september mama

man. 35 weeks. how much longer?! i am in that "ok, i'm done" phase, i think.

[commence whining]

i can't sleep at night for more than 2 hours straight, then i wake up either to pee or because i'm uncomfortable or because something HURTS (belly, leg cramp, finger pain, etc). i've apparently developed pregnancy-induced arthritis in all three finger joints of each finger... not too swollen, but achy as hell, especially in the morning! my feet STILL hurt when i walk or stand for too long, and now it seems like she is running out of room in my belly--she's taken to kicking almost constantly, and there is actual pressure a lot of the time, especially towards the top of my belly. it's not comfortable. oh and when i do wake up at 3am with pain from having to pee so badly, it's nearly impossible to get out of bed. i'm so heavy and so awkward, and just imagine: you wake up, huge belly preventing you from bending effectively, your fingers are so cramped that you can barely open them to lever yourself upright (stomach muscles don't cut it anymore, you need the leverage), your legs are hairs away from intense charlie-horse cramps--the wrong move will set them off--and when you finally hoist yourself up and off the side of the bed, you land on feet that would scream if they had vocal chords because they are so sore and can't take the sudden weight. then you waddle (yes, waddle) on protesting feet towards the bathroom, still feeling the almost-cramps in your legs with each shift in weight, and just hoping the pressure in your stomach and pelvis doesn't burst the baby right out, dilated cervix or not.

this me every night. often multiple times per night. did i say pregnancy was easy?! HA!

[end whining]

ok really it has been, it's just this last little bit that is pushing me to my limits of physical endurance. it could have been so very much worse..!

list of things i am lucky and grateful for NOT having to deal with in this pregnancy:
- excessive or genuine morning sickness complete with vomiting
- stretch marks
- heartburn
- back pain
- cravings for wacky foods
- sweating/temperature issues
- constipation
- hemorrhoids
- "girly infections"
- psychotic mood swings
- severe weight gain

compared to all those totally normal complaints that most people have, my situation doesn't seem all that bad.

i'm quite sure i'm having contractions though... it's a very interesting feeling, and it's definitely low and where it's supposed to be... like a sharp, tight feeling suddenly comes and i almost feel like the baby is moving and putting pressure somewhere or other (but really i think it's that my uterus is tightening around her). i think i might have them a lot at night, because i wake up in confusing pain that i can't make sense of most nights, and then i fall back asleep before i can sort it out. she's moving around non-stop today--i've had a lot of belly discomfort and i can't tell if it's because she keeps moving or if she's moving because my belly is doing something funny.

i had a really annoying dream last night also. i dreamed that i had her, but (again) i realized afterwards that i had NO memory of labor, and i started to get really upset... i was pissed and confused and wondering why i couldn't remember it; i wasn't sure if i had been given meds against my wishes, if we had a c-section, or what happened, i just knew i was unconscious for the birth and i was impossibly upset about it, because it was specifically contrary to what i wanted. and then i realized that i had given birth more than 24 hours ago and they still had her, i hadn't even gotten to hold her yet, and i was completely crushed and infuriated. i couldn't accept that we missed the critical hour after birth because i was unconscious, and i didn't understand why, either. so i was trying to get back to the hospital to get her, and probably to kick some ass as well (she was fine, just still at the hospital for some reason). this was all really annoying because it was a nightmare, and i woke up disturbed and upset... but the fact is even if i DO end up with a c-section i know i won't be unconscious because i will choose the localized anesthesia... i want to be conscious. so what the heck is my subconscious really worrying about? and where the heck was matt??

anyway... so the room is 100% finished! my mom bought us a crib and a changing pad thing, the floors are in, the walls are done, and it all looks fabulous. now all we need is the rest of the house to get done and then she can show up whenever she wants :) good news though! i sold my car AND matt sold his "spare" motorcycle yesterday, so we now officially have enough money to put in the floors we want for the majority of the house. nothing is holding us up from finishing everything, other than time... walls, floors, and we are done! we might actually have a livable, comfortable house before we have a baby. who would've thought...

remember this? how many incidents does it take within a given time period before people will come to their senses about trusting corporate anything??? explosives chemical found in formula from companies that own 87% of market share.

