Newspapers are filled with the "birth dearth", or the lack of fertility of today's women. As a culture, we are choosing not to reproduce. The United States' fertility rate puts it barely at replacement level. Canada's is below replacement level, and Europe's is even worse off than that. We are choosing not to have children.
Why?
Columnist Mark Steyn has long argued that fertility and religion are linked. When people lose their faith in something greater than themselves, then it's hard to look towards the future. And without a future-orientation, the present, and having fun, become all that matters. If you don't have a sense that you have a purpose in life, why reproduce?
I agree, but I don't think that's the only reason. I also think our consumer culture has made motherhood almost impossible. Remember this article, when I talked about how the two rules that our society wants us to live by are "I deserve to be happy" and "I'll be happy if I just try a little bit harder." Our culture sells us on dissatisfaction so that we will try harder. It sells us on bigger is better, and boy is that apparent when it comes to motherhood.
Think about how standards have changed. Fifty years ago, most women married knowing how to make seven main meals, one for each week, with company on Sundays. Bridal magazines were filled with this. And if each of the weekday meals were simple casseroles, so much the better, because they were cheaper.
Today we're supposed to cook gourmet meals. We're supposed to cook interesting things for kids' lunches (no more bologna sandwiches). Have you ever actually looked through a woman's magazine or a parenting magazine and imagined, "if I actually did everything that it tells me to do between these pages, how much time would it take?" I'm sure it would take longer than the 24 hours the good Lord chose to give us.
Birthday parties, when I was young, mostly consisted of playing out in the backyard, perhaps with some skipping ropes or bubbles, and then eating hot dogs and a homemade cake. There were no ice cream cakes that cost easily $30. There was no renting out the rec center so everyone could go swimming. Occasionally some kid's parents would take you to a McDonald's birthday, and that was extra special. But that was about it.
Today we go bowling, or swimming, or something big. I know one mom who took ten girls to a glamour photo shoot! I can't even imagine how much that cost, because they all had their hair and makeup done, too.
Then there are all the lessons. We just weren't in that many when we were young, but I know some families wiht multiple kids all in rep hockey (meaning that they travel every weekend for tournaments). Their whole lives are wrapped up in taking their 8-year-olds to out of town hockey games! And then in the summer there's hockey camp, or ballet camp, or karate camp. Add up all that money, and it's a small fortune.
In fact, one recent study found the cost of raising an average kid, from birth to 18, to be a quarter of a million dollars. I wouldn't be surprised if many twenty and thirtysomethings looked at their friends with kids, who were run off their feet taking their kids to all these lessons and activities, shelling out money left, right, and center, and these people said, "I'd rather spend my money on cruises," and forgot about childrearing altogether.
We have overburdened motherhood. We have said you need to pay all this money, you need to be chairperson of the PTA, you need to make gourmet meals, decorate your children's rooms, buy a bigger house, baby-proof everything, and give up all your own goals and dreams for the foreseeable future. We think moms should work harder now than they did fifty years ago, when women had more time to devote to motherhood. I think we've gone insane.
Yes, being a mom is time-consuming, but it doesn't have to be as hectic as everyone makes it out to be. You don't have to have your child in every activity. You don't have to be on every committee. It's okay if you only know how to make a few meals, if your children share a room, if you leave the kids with grandparents occasionally so you can get adult time, if you don't throw a birthday party every year, if you don't take your kids to tons of cultural events, and if you don't put up a swing set in your backyard. It's okay if you still have your own time. It's okay if you still have a marriage. It's okay if you live in a smaller home, and don't have all the kids' stuff, but instead just learn how to make your own fun.
Maybe if we stopped demanding that motherhood be bigger and better, and simply concentrated on it being part of our lives, instead of the whole thing, we'd be a lot better off!
If families just got back to what we did well--hanging out without any plans, taking walks, playing football in the park, playing Scrabble, lying on the bed reading bedtime stories, enforcing bedtime so parents still had parent time, ensuring siblings could play so you still had a life--all of these things would make parenting so much easier. But we throw that aside so that we can live up to some ideal, and that ideal takes a LOT of work that probably isn't necessary.
Here's a show that I did a few years ago on "Are Kids Worth It?" You can see more of my thoughts there:
What do you find is the most overhyped part of motherhood--the part that our society demands we devote so much time and money to, that really isn't that important in the end? Let me know, and let's talk!
It's not often that I really, really like my columns, but last week's came out of somewhere deep in my heart. And I received so many emails on it, and I wanted to share some of those with you.
Basically, the column talked about how sometimes our lives go in very different directions than we planned, but that doesn't mean that we've failed. It means that we're called to something different.
Interestingly, a retired man I know made the comment that it's easier to say that at 40 than at 70. At 70 you have a lot of regrets.
I think that's sad, but I don't think it's inevitable. When you're a Christian, you have this feeling that God is leading you. You know it. And if God is leading you, then there aren't regrets. Without God, how do you ever judge if what you did was right?
Then I received lots of emails from moms. Here's one:
Sheila, I just had to let you know how much I enjoyed last weekends' column, Dreaming New Dreams. You hit the nail right on the head when you wrote, "I think what we miss is that we are not the same people who dreamed them".
So true!!! I am a mom of three who works very part time hours, and at two jobs, one of which gets lots of chuckles and laughs from people when I tell them what I do. I used to be almost "embarrassed" about what I did.... until I read your article. I work part time for the city and am in charge of all bar sales at our local sports centre. I also work part time serving food.
It's not glamorous, but the most important thing to me is being home with my children. I don't want them in daycare and I don't want them home alone. I took hotel and tourism admin. at college and my dream was to work in a big hotel and have some fancy title....and like you, be downtown Toronto amongst all the skyscrapers.
I went to school there and did my placement right downtown, and boy, I had some big dreams! Well, there are no big hotels here and no fancy titles either. But it's just as well because my kids are the most important thing in my life, and I have built my life around that. Your column really, really helped me realize that what I am doing IS right...and that what's important is that I am happy with what I'm doing. Even though "cafeteria lady" doesn't sound nearly as exciting as "Chief Executive Officer", it allows my children to call me "mom who is always home when we are". (and knows everything they're doing at every single hour of the day!!!) And it allows me to concentrate on my marriage too. I am able to look after myself and be there for my family. I couldn't do that if I was doing what I had dreamed of so many years ago!
Isn't that good? This woman gets it! What matters most is our relationships with our kids and families, not our jobs.
I received a bunch of other emails I'm not at liberty to share, but let me just say as an encouragement to you all:
Your legacy is not what you do at your workplace; it is the difference you make in the lives of those God has given you. So cherish your family. They are irreplaceable!
Last night I went to sleep when my children did. It was only 9:30, but I was tired.
My husband was on call last night, too, (he's a pediatrician), and I swear his pager went off every hour. It was definitely not the best sleep for me, let alone for him (he had to go in for two hours in the middle of the night).
