Lactivism or Bullying?

Okay, that's it: I try to stay neutral on the issue of breastfeeing. I've pointed out, on many occasions, that yes, "breast is best" for baby, but that there are many times when it may not be best for Mom, or for the family as a whole. As of righ tnow, though, I've just about had it.

In recent years, breastfeeding's benefits have been much touted, and hospitals - at least in my experience - are now pushing breastfeeding as hard as they once pushed formula. Formula samples are banned from some hospitals. "Nurse-ins" are being organized anywhere a breastfeeding mom may have felt slighted. Sometimes these are legitimate concerns of unfair treatment, but sometimes it is - quite frankly - a case where Mom got herself into a snit over a look that she didn't like. Before anyone takes me to task for not supporting breastfeeding mothers, let me state: I wholeheartedly support a breastfeeding mom's right to feed a baby anywhere he/she needs to be fed. If you choose to continue breastfeeding into toddlerhood, good for you, but at that point, the child doesn't NEED to be breastfed immediately anymore than they NEED to have a sandwich at the exact moment they demand it. You do not need to nurse a two or three-year-old in the middle of a department store, or IN a public pool. But that's another rant.

I've been a very outspoken opponent of the Mommy Wars. Most of us do the very best that we can for our children, and our families, and we work damned hard to do it. Working out of the home, working AT home, stay at home... none of it is easy, but we do it because THAT IS WHAT WORKS FOR OUR FAMILY, and it is no one else's business why we "choose" the path that we do.

But with all of the emphasis now placed on breastfeeding, baby feeding has become one of the hottest issues in the Mommy Wars. Breastfeeding moms often feel that they don't get enough support, and "lactivists" claim that with the right support, almost any mom can and should be breastfeeding. They will usually use the caveat of "if there's no medical reason why she can't" but the inference is that true medical excuses are few and far between. Anything else is just irresponsible parenting.

Why have I gotten my knickers in a knot over this now, you may ask? My youngest is nearly 28 months old, and the bottles have long since been kicked to the curb. I will never again feel the frustration that comes with wanting to breastfeed, but simply not being able to, for reasons I have already explained on this blog - you can read about it here, if you haven't already.

It was this article and the follow-up here that got me into an uproar. It wasn't the articles, though: those are just musings on the economics of baby feeding by a soon-to-be first-time mom, for a FINANCIAL website. It's the comments that got me. The first ones encouraged the woman to breastfeed, because it's the better option for baby. Fine. Nothing new there. Then comments like these began to appear:

• There is no debate about it: breast-feeding is best for babies. It is also best for mothers. The better deal, by a longshot, is breast-feeding. Anyone who can do this for their child absolutely should. Period. The benefits to the child are absolutely tremendous, and they last for years. It would be foolish to choose differently, if the choice is yours. Irresponsible article!
• Generally, formula is for the "too posh to push brigade."
• Why even write an article confusing expecting mothers when breastmilk is 99% better for the child. Why not do what is best for the child instead of most convenient for the mother. Maybe this woman shouldn't be having a child.
• If you're able to breastfeed but think it's just too inconvenient for you, you're not a real mother. You're just a robot with a bottle. Why not just hand your kid over to the commune and pick him up when he's 4, after all the baby-raising inconvenience is over?

So much for supporting other moms. By the way, all of the spelling and grammar mistakes in those quotes belong to the nutjobs who wrote them, not to me.

I will say this ONE LAST TIME (yeah, right...): what is important is that a baby is loved, cared for, and fed, NOT how they are fed. I will not stand for new mothers being bullied and ridiculed into ANY feeding choice (or diapering choice, or work-situation choice, or sleeping choice, and on and on, ad NAUSEUM.) You made your choice with your children, now SHUT UP about it. People who try to make themselves feel better about their choices by belittling others are just showing how low their self-esteem really is.

His Body, His Choice?

Things have been kind of boring around here lately (entirely my fault, I acknowledge... would never DREAM of blaming you!) so I thought that perhaps it's time to stir things up a bit, and how better to do that than with more circumcision talk!

Dalhousie University's Dr. Noni MacDonald published an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal suggesting that circumcisions should be delayed until age 12. She says that since the biggest benefit to circumcision is the reduction of transmission in STDs (and even that's debatable), and infants and young boys don't gain any benefit from this, it should be delayed until they hit puberty so that they can be involved in the decision. You can read more about it here.

Truthfully, the likelihood of this becoming the norm is pretty low (like, subterranean) but it raises a good point about consent. Thoughts?

Is the World Really All THAT Dangerous?

I think I mentioned a long time ago that I’m not one to jump on product recalls. We are, in fact, still using a drop-side crib in our house, and I have no intention of replacing it. 3 older children have survived through it, as has our youngest for the past 12 months or so that he’s been using it. When he’s done with it, off to the dump it will go, but it will make me sad, because despite being a little bit beat-up in the looks department it’s perfectly fine, and I’m sure that some young mom could make use of it. I’ll throw it out more out of fear of other people’s judgements on me (or legal issues, if the Canadian government goes through with banning them completely) than out of fear of its safety.

