![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ciroccojInterview Meme
You know the drill: Sarah was asked five questions, answered them on her blog, then offered to make up five questions for the first five people who asked in her comments.
Lemminglike, I asked :)
***
And speaking of the kids, here's Chris' take on the article pointed to from![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ninja_kat's lj, Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the age of anxiety
(Important Note: The opinions expressed below are those of the writer, and do not necessarily represent the opinions ofciroccoj's Journal.)
Motherhood in the age of not wanting to be a mother
... would have been a better title for this book.
I read the article, and was (once again) dismayed by our culture's tendency to accept what any person who writes a book says as coming from an expert. Bully for her that she's a mother and has spent time in another culture. Bully for her that she met a group of miserable mothers. This does not make her opinion any better than anyone else's.
So here's mine, which, given my training and research, is perhaps (IMHO) more based in norms. Most of what follows is based on my time in child psychiatry, unless I explicitly say otherwise (eg. "I..." or "We...").
Firstly, the fact that this author met a bunch of moms who were miserable tells me she met a bunch of moms who shouldn't have chosen to be mothers. Parenting is a full-time job (even when the kids are at daycare, you're 'on-call' 24/7), and needs to be accepted as that. If one can accept that, one very quickly finds the joy of parenting far outweighs the trouble. It is absolutely the hardest thing I have ever done. By accepting it as the most important thing in my life, I am happier in all spheres of my life. When we make a decision (eg. should I go part-time) the first thing to consider is how will it affect the children. That makes decisions very easy, with no ambivalence. (eg. if I am part-time, I'll be there for the children more, be less stressed at home, with a drop in income that won't affect _them_... easy choice, yes?)
As you know, we are 'attachment parents', which is a parenting style borne out of >40 years of objective and subjective research on children, parenting, and parents. William Sears is the best author I've found on this. The idea is if you throw yourself 100% into parenting in the beginning, you'll have major payoffs later. Breastfeeding as long as possible, for example, short-term (or in D's case 6-8 weeks) is difficult. Thereafter, it's easy (no bottles to sterilize, no formula to mix), free, good for the environment, promotes happy hormones in the mother, promotes attachment in mother and child (more on that later...), promotes good sleep, reduces ear infections, pneumonia, influenza, rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, gastroenteritis, and allergies, increases IQ (of the baby at least...), makes poo less smelly, prevents constipation, etc.
The Family Bed promotes good long-term sleep habits in the children, promotes happy hormones in the mother (and possibly in the father), promotes attachment (see below), reduces SIDS (and all non-SIDS mortality overall), etc. The appearance of decreased sleep, by comparing FamilyBedders to Ferberizers, is a short-term truth. However, everyone we know who Ferberized, in the long run, gets less sleep, in an unpredictable pattern, than those we know who FamilyBedded. The research supports this observation.
The big thing about attachment parenting is how much the child benefits. Less anxiety, depression, personality disorders and drug abuse throughout life. In the childhood years, these children are better behaved (on average), less neurotic, do better at school, etc. The parents benefit from less shit from the child's teachers, less trips to the doctor / psychologist. However the most important benefit is that the parents will be happier. Attachment parenting builds empathy for the child, therefore one can _predict_ problems and deal with them before they happen. Attachment parenting, as suggested above, makes decision-making easy, and makes one happier about those decisions. I do not regret for one second putting the kids first, because I can see how much they benefit. When I get home from work at a reasonable hour, we _all_ have more joy.
Eating together, even once per day, DRAMATICALLY reduces both obesity and eating disorders (unless one of the parents has an eating disorder or obesity). Indeed, the first step in the treatment of adolescent anorexia is to insist that the family eat dinner together everyday.
Having the children play all over the house (except in the ADULT bedroom) is annoying at times, but also lets us have many chances to observe them being funny, hearing their wisdom, helping to 'coach' them in appropriate social behaviours, and we (unconsciously) model a loving relationship (one of the best predictors of future healthy relationships in the children), and is just a lot more pleasant, for all of us, than relegating them to one or two rooms. When we need space/quiet, of course we send them outside or to their room, but most of the time we consider the house to be the _family's_ house, not the _adults’_.
I agree with the author that kids are hyper-programmed. One or two activities per week is healthy, more than that gets into silliness.
But this author seems to be one of, and has aligned herself with, the large group of parents who either should not have chosen to be parents in the first place, or have not chosen to place their children first. They _are_ placing their children first, perhaps, but not by choice.
The way we parent makes us happy, and makes our children happy, healthy, and with long-term prospects of continued happiness for us all. I love being a parent, I love putting my children first, I regret no parenting choices we have made. It is a self-perpetuating cycle, which _began_ with the decision to put the children first.
