Vegetables galore

We picked up our first box of vegetables from the CSA today. We bought a half share from Stranger's Hill Organics, which we will pick up each week through October. (There were still shares available a week ago, so call them if you want to try a local CSA.)

Our box

I love the idea of a CSA - what could be better than farm fresh, locally grown vegetables, in season? And these are organic, too.

Ooh! What did we get?

In practice, it will be interesting to see how this works. We're pretty set in the few vegetables we usually eat. I'm more adventurous than Chris and even I am not sure what to do with beets and radishes, which we received this week, or some of the other vegetables we will receive throughout the season.

Lettuce

Lettuce

Sage and oregano

Beets

Carrots

Radishes

Looks like lots of salads right now. And I can dry the herbs. Sam loves carrots, so he was thrilled to see those, even telling Ben, the CSA coordinator, how much he likes them. 

So let the experiment begin! Anyone have any idea what to do with beets?

Question to ponder

Should a person be forced to donate an organ? For example, if person A were a perfect match for person B who needed a kidney, but person A absolutely did not want to donate a kidney, should person A be required to do so? Or do person A's individual rights and autonomy over his/her body take precedence?

Please ponder that question.

The reason I ask is because this analogy because it was mentioned in a discussion I read recently in regards to abortion rights and so-called personhood amendments. The point, of course, is do women have a right to have autonomy over their own bodies? Do they have the right to not donate the use of their bodies, to put it crudely, as incubators?

Just something to think about.

Where do we live again?

I don't know what country I am living in anymore. I mean, I know this is still the US, but it sure doesn't feel like it right now. Especially for women. It feels more like we're living in one of the oppressive regimes politicians are always denouncing.

But, no, this is the US.

And, frankly, I'm scared. I don't want to live in a theocracy, but that's what certain lawmakers and presidential candidates are trying to create.

Yes, there's a War on Women. That's pretty clear, considering recent pieces of legislation. Many of these have been the result of lawmakers trying to enforce their own religious beliefs of the population at large.

Arizona will allow employers to fire female employees who use birth control if they can't prove it isn't for a non-birth control reason. Tennessee wants to publish names of abortion providers and information that could identify their patients. A Georgia politician thinks women are equivalent to animals and should be required to carry dead fetuses until they naturally go into labor. Some states want to protect doctors who lie to patients to prevent abortions. Colorado is on the way to passing a bill that make abortion or use of the "morning after" pill murder.

And these are just the tip of the iceberg of recent legislation either passed or proposed that are chipping away at the rights of women. We've been seeing increasing restrictions on abortion, reduced access to birth control, interference in women's ability to make their own medical decisions and their doctors' ability to provide politics free health care.

There have been calls for doctors to stand up for their rights to care for their patients without interference, but the full-on assault from the right continues to heat up. Now a Republican from Arizona (remind me never to move there) has stated that women should have to watch an abortion before they can have one. Never mind that no other surgical procedure requires a patient to observe one first.

Frankly, if you are female, know anyone who is female, care about anyone who is female, or even just believe women are people, you need to pay attention and remember come November. We need to vote these people out of office or we will be living in conditions worse than our parents grew up in. We'll be living in a country where being female is a crime.

If you don't want to live in an oppressive regime, educate yourself and exercise your right to vote. Learn about the candidates. An excellent, non-partisan, resource is Project Vote Smart, which collects voting records, biographical information, issue positions, and more on all federal-level and many state-level candidates.

Consider running for office yourself. The 2012 Project is encouraging women, in particular, to run for office. Write your Senators and Representatives and let them know how you feel about invasive legislation.

DO something. Because this isn't the country I want my kids to grow up in.

I have an awesome husband

Today I met two friends, also mothers of young children, for lunch. We try to do this once a month, usually when all the kids are in school so we can have grown-up talk.

It almost didn't happen this time. The boys have both been home sick all week. One of the women was also dealing with a sick child (he's feeling better and back in school today). The other friend was sick last week....

When Chris came home last night, I told him I had canceled my lunch plans because the boys would be home once again. He looked at his schedule for today and told me to email back that I'd be there - as long as I could get him back to work by 1:30.

He squeezed in coming home for lunch today, between meetings, because he wanted me to be able to go to lunch.

