Fear and Shame and the political divide

This is a post of political observations that will deal in generalities. So, please, spare me the anecdotes of cases where it doesn't hold true. Not hard fast rules, only observations about trends.

Both sides of the political divide, liberals and conservatives, claim moral superiority. And they go about trying to make converts by claiming that their side, and their side alone, takes the moral high road. The tools in this endeavor are fear and shame.

Example #1: Immigration.

Conservatives employ fear in order to control perceptions. If we are afraid of foreigners, we will reject them and protect ourselves. We'll be safer if we are more fearful. Such as this, now famous meme:

(I like this line from the movie The Tale of Despereaux, "Oh, Despereaux, this world is full of wonderful things to be afraid of, if only you realize how scary they are.")

Liberals employ shame to make people "do the right thing." The talking points create straw man arguments to make people feel badly for being heartless savages.  Religious people are at the top of that list. If you were truly a decent person you'd be more open, you jerk.

Example #2: Abortion.

Liberals employ fear. If pro-life legislation is passed, if a pro-life person is elected, if a pro-life judge takes the bench women will be victimized, there will be back-alley abortions and bleeding in the streets. Women will lose their autonomy and we'll all be relegated to being barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen again. 

On the flip side, Conservatives employ shame. Emotionally and morally charged language. Instead of women being victims and disenfranchised and scared and vulnerable, they are "mothers of a dead baby" and murders.

And the labels the groups are given are often, at least partially, misnomers. Pro-choicers are not pro-all-choices. Just check to see which democrats voted to take away the freedom of parents to choose whether or not their children are vaccinated. There's a serious war brewing in California as parental rights and choices are taken away by big brother. You can choose to have an abortion, but if that child is born alive you don't have a choice whether or not she gets the highly controversial Gardasil vaccine.

Pro-lifers are often not pro-all life (There are exceptions, such as socially active Roman Catholics.). Just look up which Republicans still support the death penalty. (see the UCSSB's pro-life prayer) Or the NIMB attitude as it applies to taking in refugees. (NIMB = not in my backyard) Sometimes pro-lifers are pro-birth or pro-some-life. It's a painful truth that we need to 'fess up to.

And you can see examples of this everywhere if you just take a moment to look at your Facebook or Twitter feed. Just today I logged in to see several of my friends post the same FB post that stated if you didn't join the "Women's March" you probably have never been the victim of a sexual crime, are not an ethnic minority, an immigrant or lack health insurance. Because if you have experienced any of these things, you'd support the march. Well, guess what? I have been a victim of sexual crime, I am an ethnic minority, my husband is an immigrant and I have actually never had health insurance in my life. I did not support the March. But, that's what I mean about claiming moral superiority. It's a false narrative. All the decent people on one side of the line and all the degenerate on the other.

I have found this past year that everyone wants to think that they take the high road and are open to people that are different than they are. Everyone wants to think they are comfortable with diversity.  It's always the other side of the aisle that is full of intolerant bigots. Until they encounter someone truly different, someone who doesn't support their pet causes, who does not see things the same way at all. Then the struggle gets real. I am no exception.

I have seen so many people this year unfriend and block people on social media or lash out at their neighbors that it breaks my heart. The media, the culture, the 24 hour news cycle perpetuates this fear and shame so that we feel quite justified in saying, "I'm done with you" as we paint with broad brushes and repost unnuanced memes and opinions. We feel vindicated to make "power of the people" to mean power against certain people.

But, what if....

What if we stopped using fear and shame as our primary motivators and the cornerstones of our arguments? What if when we encountered someone who is truly different we didn't shut them out, but we extended our hand instead? What if we could say, "You know, I don't see things that way, but I respect that you do. Would you like to discuss this sometime?" Make cookies. It always helps the awkwardness. 

The truth is that if we try to banish fear and shame there will be a vacuum. We have to replace it with something. 

I would suggest love and humility.

It's not easy. For anyone. And it's certainly not easy for me. I claim no moral superiority in this. To look into someone's eyes who not only is different but may be, in fact, antagonistic towards you and your way of life or deeply held beliefs, and to say, "I see in you someone made in the image of God and I choose to treat you according to that truth." Pour tea.  It helps the humble pie to go down easier.

I am not suggesting that you necessarily change your beliefs. I can tell you for certainty that you will not take my Christian faith from me. I am not just a Christian in name. It's part of my very DNA, I assure you. I am head over heels in love with Jesus. I can't turn it off. I broke off the switch long ago. But, I will share a meal with you and listen to you, even if you are Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, or just plain not sure. My faith tells me that you are made in God's image and likeness, whether or not you acknowledge Him.

