and sporting events, emergency runs to the store to buy poster board they remembered they needed at night, teachers, rules, activities, punishment, hygiene and laundry.

Also, doing his laundry, making special meals for his dietary problems, being sure that he has relaxation time before meals, fielding all phone calls, previewing the mail, washing windows, cleaning the garage, power washing, staining the deck, shoveling snow, corresponding with his family, sending out Christmas cards and thank-you notes, running errands, etc.

I do all this and more. I worked outside the home part time for many years and at one point I had two part-time jobs. Even when he was out of work the list didn’t change. I spent years begging him to help.

What does he do? He works his 40-hour week, eats his meals, complains about everything, watches TV and golfs.

He reaps what he sowed. Women want to be loved and treated with respect. Marriage is not servitude. If one partner consistently puts his own selfish interests before that of the other, he is not deserving of the respect and unity that a marriage needs to survive.

I don’t know one woman who wants to have sex with a man she doesn’t respect. It isn’t making love at that point, it’s just another chore.

After finally deciding that I couldn’t and wouldn’t be intimate with my husband any more, he actually helped me do one thing on my list. I do not look upon this as a victory. I’m not the kind of person who’s going to do something vindictive and hurtful every time I need help. I feel it shows a lack of his respect for me that I have to take something away from him in order to get him to listen.

To my husband: If I’d known marriage was this painful, I’d still be single.

Colleen: “Sad” really makes me angry. His wife is probably past menopause, and he has no idea about sex after that time. I was hit by instant menopause at the young age of 40 after a hysterectomy. I was put on hormones and I had the sex drive of a 20-year-old. But once hormone-replacement therapy was designated as dangerous, I was taken off of them. Ugh, it took all the fun out of sex. Without hormones, your desire disappears completely. After menopause, sex hurts.

Yes, men have sexual needs and desires—I realize that. But is it worth hurting the woman you love to satisfy that need?

Judy: I’m 51 and have been married to the same man for 30 years. He has the equipment, so we only have sex when he wants it. I’ve lost all interest in sex because it’s always been wham, bam, get dressed let’s do something else now. I would be perfectly happy if I never had sex again, but I go along with him every so often just to get him to stop nagging me.

I’ve tried talking to him, but he’s really not interested in putting any effort into pleasing me. It’s all about him. My husband will read this and feel sorry for the poor guy I’m married to and not realize it’s him. I’m really sad.

He’s Happier, She’s Less So

Wednesday, September 26th, 2007

The New York Times

Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By




September 26, 2007

Economic Scene

Last year, a team of researchers added a novel twist to something known as a time-use survey. Instead of simply asking people what they had done over the course of their day, as pollsters have been doing since the 1960s, the researchers also asked how people felt during each activity. Were they happy? Interested? Tired? Stressed?

Not surprisingly, men and women often gave similar answers about what they liked to do (hanging out with friends) and didn’t like (paying bills). But there were also a number of activities that produced very different reactions from the two sexes — and one of them really stands out: Men apparently enjoy being with their parents, while women find time with their mom and dad to be slightly less pleasant than doing laundry.

Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist working with four psychologists on the time-use research team, figures that there is a simple explanation for the difference. For a woman, time with her parents often resembles work, whether it’s helping them pay bills or plan a family gathering. “For men, it tends to be sitting on the sofa and watching football with their dad,” said Mr. Krueger, who, when not crunching data, enjoys watching the New York Giants with his father.

This intriguing — if unsettling — finding is part of a larger story: there appears to be a growing happiness gap between men and women.

Two new research papers, using very different methods, have both come to this conclusion. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, economists at the University of Pennsylvania (and a couple), have looked at the traditional happiness data, in which people are simply asked how satisfied they are with their overall lives. In the early 1970s, women reported being slightly happier than men. Today, the two have switched places.

Mr. Krueger, analyzing time-use studies over the last four decades, has found an even starker pattern. Since the 1960s, men have gradually cut back on activities they find unpleasant. They now work less and relax more.

Over the same span, women have replaced housework with paid work — and, as a result, are spending almost as much time doing things they don’t enjoy as in the past. Forty years ago, a typical woman spent about 23 hours a week in an activity considered unpleasant, or 40 more minutes than a typical man. Today, with men working less, the gap is 90 minutes.

These trends are reminiscent of the idea of “the second shift,” the name of a 1989 book by the sociologist Arlie Hochschild, arguing that modern women effectively had to hold down two jobs. The first shift was at the office, and the second at home.

But researchers who have looked at time-use data say the second-shift theory misses an important detail. Women are not actually working more than they were 30 or 40 years ago. They are instead doing different kinds of work. They’re spending more time on paid work and less on cleaning and cooking.

What has changed — and what seems to be the most likely explanation for the happiness trends — is that women now have a much longer to-do list than they once did (including helping their aging parents). They can’t possibly get it all done, and many end up feeling as if they are somehow falling short.

Mr. Krueger’s data, for instance, shows that the average time devoted to dusting has fallen significantly in recent decades. There haven’t been any dust-related technological breakthroughs, so houses are probably just dirtier than they used to be. I imagine that the new American dustiness affects women’s happiness more than men’s.

Ms. Stevenson was recently having drinks with a business school graduate who came up with a nice way of summarizing the problem. Her mother’s goals in life, the student said, were to have a beautiful garden, a well-kept house and well-adjusted children who did well in school. “I sort of want all those things, too,” the student said, as Ms. Stevenson recalled, “but I also want to have a great career and have an impact on the broader world.”

It’s telling that there is also a happiness gap between boys and girls in high school. As life has generally gotten better over the last generation — less crime, longer-living grandparents and much cooler gadgets — male high school seniors have gotten happier. About 25 percent say they are very satisfied with their lives, up from 16 percent in 1976. Roughly 22 percent of senior girls now give that answer, unchanged from the 1970s.

When Ms. Stevenson and I were talking last week about possible explanations, she mentioned her “hottie theory.” It’s based on an April article in this newspaper by Sara Rimer, about a group of incredibly impressive teenage girls in Newton, Mass. The girls were getting better grades than the boys, playing varsity sports, helping to run the student government and doing community service. Yet one girl who had gotten a perfect 2,400 on her college entrance exams noted that she and her friends still felt pressure to be “effortlessly hot.”

As Ms. Stevenson, who’s 36, said: “When I was in high school, it was clear being a hottie was the most important thing, and it’s not that it’s any less important today. It’s that other things have become more important. And, frankly, people spent a lot of time trying to be a hottie when I was in high school. So I don’t know where they find the time today.”