If it’s contaminated food, okay, I’ll pull it out of my fridge – probably. The Motrin recall last year? I grudgingly stopped using it, despite finding it an overreaction as well. But if we had any of the toys or baby products listed in the new Fisher Price recall, do you think I’d stop using them? Hell no!

This recall is the result of approximately two dozen injuries in the past TEN years. The recalled highchairs, for example, are a danger allegedly because there were 14 kids in the US who fell against pegs on the back legs, causing “lacerations” (AKA scrapes or cuts), of which SEVEN needed stitches, and one damaged a tooth.

Now I’m sure that the parents whose children needed stitches or had a tooth injury were upset, but there are a couple of points to be made here:

1. Was it really the fault of the highchair that the child fell against it? Children fall. A LOT. Especially at the age when they’re using highchairs. A short list of things my children have fallen on or against and caused themselves injuries? Coffee tables, bed posts, floors, tv stands, dressers, jello… okay, maybe not jello, but you get what I mean. Kids hurt themselves. I honestly believe it’s a part of teaching them how to function in the world. You have to learn that if you jump from the top of the couch to the seat, you may fall off and crack your chin on the coffee table when you bounce off said seat. (Child #2) So, should all of those things on my list be banned? Maybe we should just get rid of all furniture and sit on pillows? It works in some cultures, why not here?
2. In ten years, there were FOURTEEN injuries from this particular item, only eight of which could even conceivably be considered “severe.” So, less than one child per year was “severely” injured by the product. By contrast, between 1997 and 2007 there were over 4.1 MILLION injuries in children between the ages of 5 and 19 while playing basketball. That’s over 375,000 per year, in case you didn’t want to do the math. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/peds.2009-2497v1) If you’ve watched the new TLC show “Sister Wives,” you’ll know that wife #3 helpfully pointed out that several hundred people per year are killed worldwide by TOASTERS (she refused to use a toaster because of this, then proceeded to set bread on fire in the oven, I might add).

The thing is, these recalls are much more about risk mitigation than they are about public safety. You get one parent whose child was injured “by” one of these items starting a campaign against it and if the company doesn’t respond “appropriately” they risk class-action lawsuits or getting the reputation of not caring about kids. Social media, as much as I love it, only adds fuel to the fire since we know how quickly word of mouth can travel now. The recent Pat Burns death “misinformation” on Twitter shows that.

The media has to take some responsibility for all of this overreaction. We all know how the news loves a good headline. “Dora Trike Causes Genital Bleeding” is going to get sell a whole lot more papers, or get a bunch more “clicks” than “Toddler Sorta Hurt By Falling on Trike.” If you’re riding a bike of any kind, and fall against the top tube, it’s going to hurt. If this Dora/Barbie trike has something extra added to it (an “ignition”) then yep, if the kid falls against it, it’s going to hurt. Lesson learned, right kid?

I don’t mean to sound callous, I honestly don’t. I’m not immune to children’s pain, and I certainly feel for parents who have lost a child due to a REAL danger from a toy or piece of baby equipment. I just know that so much of what children learn is by trial and error, and a few scrapes, bumps and bruises are just part of growing up.

The other problem with all of these unnecessary recalls is that it feeds into this fear that so many parents live with. We are constantly told of the dangers “out there” and feel that our homes should be risk-free. I sometimes wonder if some children live in homes where everything is covered in bubble wrap. Then again, what if the bubble wrap came loose and somehow magnetically attached itself to the child’s face, suffocating it?

I get really tired of hearing how things have “changed”: how more strangers are lurking behind every bush, just waiting to steal your child. Overall, the world isn’t more dangerous, the media just wants us to believe it is. That way you’ll read their articles. Doesn’t that make you feel safer?

An article in today’s National Post talks more about this. I encourage you to take a look.

You Don't Know What You Think You Know

I love Twitter. I have become an absolute Tweetaholic. It reminds me of when I first "met" a lot of moms on the BabyCenter message boards. It also gives me an outlet for my obsession with a certain boy band, but that's another article for a different blog!

On Twitter, I'm now following probably over 150 other parents, and what's great is there are just as many of them that have parenting philosophies radically different from mine as there are who think in a similar way to me. I know that when I log on, I'm going to laugh knowingly, be angry in solidarity, be challenged and sometimes made downright angry. Many, if not all of these parents are bloggers as well, and I try to read as many articles as I reasonably can.

So it wasn't unusual for me to click a link in a post about a week ago. What was unusual, for me, was what happened next. I saw a blog that I hadn't seen before. The person who "tweeted" the link was a 17-year-old teen mom. Up until then I'd been pretty impressed with her. She'd obviously taken her job as a mom very seriously and was very devoted to her son. I knew she had some pretty strong opinions, but I'm not against people being opinionated, so it was all right.

