Archives for March 2009

A long yet interesting piece on breastfeeding – not against it but fairly skeptical. I especially like this bit:

So I was left feeling trapped, like many women before me, in the middle-class mother’s prison of vague discontent: surly but too privileged for pity, breast-feeding with one hand while answering the cell phone with the other, and barking at my older kids to get their own organic, 100 percent juice—the modern, multitasking mother’s version of Friedan’s “problem that has no name.”

And in this prison I would have stayed, if not for a chance sighting. One day, while nursing my baby in my pediatrician’s office, I noticed a 2001 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association open to an article about breast-feeding: “Conclusions: There are inconsistent associations among breastfeeding, its duration, and the risk of being overweight in young children.” Inconsistent? There I was, sitting half-naked in public for the tenth time that day, the hundredth time that month, the millionth time in my life—and the associations were inconsistent? The seed was planted. That night, I did what any sleep-deprived, slightly paranoid mother of a newborn would do. I called my doctor friend for her password to an online medical library, and then sat up and read dozens of studies examining breast-feeding’s association with allergies, obesity, leukemia, mother-infant bonding, intelligence, and all the Dr. Sears highlights.

I believe each mom should make her own decisions based on what’s best for her and her family. What I don’t like, in this as in anything else aside from the obvious superiority of dark chocolate over the milk kind, is people who insist their views must be followed by all.

Oh, and this is pretty good, too:

The debate about breast-feeding takes place without any reference to its actual context in women’s lives. Breast-feeding exclusively is not like taking a prenatal vitamin. It is a serious time commitment that pretty much guarantees that you will not work in any meaningful way. Let’s say a baby feeds seven times a day and then a couple more times at night. That’s nine times for about a half hour each, which adds up to more than half of a working day, every day, for at least six months. This is why, when people say that breast-feeding is “free,” I want to hit them with a two-by-four. It’s only free if a woman’s time is worth nothing.

_____________________________

Rebecca adds:

Let’s say a baby feeds seven times a day and then a couple more times at night. That’s nine times for about a half hour each, which adds up to more than half of a working day, every day, for at least six months.”

Someone told me once (pre-kids) that feeding and bathing and changing one baby’s diapers takes up more than 8 hours a day.  That’s your full-time job, right there. I don’t wear a lot of “message” T-shirts, but one of my favourites says “every mother is a working mother.”

That’s also further evidence, if anybody needed it, that OctoMom is bananas.

____________________________

Tanya says: Of course this woman’s frustrated with breastfeeding. She thinks she should be able to answer her cell phone whilst nursing.

I’m called on annually to serve as the official photographer at the Breastfeeding Challenge in my area. Being part of that circle made me aware of the amount of support and resources needed for breastfeeding to be something every woman can do, if she so wishes. (You’ll notice, if you look at 2008’s results, that Quebec, Canada is the place to breastfeed.) In my area, there are breastfeeding counselors, breastfeeding clinics, breastfeeding newsletters, breastfeeding support moms (mentors within the breastfeeding support group, of course)….  At no point did I ever get the impression that it’s supposed to be easy; that it isn’t a full-time commitment.

So if you don’t feel it’s a commitment you’re able to make, then don’t do it.  There are endless other options.  But build a case against breastfeeding?  Puh-leeeze!

__________________________

Véronique adds: Typing this comment while nursing. Given that healthy children can be brought up on formula, I don’t think that the decision to breastfeed should be held as a moral absolute. That being said, I am of the “human milk for human babies” type. It just seems to make sense in the big scheme of things, regardless of academic studies and expert opinions.

What troubles me in the type of opinion expressed in that column is that it seems to gloss over the fact that parenting is made of sacrifices. You can stop  feeding if it makes you feel better. But thinking that you can (or should be able to) skirt self-sacrifice somehow is asking for a rude awakening.

