Why my child will never have a cell phone

I feel kind of sorry for my children. Because surely I must be the meanest mom ever.

My oldest is at the ripe old age of 10, and already is asking when he can have an iPhone. I basically tell him "never." Well, maybe not never - but I first emphasize to him that he is, after all, only 10. Then I remind him that I pay over $1,000 a year to have that phone. So far that seems to deter him, but I don't know how long it will last.

Why not? Everyone else is doing it! 

I somehow managed to go about well into adulthood without having one. I was already married before we purchased our first cell phone, a dinosaur of a Nokia that was functional but beyond that, mostly a pain in the butt to use. That was probably ten years ago.

Obviously technology has improved greatly and most of us are a long way from that old flip phone. As a mom, writer and whatever else I do I cannot imagine living without my smartphone, that honks a reminder to me when I need to be somewhere or sounds the alarm for the kids when it's time to head out the door. It's been great planning directions en route, not getting lost at crucial moments, calling ahead for pizza or sending a quick text to tell relatives we made it home from our long trip.

Call me old fashioned, though, because I just can't see how those applications that make the lives of adults easier can be applied to a kid who still sucks his thumb or watches cartoons on Saturday mornings. Why complicate things that just don't need to be complicated?

I can see how some parents would find them useful for certain things, probably for things I cannot relate to. For instance, we live in the country, so my child isn't around town by himself taking the subway. He's not at after school programs without me, or at any of that stuff that some other families might do. Don't get me wrong, we do have a life.

Several times my son has told me about the basket on his teacher's desk: it holds over half a dozen phones each day while he and his classmates are in school. Why they bring them, I don't know. I see one child's mother every day in the parking lot, without fail, so it's not like there are complicated pick ups and drop offs that mean mom and daughter won't see each other much. In fact, it seems like quite the opposite when I see them together, as if apart from school, they never leave each other's side. Even if her mother forgot about her, the school would take her back inside for shelter and wait with her until her mother showed up. And guess what: they'd let her use their phone to call home, just in case.

He has told me that several kids have shown him games on their phones, which leads me to ask about what else is on their phones:  can they access the internet? He says yes - that sometimes they watch YouTube videos. I want to make sure he's not exaggerating, that perhaps there are some parental controls on their phones because hey, they are kids, after all. But then I think to myself, don't count on it. I remember the days when VCR's and DVD's first came onto the market - and hearing how the preschool-aged kids could operate and manipulate them better than their own parents.

Aside from bullying through social media, the latest concern are photo apps like SnapChat, whose novelty seems to be that it can take photos and share them with others and then quickly delete them. Only the problem is that it doesn't really delete them, especially if you know how to do a screenshot. Supposedly the sender will be alerted if a screenshot is taken of their photo, but who cares - the damage can still be done. Some are worried that the supposed disposability of these photos will make users think they can send photos without consequence. It seems, though, that when it comes to the Internet and it's possibilities, both positive and negative, that nothing can be sent without some consequence.

(And guess what, folks - there's a new app that can bypass the screenshot notification - as well as a few new tutorials on line about how to take secret screenshots of SnapChat pictures. Wonderful!)

And the makers of SnapChat, as well as other popular brands like FaceBook, Twitter and YouTube ultimately care little about the content that might be visible to your pre-teen, but rather seem them as a marketing tool and little else. How hard is it to just lie about your age when you get an Instagram account? (By the way, there are literally millions of FaceBook users under the age of 13, which is probably a conservative estimate.) How hard is it to even find the privacy settings, much less fully understand them, before blasting your photos to the entire universe? As many have said of sites like FaceBook, it's like they want you to "overshare," and you realize little just how much info you're giving away over a given period of time.

Images: marketingland.com
At least 20 percent of teen users have 600 or more FaceBook friends.
How many of those 600 people do they actually know?
Thankfully the vast majority of them make their settings private, but a good portion do not. 