Yep, he rearranged his schedule as much as possible because having grown-up time and getting out of the house and friends are all important. Especially when I've been stuck in the house all week with sick kids. Who are feeling better today. I know this because they've been fighting. (It's been a rather quiet week around here. As much as I've enjoyed that, I am kind of glad for the battles because it means they feel more like themselves.)

Tonight I host this month's book club for my moms group. I scheduled this before Chris started learning the bagpipes. Yep, his bagpipe group meets on Thursday nights. And he's staying home so I don't have to deal with the kids while trying to have a discussion about this month's book (Circle of Friends by Maeve Binchy).

Can I point out that this is normal in our house? And I hope it is normal in other houses. That Dad stays home and parents while Mom goes out sometimes. Just like Mom stays home and parents while Dad is out at work or playing bagpipes. We both have things we like to do (I have my writing group and book club; Chris has his bagpipes and movie-making). We both make time for each other to pursue those interests. Sometimes there are time conflicts, in which case one of us changes plans or we hire a babysitter for the evening.

Because it's important.

I've heard other moms comment that Dad was home 'babysitting'. Or Mom cancels her plans when the kids are sick because, even though Dad will be home, she has to 'be there'. Those are things Chris and I have worked very hard to not have in our house. Chris doesn't babysit, he parents. And he would be insulted if you said he was babysitting. He can take care of sick kids just as well as I can (sometimes better since he deals with puke better than I do).

Besides being good for our relationship, I think it's good that our boys are seeing this too. They see that Daddy can take care of them. Yes, he does things differently than I do, but that's ok. He's showing the boys that men are capable. That being a dad is important. that kids aren't just for the women to deal with.

And that's the best lesson they could learn.

Being a tissue donor

Yesterday I did something that's maybe a little crazy: I donated some healthy breast tissue to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Tissue Bank.

This tissue bank collects healthy tissue because researchers need to know what normal is before they can really understand not normal. If they only collect samples from breast cancer patients, they don't have anything to compare. Hence the tissue drive yesterday at Bloomington Hospital. I heard there were 179 women signed up to donate.

A bunch of doctors and nurses and volunteers came to Bloomington, many from the IU Simon Cancer Center to collect blood and tissue samples. They took over the outpatient surgery section, moving donors through the process in a very organized way.

This next section won't be very interesting, but I want to document the process so anyone who chooses to make a donation in the future will have an idea of what to expect.

When I arrived at 11:40, someone escorted me to the check-in, where they marked me off their list (I had signed up for an appointment online). Next I was directed to the next 'runner' who escorted me to another volunteer to sign the consent forms. She then walked me to the next station where my height and weight were noted. Another runner walked me down the hall to the medical history station. A volunteer there helped me find my ID numbers to log in and fill out a simple medical history on a laptop.

Then she walked me to the nurses who were drawing blood. It was noon by this point. Now, I have very firm veins, which is great except when blood needs to be drawn. The first nurse tried but my vein rolled. Rather than dig around, she asked a second nurse to try. The second time was the charm. This was probably the worst part of the process, but not their fault.

After the blood draw, a runner walked me down the hall where several women were waiting for their turn to have the biopsy. There was a little delay waiting as the doctors can only work so fast. It was probably about 12:15 when I sat down. I actually didn't not the time, but I don't think I waited more than 15-20 minutes. During that time, those of us waiting chatted about, well, whatever.

Once in the room, a nurse gave me a general run-down of what would happen. I changed into the gown. The nurse came in to tell me some of the precautions for afterward while we waited for the doctor, who had gotten delayed on a phone call about a patient. (Really, can't blame a doctor for taking care of their patients.)

The doctor came in and told me what each step was as she did the biopsy. She raved about what a great tissue sample mine was with not much fat, nice and dense, which would be good for research. She even showed it to me (little blobs on some gauze). Pain-wise, it stung a little when she did the local anesthetic (well, duh, needles sting a bit). The actual biopsy was fine - just a little pressure and an odd feeling.

Afterward, the nurse put pressure on the site for 10 minutes, then put a gauze bandage on and gave me an ice pack to stick in my bra. Once I was dressed, a runner walked me to the check-out, where they marked me off the list and gave me a gift bag and t-shirt. It was about 1:15.

Yep, that's a Vera Bradley bag.