The two new papers — Mr. Krueger’s will be published in the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity and the Stevenson-Wolfers one is still in draft form — are part of a burst of happiness research in recent years. There is no question that the research has its limitations. Happiness, of course, is highly subjective.

A big reason that women reported being happier three decades ago — despite far more discrimination — is probably that they had narrower ambitions, Ms. Stevenson says. Many compared themselves only to other women, rather than to men as well. This doesn’t mean they were better off back then.

But it does show just how incomplete the gender revolution has been. Although women have flooded into the work force, American society hasn’t fully come to grips with the change. The United States still doesn’t have universal preschool, and, in contrast to other industrialized countries, there is no guaranteed paid leave for new parents.

Government policy isn’t the only problem, either. Inside of families, men still haven’t figured out how to shoulder their fair share of the household burden. Instead, we’re spending more time on the phone and in front of the television.

This weekend, I think I may volunteer to do a little dusting.

E-mail: Leonhardt@nytimes.com

Don’t call his client a ‘housewife’

Tuesday, July 24th, 2007

 

Behind the $183-mil. Polsky divorce: one very tenacious attorney

Share and share alike: Howard Rosenfeld says the case for Maya Polsky was about fairness to a wife who acted as adviser. Photo: John R. Boehm

Howard Rosenfeld, the son of a South Side factory worker, became known as a divorce lawyer who secured fat settlements for clients. But none of his tooth-and-nail battles — and there have been many — compared to Polsky v. Polsky, with its self-made, mega-rich couple duking it out over the dollar value of a “housewife.” In October, Cook County Circuit Court Judge William S. Boyd ruled that Mr. Rosenfeld’s client, Maya Polsky, the wife of local energy millionaire Michael Polsky, should be awarded half the couple’s $366-million estate. The judge also awarded Ms. Polsky millions of dollars’ worth of decorative objects and significant art, including a work by 16th-century German painter Lucas Cranach the Elder, and two of the couple’s five houses, one in Glencoe and another on East Lake Shore Drive.

The case became a sensation, from local talk radio to Australian newspapers, turning Mr. Rosenfeld into a minor celebrity in the courthouse and a hot commodity among potential clients.

“I’ve been exceedingly busy since (the Polsky judgment) has become a media event,” he says.

Experts say the ruling, which became public in early June, is the largest divorce judgment in U.S. history, unusual for its 50-50 split and its vast fortune. There have been much larger settlements, but trials between couples like the Polskys are rare, as they make every last financial detail a matter of public record. “I cannot think of the last time that has happened in my practice,” says Gaetano Ferro, a New Canaan, Conn.-based divorce attorney for 29 years and president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, an elite group of divorce lawyers that includes Mr. Rosenfeld among its 1,500 members.

Longtime colleagues of Mr. Rosenfeld aren’t surprised that he’s the attorney behind the bold battle.

“He’s extremely competitive,” says Miles Beermann, a partner at Beermann Swerdlove LLP in Chicago who has opposed Mr. Rosenfeld in several divorce cases. “When you have a case with him, his client is always right and yours is always wrong. Sometimes it stands in the way of a case being settled, which may be why he’s on trial more than the next guy.”

Mr. Beermann still recalls a time 20 years ago when he and Mr. Rosenfeld argued fiercely over a motion until the bailiff threw them out of court. They moved the battle to a conference room. “He’s yelling at me, and I at him. He pointed his finger at my face. I grabbed it and said, ‘Are we going to lose our relationship over these two people?’ ” (They didn’t, though Mr. Beermann doesn’t miss the chance to point out that he prevailed in that case.)

Outside the courtroom, Mr. Rosenfeld, founder of the firm that is now Rosenfeld Hafron Shapiro & Farmer, is elegant and reserved, favoring dark, expensive suits, suspenders and snowy white shirts. He has been married to Honey Rosenfeld for 45 years; they live in Lincoln Park and have two grown daughters and three grandchildren.

 

 

“We couldn’t understand
. . . why she shouldn’t share equally in the estate,” Howard Rosenfeld says of Maya Polsky, shown in 2004.Photo: Andreas Larsson

Mr. Rosenfeld won’t say how much he made on the four-year-battle, which consumed thousands of hours (at $500 per hour for Mr. Rosenfeld’s time) and the labor of six of the firm’s 10 attorneys. “I don’t call it 24/7, I call it 25/8,” says Norman Hafron, Mr. Rosenfeld’s law partner and a friend since their teen years, when they went to different high schools but once dated the same girl.

Mr. Rosenfeld was the first in his family to graduate from college, first a three-year pre-law program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, then law school at DePaul University, during which he was a law clerk on weekdays and a shoe salesman at Chernin’s on weekends.

His parents insisted he and his siblings get educated. “It was a foregone conclusion that we would go to college and not work at a factory,” Mr. Rosenfeld says. His sister, Harriet Gershman, founder of Evanston-based academic placement service Academic Counseling Services Inc., and brother, Joseph Rosenfeld, an expert in substance-abuse treatment, also have advanced degrees.

Mr. Rosenfeld graduated from law school in January 1962, the same year he married Honey. He served six months in the Army Reserve, then joined a firm that specialized in insurance defense.

But in 1967, the firm disappeared practically overnight: “I came to work and found they had all gone someplace else,” leaving behind desks, typewriters and client files.

Sensing opportunity rather than disaster, Mr. Rosenfeld swung into action.

He called the building’s landlord to rent a portion of the office space. He contacted every single client listed in the left-behind files and asked to represent them. Many said yes.

Finally, he called his old buddy, Mr. Hafron. “I said, ‘Do you want to go into practice?’ ” Mr. Rosenfeld recalls. “He said, ‘Yeah,’ and I said, ‘Come on over.’ ”

Before long, divorce became Mr. Rosenfeld’s specialty. “You think you’ve heard everything,” he says, “and the next day somebody walks into your office and tells you something you’ve never heard or considered before.”

‘A VOLATILE MIX’

To be sure, the divorce landscape has changed since Mr. Rosenfeld began practicing 40 years ago. Marriages are shorter, custody battles longer and fortunes larger. Financial pictures are more complicated, especially if the couple owns a business together.

In such cases, Mr. Rosenfeld says he has to work hard to keep the couple on speaking terms while negotiating their divorce: “If either one leaves the business, the business will collapse. You didn’t see that (years ago) because wives were traditionally at home.”

The changes have transformed the divorce bar.