Again, when you consider the minimum required age to use FaceBook (wink wink, nudge nudge) is 13, and how utterly ridiculously hard it can be to keep on top of all the changes, settings and everything else the website throws at us (hey, did you know we can use your photos for public use in ads on our site? Thanks!) I imagine some people either fail to see the scope of what they're sharing and with whom or just throw up their hands and say screw it because it's so overwhelming.

We can also see trends in what kinds of information teens are sharing, perhaps without even thinking (and let's face it, adults do it too).

Image: marketingland.com
We make it pretty easy for people to find us
when we share this kind of information. 

I think it's fair to say that we shouldn't just call out teens for this potentially risky behavior; adults do it, too, sometimes unintentionally. And if I hear one more sanctimonious adult say, "Who cares, I have nothing to hide" one more time, I'm going to slap them. 

How many times have we seen inspirational or uplifting photos that say "If such and such a photo gets one million likes, X will happen." Within mere days or even hours of posting, they've already reached half that goal or more. That can be great if you want to share something, and can be devastating if you don't. Like the gossip grapevine, word travels fast - even faster if it's spread through Twitter, FaceBook, Instagram, or through whatever flavor of the month app people are using. It was noted that among one recently publicized teen suicide for social network bullying, the perpetrator obtained nude photos of the victim through an online chatroom, only to send them to just about everyone in her school. When she moved to another district - guess what, he continued to send them to students at her new school. 

Because of the advent of social media, it also means that all those typical teenage habits can be instantly photographed and shared with everyone. Gone are the days of "remember when we toilet papered our teacher's house and then got drunk? Good thing no one took pictures." Unfortunately sophisticated camera phones, coupled with instantaneous access to the internet, mean those memories are documented in real time and then, moments later, can be broadcast everywhere, many times with disastrous consequences. 

As technology changes and our boundaries concerning it are bent, shaped and sometimes broken, it's increasingly important to educate not only our children, but ourselves, in all the new ways it can be used and abused. Respecting not only yourself, but other people's boundaries, even if it seems harmless and in good fun, are becoming more and more important as well. I once had some strange creep blatantly take my picture in the grocery store check out line. Who knows where and how that ended up? 

As more and more stories of teen cyber bullying hit the internet, one thing I cannot understand is why people consider it a form of punishment to take away the cell phone of someone who is being bullied. Sure, if my kid were the one bullying someone, you can bet their phone would probably end up under the tires of my vehicle in a dramatic display of just what I thought of their behavior. But I'm beginning to think it's equally important to take a stance when your child is on the receiving end, if not for one important reason: your child's mental health. Receiving hundreds of text bombs a day, scanning updates on FaceBook from people you once thought were your friends who are now gossiping about you, seeing constant reminders in your face all the time, can have their lasting effects. Limiting that contact, and then redirecting into a more positive interaction, can potentially help them to see the negative, detrimental effects that it can have on their lives if left unchecked. Deleting the account, deactivating it, or putting the phone away for awhile might be worthwhile as you focus on something else that is more productive. As adults, we see our FaceBook friends do this all the time: announce they're taking a leave of absence to get away from toxic environments, or just to get work done or pursue other things that are more important and then poof, they're gone for months. Maybe forever. Why can't we encourage our children to do the same? 

I like the idea that this teacher came up with: show a picture of herself illustrating how fast something can be shared on social media. It's important to remember this is just one fan page that may have shared the image, at any given point in time. There could be many, many others - including this blog and whoever reads this post! 

Image: FaceBook/Time 4 Learning Timeline photos

The above photo received over 600 shares and nearly 8,000 people liked it -
this particular time it was shared. How many times was it shared on FaceBook
in total? Huffington Post estimates this photo was shared at least 16,000 times
and liked by more than 600,000 people. That's like the size of a small city.
Or, a large college campus…. 

Aside from the lesson learned in the example above, this article highlights how manipulating this photo - sometimes with funny results, sometimes not so much - can further lead to trouble. 

