Cynical Mom

Are you there, God?

It's me, Margaret. I freaking hate what you've done to women, that we dress our girls in this, this or this and ourselves in this (hey ladies, Friday is "Dress like a Ficus" day!).

This is asymptotically approaching cute, but on my way to purchase it I ran across this and vomited into my grocery cart, so I had to start all over again.

Can someone PLEASE go make baby girl clothing that is not COVERED in PINK and FLOWERS?

I think I am going to convert our extra bedroom into an Angry Dome for me to pace around, flailing my arms wildly in the air and muttering under my breath about Society and The Man and Socialization. With lots of extra garbage cans in case I cast a wayward glance at something like this and need to "express myself" by voiding my stomach.

BLECH.

Unintentional pressure

Blogging Baby recently had a post about breastfeeding and how, well, it can be a bitch. And part of that bitch is dealing with the pressure to breastfeed. The first comment on the post really jumped out at me:

I'm also skeptical that there is significant pressure on women to breastfeed. Encouragement, yes. Pressure, ehhh?

Encouragement can be pressure. Just because you mean something well doesn't mean that it's not pressure. What is peer pressure, after all? Is "Aren't you going to smoke like everyone else?" (i.e. "Aren't you cool?") different from "But did you know that breastfeed babies get sick less?" (i.e. "What, you want your baby to be sick?"). This doesn't mean that it's a universal bad, but you can't deny that it's pressure.

Also think about the "encouragement" women receive from the media they're bombarded with every day, telling them about this great new firming cream or ab-roller or mascara or eyebrow tweezer that they simply must have if they want anyone to think they're even mildly attractive and oh by the way did we mention that your life will be sucky if you aren't attractive (Linda's got a great rant about this). It's not that the media's telling us that we're fat and ugly, ohhh nonono... it's just a positive encouraging message that, with a little work, we can be so much prettier! Yay!

Politicians aren't the only ones who need good PR

The pro-breastfeeding lobby really needs to improve its marketing and public relations. Take for example this quote from a list of breastfeeding myths by one of the current gurus of breastfeeding, Jack Newman:

6. A mother who bleeds from her nipples should not breastfeed.

Not true! Though blood makes the baby spit up more, and the blood may even show up in his bowel movements, this is not a reason to stop breastfeeding the baby. Nipples that are painful and bleeding are not worse than nipples that are painful and not bleeding. It is the pain the mother is having that is the problem. This nipple pain can often be helped considerably. Get help.Sometimes mothers have bleeding from the nipples that is obviously coming from inside the breast and is not usually associated with pain. This often occurs in the first few days after birth and settles within a few days. The mother should breastfeed! If bleeding does not stop soon, the source of the problem needs to be investigated, but the mother should keep breastfeeding.

Uh, gee. How comforting that you can BREASTFEED THROUGH THE BLEEDING. Nipples that are painful and bleeding are not worse than nipples that are painful and not bleeding!? Spoken like a man who has never had personal experience with nipples that are painful and bleeding. Get help - such as help from someone who will tell you that don't worry, you can continue breastfeeding through the pain, and the bleeding! [full disclosure: I had a la leche league leader tell me this once in an attempt to make me feel better, I nearly hung up on her]

Yes, I know the point he's trying to make. But he really needs to learn more about marketing the point versus just stating it flat-out. Take into account the target audience, which I presume is women who are already something other than wholly committed to breastfeeding (and perhaps these women are also currently in pain or bleeding, yes?). Is that audience going to respond well to advice that says "don't worry about the blood, cheerio, spit spot!"?

Then there's the whole night-sleeping aspect. I recently ran across this gem ("Myth: good babies sleep through the night"):

One more thing. Who says 8 hours of solitary uninterrupted sleep is (1) normal, (2) healthy, or even (3) possible? I'm 52 years old, not trying to double my weight, and I wake up every 3-4 hours at night. I sleep with another human, a dog that snores, and occasionally a cat. So what? Does that mean I've failed to meet some standard of "Sleep Excellence?"