All in all, I feel pretty good. I was a little sore yesterday afternoon, but a couple of ice packs helped. By last night it was mostly just tender (meaning: don't touch!) but not really a problem. Following the post-procedure orders of ice and not lifting anything "heavier than a martini glass or a menu" for 24 hours are pretty easy. Later today I get to remove the gauze and see what it looks like. If there's any bruising, it's under the bandage so I can't see it - and that was about the only major side effect expected. 

So, for anyone who skipped all the procedural stuff, here's the take-away: it was pretty easy. Yes, there is some soreness, but it's not a big deal. Really, think of the alternative. It's a nice way to help with research and the more research the better this disease is understood (just as with any other disease). And the better it is understood, the more likely it is that it can be prevented, managed and/or cured. In my lifetime, a breast cancer diagnosis has gone from a death sentence to a disease that can be managed.

There's a big drive planned for Indy the last weekend in January as part of a Super Bowl promotion: Indy Super Cure. If you want to join their interested donor list, they will keep you updated about events in the area. 

The politics of sex

I know, 2 touchy topics. But a lot has been written and said lately about so-called "personhood" laws and abortions that save women's lives. And I have to comment.

If you are unaware, there is a trend right now to pass laws, quite notably in Mississippi, that define life as beginning at conception. A lot of people who know a lot more about this than I do have been writing about problems with this idea, including 1) it would effectively outlaw hormonal contraceptives, 2) it would open women who have miscarriages up to possible legal action, 3) teens in states that pass this could quite possibly be allowed to vote 17 years and 3 months after their birth, would be able to drink 20 years and 3 months after birth, et cetera, thus causing confusion as to actual age...

There has also been a hullaballoo about Mitt Romney and a woman he censured years ago when she sought a life-saving abortion, with the support of Mormon leaders.

The general rhetoric is that people (read: women) shouldn't have sex unless they are married and with the intention of creating children. I mention that this means women because the usually male politicians aren't too worried about the men who impregnate these women. And are sometimes caught with their pants down. And the general consensus is usually that 'boys will be boys' and they need to sow wild oats, but women need to be paragons.

Don't get me started on what a bunch of hypocritical, sexist crap that is.

Let's look at facts:

1) People, both men and women, have sex, sometimes when they are not married. That is a moral issue, not a political one, so can we stay out of everyone else's bedrooms?

2) You can preach all you want that no one should have sex unless they are married, but that ain't gonna happen. If you think it will, you live under a rock. If you think this is a new phenomenon, you don't know your history. Heck, even the vaunted Bible is full of stories of pre-marital and extra-marital sex.

3) Even within marriage, people have sex without the main purpose being procreational. Think about it. Sex, usually called making love, is used to bring a couple closer. It strengthens bonds. And it just feels good. Do you really think people only have sex when they want kids? That's not the kind of marriage I want. And a lot of people who are past childbearing age still have sex. (Do you really want people to have babies they can't afford? Because that's the consequence of sex only being procreational.)

So, the whole personhood thing. An embryo is potential life. It cannot exist outside of its host, much like a parasite. Without going into the morality of abortion, it is not yet born. If you want to truly protect life, there are a lot of people already walking this earth who need their lives saved.

And consequence #1 as listed above? Just go watch this video:

Yep. For all the men out there who think this issue doesn't have anything to do with them, you won't be getting all that sex if your wife or girlfriend can't use the hormonal contraceptive of her choice. I bet Trojan is thrilled - here comes a resurgence for condom use!

Have you had a miscarriage or know someone who has? (You probably do.) Think about the heartbreak, then consider if all the women who have had miscarriages were investigated for possible murder. Think about the backlog with police, who are already stretched thin, having to look into this - and they are not medical experts.

This is just a bad idea with consequences beyond just outlawing abortion, the real reason for the laws.

And so we get to abortion. And the generally accepted reasons of rape, incest, life of the mother, that even anti-abortion folks will allow. Even the Mormons all the life of the mother as a reason for an abortion. But then some folks can't accept even that. They don't see understand the tough decision of choosing one life over another. They don't understand that when two people decide that the person (woman) who is already walking this earth deserves a chance to live, and that leaving a motherless child (or children if there are already children) is also a bad. That even if a woman chooses to risk her own life to bear her child, she and the child may still both die.

Can we leave politics out of the bedroom? Can we leave medical decisions to doctors, not politicians? And can we try to think about the long-term consequences of our actions (or legislation) rather than the knee-jerk, FU that most of it seems to be these days?