At least, until she posted this link. It wasn't her own blog. It was the blog of a mom who had adopted a little girl after a long battle with infertility, only to then get pregnant and have another little girl. The two girls were five months apart in age. This particular blog entry was about her "sleep training" the two girls. She apparently brought in a professional to help get the girls to sleep through the night.

I'm not going to get into my opinions on the infamous "cry it out" (CIO) approach. That's not the point of this. What I was shocked by were her comments to this mom, and how proud she was of them. She was outright rude and MEAN. For example:

If you couldn't stand not sleeping then you shouldnt of adopted or tried so dam hard to have a baby. I am a teen mom and I even no better than to let my son cry his brains out. Keep your promise to the birth mother and take care of that child. Dont let the poor baby feel like it has no body.

 And after the mom responded to her hateful comments, she replied with:

its sad how you adopt a child but cannot make sure that child gets the absolute best. isnt that why the child was up for adoption? to get the very best? you seem to be uncomfortable with knowing your adoptive child is adopted. Maybe thats why you take it out on your own child and let her cry for 2 hours? sleep schedules only work because that baby learns that no one is coming. babies dont know time. 20 minutes to them is forever.
no bottles? no boobie? dont you go to sleep with some kind of comfort? but your child has to go to sleep all by herself with nothing to comfort them? horrible.

 I couldn't just let it go. Despite being quite opinionated myself, I try very hard not to personally attack anyone over their beliefs. So I responded to her, both on the blog, and on Twitter. She and I ended up in quite a fight that day.

She kept telling me that no matter what, her opinions will never change, and she will never think that she was wrong. She told me that judgement was a part of life. She said that "everyone is rude. it's human nature."

And so, now that I've had time to cool down from that "conversation", here is my response.

An Open Letter to All Parents

Dear Mom and/or Dad:

We all have opinions. Some of us are stronger in our convictions than others. Some parents read everything they can get their hands on, all of the newest research, before making any decisions. Some go mostly by instinct. The vast majority of parents are doing the very best that they can, given their family situation, their mental and physical health and that of their children, their finances, their education... There are just so many factors in our personal parenting philosophy.

But smart parents know one thing: when it comes right down to it, we KNOW very little. We estimate, we guess, we hope, but we DON'T KNOW. One expert says that CIO is child abuse, another says that science shows it not to be as cruel as it may seem. Breastfeeding raises IQs and increases overall health, so obviously formula babies are going to be stupid and sick? Nursing in public is rude and gross, or it's completely natural. Babies should be worn or held as much as possible, or it's okay for them to cry once in a while, so that mom can make dinner or do something for one of her other children.

We make decisions every minute of every day, and whether we like to admit it or not, we make judgements about other parents based on our own personal philosophy.

Those judgements, though, except in extreme cases, should be kept private. There is no honour in being "right." You will not get a parenting medal. Just like the fact that no one will give you awards for having a "natural" childbirth versus opting for an epidural, no one will laud you for suffering through years of a child who wakes up every hour, rather than trying to help them learn to sleep.

We do what we can, as parents, and for most of us, it's an ever-changing experience. In my post Things I Used to Judge Other Moms for Until I had More than One Kid I talked about how much my thinking had changed on a lot of issues since I had my first "perfect" baby. You see things a lot differently when you have two or three (or four or more) CHILDREN running around, than you do when you have one sleeping angel in an infant carrier. You change and mature as you get older, no matter how old you were when you first became "Mom" or "Dad."

I feel sorry for anyone who thinks they know it all: there is so much to learn in this world, and you're missing out on it because you already "know" so you don't need to listen to anyone else.

It's great that you're confident in your parenting. I wish we could all feel like that. Truly, though, when I see someone lash out at someone else's decision-making as a parent, I see someone who doesn't feel nearly as confident as they want the world to believe.

Judging others may be "a part of life", but emotional attacks don't have to be.

PS - You can follow me on Twitter @8thCyn

Trading Places

Like a lot of people in this economic climate, my husband is out of work right now. Since a family of six can't exactly survive on EI alone, I have gone back to work. It's the first time since about July of 2006, one month or so before A was born, that I have "worked".

So now, my husband is a stay-at-home dad. It's only a temporary situation, we know, but it's been quite the transition. Even having both of us at home 24/7 was rather stressful, because the kids and I had our routines down, and having an extra person around who usually was allowed to make decisions all on his own just plain threw me for a loop. It went from Mommy making all of the decisions for most of the day to having that tightrope to walk where Mommy has to check with Daddy to be sure that Child B hasn't already asked, not liked the response and gone to the other parent, and vice-versa. One parent starts to question the other: "Why are you giving him a bottle now? He isn't going to be yet!" or "How long until naptime? HOW long???" or "Are you really going to let her go out with her shoes on the wrong feet?" Let's face facts: during the day, there can only be one Queen Bee (or King of the Hill, as may be the case.)