“The top echelon (of divorce lawyers), as opposed to 30 years ago, is completely different,” Mr. Rosenfeld says. “You have to be expert in all things” ranging from valuing businesses to appraising artwork and other property, to deciphering financial statements.

Divorce lawyers have become more competitive and less clubby. Early in Mr. Rosenfeld’s career, “it was an old-boy network. . . . Guys worked things out.” Today, he says, “it’s every man for himself.”

Mr. Rosenfeld isn’t one of those divorce lawyers who touts his services on TV. Still, he takes a measure of pride in the Polsky verdict.

“We couldn’t understand, during the time we represented Ms. Polsky, why she shouldn’t share equally in the estate,” he says. When the judgment came down, “I was very satisfied.”

©2007 by Crain Communications Inc.

   

Men Want Change Too

Tuesday, June 5th, 2007

Monday, Mar. 22, 2004

We were young; we were smart; we were looking forward to the world of work. And when we graduated from Oxford University in the early 1970s, my wife and I (we’ve been together 33 years) thought we’d have it all. We’d both have successful, satisfying careers. We’d have enough free time to travel the world and do fun stuff (you should have seen the shirts and dresses she used to make). We’d share in our kids’ upbringing and divide the chores. We were convinced that the world of stay-at-home moms and job-trapped dads had ended, oh, sometime around 1969.

We were wrong, of course. In her 30s, my wife gave up a high-powered career as a government official to have children. Consciously trying to balance work and family, she took part-time jobs that in some cases were enjoyable but that never gave her the recognition or professional advancement that you get if you’re in full-time employment. Meanwhile–first for fun, later because the extra income helped–I allowed work to take over my life, spending nights and weekends working on books or TV films. I’ve spent nothing close to the time I wanted to with my two daughters. Granted, there should be some rule against well-paid journalists complaining about their lot in life, so let the record show that I love my work and that my children are charming, healthy teenagers. But the three-way balance among work, family and the nonjob, nonkid stuff that provides much of the spice of life–what ever happened to my tennis game or the trip to Machu Picchu?–is nothing like what my wife and I imagined it would be. It’s not just women who are disappointed that modern life has not accommodated their various needs. So are millions of baby-boomer men who wanted their marriage to be a genuine partnership of equals.

Why did we get it so wrong? We weren’t all smoking something–O.K., some of us were–and we weren’t unutterably naive. But we left college at a very specific moment in time. We were the beneficiaries of eight decades of astonishing technological change, and we subconsciously thought it would continue. But a long wave of improvement in everyday life came to an end in the 1970s. Look around your home; you will not see a significant labor-saving device invented since the 1960s. Nothing has happened since then to make feeding the kids, washing their clothes or cleaning the home easier. Think about the time you spend schlepping around; note that New Yorkers travel in the same way and at much the same speed as they did in the 1930s.

The most significant technological development of the past 30 years has been a collapse in the price of a unit of information. That, it turns out, has been disastrous for the work-life balance. Information is now ubiquitous. Home life is no easier than it was, but work has invaded the domestic space–which is what my daughters mean when they scream at me to stop answering e-mail in the evening. The incessant demands of an always-on, 24/7 world of free information have made some middle-aged women who would like to go back to work consider whether the benefits are worth the hassle. But so long as they stay out of the labor market, their husbands are trapped in it–otherwise family incomes would fall. Hence that familiar social phenomenon: a married couple in their 50s in which the wife is resentful because she does too little paid work and the husband is resentful because he does too much.

Thirty years ago, we dreamed of something different. Pity it didn’t work out.

DESPERATELY SEEKING LORI

Tuesday, June 5th, 2007

TIME Magazine    Monday, Oct. 14, 1996

Swing voters hold a nation’s secrets. Sometimes they are important because of what they tell us about an election. But when the race isn’t even close, they are important because of what they tell us about ourselves.

Thirty years ago, the crucial voter was a white, male factory worker–urban, ethnic, patriotic–who ripened into a Reagan Democrat and started swinging the White House to the G.O.P. But in 1996 the archetype has changed: she is a suburban, conservative, Midwestern working mother, 35 years old, earns her age, finished high school, maybe some college. Between 1992 and 1996 she has swung more dramatically than any other voter; 20% of this group voted for Clinton last time; he’s pulling 52% now.

And yet the lives of the voters who are deciding this race can’t be read in the numbers. In some ways it matters less how much they earn than how many kids they have, less how they voted in the past than how they feel about the future, less where they live than how they manage.

In the morning they strap the baby into the high chair with a handful of Cheerios on the tray, then stay alert for the sound of his choking while they take a two-minute shower. They consider a week at their in-laws’ a vacation and joke that they live at the Target store. They drive a big car not because they haul a lot of lumber but because it gives them a fleeting sense of control. Everything changes when they become parents–when life gets both richer and harder, and everything becomes a trade-off, and the self is no longer the center, and the future is no longer possible to ignore.

The campaigns are tracking this voter so closely that they can measure the “persuadability” of her neighborhood, block by treelined block. Millions have already been spent hunting for her, with an intensity matched only by her immunity to the whole effort. Campaign consultants are stalking her, the conventions were staged for her, the speeches scripted for her, the ads aimed right at her. And because she is so different from the swing voter who shaped this nation for a generation, she has miniaturized its politics into a kitchen-table bargaining session over what it might take to help her get through the day.

From there, the candidates draft the playbooks. Clinton signs a bill guaranteeing new mothers 48 hours in the hospital, one last chance to catch her breath, a last night’s sleep, courtesy of the President of the United States. It’s hard to find any money to put away for college, so Dole offers a deduction for student loans and a $500 tax credit per child. Mom can’t be there screening what the kids watch on TV every minute, so here’s a V chip. It is not the craft of politics, it’s the art of coping.

To trace this political transformation, TIME set out to find a woman who could tell the story of this election by telling the story of her life. Lori Lucas lives in Shrewsbury, Missouri, an undecided voter in a bellwether town in the ultimate swing state. She is not just an archetype; she’s a revelation, a spirited wreck of political contradiction. She’s an unmarried mom who thinks the country is on the wrong track because the family unit has broken down. She drives a gas-guzzling station wagon because it’s safe but worries so much about the environment that she collects cans at work to recycle at home and uses the same plastic-foam Diet Pepsi cup for a week. She doesn’t believe in God, but believes in the Ten Commandments because “I know they’re the right thing to do.” And while she doesn’t have time for newspapers or TV network news, she intends to do what she always does before presidential elections: head to the local library two weeks before the vote. “I pull out two weeks of newspapers and read about the issues,” she says. “But I probably won’t make a decision until I’m in the voting booth.”

