Strollerderby : guilt

6 Reasons to Hate Mother's Day

Miriam Axel-Lute — Sun, 10 May 2009 10:04:00 GMT

It was originally an antiwar holiday, but was defanged and corrupted to be about cards and flowers and brunch.
It was originally an antiwar holiday, meaning you should be vigiling or writing letters to Congress when all you want is to sleep in and have brunch.
The hoopla over it as compared to Father's Day just proves how society still expects moms to do most of the parenting.
The one time someone takes you to brunch, everyone else is doing it and there's a 45 minute wait.
Someone will always bring up the false idea that Mother's Day is a top suicide day, in case you felt like forgetting to mail the cards in time or not arranging your day to plump the self-esteem of every mother in your extended family was forgivable just this once.
All the attention is not about you anyway, it's just about the part of you people have been overemphasizing since your first kid was born anyway.

More by this author:

25 Things That Make Me Feel Like a Bad Mom

Miriam Axel-Lute — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:05:00 GMT

Caron Guillo, over at New Christian Voices, has taken ahold of the omnipresent Facebook meme 25 Random Things About Me, and given it a parental guilt trip spin. Apparently it's not only Babble writers who like to bare (and implicitly kinda defend) their (supposed) parental deficits to the Internet.

I'm glad to see that at least some "new" Christian voices have a sense of humor. That's a refreshing change from certain spokespeople for Jesus's followers, even if I still personally find something creepy about the glee with which Guillo describes spanking her kids with a wooden spoon.

I confess to having been a closet fan of the 25 Random Things meme. Because it was so open-ended I found it was really good at giving me a sneak peak into people's self-images and what they found important (and how well they could gauge what other people would find interesting about them, which was information itself). This version looks to be no different. (Hand me downs apparently make some people feel like bad moms. Huh. They make me feel like a good mom.)

Anyhow, I figured I'd play.

Here's Caron's list.

Here's mine:

We cut my daughter's hair short to avoid fights over combing it.
Last time we did so, we cut off what was basically a dreadlock, shaped like a fiddlehead.
I'm avoiding scheduling a dentist appointment for her because I'm afraid of what we'll be told.
She's a picky eater and I don't fight it.
I can sometimes get her to eat protein when she's not in the mood by promising something sweet afterwards, and I do.
I believe in the whole "perils of praise" argument and have been completely unable to stop praising her.
She had a high lead level at age 1 and we didn't move out and bankrupt the family ripping every last bit of lead paint out of the house. (It's down anyway.)
I want to wean but am being lazy about it, and I know she can sense my ambivalance.
I don't change the genders when reading sexist picture books.
There are only two people besides her parents she's willing to stay with alone for any length of time, and I haven't pushed it.
Sometimes I'm not sure when her last bath was.
Most of her shoes are no longer soft-soled.
A few weeks ago, in the process of climbing over a railing in order to let her sit on one of the lions outside the Saratoga Music Hall I let the bag on my back swing around and knock her head into the railing, really hard.
I'm glad not to be a full-time stay-at-home parent.
Sometimes I can't think of anything I want to do with her.
Despite my best efforts, she associates Christmas and birthdays with presents.
I make sarcastic, inappropriate comments that she doesn't get when forced to read inane books to her.
I let her sleep wih no blankets on nights when I'm huddled under two comforters. Her bed is in possibly the coldest spot in the house.
We gave up on cloth diapers because we couldn't keep her from getting rashy in them. We barely can now.
I've opened and returned gifts sent to her without letting her see them.
I rarely put sunscreen on her.
When she's not looking, almost all of her artwork goes right in the recycling. Even the first birthday card she "wrote" on.
I didn't manage to keep up a baby book past a month or two. I have no idea what her first word was.
Sometimes I say yes so I don't have to say no.
I write and publish stuff about her that might embarass her later, and use her real name.

I'm not promising it's my top 25, just 25. I'm also not sure if it feels as meaningful as I thought it might. Try it, and share what you think? Cathartic? Annoying? Unnecessarily guilt-inducing? Causing of prideful fake modesty?

More by this author:

5 Things That Make You a Breastfeeding Nazi . . . And 5 Things That Don’t

Miriam Axel-Lute — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:01:00 GMT

Ah, breastfeeding and formula. It seems like forever since we’ve been able to talk about infant feeding without immediately getting sidetracked into the explosive meta discussion about how we should talk about it, or, more often, how we shouldn’t.

The ability to discern between truth-telling and guilt-tripping seems to get a little hazy to all involved sometimes. In the interest of lancing the boil I present the following cheatsheet on how not to become a breastfeeding Nazi—and how not to see them where they are not.