Have your kids had a bad experience with social network bullying or experienced negative consequences from cell phone use? 

More reading: 

Teacher very successfully teaches students about internet safety - Huffington Post

FaceBook dominates teen social networking, but enthusiasm waning over drama, stress and oversharing - marketingland.com

Snapchat nudes are being screenshot and secretly posted on FaceBook - Huffington Post

Snapchat's expired snaps are not deleted, just hidden - The Guardian

Breastfeeding and jury duty

Only twelve states exempt breastfeeding women from jury
duty. 

I live in New York State and have been summoned for the dreaded jury duty twice. Both times, I panicked - not because I wanted to shirk my public duty, but because I was the sole care provider for a breastfed infant. I lived hours away from family, had some neighbors - but they either worked or had their own kids to care for. What was I going to do?

Thankfully I was exempted. Maybe they think I'm still breeding, because they haven't called me back (perhaps I'll jinx myself by saying this).

Unfortunately this Missouri mom wasn't so lucky - her state does not have a breastfeeding exemption, and the judge gave her two options when she showed up in court holding her seven-month-old son: put him in childcare or bring someone with you to watch him while you sit in court.

The judge apparently said she could take breaks to pump (and someone else said 'to feed' the baby but these are two entirely different things), but I don't see how this would help her if her child refuses to take a bottle. I'm also curious where she would be allowed to pump: a judge's posh quarters, or the nasty public bathroom down the hall? Hmm... sounds like a tempting offer.

Only twelve states exempt breastfeeding mothers from jury duty. This is pathetic. And while Trickle's state recognizes 'undue physical or extreme financial hardship' as a reason to excuse someone, I'm almost sensing here that the court thinks that because she's a stay at home mom with presumably no income to lose, that there's therefore nothing lost because she's not earning a paycheck from a "real job."

Judge Marco Roldan, who is presiding over the case, said in the past he's exempted potential jurors because of a death in the family (did they provide a death certificate? *eyeroll*) or teachers who were scheduled to give mid-term exams. Seriously? You're joking, right? 

Of course, like any other mothering/childbirth/pregnancy/breastfeeding topic, it comes with no shortage of public outcry, usually from people who understand little about the mechanics of the subject. So as a former breastfeeding mother who has spent ... let's see.... roughly 6 1/2 years of her life nursing a child of varying ages, I can say that it's definitely not easy, especially when there are ridiculous limitations like this creating even more roadblocks to a successful breastfeeding relationship.

When you realize how engrained infant formula has become for decades - since probably the 1940s and 50s - it's not a wonder that many people just don't get it or even understand what the norm is for a breastfed baby. And this being Breast Cancer Awareness Month and all, let's not forget that recent studies have shown that breastfeeding can reduce cancer rates - yet we put up more hurdles that discourage or inhibit a mother's ability to nurse her child.

Many moms, myself included, cannot pump. It's not a sign that something is wrong with you; it's totally normal to be able to successfully breastfeed a baby but be able to pump next to nothing, even with a good pump. It doesn't matter anyway if the child refuses the bottle; some mothers try countless nipples (and they do come in a myriad of shapes and sizes) with no luck.

As far as childcare, when you're a full-time stay at home mom, you probably feel there are few reasons to really need it. I still don't have a regular babysitter whom I trust not to text the entire time she's watching my kids, and mine are 9, 7 and 4. I live hours away from family members, and many of the moms I know are either working by now or have kids of their own to watch; I cannot imagine handing off my baby to them for several hours a day for the duration of a trial (which can either be short and sweet or drag on for weeks, if not months). If you're paying for childcare, usually you have to agree to it long-term, and it can be hard to find one that will agree to short-term care. And of course, daycare is extremely expensive to boot.