argh. i share this not to judge--really, i feel for you if you can't/won't breastfeed, i've seen enough to know it can be extremely difficult for some people--but PLEASE do not use the standard store-bought formulas. you are not being told the truth; not by the labels, not by the FDA, and not by your doctor. there is a real PC culture of "let's not offend anybody" that tries very hard to say formula is just as good as breastmilk but the research all shows it's not. (yes, i quote from wiki, because it sums up well--you can and should do additional research if you really want to seek the truth.) your breastmilk was made for your baby, and nobody else. we have a magical chemistry that creates the ideal food for the baby grown in our own body. formula companies can't even approximate "generic" breastmilk; what makes you think they can copy YOURS?

so, if you can't pump your own and bottle-feed it, you should know there are alternatives. just because enfamil sends you free samples and similac was recommended by your doctor does not mean they are your best options if you aren't able to breastfeed. always remember, for doctors and hospitals and pharm companies, babies=goldmine. it's a sick reality that we all need to keep in mind. without births to support their income, hospitals would be a lot less lucrative a business; something like 60% of the average hospital revenue is directly related to labor and delivery.

anyway. i can't just stand by and watch the future of humanity be genetically degraded (i.e. poisoned formula) due to ignorance and misinformation... i say all of this, everything in this blog, out of love and compassion and a desire for betterment in all of us. inform yourself!

so last night for about an hour i babysat my friend's one-month-old. it was the first real encounter i've had with a newborn one on one... and it was interesting.

he's a really cute little thing, and just learned to smile, so we got a lot of giggles and babbling noises and he seemed to really like looking at matt. after a few minutes he started to get fussy so i picked him up, and the rest of the time we had him he went back and forth from fussing, to quiet/focused, to crYing... it's very hard to know what they need, i think. to me it seemed like his tummy was hurting him, but he might have just wanted his mama to come back for all i know. then just before she came back he started to suck on his knuckles so i decided maybe he was hungry.

i was really, really impressed with myself for being totally unphased by the crying, even when it was intense. it just didn't bother me. i felt bad for him and wanted to make him feel better, but because i didn't know exactly what the problem was i just kinda bounced him around and paced the house. sometimes it helped. i guess i just figured crying would really bother me?? apparently pregnancy hormones help with that, which makes sense. i am also reassured by my lack of awkwardness with him... usually i'm funny/shy/weird about babies, but that seems to be gone too. i was totally comfortable hanging out with him.

the worst part was my cat's reaction. i've been worrying about how she would take the intrusion of a noisy little attention-stealing creature into her world, after having me all to herself for the last 8 years... i got my answer last night: not well. both cats were very interested but undisturbed by his presence, until he started to really cry. as soon as the volume piped up, usha started crying too, loudly, and kept hovering around my feet; at one point we were on the rocking chair and she actually reached up towards him, though i'm not sure why. (i was keeping them both at a distance on the off chance the baby is allergic to cats.)

when i started pacing with him while he was crying, both cats were at my ankles, and after a few minutes of usha yelling--in what must have been an attempt to shut him up--she bit me! nothing serious, just a little frustrated nip, but i was so shocked... she was being aggressive to MY FEET because the baby was crying and she couldn't get at him. great. i am sure if he had been in range she would've smacked him a few times. *sigh* i locked her in the bedroom after that, but she kept yelling.

i really do not want to deal with an angry cat and a crying baby at the same time. usha is my original "baby" and i have NO intention of getting rid of her, but i'm not sure how to help her cope. neki, the big fluffball, was fine of course. totally easygoing and unperturbed by all the noise, just curious about the noisemaker. but then, she's barely bothered by the vacuum most of the time! i'm sincerely concerned about what will happen if usha is a brat about the baby (and moreso about how matt will react).

but anyway, back to the point: besides the unexplainable crying, which was really not a big deal, that was easy. if i'd had a sling it would've been even easier--the trickiest part was holding him securely and supporting his head all the time, especially while he wanted to move it all around and pick it up! so yeah, this should be fine. and when it's my kid i doubt i will be quite as obsessively careful as i was with him, so it might be even easier.

then again, i got to give him back after an hour, so that wasn't exactly a taste of what's to come...