Then this morning I didn't get up until 8, which is late for me. And it got me thinking: if I hadn't gone to sleep early, I'd be in even worse shape. My body obviously needed the sleep. So why do we scrimp on sleep so much?
I think it's because we want to have fun. Once the kids go to bed, we really want some time to ourselves, even if we are tired. So we stay up way too late.
The pioneers used to get tons of sleep. They'd go to bed with the sun, and up with the sun, and often they slept eleven hours a day in the winter, even the adults. That doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me. But now that we have electric lights and televisions, staying up until midnight is normal for most of us.
I just don't think it's good for us. I get so grumpy when I'm tired, and by two in the afternoon I'm really lethargic. I've always needed a lot of sleep. Even today, eight hours often doesn't cut it. I need a good nine hours to feel like myself, which means I should be going to bed by 10:30 every night, though I don't. My youngest daughter doesn't need that much sleep. She never has. As a baby she only slept 9 hours over the entire day, including naps. I was absolutely exhausted. But she wasn't. She was happy as a clam. At one point I actually made a chart of how much she slept in a week, and when, and took it into my doctor and said, "You have to make her sleep! This is ridiculous!" But there was nothing my doctor could do, and Katie got rid of her naps in the day pretty early and put in her nine and a half hours at night. So that was okay.
I know some parents who deal with the sleep issue by just putting their children to bed at 7. That way they have the evening to themselves. But their kids get up at 5:30 or 6, and I simply could not handle that. I always put my kids to bed a little late, like 9, just so they'd sleep until 7.
But this sleep problem is a big one for us, because we also need couple time, don't we? And that's hard to have while the kids are awake. So as the kids have gotten older, we've instituted the "you have to be in your room at 9" rule, even if they're not sleeping, just so that we can be on our own.
Tonight I'm going to go to bed early again. I'm off to speak at a conference this weekend, and I don't want to start the weekend exhausted. But I wish I'd just get into the habit of sleeping well all the time!
What about you? What do you do about sleep? And how do your kids sleep? Let's talk about it!
They say that women's number one health complaint is exhaustion. We are all simply too tired.
And as a mom, it's easy to feel tired. We work hard, lots of people rely on us, but frequently we don't get a lot of positive feedback. And that's when it's all too easy to sabotage ourselves. We turn to time wasters to escape from how tired we feel.
And in the process, we make ourselves even more exhausted!
In today's podcast, listen as I diagnose why it is that we moms frequently feel like we're just spinning our wheels. The answer may surprise you! And then learn the secret to feeling more energized.
It's not getting more organized. It's not getting more self-controlled. (Though these things are good). It's not adding more to our plate. It's something far deeper.
You won't want to miss it! In this podcast I share some of the things I've really been struggling with lately, and some of the really neat things God is showing me. I hope you'll listen in! Remember, you can subscribe here, and then download the podcasts to your iPod or Zune to listen to while you walk. Or you can listen right off of your computer while you do the dishes!
Last year, my Mother's Day post was pathetic. I was not in a good place. Here's part of what I said:
I think the reason that I was so into presents as a child was because I was an only child and my mother was a single mother. I knew that if I didn't get her anything, no one else would. It was my responsbility. And I felt it heavily even at 6.
But my kids don't have that same feeling. They know that Daddy and I will come through and do the shopping in the end, so they just wait to be reminded. In a way it's a good thing, because they're not taking on an adult role. But in another way, I just wish that they would think of more things for me!
Is that selfish? I hope not. I do love my kids, and they really are awesome kids. I have absolutely nothing to complain about. But I don't always enjoy Mother's Day, because we make a fuss over my mother and my mother-in-law, but rarely does anyone make a fuss over me.
This year was a little different. The girls wrote me a really long card telling me what they love about me. And you know what? That's what I really wanted. I don't need presents. I just need to know they love me and they thought of me.
I actually don't like presents very much. I know for some people presents are their love language, but to be honest, I don't want that much, and what I do want I just go buy myself. So I don't need anything.
I know the point of a present is that you're not supposed to need anything, but I hate the thought that people spent hard-earned money on something that I don't need. I would really rather take that money and give it to the Kenyan orphanage we support. They desperately need funds for all kinds of really important projects--like providing clean water to a village--and I really would get more satisfaction knowing that the $40 someone was going to spend on me went there.
But my husband will never really believe me. He thinks I'm just saying that. So he always buys me something, which I do appreciate. Really. I have the best husband in the world. I just sometimes get uncomfortable with gifts because I'm not a gifty type person.
Can anyone else relate to this? But I did have a nice Mother's Day, and I did love my girls' cards!
Every Friday my syndicated column appears in a variety of newspapers. Here's this week's, just in time for Mother's Day!
Forget that Mars and Venus thing. I have found the definitive difference between the genders.
Or rather, my nephew found it.
It is a YouTube series appropriately called, "Is it a good idea to microwave this?" Now if you have to ask the question, you already know the answer. But these enterprising young males have built a microwave room, plastered with tin foil and a video camera, where they set things like Snow Globes, Twinkies, LED batteries, Xboxes, and more on high for a few minutes and then watch through a window to see what happens.
I would hazard a guess that 90% of their YouTube viewers are male. I admit to finding it rather mesmerizing watching the plasma sparks burst out of the batteries, and a snicker did escape my lips as the Snow Globe exploded, but I wouldn't have searched for them in the first place. But my nephew, all on his own, discovered these university-aged pyromaniacs. And when he showed my husband, Keith said, "Cool!" (Warning: some of their videos do have offensive language).
Males, I believe, are pre-programmed to like blowing stuff up. Women, on the other hand, like to talk about males who like to blow stuff up. My daughter said that if two university aged females were launching a YouTube channel, they'd probably turn it into a talk show rather than a combustible experience. And I think she's right.
But that doesn’t mean that women are inherently more peaceful than men. I’ve never bought that whole philosophy that “if women ruled the world, there would be no more wars.” Anyone who has ever hung around junior high school girls for any amount of time knows that girls can be every bit as mean as boys—and in fact can be far pettier.
While junior high girls may be intimidating, a mother protecting her brood is downright dangerous. When outsiders attack, we don’t offer to negotiate and sing Kum-ba-yah. We drag out the heavy artillery.
I think it’s because motherhood brings out new, overpowering emotions. When you become a mother, you make a decision to forever have your heart walk around outside your body, as author Elizabeth Stone said. You have very little direct influence over the most important part of your life.
Sure we can control our children when they’re young, but as they get older that control slowly fades. We can’t keep them from disappointments. We can’t save them when friends turn their backs, or when they fail at something they pursued fiercely, or when they get cut from the team. We can’t protect them when others gossip or badmouth or betray.
And that kind of hurt is worse, in many ways, than if it happened to you. We moms want our children to be happy, and when they’re not, we hurt, too.