Her politics are complicated, but her dreams are not. “What I think about is my baby being safe when he is grown up. I don’t want him to have to fight in a war. I don’t want there to be a depression. I don’t want us to be without money.” She is not in control of her life, but she is in control of this election.

“The single most important thing that has changed the lives of these women is the birth of a child.” –Mark Penn, Clinton’s pollster

Lori is in the kitchen cooking dinner: chicken baked in mushroom soup and soy sauce, and fresh broccoli. At all costs, she will find a way for her little family to eat meals together, to glue their life in place. She has a wide-open face, with eager eyes, a tangy huskiness in her voice and a fast, shy smile. She is 35, but for as far back as she can remember, people have called her kid.

Lori bought her house in Shrewsbury five years ago, and is slowly replacing all the old single-pane windows. The hilly neighborhood has a virtually all-white population of about 7,000, with an average household income of $52,537. Lori’s is a street of $79,000 starter homes that people stay in for 30 years, brick bungalows with metal awnings and a ribbon of lawn that skips from house to house. For years the mainline Forest Park patriarchs of St. Louis looked down on the German immigrants who settled this south side because they were forever washing those neat cement porches and tight little windows. They called them the Scrubby Dutch. Policeman Harvey Laux lives across the street from Lori. He figures there has been one burglary in the 17 years he has lived here.

Sam is in his high chair, eating whatever pasta he is not wearing. Sam’s dad Mike, 30, is out shopping for tomorrow night’s dinner. He and Lori had been dating for three years before he moved in, when Lori got pregnant. When the baby was born last September, they named him after Sam Malone, Mike’s favorite character on Cheers. Lori’s heart hasn’t been the same since. Neither has her life. “I used to be a list maker,” she says, and then she smiles at herself. “And now I don’t even have time to make lists.”

Her family is tighter, her friendships looser than ever before. Her idea of leisure is a nap on Saturday afternoon. She stopped getting the St. Louis Post-Dispatch–she subscribed mainly for the coupons and TV listings–because “Sam would get the ink all over him if we had the paper here.” The news in general, and the presidential campaign in particular, is barely background noise. She voted for Bush in 1988 because her father did, but everything about her life has become more independent since then. She voted for Ross Perot in 1992 because he seemed as detached from politics as she was. Now she’s completely undecided, more available to Clinton than to Dole, but there has been no time to dwell on a decision that she thinks will have so little effect on her. She doesn’t need a pollster to tell her that this is her own personal paradigm shift. “I used to have total control over my life,” she says. “Some nights I could scream and cry and have a nervous breakdown.”

She was 33 when Sam was conceived. “I was happy and amazed that it happened.” He was not really planned, since she and Mike weren’t married, not really intending to marry, though they now plan to. Like just about everything else in her life, marriage is on her running, imaginary to-do list, somewhere after spending about $600 next week on a new toilet and towel racks for the bathroom, and before seeing Stonehenge. But this time, after two failed marriages, she wants to do it right.

“I never had a nice wedding. The first time I wore Mom’s dress. I was a dumb kid; I just wanted to get out of the house. The second time I fell crazy in love. We lived together for a few years, got married when I was 25, divorced at 30.” He drank too much, she says, and he couldn’t have children. “That wasn’t the reason we split–but it was a reason not to work at the marriage anymore.” Her father used to tell her that the only reason to get married was to have a family. “Now for once I’m not married, and I have a happy family.”

Sam is helping her unload the dishwasher, which means most of the knives and forks wind up on the floor. She has been thinking about change. “The week before Sam was born, I washed every piece of clothing there was, including what I was wearing,” she recalls. “That was the last time the laundry was caught up.”

“They’d love to have more time to spend with their families. More time to teach them the values they don’t think they get at day care. No matter how well you pick the day-care center, you’re still not there.” –Tony Fabrizio, Dole’s pollster

“Just getting out of the house in the mornings–it’s terrible.” Some days Lori wakes up and thinks of what is coming and suspects it may not turn out to be such a great day. Those are the mornings she really needs her shower, not to get clean but to get psyched for the day. “Because sometimes it seems like everyone else’s mood kind of depends on mine. If you’re in a foul mood, you get the crabbiness right back. So when I wake up that way–well, it’s a shower thing. It’s the only time I really have to myself.”

Just about every day begins with a quiet, dreaded question: whether Mike or Lori will drive Sam to Lori’s mother’s house for the day. She gets a knot in her stomach thinking about it, hoping to avoid a fight. Mike says he ends up doing it about half the time, though he complains about how much gas the 20-minute trip uses up. They rarely kiss each other goodbye in the morning. There’s no time. Lori is usually out of the house by 7:30 and at work by 8. She skips breakfast but sips a Diet Pepsi and buys some peanut-butter crackers at Mr. Gas on the way.

Lori’s mom Doris echoes what Dole tells women: they should work only if they want to, a 1950s notion that defies the economy of the 1990s. “If I had my choice, both of my daughters would stay home,” says Doris. She reared her five children while her husband Ed worked for 27 years at Sears. But she realizes Lori has little choice, so she thought about what matters to her most, and then made a decision about her own life that makes all the difference in Lori’s.

Five months before Sam was born, Lori went to the state bureau of child care in St. Louis and studied its records for several local day-care centers. She chose one just a few moments from her job, so she could slip over and nurse her baby at lunchtime. It cost $152 a week. Doris would go to the center in the afternoons and stay for hours. And very soon she had seen enough. “The room was too small and was crammed with cribs,” she recalls. “The workers sneezed into their hands and then wouldn’t wash them.”

Before long, Doris had made up her mind. She would watch Sam during the day, while Lori worked, along with her daughter Barbara’s children two days a week. “I knew it would make me tired,” Doris says. “But what’s more important than my grandson?” She won’t take any money from her daughters, although she buys most of the grandchildren’s clothes and has turned her tidy home into a day-care center.

Doris worries about everyone. She worries about her mother, 93 and suffering from Alzheimer’s in a nursing home, whom she now has less time to visit; she worries about the stress in her children’s lives. “I worry that Lori works so much. But I know she can’t help it.” What does Ed worry about? “I worry about Doris.”

