Equasions of Travel

Exhibit A:
Mt Redoubt (near Anchorage, but over 800 miles from me) decides to blow some ash around this week.

Exhibit B:
The route which was (for some reason) on Hubby's itinerary for coming home from his 12-day European trip with his students. (They begin in Rome [A] and then fly to Atlanta [B] and then Salt Lake City [C]...so far so good...but then the route sends them 800 miles out of their way to Anchorage [D] before bringing them back down to Juneau [E].)

If A, then C
C = the Anchorage airport being closed
C + B = why Hubby got stuck in Salt Lake on Saturday night, and why he did not get home to me on Sunday morning as planned
C = why every flight to Juneau is booked for the next four days, and why Hubby is still stuck in Salt Lake City.
#$^&*(&^%$#$R%^$ = My thoughts about the fact that, even though he left on March 17, I still don't get to see my husband until April 2nd (at best) and maybe April 3rd (depending on when they can catch the seaplane).

*deep breaths*

The only silver lining of which I am aware is that while down there Hubby will (hopefully) be able to pick up my maternity clothing, which will mean that my mother-in-law won't have to go spelunking through our stuff to get them out and mail them up to me. I tried to pack them on top, but another row of boxes ended up in front of them, and I hate to ask her to dig them out if I don't have to.

Prenatal Nutrition

I've been thinking I wanted to write a post like this, and then last week Jenn at BabyMakinMachine wrote a post full of questions about prenatal vitamins, so I figured I should get this thing finished up and published asap.


Prenatal vitamins are typically recommended during pregnancy and breastfeeding, as well as for women who might become pregnant (or are trying to become pregnant) and really for any woman of fertile age. I think one main reason for this is that prenatal vitamins have extra iron in them, and that is beneficial for a woman who is losing iron to menstruation every month.

As I said in my post on vitamins, the human body needs certain nutrients to live, and needs extra of some things when growing a second little human body. For centuries women just ate whole foods straight from their gardens and had perfectly healthy children. Unfortunately, in our modern world most of us eat comparatively lousy diets, so we rely on prenatal multivitamins. But as I pointed out in the vitamin post, multivitamins are a very poor substitute for real food.
SO, do you need a prenatal multivitamin? Probably not. But you do need certain nutrients, and while whole foods are the ideal source, it's nice to know that if you have severe morning sickness and throw up everything you eat, then an appropriate prenatal vitamin can be a saving grace.

If you do choose (or need) to take prenatal vitamins, here is something to remember: not all prenatal vitamins are created equal. Next time you're at the store (or if you have a bottle of inexpensive vitamins on your shelf), pull out the bottle and read the ingredients. Does it sound like a list of chemicals to you? That's because it is. In fact, it's highly processed forms of all those vitamins, and since it's not in it's natural form, your body is going to have a hard time figuring out what to do with it. The majority of it is going to get routed straight back out of your system. Yep, you got it, the average multivitamin is little more than expensive urine.
The one form of prenatal multivitamin that seems to really be good is a whole foods based one, such as Rainbow Light or Nature's Plus. On the one hand, they can be quite pricy, on the other hand, the ingredients are nice pretty things like "spinach" and "pineapple." I can pronounce those words! And my body knows what do do with those foods! As I said before though, if you are able to eat the actual foods, that is always better than even the best vitamin.


SO, assuming that I've convinced you to forgo the prenatal multivitamin, what do you need, why do you need it, and how can you get it?! (ahh, this is my favorite part!)
(see end for source info/links)

Folate aka Folic Acid aka "B-9"
This may be one of the most important nutrients to worry about, at least in the first couple of months. A lack of folate can lead to problems with brain stem and spinal cord development (problems such as spina bifida), and because that development occurs in the first month after conception (including those two weeks before you even take a pregnancy test) it's important to have a good source of folate in your diet when you are trying to conceive.
**The recommended daily dose for pregnancy is 600-800mcg of folate, however daily consumption of over 266mcg of folic acid (the synthetic form) can cause problems with metabolizing all forms of folate in the future (possibly for years)
**Some good food sources of folate are: asparagus, okra, spinach, avacado, liver, chickpeas, beans, lentils, broccoli, yeast, wheat germ, strawberries, and orange juice (see source links for details on the benefits and sources of folate: link, link, link)

Water
A pregnant woman should be drinking at least a half gallon of water a day. The guideline I have heard most often is to take your body weight in pounds, divide in half, then that is how many ounces of water you should drink in a day. So, if I weigh 140 lbs, then half of that is 70, so ideally I should be drinking 70 oz of water per day. (A half-gallon is 64 oz, in case you forgot, so I should have 6 12oz glasses, or 9 8oz glasses of water every day.) I know that probably sounds like a lot if you're not used to drinking water--it used to sound overwhelming to me too. But proper hydration is extremely important for health, especially in pregnancy. (Here is a post with tips for drinking more water)

Protein
During pregnancy a woman's blood volume will increase by 50%, so nutrients that build blood are vital, and protein is one of those nutrients. In my own experience, eating protein keeps morning sickness at bay better than anything else.
**Some practitioners advise trying to get 100grams of protein a day, but that can be very difficult. A more moderate recommendation is 60-100grams.
**Good sources of protein are: beef, chicken (which actually has more protein per oz than beef), milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, eggs peanut butter, wheat germ, and beans.