In the midst of that hurt we have to be the ones to rise above it; we have to be the ones to teach our kids resiliency; to help them out of the funk; to help them not to give up, but to try again. We have to put aside our own pain to help them out of theirs. And it’s not easy.
As my own children have grown I have found parenting far less physically demanding but far more emotionally exhausting. We dream so much for our kids, and yet we need to let our children be free to pursue their own dreams on their own. That’s an awful lot to ask of a mother, and that’s why I think this Sunday all of us moms deserve a day where we are lauded, applauded, and hugged galore.
And some chocolate wouldn’t hurt, either. And no, it’s not a good idea to microwave that.
Don't miss a Reality Check! Sign up to receive it FREE in your inbox here.
And don't miss my Mother's Day podcast, either! It's short and thought-provoking. Listen in here.
I've been giving the books that I've authored away left, right and center lately (just blog roll me on your blog for a chance to win a book at the end of the month!), but I think it's time to give away something that I didn't write.
Because I'm an author and my husband is a pediatrician we are given tons of books. Just tons. And I never know what to do with a lot of them. Some end up in our church library, but I've decided to start giving others away.
So the current giveaway is for Ann Douglas' book: Sleep Solutions for your Baby and Toddler. All you have to do to win is sign up to receive my parenting column by email every week! Someone who signs up in the month of October is going to win it!
Do you have issues with getting your baby (or babies) to sleep through the night? I know I did. We got into a really bad habit where Rebecca could only sleep if I breastfed her. So if she woke up in the middle of the night she needed me to come feed her so she could fall asleep again. Unfortunately, that didn't do a whole lot for my own sleep!
I wrote about this in a column a few years ago, and I think I'll pull it out now and let you read it. Here you go:
If somebody came into your bedroom in the middle of the night and flicked on the light and stole your pillow, would you be able to get back to sleep? Probably not, with all the commotion of calling the police and searching for intruders, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make right now. No, most of us wouldn’t be able to sleep because our “sleep cues” are gone. Babies are exactly the same. They need certain conditions to sleep, too, conditions that we teach them, even if we don’t realize it. These are the conditions that we taught our youngest daughter Katie:
First, Katie needed to be nursed to sleep while rocking in a rocking chair. Then, when it looked like she was in a deep sleep, she had to be lifted without any change in the angle of her body, even if this required the parent (in this case, the one with mammary glands) to throw her back out as she rose from the chair. Then, said mother had to frantically call “Keith, Keith, get in here!”, in order to summon the other parent (the one without mammary glands), to rearrange the blankets and lower the crib rail (since the mother forgot to do this before she started nursing). Everything thus readied, the mother would attempt the perfect transfer without changing the angle of the baby’s body.
If any of these conditions were not met—and, in many cases, even if they were—this baby would cry. In this case, what this baby needed was to be transferred to the swing. Once she was again in a deep sleep, you could pick her up and transfer her to the crib (once again whispering frantically for the other parent to get the blankets ready). This was a much more dangerous transfer, because it necessitated changing the angle of the baby’s body, which usually woke her up, sending you back to step one (nurse her in a rocking chair). Because this was our nightly ritual—and our middle of the night ritual—Katie could get to sleep no other way.
One day we smartened up. We read a book (Solve your Child’s Sleep Problems by Richard Ferber) that said that babies need to be taught how to go to sleep by themselves. They need to be put in their crib while still awake, both at set nap times and set bedtimes, so that they get used to putting themselves to sleep. Otherwise, you’re teaching your baby to need you to fall asleep, and whenever they wake in the middle of the night they’ll call for you again. Reading this was like that revelation at the end of Planet of the Apes, when the main character surveys the desolation and collapses in grief and despair as he realizes, “We did this to ourselves!”.
With a renewed sense of resolve, we embraced this marvellous new plan. In principle. Until we tried it. If we thought we had heard screaming before, it was nothing compared to what we heard afterwards.
But we weren’t as heartless as it may sound. Part of this plan returning to the child’s room every few minutes, to reassure your baby that you still love him or her. Then you must leave again. In our case, this was usually accomplished by my husband carrying me from the room as he hissed “you promised we would go by the book for a week”, and I struggled to get back to my baby.
Thus banished from her room, I would rock back and forth on my bed, like characters in a movie who have been in solitary confinement and have gone stark raving mad, as I listened to my baby cry. I had earplugs in my ears, and I would stare at my clock, mumbling, “I can go in again in three minutes and twenty seconds, in three minutes and nineteen seconds…”
But the amazing thing was, Katie learned to sleep. She only cried for twenty minutes that first night, and only a few minutes the next few nights after that. And she started taking naps, too, once we made them at regular times. And once she started to sleep, she started to smile. So did I. And we haven’t stopped.
Unfortunately I don't have the book I mentioned in the column to give away, but this one has the same sort of philosophy. So what do you think? Are you desperate for your baby to sleep? Just sign up for my newsletter during the month of October, and maybe you can win! And then maybe you can sleep!
I really think babies should be in church, too, but if they do get distracting, it's time to take them out. I've spent the last hour trying to edit the audio for that night, and clean it up a bit, and it is hard to edit out baby squawks. Some of them are cute, but at the serious times you just don't want a baby in the background. It's a tough call, though, because I know many of those young moms just really needed to be there!
This morning I actually spoke at a MOPS group, where there were tons of squawking babies! Somehow it didn't bother me there because the whole point of the group was the babies. And nobody was expecting it to be quiet. So it was a different atmosphere.
We talked about sex, and it really was a riot. I'll try to post some clips of what I said in an upcoming podcast, but some of the questions people asked were really good, too.
One of the points I tried to drive home is that men want to be wanted; they don't want to be placated. So you have to initiate, at least some time. One woman brought up the point that she doesn't mind initiating because as far as she is concerned, sex is for him, anyway. It doesn't do much for her, but she wants him to have a good time.
It's an admirable sentiment, but I do think that as women we shouldn't settle for it. Surely we can enjoy it, too? I know we're tired, and I know we have a lot on our minds, but let's not believe that it's never going to be good! I've been there, and it does get better, if you set your mind to it.
Again, this is the focus of Honey, I Don't Have a Headache Tonight, but I just assured these women that at this stage of your life, with preschoolers, you're probably in the most stressful period of your marriage ever. You haven't been married that long. You're not sleeping. Your life is extremely demanding. You're not financially secure yet.
But it does get better. So if your sex life is difficult, don't beat yourself up too much. Think of it as a long term goal. But do aim for spectacular! Don't settle for mediocre. God wants a lot more for us! He really does.
Now, onto other things. Tracey asked how I found out what Google searches people used to end up on my blog. I signed up with Google Analytics. You can create your free account, and then they can monitor how people arrive. Site Meter does it, too, but I find Google Analytics is better for finding out the specific searches, or for totalling up how much traffic came from each referrer site.