“You need to look at the positive forces in their lives, the great possibility there. Obviously they still have concerns, but more than anything, there are grounds for affirmation.” –Don Baer, White House communications director

“Welcome to our midday family meal,” Lori says, as she sits in her office at Rudivani Precision Motorworks, the car-repair shop she manages in Webster Groves. The two mechanics are eating take-out sandwiches; Lori is eating a hamburger and returning phone calls in her little office. Propped up in the corner is a framed poster called 21 Suggestions for Success. The top four: “Marry the right person. This one decision will determine 90% of your happiness or misery. Work at something you enjoy, and that’s worthy of your time and talent. Give people more than they expect, and do it cheerfully. Become the most positive and enthusiastic person you know.” Her boss Rudi Cavataio found the poster at Target and couldn’t resist, but Lori hasn’t had time to hang it up yet. “Maybe sometime I’ll succeed in getting that success sign up,” she jokes.

Lori comes to work in clean white Reeboks, then changes into the greasy pair she keeps under her desk. She arrives early and stays late, managing the shop, working the phones, soothing the customers, ordering parts, keeping the books, making haircut appointments for the mechanics, test-driving all the cars. “She makes things happen,” says Cavataio. “She’s allowed the business to grow.” Grow so fast, in fact, that they have been fighting the city to let them keep more cars on their cluttered lot than the city fathers would like. “I guess we didn’t understand the politics of it all,” Lori says.

But she does now. She and Cavataio are seeking a new conditional-use permit, a battle that constitutes her baptism in politics. She has been pounding the pavement, knocking on doors, getting petitions signed. She makes no distinction between Democrat and Republican meddling. “They have no right telling us how to run our business,” she says. “The only way for us to keep the number of cars down is to turn customers away.”

Lori grew up in a house with five sets of encyclopedias. She was an A student into her sophomore year in high school, thought she would go to college, maybe become a teacher, until she fell in with a fast crowd, smoked a lot of pot and let her grades fall. But she was always a hard worker. At 13 she lied about her age to get her first job, at the snack bar of the local swimming pool. After high school she worked as a bookkeeper at a car-parts store, but she was fired, she says, because she didn’t dress up enough. There was a reason for that. When she did wear a skirt, the boss had a habit of trying to put his hands up under it.

She got a job at European Car Parts and spent 15 years there, starting at $5.25 an hour and eventually making $35,000 a year. But the job was boring, and the predominantly male shop didn’t seem understanding about her pregnancy and how everything was different now. When she went back to work after Sam was born, she quickly jumped at Cavataio’s offer to go to RPM, as long as he would match her salary. She started three weeks later, and has barely taken a lunch break since. “I care about what’s going on here,” she says. “I want it to be just right. I want everyone to be happy. I’ve always operated like it was my business.”

“A male voter says, ‘I’m getting taxed to death. I’m not making enough.’ It’s very cut and dried. With female voters, we hear, ‘I’m working harder, but we’re not getting ahead, and I don’t have time to do everything I need to do.’ Politics is much more contextual to a female voter than a male voter.” –Fabrizio

Lori wheels her station wagon into a spot outside the Wal-Mart, a 20-minute drive from her home. She likes to go late at night, after Sam is asleep, for some solitude among the bargains. But on this Saturday morning she’s there by 11, filling her cart with four winter shirts for her son, four ladies’ shirts, baby wipes and formula, paper towels, a flea comb for her two cats, 136 diapers, and a box of graham crackers to occupy Sam, who’s strapped happily into the front of the cart. The total comes to $146.13. “I thought,” she says as she writes the check, “that it would be more.”

Lori worries little about inflation; instead, she shops for speed. She rarely clips coupons, except for baby formula, and stops at a small grocery on her way home from work rather than go out of her way to a larger and slightly cheaper supermarket. “You have to walk half a mile just to get some onions,” she says. “Time is so valuable to me now.”

She feels she’s losing ground by standing still. “I guess I’d say I’m lower middle class,” she says, even though when Mike is doing well with his windows, doors and siding business, their household income can hit about $60,000. “I didn’t feel that way four years ago before I had Sam, when I was making the same amount of money. I thought I was doing pretty damn good. Now it’s nothing to get excited about.” Lori keeps the household books. “I’m an incredible bill payer,” she says, “but a terrible saver.” Last week she called her mortgage officers to learn why her monthly house payment rose from $592 to $616, even though interest rates are falling; the answer was higher insurance fees and taxes. After that she socks away $150 every other month into a mutual fund, while trying to erase $14,000 in credit-card debt by next year. Bob Dole’s 15% tax cut would help, but she doubts it will ever happen. “That’s probably what I would say if I were running for President.”

She believes less in politicians than in personal enterprise, even though her experience has been mixed at best. She and Mike have tried a few “get-rich-quick schemes,” she says, selling a line of home products–water filters, shampoos, vitamins–to friends and relatives; signing up new customers for a long-distance telephone company; even investing $5,000 in a scheme to provide leasable race cars to weekend thrill seekers, which has so far produced only two takers. All these businesses have yielded more loss than profit.

Lori permits herself few luxuries, large or small. “It used to be important to slap on something feminine once in a while. But not anymore.” Once a month or so, the couple will drop $35 on dinner for three at the Red Lobster. “I stopped in the store to get meat for dinner one night this week, and I bought a pint of Swiss chocolate milk for myself. I saw it on the shelf, and it looked so good. I drank it in the car and it spoiled my appetite, but it was great. It was sinful.”

The drug ads? Those “are aimed right at her.” –Fabrizio

“V chips, computers in classrooms, school uniforms. They are all about giving her control of the lives of her children.” –Baer

Lori is sitting in the cafe at Schnucks Markets’ 24-hour Super Center, talking about what scares her. Like the national debt. “It’s in the trillions, right? I barely know how to write that number.” Then there’s Social Security, the issue that hits her each Friday when she does RPM’s payroll. “Every week it gets taken out of my paycheck, and will I ever get it back? Then I do the books, and I see it deducted from the payroll, and I think, Someone else is using my money.” Glancing across the restaurant to a pair of women in their 70s having coffee, she adds, “I wonder if there will be anything left for me. Sam certainly won’t see a penny.”

Lori has never been the victim of a crime; she doesn’t even know anyone who has. But she still thinks about it a lot. She has been downtown only twice this year, and locks her doors when she drives across the city limits. Having a child of her own has turned Lori into a law-and-order hard-liner who believes in capital punishment and thinks prisons coddle criminals. But on abortion, Lori belongs to the church of the second chance. “I’m upside down and tossed on this one. People I love have had them. I can see why it’s done for rape, incest and life endangerment of the woman. I’d never have one unless my life were in danger.” She ends up landing right at the heart of America’s silent consensus: she doesn’t want abortion outlawed, but she doesn’t want it easy. “Maybe the government should say that you can have one and only one abortion,” she says. “But if you screw up and want to have one again, that’s too bad.”