About sandwich crusts

Before I was a parent, I always told myself I would never cut crusts off of sandwiches. It always seemed such an indulgent thing to do. I told myself kids needed to suck it up and learn to either just eat the crusts or eat around them.

Then we had a child who would not eat. For over a year, he wouldn't eat anything other than Cheerios and the occasional gold fish cracker or Nutter Butter. He survived on milk and Pediasure.

We tried everything. We offered food. He went regularly to the pediatrician for weight checks. We heard advice and admonitions from so many people. I'm sure some were well-meaning, but it wasn't helpful.

Yes, we tried cutting back milk. And he didn't eat more. He actually lost weight. So we went back to what worked, under the advice of the pediatrician, hoping he would outgrow this stubbornness.

I think it was his regressing and rebelling when his baby brother was born, but I'll never know for sure. As suddenly as he stopped eating food, he suddenly decided he liked it. He developed an appetite and could recognize when he was hungry.

But he's still a very picky eater. Little things will kill his appetite. We have a one bite rule with dinner. He has to have at least one bite before he can say he doesn't like it. He has discovered some things he likes, but often will stop after that one bite.

So when my very picky child, who can be stubborn enough to not eat for months on end, will only eat a sandwich if all the crusts are cut off, do I cut them off? You bet I do. I know the alternative. I cut every bit of crust off.

We have well-fed birds and squirrels and chipmunks in our yard. Some days they don't even scurry away when I toss the crusts out the back door.

And I have two children who eat their sandwiches.

Fact checking

People who know me are probably well aware that I am angry about the recently passed and now signed Indiana law defunding Planned Parenthood. I am angry because I think it is an assault on women's healthcare.

I know a number of women who have relied or still do rely on Planned Parenthood for family planning, pap smears, mammograms, and all the other services they provide. There are a lot of people on Medicaid who will now not be able to receive that care. All because a group of people wants to make it as hard as possible to get an abortion and people apparently don't care that abortion is a tiny portion of the services Planned Parenthood provides.

I have heard a couple of comments that I would like to address. And I intend to cite my sources rather than just throw information out there since there is misleading information everywhere.

"I don't want my tax dollars paying for abortions."
Good. They don't. They are prevented from paying for abortions, other than the 3 stipulated exceptions of the Hyde Amendment, by federal law. In fact, several states, including Indiana, also have laws on the books prohibiting tax money from paying for abortion services.

Under Medicaid, family planning services, not including abortion, must be covered. Read the very long, very tedious, Title XIX, section 1902 of the Social Security Act, to learn more about the operation of state Medicaid plans.

And speaking of Medicaid funding, yes, the state could lose federal funding for Medicaid by enacting the law. See Title XIX, section 1904 of the Social Security Act.

"Planned Parenthood is just an abortion provider."
I beg to differ, but the majority of services provided by Planned Parenthood are not abortions. The Planned Parenthood of Indiana 2010 Annual Report has a very easy to read chart detailing the services provided in the state and demographic information on their clients (page 9). Really, out of over 244,000 patient visits and over 85,000 patients, that they performed 5,580 abortions is really a small percentage. Yes, 5,580 is a large number and I for one would like that number to be smaller. But approximately 2.25% of patient visits...

There's even a nifty website called FactCheck.org which has answered both of these questions on a national scale.

So here's my gripe.

The 97+% of non-abortion services that Planned Parenthood provides are going to not be funded in Indiana. So the over 386,000 contraceptives that were dispensed might not be this year. Which in all likelihood will lead to more unplanned pregnancies. Which will lead to 1) more abortions or 2) a drain on welfare dollars since a lot of those mothers likely use Planned Parenthood because they are unable to afford other healthcare, don't have insurance other than Medicaid, and are thus living below 250% of the federal poverty rate (if you read Title XIX, section 1902, you would know that is the income requirement), thus meaning that they likely receive some sort of assistance.

And all those women who can't afford Pap tests and mammograms, and all the men and women who don't get STD tests, will not get the preventive care they need. When the potential cancers are found, they will be much more costly and harder to treat.

So not funding Planned Parenthood, rather than saving Indiana residents tax money, could very well cost us more. And cause larger problems. And if you think other providers will be easy to find or not be overwhelmed, well, maybe you should read this.