Humility goes a long way. St. John Chrysostom said, "Humility is the root, mother, nurse foundation and bond of all virtue." The book of 1 Peter in the Bible commands us to love each other deeply. Because love covers a multitude of sins.

Does walking in love mean that we never stand up for controversial causes or speak tough things? Of course not. Love must be tough as well as tender. But true love should give us the courage to carefully negotiate and live in the tension of truth and love. It's messy. It's painful at times. It's tricky. It's also beautiful. Speak the truth...in love.

As people of good will, can we move the cultural conversation from Us vs. Them to We Are All In This Together? Can we love through the differences and listen and speak up and be brave and be vulnerable and be true?

Fear and shame are motivators, but make a terrible foundation. Love and humility are really the only way.

Religious Freedom In Every Sphere

Below is a letter I wrote on behalf of my dear friend and midwife, Brenda, who was arrested for exercising her faith as it applies to childbirth.  She has always felt it was her calling to assist women in birth.  She's a Traditional Christian (unlicensed) midwife, a fact that she has never hid.  In fact, she has openly advertised that fact, because there are those of us out there who are looking for just that--independent, religious centered birth on our own terms.  

We also started a petition on Brenda's behalf.  Even if home birth is not your thing, please sign it.  Even if you are not a Christian, please sign it.  At its core, it's not about home birth or theology.  It's about the essential right we all have to decide what we believe and how that is best lived out.  That is the right and responsibility of every individual (our "inalienable rights") and should not be infringed upon by the government.

SIGN HERE.

To Whom It May Concern:

            My name is Daja Gombojav.  I'm the mother of seven, all born at home.  In six of the seven labors I have been attended by Brenda Capps.  My husband, Gana, is seminary educated with a Master's Degree in theology from Fuller Theological Seminary.  We have been missionaries and pastors in Mongolia.

            When we found out we were expecting our first child we specifically searched out a Christian midwife.  We were thrilled to be introduced to Brenda Capps and to learn she practiced under the Religious Exemption Clause.  We have always viewed birth as not only a spiritual, but a religious experience.  Only in the rare cases of emergencies is it a "medical" experience. 

           This understanding of birth as primarily religious can be found to span many, if not most religious thought and dogmas.  In Judaism, "A midwife’s role, among other things, is to encourage a birthing mother to "let go" and allow herself to become a conduit for this great Force to flow through. Trust in the natural process of labor and in a woman’s body to birth normally and safely is the hallmark of midwifery care. Every culture and religion has their own words and metaphors to describe their reverence and awe of this process. But for Jewish midwives, this reverence stems from an understanding that birth is G‑dly in nature. Their faith in birth is inexorably bound with their faith in G‑d." (Source)

            In Catholicism, birth is understood to be participating in the same creative power that took Eve from Adam's side.  St. Hildegard of Bingen, theologian and Doctor of the Church explains, "When birth is approaching, the vessel in which the child is enclosed is torn, and then comes the eternal energy that took Eve from Adam's side, and is present and turns upside-down all the corners of the shelter in the woman's body.  All the structures of the woman's body rush toward this energy, receive it and open up to it.  They do so until the child emerges.  Afterwards, they return to their previous state.  As the child emerges, its soul too feels the eternal energy that sent it, and meanwhile it rejoices." (St. Hildegard of Bingen in Causes and Cures)

            In Charismatic/Pentecostal Christian traditions, the belief that Jesus reversed the curse, thus lifting the pain of childbirth is in agreement with Romans 14:23 which says that anything not from faith is sin.  In a now classic Christian childbirth text, Supernatural Childbirth, author Jackie Mize writes, "When I refer to supernatural childbirth, I’m talking strictly about being able to conceive and to have babies with a pregnancy free from nausea, morning sickness, pain, moodiness, depression and without fear of any kind; then going through the entire labor without pain, and through the delivery without stitches and anesthetic. I’m talking about using the Word of God to overcome, change and make things better." (Supernatural Childbirth, Jackie Mize)