Lori doesn’t know whom she’s going to vote for, but she does know she has trouble even remembering that Bob Dole is in the race. “It’s like he’s not even there,” she says. “I have to force him to enter my mind.” She knows a little of his story, admires his gritty recovery from his war injury, but is worried that he might not live out his term. “I want someone more contemporary.”

Clinton’s missteps don’t much bother her–she doesn’t care about Whitewater or his affairs, doesn’t know who Dick Morris is–but the President’s manner does. “I hate that Clinton said he didn’t inhale.” She likes Hillary Clinton and isn’t keen on Newt Gingrich. “His name alone irritates me. I know that a newt is a lizard. We had them growing up. If you touch their tails, they break off as a defense mechanism, but then they grow back.” Not that she’s thrilled by her Congressman, Richard Gephardt, who would replace Gingrich as Speaker if the Democrats take over. “He’s been around an awfully long time, but nothing seems to be any different.”

Foreign policy doesn’t interest her; the office manager thinks the country should be run by a CEO. But she isn’t sold on Perot, and once again imagines the research she’d do. “I’d like to call one of his companies and speak to 10 of his employees and hear how they feel about him.”

“The fact is, you could watch the presidential campaign and not see anything touch on most peoples’ frustrations and concerns. Whatever politics or government means to them today, it’s a fraction of what it was 20 to 30 years ago. It’s less relevant, and they don’t think it matters very much.” –Pollster Bob Teeter

It’s evening now, everyone’s home, Sam’s cold is better, the lights are coming on up and down the street. Lori’s house is sheathed in olive-green steel siding; there’s a Japanese maple squatting like a sumo wrestler out front, and a sweet gum tree, and a big red oak in the back shading the gas grill and the lawn chairs. The house is a home–a sweet, messy testament to the compromises of parenthood; the curtains are lace, the couches paisley, the walls papered in cream with pink roses and wreaths of dried flowers, all soft edges and tones that fade behind the yelping primary colors of Playskool and Fisher-Price.

The TV is on, the movie of the week with Tori Spelling, but the sound is muted. Lori’s favorite show is ER; it’s paced at about the same rate as her life. Sam doesn’t watch much of anything other than Barney and auto racing. The clock ticks; the ceiling fan whumps. Mike has given Sam his bath; the baby arrives, damp and in mismatched pajamas, to snuggle. Lori says his hair smells like candy.

She is talking about government. “I guess I see it all as a bunch of red tape,” she says. “I think if I got food stamps or something I would be grateful.” She has to pause and think a long time to imagine anything government has done for her, any difference it has ever made in her life, anything politics or politicians could ever do for her. Then she gets it. “Maybe I’ll be able to get an SBA loan someday, start my own business.”

Sam cries when Lori slips outside to sit on the porch steps and have a cigarette and a glass of Tang. She won’t smoke in front of him, but this is what counts as her down time, and it’s a soft, cool, edge-of-autumn night full of wishing stars. The 1986 Ford Country Squire station wagon, gray-green with faux wood paneling, sits in the driveway. She bought it when she was pregnant. Some people build bookcases or drop $250 on a souped-up stroller. But this is the way a car girl nests. “I don’t care what I drive as long as it’s safe.”

When she was young and began falling in love with cars, she could tell the make and model in the dark, just by the headlights. She and her friends chased the cars around the neighborhood, played tag and kick the can. “Those were the days. Life was good and easy then,” she says. And she laughs to herself. “It’s still pretty good. It’s just not easy.”

Erma in Bomburbia

Tuesday, June 5th, 2007

TIME magazine, Monday, Jul. 02, 1984

For a survivor of housework and motherhood, laughter is still the best revenge

Notice: Car-pool moms entered in the U-Haul Mother-of-the-Year brake-off should complete the following literary quiz. Answers must be written in eyebrow pencil, and nuttiness counts,

1) For ten points, and a year’s supply of mental floss, what American philosopher, whose latest book has been ensconced on the New York Times best seller list for 40 weeks, described the stance of a pregnant woman as “like a kangaroo wearing Earth Shoes”?

2) Who first defined the contribution of American mothers to the psychological well-being of their children as “guilt: the gift that keeps on giving”?

3) From whom did Tocqueville, while touring American suburbs, steal his famous one-liner that “the grass is always greener over the septic tank”? Hint: Henry David Thoreau is a good guess, but wrong.

4) What noted existentialist and television celebrity, when asked in supermarket parking lots whether she is the legendary Erma Bombeck, blushes prettily, lowers her gaze and says, “No, I’m Ann-Margret, but thank you anyway “?

“I’ll be honest,” says Bombeck (for it is indeed she, the syndicated star humorist of 900 papers in the U.S. and Canada, and the baggy-toreador-pants clown of ABC’S Good Morning America), “when I started, I thought I was squirrelly. I thought it was just me. After the first columns, everyone on the block confessed it was them too.” Those early columns, written in Centerville, Ohio, back in the early ’60s, were not quite Corinthian, but they sure were Ermaic. Their message was that housework, if it is done right, can kill you. It was that the women who kept house in the happy hunting ground called suburbia were so lonely that they held meaningful conversations with their tropical fish. It was that “you become about as exciting as your food blender. The kids come in, look you in the eye, and ask you if anybody’s home.”

