When it comes to parenthood, the tasks are endless -- feeding, bathing, diapering, dressing -- the list goes on and on. So when it comes time to get down on the floor and play, who can blame a mom if she's too tired to push Matchbox cars around for two hours?

Other moms, that's who. At least, that's what my friend Jenelle says. Jenelle and her son, James, were at our public library recently when another parent pressured Jenelle into abandoning her magazine for a round of Legos and puppets.

"James was playing with this woman and her son, and the woman was all, 'Oh, look, he wants to play with someone,'" Jenelle says. "I just smiled and kept reading, but she said it three or four times, until I finally felt like I had to play with him. I was totally annoyed, because that's why we go to the library, so he can play with other kids -- not me! I am not a play-on-the-floor mom."

An informal poll of my friends revealed that more than half of us -- myself included -- are less than enthusiastic about playing with our kids. Geez, I'm cringing even as I write that. Playing with your kids shouldn't feel like work, but for many of us, it does, and we definitely feel guilty about it.

As parents, part of our job is to help our kids make friends. But what happens when your child makes friends with someone and you can't stand the parents? Are you obligated to socialize with them -- or even to let your child continue the friendship? It's hard to know where to draw the line when it comes to making friends with other parents. Are we obligated to socialize with our kids' friends' parents if we don't like them? And what is it about that other parent that rubs us the wrong way?

Sometimes the issue is that other parents have different rules. "My daughter spent the night" at her friend's house, says mom Julia, "and she and her friend went out for chips at midnight. If I had pre-teen kids spending the night, I'd have a pretty good idea where they were at all times, but the friend's mother didn't seem to care." But a difference about curfew wasn't the only reason that Julia wasn't interested in being friends with this other mother. "This mom was also known around school for yelling at teachers who dared to say her daughter had done something wrong. Basically, she was crazy."

So how did Julia handle the issue? She came up with reasons why her daughter was not allowed to go to the friend's house. "I didn't exactly lie; I just sort of bent the truth a little. I told my daughter she was allergic to her friend's dog so she couldn't go to her house anymore. Okay, so maybe that is a lie," she admits. But who can blame her?

Amy Corbett Storch was heartbroken when her soul mate left the Washington. D.C. area where the two met, and relocated to California. "It's probably the worst thing that ever happened," she says. "So now I'm all hurt and wounded and defensive."

Wow, sounds like a bad break-up doesn't it? And it was, the very worst kind of all -- the kind of break-up that happens when you lose your best mom-friend. Storch, 31, knows all about being a mom. After all, she has two kids of her own, and she writes the outrageously funny and popular mom blog, Amalah. She also knows how hard it is to make -- and keep -- friendships with other parents.

Why is it so hard for women, especially mothers, to make friends? Storch believes that parenthood ups the ante: "It's not enough to just find a mom who lives nearby, or who has kids around the same age, or someone you have non-mom stuff in common with," she explains. "You want someone who is all of the above and has a similar attitude towards parenting as you. And you know, someone who's not a mom the way like, your mom is a mom. That's a tall, complicated order. They would spit in your cup at Starbucks after an order like that."

A mom who would never brag about how well she plays tennis may think nothing of making a similar boast about her child. What's the difference?

Obviously, the difference is we are talking about our children, not ourselves. All parents are proud of their kids and take great pleasure in talking about them. But as a reader at Cafe Mom points out, there is a fine line between expressing pride and annoying the heck out of others.

"I think the difference between people who are just proud of their children/husband/life and people who have some kind of issue that makes them feel they NEED to brag is the former will eventually stop once they realize it's getting old. The latter continues at the expense of all around her."

I totally get where she's coming from. An example: My 8-year-old has two friends who are dancers. They attend dance classes several times a week and compete one weekend a month. When I asked their mothers how they did at a recent competition, one mother answered with something along the lines of "She did very well and we are very proud of her." The other mother regaled me with a detailed reenactment of the competition and went on and on about how her daughter blew away the other dancers with her superior skills. And then she whipped out the trophies she happened to be carrying in her purse. See the difference?

I love to hear good things about my friends' children. It makes me happy to see them happy and I am genuinely pleased when they do well. But I much prefer the company of a parent who humbly responds to questions about her child's accomplishments to one who brags incessantly to anyone who will listen. Which parent are you?

Celebrities, politicians and other women in high-profile jobs are heading back to work soon after having their babies. Are abbreviated maternity leaves becoming the new norm for new mothers, especially now, with the recession looming over their heads?

What do TV star Alison Sweeney, Gov. Sarah Palin and French Justice Minister Rachida Dati have in common? They all went back to work just days after giving birth -- and they aren't the only ones. More and more moms are cutting their maternity leaves short, citing economic and career pressures as the main reasons for their quick return to the office.

A recent story on MomLogic points out that the United States is one of the few developed countries that doesn't offer women a lengthy paid maternity leave. In fact, a Harvard University study showed that of 168 countries surveyed, 163 had some kind of paid leave for new moms.