Again, who are you trying to convince? Chances are it is someone who is currently extremely sleep deprived. Your little "wake up, blink, turn over and fall asleep" twice a night does NOT compare. I could go on some more, but I've already ranted on this subject before. Let's just say it's a touchy issue.

KellyMom has a much more balanced take on the whole sleeping-through-the-night-as-a-goal issue, making the point that if mom and baby don't mind, then back the heck off. I'm totally down with that way of stating it.[1] What I think is ridiculous is the naive way in which these pro-breastfeeding messages are marketed to potential or current breastfeeding mothers. If you want more women to breastfeed, you should actually listen to them instead of just telling them what to do. When they're reading your pro-breastfeeding comments, do you think it's possible they might be sitting at their computers sobbing tired tears because they haven't slept more than 120 minutes in a row for five months? Or maybe they're doing that while simultaneously bleeding from the nipples? You're just not going to win them over with these types of messages.

Just so it's clear... I'm all for breastfeeding - iff it works for mom. If breastfeeding or pumping don't work or the mom doesn't want to, then can we just back the heck off and let mom make her own decisions?

[1] When I was struggling with breastfeeding myself, I found kellymom to be the best site around, mainly because it's very data-driven (see example), which is exactly what I want when I am researching such issues. It does get preachy, but I don't mind the preachiness as long as I can see the data behind it.

On working, or not. Or partially. Damned if you do...

I finishI unpublished this post for a while while I thought about it, and rewrote a bunch of it (cutting out part of it which delved into a separate issue which I thought was distracting from the original intention of the post) before posting it again. The original post was pretty negative, which I acknowledged in the text, and a couple of commenters called me on that negativity (I also discussed this issue with some friends outside of the blog, some of whom had a similar opinion[2]). The feedback was along the lines of 'the intention of the person saying something is the important issue; if someone intended something they said to be nice, then finding negativity in that statement is just mean spirited.' (If I misinterpreted you, please correct me in a comment.)

Side note: I thought it was interesting that the first commenter said that I should stop caring what people thought, and then went on to tell me my negativity is "a serious problem." Well, here you have evidence that A) I do care what other people think whether or not I should, and then B) you tell me something bad about myself. So, Mr. Anonymous, you knowingly said something hurtful to me. Tsk tsk, that's so negative! :-) I also think it's funny for someone to whine that a blogger is whining. What, you've never seen that before?

So anyway, here are my thoughts again on one of the issues (comment interpretation; I'm saving the other of who-cares-for-child for a separate post), rewritten:

Economom posted recently about the struggle many women (ok really what I mean is moms, no offense dads, but I just don't think that most of you struggle with this on the same scale[1]) face when deciding to work - or deciding not to.

Late last year, I did some soul searching and realized that although I loved my job, I was unhappy with the amount of time I was able to spend with my son, and wanted more. I was happy with our childcare situation, this decision was entirely about my desire to spend more time with him for my benefit. I thought my only option was to quit my job, and I spent some time deciding within myself (and discussing with my husband and figuring out the financials, of course) that if that was what it took to get more time with him, I was OK with that. It turns out that my company and my group in particular and my manager in particular is pretty darned cool and they offerred me part-time in order to keep me around. I accepted. I was very happy with the way the whole thing went down... I felt comfortable with the choice I was making and looked forward to an improved work/life balance.

I told a variety of people about this change, and got a variety of responses. Many of the responses were along the lines of "Congrats for getting what you want out of your employer." Others were things like "You're making the right choice for your child."

In the original incarnation of this post, I wrote about my internal reaction to the comments of the last type: "Oh, so if this is the right choice, then it must have been the wrong choice to ever work full time?" This negative interpretation of the comment was what several people called me on, saying I was too negative and since the intention was positive, that's how I should react. But the more I thought about it, I still think that whether or not those people intended those comments to be positive (which I'm sure they did) is not the important issue, it's still a negative comment.

To put it another way, say a person you know loses a lot of weight. If you were to say to them "Wow, you look fantastic, you lost a lot of weight!", it's a natural reaction for the recipient to then think "What, so you're saying I was really fat before?". Whether or not it's true, it's not something most people want to have called out. Obviously the "you look fantastic" is intended positively, but it's not just the intentions of the speaker that matter, but the consideration of the recipient's reaction.