My 4 year old likes the dentist

He wants to go back.

Wil had his first dentist appointment. I decided to schedule one because his preschool has been learning about 'community helpers', including dentists. I also was noticing some plaque on his teeth, so thought it might be worth a try to get his teeth cleaned. A search of our dental insurance network indicated no pediatric dentists, so I set up an appointment with the family dentist Chris and I see.

Over the weekend, I started telling him that he was going to see the dentist on Monday. I didn't want to start too early, but a couple of days of prep seems to be about right. I explained that the hygienist would clean his teeth kind of like I do, only she has special tools. I told him he would need to sit still while she worked, but then his teeth would be nice and clean. He seemed to accept the information; his only worry was that he didn't want a bandaid. I reassured him that the dentist doesn't give bandaids.

At the dentist, he settled into the chair with little protest (he didn't want to leave the waiting room toys). Once he realized he would be able to watch TV (tuned to the Disney channel!) he quietly sat. The chair tilted back, allowing a good view of the TV over the chair.

The hygienist, Karin, counted his teeth. She showed him her scraping tool and explained what she was going to do. As long as she didn't block his view, he let her scrape away at the plaque on his teeth. She let him feel the air puff out of the hose before using it to clear debris off his teeth. Next she showed him the toothbrush, letting him see how it spun, and asked what flavor of toothpaste he would like. I helped him pick grape (I think the number of choices was a little overwhelming and was interrupting his TV watching.) He really liked the hose for rinsing. She squirted a little water on his teeth, then let him spit into the hose. Yep, did that a couple of times. Finally, she flossed his teeth.

Sam sat quietly on a stool watching the TV most of the time, occasionally asking to see what was going on. He liked the little cup that filled with water.

After Karin was done, she let him play with the big teeth and toothbrush while he waited for the dentist to come check his smile out. He had a lot of fun playing with the toothbrush. The dentist came in; he lay back on the chair and opened wide. The dentist declared his teeth in great shape with nice spacing.

Sam climbed up on the chair and got a 'ride' into position, opening his mouth to show Karin his teeth, once Wil was done. Then it was time to pick a treasure from the treasure chest. Both boys picked tiny bone dinosaurs.

Wil really likes the clean feeling of his teeth. After a snack this afternoon, he told me his teeth were dirty and he needed to 'go all the way back' to the dentist for another cleaning. He's asked a couple of times to go back. He was disappointed when I told him he had to wait 6 months. I asked why and he wants to play with the big teeth and toothbrush. But, if he wants to go back, having had a positive experience, that's great! If he wants to get his teeth cleaned so he can play with the big teeth and toothbrush, I'm not going to argue.

I called the dentist's office to let them know he had a really good experience and wanted to come back. I figure they probably don't hear that too much.

Sad state of government affairs

A lot has been happening politically lately. I have strong feelings about a few things and would like to try to get my thoughts in order.

First, the House recently voted to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding. The sponsor of the bill doesn't like abortion. Fine. But Planned Parenthood is prevented from using their federal funding to pay for abortions anyway. The funding that has been cut covers a lot of preventive care including birth control that would prevent those unwanted pregnancies that end up being aborted. Um, aren't we trying to reduce the number of abortions? Because making affordable access to birth control more difficult actually does the opposite. Someone is harming a lot of people for a personal vendetta. Much of what federal funding to Planned Parenthood covers are mammograms and other screenings. We'll all end up paying more for expensive treatments for diseases that could have been caught earlier. Because, don't fool yourself, we all share the costs in the long run.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Republicans have also been trying to redefine 'rape'. They don't want women to be paid fairly (by blocking the Paycheck Fairness Act). All the blog posts about how the GOP hates women? There's something there.

And don't forget that the Equal Rights Amendment has still not passed. It sits 3 states shy of ratification before it becomes part of the Constitution. And without it, as Justice Scalia recently remarked, every right women presume to have, with the lone exception of being able to vote, is really just a privilege granted because no one has challenged any in court. With the current trend of legislation coming from the GOP, it's only a matter of time before they try to take away every right we think we have. We REALLY need the ERA to pass once and for all. (It is expected that it will be reintroduced in Congress in March. Contact your Senators and Representative and let them know you support it.)