           In Reformed Christian traditions, the understanding of birth being religious extends to conception and pregnancy also.  God is seen as completely Sovereign.  He alone opens and closes the womb.  "Each time a human baby is born, another image bearer of God is brought into the world, thereby making each birth a very spiritual event.  Birth may be a commonly-occurring experience, but that does not make it common, mundane, or insignificant. It is miraculous. Isn't that how God is sometimes? Even His own son's coming to earth seemed "insignificant." A baby born in a stable to a poor family is far from the regalia appropriate for our Messiah, the Son of God.  It almost seems like He chooses to allow Himself to be "hidden" in the most obvious of places." (AboveRubies)

            For our family, we are always striving to live fully integrated lives where our faith informs every aspect of our day-in-and-day-out.  This includes our family planning (or lack thereof), pregnancy, birth, post-partum and the way we raise our children.  Because this is our outlook on family, we believe that childbirth is an expression of our faith.  It is not a medical event that should be managed by men. It is an act of the Sovereign God. 

            When planning for our births a few things are essential: We want to give birth in an atmosphere of faith, peace, and love.  We don't invite anyone who will bring fear, control, or worry.  Everyone present must be in agreement with our objectives of a birth without pain, fear, or intervention.  I want someone who will encourage me to surrender to the Power that is eternal and available.

            This is why we have chosen Brenda to attend us in childbirth six times.  The role she fills is not medical, it is spiritual.  She acts as a sort of guide between a woman and the innate power she has at her disposal to give birth.  Had Brenda not been practicing her art the way she has been, we would have searched out another Christian direct entry midwife.  If we were unable to find one we would have chosen to birth unattended.  That's how strongly we feel about our children not being born into a medical environment--whether that be at the hospital or recreated at home by a caregiver who doesn't truly trust birth.

            We count ourselves extremely blessed to live in a country and state where women have the choice to manage their reproduction according to their own conscience and religion.  We realize that many places the government tries to intervene to tell families how, when and where their children can/should be born.  We pray that California is not headed down that road.  It will be to the detriment to all of us.

            We stand wholeheartedly with Brenda Capps and her practice under the Religious Exemption Clause. 

Sincerely,

Daja Gombojav

Brenda and my sixth baby

If you believe in the First Amendment, if you value your Religious Freedom, if you think that parents should decide for themselves how, where, and with whom they birth their babies, PLEASE sign the petition and make your voice heard.

(Linked to Fight Back Friday, Best Post Of The Week, Simply Natural Saturdays)

The most politically controversial thing I've ever done....

In 1977 my pregnant mother sat in a courtroom in Santa Cruz as a judge ruled whether or not her naturopathic doctor had the legal right to attend women in birth at home.  The courtroom was filled with pregnant women.

See, Dr. Helmut Schlosser and his wife Veronica (who was a midwife), had a growing and thriving practice, catching babies in the homes of their clients.  They had such beautiful rates of unmedicated natural births that women would seek them out at a rate that worried the medical establishment.  And so Dr. Schlosser was charged in court.

Was it legal?  Could women really have babies at home?  Is it safe to give birth and not be attended by a surgeon?

The judge ruled no.  A supposed victory for the OB/GYNs who had instigated the investigation and charges.

But the judge did leave one caveat.  If you were a client and were close to your due date and could not find another doctor to attend you at this short notice you could continue with Dr. Schlosser.

So, my mother never looked for another doctor.  She birthed at home in Dr. Schlosser's patented birth chair just the way she wanted.  She didn't need a judge to decide for her what was good and right for her and her baby.

It was a boy.  My older brother.

Seven months later she found out she was pregnant with me.

What was a mama to do?  The home birth she loved was now illegal.

Well, not everything that is legal is right and everything that is right is not necessarily legal.

She called Dr. Schlosser and Veronica again.  And she birthed me at home.  Just the way she wanted.  On her own terms, listening to her own intuition.

But that was in the 70's.  Surely things have changed?

Home birth is on the rise in the United States to the tune of 20% since 2004!  So one might (naively) assume that home birth is accepted as a normal choice some women make.

Fast forward to 2001.  I needed a midwife.  Through the referral of a friend I found one.  She was everything we were looking for.  She was experienced and knowledgeable, comforting and mothering.  She was a woman of faith both in God and in birth.  She was also unlicensed, a fact she let us know at our first visit.  But, a fact I already knew from the woman who referred me.

Did it bother me that she was not licensed to attend births?  Well, given my history--that I was born into Dr. Schlosser's illegal hands--no!  I was not bothered by the fact.  Other factors were more important to me.