Hope that helps! I'll have a new Wifey Wednesday post tomorrow!
I posted earlier about my frustration with piano lessons with my youngest child. Basically she refuses to count, which you need to do once you get to a certain level, and she really hates reading music.
Julie asked in the comments if this was really such a big deal--maybe Katie should just learn the way she wants to learn?
And I want to address that, in a broader context so that it has more relevance even for parents whose kids don't do music lessons! So if you don't have kids in music, you can skip down a few paragraphs to get to my parenting philosophy, if you want! Otherwise just keep reading!
I spent quite a while with Katie away from the piano yesterday just making sure she "got" the concept of counting, and she does. For a while I was afraid that she might have a learning disability or something, but she doesn't. She can count, she just doesn't like to. And last night she actually did when she was practising, so to me that's a big breakthrough.
But here's our philosophy about piano first, and then we'll get to more generic parenting stuff: we have the kids take two types of lessons. The first is the typical one, with the reading music and counting and learning to play difficult pieces. I don't know what the piano system is in the U.S., but right now Rebecca is in Grade 7 and Katie is Grade 6. We've told them they have to do up to Grade 8, but I think Becca will go on to Grade 10. Katie certainly won't.
Then they take a lesson with a friend of mine who plays in church, mostly by chord sheet or by ear. So she's teaching them to do it that way, and Katie's really quite good at that.
But my friend, who is am amazing pianist, probably the best I know, says that the other type of lesson is important, too. You have to be able to read music in case anyone ever plops it in front of you. And you have to have the background in the notes and understanding how they go togehter. She has her Grade 9 piano, and says she wouldn't be as good as she is now if she didn't have that base.
So even though it's easy to say that we should just let Katie quit the classical stuff, I really think she needs to be able to play sight music, which is what we're working on with her.
Now to generic parenting stuff.
Let me back up for a minute. One of the big issues with kids today, I believe, is that the world revolves around them in a way it didn't for kids a century or two ago. In those days kids had to work, and work hard. Today, from the moment they are born, our lives revolve around our kids. They become the centre. We take them on play dates, take Mom & Tot swimming, buy them lots of toys, and expect very little out of them.
When they go to school they learn all about self-esteem and how special they are. What they don't get to do is be productive. Children, I believe, have a healthier sense of self when they feel self-reliant and useful. But children today aren't useful; too often they're accessories of the parents while we buy them all the latest things and try to make their lives go as smoothly as possible. But real life doesn't work that way. In real life your life only goes smoothly if you work and are responsible. But we don't have very many ways of teaching children that today.
In our house the kids do work, though not nearly as hard as children used to. But they have their chores, and they make dinner occasionally, and they clean toilets. It's great.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure where they actually learn the value of hard work. We homeschool, so they miss out on two things from school: getting 100% for working hard, but also having to sit through something they really really don't like. On the one hand, I'm ecstatic that they don't have to go through that. I hated watching the clock inch towards 3:10 when we would get out of school. I try to make schoolwork fun for the kids, and interesting, and for the most part I think I succeed.
But at the same time, at some point children need to learn the discipline to plow through something they don't like. In life sometimes we have to do things we hate for the greater good. And the sooner you realize that since you have to do it, you may as well have a good attitude about it and get it done, the better. When they complain and whine about it, they make everybody miserable.
One day my girls are going to have jobs. They're going to have homes to take care of, jobs to do at church, income tax forms to fill out. You can't procrastinate forever. You have to just do it. And I want to feel that my children were trained that when distasteful things come along, you take a deep breath, work as hard as you can, and get it over with.
I don't want their whole lives to be about that; I really don't. On the whole, I want them to have lives that are interesting and broadening and exciting. Occasionally, though, they do need to buckle down, and they need opportunities for that.
Rebecca, my oldest, will. If she doesn't like something, she has realized that just getting it over with is the best offense. So she does. But Katie, with everything in life, doesn't. Her first instinct is to complain, whether it's schoolwork or chores or piano. If it were just piano, I might let this go, and let her learn only the way she wants to. But it's with everything in her life, and so I'm really worried that it's more of a character issue.
So the reason that I am so strict with piano is that I want her to learn that valuable lesson. Practising for 25 minutes a day, hard, isn't so bad. She has the rest of the day to do things she likes, after all. And if she put her all into it, she'd be done lessons for good in a year and a half. She really would. But at the rate she's going it will take three years. I'm not trying to make her whole life hard, but learning to overcome procrastination and laziness is an important skill to teach children, and it's one I'm still battling with myself.
Does that make sense? Have you ever experienced this in your home? I think Katie will be an incredible pianist one day. She's already at the point where she could play for church. But even more than that, I want her to a person who doesn't complain, who is helpful, who is the first to jump in when something needs doing and just gets it done. I think 11 is a good age to start learning that. We'll see how it turns out!
According to birth order experts, the first child encapsulates all your hopes and dreams for the future. Because they are the first, your life is totally taken up with them, and they are totally taken up with you. They don't have any older siblings to stare at or to watch, they only watch you.
Thus, they tend to become the overachievers, the ones who want to please the parents. They have strict standards for themselves, and are far more likely to be perfectionists than other kids.
When the second one comes along, though, the parents are looking for something else. They want someone who can meet their emotional needs, instead of their dreams in the long-term. So the second born is a little more carefree. And it makes sense, because as a baby they're not primarily being stimulated by over anxious parents. They're watching a toddler fall all over themselves.
Nothing is set in stone, of course, but this is a pretty good guess as to what your children will be like.
And mine fit it to a T. Rebecca is my overachiever. It's hard to get her to do something if she's afraid she may fail. Right now the homeschoolers are trying to put together a soccer team, and though she loves soccer she doesn't want to play because she doesn't think she'll be good enough. But they need her for the numbers!
My Katie, on the other hand, I have to push to get her to try and do something well. One I have to push to not try so hard; and one I have to push to try at all.
Often Katie's schoolwork is sub par, and I know she could do better, but she rushes through it. And Becca? She tries too hard.
One thing that we're really struggling with Katie with right now is piano. She can play by ear, so we have her taking lessons to learn to play by chord sheet. But she's also taking the traditional lessons, and she hates counting. Just hates it. She cries when we make her count, and she whispers it, and I just can't understand it. Can someone have a learning disability about counting? Someone who is three grade levels ahead in math? Does that make any sense?
I hate the fact that we always butt heads over piano, and I always lose my cool. But she drives me nuts sometimes. She's my cuddly baby, and she's the one that in some ways is my emotionally close one, but Rebecca is closest to my personality. Rebecca is more the one that I understand, because I am a firstborn, and my husband is a firstborn, and my mother is a firstborn, and my father is a firstborn, and Keith's father is a firstborn, and Keith's mother was the last girl followed by a string of boys that she had to raise, so she has firstborn tendencies. And then there's little Katie that none of us can figure out.