Which is why the title of this post has "Damned if you do..." in it.  I don't know of a way for the speaker to "win" in the weight loss case, for example. Perhaps it's a scale: "You look nice today" versus "Woweeee, you've lost a lot of weight." Of course since my point is that it's in the ear of the beholder, who's to know where the scale tips for that beholder? I don't have a solution other than to consider the recipient's reaction and, if there's risk of a negative reaction, err on the side of saying nothing, i.e. be politically correct, as annoying as that is. It's the same reason so many people are scared to ask if a woman's pregnant - it's so hard to know if it's a pregnancy or just weight gain, especially with certain body shapes.

Not that I'm suggesting constantly walking on eggshells (although boy, the lawsuit and diversity training atmosphere is certainly causing that). More part of the golden rule: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." The trick is how you interpret 'nice'.

So then that leads to the question: Why be so negative on a blog? That's not very nice, is it? In addition to the cathartic benefits of just getting one's thoughts out there and feeling like you've been able to say what you're thinking, the main reason I rant or post negative things on this blog is really two sides of the same coin: #1 I like to know that I'm not alone in the way I feel about some things (who doesn't?) and so I always appreciate it when I get comments or see other bloggers agreeing with me[3] and #2: if someone else is thinking similarly and wondering if they're alone and comes across a post of mine that they identify with, then they will know that they're not alone, and that's goodness. When I reflect back on the first major issues I struggled with as a new mother, such as breastfeeding, and how incredibly difficult it was and how the books I was reading were not at all helpful... what I really wanted was to find other people who were or had once been in the same situation, to help me understand how they made it through or just to commiserate. The first several months of my new mom's group were mainly bitch sessions, where the collaborative complaining formed a support structure. We eventually moved past that as we became more confident and capable, but it was a very helpful resource at the time.

I also wanted to link to this post on Chocolate and Peanut Butter, her take on this was about how challenging it is sometimes to be a mother in this society as we are constantly judged (often by each other :-) by the decisions we make and are expected to be light and positive creatures. I agree.

[1] I.e. a smaller % of dads struggle with it compared to moms. I also believe that this is a result of the society we live in (i.e. America in this case, but perhaps it applies to more societies, I just don't personally have experience with them) and how we raise our sons and daughters, and nothing to do with any "biological relationships" or "mothering instinct" or any of that crud. The relationship I have with my son is one I chose, and my choices were strongly shaped by my upbringing. And this is not about how my parents raised me (damn fine, I might add! ;-) but rather about my growing up in this society and being bombarded with these types of messages from every direction. I just don't think boys get those same types of messages, with the same intensity, as girls, and thus I believe it shapes the type of people they grow into and the choices they make about their own lives.
[2] One person went through my last several posts at the time and pointed out how they were all negative, and in fact the entire title of the blog is negative. I guess he didn't read back far enough to the last time I blathered on about the cute thing my kid did. So I had a string of critical posts in a row - what a shocker for a personal blog.
[3] Which doesn't mean that I don't appreciate comments disagreeing with me. It's always helpful to hear other sides. And so although I changed the content of this post based on comments where the commenters disagreed with me, one of the changes I made was to remove identifying information around the original comments i.e. not quote individuals and call out their specific comments. Also, there are ways to disagree with people respectfully, which dbt and daddychip did, and there are ways to disagree with people disrespectfully, which anonymous did. I'd like to think I handle the former well but I admit I lack skills in handling the latter.

Groundbreaking journalism

Yet another article about how much money stay at home moms would make if they got paid. $131,471/yr. Unfortunately the article is complete fluff. The problems:

It's mom-specific. Would it kill them to throw a gender-neutral reference in there or at least mention the growing numbers of SAHDs?