Born in a loving home surrounded by loving people

My daughter was born healthy and peacefully at home.  A year later so was my son.  Eighteen months after that we had another home birth by a midwife who was not governmentally authorized to be there in Mongolia.  Then back in the states two years later a son.  Then two years later another son.  Then two years later a daughter.  Then almost three years later another son.  All born just the way we wanted.  At home.  On our terms, according to our faith, and consistent with our own consciences.  In all the births that happened on U.S. soil, our original unlicensed direct entry, traditional Christian midwife supported us.  She has become part of our family.  We love her.  She's like my children's extra grandma.

It turns out that not that much has changed since the 70's, however.  On November 15, armed agents of the California Medical Board rushed into her home and arrested her at gun point.  Her crime?  Attending home births.  She was charged with "practicing medicine without a license."

Let's get something straight from the get-go:

I have the right to be attended in childbirth by whomever I want so long as that person does not misrepresent herself/himself to me.  If I want to be attended by an OB, a chiropractor, a nurse, a midwife, my grandmother or a witch doctor that is MY CHOICE.

Does this make sense to anyone:

California has some of the loosest abortion laws in the country.  I could choose to abort my baby up to 24 weeks in utero (that's viable, people!) with absolutely no restriction and not necessarily attended by a doctor or surgeon (a nurse, physicians assistant or other trained person will do).  That is completely LEGAL.  But if I want to give birth to a full-term healthy baby outside of a hospital that's a no-no.  That might be risky.

Wait, what?!

What happened to all this CHOICE?  How can I have the legal right to NOT carry a child but not the legal right to decide WHERE and HOW that child can be born?  It's as if making the choice to have a baby is the last choice we get to make.  After that one choice the California Medical Board wants to make the rest of the choices for us.

We heard so much in the last election cycle about a war on women.  There was a lot of rhetoric and spin and political merry-making going on.  Well, this is it, girls.  THIS is a war on women.  It's a blatant attack on our choices!  It's an attack on every woman--whether you choose to birth in a hospital with an obstetrician or at birth center with a midwife or unattended--just you and your spouse.  It is our right to make these choices.  Our rights as women, our rights as parents.

Of all the political ranting I've done over the years, with all the rallies and protests I've attended, with all the votes I've cast, it turns out that perhaps the most political thing I've ever done is to give birth to my seven children in my bedroom instead of in a hospital room, attended by a traditional Christian midwife instead of a surgeon.

Midwife attended home birth as a act of civil disobedience.  Who would've thought it?

If you agree, if you value your freedom, if you want the freedom to choose home birth and midwifery, consider helping my midwife by donating to her legal defense fund.




I'm hosting a silent auction with all proceeds going to Brenda's defense fund.  We have everything from photography to handmade fashions and beautiful crafts.  Check it out and bid on something!  Justice For Brenda.  You can help a truly noble woman and a critical cause and do a little Christmas shopping!!!

Semantics

Israel (10): Mom, what's communism again?

Me: Israel?!

Israel:  I know you've told me, but I keep forgetting!

Me: It's a system of government and a philosophy that puts the common good as more important than the individual.  So, you don't have rights to your own property, may not get to choose your own religion, the money you make has to be equally shared among everyone.  So everyone is equal, trying to make everything in life fair.  Communist believe that if everyone has the same stuff and everything is fair then there will be no more conflict.

Israel: Oh yes!  I remember now.  Sorry.  I keep getting confused because it sounds just like Democrats.

And that is where I nearly choked with laughter!

Words (not) To Live By

Maybe this is a little rant.  Maybe it's a commentary on how ridiculous and unthinking we have become as a people.  At any rate, here's the thing, everyday when I get on Facebook or Pinterest people have "clever" little signs posted.  You know, those inspirational words to live by.  They might look nice--have a cool font and/or graphic.  Perhaps it is the visual appeal that makes people think that the words are actually wise.  (Hmmmmm, that's something to think about.  How easily we are deceived into thinking someone is right or wise simply because they are articulate or interesting.)

So, let's get something straight: Popular is not synonymous with wise.  Interesting is not the same as smart.  Good feelings are no substitute for right living.

What bugs me the most is when Christian people--who seriously ought to know better--post these things.  Where do we get our ideas?  From the Bible or from pop culture???  If we internalize any of these very flawed ideas, it is no wonder we reap a bunch of drama and turmoil!

Here in no particular order are ridiculous things friends have posted to Facebook or Pinterest:

Things don't just work sort of magically.  What in the world gave us this idea?  Everything that works--being it your job or your marriage or your relationship with your children is because there is a lot of blood, sweat and tears invested in it!  The philosophy above can really cause us to take no personal responsibility for the failures of our relationships.  What a passive and unhelpful way to live your life!  