Iron
Iron is another nutrient that contributes to blood-building (iron deficiency is called "anemia" and is a common concern following miscarriages or other situations involving blood-loss). Trust me that anemia is not something you want to deal with, so make sure you get your iron!
**The daily recommended intake for iron 30-60mg, although this is partly due to its poor absorption rate (as low as 10%), so if you are getting it from good food sources you can probably get by with the lower end of the range. Most of the sites I've visited point out that there are two forms of iron--heme and non-heme, with the former coming from meat sources and the latter coming from all other sources. All the sites seem to agree that the heme is better absorbed, and that for full benefit of the non-heme forms, it's best to consume them either with a heme iron; or with a vitamin-C-rich food (like citrus fruits); or at least cooked in an iron pan.
**Some especially Iron-rich foods include: artichokes, blackstrap molasses, nuts, lean red meat, salmon, clams & oysters, beans, lentils, currants,egg (yolks), chicken (especially the liver), quinoa, pumpkin seeds, spinach, tofu, wheat germ, sesamie seeds, seaweed (hijiki is best), and foods cooked in a cast-iron pan. (source links with additional info on iron: link, link, link, link)

Sodium
This is another nutrient that contributes to building blood volume in pregnancy--as with our other bodily fluids, both blood and amniotic fluid contain sodium. Sodium also helps maintain balanced fluid levels in your cells, as well as the health of the nervous, muscular, blood, and lymph systems. A diet low in sodium can lead to a decrease in blood volume as well as elevated blood pressure and swelling. Sodium deficiency can also cause impaired kidney function, decreased urine volume, and other signs of toxemia. (I am aware that a lot of doctors feel that restricting salt is the solution for toxemia, but based on my own experiences, plus those of my midwife who gave me the advice in the first place, I think that advice stems from fear of and misinformation about salt rather than from really understanding how sodium works.)
**While there is no daily recommended intake for salt, pregnant women should not hesitate to salt food to taste. If you crave salty foods (such as potato chips or french fries) then get yourself some healthy salt-containing foods, such as celery, dairy products, seaweed, or other seafoods.

Fat
Pregnancy is not the time to be afraid of fats. Your baby's developing cells (especially brain and nervous system) need a certain of fat in order to grow properly. Vitamins A, D, E, and K are all fat-soluable, meaning that you must have fat in order to digest (or use) them. Essential fatty acids are most readily available via fats. Cholesterol is necessary for the formation of sex and adrenal hormones, among other things.
**Now obviously not all fats are created equal, and balance is important (that is a whole other post). You do NOT need any form of trans-fats (partially hydrogenated oils), but you should seek a balance of saturated, mono-unsaturated, and poly-unsaturated fats, because each supplies your body with different essential things. Also a balance of omega 3s, omega 6s, and omega 9s. (Like I said, there will have to be another post about that all soon!) You should feel comfortable with around 60grams of fat per day.
**High quality sources of fats include: nuts, seeds, unrefined, cold-pressed vegetable oils (refined ones tend to be partially-hydrogenated aka trans-fats), butter, dairy products, and the fats in meat. Essential fatty acids are found in salmon, mackerel, herring, cod liver oil, and the oils from evening primrose, black currant, flax seed, walnut, and borage. (link, link, link, link)


In the near future I'm hoping to put up a post with a list of some pregnancy super-foods...so keep an eye out for that. ☺

There are other vitamins and nutrients that are important, and I'm sure I'll get a chance to talk about them...potassium is good for tight muscles (I often get muscle spasms or cramps when pregnant), magnesium and calcium contribute to good bone development...but the ones mentioned above are the key ones to focus on. Most veggies contain many vitamins (as you can see from the repetition on the lists above), so if you are getting a good diet you can feel pretty safe that you are getting what you need.

In case you didn't know (although I hope you did!) pregnancy is not the time to be thinking about your waistline, but it also is not the time to just eat twice as much. Remember that even though you are "eating for two," that second being is pretty little, and does not need adult portions! Eat when you are hungry, stop when you are full. Focus on eating healthy foods. Don't be distressed if you gain 40lbs...and don't be distressed if you gain only 20. Don't be distressed if this pregnancy is totally different weight-wise than the last one was. Don't worry if you lose a few pounds due to morning sickness (though more than 10 is cause for concern), and don't worry if you don't gain a pound until 22 weeks along (I didn't last time). So long as you and the baby are both healthy, pounds on the chart are just one more thing that doesn't really matter.