It's a reuters story based on an "informal survey" by powerhouse website salary.com where the survey respondents gave titles that fit what they do. That's some rigorous science, there. Based on the weak references provided in the story, the titles that the SAHMs gave included nurse, chauffeur, etc. But it's ridiculous to go from "the X minutes a day that a parent performs nursing-related tasks" to "having them earn the equivalent of X minutes of a nurse's salary." To pick on this example, there's a whole lot that nurses do that stay at home parents don't and can't. A significant part of the value of a nurse is having an immense base of medical knowledge that might be called into play in any given situation. Taking care of a child with a fever or pouring antiseptic on a skateboarding injury just don't compare. A better way to look at this is: how much would America pay someone else to do this job for your children? What do we pay the nurse at the gradeschool? The bus driver? The daycare teacher? The music teacher at daycare?

It assumes 40 hours + 60 hours of overtime. Yes, I get the point that stay at home parents' work doesn't end, but if you want this number to be useful for any sort of comparison at all, then don't count the bleepin' overtime. Guess what, the parents who work out of the home come home and do that 60 hours of overtime too. Or is that just me?

One quote: "Coleman said feedback on the figure was mixed. Some felt mothers deserved more, some less. In general, though, many were pleased to see a figure above $100,000." Um, really? They were pleased to see a figure above 100k? I hadn't expected that.

And the quote from the mom who said she "definitely" thinks she should make that much? That's what really convinced me.

Then at the end, cue obligatory reference to how all SAHMs say that really, you can't attach a dollar amount to the time spent at home with children (but if you have to, I mean really have to, then how about a number above 100k?).

What tripe. A story built on nothing. It doesn't add any value and worse yet, it takes away from other stories on this topic that might be more balanced and thoughtful (admittedly, I've never seen one). I get that it sucks that stay at home parents don't earn a paycheck and yet they do a variety of tasks that, were they working out of the home at those tasks for other people or their children, would earn money. I get why people write these stories, hopefully it helps add visibility to the work that goes on at home. But can't we write them better than this?

My so-called book review, aka more ranting on parenting literature

It occurred to me today that I don't really like books written by parents of many children (where 'many' is defined as "more than 7" at the moment, until I find a book I don't like written by someone with 6 kids in which case I will change my definition).

On the one hand, you'd think that they'd really know what they're doing after that many kids... But on the other hand, by the very nature of their choice to have so many children and give up so much of themselves, they are obviously very far removed from who I am and what I want out of my life. I love being a parent, but I also love being me, and I want to have time for both in my life.

Take, for example, "I didn't plan on being a witch, and other surprises of a joyful mother", written by a mother of nine (when does she have time to write books??). The book is filled with examples of how she found joy in chaos, peace in disruption, yadda yadda yadda. Good for you! But guess what, the nature of the challenges I have don't really map well to someone who has to deal with five children under the age of eight when going to the mall. And reading the stories, I can't help but feel small -  after all, who am I to complain with only 1.3 children at the moment? Of course this is more a sign of my own insecurity than any fault of the author, but I just haven't been able to get into this book. Compare this to my reaction to Anne Lamott's wonderful "Operating Instructions: a journal of my son's first year", which I devoured in a single day when my son was a few weeks old. Now there's a book that I bonded with, that made me see that I wasn't alone, that brought me into the author's life in a loving way. To this day when I read articles by Anne on Salon or elsewhere that mention her son, I think "Oh Sam, I know him!". The poor kid. ;-)

Another book by a many-parent that I did find useful in many cases but overall I disliked was the Sears' Baby Book. I read the entire thing cover to cover early on, and although there is a lot of useful information  in it (especially if you agree with the authors that babywearing and breastfeeding are nearly orgasmic experiences), it sends some messages that I don't agree with.

First off is the cramming of pro-breastfeeding down your throat. Yes, I know breast is the best nutrition for baby. I breastfed my son for 13 months, putting me in a very small percentage of mothers these days, and in retrospect I'm glad I did it. But it sure as heck wasn't easy and during that beginning period, I certainly didn't appreciate preaching or being beat over the head with it.