Frankly, I don't understand how so many women support some of these Republican politicians. It certainly isn't in their best interest. I'm all for fiscal restraint. But those who tout themselves the loudest as wanting to cut the budget also seem to be those who do the opposite - either by wanting to cut taxes or by increasing spending on defense or a pet project. Republicans often claim to want small government, but they really don't, not when they want to make government more intrusive into personal lives. If you really want to cut government, stay out of people's bedrooms.

And don't get me started on all the folks on the 'religious right' who thump their Bibles, insisting we all follow their idea of morality because 'this is a Christian nation' (it's not, but that's another discussion). These same politicians and religious leaders often are the ones caught with their pants down, supporting mistresses, paying for prostitutes, denouncing gays while having gay love affairs.

I'm tired of the hypocrisy. I'm tired of the rich getting richer and protecting each other while making it increasingly harder for the rest of us to get anywhere. Part of the purpose of government is to protect the weakest, providing services so people, our fellow citizens, have food to eat and shelter over their heads. The tiny amount in the budget spent on some of these social service programs is a drop in the bucket compared to some of the programs Republicans refuse to trim, including defense. Yep, can't cut funding for a new plane that is not needed, but we can unfund a lot of programs that actually do some good.

I really could go on and on. This is by no means an endorsement for Democrats. I don't like much of what they do either. I just wish some of our elected representatives could grow up, get off the playground, and actually do something rather than just fight along party lines. But until the electorate decides they want smart people to represent them, that probably won't happen.

Is breastfeeding overrated?

Today a friend shared an interview with the author of a new book about breastfeeding. The author, Joan B. Wolf, is an assistant professor at Texas A&M University.

I have not read the book, but the interview brings up some interesting points. I know a lot of breastfeeding advocates will be up in arms about this, but I think it is worth thinking about what she says.

Ms. Wolf states that studies linking breastfeeding to an amazing number of health benefits are misleading. I'm not going to try to rephrase her response (read the interview linked above). I have to say, she has a point about causal relationships. Without studying the data from the studies in question, if her assertion is true about the way research has been done, then questioning the results is valid. That is the point of science.

Breastfeeding is tough. Yes, it is natural. But that doesn't make it easy or instinctual. I've had experience with both a child who refused to nurse and one who was a natural.( For the record, my formula fed child weighs less and has fewer health problems than my breastfed child, who has asthma. So much for that bit of the benefits of breastfeeding.) Sometimes breastfeeding works beautifully and sometimes nothing will make it happen. And we mothers put guilt on ourselves and each other if we have problems.

We've been so brainwashed that we must breastfeed that we leave ourselves little choice if it doesn't work. It's very emotional to be a new mother. Not enough sleep, hormones running amok, sleep deprivation induced psychosis.... and then we have to be the sole food source for this tiny life.

It's rather like some of the phenomena noted in "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedan. Mothers so need to be the 'perfect' mother, sacrificing everything for their child, that they can't admit there are other ways.

It's wonderful if someone can breastfeed, and enjoys it. But sometimes it doesn't work out, for whatever reason, and those mothers who can't or don't breastfeed are made to feel that they are bad mothers. They aren't. Formula these days is much better than it was when I was a child. Babies survive and thrive just fine on formula.

I just wish the guilt and judgement could end. We all do the best we can, choosing what is best for our families. Making women feel guilty is unproductive. We all want what is best for our children. Sometimes we can't give them the best so we give the best we can. And I think that's a big part of what this is about.

Maybe the best isn't what we have been told and maybe it is. But do we need untested claims? What purpose does it serve to make breast milk into the wonder food it is being described as? If the benefits of breastfeeding do turn out to be marginal, I think it would be healthier for society. My reasoning is this:

A lot of mothers will still choose to breastfeed because it is a free source of quality food for their babies. A lot of mothers will want to breastfeed because there is a trend toward natural products, etc (midwifery and cloth diapers are experiencing a resurgence). But those mothers who can't or don't want to breastfeed will feel less pressure and stress about their decisions and may have fewer mental health issues.

Not just a housewife

I've been reading "The Feminine Mystique"by Betty Friedan. I haven't finished yet, but it has really made me think, and that's a good thing. There is some criticism of the book, but some of it resonates with me.

The basic gist is that after WWII, women were encouraged to go back into the home, leaving jobs for the men. Many forces aligned to convince women that their sole role in life was to be wives and mothers, that destiny was determined by gender. By 1963 when the book was published, many women suffered from neuroses and felt trapped by their role. The focus is middle class white women.