The judge's other option was to bring someone with her to court so she could nurse the baby on breaks.  I hope she has really, reeeally good friends, because I personally know no one who would've been willing or even able to do this for me. Again, I'm sure many, if not most, of Trickle's friends either have infants of their own to care for or, if they don't, are working. Even if she could find someone, are they going to hang out all day wandering the courthouse, waiting for the next feeding? Perhaps set up a Pack-n-Play on the front lawn? Would she have to endure more financial hardship by providing additional monies for gas and activities if the babysitter decides to drive all over town day after day keeping baby occupied?

It all seems ridiculous and overly complicated when it doesn't really need to be: just exempt the breastfeeding mother.

More reading:
Jury duty is sometimes a trial for nursing moms - Best for Babes 

Doing the unthinkable: questioning Breast Cancer "Awareness" Month

Right now, as I type this, a college friend is going through what we can only guess are the final throes of brain cancer. It has been a horrible downward spiral to watch, dragged out over the course of several years, that - like most cancers seem to - started out as a battle initially won and then proved to be much, much worse.

Why is that? Have you ever noticed that "survivors" often end up getting cancer a second time, this time much more aggressive than the first? I am so sick of "pink ribbons" I could scream: namely because it seems few people really understand the truth behind them, or the often subversive, misleading marketing behind it. But how dare you ask? How dare you question it?

It's a reality that many of us probably think about, dread, pray will never come knocking at our door. It seems every time you turn around, someone you know or a friend of a friend has it. And it also seems that while advancements have been made, the medical community knows just as little about it as they always have.

Years ago when I was writing for a newspaper, I interviewed a top cancer surgeon at a nationally esteemed cancer facility. He told me that around the turn of the century, there was little they could do for cancer patients, and death from it was often brutal. You were basically just left to die, he said.

I was thinking today of my friend and wondered, if in some ways, that's not still true. Treatment options might work - or at least appear to - and then wham, a recurrence hits you like a ten ton truck several years later. This seems especially true with breast cancer, everyone's favorite 'pet project.'

And I just realized - it's October! Hey, Breast Cancer "awareness" month. Yeah, you're aware of it. But do you really know anything about it? What your risk factors are? How much money is poured into research that is inconclusive, misguided or redundant? The financial toll is one thing; the human toll is unspeakable.

Take a moment to consider:

• A company can merely slap a pink ribbon on a product that makes you think they're "doing something" for cancer research, when in fact they may not be donating anything at all
• Products that contain known carcinogens (like personal care products) are often touting that cancer awareness ribbon

The documentary "Pink Ribbons" alludes to the fact that many studies are irrelevant and seemingly poorly organized. In one such study, a commenter responds that while an effort was made to do studies on breast cancer among black women, all the subjects were white. (Seriously?!) How is that making the best use of the millions of dollars funneled into "research" every year? If that's the best they can do, should we be more inclined to just hope for the best and take our chances?

Sometimes the treatment sounds scarier than the disease itself, and yet even if you're questioning traditional medicine at this point you're almost too scared not to seek it, even if it won't be successful. The last I knew, our friend has been reluctant to admit this might be the end, and I'm not sure who is worse - her tenacious (but completely understandable) struggle for survival or the doctors who keep pumping her full of this that and the other, doing surgery after surgery, instead of just addressing the truth head on. The same thing happened with another friend of ours who succumbed to brain cancer nearly 18 months ago. Literally days before he died, there was a medication switch, as if in some last-ditch effort to save him from one of the deadliest brain cancers there is. Why? To practice on him like some kind of guinea pig?

We've been so hopelessly exposed to chemicals in food, pesticides, plastics and who knows what else that of course, there's no surefire paper trail of where it comes from so all we can say for now is "Who knows?" and move on. It doesn't explain why some people get sick and some don't. I personally think the effects are cumulative, no doubt starting with our parents, grandparents, maybe even great-grandparents. Slowly, generationally, we are a nation of sick people - with everything from ADD to cancer, obesity, hypothyroidism, diabetes and a host of other things that seem to crop up in larger and larger numbers. When a company can produce products that cause cancer and then fund cancer research, it should make you seriously question where priorities lie, both in ourselves and in the industry that fuels this paradox. And why won't they tell you when they've got too many fingers in one pie, or conflicted interests that show you your health is really not their top priority?