Throughout the book, breastfeeding is shoved in your face and related to every other aspect of parenting. Got a baby with Down's Syndrome? Ah, babies with down's syndrome are prone to heart problems, and breast milk is lower in salt and is more physiologic. Tips on how to breastfeed your adopted baby - i.e. yourself, not using milk from a milk bank, using a technique called "induced lactation". (Um, wow. That's dedication.) The best pillow positions to breastfeed twins (or triplets) at the same time.

In fact, there are over 80 pages of information on breastfeeding, but 16 on bottlefeeding (several of those 16 taken up with a chart that compares human milk to formula and attempts to drive home the point that really, formula sucks and shouldn't you try breastfeeding instead? Don't you love your baby?). The bottlefeeding chapter is even named "Bottlefeeding with safety and love" - if it didn't specifically call out safety and love, would you assume that they were missing, since it's such a difficult thing, apparently, to bottlefeed with safety and love?

And then, Dr. Sears eventually gets to working and parenting... 18 measly pages worth, the first 4 of which are taken up with information you should consider if you're thinking about quitting, want to stay home with your baby but think you can't afford to quit, etc. I.e. let's send a clear message here in the chapter on working that really, working is not a good thing. The book spends a page describing the various childcare options, but the five lines about commercial day care tell you that it's just not recommended, you wouldn't want to do that for your baby would you? Here is where you also see some of the sexist tones that are sprinkled throughout the book, the description of "Home day care (Family day care)" says:

In this arrangement baby is cared for in another mother's home.

Um. Yes, and sometimes it's a father's home. This blatant sexism is found throughout the book, from the section on "Who stays home with the baby when he's sick?" that says:

Sick babies should have their mothers if at all possible -- mother preference intensifies when baby is sick.

Really? Well DaddyChip, RebelDad and the many other stay-at-home dads out there, I hope you realize that truly, under the covers, the kids prefer mom and since you can't "win", you should stop trying, since apparently it's a competition. It's written in a book, it must be true! I'm not denying that it is true, in many families - but stating it categorically is just ridiculous.

The Baby Book purports to be written by Bill (the doctor, the dad of eight) and Martha (the nurse and lactation consultant, the mother of eight) with some contributions by two of their sons (both M.D.s, the dinnertime conversation when they get together must be interesting, although it probably revolves entirely around breastfeeding). I just can't help but wonder when Bill had time to spend good quality time with his eight children while also being a doctor, that must have been quite a challenge.

Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way about the book, several of the reviews I skimmed on Amazon also call out the underlying tone of pro-mother, anti-father-or-really-I-guess-fathers-are-OK-but-really-it's-the-mothers- who-are-the-important-ones-here- but-only-if-they-stay-home. I think that this book is probably a fantastic resource for people who are very interested in or already dedicated to attachment parenting and need tips and tricks on the common methodologies of AP such as babywearing, breastfeeding and cosleeping. But in the end, I think the negative aspects of the book (guilt-inducing, sexism, etc) outweigh the positives and ultimately this book is not a good resource for a new mom, particularly one who loves her child dearly but does not feel passionately that her type of parenting needs a label.

And there I go, earning the name of this blog again... I suspect I've got more of these in me, so I created a new category for it :-)

Speaking of imagination, is it my imagination or...

...is pregnancy and newborn literature often hostile and guilt-inducing to the women most in need of support during this very difficult transition stage of life?

Let me just get this out there so that my biases are clear: I tend to be a wee bit defensive and "anti-establishment" when it comes to pregnancy and birth. I believe that there's more than a wisp of truth to the old joke, "if men could give birth, abortion would be a sacrament." Realistically though, I only wish that the many maladies that can befall pregnant women and new mothers suffer from (postpartum psychosis and Andrea Yates comes to mind, as well as PUPPPs which is something that I had and worry on a daily basis that will hit me again) were as well researched and understood as, say, erectile dysfunction.

Now, that aside, one of my general beefs with "the establishment" when it comes to pregnancy and birth is the literature. In particular, the condescension with which pregnant women are treated in said literature, how they are often not offerred the full benefit of a thoughtful and complete and "fair and balanced" response to allow them to draw their own conclusions. To that I offer a few  of examples from some of the most well known pregnancy and baby books and websites.