It's not her fault. And I do love her dearly. I just don't know how to motivate her because we are so different. So that is my main topic of prayer this week: how to mother her better. I don't think I'm doing a good job when it comes to motivating her for piano or schoolwork because I can't figure her out. So if you could say a prayer for me, and leave a comment, that would be great!
We went on a hike today to a lovely area just north of where I live. We're learning about the Canadian Shield in Geography, and it actually starts about twenty minutes north of me (we're in the Great Lakes Lowlands), so we saw the transition and then hiked up a big rock. It was breathtaking. But before we left for the hike I went on google to search for the trail. I entered the name of the town, the province, and the word hiking, and got a search result that looked like it was perfect. I clicked on it and graphic pornography showed up. It had obviously been hijacked.
I almost asked my 13-year-old to do the search for me. Am I ever glad that I didn't!
So here's my question: what do I do to prevent this in the future? Can you? Does something like Net Nanny protect even when a site has been hijacked?
And is Net Nanny good? We were using MSN with its parental controls, but the kids just hated it (and so did I). Everything was so slow and it was ridiculous, so we've cancelled it. I'm not worried about what they surf, because I know what my daughter does on the computer. But the chance that something like that could happen doing a perfectly innocent search has me spooked.
I don't know why I do this to myself, but the wailing and gnashing of teeth is about to begin anew in our house.
We are heading out to piano lessons.
My daughters are both extremely musical. My oldest daughter wins the piano festivals almost every year, and she reads music very well. She's a natural. She doesn't have a great ear for playing things without music, but we're working on that.
My younger daughter, however, has been able to sit down at a piano since she was five and pick songs out. She regularly sits down and within a few minutes can figure out both hands to contemporary songs. She's wonderful.
But she absolutely hates the regular piano lessons where you have to--GASP!--actually count, and read the notes that are written, as opposed to putting in your own notes which you know sound better.
The girls take two lessons a week: one traditional one, and one with a friend of mine who teaches them to play by chord sheet. Katie (my youngest) likes the chord music. It's the tarditional stuff she can't stand.
And whenever she has to practice, she cries and cries. It drives me around the bend!
I know many parents would just give up, but I see this as important for two reasons: one day, she is going to be a great musician. But she will still have to be able to read music, and she has to be able to count so other musicians can play with her. She can't be all over the place!
And I also think it's a positive thing to have to work at something, and do something that doesn't come as naturally. If all we ever do is what is easy for us, we never get stretched.
The chord music thing is a stretch for my older daughter, but she doesn't complain, and she does it willingly. But my younger daughter can pout and tear up as if I'm torturing her. It drives me batty, and here we are, about to embark on it again for the year.
I'm either crazy or a good mother. I just can't decide which it is right now!
There's been a lot of talk lately that there are two Americas. John Edwards started it saying that there was a rich America and a poor America (presumably he was saying he belonged to the downtrodden America, even though he's a multi-millionaire, but that's another story).
In the last few weeks, the "culture wars" supposedly have come back with a vengeance, showing the two Americas in a different light: small town America vs. community organizing America; hunters vs. bureaucrats; people who shop at Wal-Mart vs. people who eat arugula. However you want to define it, it's seen as a culture war.
But I think the real culture war, and that which has the left in a tizzy, is about the meaning of children.
Take this video clip from Sarah Palin's speech, for instance:
What was your reaction when you saw that for the first time?
I saw it when, in our homeschool, we decided to watch the speech. I didn't even know that clip was coming. We were just watching the speech when all of a sudden the camera cut to Piper, and that's what we saw. And all of us, all four of us (Rebecca, 13; Alex, 13; Katie, 11; and me) immediately said, "Awwww, that's so cute."
In the press galleries at the convention, journalists wrinkled their noses in disgust when Piper, Ms. Palin’s youngest daughter, was filmed kitty-licking her baby brother’s hair into place. But to many Americans — including some I talked to in the convention hall — that looked like family church on Sunday, evidence of good breeding and sibling regard.
They thought it was disgusting?
I think those without children probably do find the "sharing of spit" thing disgusting. But as any mom knows, you get over that pretty quickly as soon as you have kids. You start finishing their half eaten meals because you can't let it go to waste. You feed babies; they want to feed you back, sticking their hands, all covered with spit and half chewn food, in your mouth. And it's just easier to let a child drink out of your cup sometimes than to have to refill it.
These are things that are really only done between parents and children. Even with spouses we don't go that far. I kiss Keith, and I may drink out of his glass, but I don't really like using his toothbrush. I have, on occasion, when desperate, but it's not something I like to think about. But with kids? Who cares. Spit is a communal family thing.
And I think it's this family thing that makes the left so mad at Palin. It's not just that she's pro-life (though she is); it's that she's actually lowered herself to having five kids. She didn't stop at a respectable one, like Hillary, or the traditional two, like the Obamas. She just kept having them.
Why is it that people hate large families so much? As far as I'm concerned, the greatest regret in my life will be that I didn't have more.
After Katie was born I was in no shape to get pregnant again. I'd had a miscarriage, and then watched my son die. When I was pregnant with Katie, they told me she had fatal defects, too (she didn't, but worrying just about did me in). I just didn't think I could face the uncertainty again.
Besides, we were sure we were going to adopt. In fact, we went through the whole home study process, and were accepted. We started fostering a family of girls that were up for adoption, assuming that we were going to take them.
And then I discovered something.
I can't kiss another baby's bum. I kissed my own girls' bums all the time, but as much as I liked these poor tykes, I couldn't kiss the baby's bum. And I didn't want to add girls to my family who were of similar ages to my own girls if I wouldn't be able to love them equally.
So we thought we'd wait to adopt (and I still pray that God may lead us to the right children, some day, once my biological ones are older and there wouldn't be comparisons).
But in the meantime, we really lost our window to have more kids. And that has haunted me for the last few years. I keep thinking of the babies I could have had, and wondered why I was so selfish (because that's how I see it). It's the thing I am saddest about in my life.
So even though I only have two living children, I really do identify more with the five kid families than with the two kid families, even if I will never understand the amount of laundry in a five children house!
All of this being said, I think the real cultural divide is over where your priorities are: are they with children, where your desires take second place; or are they with self-fulfillment and your own dreams, so that, if you have kids, you try to make sure they mess up your life as little as possible?
Please understand, I don't think this is a number of children issue. Many people with only one or two kids (or no kids at all!) don't put their own advancement first, but think of others. But I do think a sizeable proportion of the news media, where they tend to be more childless than the average population, and certain political parties, where children aren't as common, just don't understand the value of a close knit family life, where things are messy, unpredictable, and chaotic.
But still beautiful and valuable.