Today was Tax Day. I am happy to report that my accountant’s head did not suddenly burst into flames at the sight of my paperwork. That’s very good. I like my accountant a lot. But boy, I really do hate doing my taxes. So much time and effort just to make sure I give enough money to the government…

I was all set to write a snippy little post about my experiences, and then I saw this:

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuMHSFPOzpc]

No, it doesn’t make me happy to pay taxes (nothing could). But it sure shuts me up.

[h/t LifeSiteNews]

Winnipeg MP Steven Fletcher, who is a quadriplegic, is quoted in the Free Press as cheering Obama’s decision to fund embryonic stem cell research, since scientists will be able to work “free from manipulation and coercion.”

Fletcher paints opposition to stem cell research as hypocrisy:

He said anyone who is upset by stem cell research should ask themselves: if they or someone they loved had an illness that could be cured, would they turn down the cure because it came from stem cells? “I think not,” he said.”

There are a couple of serious problems with this portrayal of opposition to research that involves the destruction of embryos, and that’s without getting into the science, about which it will suffice for now to say that a number of respected scientists in the field believe embryonic stem cells to have no advantages over other forms of stem cells.

First, the hypocrisy charge. A measure of compassion is certainly owed to Fletcher, and most of us, thank heavens, will never be called upon to stick to our principles at the cost of a (tenuous) hope of a cure for such a crippling condition. Becoming an MP, and then a member of cabinet, at so young an age would be a remarkable achievement for anybody, let alone someone with such a difficult physical burden to bear, and these accomplishments are a testament to Fletcher’s mental fortitude.

But that doesn’t change the fact that this is an ugly and intellectually lazy point to argue. For those of us who believe an embryo is a human life, albeit at a very early stage of development, the difference between embryo destructive stem cell research and the organ harvesting of political prisoners that (allegedly) goes on in China is one of degree, not of kind. I would like to think that if I, or a loved one, required a heart transplant, I would not in my desperation advocate executing someone and harvesting his heart to save my life or my child’s. If I were driven by my suffering to push for such an action, I hope the broader society around me, while feeling compassion for my plight and doing everything ethical that they could to help me, wouldn’t endorse the suggestion.

The other problem is in the motives ascribed to Bush and others who didn’t sanction embryo-destructive research, thereby creating “manipulation and coercion.” Good people can disagree about the morality of stem cell research, as they can about IVF, and all the other issues related to assisted reproductive technologies. But a good faith debate isn’t possible when, as with Kathleen Parker’s distaste for “oogedy-boogedy” conservatives, pro-life advocates are assumed to be operating from an irrational, anti-scientific or superstitious worldview. Post-modern sophisticates (correctly) point out that pure objectivity is impossible, but they seem to make an exception when it comes to their own positions, which are so clearly enlightened and correct that opponents act not out of conviction or logic but out of some Snidely-Whiplash small-mindedness coupled with a fondness for fundamentalist religion.

I expect this kind of rubbishing of pro-life values from the Liberals and NDP; I expect better from Conservatives.

______________________

Andrea adds: I know people, who faced with their own suffering in disease, choose ethical solutions. One of them, Mark Pickup, has a blog that is worth checking out.

It’s a tough leap for people to feel wonder and sympathy for a mere embryo, perhaps especially because we abort 12 week old fetuses with abandon. Tough issues–ones to address with compassion to be sure. But hypocrisy charges? Uncalled for.

_______________________

Tanya adds: What is a pro-lifer? Normally, it is someone who’s opposed to embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and euthanasia.

The opposite says it’s OK to abort a child with a deformity. The opposite says it’s OK euthanize someone due to undetermined and variable degrees of illness. The opposite says, in the case of embryonic stem cell research, the ends justify the means.

I may be biased, but it seems as though the pro-life side values life, whereas the opposite simply has contempt for sickness, illness, and deformity. It’s all a little Orwellian.

______________________

Andrea may be biased too: but also understands that we all are–and I’m pretty open with my bias. Seems to me I pretty consistently encounter folks in favour of embryonic stem cell research, in favour of euthanasia, in favour of abortion–none of these things should be forced, of course–and they think theirs is the “unbiased” position. I raise one eyebrow at them, that’s what I do. Later, I might bite my thumb at them, in a moment of Shakespearian anger.