As anyone who's read "What To Expect When You're Expecting" knows, you should take care of yourself while pregnant by eating healthy and exercising. Makes sense, you are thinking to yourself. And the authors further clarify their statements around nutrition in allowing that once in a while, it's okay to eat something you really shouldn't. That's just good sense as well, you don't want to get into a pattern of denial as you'll just never be happy. But do you know what their definition of 'eating healthy' is?  Or what is an example of a food that you really shouldn't eat? Unfortunately I can't find my copy (I think I burned it), but I distinctly remember this phrase, so I believe it is a near exact quote: "And once in a while, treat yourself to something you really shouldn't have, like a bagel."

A BAGEL??!??

*@(#$*(@#*$!@#

OK now that being said, on to another book that tries very hard to be helpful and truly does have a lot of good information in it, but misses the mark on the issue of sleep [1]: The Womanly Art Of Breastfeeding. I had a lot of "issues" breastfeeding as I have mentioned before, and one night in a fit of desperation (and with a slightly pain-addled and a very sleep-deprived brain) I picked up this book looking for some support to convince me to continue breastfeeding especially through the night, when it would really be so much easier to bottle feed and then my husband could do at least one feeding per night so I could get more than three hours of contiguous sleep. From the chapter on sleep:

"When will he sleep through the night? Probably the reason this question ever assumed the proportions it has is because of the inconvenience of nighttime bottle-feeding -- getting up with the baby into what may be a chilly house, waiting while the bottle warms, fighting sleep, and being fearful that baby or bottle may be dropped. As a nursing mother, you are spared such inconvenience, so when you hear that a neighbor's baby sleeps through the night and yours doesn't, ask yourself, 'Is it really that important?'"

To the authors of TWAOB: YES IT IS, YOU IDIOTS.  Even if I were able to successfully sleep with my baby next to me  as well as successfully breastfeed lying down (and I wasn't, and I wasn't[2]), don't sit there and tell me that sleeping contiguously isn't a valuable thing and doesn't result in a happier, healthier mother. I have recently gone back to non-contiguous sleep (one of the wonderful effects of pregnancy is the increased blood volume and shrunken bladder) after a long period where I was able to sleep without waking between 8pm and 6am, and I am already missing those glory days.

Plus, there are plenty of women who choose not to cosleep even if they could, and so the disruption to them is just as severe as it is to bottle-feeders. I'm not saying that there aren't advantages to breastfeeding and cosleeping regarding sleeping, but for god's sake, offer the reader a little more support about what a difficult and painful process having a newborn is before you (or how about instead of?) admonish them for complaining.

I also can't figure out what was going through the editors' minds as they wrote this: they knew that "When will he sleep through the night?" was an important enough issue to include it in the book. But their response basically tells the reader "Oh stop it, you're just being silly, it's not a big deal." If it's not a big deal, why did it merit several pages of discussion in your book?

To add insult to injury, the book goes on to say that you should realize that changing your reaction to your sleep being interrupted is the only way to get anything positive out of the whole night-waking thing, i.e. just "decide" that since your baby does need that food at those intervals, after all, that it's a good thing that you're around to provide for him and since there's no sense in feeling resentful and pissy, you shouldn't. Quote:

"If you resent the interruptions to your sleep... you will face each day more frustrated and trying harder and harder to fit the baby into your sleep pattern. On the other hand, if you can adjust your mental attitude to one of greater acceptance, you will find yourself able to enjoy those quiet moments in the night with your infant who needs to be held and nursed, or with your toddler who just needs to be with someone."

To be clear, I'm not saying that acceptance isn't a good thing. But do they really need to beat you over the head about how not only do you need to get over it, but really you're just being plain selfish if you can't find yourself greeting each 10pm, midnight, 2am, 4am and 6am cry with a grin? This next part is the one that made me throw the book against the wall, a quote from a family practice physician:

"A lot of people think they are entitled to a night's sleep. Nobody's entitled to a full night's sleep and very few mothers get one. Many people do at one time or another during their lives, and I'm all for it. But no one's entitled to it, whether she's a new mother or not, if someone needs her. If a lazy, self-indulgent old man like me can get out in the middle of the night to help people he hardly knows, certainly a mother can do this for her own child."