Some things that stick in my mind from the first 11 chapters, then.

A thesis for the book might be that limiting anyone's potential as a human being can be disastrous. Yes, it is primarily about forcing women (through psychological means, conditioning, limiting options, etc) to be housewives and the consequences of that. But whether you look at the narrow view of making women less than full participants in society or any other way of limiting someone (through poverty, slavery, caste, whatever), the message is the same. Think of all the achievements we will never know because someone was told they couldn't do something.

An entire chapter is devoted to the idea that housework expands to fill the time available. The housewives interviewed ended up bored out of their skulls, as cleaning a house doesn't require much brain power. I know I get bored sometimes. I hate cleaning. But I also know that staying home until the boys are in school is a temporary thing. I also make time to do things for myself. I do some part-time work; I write; I am on the Starrynight Productions staff.... The point is, I am a lot more than just a housewife.

One chapter discusses a phenomenon during WWII where some men were found to not qualify to serve in the armed forces because they had been pampered so much by their mothers they were incapable of functioning as adults. The mothers in these cases apparently had so little self-identity that they lived through their children. There were also some studies showing that children whose mothers worked or had some outside life were generally better adjusted.

I have long maintained that moms need to have an identity other than mom. How can we teach our children to be individuals, to be self-sufficient, to follow their passions, if we don't do the same? Children learn what they see. It doesn't matter if you work outside the home or stay home full-time; have a life of your own and you will be a better mom. If you live through your children, what happens when they grow up? Eventually we all have to face life. The sooner we do, the healthier we are.

There is a very interesting chapter on advertising geared toward the housewife and how advertisers began to target girls younger and younger so that by the time they married (often very young) they were already brand loyal. Think about the advertising now, targeting preschoolers. If the question was raised 50 years ago as to whether advertising to teenagers was too young and manipulative, what of advertising now?

It's interesting that the Kinsey reports are cited several times, especially living here in Bloomington. Looking back on the way things were and seeing how much or how little things have changed is really fascinating. Because some things have changed (women are encouraged to work, to get an education, to become full citizens) and how much they haven't (some employers still discriminate against women, some things are still seen as women's work). I think one of the best things now is that we all can make our choices. We can choose careers, or stay home, or do a little of both. And our husbands can make the same choices.

Really, I recommend anyone to read this book. I'm using it for a bit of research for a short play I'm writing, but I'm learning a lot. I keep finding things to talk to Chris about, ideas that need fleshing out. Understanding something that has been a huge influence, that is still referenced, is important.

Stretch time

Chris and I have really decided to lose weight and get in better shape. My plan for this year fell through: I was going to work out while both boys were in school, but since Sam is not going to school, I needed to find an alternative. I'd still like to go to the gym, but that will take planning and coordination to find someone to watch the boys.

On to plan B. We started using an app on our iPhones to keep track of calories and help us pay attention to what we are eating. The app is LoseIt! and I really like that you enter what you eat and exercise you do. It's a tool to raise awareness - I can eat anything, but it shows me how much of my daily calorie budget I've used (a budget set by my weight loss goals). And it really reinforces that if I want to eat more, I need to exercise more. Yep, the key to weight loss isn't some fancy diet; it's consuming fewer calories than you expend.

I also downloaded a couple of apps to help me exercise. I found 2 yoga ones. While I haven't used them much (I just downloaded them yesterday), they have some nice workouts that I can do. And I found a 5-minute ab workout and the Sprint GPS app for when I walk. I haven't tried the ab workout, but 5 minutes sounds about right. I started using the GPS app today; it uses GPS to track how far and fast I walk.

I'm really motivated to make this work. Especially after doing part of a yoga routine today. I made it through about 30 minutes and realized how not limber I am. It has been a number of years since I did yoga regularly and it shows.

On the importance of babysitters

Yesterday, my friend Anne and I were talking about the importance of having time away from our kids. This is a conversation that comes up from time to time amongst moms. There are some who seem to think wanting to be away from your kids is a terrible thing and means you aren't dedicated to being a parent. But I, and almost every parent I know, disagrees. And here are a few of the reasons why.

As a parent, my job is to foster self-reliance and eventual independence in my children. These are lessons they need to learn or they will never be able to go out on their own. If they have no idea how to survive in the world without me there, how will they be able to attend college? And get a job? And maybe get married, have their own kids?