Our age of quick fixes and 'feel as little pain as possible' living has far removed us from the idea that, really, there are no guarantees in life.

More reading:
Flawed research appalls cancer patient
Medical research studies: Are too many using flawed designs?
Conflicts of interest often under-reported in clinical trials
Clinical trials flawed by biased reporting

"Overachieving" moms, unite!

Lately I've loved being in the kitchen,
doing a ton of baking, canning and
cooking. Except I'm not wearing a bra.
Don't hate. 

I'm sure we've all seen those blog posts about how 'overachieving' moms try too hard, make the rest of us look bad, give us a false expectation of reality, etc. I wish I could find the original article I read - full of positive affirmations that we're all doing a good job, we're all good moms, blah blah blah.

Well, of course. Why does it matter if someone is addicted to Pinterest and loves to craft and make exquisite Christmas cookies and you don't? Since when is this a sign that you're a "bad mom?"

As I canned what seemed like my 500th jar of applesauce this morning, I thought about that article - and how it's often perceived that anyone who so much as turns on an oven is thought of as a "overachiever." I sometimes wonder what people think when I post pictures of all the canned goods, birthday cakes and Barbie clothes I like to make. I wonder what the other moms think when our kids line up at Halloween, and my child is wearing a hand-made costume that took weeks to make while the kid next to her is wearing something they bought on clearance the day before yesterday.

I am not going to let that stop me, though, because you know what - it's my passion! It's what I love doing. And if those other moms don't, so what. I'm sure they have passions and interests that I don't have; things they know how to do that I wouldn't have a clue about. Why are we turning this into another mommy war? Why are you letting someone else make you feel inadequate? And why is this even perceived as an inadequacy in the first place?

One of my favorite DIY bloggers is Ana White - a wife and mother who knew nothing about power tools and building stuff and then decided to learn. Now she is building her mother a freaking house! Can you imagine? I bet she's doing it all to make the rest of us look really bad ....

I can't wait to make this and show the entire world
how awesome I am. *sarcasm*
Photo credit: lynneslovables.com

So far this summer I've canned, tried a buttload of new recipes, and picked fruit with my kids (cue the happy music and images reminiscent of a J Crew catalog), have plans to make more Barbie clothes for a craft show and am constructing a replica of a toy fashion shop and modeling runway to showcase my stuff. Because I'm nuts. And because I freaking love it and think it's fun. Not to make you feel like a bad person, so get over yourself already. (said in the most polite way possible)

I like to write, do family genealogy, bake and cook, photography, make beaded jewelry, make Barbie furniture, antiquing and yard saling and probably a bunch of other crap I can't even remember. While I'm not very good at decorating cakes, I still enjoy doing it. And when I've posted pictures before (of the ones that actually looked presentable), I've heard comments like, "You're such a good mom." Why?! Because I baked a freaking birthday cake?! Our culture has become so used to just opening a box and dumping it out and voila, you have a meal. And while I certainly make my share of Stove Top stuffing, it makes those of us who actually like to slave over a hot stove doing this stuff feel like freaks, like we're only doing it to show people up.

Before modern packaging, people canned and preserved food because that's all that was available. Things like store-bought sugar were a luxury. Handmade clothes were the standard because nearly everyone knew how to sew, and mass-produced clothing was a sign of status and wealth.

Pardon me while I post my pictures on FaceBook - because I want to share in a way that was shared with me, and sparked an awesome idea. That is why I sometimes wish I could live in Pinterest. So many great ideas, and who cares if you don't do them all? Who is ever going to know but you?

It can be so gratifying to take something from raw material to finished product (finish a project? What??) - whether it be sewing, hunting, carpentry, cooking or whatever. Instead it's almost like they're saying, "How dare you know how to do all that stuff, then have the audacity to share your ideas! Shame on you!"