***
As for my own opinion here...
Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with everything Chris says above. Studies and stats don't really mean that much to me; in the past studies and stats have been used to promote everything from universal baby formula feeding to Thalidomide to clitoridectomies to treat frigidity. Personally, I think that you have to find the parenting style that fits you best, and if that means keeping a certain distance from your child... maybe that's what's best for both of you. Live and let live, vive la difference, que sera, sera.
But I do resent the implication that those of us who choose attachment parenting are somehow wingnuts who are deluded into allowing our children to take over our lives, and are living lives of quiet desperation because we're buying into a load of crap that's infantilizing us and draining us of "adult womanhood."
Personally, I like the way we do things in our house. I like eating together. I like spending time with my kids. I liked the family bed when we had it, I liked extended nursing. I liked baby-wearing, even when I was doing it with Justin, who was heavy as hell. I did not feel that all of that was a terrible sacrifice. Some of my childless friends pitied me, or felt that the sacrifices I was making were simply unnaceptable. I agreed that they would have been unacceptable for somebody who didn't like children - but to me, they really weren't.
When I became a mother, my own mom was my role model. Although many of the details were different (I was formula-fed and slept in a crib, for example) and there were things I wanted to improve upon, much of her style was very attachment-like, and I know it worked for her (and for me). I wanted to have that with my own kids. I think I do.
I also believe that the way we've chosen to raise our kids has helped us to get through times that would have killed us otherwise, what with cancer, death, medical residency, an accident, brain injury, two moves, lack of practical family support, financial restraint, law school, constant ear infections, and Justin's near-blindness. I'm not sure how we or our kids would have been able to deal with all of that if our bonds weren't enormously strong.
So, having most of that dismissed as insanity by somebody who's chosen a different way? Doesn't go over well. The author makes some pretty good points about societal support and not over-programming, but overall the article just doesn't sit quite right with me.
You know the drill: Sarah was asked five questions, answered them on her blog, then offered to make up five questions for the first five people who asked in her comments.
Lemminglike, I asked :)
- You're given a show on CBC Radio. What's it about?
Um... "Danielle Steele and Jackie Collins: Zenith or Nadir of Twentieth Century Literature?"
Hm. I wrote that as a joke while I thought about what I would actually want to discuss, but it's not that bad an idea now that I think about it. Not necessarily a show focussing on Steele and Collins, but a show about what makes literature bad and what bad literature does/doesn't do to its readers and/or society at large.
Oh, and also: historical badlit. Has it survived? Prospered? Vanished into oblivion? Why/why not? - What was your favorite childhood book?
Too many to count. An incomplete list:- Frances Hodgson Burnett (Little Princess, Secret Garden, etc)
- Lots of other semi-Victorian kidlit
- Tom's Secret Garden, by Philippa Pierce
- The Narnia books
- The Little House books
- Madeline L'Engle (Wrinkle In Time books only, though - I couldn't get into her other work)
- Monica Hughes
- The Bridge to Terabithia, by Katherine Paterson
- Rite of Passage, by Alexei Panshin
- Frances Hodgson Burnett (Little Princess, Secret Garden, etc)
- If you could eradicate anything, what would it be?
Poverty. AFAIK, it's responsible for most other world ills. - Is law school more of a stress relief or a stress causer?
Mostly stress relief. I love having interests outside our home; something totally different that gets me out of mom-headspace for a couple of hours a day. I'm very much looking forward to turning down the volume on the outside interests for at least the next year or so, but will still keep one or two courses going, as a sanity break at least.
I find law neat. I love seeing other minds at work. Reading a good decision or legal argument is very rewarding, even though you often have to wade through oceans of faulty logic, mixed metaphors and verbal diarrhea to get there ;)
(And BTW, how's that for a mixed metaphor mental image?) - If you could change your boys, would you?
First gut response: no way, not at all.
Upon further thought, it would be nice if we had some quick way to make Justin was less bloody loud, and Daniel less spacey. But then we wouldn't have the sense of accomplishment we've all felt from seeing them conquer some of their less savoury personality traits through will power and earnest effort. A few years ago, if somebody had offered me a magic wand to wave over Justin to cure him of his incredible destructiveness, I would have mortgaged my soul to pay for it. But it's been really neat, seeing how we've all slowly but surely worked to get control of that and rechannel it into more constructive ends, and have (mostly) succeeded. I think Justin and Daniel have learned a lot from the process; I know I certainly have.