of all the things i could be worrying about regarding birth, babies, and child-rearing, the one thing that concerns me the most is how to deal with bedtime. frankly, i'm scared. i'm scared of having an uber-dependent child (possible) and i'm scared of finding that i want her to be uber-dependent (unlikely). but after reading quite a bit from other moms i just don't know what to think.

the two polar-opposite opinions go like this, and they both appall me, honestly:

cry-it-out
just like it sounds. it's bedtime, you put them down, and they deal. maybe it takes weeks of a screaming, tantruming, distressed little kid, but eventually they learn to "self-soothe" and all is (presumably) well. except they may have lasting anxiety problems or a preponderance to PTSD down the line?? i know my parents and their parents used this method, to some extent, on me and my cousins. seemed to work ok, but watch out--you will be criticized for being a cruel, heartless mother if you join any parenting forums and actually admit to using CIO. attachment parenting is the "in" thing these days. it does seem pretty effed-up to let a baby cry--its only means of communication--and not respond, however. i'm not sure i could or would want to do that.

parent-to-sleep or co-sleeping
co-sleeping is again, self-explanatory. you share the bed with junior until... until when? that depends. i know some people who have 6-year olds in their bed. i have no desire for that. i like having alone time with my husband, and considering that baby will soon be the center of both our worlds, i think it's important to preserve a "sacred space" for just us. the philosophy of attachment parenting is basically "through allowing my child to be dependent when she needs to, I give her the confidence to be independent when she’s ready." it's a great philosophy at heart, and there are many outgrowths of it that i do agree very much with, but the problem i see with it seems to be recurrent: parents (moms especially) use it as an excuse to over-coddle and indulge THEIR OWN little desires with regards to their children. i just read a ton of responses to a post on babycenter.com in which most of the women arguing for 'parenting-to-sleep' (which is basically attending the child on their terms until they fall asleep in your arms or you sleep in the bed with them) cite their own need to feel closeness as the main, if not the only, reason for avoiding more independent sleep routines. moms who don't want to give up nursing or bemoan 'how fast they grow' as a good reason to extend the babying days as long as possible... something about that makes my skin crawl a little bit. i can't help it--i don't mean to be so.. whatever it is i am being. but the day i continue to nurse my child because *I* want to, and not because she really needs it, is the day i stop altogether.

the thought that i may become the kind of person who grasps at something as fleeting as infancy and 'cuddling time'--and would go so far as to deliberately sabotage my own efforts to remedy the situation by failing to enforce change--terrifies me. is that what motherhood does to us? it explains a lot, if so.

anyway my question here is, "how the hell do you find a happy middle ground between being too present, and creating dependence, and being too unavailable, and inducing stress?"

the last thing i want is to find myself required to be a bedside attendant for several hours a night while a little one falls asleep. i get frustrated enough being a bedside attendant for matt for 20 minutes in the morning while he wakes up... i need to know i can preserve my own independence AT LEAST when it comes to bedtime. i already know i will lose it in regards to most other things, so i guess this is just the one subject i don't want to budge about.

but i can't imagine allowing her to cry herself to sleep... "The fact remains that “crying it out” simply does not work the way proponents of the Ferber method believe. An infant has not the faculties to cry hysterically, get it out of his system, and then lull into slumber. No, he has merely submitted into exhaustion once it becomes clear that his caretakers are not coming to help him." yes, i do not think despair is good for infants.

so what do i do? i borrowed the no-cry sleep solution from the birth center, so i'm hoping it will answer all my questions. either that, or that rowan is naturally a sleepy, content little girl! if we can only be so lucky.

i don't know why, but this really stresses me out! i want her to be naturally independent and that's just not something i can control... or can i? but then what if she is, and it upsets me? AGH! i think that would be worse. *sigh*

contrary to my apparent mood based on the last fiesty post, i am e x h a u s t e d . . . i feel like my head is wrapped in wool inside and out. i'm tired and insensible.

i feel fine otherwise, but i seriously need a nap. i even had coffee and it hasn't seemed to help. blah.

i may regret saying this, but here it is anyway: with 3-7 weeks left before it's over, i can officially declare that this pregnancy has been easy. easy with a capital E. my complaints were so minor... and even now, with as much extra weight as i am carrying, i barely feel it.