However, as much of a transition as that was, having me in the outside world while Dad is at home has been even more of a shock to the finely-tuned machine that is our family (ha!) Things that were second-nature to me are not so much to Dad. As involved as he's always been at child-rearing, and as much time as he's spent alone with the kids, 24/7 is different. It doesn't help that everyone seems to have an opinion, or a joke, about a stay-at-home dad, and while it's all in good fun, it can be hurtful after a while. Even though the SAHD isn't the "norm", shouldn't we be encouraging dads who DO take a hands-on approach to parenting? It ain't an easy job, and anyone who takes it on should be applauded, in my books.

The other thing about our trade, is that we're both getting a chance to see things from the other's perspective. I know how helpless you feel when hearing the frustration of the day getting to the one at home, and you can't do anything to help. I know how you're torn between being tired at the end of the day, and just wanting to get in every possible second that you can with your kids before they're off to bed. Last night as I was putting C to bed, she said to me, "Why did you say 'See you tomorrow'? Because you have to go to work tomorrow." It nearly broke my heart as I explained that I would see her tomorrow, just tomorrow night. It never seems like enough time.

There are so many debates over who has it harder: the parent at work, or the parent at home. Even just among moms it becomes a fight for your own honour sometimes, to say that you have the harder job. Truth is, parenting is a messy, dirty job, and no one has it easy (unless maybe you're "parenting" a Betsy Wetsy doll or something) but it never hurts to get a little perspective on just how good you have it, because no matter what, we ARE the lucky ones, too.

Update on the "Single Ladies"

I wondered if there would be a response from the parents or the dance school, and lo and behold only a few minutes later I found this at ABC News. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Just because it "wasn't meant to be seen by millions of people" it's okay? And the bumping and grinding was not "taken out of context" because quite frankly, eight and nine year olds don't need that in a dance competition.

What's Wrong with Just Being Seven?

There was a video floating around today of a girls' dance troupe. It showed five seven-year-old girls, dressed in red satin boy shorts and crop tops, trimmed with black lace, dancing to Beyoncé's Single Ladies. It apparently went viral, getting over 2,000,000 hits, although by tonight it's been pulled down from YouTube for copyright infringement (by the video company, apparently). I did manage to find it again here:


Vezi mai multe video din Sport

First off, there is absolutely no denying the talent of these little girls. I'm astonished that girls that age can dance that well.

That being said, as a mom, I'm outraged. That any choreographer/dance teacher would find that appropriate for little girls is beyond me. That parents would allow their young daughters to do bump and grinds like that, wearing costumes that, quite frankly, make them look like hookers, is astonishing. Someone compared it to the pageant circuit, where apparently ambition for your child's success often trumps common sense.

I saw CNN's Anderson Cooper interviewing Dr. Phil about this, and he had a good point: out of those 2,000,000 views, how many were pedophiles? Because it was ripe for that.

When I was seven, I was pining for a Cabbage Patch Kid (yes, I'm dating myself again). I was wanting to listen to Michael Jackson's Thriller without upsetting my mom. I made houses out of cardboard boxes for my cats. I fought to get to stay up late enough to watch The Cosby Show. I wasn't grinding my hips on stage wearing next to nothing. I may still have been wearing geeky corduroy pants made by my grandmother at that point, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Why do little girls have to get sexualized at such a young age? I don't honestly even understand why letting little girls wear "bikinis" to go swimming is so cute. Aren't we supposed to be protecting them? Teaching them some self-worth? Teaching them that they are more than just their bodies? Because if this is what they're learning at seven years old, how will they rationalize saying "no" when they're pressured as teenagers? "It's okay, it's no big deal." Wrong. It IS a big deal.

The sad thing is, that those girls are so talented that they could have had tamer costumes and done a less provocative routine to that same song and it would have been just as good. Unfortunately we won't get to see that version.

I'm very curious to see if, in the next few days, this dance school comes forward with some kind of response.

The Mommy Wars Strike Again

Yesterday I posted about Sandra Bullock's new baby, and how happy I am for her. It seemed yesterday that the entire world (or those who care about such things) was happy for her.

Today, I find out that there are those who have decided that they "dislike her character very much" or "have lost a lot of respect for her". Sheesh! That's quite a change! "What did she DO?" you might wonder.

She chose to circumcise her infant son.

I make no secret of the fact that I'm anti-circumcision. However, some of the comments I read on a blog (ironically titled "Peaceful Parenting") shocked me.

"James" said:

A complete failure of the responsibility to care for and protect the baby she adopted. Poor defenseless child. Scarred for life. But at least she enjoyed the party :( 

"James L" said:

Sandra Bullock said of getting her adopted son's penis ritually cut was, "the greatest moment I have ever had in my life"!? Sorry Sandra, whatever sympathies we might have had for your personal sorrows made public, or whatever happiness we might have shared from your triumphs are gone. You have proven yourself, with this action and this quote, proven yourself to be ignorant. Willfully ignorant. Very stupid and sad. 