I think our ancestors - you know, the ones who lived on farms and knew how to build and do things for themselves because there was no other way - would be laughing at us because many of these skills are a lost art. Gone are the days of little girls sitting quietly, cross-stitching a sampler (I wonder if that's a discipline skill in and of itself). I am amazed when I read the book Farmer Boy by Laura Ingalls Wilder: an account of her future husband Almanzo's family, an entire chapter is devoted to what the kids do all on their own while the parents are away for a few days. They use up all the sugar to bake goodies and make their own ice cream, and when a problem arises that could get them in some serious hot water, older sister comes to the rescue by meticulously patching up the wallpaper and scrubbing the entire room. Wow. A kid knows how to do that, all on her own?

An awesome photo collage wall that
I've been wanting to do for at least
five years now. I *will* do this. Someday.

I'm fortunate to have the time to dabble in a variety of things because I'm a stay-at-home mom, but I think I'd be doing this even if I had a "real" job. Sometimes, it comes down to priorities and making time for your hobbies - which can be a great stress-reliever! And sometimes I wonder if women, more so than men, create these inner and outer battles with themselves and each other - dwelling on what other people do and gauging their own abilities based on their perception of someone else. My husband is crazy busy with work but makes time to go hunting - because it's therapeutic, it's a passion, and a craft, so to speak. Are other men jealous of my husband because he hunts and can field dress a deer? I doubt it. So if someone is putting smiley faces on their kids' sandwiches and enjoys it, so be it. If you feel like a "bad mom" simply because of this, please don't. Sometimes I think the only one making you feel inadequate is you.

And if you'll excuse me, it's time to put my handmade-from-scratch calzone (no premade dough here!) in the oven. (My kids are eating cereal instead.)

If you're interested in seeing my (inadequate) craft blog, click here. Not updated very often, but I try. LOL

"Dr." Amy to speak at September ACOG conference

I just heard it through the grapevine that the formidable "Dr. Amy" of homebirth hater fame is on the docket to speak at an ACOG conference in September. And not surprisingly, one of her topics is "Everything an obstetrician needs to know about homebirth."

Of course, I don't know personally, but I'm going to take a wild guess that she's never attended a homebirth before. Yet she is probably considered the "expert" source on them, most likely because she squawks the loudest. Never mind what actually comes out of her mouth.

Here are her "credentials," according to the ACOG PDF handout:

Um, no, not exactly. Although I realize that the title "Dr." is often a courtesy after a physician has left practice or retired, this is incredibly misleading. My father-in-law is a retired physician that most people address as "doctor," but he certainly doesn't go around representing himself as a licensed, practicing physician. I would hope those in attendance actually know better when listening to her blather on for an hour about how much she hates homebirth and the women who choose them.

A Google search of her name produced the obvious results referring to her blog and "advocacy." She shows up on a number of websites like Healthgrades, listing a physical address to what would seem an office, but no reviews from actual patients. And when you search her name on the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine database, you come up with this:

She spends countless hours trolling the internetz for every story ever published about homebirth and basically makes all natural birth advocates everywhere out to be liars. Yet she continues to represent herself as a licensed physician who is still practicing medicine. Hypocrisy much?

Since ACOG is trying to set guidelines that offer women the best care while treating them with dignity and respect, I'm not really sure how she fits into their lineup.

According to ACOG's website, they acknowledge that

"Most women have normal conception, fetal growth, labor and birth and require minimal-to-no intervention in the process. Women and their families have different views about childbearing based on their knowledge, experiences, belief systems, culture, and social and family backgrounds." (Really? They really believe that?! Who knew.)

It goes on to explain their idea of what "patient-centered care" means:

""Patient-centered" means that health care providers, and the system they practice within, accept that the values, culture, choices, and preferences of a woman and her family are relevant within the context of promoting optimal health outcomes." 

They also acknowledge that part of that patient-centered care includes having not only a skilled attendant (which can come in other forms besides an OBGYN), but also "supportive resources."