Let me give it to you straight: Jesus has already come to earth and gone back to heaven.  Any expectation you have from another person for perfection is completely misplaced.  Whoever you marry, you marry a sinner.  And so do they.  

We live in a very odd point in history as far as relationships go.  In the past women were content to find a husband who would be faithful and provide an income.  Feelings of over-the-moon-love weren't necessarily even a requirement.  Sometimes love grew from the seeds of choice and faithfulness.  Men were content to find a wife who could tend a home well and would be his partner in having children.  "Chemistry" wasn't necessarily a requirement.  People often chose to love the one they married rather than the other way around. 

These days we expect to be with someone who is beautiful and "hot" to whom we are sexually attracted.  This person must be well-employed, but their job must not infringe on any of our plans.  They must not have any emotional baggage that might require us to be patient, forgiving and move any mountains.  They must be there when we need them and meet all our needs, without being too needy themselves.  We must have the same interests and hobbies and the same political views.  To boot, they must also agree theologically with us on every point.  This person will never make us cry, never cause us to swear and never doubt their love for us or ours for them.  In addition, there must be "timing" meaning that they must come into our lives in such a way that it is perfect for us to be together and neither of us will have to sacrifice anything that would cost us a moment of discomfort.  This person will be Christlike but not require that we become Christlike in return.

Can we get a little wake-up call?  This person does not exist.  Marriage is the union of two good forgivers who agree to do life together--even when it hurts and you second guess your choice.  Marriage is where you dig your heels in and make a daily choice to love--even when the other is being unlovable.  Marriage is when you admit you are unlovable at times, but the covenant of marriage allows for personal growth and healing along the way.

What makes me happy is to sit in my pajamas all day, eating chocolate gelatto and reading novels.  What makes me happy is not the best.  What is best is for me to daily lay down my life for my family.  And that will, in the end, make me happy.

Start with happiness and the world will be very unhappy indeed. Start with what is right and the world will become a much happier place.

"Sometimes the best thing you can do is not think...."  Seriously?  Too many people take the advice on this post-it note.  In fact, I think it's become some people's political platform.

Rather, how about we get the mind of Christ and use that mind to think God-thoughts!  Let this mind be in you that is also in Christ Jesus!  (Philippians 2:5) 

Again with the passivity!!!  As if we have no control whatsoever over what we think and feel.  But that's not what the Bible says!  2 Corinthians 10:5 says, "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."  You have a choice everyday, every minute of every day, what you allow to take up space in your thoughts and spirit.  Evict anything that doesn't obey Christ.

This one might take the cake!  How about respecting others enough to know that the world does not revolve around you and your feelings of happiness!  Respect yourself enough to do what is right--even when it hurts! Psalm 15, commit it to memory:

Lord, who may dwell in your sacred tent? Who may live on your holy mountain? The one whose walk is blameless, who does what is righteous, who speaks the truth from their heart; whose tongue utters no slander, who does no wrong to a neighbor, and casts no slur on others; who despises a vile person but honors those who fear the Lord; who keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind; who lends money to the poor without interest; who does not accept a bribe against the innocent. Whoever does these things will never be shaken.

Hebrews 12:4, "In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood."  Keep fighting.

This says that my commitment is contingent on your behavior.  Might be fine for a business arrangement, but this concept has no place in a Christian marriage.  We have to do what is right, regardless of whether those around us choose to.

OK, my last piece of advice is this: please!  For the sake of rational thought, stop posting things that are.....so.....unlovely.  

"Whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things."  Philippians 4:8

Random thoughts on the election and the state of the country....

Rich Mullins said, "I think the big problem is that, as Christians, we forgot that our identity is wrapped up in Christ and for a long time we bought into the illusion that the will of the masses would be more generous and more benevolent than the will of one dictator. But democracy isn't necessarily bad politics, its just bad math. A thousand corrupt minds are just as evil as one corrupt mind."

GK Chesterton said, "Now, I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics. I am still as much concerned as ever about the Battle of Armageddon; but I am not so much concerned about the General Election. As a babe I leapt up on my mother's knee at the mere mention of it. No; the vision is always solid and reliable. The vision is always a fact. It is the reality that is often a fraud."

My daughter Meg prayed, "God, thank You that we live in America and that we don't have a king. But, if we keep going the way we are going, we will have one. So, help us to change our ways so we can stay free and be a light to the world and a refuge to people around the world who need a safe place to be...."