Sources:

• The Truth about Vitamins in Nutritional Supplements by Robert Thiel, Ph.D., N.H.D.
• Prenatal packet from Full Circle Maternity/midwife Jules Johnstun
• The Brewer Healthy Pregnancy Diet (recommended by many midwives and OBs)

Take THAT Bill Maher

The other night Hubby and I watched Bill Maher's Religulous (it's 'religious' combined with 'ridiculous' in case you haven't heard of it). He has a very obvious intent with the film: to show that religious people are hung up on unsubstantiated fairy tales because they are too weak to stand up and ask questions, and that this blind devotion to silliness is destroying the world (via holy wars, religious terrorism, etc). OK, so obviously I disagree with him across the board, and frankly the film would be offensive to almost everyone I know, so I don't recommend it. However, I wanted to take the chance to give my responses to some of the questions he threw at his interviewees. You see, as any intelligent documentary-maker would, he choose to interview people who would help him make the point that he wanted to make; in other words, he choose nice people who felt strongly about their faith but didn't know how to carry on a good debate, or how to give a strong answer to a hard question. (Or, in the case of his sequence about Mormons, he chose to interview a pair of apostates; and everyone knows that a former-member will always paint a different picture than a faithful-member.)

So here are my responses to some of his questions (in no particular order):

The Bible says a snake talked to Eve in the Garden of Eden. Can an intelligent person really believe in talking snakes?
No, I don't believe in talking snakes. I believe that's a metaphor for the devil. Surely you've heard the term "he's such a snake!" [I might say that Bill Maher is a bit of a snake!]

Scientists tell us that evolution is fact. So how can you believe in a creation story like the one in the Bible?
I have two thoughts on this. First, science is a growing and changing field. 600 years ago science told us that the world was flat and that Earth was the center of the universe, then folks like Columbus and Galileo came along and proved otherwise, so everyone adjusted their theories to match the newly-found facts. I'm not convinced that science can ever give us a final answer about anything, it can just tell me what our best guess is right now.
Secondly, I don't think that evolution and creationism are actually in conflict. I believe that God created the world and put a multitude of creatures in it, but that over time many of those creatures and plants have changed and evolved. Do I believe that men came from apes? No, I believe we are created in the image of God just like the Bible says. But I do believe in evolution.

How do you explain that the same stories (virgin birth, miracles and healings, resurrection on the third day) were told around the Mediterranean and even across the world for centuries before Christ?
Cultures around the world also have flood stories, and creation stories, and first man/first woman stories. I believe that the same stories come up all over the world because they are all based in one truth. I believe that that one truth is most accurately described in the Bible, but I think the very fact that cultures around the world are telling the same stories is a very good indication that somewhere up the line the stories were true. Of course they vary a bit from one area to another, because each society is going to adapt the story to fit their culture and way of living, but that doesn't mean they didn't start as one story.

If God wants us to be happy, then why would he let the Holocaust happen?
Because God will not interfere with our free will. He wants us to be happy, and He wants us to be kind to each other, but he does not and will not force us to do things. I think He did and does weep at many of the horrible things that men have done to each other, but He won't interfere because that would not be fair. The fact of the matter is that some people are going to choose to do good kind things, and some people aren't, but a fair God has to treat us all equally, so he allows us all our choice.
Incidentally, I think that the periods of intense evil--times such as the holocaust--also serve to bring out intense goodness. There is opposition in all things, and I think of people like Corrie Ten Boom or Eli Wiesel, and I see that the worst situations can often bring out the best in people. So even those terrible things are giving people a chance to choose who they want to be.

"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking... The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions, is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble and that is what man needs to be..." [yes, that one is an actual quote from the movie]
I actually agree that the only appropriate attitude is to ask questions. I think that some religions hold a lot more water than others on the logic front, and that 'blind faith' is never a virtue. Yes, I consider myself a woman of faith, but it's not blind. I have studied the tenants of my faith and frankly I find that they explain a lot of things in what I find to be a very logical way. My faith is not about feeling comfortable or taking anybody's word for anything, it's about having logical explanations for life, the universe and everything. ☺ I find that the more I learn of science and the world, and the more I understand my religion, the more they fit together beautifully.


Too bad he didn't interview me, huh?

Following up with Jane

So, I finished reading my book by Jane Austen. Before getting too far into this though, I'm going to mention the official tally of the recommendations you all gave me for which book to read as my official trial run of Jane:

3 for Pride and Prejudice
2 for Sense and Sensibility
2 for Emma
2 for Northanger Abby
1 for Persuasion

So now I guess I had better tell you which book I actually read, right?

Based on which character I liked most (or related to most) in the Jane Austen Book Club movie, the book I chose to read was Persuasion. Interestingly, although not surprisingly, it was the book least-recommended by my readers. I have a theory about why this is, which I will share in a moment...but first, my thoughts on the book.

The last four or five chapters were quite exciting! The penultimate chapters (right before those last four or five) were interesting enough, as I could see the finale coming together. However the first 25 chapters were so slow and dull as to make my eyes water. I would probably have set it down were it not for my stubbornness and my whole public promise to all of you to actually read one entire book. ☺ When it finally did start getting good, it ended. Pow. Just like that.
My conclusion is that I feel no need to pick up any more of Jane's books, at least not for another couple of decades.

Here is something curious--BEFORE reading the book (although after choosing it), I went and took that quiz that so many of you feature on your sidebars... (remembering that I don't know any of the books well enough to have cheated in any way, as if I would do that anyway, geeze!)