Based on their description, I don't think Dr. Amy fits into their scheme of things at all. Either that, or they're just very out of touch with the way a majority of births are carried out these days. Phrases like "support" and "education" are all relative, when you consider that many patients often get all their information from their physician and trust no one else in the process.

On the surface, healthcare initiatives and much of the jargon ACOG churns out sound great - but when you actually ask women about their experiences, it seems that there is a major disconnect. ACOG itself argues that they feel the hospital is the safest setting for giving birth, but admits that it "respects the right of a woman to make a medically informed decision about delivery." It's clear that Dr. Amy does not. I am really curious to hear how this one is going to play out.

From The SOb's website: What a caring, compassionate and professional
way to promote your "advocacy." Would you want someone this vulgar and
derisive in charge of your care? 

More reading:
The C in ACOG Stands for Castrated 

Your baby, the (normal) "problem sleeper"

There's so much parenting advice out there, some of it really good, and some of it pretty awful. Sometimes it's hard to know what to do, especially if you're a first-time parent, and many times people can make you feel really guilty and pretty horrible for listening to your gut instinct when it comes to raising children.

If there's one thing I learned after having three kids, is that they're all different. As much as the mechanics of babies are the same (yeah, they eat, poop, sleep, repeat) they're not: their personalities begin to emerge early on, and as they grow and learn, you have to tailor your parenting to fit their needs and differences. But I came to the conclusion based on the advice of others, and in observing others and what's considered social norms, that sometimes we think it's the other way around.

Getting your baby on a sleep schedule, whatever that is, is probably a perfect example. People will ask you if your child is a "good baby," which must mean "Are they sleeping through the night yet?" when they're 3-4 months old. I remember with my oldest, as a newborn he would be awake at all hours before I finally thought, What am I doing?! This child should be in bed.  But lucky me - I was spoiled by what I'll call the "Perfect Sleeper."

He slept through the night probably around four months, which I'd say is great (when compared to my other two). If he cried or fussed at night, it usually meant one thing: he'd filled his pants and needed a diaper change.

I can't imagine if I had taken this advice - from the cringeworthy What to Expect website - you know, the book everyone loves to hate. It reads like something out of a Dr. Spock time warp:

"Your baby's bad sleep habits are being rewarded. If your child cries at night to be fed and you feed him, or if he cries because he wants to be held, and you pick him up, then he learns a tricky lesson: Cry and I'll get what I want. But by six months, rest assured he needs neither a nighttime snack nor a cuddle; he's just getting away with that because he can..." (emphasis mine) Healthy full-term babies are capable of fasting for up to 12 hours at night by six months of age..."

Unless, of course, your child is like mine and has just taken a giant dump when he's "supposed" to be sleeping. I mean, really. Every child is different! This is basically assuming that there surely must be something wrong either with your crappy parenting or your child - who can sleep for long stretches but simply doesn't want to. Stop cuddling your child at 2 a.m.! He doesn't need it!

What?!

I don't think there's a parent on Earth who would say, "I really regret spending more time with my kids." Love them, hold them, feed them, rock them - they're only little once.

All kinds of things can mess with their sleep schedule: illness, hunger, emotional needs, or meeting milestones (that always kept my kids up - they were practicing their new skills!). If your child is going through a growth spurt, heck yeah they're going to want to eat in the middle of the night. It may not happen to every kid, but it doesn't mean there's something wrong with yours if it does - it's totally normal!

Fast forward to children #2 and #3 - who probably slept through the night at around 18 months. I very briefly tried the "cry it out" method with my middle, who was having none of it, and just wanted the breast, for crying out loud. It was so much easier to just give it to her, spend the five minutes to nurse, and then both of us would go back to bed. End of story. Is she waking up every three hours to eat now that she's six? No. My youngest was probably the same way, I can't even remember. But somewhere in there I realized something crucial: if I don't change my perspective, especially on nighttime feedings, this is going to get old. Quickly. And I can't afford for that to happen because we've got a lonnnng way to go.