yes it's hard to sleep this week, yes i have to get up slowly or my leg muscles yell, but seriously--i feel almost normal. and i'm not really all that large, in my opinion. i know every pregnancy is different so i don't assume it will be this easy next time around, but i have to say for me pregnancy has pretty much been a walk in the park.

coming up to the 'due date' i am calm, prepared, and unstressed. a friend commented this morning how amazed she is that i'm not freaking out or miserable as everyone else seems to be at the end of the journey. i just don't feel bad, i don't know what to say. i'd love a nap, but other than that... *shrug*

probably having a "sturdy" bone structure and relatively strong muscles in general helps. i'm not particularly dainty, if you know what i mean. my body can handle the extra weight i guess. i just hope my hips don't fail me--easy pregnancy doesn't necessarily mean easy labor.

*yawn again*

this may inflame someone, so here is another disclaimer, written in some slight annoyance at having to write it at all. yes, there are always cases where people are better off for having psych meds. i know this. i'm not talking about those cases. i'm talking about everybody else...

*sigh* let's start from the top:

via cryptogon:

Is there something more at work here besides chasing profits? The diabolical nature of this seems to go beyond the usual chasing profits explanation.

This has an inky black, low murmuring evil feel to it. Echoes of Dr. Mengele.

Also, pay attention to the “food” that these people are ingesting, and the physical appearance of the mothers. Holy crap. Have another breakfast stick, now with even more obesity and diabetes. Toxic waste for food and strong antipsychotics, antidepressants and mood stabilizers. This is the breakfast of champions for millions of American children, some as young as two.

Via: PBS Frontline:

In recent years, there’s been a dramatic increase in the number of children being diagnosed with serious psychiatric disorders and prescribed medications that are just beginning to be tested in children. The drugs can cause serious side effects, and virtually nothing is known about their long-term impact. “It’s really to some extent an experiment, trying medications in these children of this age,” child psychiatrist Dr. Patrick Bacon tells FRONTLINE. “It’s a gamble. And I tell parents there’s no way to know what’s going to work.”

as of january 2008 PBS had enough material--and there was enough controversy--to make a documentary questioning the wisdom of using UNTESTED psych meds on children diagnosed with very vague and broad-spectrum symptoms of various psychiatric disorders. the video is disturbing... poor kids are damaged permanently from the side effects of these drugs before they even have a fighting chance to develop normally and outgrow their "issues."

for me, the first thing i would ask myself if my child seemed really wacked would be, "what am i doing that could be causing this behavior? is she fed healthy foods? is she getting enough sleep? enough social interaction? enough love and affection?" and finally, "am i stressed out?"

children are NOT adults. they react very differently to stresses than adults do--they haven't learned to "cope" by stuffing their feelings inside. they express. everything. and sometimes maybe their bodies induce emotional reactions when physical needs are not being properly met (i.e., you feed them nothing but processed pHoods and after a year or so they start having temper tantrums every day).

fundamental problem #1: we are treating them for things they may not have because we do not bother to look into alternative explanations. we fail to adequately research the cause and effect cycle of ALL things we take for granted in modern life.

and now this, via msnbc (just the best parts here):

Panel: All teens should be tested for depression
2 million in U.S. are affected but most are undiagnosed, task force says
...
The task force said that when followed by treatment, including psychotherapy, screening can help improve symptoms and help kids cope. Because depression can lead to persistent sadness, social isolation, school problems and even suicide, screening to treat it early is crucial, the panel said.
...

Yet at the same time psychiatrists specializing in treating children and teens are scarce. A separate report, also released Monday in the Pediatrics journal, says primary care doctors including pediatricians and family physicians will need to get more involved in mental health care.

...