So which countries don't subsidize new moms, you ask? Swaziland, Lesotho, Paupa New Guinea -- and the good old US of A.

Stateside, women are forced to cobble together a leave made up of short-term disability, vacation days, sick leave and unpaid leave. In these tough economic times, it isn't feasible for most mothers to take unpaid time off to be with their babies. And let's not forget about the fact that taking six months off work makes it a lot harder to get that promotion.

Medical studies about breastfeeding point to moderate health benefits, but also advise mothers who struggle to use a bottle and formula if it becomes too physically -- or psychologically -- taxing. Do breastfeeding advocates put too much pressure on moms?

Hanna Rosin takes on one of modern parenting's most sacred cows in this month's issue of The Atlantic, in an ambivalent piece about breastfeeding. She writes that medical experts cannot demonstrate definitive benefits, and also points the finger at upper-middle class women who pass judgment on those who cannot -- or choose not to -- breastfeed.

The article is prefaced with this provocative statement: "In certain overachieving circles, breast-feeding is no longer a choice -- it is a no-exceptions requirement, the ultimate badge of responsible parenting."

Rosin sketches her own encounter with a group of sanctimommies, who immediately cool toward the author after she remarks that she may or may not continue to breastfeed her newborn:

"This time around, I said, I was considering cutting it off after a month or so. At this remark, the air of insta-friendship we had established cooled into an icy politeness, and the mothers shortly wandered away to chase little Emma or Liam onto the slide."

She goes on to ask if breastfeeding is nothing more than today's version of the vacuum cleaner, an anti-feminist tool to "keep women down." Rosin also debunks several popular rationales for breastfeeding, including that your baby will have a higher IQ or be generally more healthy than a bottle-fed baby.

"So how is it that every mother I know has become a breast-feeding fascist?" she asks.

How, indeed?

No one looks askance at working mothers who arrange childcare for their kids. What else are they supposed to do? Let them run wild "Lord of the Flies" style? But what about the mom who stays home with the children? Should she be allowed to have childcare, too?

Working or not, motherhood is a more than full-time job all on its own. Imagine what it would be like to have six kids, all with different schedules, all with different needs. That's why "Project Runway" star Laura Bennett has three nannies to help run her household.

In a brilliant essay at The Daily Beast, Bennett tartly defends herself in the face of haters who brand her a rich, lazy housewife:

"I could pretend to be some sort of self-aggrandized uber-mom who does it all, but the truth is I couldn't possibly get all my kids to places they need to be, well-fed, relatively clean, with homework completed all by myself without going completely postal. I have great respect for my nannies and I know that job they do is very hard, primarily because I do it, too."

Bennett goes on to talk about the caregivers who transport, feed, nurture, and yes, even love her six kids. And she also admits that her "manny" does things with her sons that she prefers not to do, like watch "man movies" or make potato guns out of PVC pipe.

A mother who admits she pays someone to play with her kids? Because she doesn't want to? Off with her head! While you're at it, you better behead me, too.

Standing in the hallway at school last month, a mom turned to me and said, "We got your birthday invitation in the mail. We'll be there."

I saw a mom nearby, a mom with whom I've been friendly for two years, raise her eyebrows. Her son had just had his birthday party a few weeks earlier, and she'd invited the entire class to the roller rink, including my daughter. I gave her a quick smile and explained, "It's a tea party. We only invited the girls."

I felt guilty, and then I was annoyed at myself for feeling guilty. I hoped her feelings weren't hurt, of course, but this birthday business seems like it's getting out of hand.

Perplexed parents (like myself) are starting to ask the question: Do you really have to invite the whole class to your child's birthday party? Increasingly, it seems, the answer is yes. But what I haven't been able to figure out is -- why? If you've got the money, space and patience, I guess the answer is why not? But if you've never got enough of any of them, is it really necessary to spend your money and your last shred of sanity on a huge party?

Being a stay-at-home mom is fulfilling in countless ways, but let's face it ... it's not the most intellectually stimulating job around. And sometimes, it can be downright isolating. I believe that's why blogging and social networking are both so popular among SAHMs (and SAHDs).



Finally, someone to talk to -- during the day no less. No more calling working friends while they're juggling emails and conferences, or at night when they're trying to spend some time with their own kids. As for some real-live company from someone who doesn't call you "Mama," many at-homers don't have friends and family nearby.

Over at BoMoms, though, they're asking the question: Does Facebook make you a bad mom? Facebook (and Twitter and other social networking sites) are different than other hobbies in that they're there all the time, always on, always a temptation. Oh, they can be addicting, too.

Are we spending time staring at our laptops, sending virtual plants to go in friends' virtual gardens, rather than caring for our kids like we should be?

A blogger who goes by the name Thordora recently tweeted something rather alarming on Twitter, an online site where posters talk about what they're doing or thinking at any given moment in 140 characters or less. Thordora is mom to a 3-year-old daughter, and tweeted that she wanted to smother her daughter because the kid wouldn't go to sleep.