And that's the real cultural divide: children/family or intellectual sophistication. And guess what? The children/family group is much more fun!
Many of my friends have children who are marching off to Junior Kindergarten for the first time this week. In my province, JK starts at age 4, or 3 1/2 if your birthday is in the fall.
My oldest daughter went to JK, but we pulled her out for grade 1 and have been homeschooling ever since. My youngest daughter never went to school at all.
That being said, I spend a lot of time in my daughter's JK and SK years volunteering in the classroom. And I can tell you one thing. Kindergarten does absolutely nothing to get a child ready academically, unless that child is from a family that is subpar.
A number of my friends want their little boys to start this year, because they need to get ready for grade 1. I'm sorry, but that's nuts. First, they don't really learn anything in kindergarten except how to sit in a circle, wait in a line, and put up your hand to go to the bathroom. All of these things you learn just as well in Sunday School. In fact, you can tell the kids who go to Sunday School when you're sitting in a kindergarten classroom.
The "academic" stuff is really no different than what a good mother does with her kids at home, except that it's not nearly as effective. When my kids were 3 1/2 they knew all their letters, what sounds those letters made, all their numbers, basic addition, and patterning. They knew that because we went to the library twice a week, we read together, we did crafts, and we spent a lot of time counting things.
It's not rocket science. You do not have to be a kindergarten teacher to teach your kids these things.
And the kids who came from families with no schedule, with no stability, and with no consistent role model were hellions, if you'll excuse me using that word. Did they learn anything academically? Perhaps. Studies show that kindergarten really is most beneficial for this group.
But for most of your kids, whose parents do talk to them and play with them, kindergarten is negligible. And most kids would learn more academically being home and talking with Mommy.
That's not to say you shouldn't send your child to kindergarten. It's just to say that you shouldn't feel guilty if you don't, and you shouldn't have this romantic view of kindergarten as if it is some sort of magical place that can convey knowledge onto your child which you are not capable of delivering. It's just not true.
So relax. You're still the best teacher your child will ever have, and take the time with them while you still have them. Don't let them go too soon!
My heart goes out to Sarah and Todd Palin. This must be so difficult.
I don't know how I'd react if my 17-year-old came home and told me she were pregnant. I think I'd feel like I just had the wind knocked out of me. That's not how she was raised, after all.
So let's talk about how to raise kids to minimize the possibility of this happening. You can never eliminate the possibility; people do, after all, have free will, and children will not always do what you wish they would. Even in the big things.
But there are a few things that I do plan on doing with my daughters.
One: they aren't allowed to date until they are 18, though at 16 I'm willing to consider it (more on that later). I know that sounds extreme. I know many will think I'm absolutely nuts. But teenaged dating does not lead to anything good. If you haven't read I Kissed Dating Good-Bye, you have to. I thought Harris was crazy at first, but by 2/3 in he had convinced me.
My oldest daughter has read it, and she's firmly on board.
But, that being said, realistically I don't think you can tell a child that she's absolutely not allowed to date until she's 18, because many kids move out right at 18. Then all this freedom comes all at once. I would rather that she start exercising a bit of freedom while she's still living with me, but she would have to demonstrate some maturity and some commitment to God.
I also think that at some point kids have to internalize these lessons themselves. We can't control our children, especially when they get older, and when they leave home they will have plenty of opportunity to get into trouble. The only thing keeping them out of trouble will be their own convictions. So we have to work on helping them find their own convictions.
At the same time, it's silly to invite trouble. And even kids with great convictions don't necessarily hold up when temptation is at hand. So it will always be a rule in our home that if you're unmarried, you're not alone in a room with a door closed, and you're not cuddled in the basement under a blanket watching a movie. Sound extreme? Again, I'm not apologizing. I think it's just necessary.
I do trust my daughters. Right now, at the tender ages they are, they seem to have very open hearts to God. But you never know what may happen, and the late teen years are difficult ones. We have to steer them carefully.
I think allowing our children to date indiscriminantly at a young age is not steering them clearly (this isn't a reflection on the Palins; I have no idea what their rules were). But your child is the most precious thing God granted you. If you think they're headed for trouble, stop them. Don't just sit there helplessly! If you don't like their boyfriend, do something.
Sure there will come a time when they're too old, and they won't listen to you. But that doesn't mean you throw in the towel at 14, or 15, or 17. When you have authority, exercise it. Don't let them date young, and when they do date, interview your daughters' dates. Teach them to listen to God. And don't let them be alone with their boyfriends.
(All the same holds true if you have sons, by the way. It's just that I don't, so my perspective is as a mom of girls!)
Rebecca suggested yesterday that Keith gets a bat and a dirty shovel and puts them by the couch when he interviews her future dates, years from now. She thinks that sends the right message. And I'm glad she likes the fact that we're protective of her!
Around the blogosphere there's a lot of talk that maybe Palin isn't a good pick because she should be home with her baby.
I'm sympathetic. I really am.
But here's where I see it.
When I look at Palin, I look at almost a Deborah figure.
She didn't set out to go into politics, unlike Hillary Clinton. She didn't have some master plan of her life. She was just a mom who was upset at things at the school, so she joined the PTA and tried to fix them. Then she ran for city council for the same reason, and started to fix things.
Then she was asked to run for mayor, which she did, and she--you've got it--fixed things.
Then it was the Ethics Committee for the Oil & Gas Industry, where she discovered corruption, and reported it. And then it was the governorship.
She never asked to be on the VP list. But she is determined to do a good job, and from what I hear (though I could be wrong) her husband is home lots with the kids.
She's not running on behalf of women's rights, or downplaying stay-at-home moms, the way a lot of female politicians do. She's not saying that women need to take a more public role in life. She's just been in the right place at the right time in Alaska to get rid of some very entrenched corruption on the part of the Old Boys' Network.
Which is why she reminds me of a Deborah. Or a Margaret Thatcher, for that matter.
I'm uncomfortable with the baby being so young, although I think he's been with her in the office a lot. But I guess you can't help the timing of the election. And I do think that she is the best candidate from McCain's point of view, because she is so big on anti-corruption and on energy.
On the whole I think women should stay at home, although, as a physician's wife myself, I know many female physicians whose husbands stay at home instead, and it works quite well. The children still have a consistent parent for a caregiver.
I think this is a really tough one, for several reasons. Many of us women do feel called to things outside of the home as well as to childrearing. And certainly being a mom has to be a top priority. But what happens when God asks you to do something that isn't ideal for your family?
I think of this a lot with Billy Graham. He wasn't there when his kids were growing up. Certainly Ruth was, but would you take a job that would take you so much away from your kids? I also have a lot of friends in the military, and several who are overseas right now. Being overseas for six months isn't great on your kids, either. But is it wrong? Or is God calling them to something extraordinary, where He will also provide the extra grace for their family?