"Katie" said:

Ugh, and I was just happy for her over the past few hours after learning she had adopted a son. She sounds just like Christina Aguilera with the whole super-fun penis party. Gag. 

Okay, seriously, what's done is done. She made her decision with the best information that she had. We don't know her reasoning, and while I doubt I'd agree with it anyway, I have NOT lost respect for her, nor do I find her disgusting. I am disappointed that she chose to publicize her decision so much, as we all know that when a celebrity does something and tells the world there are those who will follow for no other reason than that "Sandra did it."

However, ONE parenting decision, whether you or I or anyone else agrees with it or not, does NOT make a person a bad mother! She didn't decide to switch his formula with Jack Daniels. She didn't decide to ride with him in her lap instead of a car seat while going down the freeway (hello Britney!)

I have a lot of friends who circumcised their sons. Do I wish they hadn't? Truthfully, yes. Does it change my feelings about them as people, or my level of respect for them? Absolutely not.

Give it a rest, people. After everything the woman has been through in the past few months, the last thing she needs is all of you piling on top of her for a decision that she can't do anything about now. Focus your energy on things that you CAN change.

Ontario Liberals on the Defensive about New Sex Ed Curriculum

Dalton McGuinty is under attack again. Not for the HST this time, but for the new Sex Ed curriculum that's been developed for Ontario public schools.

The main points of contention are this:

• In Grade 1, students will learn about anatomy, including genitalia and the proper names for genitalia.
• In Grade 3, students will learn about gender identity and sexual orientation.
• In Grade 5, students will be taught to identify parts of the reproductive system and describe how the body changes during puberty.
• In Grade 6, students will learn about masturbation and wet dreams.
• In Grade 7, students will learn about oral and anal sex, and how to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

Not exactly surprising, but there's already a great hue and cry about this from those who say that only parents should be teaching sex ed. There's even more upset because Catholic schools cannot choose to opt out of the curriculum. It should be noted, though, that the curriculum was, in fact, approved by Ontario's Catholic bishops, though. That being said, parents can, as they always have been able to, choose to not allow their children to participate.

I admit that I'm not a conservative parent, but I will never understand sheltering your kids from the world. Do I want my 11 year old having oral sex? Um, no, and I certainly hope that I'll teach them well enough that they're smart enough not to do so. But truthfully my kids already know that homosexuality exists, and we've even had discussions about transgendered people with our oldest. They know the proper names for body parts from an early age, even if we do sometimes jokingly use silly names. I want them to feel in charge of their own bodies because the reality is that there are people out there who do not respect other people's bodies, and I feel that's the best protection that I can offer them. To teach them what's theirs, and that no one has a right to touch them in any way that makes them feel uncomfortable, no matter what age they are.

Not to mention all of the people who say that this should be taught at home are neglecting one important thing: for a lot of kids this would NEVER be taught at home, either through ignorance or apathy. The curriculum in a public school system has to do the best it can for the majority of the students. Personally, I wholeheartedly support this new curriculum.

I actually like this quote from NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo, a former United Church Minister: "The gift of sexuality, and the gift of body parts from God is a gift. It's a gift all children need to learn about; we all need to learn about."

Ear Infections SUCK!

My son, Andrew, has been plagued with ear infections the past two winters. Last year after five in a row, we got a referral to a local ear, nose and throat doctor. After two visits, he declared that Andrew had "survived" the winter and didn't need any further treatment.

So far this winter he has had another five - three since Christmas. I took him back to the ENT, who said that the pressure in his ears was normal, he was okay. Well of COURSE the pressure in his ears was normal - he'd just had his eardrum rupture! Anyway, when he started to say that Andrew would be fine again for this year, I stopped him. I don't want my son to just keep "surviving" the winter. His quick answer: okay then, we'll do tubes. Go up front and book the surgery. No discussion, nothing. Just surgery.

I booked the procedure and almost immediately started to freak out. Partially because it's my 3.5 year old, and we're talking general anesthetic, and no matter how "routine" it is, it still is a horrible thing to think that my baby is going to be "put under". I hate to think of him scared, or upset. As his mommy, it's my job to keep him safe.

The other reason I freaked out was that I didn't know if it was really necessary. If there's no fluid build-up in his ears right now, will it do any good? Am I putting him through unnecessary surgery? With no chance to really discuss it with the doctor I had no idea.

I have to take him to our family doctor tomorrow to fill out pre-op forms. I decided that I would talk to her more in-depth then, and if I changed my mind I could cancel the surgery as long as it was more than a week beforehand.