I noticed, especially with my youngest, all he wanted was five more minutes. Just a little longer on mommy's lap, at the breast, and he was okay. The more I tried to rush things because I had something else to do, the more he just wanted that time with me. It was like a way of forcing me to slow down, relax, and listen to him and his needs, instead of demanding that he conform to my schedule.

I'm not going to say it was a bucket of laughs the entire time, but once I started seeing it as less of a nuisance and more of an opportunity to just love my children, it totally changed how I felt about dragging my butt out of bed in the middle of the night to deal with that "problem sleeper." My youngest, who is 4, still occasionally gets up to come to me in the middle of the night, even if it's just to cuddle and fall asleep in my arms, and will gladly go back to his own bed to kick, thrash and roll around as much as he damn well pleases.

And by the way, all of them were breastfed exclusively for six months (my daughter a little longer), and were nursed long-term. All treated much the same in terms of feeding and bedtime routine, all with different results. I know some parents struggle for long periods either getting their children to go to bed, to stay in bed, to sleep alone, etc. - they're all different. No one method is going to work with each and every one of them, and sometimes it will take great feats to get them to just lie. still. for. five. minutes. It will seem, as it did for me for many many many nights up with one baby or another, to be an eternity, and before you know it - poof, it's gone. That's what you should expect.

For much better advice, click here. :)

Mom kicked out of pool for breastfeeding

A mom in Great Britain has staged a nurse-in because she was asked to leave the pool area while nursing recently. The lifeguard asked her to stop because it violated the 'no food and drink' rule. But the thing is, she was physically in the pool when she was asked to stop.

Normally I'm all for breastfeeding your baby wherever, whenever the baby needs to be fed. But I must admit, I find the idea of breastfeeding while in the pool kind of gross - but it has nothing to do with modesty, covering up, exposing the breast or any of that. 

Despite being treated with chemicals,
swimming pools are still pretty
disgusting when it comes to germs and
bacteria. Studies have shown that kids
and adults alike are known to treat it as
a public bathroom.
Photo: analab01/Stock.xchng

I think one person actually unfriended me on FaceBook over posting this article, perhaps misunderstanding my concern and interpreting it that I don't support public breastfeeding. Actually, it's quite the opposite. But I can understand how the pool would be concerned with her nursing there, and they actually stated that she was free to nurse anywhere around the pool area, just not in the water. 

Some mentioned the risks of milk leaking (probably unlikely) and the baby throwing up. In my case, this would've been a reality with my second, who regularly threw up copious amounts and then proceeded to want to nurse all over again. I probably would not have wanted to nurse in the pool, but had I decided to, most likely we would have contaminated the entire area. The cost to treat a pool that's been contaminated is likely quite high because it's a very involved process, involves closing portions of the pool and results in a loss of revenue because no one can swim. 

Despite all the chemicals used, pools apparently are still pretty disgusting. The woman was sitting in the jetted whirlpool area (I'm assuming the baby pool) where probably nearly all of the four-and-under set forego interrupting their play and just simply urinate wherever they are. If you've ever used those "swim diapers," they're pretty much worthless at containing anything. And it's estimated that even 1 in 5 adults pee in the pool. Disgusting!

Not to mention the grossness that's floating: residue from personal care products and sun lotions, body oils, dead skin cells. Yuck. It almost makes you never want to go swimming again, breastfeeding or not. 

It's been estimated that many people don't shower before entering the pool (who knew?) and therefore all kinds of interesting things like e. coli hang out in the filters and everywhere else. Bacterias that can ear infections and skin rashes were found in a majority of public pools, and "pools used primarily by children tested positive 73 percent of the time." Apparently public municipal pools are the worst offenders. 

It's not like your breasts are sterile, but perhaps reducing one more point of contact while nursing is wise, rather than staging a protest to fight for your right to breastfeed in what is quite literally a public bathroom.