The message has not changed in substance, although many of the women she wrote about 20 years ago have gone on to divorces, master’s degrees and careers, and Bombeck and her husband are now the wealthy proprietors not of an $18,000 tract house near Dayton but of a lavish hacienda on a hilltop near Phoenix. “Women around the world are coming to the point where they are looking at their domestic situations and saying, ‘My God, I’m going crazy, it’s climbing-the-wall time,’ ” says Bombeck. She is 57 now (”somewhere between estrogen and death,” she mutters); her three children are grown and flown, and the elegant white walls of her fine house do not have crayon marks or grape jelly on them. But motherhood is a sentence without parole—have some guilt with your chicken soup; eat, eat!—and Bombeck and her fans have no trouble understanding each other. “I could move up to Alaska,” she says, “where the nearest neighbor is 300 miles away, get there by dog sled, walk into the cabin, pour a cup of coffee and then hear her say, ‘These kids are driving me crazy.’ ”

Dropping in is what Bombeck does. Three times a week in the newspapers, and twice more on television, she plays the nation’s dingbatty neighbor, who comes in the back door without knocking and cheers everyone up by saying, “Never mind the mess here, honey, let me tell you about world-class squalidness.” And then yarns away, maybe, about babies so wet that their diapers give off rainbows (a Phyllis Diller line she loves to steal). Or about her husband, the football watcher, who sits in front of the tube “like a dead sponge surrounded by bottle caps” until “the sound of his deep, labored breathing puts the cork on another confetti-filled evening.” About her schoolboy son who flunked lunch. About her washing machine, which eats one sock in every pair; her kids ask where the lost ones go, and she tells them that they go to live with Jesus. About how, when one kid ate an unknown quantity of fruit on a supermarket expedition, she offered to weigh him and pay for everything over 53 Ibs. About why it is all right to store useless leftovers in the refrigerator: “Garbage, if it’s made right, takes a full week.” About how young mothers want desperately to talk to someone who isn’t teething, and the woeful results when they try to generate conversation with those lumps, their husbands, by asking, ” ‘What kind of a day did you have dear?’ One husband reportedly answered by kicking the dog, another went pale and couldn’t find words, another bit his necktie in half . . .”

This is classic Bombeck, the wild exaggeration compressed into the stinging one-liner that only slightly overstates the awfulness of the truth. You don’t think husbands and kids are that bad? Listen, let me tell you about bad. “After 30 years of marriage, I felt like a truss in a drugstore window.” You think that’s-overstated? Let me tell you what it’s like to be a working mother, “racing around the kitchen in a pair of bedroom slippers, trying to quick-thaw a chop under each armpit . . .” Shared responsibilities? “Transporting children is my husband’s 26th favorite thing; it comes somewhere between eating lunch in a tearoom and dropping a bowling ball on his foot.” Listen, let me tell you. . .

Trench warfare of this kind is waged not against men and kids, but against loneliness and self-pity. The quick, hit-’em-again-with-another-joke style fits the desperate nature of the combat. The young mother who reads it may have a degree in psychology from Michigan State, but as she cleans up after the puppy while trying to separate two children who are fighting over a linty piece of bubble gum, she may not be in the mood for compound-complex sentences. She may smile over a column by Art Buchwald, the master of the discovered absurdity, or one of Russell Baker’s elegantly sane demonstrations that the world is crazy. But if she enlists in an army, it is likely to be Bombeck’s. Am I really down on the kitchen floor with an old pair of Jockey shorts doing this? Yes, and there’s Bombeck with pork chops under her arms. Such realizations (epiphanies, a James Joyce scholar would call them) explain Bombeck’s syndication in those 900 papers, the wild success of her seven books, and reader loyalty that does not stop short of fanaticism. No doubt they also explain her eight-year run on Good Morning America, where her appearances are consistently cheerful but not so sharp or funny as her columns. Bombeck’s fans want Bombeck, and they are prepared to excuse home movies.

Her self-caricature, the rhinoceroid slob in housecoat and curlers who hasn’t seen her feet since grade school, is not even a fun-house mirror image of reality. She is a good-looking, brown-haired woman (though the hair color varies according to whim) who is, if not gaunt, at any rate acceptably trim at 5 ft. 2 in. and 127 Ibs. Is it a surprise that her daughter Betsy, 30, and her sons Andrew, 28, and Matthew, 25, have lost their baby teeth? And that her husband is not a football-stupefied turnip but rather an articulate, quick-minded fellow? Bill Bombeck retired in 1978 after a successful career as a school administrator, and now manages their income of $500,000 to $1 million a year. He is more likely to be found jogging than watching the tube, and four years ago he ran the Boston Marathon in the creditable time of 3 hr. 29 min. Not all of the one-line zappers come from her side of the table; Bill will breeze into the house and announce with a big smile that he has just been to the library and that all of her books were in. She replies that he looked like a dead fish after his last road race and that he had better slow down. “You don’t understand,” she says. “I’m too old to shop around. You’re it.” The strong affection between the two is evident.

There is a hint of where the columns come from when Bombeck is persuaded to talk about herself. “My life story?” she says. “Fifteen minutes top. You’re looking at shallow. I’m just not that deep. You’re looking at a bundle of insecurity. I always think that everything good is going to evaporate and disappear overnight. I am the quietest person at the party. I position myself at the chip dip and don’t leave all night. I still have a very ordinary, simple person trapped in this rich, gorgeous, successful body.” The joke is practiced and sure, but she does not want her listener to miss her point, so she spells it out. “The whole thrust of my existence is that I’m ordinary.” It seems important to her to believe this. Another joking statement of the theme: “Everyone thinks of ordinary as some kind of skin disease.” Then she quotes the sort of thing she says when she gives a commencement speech: “Most of you are going to be ordinary. You are not going to the moon. You’ll be lucky to find the keys to your car in the back parking lot. But some of you are going to be great things to yourselves. You are going to be the best friend someone ever had . . .”

The journey that did not lead Bombeck to the moon began in Dayton, and the date could be set accurately enough as June 4, 1936. She was nine, and that was the day her father, a crane operator named Cassius Fiste, died of a heart attack at 42. “One day you were a family,” she recalls, “living in a little house at the bottom of a hill. The next day it was all gone.” The furniture, including Erma’s bed and dresser, was immediately repossessed, and her half sister went off to live with her natural mother. Erma and her mother, 25-year-old Erma Fiste, shared a bedroom in her grandmother’s house, and each day Mother Erma would get up at 5 a.m., fix breakfast for her daughter, see that she was dressed for school, and then leave in time to work the 7 a.m. shift at the Leland Electric factory. An adult observer would have seen a spunky young widow doing her best in bad times, but not until years later did Erma think of her mother’s tough-minded energy as wise or heroic. What she felt at the time was a daily desertion. When her mother married a moving-van operator, Albert (”Tom”) Harris, two years later, Erma gave him the classic drop-dead greeting: “If you think you’re going to take my father’s place, you’re crazy.” His attitude, she says, was “This kid needs sitting on.” Eventually Erma and Tom made their adjustment. The incredible self-centeredness of children, normal and natural but often savagely cruel, has been a consistent theme in her humor.