Then my ear started to hurt. I don't know how many of you have had ear infections at an age that you can remember them, but this is AWFUL. the urgent care doctor told me it was a bad one, but I already knew that.  I was in so much pain I was praying for the eardrum to rupture, just to relieve the pain. Even after two days of antibiotics I was still curled up in a ball on the couch last night, praying that the way too many painkillers I had taken would FINALLY kick in so that I could sleep, and even then I was up every couple of hours looking for something else to take. And anyone who knows me knows that I don't like painkillers. I still have half the bottle of heavy duty stuff I was given after my c-section last year. I can't even close my jaw all the way, which certainly makes eating difficult.

I honestly feel like someone is trying to tell me that my son needs this surgery. As much as it may kill me as his mommy to have to hand him over to a surgeon, even if only for half an hour, I need to do it, and I need to be strong for him.

The purpose of ear tubes is to ventilate the area behind the eardrum, which keeps the pressure equalized. Bacteria and viruses can enter the middle ear from the eustachian tube, which connects the ear to the nose. This causes pus to fill the middle ear, putting pressure on the ear drum. Thus, the pain from the ear infection. Plus, because the eardrum has a harder time vibrating (which is how we hear), there is often a temporary loss of hearing in the ear.

The tubes (usually done in both ears, unless for some reason the patient only seems to have one ear affected) are intended to allow the fluid to drain, rather than build up behind the eardrum. They generally stay in place for anywhere from 6 to 18 months, although I've heard from a lot of parents that they often fall out and end up needing to be replaced.

You can see a short video on ear tube surgery here. It's does show the insertion of the tube, but it's not all that graphic. I've got a pretty queasy stomach for this stuff, but i found it interesting.

The Unkindest Cut? Massachusetts Government to Hear Argument Against Infant Circumcision

I've been debating all day whether or not to touch this topic. I honestly can't think of another one in the parenting jungle, even breast vs bottle or SAHM vs WOHM, that causes such heated, sometimes hateful discussions. I admit, too, that it is a topic that I feel very passionate about. I usually at least try to remain a little bit unbiased when I'm talking here, and I doubt that I will be able to this time. I may know the arguments from the other side, I just don't find them persuasive at all. That's probably putting it mildly, too.

However, I'm also trying to create awareness of parenting topics, especially ones in the news, and this one is out there. So, I will attempt to tone down the rhetoric, but I make no promises of success. I'm a big opponent of the Mommy Wars, as I've stated numerous times, but it's quite likely that I'll lose a reader or two over this one.

That being said, as I write this, I've made a decision: I will write this from my point of view, and if a reader disagrees with me, and wants to write a rebuttal, I will post it. Deal?

A group in the US is taking its fight for the banning of infant male circumcision to the Massachusetts legislature. On March 2nd, the group, Bill to End Male Genital Mutilation, will appear at the State House to plead their case.

Personally, I doubt they will get very far. Circumcision is ingrained fairly deeply in US culture: nationally around 60% of baby boys have the procedure done within a few days of their births. Although the American Academy of Pediatrics says that there is no medical reason for routine infant circumcision, they have remained fairly neutral and refrained from actually coming out against the practice. There is still a lot of misinformation about the "benefits" of circumcision, plus the age old "He'll want to look like Daddy" argument. I actually heard about this issue from someone who referred to it as "ugly peen", and this was from a 41-year-old man I usually respect.

The other issue is that the leaders of the group may in fact turn people off: especially the one quoted in the article who went so far as to have a "foreskin restoration" in his 20s. Although he has valid points, he will be easy to tear down as a fringe activist.

So while I doubt that the group will get more than a token hearing, I do agree with them. There is no sound medical reason for routine circumcision. (Did I say that already? It bears repeating.) There is no other healthy body part that is routinely removed after birth. Should we remove everyone's appendix immediately because someday they may get appendicitis? Remove all baby girls' breast tissue because they may someday get breast cancer? Perhaps if the baby has mom's nose they should be given a nose job immediately because it's "ugly"?

"Personal choice" is a phrase I hear tossed around a lot. This I agree with, but the "person" involved differs in my opinion. By performing infant circumcision, you remove the choice of the person involved. The baby cannot argue with you. This is not a parent making a lifesaving medical decision for their child: this is a parent deciding on permanent cosmetic surgery, and I simply don't think that's one of our rights as a parent.

Responsibility for "THE TALK" More Often Falls on Mom

My oldest daughter just turned nine. It occurs to me that it won't be long until we need to have "the talk". You know the one: the one that strikes terror into the heart of every parent. The SEX talk.

I've always assumed that I would be the one talking to the girls, while Dad would get to discuss the joy of sex with the boys. Of course, it will depend on who they go to with questions, but I just can't see my daughters voluntarily asking their father about their periods, or birth control options. Then again, I can only imagine the looks on the boys' faces if I did what a friend's mom did when I was a teenager: she handed him a box of condoms, a banana, and told him to "practice". He was so shy, too. I bet he wanted to fall through the floor!