Part 1: 5 Things That Make You a Breastfeeding Nazi

1.   Making disparaging comments to parents giving bottles to their kids.
I shouldn’t even have to say that this is Not OK, and I think it is rarer than some on the defensive would like to make out, but apparently strangers hissing “Shame on you, you should be breastfeeding” does happen. So let’s just get this straight: You don’t know what the story of that parent/caregiver and baby are (or even what’s in that bottle), so shut the eff up. Besides, even if you somehow knew that someone really could be breastfeeding, do you really think that being mean is the way to change their mind?

2.   Refusing to acknowledge that sometimes breastfeeding is hard and sometimes it sucks.
I’m well convinced that with the right post-partum protocols (baby to breast within an hour of birth, for example), support, and information (and maternity leave) that breastfeeding could be a lot easier for a lot of people than it is. But the fact is that (a) most mothers aren’t in that ideal situation and (b) even in ideal cases sometimes milk comes in late, latches aren’t formed right, infections happen, medical conditions lower milk supply, etc. and those things can be miserable. Pretending this isn’t the case is rude to the women who’ve struggled really hard—both the ones who persevered through it and the ones who eventually prioritized other things.

3.   Quoting discredited studies.
Guess what? Breastfeeding doesn’t raise your baby’s IQ. That finding failed to control for parental IQ and when they did, the difference went away. I didn’t know that until recently either, but now that you know, have the integrity to drop it from the plenty-long list of advantages to breastfeeding.

4.   Confusing lactivism with promoting one-right-way-to-parent.
I will never forget reading an otherwise decent article critiquing all the subtle ways in which our culture promotes bottle feeding when suddenly the author was on a condescending tangent about the insufficiently committed mothers who had this selfish need to occasionally have a little time to themselves without their kids. I could just hear a thousand undecided pregnant women saying “Well, if that’s what breastfeeding is about, forget it.”

5.   Blaming individuals, not systems.
The major cause with low breastfeeding rates in the United States is not selfish parents. It’s a stew of bad hospital protocols, bad family leave policy, misleading formula marketing, badly crafted parental education, overworked and undertrained labor and delivery nurses, unsupportive workplaces, and on and on. If we all keep that in mind we might even be able to work together.

Part 2: … And 5 Things That Don’t

1.   Encouraging an uncertain or undecided mother to give it a try/keep trying.
This is different from berating someone who has already made a decision and it doesn’t count if it’s done in such a way as to fall under #2 or #4 above. But if someone truly isn’t sure, offering encouragement, suggestions, information, data, or contacts that might help them succeed in something this big is a service not a judgment. This extends to critiquing misinformation or “balanced” pro-con literature that parents have been given or offering to talk to an uncertain spouse.

2.   Trying to get the word out about how some common breastfeeding problems can be alleviated by different nursing patterns.
Talking about breastfeeding “management” tactics to address problems like lactose overload in no way blames mothers for the problems. It certainly sucks to learn afterward that there might have been something in your control that might have helped make breastfeeding work better, but we all know this isn’t inborn knowledge. You can’t withhold the information from those who want it so you don’t offend those who didn’t have it when they could have used it.

3.   Talking about the statistical risks of routine formula feeding.
This is the hot, wet heart of it all. Yes, there are plenty of perfectly healthy formula-fed kids. They are just statistically less common. Yes, fear of illness doesn’t have to trump every other consideration.

But neither of those things mean we should stop talking about the real and stark differences in health between the two options on a statistical level: Two to five times the rate of SIDS, twice the death rate from diarrhea, six to ten times the rate of necrotizing enterocolitis, higher rates of respiratory illness, leukemia, asthma . . . Post neonatal infant mortality rates in the United States 26.6 percent higher. We’re not actually just talking about fewer annoying ear infections here.

We need to talk about these numbers not in order to make anyone feel bad, but in order to organize for the systemic changes that would actually make breastfeeding a viable option for more people.

4. Opposing formula marketing in hospitals.
Formula is an important option to have on hand when breastfeeding doesn’t work for many reasons. In that way it’s a little like a drug, or at least a nutritional supplement. Hospitals don’t hand out anti-cholesterol meds to people with healthy hearts; they shouldn’t hand out formula as a matter of course either. It’s misleading and it implies that doctors think it is a medically equivalent option and it isn’t. (Same goes for opposing misleading formula ads.)

5. Disliking the term “breastfeeding Nazi.”
Aside from this being yet another case of the term Nazi being tossed around like the Nazis were merely cross-patches, not mass murderers, it implies that there is an organized movement to be horrible and judging to all parents who don’t toe the line, instead of a loosely-knit network of people and organizations trying to advocate for a public health measure, some small minority of which sometimes behave in mean or counterproductive ways. The same can be said of both sides of nearly any cause people get passionate about. It’s time we got back to having the real conversation.