When her daughter showed signs of shyness and loneliness, Mother Erma signed her up for tap-dancing lessons as therapy, then took her to an audition for a Kiddie Revue at a local radio station. Erma stayed on the program for nearly eight years, tap dancing and singing. “She was quite a little hoofer,” says her mother, who still has Erma’s signed song sheets for On the Good Ship Lollipop and I’m Gonna Sit Right Down and Write Myself a Letter. Bombeck says it is obvious that the wrong Erma broke into show biz. When her mother, now a lively 73, began to appear with her on talk shows, Bombeck would tell the producers, “Don’t worry about Mamma not talking. Worry about her taking over the show.”

Which is exactly what she does. Mother Erma, who lives with her husband in nearby Sun City, admits that she “never had a sense of humor growing up. But as I get older, I get crazier. Me and Erma are both sort of silly together. The humor helped us to get closer. We began to see life as it is and not take it so seriously.”

At Emerson Junior High in Dayton, Bombeck started writing a humor column for a school newspaper called The Owl. Says Bill Bombeck: “The format hasn’t changed a lot. You’re talking about someone who has been writing a personal column since she was twelve or 13 years old.” Bombeck had been fairly offhanded about singing and dancing, but wising off in print was the best thing since soaping windows at Halloween. A couple of years later she was at it again, clowning about shoplifting, clearance sales and the lunch menu for the newsletter of Rike’s department store, where she worked to pay college expenses. “You can’t imagine how it fractured those people,” she says now. “I knew exactly what I wanted to do. God, I wanted to write. That’s all I wanted to do. I really loved the exaggeration. I still write about passing my varicose veins off as textured stockings.”

Her pursuit of a college education took her through uncertain territory. Middle-class teenagers of the time went on to college from high school the way they went to the drive-in for frozen custard and French fries. Everyone enrolled somewhere, and no one thought much about it. But Bombeck was working class, the first person in her family’s history even to graduate from high school. College was not seen as a necessity for many young women, or even as especially desirable. “Your goals were supposed to be modest,” she recalls. “If you were a girl, you either got a job and paid board, or you got married.” She took typing and shorthand at a vocational school and worked as a copygirl at the Dayton Herald to meet expenses. (Bill Bombeck worked at the morning Journal as a copy boy.) Erma saved enough money to begin courses at Ohio University, in Athens, but after a semester she was broke again. She returned to Dayton, got the department-store job and enrolled at the University of Dayton, the Roman Catholic school where Bill was a student.

Living at home and paying her own way, Bombeck made it through college in four years, including three sessions of summer school. The experience was not rich in what is usually thought of as college life, but she got the degree, and she did it on her own. In a second profound act of independence, she converted at 22 from the United Brethren Church to Roman Catholicism. “I saw something in it I wanted to have,” she says. “There is something very soothing about the whole thing. A love of God is easier for me to accept than the fear.” She remains a believer, who says, quirkily, “I never laugh when I pray. That’s God’s turn.” Like many Catholics, however, she is troubled by doctrinal issues affecting birth and reproduction. She agrees with the church prohibition of abortion but cannot accept strictures against birth control. “The group I ran with would have six, seven, eight kids and be drowning underneath. Let’s face it, the earth cannot afford this Catholicism.”

The Dayton Herald took on a gifted but erratic recruit after Bombeck graduated from the university. As a reporter, she recalls, “I was terrible at straight items. When I wrote obituaries, my mother said the only thing I ever got them to do was die in alphabetical order.” Even with her shorthand, she says, “I could never get the knack of listening and taking notes at the same time.” She would get excited and forget to write things down, and “everyone I interviewed ended up sounding like me. I did that with Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Eisenhower.” The idea of Eleanor Roosevelt sounding like Erma Bombeck clearly had its bizarre appeal, but before anything truly lunatic could come of it, Erma quit the paper for good in 1953. She and Bill, by then a struggling high school social studies and American history teacher, had been married four years, and, she says, “I was sick of working. Putting on pantyhose every morning is not just whoopee time. My dream was to putter around the house, learn how to snap beans, put up curtains and bake bread.” The young couple adopted Betsy, and Erma, who had learned domesticity as a child, returned to the home, an event that was to prove only slightly less momentous than Douglas MacArthur’s return to the Philippines.

As everyone who has made the mad leap into parenthood knows, it is not the first child but the second whose arrival skews life into a grotesque caricature of its former civility. When Bombeck was several months pregnant with Andrew, the family moved to a tract development a few miles from Dayton that she was to satirize as “Suburbian Gems.” Its real name is Centerville. The Bombecks lived on Cushwa Drive (”probably named for some dentist”) in a house like all the others except for one prized interior feature, a $1,500 “two-way” fireplace, and on the outside, a front door they painted red so that Mother Erma and Tom Harris could find them when they visited.

None of the residents of Centerville, least of all the Bombecks, thought they were doing anything hilarious as they mowed their lawns and carted their kids to Cub Scout meetings. Bill tinkered around the house, and pieced out his teacher’s salary by painting houses and working at the post office on school vacations. Erma, he says, was always repainting or redecorating, moving the furniture around. There was, of course, a septic tank, and in the summer, says Erma, “you could see that little sucker sink into the ground and you’d think, ‘There goes another $400.’ ” But there weren’t many one-liners: “Who was there to listen?”

By an odd chance, the family in the house across the street was that of a young radio broadcaster, Phil Donahue, with five growing children. Donahue, an old friend now, whose morning TV appearances bring housework to a halt across the country, confirms that Bombeck was by no means the neighborhood clown. She and Bill, he says, were among the most hardworking of the development’s house-proud do-it-yourselfers. All the houses had Early American furniture, including the inevitable rocker with a cushion tied to the back. The idea of Bombeck as a hopelessly disorganized housewife “is, at the very least, highly exaggerated. When you went to Erma’s place, you never had to step over dirty underwear. At least in the evenings.”

The pressure that was to fizz through the crazy columns was building, however. Listen to Bombeck, who wanted to give her kids the secure childhood she had missed: “I was overwhelmed. You get from your mother what things should be. I’m killing myself. We all did. Are you ready for this? I’m sitting there at midnight bending a coat hanger, putting nose tissue on it to make a Christmas wreath for the door. You know what it looks like? It looks like a coat hanger with tissue that is going to melt when it rains. It’s a desperation you cannot imagine. I had a husband who worked at his job until 7 and 8 p.m. taking care of other people’s children. That’s when I remember reading Jean Kerr, who would sit out in her car and hide, reading the car-manual section on tire pressure. It’s ridiculous. The whole thing is ridiculous.” Then a deep breath: “It’s the core of laughter. If you can’t make it better, you can laugh at it.”