However, according to this article, more often than not it's Mom who gets to have the conversation. I suppose that may simply be because Mom is the one who is generally around more (not in all homes, of course, but in many) and so an innocent question gets asked which has to be answered. My mom tells me that I first asked about where babies come from while she was driving on the 401 and she nearly drove off the road!

I asked on a couple of parenting message boards for stories from those who had already been down this road. One mom told me about her experience with her step-daughter: "I had to have a revision of said talk with B. this summer that included birth control. We both were pretty skeeved I think, but I did my best to be informative without being overly permissive (we talked a lot about the emotional ramifications of not only the sex, but accidentally getting pg as a teenager)." The "skeeved" part seems to be a fairly common thing: I also got told that one daughter was "appropriately creeped out." Myself, I remember being horrified by the very idea.

I've always pictured myself as the open, cool mom who would be okay with talking about these things with her kids. So far I'm still hoping that will be the case. At this point my daughter is vehemently anti-boy as anything other than "friend." I can only hope that lasts a while longer, but I also won't allow myself to be delusional about it. I know of one mom who is so sure that her daughters (and she has four of them) will listen to her message of abstinence before marriage that she absolutely refuses to believe that they would ever rebel against her. I just find that really sad. If I remember correctly, what I said to her is that by the time they are teenagers, we as parents can only control their actions so much. We are meant to be guides, and hope that they will be smart enough to follow instructions.

I'm tense just writing about this! Can I just freeze time for a few more years???

Breastfeeding after Reduction Surgery

I remember it well, my consultation for breast reduction surgery. It was 11 years ago. I was 22 and in my last year of university. In the four years that I'd been at university my bra size had gone from a comfortable C-cup to a FFF (what I lovingly refer to as "Holy F--- that's big!") I was pretty miserable, although not as bad as some people I've heard about. I knew I wanted that surgery, though. The last bra I'd bought had cost $120. My back hurt and my shoulders slouched.

It was fairly quick, as we discussed how the surgery works, what a reasonable expectation was for post-surgery size and when the surgery could be done. Then there was about a thirty second discussion. "Is there any chance I'll be able to breastfeed?"

"Oh, about 50/50, I suppose," he said. "We don't remove the nipple anymore, so that helps."

"Okay," I said.

That was it. At the time I thought it was no big deal if I couldn't breastfeed, but I was sure that I would be one of the ones who could. Then almost exactly 2 years after my surger we had our first baby. During the pregnancy I talked about the surgery with my midwives and asked if I should be talking to a lactation consultant before the baby arrived so that I'd know how to handle things. No, I was told, just wait and see. Well all right, then.

Baby arrived, ended up as an unexpected c-section because she turned breech at the last minute. I was given a morphine pump afterwards for pain. I remember almost nothing of my baby's first 24 hours, until a nurse finally said to me "Are you ever going to try and feed that baby?" I don't think I even knew what day it was, truthfully. But she took baby in one hand, my boob in the other, and shoved them together, and there it was. Baby was breastfeeding. Except that didn't last long. The nurses started to freak out over my breast reduction. It was a small rural hospital. I don't know if that was the issue or not, but I don't think there was a lactation consultant on staff at all. They insisted that I needed to supplement with a tube at breast. This was less than 48 hours after birth. My milk, however much I was going to have, hadn't even come in yet and they decided that it was more important to supplement than it was to let me get the hang of latching on.

Trying to maneuver the tube while getting a baby to latch on, all while dealing with the pain of major surgery was just plain frustrating. The day came that we were to go home and the nurse tried to tell me I needed to stay another day so that they were confident I could feed her. I just wanted to go home by this point. I was hormonal and lonely and tired of being manhandled. I said "Just give me a bottle then." And that was it. When I got home and realized that my milk was coming in I immediately regretted my hasty decision, but at that point I couldn't get her to latch at all. I'd been so busy trying to keep that damned tube from falling off that I never really learned how to latch her on.

My husband heard about Dr. Jack Newman, who was then at Sick Kids with his famous breastfeeding clinic. He brought me the phone number and after working up my nerve I called. Dr. Newman called me back personally, as he's well-known for doing. He was very kind and tried to help, but I was so overwhelmed by everything I don't really even remember what he told me. I just couldn't deal with it. So our first was completely bottlefed.

And truthfully it was fine. She was happy, healthy and we loved every minute with her. Every once in a while I would get a rude comment from someone about why I wasn't breastfeeding. I know they meant well, because "breast is best", but despite my bravado about it, it cut deep.

By the time I was pregnant with my second I decided to look into the issue more. i found a book called Defining Your Own Success: Breastfeeding After Breast Reduction Surgery" by Diana West. I devoured it. I read about herbs, Domperidone, pumping to increase supply... all the things that no one told me about before. Plus, I learned that there was NO need to supplement immediately after birth since Baby is supposed to exist on minute amounts of collostrum until mom's milk comes in. No one (at least no one that I know) gives birth and has milk flooding out of their breasts a few minutes after birth.