Most pediatricians aren't trained to do psychotherapy, but they can prescribe depression medication and monitor patients they've referred to others for therapy, he said.

holy f*&^. did we completely FORGET that teenagerdom is characterized by some amounts of depression/anxiety/stress which naturally accompany the vast physical, mental, and emotional changes going on during that period of our normal human development? what just happened here? but nevermind that, let's move on.

fundamental problem #2: if you need a questionnaire at the pediatricians office to tell you your kid is sad, isolated, failing school, and doing drugs, YOU FAIL as a parent. period. where is the responsibility of the parents to observe and interact with their children, that something like this even needs to be suggested?!

fundamental problem #3: we need to screen EVERYONE because 6% of a sub-population may be affected. that is what you call a massive waste of resources. but, in fact, since the goal here is nothing grander than to boost profits for drug companies selling psych meds (see #4), it will perfectly do its job--so many "undiagnosed" cases will come to light, and all good parents give their kids meds when dr. concerned says they should. on a related note, maybe if we had an insanely high teenage suicide rate--i.e., if the entire 6% of the undiagnosed kids were offing themselves for lack of treatment--MAYBE this testing would be justified. but since apparently the majority of these kids move on to be typical adults, what is the issue?

fundamental problem #4: re-read the last two paragraphs in the quote above. now think for a second. there aren't enough psychiatrists trained to deal with kids, so pediatricians will have to fill in the gaps AND/BUT all they can do is prescribe medication, not provide counseling. ah ha! now i get it. (nevermind the big problem with docs prescribing meds for conditions they *admittedly* are not trained to deal with.) it's all about the profits. you heard it straight from MSNBC!

i won't call this one "fundamental," but i also have to wonder where they got the number of "undiagnosed" depression cases from? if they are undiagnosed, how the hell do they know how many there are? wtf?

i don't know... to me, the very idea of chemically altering a child's brain--which is in a constant state of flux and adaptation to the world, developing structures and learning connections and whatnot--is Evil. truly Evil. it can do nothing but harm, and i don't care what anyone says to the contrary. yes, i would rather put up with screaming fits for 2 years than know that i am irreversibly damaging my child's development--and entire life, as a result--so that i can have a little peace and quiet.

why is it that we didn't see this kind of behavior in kids 15, 20, 30 years ago? my list of hypotheses goes like this:
- routine, excessive vaccinations of vulnerable infants
- pHood (i.e., products so detached from the original substance that used to be food, that they are chemically unrecognizable; i.e., basically everything from a box, can, or plastic package)
- high-fructose corn syrup
- fluoridated/chlorinated water supplies
- overuse of any/all medications
- environmental pollutants (mostly the indoor kind, from cleaning products, cosmetics, etc, but perhaps also the more widespread type as well)
- and equally important, bad parenting. yes, i blame the parents in many cases. kids need to be shown BY EXAMPLE how to live effectively in the world. when you model disaffectation, stress, egoism, and apathy, that is what they learn. i think our entire society has suffered as a result of the 2-working parent system which shoves our younglings off to what amounts to foster care for the bulk of their developing years. it's worse than anybody wants to admit, in my opinion... and i know many families have 'no choice' and i can sympathize with that to an extent. because really, there is always a choice. you can always make sacrifices. the question is, is it worth it to you?

in my world, we wouldn't need Supernanny because we would have communication and interaction on a level that makes sense for the child. we'd have time for them. sometimes i wonder if our parents didn't fail us... it was by their example that we learned to be parents, and so many of us are really terrible at it. was it just the 70s/80s/90s mentality that materialism is the ultimate goal that ruined everything? because that was so important to our parents, and we (i say "we" loosely here*) were left in daycare and fed convenience foods since they knew no better... and it left us without a model for good parenting? because most of us can say for sure that our parents were raised very differently than we were. i think the break came as they took their roles and parents and forgot what their own parents had taught them... they were too distracted by material acquisition and "doing better for [our] sakes." only it ended up producing a generation of ineffective, depressed, and gullible people who want somebody else to fix their problems. just a thought.

back to the point; my dear friend at cryptogon would say this program of screening and medicating children on a massive scale has more to do with long-term population control (through submission) and social engineering than anything else--as he mentions, and i mentioned, profits are a big factor, but there really does seem to be something else going on. Evil. why do we push so hard to ruin the future (our childrens' brains)? or better yet, why do we let THEM tell us we should?! why do they want to?

who benefits from this? certainly not the children...


*for the record, my parents were awesome. i never went to forced daycare, my mom was lucky enough to work at home and be there for us 24/7, they fed us real food and taught us how to be respectful people with integrity and self-confidence. and practical frugality. sadly, however, i think they are not the norm. i truly hope to be as good with my kids as they were with us.