So, a more considered response: no way, not at all ;)
And speaking of the kids, here's Chris' take on the article pointed to from
ninja_kat's lj, Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the age of anxiety(Important Note: The opinions expressed below are those of the writer, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of
ciroccoj's Journal.)Motherhood in the age of not wanting to be a mother
... would have been a better title for this book.
I read the article, and was (once again) dismayed by our culture's tendency to accept what any person who writes a book says as coming from an expert. Bully for her that she's a mother and has spent time in another culture. Bully for her that she met a group of miserable mothers. This does not make her opinion any better than anyone else's.
So here's mine, which, given my training and research, is perhaps (IMHO) more based in norms. Most of what follows is based on my time in child psychiatry, unless I explicitly say otherwise (eg. "I..." or "We...").
Firstly, the fact that this author met a bunch of moms who were miserable tells me she met a bunch of moms who shouldn't have chosen to be mothers. Parenting is a full-time job (even when the kids are at daycare, you're 'on-call' 24/7), and needs to be accepted as that. If one can accept that, one very quickly finds the joy of parenting far outweighs the trouble. It is absolutely the hardest thing I have ever done. By accepting it as the most important thing in my life, I am happier in all spheres of my life. When we make a decision (eg. should I go part-time) the first thing to consider is how will it affect the children. That makes decisions very easy, with no ambivalence. (eg. if I am part-time, I'll be there for the children more, be less stressed at home, with a drop in income that won't affect _them_... easy choice, yes?)
As you know, we are 'attachment parents', which is a parenting style borne out of >40 years of objective and subjective research on children, parenting, and parents. William Sears is the best author I've found on this. The idea is if you throw yourself 100% into parenting in the beginning, you'll have major payoffs later. Breastfeeding as long as possible, for example, short-term (or in D's case 6-8 weeks) is difficult. Thereafter, it's easy (no bottles to sterilize, no formula to mix), free, good for the environment, promotes happy hormones in the mother, promotes attachment in mother and child (more on that later...), promotes good sleep, reduces ear infections, pneumonia, influenza, rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, gastroenteritis, and allergies, increases IQ (of the baby at least...), makes poo less smelly, prevents constipation, etc.
The Family Bed promotes good long-term sleep habits in the children, promotes happy hormones in the mother (and possibly in the father), promotes attachment (see below), reduces SIDS (and all non-SIDS mortality overall), etc. The appearance of decreased sleep, by comparing FamilyBedders to Ferberizers, is a short-term truth. However, everyone we know who Ferberized, in the long run, gets less sleep, in an unpredictable pattern, than those we know who FamilyBedded. The research supports this observation.
The big thing about attachment parenting is how much the child benefits. Less anxiety, depression, personality disorders and drug abuse throughout life. In the childhood years, these children are better behaved (on average), less neurotic, do better at school, etc. The parents benefit from less shit from the child's teachers, less trips to the doctor / psychologist. However the most important benefit is that the parents will be happier. Attachment parenting builds empathy for the child, therefore one can _predict_ problems and deal with them before they happen. Attachment parenting, as suggested above, makes decision-making easy, and makes one happier about those decisions. I do not regret for one second putting the kids first, because I can see how much they benefit. When I get home from work at a reasonable hour, we _all_ have more joy.
Eating together, even once per day, DRAMATICALLY reduces both obesity and eating disorders (unless one of the parents has an eating disorder or obesity). Indeed, the first step in the treatment of adolescent anorexia is to insist that the family eat dinner together everyday.
Having the children play all over the house (except in the ADULT bedroom) is annoying at times, but also lets us have many chances to observe them being funny, hearing their wisdom, helping to 'coach' them in appropriate social behaviours, and we (unconsciously) model a loving relationship (one of the best predictors of future healthy relationships in the children), and is just a lot more pleasant, for all of us, than relegating them to one or two rooms. When we need space/quiet, of course we send them outside or to their room, but most of the time we consider the house to be the _family's_ house, not the _adults’_.
I agree with the author that kids are hyper-programmed. One or two activities per week is healthy, more than that gets into silliness.
But this author seems to be one of, and has aligned herself with, the large group of parents who either should not have chosen to be parents in the first place, or have not chosen to place their children first. They _are_ placing their children first, perhaps, but not by choice.
The way we parent makes us happy, and makes our children happy, healthy, and with long-term prospects of continued happiness for us all. I love being a parent, I love putting my children first, I regret no parenting choices we have made. It is a self-perpetuating cycle, which _began_ with the decision to put the children first.
As for my own opinion here...
Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with everything Chris says above. Studies and stats don't really mean that much to me; in the past studies and stats have been used to promote everything from universal baby formula feeding to Thalidomide to clitoridectomies to treat frigidity. Personally, I think that you have to find the parenting style that fits you best, and if that means keeping a certain distance from your child... maybe that's what's best for both of you. Live and let live, vive la difference, que sera, sera.
But I do resent the implication that those of us who choose attachment parenting are somehow wingnuts who are deluded into allowing our children to take over our lives, and are living lives of quiet desperation because we're buying into a load of crap that's infantilizing us and draining us of "adult womanhood."
Personally, I like the way we do things in our house. I like eating together. I like spending time with my kids. I liked the family bed when we had it, I liked extended nursing. I liked baby-wearing, even when I was doing it with Justin, who was heavy as hell. I did not feel that all of that was a terrible sacrifice. Some of my childless friends pitied me, or felt that the sacrifices I was making were simply unnaceptable. I agreed that they would have been unacceptable for somebody who didn't like children - but to me, they really weren't.
When I became a mother, my own mom was my role model. Although many of the details were different (I was formula-fed and slept in a crib, for example) and there were things I wanted to improve upon, much of her style was very attachment-like, and I know it worked for her (and for me). I wanted to have that with my own kids. I think I do.
I also believe that the way we've chosen to raise our kids has helped us to get through times that would have killed us otherwise, what with cancer, death, medical residency, an accident, brain injury, two moves, lack of practical family support, financial restraint, law school, constant ear infections, and Justin's near-blindness. I'm not sure how we or our kids would have been able to deal with all of that if our bonds weren't enormously strong.
So, having most of that dismissed as insanity by somebody who's chosen a different way? Doesn't go over well. The author makes some pretty good points about societal support and not over-programming, but overall the article just doesn't sit quite right with me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-27 09:38 pm (UTC)Well, first, my usual caveat: I have no kids, and thus probably have no idea what I'm talking about.
That said, I'm going to keep talking, b/c that's what I do. :)
While I agree completely that children should be part of the family as much as possible--including having the run of the house and, if that's what floats your boat, a Family Bed (we had one, but not b/c that's what my parents decided--it's just that we were both prone to nightmares, and I was a sleepwalker, so we both wound up in the parents' bed more often than not)--I found one of the underlying points of the article to be sound. And that point is that mothers need to remember that they are people, too. Of *course* the children come first, as they should. And of *course* everything you do should promote their safety, happiness, and well-being. But to do that at the expense of your entire sense of self? Does nothing for the kids. Parenting, more so than any other relationship in the world, requires sacrifice. But if you let it eat you away until all that's left is Mommy...well. What happens when they grow up?
I don't think, however, that she does a good job arguing this. The Newsweek article on the subject, "Mommy Madness," was much more effective--particularly in its discussion of the ways in which mothers subsume themselves so completely as to even dress like kids and eat kids' food, etc. That article did not condemn attachment parenting, I thought, but rather condemned the notion of "perfect" parenting that may come about as a result of all these different theories and methods about childrearing.
So...uh. Yeah. She comes off sounding horribly selfish, and with a remarkably pre-20th-century approach to children, but the idea that to have children requires the complete sacrifice of absolutely *everything* that makes you an adult human being is as dangerous as the idea that children are toys you can play with and then put away when they bore you.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-27 10:44 pm (UTC)Yeah, it feels sometimes like people lose sight of the fact that this is not supposed to be a horribly painful endeavor. It may be exhausting and demanding and infuriating, but at the end of the day it's still supposed to be (overall) a positive experience.
She comes off sounding horribly selfish, and with a remarkably pre-20th-century approach to children,
Hm. I didn't see that part, though now that you point it out, I would tend to agree. I thought she just sounded rather condescending and pitying towards certain kinds of parents. Like, um, me.
but the idea that to have children requires the complete sacrifice of absolutely *everything* that makes you an adult human being is as dangerous as the idea that children are toys you can play with and then put away when they bore you.
Heh, yeah, see above re. Sarah's questions. Part of why I'm in law school is that I need outside interests, or I'll go nuts.
When I was at home full-time during the worst of Chris' residency, I was It as far as parenting for the kids. He was almost never home, we had no family close by for part of that time, no money for sitters, and when we came to Ottawa, we didn't have any way of getting a reliable break from the children for me. My mom took them a few times, but then she got sick. In the end, there was nothing but Mom left in me, because the boys didn't have anybody else to take care of them.
It was terribly draining and unsatisfying and I would never, ever want to go back there. But there's a big difference, I think, between feeling that moms deserve a break on a regular basis and deserve an outside life, and feeling that moms shouldn't let their children cramp their style. That, to me, is the equivalent of seeing your kids as toys that you can play with and put away when they bore you.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-27 11:04 pm (UTC)How do parents have a sex life while doing the Family Bed thing?