So I went in to the hospital prepared for my VBAC, armed with my new knowledge (even with the book in my bag in case of any questions from the nurses). 24 hours later I'd had my second c-section (that's another story for another time). I'd asked to nurse her as soon as I was in the recovery room. She latched on beautifully (although the nurse had to do it for me) and everything was just find, until the anesthetic made me throw up and my husband had to take the baby while I hung my head over a basin.

I told them I didn't want to supplement immediately. Then she started losing weight, like all babies do after birth, and somehow this became an issue. I HAD to supplement. I was risking starving my baby if I didn't. She wasn't getting her tongue moving properly, and I needed to finger feed her until she figured it out. Then the lactation consultant (different hospital) came in and made me cry. It was horrible.

But I persevered. I ended up at the hospital's lactation clinic after we went home, eventually crying again, but this time with a much nicer LC. I had the Domperidone and I got Blessed Thistle and Fenugreek. I pumped as often as I could stand and my supply still just wasn't enough. She told me that there was no reason I had to stop breastfeeding. I could breastfeed, then give her a bottle. Just nursing because we both wanted to. So that's what we did. Except then we both ended up with thrush from antibiotics I had to take for an infection a few weeks later. But it lasted twelve weeks, and although it wasn't long, and I didn't exclusively breastfeed, it still felt like an accomplishment.

Baby #3 arrived. I was NOT going to be bullied again, and I wasn't. Apparently in the 13 months since Baby #2 the nurses had training on breastfeeding and they were told that there weren't to discourage a mom from breastfeeding, no matter what (or at least that's what the bitter nurse told me). So when it seemed like he wanted to nurse 24/7 and still wasn't happy, and I decided I needed to supplement, THEY were the ones trying to discourage me. We ended up "comfort nursing" again, but this time it went longer. Often when he was upset, nursing was the only thing that would calm him down. It lasted 14 weeks.

I wish I could say that things magically changed with Baby #4. Unfortunately with three other kids to look after I just didn't have the time or energy to commit to keeping my supply up properly. It only lasted 7 weeks.

It makes me sad that I was never able to do it, but at the same time I'm glad that I didn't completely give up, either. There are a lot of people who ARE able to do it, though, so the whole point of this post is that moms who have had breast surgery should NOT give up. Educate and make the decision for yourself! Decide what options will work for you and your family. I had a terrible experience with tube feeding, but so many people have great experience with Supplemental Nursing Systems like this.

A lot of people also are able to boost their milk supply with herbs such as Blessed Thistle and Fenugreek, or with a prescription for Domperidone (unfortunately not available in the US).

One of the best online resources for BFAR is at http://www.bfar.org/ It's where I originally found my book and information and I strongly recommend you check it out if BFAR is something you want to try.

Hi Jason, My Name is Jennipher

Sigh.

So I took Andrew, Charlotte and Joshua to our local community centre this morning. Charlotte had a preschool ballet class, and the boys and I went and hung out in the library. Our community centre ROCKS.

Anyway, not the point.

As we were leaving this morning, I saw one of the leaders from another class stop a mom to ask if she'd left something behind. That was what got my attention, initially. Instinctively I looked at her daughter. Very cute kid. Nametag on. "Quynn."

WHY?

I mean, I know that everyone has different tastes in names, and there will be those who think that our taste is boring (we usually get "classic", but I'm sure for some that's a code word). You want to name your kid "Pilot Inspektor", well, that's your prerogative, but seriously, WHY?

Do people actually picture this little baby as an adult when they're naming them? It seems to be something we all find funny, to humiliate babies: we put them in little sailor suits, or little snowsuits that make them look like Winnie the Pooh. And why not? It's cute, and it's not like they can object.

A name is something different. That cute little baby in the cat ears hat will eventually grow up to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, or a sanitation engineer, and they may not exactly suit "Tinkerbell" or "Qwerty" at that point.

But what about the strange spellings? The names are still the same, so what's the big deal, right? What I want to know, though, is WHY? All you're accomplishing is making yourself look like you can't spell and sentencing your child to a lifetime of "No, you spell it A-N-D-R-U."

I know, there are people who will disagree with me strongly. They feel that their child should stand out from the pack. They don't want their daughter to be one of "the three Emmas" (which is the case in my daughter, Emma's, class). I can understand that. I hadn't intended to name Emma the most popular girl's name around. It's not my fault that "Rachel" named her daughter Emma right after my daughter was born. At the same time, I never have to worry about her not being able to find things with her name on it. "McKynzye" might not be so lucky.

Naming your kids is one of the biggest privileges of being a parent. All I'm saying is take a moment and picture your child in the nursing home 80 or 90 years from now, and ask if "Jewelia" will still appreciate their unique name!