I’m not getting my knickers in a knot over this one.  Isn’t this just in vitro the old-fashioned way? She’s like OctoMom, but the dads are different and this was probably cheaper.

Then, surprise, surprise, Angelica decided to use her partner as an unwitting sperm donor. She says: ‘I thought he was nice-looking and would make a good dad, so I stopped taking the Pill. I just thought: “It’s my body and I want a baby, so I’ll have one.”

It’s her body. This is true. But the main point with all this pro-life stuff is that the children are distinctly not. Neither is the man. (I’m in the business of pointing out the obvious, yes.)

The important thing here is that we not be judgmental of her choices, however, and that we accept new family forms as being exactly the same as any other.

__________________________

Tanya says: This is how badly we’ve managed to confuse men.

I proudly presented him with the positive pregnancy test.
He looked stunned and said: “How did that happen?”

Many grown men actually have no idea where babies come from anymore.  They have been told for so long now that they have nothing to do with it… they’re actually starting to believe it.

This from the Globe and Mail:

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday cleared the way for a significant increase in federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research and promised no scientific data will be “distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda.”

Pinkie swear.

Barbie turns 50 today. We can either celebrate by starving ourselves all day, or by eating something fattening and gooey. I’m going with ice cream.

_________________________

Tanya adds: I’m just impressed that, after 50 years, Barbie can still pull off heels with a swimsuit.  And it’s good to see she’s not anemic anymore.

_________________________

Andrea adds: Didn’t Barbie just have a 50th birthday? At this rate, she’ll be 100 soon. (And still not looking a day over 12.)

Belinda Stronach hasn’t completely disappeared. Here she is in the Star discussing the horrifying plight of women – or something. It’s not entirely clear what she wants given the long way women still have to go in order to get to a destination that is not specified by ways that are altogether imprecise.

“We need to encourage policies and build institutions that help to empower the equal treatment of women,” she says at one point. Huh? What kind of institution helps empower the equal treatment of women? For the matter of that, what kind of equal treatment is amenable to being empowered? Or is it equally empowering institution building?

I get lost amidst all those buzzwords, forgive me. Where were we? Oh yeah. Institutions that empower the equal treatment of women. Such as?

Among other things, that means stepping up the pressure on governments to make a priority of implementing quality and affordable child care right across our country. It is distressing that at a time of massive government spending in the name of stimulus, there has been little public pressure on Ottawa to fund a system of child care and early learning, an investment that would create jobs in the short-term but would pay off again down the road in the form of better educated children and more successful women in the workforce.

Of course. Nothing says institutionalized empowering equal treatment of women like a crazy expensive national program they don’t even want.

Happy Women’s Day, everyone!

________________________

Andrea adds: Since I’ve been humming ABBA all weekend, why I don’t know, but why not, I also say–I might as well say I have another dream, another song to sing… I dream of the complete and total defunding of Status of Women Canada. I have no political aspirations, none. But if I did, I’d dream of being the person to cut all that funding, and I’d do it on International Women’s Day. Just for fun.

________________________

Brigitte says: Me too! I’ve been humming ABBA all weekend, why I don’t know…

________________________

Tanya thinks she’s mentioned this before… but it warrants being repeated.  Cheap daycare is a lifesaver for the single mom who would work regardless.
Don’t get me started on the fact that most of the low-paying jobs are not Monday to Friday 9-5.  What’s the single mom working retail supposed to do with her toddler on Thursday night and Sunday?  Especially when the following week, she’s actually working Wednesday night and Saturday.
For the middle class, that big ambiguous cloud somewhere in the middle of all this, cheap daycare is something of a curse, too.  For that woman who dreamed of getting to stay home with her kids, her sense of financial obligation scoots her out into a working world while her children are being cared for at the cost of half an hour’s salary a day.  Now her family can go on that vacation and buy that big sectional couch.