Have mercy on us, O God, according to Your loving-kindness, according to the multitude of your tender mercies....

The post in which I let my lactivism show...

Have you seen this story?  Basically, a Houston mother was fired from her job because she wanted to use a back unused room at her work to pump breast milk for her baby at home.  She took her employer to court and the judge ruled that it was not discrimination, that employers are under no obligation to let a woman pump during her regularly scheduled work breaks.

Can you see the steam coming out of my ears?

Multi-tasking.
Working on the computer and cuddling Belgee.

We have this idea in our society that because a woman can decide not to breastfeed and use formula instead that she should make that choice.  Lactation is not seen as the inevitable conclusion to the biological rhythm of life.

The rhythm of life goes like this: a woman ovulates.  If she doesn't get pregnant, approximately fourteen days later she menstruates.  Approximately fourteen days later she ovulates again.  Repeat, repeat, repeat until she either gets pregnant or hits menopause.

Menstruating is the natural conclusion of the 28 day cycle.  It is her natural state.  She can choose, of course, to take medical means to interfere with that.  But, can you imagine an employer firing a woman because she's not on the pill.  (Unless her employer is a pimp.)  Would a judge rule in favor of an employer who didn't give a woman the time and appropriate place to change her tampon?  I think not.

Lactation is the natural and obvious conclusion to the cycle of ovulation, fertilization, implantation, gestation, and birth.  Lactation is simply what happens next.  It is how human mammals feed their babies.  A woman's body does that all on its own.  A woman can choose, of course, to take medical means to interfere with that.  But, should she be required to?

The judge in this case said that lactation was not pregnancy-related.  (Methinks this gentleman needs a biology lesson.)  As a result of this faulty understanding the judge ruled that firing a woman because she is pumping breast milk is not sexual discrimination.  Are you serious?  People get breaks to smoke, use the restroom, make personal calls, etc.  But, if you want to use your break to pump it's out of the question?  Of course it's sexual discrimination; only women lactate!

Have sling.  Will travel.

I can hear some of my readers saying that this Houston mother shouldn't have been in the workplace if she had a nursing baby.  Regardless of how I personally live my life (I stay home with my children and don't even leave the baby with a sitter), I cannot be too quick to judge another's situation.  Many women, for one reason or another, work. We don't live in a perfect world.  Ideally, I believe a woman should be home resting while on her period (red tent anyone?).  But our world doesn't ordinarily give women the space to do that either.

The fact that breastfeeding women are not protected under the law is ridiculous, in my opinion.  President Obama's health care law does address breastfeeding and requires employers to give new moms a break to nurse.  However, it doesn't protect women from being fired if they ask to pump!  There's a severe chink in this logic.  (The more I learn about the President's healthcare law, the angrier I get.  There's no room for following the dictates of your conscience, is there?!)


I think some nurse-ins are in order.  Who's with me?

Nighttime Parenting

When I first had Meg I read books about letting your baby cry it out and sleep in her own crib.  It was supposed to be "better" and make my life "easier."  Instead, it made me a nervous wreck.  The more I learned about my baby as an individual the more I felt uncomfortable with training her that way.  At that point I don't think I had ever heard the term "attachment parenting" and I had never read a book on it.  I just prayed and started following my own instincts.  Which meant that Meg spent most nights in our bed.


Little-by-little my parenting style evolved to full-blown co-sleeping, baby-wearing, extended-nursing earthy-crunchy momma.  You can call it old-school and primitive or you can call it progressive.  To me, though, it has been what has come naturally.


If I paid attention to all the experts I'd have to change my parenting style every other week.  There is always some new study, new author, new PhD that has the answer to all parenting woes.  Some new gadget or method is supposed to make us happier or smarter or better adjusted.  What I find amazing is that we think that as a society we are so much more evolved than the rest of the world.  We think that modern research trumps ancient wisdom.  But, that is not always the case.


At the moment a battle is raging in Milwaukee over bed sharing.  The city is on a campaign to raise awareness about how dangerous it is.  The county medical examiner is considering supporting legislation making bed-sharing illegal.  Apparently, Milwaukee has an extremely high rate of bed-sharing deaths.  So, to fight it they've developed the following propaganda marketing campaigns.