Take the Quiz here!

Well, it seems that I chose the best book for me after all--a book with a heroine to whom I could relate. ☺ (Although, on an unrelated topic, I recently read that apparently it's ok to end sentences with prepositions, so perhaps I could have said "with a heroine I could relate to" and it would have been acceptable even for that uptight little editor in my head who always makes me fix those things!)
I mentioned that I thought I knew why almost no one recommended this book... Well, every time I've ever seen this little feature on one of my friend's sidebars, it always shows one of the Dashwoods, or maybe Emma...I am certain that I've never seen Anne Elliot before. I think that perhaps we like the books with the characters that we relate to...and that's why I don't like the books that you like.
It's a good thing we can still be friends anyway, eh?

Bear-isms

(click the image to see other Tiny Talk Tuesdays with Mary at NotBefore7)

Bear is in the stage where he wants me to kiss everything better. One time a couple of weeks ago he came for a kiss and I gave him several (just to make sure). He said I was "kissing it too big" and gave me a dirty look.

Skip ahead a week, and he comes to me to have something else kissed all better...I laid on the required kiss and he stuck the injured part back in my face and said "Kiss it too big mommy, kiss it too big!"

He also likes to pour his own juice--he's become a real juice-aholic lately--and I've discovered that it's because apparently I don't put enough in the cup. Several times now he has told me that I need to "pour it too big."

~~~~~~~~~

You may remember the Twinkle Potato incident of a few weeks ago... well, for about three weeks that was the only song he wanted at bedtime. I told him I didn't know how it went, so he sang it for me.

Twinkle Twinkle Little Potato [giggle]
Swimming in the Doggy Dish
[giggle giggle giggle giggle]

Now every version of "Twinkle twinkle" that he sings involves swimming in the doggy dish. I keep asking myself if I ever sang "twinkle fish" that way, but I can't remember...I probably did, but I don't know!

~~~~~~~~~

Bear has decided to be a potty-user. He's been very self-motivated about this, and within the last couple of weeks has more or less finished the job.
A couple of days ago I was sitting on the bathroom floor next to him as he sat on the toilet, and he explained to me that he had just made "sheen-gun poo" (that's "machine gun poo" for those who don't speak Bearish). Um, he wha?! (I know I didn't teach him about 'sheen-guns, but I guess Wolf did, because Bear says most anything is a sheen-gun. Sticks, legos, tiny crystals of snow...)
So I asked him "why is it sheen-gun poo?" "It's shee- gun poo mommy!" "Well, does Wolf make sheen gun poo?" "No" (as though it were obvious). Mommy? no, Daddy? no!, doggy? No, no, no. Only Bear makes sheen-gun poo. And apparently he always makes it--because he always tells me about it.
Oh well, at least he always makes it in the potty. ☺

The Secret Life of Synthetic Vitamins

The human body needs certain nutrients to live, I think we all understand that part well enough. For most of the history of the world humans (like every other creature) have eaten whole, unprocessed foods straight from nature, and they got plenty of vitamins in their natural forms. As people moved away from the land (into cities), and stopped raising their own food (relying on grocery stores etc), their nutrition suffered. Currently, in spite of improvements in access to healthy foods, we also have increased access to garbage foods, and the sad truth is that most of us have very poor eating habits, so we take multivitamins in an attempt to make up for it. The problem is, vitamins in pills (or as additives in food, as in "vitamin A and D added") are not the same as the vitamins in their natural food forms. The molecular structures are not even similar [link] (scroll down for photos).
In spite of years of recommending multivitamins to the masses, recent science has officially reached the same conclusion that some of us believed for years: vitamin supplements are "next to worthless" and people should just "eat real food." (Yes, those are direct quotes from the article--it's a good article, just published last month, go read it!)

"It is not possible to get a US patent on naturally occurring vitamins as found in food--anytime a health professional hears that some vitamin is patented, that should set off warning signals that it is not real food." [link]
(in other words, if it's in a jar with a brand name or 'patented formula' on the label, then it's probably not appropriate for consumption)

It is worth noting that there are vitamins that are made from whole foods--they are made from ground up spinach and carrots and so on rather than from chemical powders, and they therefore have the vitamins in their natural forms. They tend to cost a lot more, and my own feeling is that eating real food is always preferable to a vitamin--even a good vitamin, but there's more information below about how to find whole food vitamins.

This article is excellent, and packed full of well-referenced information, including going over each vitamin one by one, explaining both its natural food sources and how the synthetic version is made. Just so you are aware, some of those synthetic vitamins are made from cattle brains, hydrogenated sugars, coal tar, petroleum, formaldehyde, or acetone (aka nail polish remover). Mmmmm, even if you didn't like broccoli and spinach before I bet they sound pretty good now, don't they?!
I'll conclude with a quote from the conclusion of the article:

There are really only two types of vitamins sold: food vitamins and non-food vitamins. Food vitamins will normally state something like “100% Food” on the label. Sometimes the label will also state “No USP nutrients” or “No synthetic nutrients.”