Related Posts:

The great breastfeeding Strollerderby Smackdown: Boob Nazis vs Breastfeeding—Why Not? vs Damned If You Do, Doomed If You Don't
Breast is Best 2.0: Pumping in Public

More by this author:

Evangelical Teens' Very Active Sex Lives

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:00:00 GMT

In this week's issue of The New Yorker, there's a cartoon that made me laugh so hard I spit out my tea. Although it's not technically Bristol Palin's unborn child speaking, it easily could be. Two kids are sitting on a stoop and one says to the other, "I was an abstinence-only baby."

An article by Margarot Talbot in this same New Yorker tackles the issue of evangelical teen pregnancy in a more serious vein. Even for someone who is already convinced that abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work, these statistics are shocking.

Although 74 percent of white evangelical teenagers are opposed to premarital sex, more evangelical teens are sexually active than almost any other major religious group, including mainline Protestants, Jews, and Mormons. The average age for an evangelical to lose her virginity is 16. And half of these kids are not using protection. Compare that with 69 percent of non-evangelical teens who report using contraception every time they have sex.

The reason for this high percentage of unsafe sex among evangelical teens likely stems from shame at being sexually active—if you carry around condoms or suggest using one, you could give the impression that you are looking for sex. Furthermore, abstinence-only sex ed. teaches that condoms are not effective protection against STDs and pregnancy.

As we’ve seen in the widespread conservative support for Bristol Palin’s plans to get married and have a baby at age 17, for many evangelical parents, a teen daughter becoming pregnant is not a problem—so long as she keeps the baby and marries the father. This is a perfectly valid attitude based on a personal moral belief. The problem is that this retroactive problem solving often does not lead to happy families.

The states with the highest divorce rates and the highest teen pregnancy rates are all red (where people are, obviously, more likely to be evangelical conservatives than social liberals). The states with the lowest divorce and teen-pregnancy rates are all blue.

Many are arguing, even within the evangelical community, that if Christians want to preserve a commitment to abstinence until marriage, they must do more to encourage happier, younger marriages, since delaying sex until age 25 or 30 is just not realistic.

A large part of encouraging young Christians to have happier relationships is offering them more realistic attitudes toward sex. If hormonal teenagers are taught, for instance, that masturbation is sinful, they are more likely to have less engagement with and control over their bodies. Similarly, teen girls who are taught that they can always become "born-again virgins" if they "accidentally" have sex before marriage are not likely to embark on a responsible sex life. And such guilt-addled, unrealistic attitudes toward sex are likely to cause problems for couples well into marriage.

Photo: Mary Ellen Mark/The New Yorker

Could Sex on TV Lead to Teen Pregnancy?

They Say: Doctors Have Feelings Too

Amy Kuras — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:32:00 GMT

Hmmm, maybe they are not coldblooded perpetrators of the "birth-industrial complex" after all: One in 10 obstetricians have been sufficiently impacted by the stillbirth or neonatal death of a baby they delivered that they have considered giving up their practice, and three quarters said they had profound anxiety, guilt and stress over such negative outcomes for their patients, according to a University of Michigan study of more than 800 OBs.

As somebody whose kids were both birthed via c-section, one emergency, one not, I am not a fan of the Ricki Lake-esque earthy-birthies in the first place. I've got no beef with midwives, homebirth, natural childbirth or anything else that lets someone give birth the way she wants, but I expect the same respect accorded to how I chose to give birth. I'm willing to concede the point that birth doesn't need to be medicalized, but some of us just do feel more comfortable with someone who went to school a lot longer than we did keeping an eye on things.

And aside from the smugness and belittling of other mothers for making dfferent decisions, my other major issue with the earthy-birthy crowd is this reflexive distrust of doctors. I was lucky enough to sort of stumble into a great OB and have heard some awful stories from others who weren't so lucky, but what this story reinforced is that most of them aren't unfeeling scalpel-wielders but people and professionals who want good outcomes for their patients.

Does Britney Make You Feel Like a Good Mom?

Kelly Mills — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:32:00 GMT

Earlier this week Bonnie Fuller told us Britney serves a valuable purpose: She makes us regular, guilt-stricken moms feel better about ourselves. "Yes, we may feed our kids pizza for dinner, miss mid-week soccer matches and fake that we actually baked brownies for the school fundraiser. But we have never, no never, used our kids as paparazzi bait—and we have practically taken college-level courses to make sure we strapped our babies into their car seats correctly." Pizza and faked brownies...Is that all you got? Wow, I have yelling and, well, all kinds of better-left-unnamed stuff to top that. Great, now the glow I could have gotten from Britney has been completely wiped out by the minimal crimes of other moms. Thanks.