Big life skill lessons are something that are good to start early. As toddlers and preschoolers, a few hours without mom and dad starts teaching them that they are independent beings and they are capable of playing and doing other things without me. Oh what a help that is at home! Once they begin to learn that lesson, they can play by themselves for a bit while I cook dinner or clean house. And I don't have multiple interruptions! If you just wait until they go to school, it will be much harder. The whole point is to establish 'normal' as 'mom and dad can go to a movie and they will still come home.'

It is also very important for mom to get away and develop her own interests. This isn't mean or selfish. To really truly teach your children to find their passions, you need to show them that you have some. Seeing mom and dad as people may not sink in when they are young, but they will be learning that lesson despite themselves. They will see what you are passionate about and maybe be interested in the same thing. Or not, but at least they see that having a hobby, something that interests you, is a good thing.

And here's a biggie: parents need to go out on dates, have time to develop their relationship as spouses. Yes, the kids go to bed and we have a couple of hours before we join the land of slumber. But that isn't the same. We're still parents, catching up on housework or just decompressing while the little ones fall asleep. A frightening number of marriages end in divorce after the kids leave the house because the parents realize they don't really know each other any more, they have nothing in common except the kids. Why does this happen? I think it's because they forget that the most important relationship they have is with each other. Yes, I am a mom. But the caretaking phase of that will only last another dozen or so years and in 16 more they will leave the nest. But I am and will still be a wife. And that's a good thing. That's what I signed on for 7 years ago.

In college, I did an experiment in a biology class that kind of relates. I had two plants. One had its basic needs met (sunlight, water). The other plant was pampered with extra nutrients, etc. Plant 1 did ok while plant 2 thrived under all that extra care..... until the experiment was over and they both got basic care. Plant 1 showed its mettle then. It had learned to help itself. While it wasn't as big as the other, it was slow and steady and reliable. Plant 2 withered under the lack of pampering. It hadn't developed the systems needed to take care of itself and support all the extra growth on its own.

While the analogy isn't perfect, think of all the young adults you know who have had everything handed to them, with mom and dad always coming to the rescue. Then they go to college and can't cope. They still need mom and dad to call the professor and explain why they didn't finish their homework. Or they fail because mom and dad finally cut those apron strings and don't help. Then think of all the other young adults who learned self-reliance. Those are the leaders who get stuff done and thrive on their own. They have the groundwork to support themselves.

So, here's the bottom line: take time out from your kids. It is healthier for you, for them, and for your marriage. It's ok to send them to preschool so you have a few hours on your own. It's wonderful for them to spend a weekend at grandma and grandpa's house (and what a way to develop that relationship!). Find a babysitter or a neighbor or a friend or join a babysitting co-op and have a mom's night out and a date night. Those are important and don't mean you don't love your kids. They mean you do love them and are doing your best for them.

Breathing a sigh of...

We have had more than our fair share of illness over the last 6 months. It was a rough autumn and winter. Now that spring is here, I hope we can finally all get well.

One of the recurring themes in our house has been Sam's coughing. He has had cold after cold since the end of October. And he never seems to completely get over one before he has another. One of the really rough parts of this is that he constantly seems to have a cough, which gets worse at night, whether he has a cold or not. And he sometimes coughs hard enough to throw up - usually in bed. 

So, we haven't been sleeping well in the last several months. And this coughing just didn't seem normal. 

Today, we saw the doctor. We came prepared with a recording of some of last night's coughing, which was helpful. The doctor agreed that coughing like that is not normal and something is going on. 

Here are the basics: At Sam's age, they don't diagnose asthma for a couple of reasons, although he has asthma-like symptoms. For one, it is really hard to definitively diagnose before kids are old enough to really participate in tests. For another, a lot of kids with asthma symptoms when they are very young outgrow them and really don't have asthma later in life, although the diagnosis will never go away - which can cause problems with insurance and pre-existing conditions, etc. 

So, for now, we are treating symptoms with inhalers: we already have albuterol for when he gets wheezy with colds; now we get an inhaled steroid to hopefully clear up the inflammation which seems to be keeping him from completely getting well.

We're crossing our fingers that this does the trick. We really want to get sleep as much as we want Sam to feel good. And we're hoping he eventually outgrows the symptoms.