What these posters don't tell you is that in every single bed-sharing death reported the babies were not breastfed, but formula fed, something that co-sleeping and bed-sharing advocates have long pointed to as a factor when it comes to SIDS.  The difference is not that formula feeding mothers are inferior to breastfeeding mothers.  The difference is that the hormones released during nursing and the psychological bonding that occurs makes it nearly impossible for a mother to be unaware of her baby thereby rolling on her.  Breastfeeding is a component of safe sleep-sharing.

What these ads also don't tell you is that in most, if not all, of the cases in Milwaukee, drugs and/or alcohol were involved.  So, is it sleeping with a child that is dangerous or is it going to bed with a baby while you are drunk that is the problem?

Co-sleeping or bed-sharing, has shown in study after study to reduce the incidence of SIDS.  To try to pin SIDS on co-sleeping or bed-sharing is very short-sighted.  Remember that we used to call SIDS "crib death"?  Babies have suffered from SIDS when sleeping on their own in their own cribs.


Besides being a protective factor against SIDS, co-sleeping and bed-sharing is practically universal.  In almost all cultures, including ours, parents sleep with their babies.  It seems to me that the city of Milwaukee and others who decry the dangers of bed-sharing have not really thought this thing through.  Do we really want to vilify and make illegal something that is so common and natural rather than educating people about safe co-sleeping practices?  It would seem that this campaign puts a lot of good parents in opposition to the law.


The Mayor of Milwaukee defends these ads by making comparison to Third World countries.


"Some ZIP codes in Milwaukee have infant mortality rates higher than Third World countries. That’s unacceptable.  If the ads make some people uncomfortable, I guarantee it’s a lot less uncomfortable than having another baby die from co-sleeping,” a cause of death that is “so preventable."

The health commissioner, Bevan Baker, uses the same logic saying, “Is it shocking? Is it provocative? Yes.  But what is even more shocking and provocative is that 30 developed and underdeveloped countries have better [infant death] rates than Milwaukee.”

What is so ridiculous about this logic is that in so-called underdeveloped Third World countries parents, and even whole families, bed-share.  There isn't room in the house/apartment/yurt/hut for a crib.  Neither is there money for baby furniture.  If these places have lower SIDS rates than we do than clearly co-sleeping isn't the problem.


Nighttime Parenting

Me and Luc

When it all comes down, all of our "advancements" have in some ways robbed us of our instincts and common sense.  Nature points us to breastfeeding, not formula feeding.  (No offense to those who must formula feed for health, medical or personal reasons.)  Nature shows us that mothers who sleep with a baby have increased awareness of their surroundings and of their babies.  

Nursing while co-sleeping is an important facet of nighttime parenting.

Babies' sleep cycles (between "light" or REM sleep and deep sleep) are shorter than adults.  They startle themselves awake quite easily.  And unlike grown-ups, they can't just turn themselves over and go back to sleep.  They can't get up for a drink or water or a trip to the bathroom.  Babies often need to be parented back to sleep.  

Me and Belgee

If you train your child to sleep through the night thereby encouraging long deep sleep cycles you may, without knowing it, be stunting his or her brain development.  During REM sleep the brain is very active and blood flow greatly increases.  This is when the brain is actually LEARNING!  The brain is creating the nerve proteins that actually build the brain and the brain is processing everything seen and experienced during awake time.  During deep sleep, however, the brain does less and operates at a lower level--less blood flow, less growth.  Babies' brains grow to nearly 70% of their adult volume during the first two years of life.  So, these are ideal years for having shorter sleep cycles, awakening more often and "light" sleep.

Me and Captain

Also, by training your baby to sleep through the night you encourage longer periods of deep sleep, which may be great for mom and dad, but not so good for baby.  Babies' breathing is irregular and there are sometimes pauses.  However, babies startle easily and go in and out of REM sleep frequently.  If they enter into a deep sleep for too long it can increase their risk of SIDS.  Dr. Sears writes, "I believe that training babies to sleep too deeply, too long, too soon, while convenient to parents, is not in a baby's best biological interest. Sleep- training done before their cardiopulmonary control mechanisms are mature enough to handle prolonged deep sleep could be risky. Training a baby to fall asleep and stay asleep alone in his own room in his own crib may be the "modern" way, but for some infants sleeping lighter and for shorter stretches may be the safer way."

Imagine being cradled in a warm, safe and secure environment where there is constant soothing noises.  You're never hungry, never thirsty, and never alone.  That's a baby's life before birth.  Imagine suddenly being born--an emotional event in itself!--and then being put in a crib alone, in a room separate from your mother's sight, smell, touch.  It could be very disconcerting.  The nighttime could be a very long and lonely period.  Co-sleeping reduces infant anxiety.