Non-food vitamins...are somewhat less obvious. First of all, no non-food vitamin this researcher has seen says “100% food” on the label and none of them state ‘No USP or synthetic nutrients”—thus if none of these expressions are present, it is normally safe to conclude that the vitamins are not from food. If a label states that the product contains USP vitamins or ‘pharmaceutical grade’ nutrients, then it should be obvious to all naturopathic practitioners that the product is not food. Also, if a multi-vitamin or a B-complex formula states something to the effect that it “contains no yeast” that is basically a guarantee that it contains synthetic nutrients.

However, just because a company uses the term ‘natural’ or ‘all natural’ as a description of its vitamins does not make them, in fact, natural—this is because the US Government has no definition of natural! Also, just because a company may have a reputation for having natural products, this does not mean its vitamins are not synthetic—carefully check the label for proof that the product is truly 100% food.

Some companies seem to confuse the issue by using the term ‘food-based’ on their supplement labels. ‘Food-based’ vitamins are almost always USP vitamins mixed with a small amount of food. This mixing does not change the chemical form of the vitamin, so it is still a vitamin analogue and not a food vitamin (this differs from food, as true food vitamins are not simple mixture).

Most vitamins sold are not food--they are synthetically processed petroleum and/or hydrogenated sugar extracts--even if they say “natural” on the label. They are not in the same chemical form or structural form as real vitamins are in foods; thus they are not natural for the human body. True natural food vitamins are superior to synthetic ones. Food vitamins are functionally superior to non-food vitamins as they tend to be preferentially absorbed and/or retained by the body. Isolated, non-food vitamins, even when not chemically different are only fractionated nutrients.

...[It] seems logical to conclude that for purposes of maintaining normal health, natural vitamins are superior to synthetic ones. Unlike some synthetic vitamins, no natural vitamin has been found to not perform all of its natural functions.

The truth is that only foods, or supplements composed of 100% foods, can be counted on as not containing non-food vitamin analogues. Natural health advocates are supposed to build health on foods or nutrients contained in foods. That was the standard set for the profession in 1947—that standard—that commitment to real naturopathy should remain for natural health professionals today.

Concerning Spanking: starting on my path to Gentle Discipline

I was spanked as a child. Spankings were not common, but they were painful. They occurred only as the consequence to two infractions (lying or direct/defiant disobedience), and everybody knew how to earn one and how to avoid one. In spite of that, we feared them. Looking back I suppose it was irrational to fear something that was instituted only as the consequence to an action over which I had complete control--but fear I did. Often.
Nevertheless, it was effective. My siblings and I were (and are) very honest people. We are very obedient people. While I hated the few spankings I did receive, I certainly never thought of them as abuse. They were simply discipline: a harsh consequence designed to enforce a pair of non-optional behaviors.
It is only now, years later, that I remember something that happened one night when I was about 11. Brother A had smacked brother B in spite of repeated warnings, and so he got spanked. I asked my dad "If you hit him as a punishment, then how does that teach him to not hit?" My dad told me that my logic was wrong and that the idea came from Satan, and that the difference was that brothers are equals but that parents are in a position of authority and sometimes needed to use force. It didn't sit well with me at the time but apparently I eventually accepted it because as I entered adulthood, I had no problem with the occasional spanking of a child.
When I met Hubby, Wolf was 3 years old and more than a handful. He'd had a lot of upheaval in his early years and was a master of testing boundaries. Hubby did not believe in spanking, and I felt that Wolf's wild behavior was a direct reflection of that. Every "gentle discipline" or non-spanking family I'd ever met had wild (ie, undisciplined) children, and I concluded that Hubby should be glad that I'd come along when I had, so that I could teach him how to parent and teach Wolf how to obey.
So for a few years there was some spanking. Not terribly often, and not as severe as what I'd been raised with, but it definitely happened. And do you know what? It didn't make a lick of difference. That was the first thing that made me start to think. I had never questioned whether it would work--it seemed so obvious that it had worked with me and my siblings--but Wolf just didn't care. He would get mad about it, but he didn't change his behavior. Unfortunately, my initial conclusion was that the solution was to be more consistent--to discipline more often and (sometimes) more harshly.

Then I started associating with a group of "natural LDS moms" (on a yahoo group). Spanking came up a number of times, and was always a hot topic. There were moms who were staunchly for it and moms who were staunchly against it. For a long time I fell into the former category--still relying on the firm belief that there was a time and a place for spanking: usually as a last resort, but still, an appropriate place for it. I shared this opinion a number of times. The story is somewhat longer than this, but for the sake of the privacy of those involved, I'll just say that one mother mentioned (privately) that whenever spanking came up she always skipped my posts because she knew that I supported spanking, and it broke her heart to see that kind of message from someone whom she otherwise respected. She said that she just couldn't imagine Christ spanking someone, and she didn't feel like it was a Christlike way for us to treat our children.
Wow.
A lightbulb went on for me that day. I think I have thanked her for that message, but if not, she knows who she is, and I know she reads this blog, so at the very least she's hearing it now.

"If you hit him as a punishment,
then how does that teach him
to not hit?"