Angelina Jolie and Madonna also ought to be helping assuage the mom woes, according to Fuller. But I'm sorry to report none of it does it for me. I think it's a combination of the fact that I'm weirdly protective of Brit-brit (though I do revile her mom a little), and that my method of dealing with maternal guilt is to shut it away in a tiny box with a very tight lid and only release it in crying jags around the holidays. I also find righteousness only offers me teensy relief, because the minute I haterate on someone I often catch myself doing something comparable. (You should have seen what I did on the red carpet the other day, oh my lord...) The famous mom balm just ain't cutting it here. But perhaps it works for you?

Guilt Source: Your Stress is Making Your Kid Fat

Karen Murphy — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:24:00 GMT

Me: Hello, Guilt Department? Could I have an update on things I'm doing that ruin my kid's life? I seem to have forgotten a few.

Guilt Department: Oh yes, we're always happy to oblige. Are you pregnant? Because there are extra Guilt Points if you are...

Me: No, nothing like that, I'm just checking in. I haven't updated in awhile.

GD: [testily] I see. Well, you know we have a policy of at least a monthly update on guilt-inducing activities. It's all in the agreement you signed.

Me: I know, I know. [brightly] Hey, can I add that to my Guilt Point total?

GD: Well, I'll let it go this time...

Me: Great, thanks! So what have you got for me?

GD: Well, the latest is a new study that claims that parent's stress keeps fat kids fat.

Me: Oh, that's a good one!

GD: That's right: if you're distressed about anything, it seems to impact your kid's symptoms of depression, which then naturally has a negative impact on his quality of life. Perfect, isn't it?

Me: [lost in thought] You mean, if I'm stressed about my job, or an argument I had with my spouse, or just in general about politics or world affairs or whatever, it affects my kid and makes him distressed too? Which means he's less likely to have a healthy lifestyle?

GD: Thats right. You'd be way to immersed in your own selfish depression to give any kind of decent support for your kid.

Me: Wow, that one sounds like so much fun! Can I sign up for it?

GD: Sure, I'll have to fax you the paperwork, but I'll add you to the program. Enjoy your guilt!

Me: Okay, thanks!

Neverending Mommy Guilt

Kelly Mills — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:38:00 GMT

Maybe you though guilt was just something moms laid on their kids, but no. Many moms (hello!) feel the weight of guilt for not doing enough or being enough for their children. Working moms can be particularly afflicted, but some experts say we don't have to don the hair shirt over it. "A mother doesn't have to work 40 hours a week outside the home to feel that way, says clinical psychologist Mark Crawford. He believes some moms are born to stay at home with their children and others are not." Can I get an "Amen"?

Crawford goes on to say that guilt ain't healthy for anyone in the family, and even the kids can pick up on it and feel that they are to blame. So maybe it's time we got down off the mommy sacrificial altar and just made peace with the fact that some of us are better parents when we work outside the home (or in other cases, in the home office. But alone.) He suggests asking yourself, "'Am I doing something good for me, good for our family and ultimately good for our child even if it means I'm not there at this particular moment?'" We just have to stay involved with our little angels and get over it. I'll let you know as soon as I manage that.

Study: Autism Risk Higher With Older Parents

Karen Murphy — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:46:00 GMT

It has to be heartbreaking to watch your child slip away into another world, an autism-induced world, or any of the myriad manifestations of autism spectrum disorder. At the same time I'm sure there are gifts to having children with autism, just as there are with children with Down syndrome or with every child, for that matter. Even with the acknowledgement of the gifts, though, often comes the guilt: Did I somehow cause this? Many parents of autistic children swear that a vaccination was the turning point in their child's life, marking the end of one manifestation of the child and the beginning of another (though a lot of evidence is published to the contrary about the vaccination issue, but my point here is that parents grasp for meaning when they notice frightening changes in their children). Now comes another guilt-inducer: a new study indicates that children of older parents (over 40) have a higher risk of developing autism.

As if older parents didn't already have enough to worry about: all the things that can "go wrong" with their babies, issues about financial security for their children, acceptance of themselves as a parent, or acceptance of their children as having "old" parents. I mean, [insert curse word here]!! (here's an article from AARP magazine of all places, about older parenting, to give you an idea of some of the social issues faced)

So what's with all the guilt? Are we that desperate for finding more clues to the puzzling world of autism that we go blaming every possible reason? Okay, so older parents, statistically, have a higher incidence of children with autism. This study was perfroemd in Northern California over a five-year time period in the late 90's. What else was happening then? Could there not be some environmental effects, something else that would make the higher incidence linked to age a sheer coincidence? Was there something else the parents were doing when the child was small, for instance, that could lead to autism? These questions need to be explored and answered if we are ever going to shed light on the autism conundrum. Until then, let's stop scaring people unnecessarily.