When a mother and child sleep together, their breathing synchronizes.  Without perhaps knowing it, they touch each other in the night, adjust to one another and bring one another in and out of sleep patterns.

Co-sleeping also helps foster the breastfeeding relationship.  Baby has easy access to nursing, reducing the incidence of mom becoming engorged from too long a period without nursing or poor milk supply from not frequent enough nursing.  (Milk supply is basic economics--supply and demand.)

In addition to these benefits to baby, there are some real benefits for parents who co-sleep.  

First of all, you'll be much less sleep deprived.  I sleep quite well most nights, even with a six week old baby.  When we snuggle down for the night I know River will be waking up in a few hours.  I do not have to get up to retrieve him from another room or another bed.  I simply direct him to the breast if he needs help, (but once nursing is established babies rarely need help.  They have radar.  They know where mom and boob are.)  I drift right back to sleep.  And unless the baby is being particular fussy because of something like teething, Gana never has to wake up.  So, he's never dragging himself to work sleep deprived.

Being able to parent my child in the night, without having him cry himself to sleep reduces my anxiety, too.  Co-sleeping fosters harmony between mother and child.

Also, when a mother nurses a child to sleep and falls asleep herself, her body releases extra prolactin--keeping her in a positive emotional state and suppressing ovulation.   Nighttime parenting is an important part of ecological breastfeeding or natural child spacing.

Me and Luc

The point of this post is not to try to convince you to co-sleep if you don't want to.  If you are in doubt, research it for yourself and follow your own intuition.  You know how you sleep.  If you don't feel safe, don't do it.  The point is that co-sleeping is natural, universal, and safe when practiced by good parents who use their common sense and intuition.

If you are going to co-sleep:

1) Breastfeed

2) Don't smoke in the home or around the baby

3) Don't go to bed impaired by drugs or other substances

4) Keep the blankets and pillows away from the baby's face

A newborn baby has only three demands.  

They are warmth in the arms of its mother, 

food from her breasts, 

and security in the knowledge of her presence.   

Grantly Dick-Read

Obama 2012 Campaign Slogan

He needs a new rap.  I don't think that Hope and Change warm fuzzy stuff is going to work a second time around.  I suggest the following:

After all, that's what he's doing on his little tour saying how he's saved the economy and how things would be much worse without him.

Double Dip Recession, Rebounding Economy.  Potato, Potahto.

So, what you're saying is.....

When I can't talk sense, 

I talk metaphor. 

~John Philpot Curran

"It's now time for Congress to get back to our regularly scheduled programming, and that means jobs. While Washington has been consumed with averting a default, our nation's unemployment problem has been worsening. It's time for jobs to move back to the front burner. We can reset the debate, and that's what we intend to do. The jobs issue won't have to play second fiddle to the deficit issue anymore, and that's what the American people want. The public is glad to see we've moved to rein in our deficits, but now they will put the political premium on efforts to create jobs. As Democrats, that's our strong suit."--Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), quoted by Rush Limbaugh, Aug. 2

Their First Protest

Start 'em young. 

Back in March, my friend Kristina and I took the kids to the Federal Building in Los Angeles to protest Genetically Modified Foods, especially GMO foods that are unlabeled and being introduced to consumers without prior testing and without the consumer's knowledge.

Afterwards we ate lunch at an organic restaurant.  A very fun and enlightening day for the kids!

Even Saraa got in on the chanting action!

"No, no, GMOs!"

Meg and Anna

The cute and clever sign that Anna, Meg, and Alyssa made on their own!

What the boys did when it wasn't their turn to hold the sign.

We made a few new friends--
a mom with children equally as passionate about their food and the world!
Their converstation was like,
"You don't eat fast food either?!  Hey, Mom!  Guess what? 
They know who Michael Pollan is!!!"

Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another, "What! You too? I thought I was the only one."  --C.S. Lewis

"Let me tell you what's in your food!"

Something about old hippies still out for a cause that makes me smile.

The boys get a turn.

So super clever!

Our group of protesters took up most of the sidewalk outside the Federal Building.  But, on the grass was a different group of protesters.  These were a mixture of Arabic speaking immigrants protesting the U.S. government's role in the Middle East.  They all shouted out what country they were from--I heard Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Palestine, Libya--but no Israel.  When they all moved over to the sidewalk and started crowding us, I stopped calling out "Israel!" to my son quite so loudly.  :-)

Invoking Allah over a loud speaker.