While many parents can probably sympathize with what Thordora was feeling in terms of frustration and tiredness, some of her Twitter followers were shocked by what she had written; she was threatening to kill her child and she used the f-word in her tweet. One concerned follower went so far as to call the police, who paid Thordora and her sleeping child a visit.

Was is right for Thordora to Twitter her frustration? Was it right for someone else -- essentially a stranger who doesn't know Thordora personally -- to call the cops? Does the answer lie somewhere in the gray middle?

In this case, I would say there is no gray area. There can't be as far as a child's safety is concerned. Believe me, as the parent of a very, very, VERY energetic child I can imagine what the scene was trying to get Thordora's child down. Regardless of how you feel, though, a line is crossed when someone's safety is questioned.

Sorry, but Thordora should have known better, and she got what was coming to her. There is such a thing as social responsibility over the Internet. People use the web to create a community. As with a real community, those in a virtual simulation care for and are concerned about all the members, even if they've never met. They're also just as vigilant about protecting that community. Rightly so. Do you agree?

There was a time when stay-at-home moms looked to be on the verge of extinction. After being told that not only could they have it all, but that they should also want it tall, more and more women left their families and went out into the workplace to earn a paycheck. And while many mothers did find happiness and fulfillment out there in the working world, many others did not. Having it all is not a one-size-fits-all idea and lots of moms who are lucky enough to have a choice are now choosing to stay home and make child-rearing their full-time occupation.

Staying home to raise children might seem to be an old-fashioned idea, but according to a recent Australian survey, some women are taking that idea even further. Instead of fighting against the image of the stereotypical housewife, they are embracing her as a role model. While they likely aren't wearing pearls and high heels while they do it, many SAHM's are perfecting the skills of our mothers and grandmothers. Sewing their own clothes and growing their own food, these modern moms look a lot like a 1950's housewife.

The survey, conducted by social forecaster AustraliaSCAN, finds increasing numbers of people participating in DIY activities - crafts, cooking, sewing and gardening. "There has been a substantial shift in our mindset to a more old-fashioned, frugal lifestyle – that real waste-not-want-not approach," said AustraliaSCAN consultant David Chalke. "There are a confluence of forces - the global financial crisis, environmental concerns and a new cocooning - which are pulling together to form the new homemaker. "That's why we are embracing the domestic crafts again," he said.

While some might see the return of the 1950's housewife as a giant step backwards, I do not. To me, liberation is about having a choice. And aren't we fortunate to have choices our mothers and grandmothers did not?

A popular group of girls form their own invite-only cliche, complete with secret passwords. The other girls find out, and, feeling left out, starting tearing down the tight-knit group. Pretty soon, the claws come out and the fur starts flying. Names are called, threats are made, until finally, a reasonable adult steps in.

Sounds just like high school, right? Only this time, the "girls" involved were not only grown women, they were mothers.

UK's hugely popular parenting and social networking site, Mumsnet, was the site of this most recent mommy brawl. As the site grew in popularity, a group of 200 women who wanted to keep things a little more intimate formed their own group called "Moldies." When other members found out, things got a little sticky.

They're baaaaaaccckkkk! When Michelle Obama innocently described herself as "mom-in-chief," she probably had no idea that she was stoking the so-called "mommy wars". But she did. And now, America's most famous working mom is being accused of turning her back on her professional working-mom sisters for putting her career on hold during the campaign and now, to care for her daughters and assume the role of America's First Lady. In blogs and Salon.com, her decision is disparagingly called the "momification" of Michelle Obama.

Even Cherie Blair, wife of Tony Blair, England's former Prime Minister, is weighing in, penning a letter to Michelle in The Times of London. In it, she warns Michelle of the drawbacks of her upcoming role (missed suppers, keeping your views to yourself) and shows empathy for Michelle who cannot return to her job at the University of Chicago Hospital because the White House is in D.C. "It never entered my head to give up work." Blair says about her decision to continue working for her law firm while her husband served as England's Prime Minister.

Whether it's deciding to be a SAHM or holding pro-life beliefs (as Sarah Palin came to find out), certain feminists are bewildered (and sometimes angry) when a woman's 'choice' doesn't line up with their idea of liberation - and even a liberal icon like Michelle Obama cannot escape their disapproval. Personally, if given the choice between working at a law firm or assuming the platform and philanthropic opportunities of a first lady, I'd pick first lady any day of the week! Besides you can always go back to being a lawyer; you only have one chance to take in the experience and opportunities of first lady. Michelle plans to advocate for military spouses and to champion causes that will help improve the work-family balance for American families. Frankly, I find Michelle's decision to use her platform for philanthropic purposes nobler than Cherie Blair's to pursue a lucrative partnership at law firm.

More importantly, Michelle's young daughters are rightfully her primary responsibility and she is wisely anticipating that they will need their mom, as they make what will, no doubt, be an enormous transition to the White House.

Truthfully, what really steamed elite professional women was that Michelle referred to herself as "mom-in-chief." In their view, this is a trivial title, too small for an Ivy League attorney who was raking in 300K not too long ago.

When will women learn that diminishing the role of mothers diminishes us all?