The truth is that some jobs are not good for families. They really aren't. But somebody has to do them, and some of them are absolutely vital for our well-being as a nation and as a society. So unless we want all of those jobs--police officers, military members, politicians, missionaries, evangelists--to be done by people who don't really love their families, who don't have families, or who don't even love God, then we have to admit that God may ask stuff of some families that doesn't seem fair or right.
It's a tough one, and as a busy speaker I have to balance a lot of this, too. I don't have an answer, but these are the thoughts that have been going through my head.
In the case of all these jobs, I don't think any of them should be taken unless one's whole family feels a definite calling. It's not enough for just one person to feel a calling--the whole family has to feel it, and it has be after a lot of prayer. But there will be times when Christian parents will have to take jobs that require being away from home a lot. And then they're not able to put their number one priority as number one. I do think God provides the grace when He also provides the calling. But it's not just Palin who is doing this. It's all over the Christian church in many different homes.
Even in my own family, when the children were young my husband wasn't home much. He worked about 110 hours a week at the hospital, and he was chronically exhausted. It worked because I was able to be home full time and take on the burden of parenting. And because of that, the kids are still very close to him, because when he as home, I didn't need him to spell me off. We did family things. That's why it has to be a family calling. If I were also working it would have been a disaster. But having Christian pediatricians is an important thing, so I think God called our family so that Keith was away a lot, and didn't parent a lot in the early years, but it was for a greater good.
And, in Palin's case, let's not forget that if she had stuck with two children, as I did, none of this would be an issue. Her oldest two are 19 and 17. But because she went on to have five, and obviously wasn't that enamoured with birth control, she now has two younger ones (and one middle one). In my case, at 44, I'll be fine to be VP if anybody wants to call me. But that's because I didn't have as many children as I probably should have had (more on that some other time when I feel like being especially honest).
So those are my Saturday thoughts. And I must now get to work finishing an article I didn't do at all yesterday because I was glued to the news!
I don't really mind; I feel privileged that God has given me so many people to care for. Wouldn't the worst thing be if nobody needed you or loved you?
But I have to admit, as school looms on the horizon for next week, that I am tired.
I'm my mother's only child, so I obviously do a lot with her. Now, she's not sick; she's extremely active and capable and doesn't ask much of me at all. She also helps quite a bit whenever I ask. But if anyone's going to do anything nice for, or for anyone else on her side of the family, it's me. I'm the oldest in my generation, and the most settled. So last night I hosted a birthday party for my aunt. It was great fun, and I'm happy to do it. But I did it.
On my husband's side, I'm the longest serving daughter-in-law. My in-laws have four boys; my husband is the oldest. The next two are both divorced. The youngest only married two years ago and is the only one who doesn't live in town. So I'm the default caregiver on that side, too.
Now, my in-laws are also healthy and they don't require very much from me at all. They also help out quite a bit! And my favourite part of the summer was the cruise we took with them. But, once again, if someone is going to host a family thing, it's me (unless my mother-in-law does it).
And who do you think looks after the nieces and nephews from the various divorced families? Me. Not full time, of course. In one case, the father, my brother-in-law, is very involved and is a great dad. But if he needs help in an emergency, I'm the one he calls.
As for my other nephew from the other divorce, I homeschool him along with my daughters. So we care for him, too.
I love all these people. I like them being around. But this summer I don't feel like I have had any time to relax, except that cruise (which I am still very grateful for). I have been looking after kids and getting our house in order after some renovations, and I just didn't get done what I needed to.
I had big plans for the summer. Summer is usually my most prolific writing time. But I didn't have the time off this year. My husband was working hard, I had the kids, and they always wanted to do something. I felt like I couldn't keep them inside all the time while I worked, and half the time someone else was over anyway, so I didn't accomplish much.
And now I'm about to start school more tired than I've been in a long time.
I know I need to learn to say no, but it's hard when it's your family. I guess I just need someone to say thank you. That they realize what I do, and they appreciate it. It would be nice if my children said that every once in a while, but I think my husband's going to take care of that with a heart to heart with them tonight. But right now I feel like I have given and given and given all summer, and very few people have given back. I'm tired. I could use a hug.
Mamablogga is wondering about saying please to kids--as in, "put your toys away, please." Is it a good idea? A bad idea? Are you leaving room for them to refuse?
I know what she's getting at, but please doesn't bother me. It's just being polite. It's "okay" that bothers me. And that reminds me of a column I wrote on just this topic a few years ago:
When my oldest was a toddler, we were given a cute little video of cute children singing very cute songs, which made me want to pull my hair out. Naturally, she loved it. In fact, she loved best a song that made me cringe. The chorus went “O-B-E-Y, obey your Mom and Dad!” Feet were tapping; kids were dancing; it was very catchy. My brain, fresh from its sociology degree, rebelled. Tell my child to obey? Wasn’t that squashing her will?
Shortly after these episodes, my darling angel hit two and discovered temper tantrums, biting, and stealing other children’s toys. Once it was no longer purely academic, I quickly learned to embrace the word “obey”.
Our society, however, still largely cringes. We treat our families as if they are democracies where everyone should have a vote.
What should we eat for dinner? Nobody wants veggies? Then chicken fingers it is! We allow our children a voice, because we forget that they are, indeed, children. They do not have the life experience or the emotional maturity to know what is best for them. We do.
It’s not just the concept of obedience that we’ve lost, though. We’ve lost the language. I remember listening in on a conversation once that a mom was having with her 6-year-old son. “Honey, it’s getting to be time to brush your teeth.” The boy kept playing with Lego. “Honey, you’ll need to brush your teeth before you go to bed.” More Lego. “Don’t you think you really should be brushing your teeth?”, this time through clenched teeth. Finally she lost it. “Why haven’t you brushed your teeth!?!”. He looked up, confused, and stared at her as if she were an alien, which, given the colour of her face, seemed to be a distinct possibility.
As you analyze their “conversation”, you can see his point. She never actually told him to do anything. She expressed her opinion about the relative time of day and the necessity of teeth brushing, but she never told him to march his little self down that hall and do something about it. He listened to her, evaluated her comments, and decided to ignore them.
Think about the difference between these two statements: “Billy, go brush your teeth”, and “Billy, go brush your teeth, okay?”. The first is telling him to do something. The second is asking him if he agrees. As soon as we’ve added “okay”, we’ve changed it from a command to a question. I think we do this so frequently because, at heart, we’re just not sure we deserve to be obeyed.
We’re scared of issuing real commands to our kids because it sounds like we’re saying we’re better than they are. That’s making a judgment, and we’re just not comfortable with that. But we are wiser than our kids are. I don’t pick my nose anymore, bite people I disagree with, or lie down in a grocery store and scream. (I do, however, sneak chocolate before breakfast, but that’s another story.)