Sorry. That one's been bugging me for a while, and I just *had* to ask.
And prolonged breastfeeding eeks me out, but I'm childfree and therefore my opinion should be taken with about 50 pounds of iodized salt. : )
Let's just say
Date: 2005-02-28 12:11 am (UTC)And now that they're older, we put them to bed in their own beds, it's just that they often wander in sometime in the night when they're looking for a warm body and comfort.
Sarah
no subject
Date: 2005-02-28 01:20 am (UTC)In our case it wasn't a problem since we actually had an adult bedroom; we just didn't normally use it. We even started to call it the Adult/Sex-Bed in the Sex Room. Except when we told friends they could sleep there, at which point it was referred to as the Guest Room.
From what I've gathered, most other family-bed parents get creative around the house, or, if the kids are small enough (we're talking babies here, not old enough to catch on to anything if they happened to wake up) just do it after the kids are asleep.
We were visiting friends of ours once, laughing about the various ways other people got uncomfortable about the subject, when one of them said, "I mean, hell, that's what the couch is for!"
::um...:: I thought, ::that would be the couch I'm currently sitting on... oh, man, that is a mental image I did not need::
no subject
Date: 2005-02-28 02:08 am (UTC)I'm known for my bluntness. : )
Y'all are making me jealous. Not because you're parents - but because of the fact that you're in decent, loving relationships. Something that I wonder if I'll *ever* have. (Without weird-outs and my being tossed like Kleenex being involved.)
no subject
Date: 2005-02-28 05:32 am (UTC)Much like snarkhunter, I took away a different message from the article than you and Chris. Actually, I pretty much took away the same message that snarkhunter did. Granted, I didn't scrutinize the article all that closely, I read it quickly and went "Hmmm - neat". My comment about wanting to move to France was merely admiring all the social, cultural, & governmental support in France for parents - and the lack of guilt-mongering for wanting and deserving personhood as well as parenthood - not necessarily agreeing with the given descriptions of 'adult womanhood', or 'family life' - which I took to be the prevailing view in France...not necessarily those of the author.
I didn't interpret the article as being 'anti-attachment-parenting' either, I took it as bemoaning how parents were pressured into so many things that maybe weren't viable choices for everyone. I took away more the message that there shouldn't be so much guilt and pressure about motherhood...
I was just happy to read about a society where parenting didn't involve guilt for wanting personhood or for going back to work.
Hmm
Date: 2005-02-28 05:48 pm (UTC)Can we not do anything in moderation?! As someone in North America, I guess I don't get this. Why must it be assumed that our choices are 'total parenting' or 'total self-hood'? I'm just baffled and frustrated. Maybe the writers of these books are just hanging out with the wrong crowd. I've found lots of support for being a parent. None of the people at my playgroups have ever judged parents for having a part-time job/not having a part-time job or hobby or whatever.
I'm feeling very fed up with the 'uber parenting' culture. Parenting is vital and sacred and a lot of work. But it does NOT involve overscheduling your kids or living through them vicariously. It involves careful thought about how much structure they need, the boundaries they need, and the free playtime they need.
Those first 5 years are intense, but the hard work and *quantity time* you put in during those 5 *short* years makes a whomping huge difference in the life of your child. Get a piece of string. Cut it 85 cm long. (1 year per cm, assumed 85 yr lifespan of Canadian woman.) Now paint the cms from 30 to 35 blue. Take a look at it. It's a small part of your life, and yet it can totally change their *entire* life. Don't be an Uber Parent during that time. Be a good parent. And stop thinking so much about yourself. (Not talking directly to you, here, Ninja Cat, but to a kind of woman I keep reading about in articles) Just because parenting life is different than your career life, that doesn't mean you're not a person. It doesn't mean you can't explore your personhood through this new challenge. Thinking like that seems to be akin to travelling along in a journey, getting to a mountain, and the whole time you're climbing the mountain you're complaining that you aren't on a beach in a kayak. You're on a mountain! Enjoy it! Rise to *that* challange. Build muscle, explore the lessons this part of the journey will teach you. It'll probably make you a better kayaker.
Why do we keep thinking that when you become a mother or are doing mothering work you aren't still the person you were before. Mothering is just a role, just like your job. The *person* is still there. I get so frustrated with this kind of false separation. Mothering has taught me more than any religious teacher, more than any university course, more than any journey. It's been amazing (and hard, I won't deny that). Frankly, I'm really glad I was wise enough to explore my personhood through the mothering that I was going to be doing anyway.
Sarah