Bite me, Dr. White. I am entitled to a full night's contiguous sleep. That doesn't mean I don't realize that I'm not going to get it, or that I don't understand that it's what my baby needs and so therefore I must provide, and I do... but don't sit there and tell me that I don't deserve it. Throw me a bone here. Tell me that I do deserve it, but I just have to pull through this tough time where I'm plain ol' not gonna get it. Give me those tips on how to minimize the disruption (after all, it is true that cosleeping makes it easier) without taking a holier-than-thou-but-you-too-can-become-holier stance for once.

What new mother, exhausted from lack of sleep, is going to read that section of the book, and tilt her head thoughtfully and say "You're right, Dr. White... I don't deserve a full night's sleep. Gosh, now that I realize that, it makes it so much easier to just accept that this is the way it's got to be. And now that I've accepted it, I no longer am upset when my baby cries for me overnight! In fact, I now eagerly spring out of bed (OOPS OOPS I MEAN I TURN OVER TO HIM IN MY OWN BED I DIDN'T MEAN TO IMPLY FOR A MINUTE THAT WE DON'T COSLEEP SORRY DOCTOR WHITE!!) to feed him every two hours like clockwork for six months without end. Thanks!!!"

Now I feel fully justified in being indignant at the parts I quoted above. I think most moms would agree with me on at least the spirit of my complaint. For this next one, however, I'm not sure if I'm veering on the edge of "looking for a problem" or not. You decide. The article in question which prompted me to write this entry was: "Is it okay to skip breakfast when pregnant?", on iVillage. The sentence in particular that caught my eye was:

"The question you should ask yourself is, "Would you skip feeding your baby breakfast after he or she was born?" By skipping your breakfast, you deprive your baby of their breakfast."

When I first read this, it threw off the entire answer for me. These first few sentences just smacked of fearmongering. No we can't simply answer the question with some medical data about what would happen to the baby if you did skip breakfast, we must first instill fear into the heart of the pregnant woman who even considered such a horrible idea.

Tell me this, then... when a baby comes out of the womb, he needs to eat roughly every two to three hours around the clock (if breastfed), sometimes more frequent. It would be cruel to deny him one of those feedings just because you didn't think it was time to eat. So therefore does that mean that while pregnant, you should eat every two to three hours around the clock, since after all that is what your baby needs? I.e. you're telling me that there is a biological need for the body to have what we here in these united states call "Breakfast"? It's written in our DNA that there must be three square meals a day?

Contrary to the tone set by these first couple of sentences, the data the response serves up has little to do with the impact to the growing baby's nutritional needs:

"Women who skip breakfast during pregnancy become fatigued more easily, tend to overeat at other meals and don't make as healthy food choices at snack times"

So what, if I skip breakfast and don't become more fatigued and don't overeat at other meals and do continue to make healthy food choices (like no bagels! god forbid), does that mean it's okay to skip breakfast then?

Please give me the facts, and let me draw my own conclusions and make my own choices. And while you're doing that, don't talk down to me. Is that so much to ask?

[1] I should also add here that my sister gave me this book, and she reads this blog, so I would like to say up front that my distaste for this section of the book in particular and the vitriol I spew its way has anything to do with my appreciation to you for helping me through those difficult times. Plus you have got to admit that the parts I quote are just not helpful, especially given the frame of mind of someone who is in doubt, but seeking support and reasons to continue. Pretty please don't be offended :-)[3][4]
[2] I was on pins and needles every night I tried to do this, terrified about squishing him or smothering him. He was also a very light sleeper and I tend to toss and turn, not a good combination.
[3] I should also add here that I think breastfeeding is a good thing if it works out for you, and I feel similarly about cosleeping although I choose not to do it myself as I value my space and ability to watch The Daily Show in bed. But if they don't work out for whatever reason, then bully good for you if you choose to do something else.
[4] Wahoo! I just had an IM conversation with her where I begged her to not be offended, and she said OK. I'm in the clear!