Our job is to train our kids to become responsible, independent adults. To do that, we have to teach them to curb destructive behaviour. That means we need to be the boss, because kids rarely learn proper behaviour without an incentive. We are the ones teaching them how the world works. If we allow them to always do what they want, they won’t be able to handle adult relationships, hold down a job, or act appropriately in social settings.
Being the boss, of course, will look different as the child ages. As kids grow older, they need to be given more leeway. Telling a child what to do is appropriate at 4; at 14, it’s probably better to set a limit and then talk about why you have that limit. Tell a teenager what to do and they’ll rebel; raise a teenager to respect you, and they’ll be more willing to listen to your limits. But let’s not forget that without any kind of parental authority, society will fall apart. Kids certainly need our approval and our love, but they need our direction and discipline, too. Okay?
What do you think? Have we forgotten how to be parents? I'd love to know your thoughts!
My youngest daughter Katie turns 11 today, so I thought I'd reprint a column that I wrote a few years ago for her birthday. Hope you like it! She did.
My youngest daughter turned six yesterday. I think I should have been the one getting the presents.
Having Katie pretty near killed me. Five days before Katie was born I called my husband at work, called my mother at work, and told them both to get home because the baby was coming. Mom arrived to look after Rebecca, and Keith and I went to the hospital where they pronounced me not in labour.
Two nights later, at 2:00 a.m., I woke up my husband, called my mother, and ventured to the hospital again, certain that this time this was it. They told me it wasn’t.
The next night it happened again. Katie was my third baby. It’s not like I didn’t know what contractions felt like. These felt like contractions. I hadn’t slept for a week. And worst of all, people were starting to get mad at me. When I called my mother at midnight two nights later, she almost wouldn’t come. She was exhausted, and she had a meeting first thing in the morning. My husband told me that I better be sure this time.
Luckily, as soon as we arrived they said the baby was coming, hooked me up to the IV and told me to relax. Within a few minutes, though, I had the nurse back in the room. “The epidural’s not working,” I said. “I feel pain. I’m not supposed to feel pain!”.
“Oh, the epidural just hasn’t kicked in,” she replied nonchalantly, walking out of the room.
I started reciting. That breathing thing never really worked for me. It didn’t distract me enough. So when Rebecca was born, I tried reciting “The Lord is My Shepherd” instead. It required concentration, but I knew it well enough that I could pull it off. The Lord is my Shepherd helped me through Rebecca, and it helped me through Christopher. But this was different. This was PAIN.
“The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not—get that nurse back in here, NOW!—want, He makes me lie down—why are you still standing there? NOW!—in green pastures…”
By the time the doctor arrived I was starting to forget the words. “He makes me lie down” (WHACK! WHACK! in Keith’s stomach) “WHERE? Where does He make me LIE DOWN?”
Keith said, “In green pastures, honey, in green pastures.”
“In green pastures. He leadeth me—WHERE?” (WHACK WHACK).
“Oomph. Beside still waters. And honey, you have tension in your jaw. Remember? Don’t clench your teeth, honey. We want loose, not tension.”
WHACK WHACK. “FINE. The Lord is my Shepherd. I shall NOT (WHACK) CLENCH (WHACK) MY TEETH (WHACK WHACK).”
The nurse later commented that in all her years in the delivery room, she had heard the Lord’s name used in many creative ways, but never quite like that.
Katie came along pretty soon after that. She was 9 ½ pounds (and I’m pretty tiny). I have never quite forgiven her. She was also really ugly. She was all purple and wrinkled and looked odd. I can say that, of course, because she is absolutely gorgeous now. If she were still ugly, I’d never admit I thought so then.
Unfortunately, my mother failed to load the film in our camera correctly (something which all but cancels out the lack of sleep I gave her that week), so we don’t have any pictures of her first few days. By the time the pictures turned out she was no longer as ugly. So you’ll just have to take my word for it.
I can look back on the whole thing and laugh now. You really do forget the pain. During my pregnancy with Katie, I threw up prolifically, I had constant searing pain in my legs, and I had contractions for the last two months. She also gave me with varicose veins I had to eventually have removed (now there’s a gross surgery). And when I look at her today, I know I’d do it again in a minute. So maybe I don’t need a present. Maybe all I need to do is watch her as she plays and sings, and kiss her tonight as she sleeps. She’ll always be my big, fat, ugly baby that I love more than I can imagine. Happy birthday, honey.
Just when you thought you heard it all, news comes of more insane child rearing practices by some of the most wealthy (financially, not relationally) in our society.
It turns out that some New Yorkers are hiring night nannies to do the evening shift and get up with crying babies, when both parents have high pressure jobs.
Their nanny works from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. six nights a week. “She swaddles the baby and sings to him and that’s the whole point for us — she has a lot more energy and patience at that point in the day than my husband or I do,” Ms. Roche said. “We are wiped out.”
Night nannies are often treated like heroes, said Barbara Kline, president of White House Nannies in Bethesda, Md. “Suddenly you have a six-pound bundle of chaos, an incredible amount of upheaval in the household, and in swoops this person who can calm the baby and get them to eat and sleep,” she said.
As might be expected, help doesn’t come cheap. A week’s worth of night-nanny services can cost well over a thousand dollars, with nannies earning about $15 to $40 an hour, depending on their experience, the number of babies and the babies’ health. Ms. Seveney says overnight nannies usually spend 6 to 10 weeks with a family with one newborn, and anywhere from two to four months for twins.
I can understand a night nanny if you had triplets or quadruplets. You would need it just to sleep. But my youngest child barely slept for her first six months, and we managed, albeit it was tough.
I think she needed me in the middle of the night to feel secure.
But there's more to it than that. She had to be taught to sleep through the night. She had to be taught to soothe herself. All babies do. And when you're the one who is missing the sleep, you have the incentive to do that.
If I got up with Katie to nurse her, I wouldn't talk to her very much. I'd keep the lights off. I wouldn't make it fun. In the daytime I'd throw on the lights and the music, start a running conversation, tickle her, and do everything I can to let her know THIS IS DAYTIME. YOU SHOULD BE AWAKE NOW.
And eventually it worked. But with a night nanny, where's the incentive to train the child? How can a child have any relationship that's real with his or her parents if it's not even the parents getting up in the middle of the night?
Obviously these moms aren't nursing, either. I loved the solitude with my children, just nursing and humming to them and praying over them, in the dark. Sometimes I did get overtired, but I still loved them. How could you miss out on that?
If you didn't want to care for your kids, then don't have kids. It's as simple as that.
In my book Reality Check, a collection of 85 of my favourite columns, I recount my experiences with teaching Katie how to sleep. Read more about that book here! And it's on for super special this summer only!
About Me: I'm a Christian author of a bunch of books, and a frequent speaker to women's groups and marriage conferences. Best of all, I love homeschooling my daughters, Rebecca and Katie. And I love to knit. Preferably simultaneously.
Stumble It!