Yes, I have spanked my children, well, that is to say, I have spanked my older child. I have not spanked the younger one and have every intention of not spanking either one of them in the future. Unfortunately, when a person is raised with something it is usually very difficult to change the habit. Even if you want to be different, it's very likely that you'll fall back into certain familiar things. And so even since making the decision to not spank, I have done it once or twice. I yell more than I mean to as well. BUT I am not giving up, and I continue to try to find better ways to teach my children.

I am learning that "gentle discipline" does not have to mean "undisciplined," but that it really can mean teaching children discipline through gentle means. In fact, the more I have thought and read and talked with others and pondered about it all, the more I realize that gentle discipline is Christlike discipline. So now every time I am faced with a problematic behavior from my children I try to think of what Christ would do. Christ never hit anybody, and he never yelled, so I figure those two things are out. What is in, well, that's something that everybody has to work out themselves. I lean toward a combination of natural consequences, imposed logical consequences, and a lot of distraction for little ones and discussion for older ones. I am planning to write more about my ever-developing philosophy of parenting.


For what it's worth, regarding my own childhood and the things my father told me... My father was raised in what I consider to have been a terribly abusive and unloving home, and as I said, old habits die hard, even when you're trying to overcome them. In college he also studied behavioral psychology (which is based on drooling dogs and pecking pigeons and focuses on rewards and punishments to teach behaviors). Since it's based on animals (and doesn't allow for free will) I believe that it's inappropriate for humans, but the behavioral psychologists say otherwise, and dad trusted his professors...and that's a whole other post. ☺ Anyway, the point is, my dad's parenting style was imperfect but was unquestionably better than what he grew up with. Over the years he has continued to work and improve, and from what I hear my younger siblings are having quite a different childhood from what the first few of us did.
I love and respect my father on many fronts, and believe that most of the faults with his parenting stem directly from what he was taught by his own parents. On the other hand, what kind of a person would I be if I were content to maintain the status quo? No! I have every intention of continuing to improve. Maybe my children or grandchildren will be perfect parents...I know that I never will be, but at least I'm making a conscious effort at making each generation better than the last one.

HBs, UCs, CNMs, and DEMs

(is that enough acronyms for one day?!)

Today I want to answer a couple of questions that came up following my post about birth centers, specifically comments about HomeBirth, Unassisted Childbirth, Certified Nurse-Midwives, and Direct-Entry Midwives.

From the comments:
"I'm wondering why would you choose a center and not have a baby in your own home??"
"A big reason to me NOT to choose a birth center, is precisely because they are under OB supervision. They are subject to protocol and liability issues, and usually have a strict set of requirements for using their services....Birth centers are great for a perfect birth, but then, if the labor and delivery are that easy, you should just stay home."
"I am in favor of the unassisted homebirth [intentionally birthing without any trained professional present]. I just like the privacy of it. I feel like birth should be more intimate, with family. I also think that a woman should be able to act upon her own intuition. And that is HARD to do when there is someone trained there (be it a midwife or an OB)."

Hmm, I thought I had explained this the first time. ☺
I grew up with homebirth. In fact, my mother's hospital experience with her firstborn (me) was such that she chose to have the other 8 kids at home. (Well, one was was born in the car...but that's another story!) Anyway, I was present for several homebirths during my childhood and teen years, and when we were engaged I told Hubby that I wanted to do that too. He thought it was a little out there but figured if I was doing the birthing I was entitled to call the shots. However, during my pregnancy with Bear we both just had the feeling that I should switch away from the homebirth midwife I had begun seeing and instead see a particular OB. I could speculate all day about why we were led to do that, but the point is that it was the right thing for us at that time and with that birth.
I feel that birth is a deeply spiritual event--we are partners with God in giving a body to a spirit (and getting a body is one of those eternally important things), so I do think that the choice of where and how to give birth is important. A lot of people focus on two people when making their birthing choices (mom and baby), but I include a third. I figure that if I want dad to be part of it all (and I do) then his feelings should matter as well. My Hubby is not comfortable with birthing at home at this point, and since I do have the birth center option, I don't think it's worth disagreeing about. I think it's entirely likely that I will birth at home one day, but I don't think it will be this time.
Also, as I pointed out in the original post, I do not have a jetted tub. I want to labor in a jetted tub darnit!

As for my thoughts about UC (Unassisted Childbirth) here is my response from the comments:
I know that proponents of Unassisted Childbirth feel that the presence of any outsider is a detriment, but I don't feel that way. I actually feel safer knowing that someone is present who is not emotionally attached to the situation--I don't care how much we've studied and prepared, if something goes wrong neither Hubby nor I can be fully objective because it's family. That's why surgeons don't operate on family members. That's why I never want a UC.
In all fairness, I do have to admit that every birth dream I have ever had was a UC. Not just a UC with no professional, but a UC with nobody--not even Hubby--in the room with me. So maybe I'm being prepared for something someday... Maybe at some point I'll plan a homebirth and the midwife won't make it and I'll have an accidental UC, but at least from where I stand now I have no desire to ever plan one.

~~~~~

Now onto the second topic!
My cousin left this comment:
Can you explain your preference for a direct-entry midwife, versus a CNM? I had CNMs for my two births and they were wonderful and helped me so much--and they were there for almost the whole labor both times.

I do not actually prefer DEMs over CNMs. (DEM= direct-entry midwife, CNM= certified nurse-midwife) I have no preference whatsoever. However, in many states the law has a great deal of preference, so that is why I was so pleased to hear that here in Alaska DEMs can get as much respect (ie, birth center privileges) as the CNMs can.
Here are the basic differences:
A CNM certifies as a nurse (2 years) and then becomes a midwife (around another 2 years). In her nurses training she spends time changing bandages, emptying bedpans, and doing other things that have nothing whatsoever to do with pregnancy or birth. CNMs almost always work under the supervision of OBs, and as such are subject to their policies (or the policies of the hospital), including forced timelines for laboring and so on. Due mostly to their background in nursing, many CNMs have a fairly medicalized view of birth. Many women find comfort in the CNM's more extensive training, and/or in the fact that she works in a facility with access to medications, interventions, and OB oversight.
A DEM does not go to nursing school. She goes directly to midwifery school. (Actually some 'granny midwives' do not attend any school at all, but just apprentice with a practicing midwife and sortof pick things up over time--some women are comfortable with this but I'm not.) DEMs focus all their study on pregnancy and birth, so on the one hand they do finish their training sooner, but on the other hand they usually spend much longer as 'interns' or 'assistant midwives' before taking the lead role at births. I feel that their more specific training as well as the longer time assisting is of great benefit in a caregiver. In my understanding DEMs are more likely to have a knowledge of herbs (some are trained herbalists), and they almost always have a more wholistic view of birth (rather than a medicalized one). DEMs attend homebirths and sometimes birth center births, and are more likely than CNMs to have experience with handling "high risk" situations such as vaginal breech or twin deliveries (CNMs are commonly required to hand those cases off to their supervising OB). In a number of states DEMs and homebirths are illegal.

I do not have a particular preference about being attended by a CNM vs a DEM. I do have a preference about where I give birth though, so depending on where I choose, that will dictate somewhat about who can attend me.

Great Expectations

The other day in a comment Becky asked:

Hey, do you have any posts or opinions (and if I know you at all, you definitely have opinions! :)) about eating habits? Both of my kids' grandmothers like to tell me I'm starving my children. My rule is if you're playing at the table or throwing food, you get one warning, and then you're done. Mealtime should not be a time that people (meaning me) dread every single day. Some days we do well and some days not so well, but my children know the rules. And we try very hard to be consistent. Boy, do we try! What's your take on mealtime?

Well, I've never posted about it before, but I have been thinking I wanted to write a series about my philosophy on discipline and parenting, and this is as good a place to start as any!

The short answer is
I believe that kids will live up to whatever is expected of them.
Please note that that may or may not be the same thing as what you say you expect of them. For example, if you tell your teenager that he had better not miss curfew again, but in your heart you figure he'll miss it because he has so often before, then I believe he'll miss it. Because he knew that you expected him to anyway, so why bother to try. On the other hand, I have seen impeccable behavior from very small children because they knew what was expected and they simply did it. (Apparently I was one of those children--my parents tell the story of a time when I was not yet 2, and they were at a social function being held outdoors at a park. Apparently I had done something inappropriate, so my father stood me on a storm drain cover for a time-out and told me I needed to stay there for a few minutes until he came to get me. Everyone else at the party looked at him in shock: how could he expect that of such a small child?! But I stayed until he came back for me.)
And so I repeat, it's not just about obedience, it's about genuine expectations. It's about what you truly believe your child can and will do. Kids have a remarkable way of living up to precisely what we expect of them.

In regard to the specifics of mealtimes...
Obviously it's still important to teach our children, and personally I think that a rule establishing food for eating (not for throwing or playing) is entirely rational, logical, and fair. I add to that rule that if someone leaves his chair (other than to get a drink or run to the potty or that sort of thing) then he is done. I don't care if he is still hungry, I don't care if he had food left on his plate, he needs to stay at the table until he's done. (So, Becky, apparently I have one-upped you in the 'mean mom' contest, and you can let your mother and mother-in-law know that you're terribly laid back compared to some people you know. ☺ ) I believe in being gentle with children, but I do not believe in letting them run the house. Mom's needs are a valid consideration in the equation, and I've never met a child who starved from eating only half a meal.
I should add that we do have a few foods that are allowed for snacking almost any time. When a child gets himself booted from the table and subsequently complains of hunger, I do let him eat something...not during dinner time of course, but a little while later, when he's had a chance to feel hungry and develop a little motivation to follow the rule next time.
Incidentally, I understand that my kids may not love every food I prepare. They are required to taste something before they are allowed to have an opinion, but once they have a validly-formed opinion I will respect it and not make them eat something they don't like. I am not willing to be a short order cook, but when Wolf doesn't like sweet and sour chicken then I don't mind if he makes a peanut butter sandwich. Applesauce and yogurt are always available, and "peanut butter spoons" (a spoonful of peanut butter) are very popular with my boys. As before, I'm not forcing them to starve, and I don't force them to eat something they don't like, but they do need to respect the notion of standard mealtimes, and eating with the family.

Fertility Awareness Method (FAM)

I think this is valuable information, so I am sharing it at this week's WorksForMeWednesday (click the link to see what works for other people!)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A few people commented that it was interesting that I knew my date of ovulation, or was aware enough of my cycle to know to take a pregnancy test at scarcely 4 weeks along. I've also heard over and over that "Natural Family Planning" only works "sometimes" or isn't very reliable.
So today I'm here to set the record straight.

Myths about the Fertility Awareness Method / Natural Family Planning

FAM/NFP is based on your past cycles, so if your cycles vary from month to month, or if you have cycles that are longer/shorter than 28 days, it won't work.
I think a lot of people have heard of the old fashioned "rhythm method" which involves counting days from the beginning of your last period, and then making assumptions about when you'll ovulate. FAM does no such thing. FAM relies on observing (and then writing down) your fertility signs in this cycle, and determining on a day-to-day basis whether you are fertile or not. So your cycle can be different every single month and FAM will still work for you.

FAM/NFP fails a lot as birth control
Only if you are intimate on days you are fertile. There are two ways to practice NFP--one is to determine potentially fertile days and then abstain on those days--this always works. The other option is to determine the fertile days and then use condoms or something of that nature on those days--this has the same failure rate as the condom or other method.

Is is a lot more effort than something simple like the pill or just using condoms
I happen to really like using NFP for my family planning, because it means that if we change our minds one way or the other, we can switch from 'preventing' to 'trying' (or visa versa) on a moments notice. No devices to remove, no waiting for hormones to clear out of my system, nothing. I find it superior to long-term use of condoms because, let's be honest, who likes using condoms all the time? With NFP I know whether or not I'm fertile, and the rest of the time we don't have to worry about using 'protection.' Also, NFP has absolutely no side effects: no weight gain, no mood swings, nada.

Charting is a big hassle and takes a lot of time
I put in around 2 minutes a day. It's faster than my morning shower or brushing my teeth, and I don't know anyone who says that those are too much of a hassle!

There is no point in charting unless you are specifically trying to get pregnant/avoid pregnancy
I have found it enormously helpful even in months where I didn't care if I got pregnant or not. I happen to have irregular cycles--they might be 26 days or they might be 36. Usually it's somewhere in the middle, but it is different every month. But when you start charting you'll learn a secret: the follicular stage (between your period and when you ovulate) can be of a different length, but your luteal phase (from ovulation until the next menstruation) will always be the same. SO, if I know which day I ovulated, then I know precisely which day to expect my period. Every month. For someone who HATES to be caught off guard by good old aunt flow, this is awesome and oh so empowering.

I can't chart because I wake up in the night (baby, bathroom, etc), or I work a night/swing shift
This one is somewhat true. In order for a temperature to be accurate for charting purposes, you should have completed 3 or more hours of sleep prior to taking your temperature. If you often wake at 3am though, it's ok to take your temp then. If you sleeping during the day and wake at 5pm, you can take your temp then. The point is not so much about what time it is, as it is about being consistent. If you are often consistent, but just have occasional off days (sleeping in on a holiday, or when a child is sick for example) then you can just skip temping on that one day, and use the overall pattern of the rest of the days.
My 2yo Bear is still waking in the night with some regularity, and that has affected my own sleep patterns of course. So even though I had begun temping, and was able to see somewhat of a pattern, it was a little bumpy. It helped me narrow things down, even though I wasn't always sure quite to the day, I did know within a couple of days.

(if you have other questions/things you've heard, please leave them in the comments and I will add the answers to the post here)


So what are these fertility signals that we charting ladies monitor?

1. Take a BBT (basal body temperature) each morning upon awaking. The hormonal surge at ovulation causes a sharp jump in BBT, so on the morning after you ovulate your BBT will show it.
2. Observe the cervical fluid (CF) that is excreted over the course of the cycle. During fertile times, the CF increases and has a stringy consistency much like eggwhite--this is because the body is trying to facilitate conception by making the route easier for the sperm.
3. Take note of other symptoms such as cramping, breast tenderness, increased/decreased libido (the hormonal shifts affect this--libido usually surges in the most fertile days).
4. Some (not all) women take note of their cervical position. This involved sticking a finger in there and feeling your cervix. During fertile times, it gets softer and opens up a bit. (Yes ladies, your body wants to get pregnant each month, even if you don't.)
5. For those who are trying to conceive, we also make a mark to indicate which days we "baby danced" or BD. This way when we do get pregnant we're better able to pinpoint the actual day of conception, which is darn handy.

If you think all this fertility awareness stuff is worth looking into, I strongly recommend getting your hands on Toni Weschler's book Taking Charge of Your Fertility. It is the quintessential FAM book. There are others that teach pieces of the method, but this is the most complete one I know of. It has extensive information about using FAM for birth control, pregnancy achievement, and just plain reproductive health and awareness.