A little help, please? Oh...nevermind.

After reading The Conflict and at my early parsing of TIME's attack on attachment parenting, I felt like I'd seriously turned the corner on thinking the U.S. should do more to support families. The TIME article seemed to me to be shameful deflection (strategic?) from the need for Americans to push for the first-world support other industrialized nations have for families, and I was particularly inspired by Chris Hayes speaking about this on his show.

But, I am uncertain again. While I could get over the fact that most of the mainstream commentary I've read reflects complete cluelessness of the fact that their corporate/capitalist task masters delight at them squabbling over how long to breastfeed and denigrating the value and importance of parenting in favor of work, work, work for the machine, I can't get over some people's willful ignorance and denial—even to the point of criticizing and turning away those who would help them, as illustrated by Whoopi Goldberg's comments on The View which were echoed by Elizabeth Hasselbeck. They griped about an initiative put forth in New York to support breastfeeding in hospitals, with Hasselbeck particularly complaining about being woken by lactation consultants reminder her she needed to breastfeed. Well, sorry, honey, you do have to feed them at least every two hours, there's really no way around it, except, uhm...formula. So that's why you want the formula because you can't be bothered to feed your infant in the middle of the night? You don't want to be bothered?

Indeed, on a recent New York Times Motherlode blog post, commenters reacted to the question of whether Americans really do want to encourage breastfeeding. One "Ivy League-educated, white collar professional who votes Democrat" located in DC said, "Honestly, I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to breastfeed my future children...I don't want to be chained to them and I want my partner to have the chance to bond with them as much as I do. I just wish it were more socially acceptable to say so." Willful ignorance. Even from the supposedly educated. What can you do?

I commented also, observing that I don't think Americans really do want to encourage breastfeeding. Every time I have a discussion with someone outside of an immediate circle of people I know breastfed (like from my natural birth class, etc.) it devolves into countless tales of how they wanted to so badly and yet couldn't and how they are tired of hearing about it and being made to feel guilty. It's as thought they can't understand the difference between appropriate education and public health messages versus their own personal experiences, and they refuse to hear, even in a very non-confrontational and abstract way, that there were things that could have been done differently that might have helped them succeed. These things aren't said to make them feel bad, but to demonstrate that it wasn't their fault and that women do need more education and support—and still they are angry and don't want to hear it. Then, we have voices like Goldberg and Hasselbeck slamming breastfeeding support initiatives. I am beginning to think people don't care and don't want help. Kind of like obesity...people are willfully ignorant and undisciplined. I can't imagine how breastfeeding advocates go on with the hopeless American public. What's troubling, though, is having a desire to move toward a national healthcare program, because it's the right thing to do and being disgusted at all the cost savings and health benefits lost that could be had if more women were committed to breastfeeding.

In a Facebook discussion with a mom-blogger "friend" I tried to cool the escalation concerning the TIME cover by noting the Chris Hayes story on helping out parents, you know, why can't we all get along and work together to get parents the support they need...only to have her say, "I totally agree. There are more pressing issues that should be delved into than the breastfeeding debate. But two words I feel should never be uttered in the same sentence are ‘politics’ and ‘parenting’ [emphasis mine]. Especially when certain figures are spouting off in books about something they have no idea. Take a step down and see what real middle-class parents go through, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No nannies, no cushy bank account, no advisers whispering in their ear or ghostwriters on the payroll." OK, OK, I get the anti-Ann Romney dig, but, how are we supposed to make change if we can't talk about parenting and politics together? Duh.

Children can't really speak up for themselves. It's up to us to do it and these people don't even want to do that? They'd rather just kvetch about how hard parenting is and how much they can't wait for "wine o'clock" and love to drink and swear! Oooh, you are so bad! YAWN.

So, people need help, but they don't want help. Or they want help in the form of free childcare, but don't bother them about breastfeeding? I don't get it.

It could easily be argued that supporting parents is the right thing to do and that things like protected jobs, subsidized parental leave, enhanced laws supporting breastfeeding and such are good for society overall because well-tended-to infants and children grow into better citizens. Although, not everyone thinks so, and people can't even really agree on what infants and small children need, even with humans having had a model for thousands of years, the expectations of which are coded into a baby's instinct—and into mothers if they aren't completely damaged or brainwashed by modern society.

Another commenter on the Motherlode post about Americans' view on breastfeeding noted of state supported benefits for new parents "...these are costly social policies. And they make sense for Sweden and France, because they have relatively low populations that are aging—low birth rates!—and they want desperately to ENCOURAGE people to have children. In the US, we have a huge population—overpopulation!—and huge immigration (much of it illegal)—and the last thing we need is "more babies." We have way, WAY too many babies as it is. Our policies reflect OUR reality—that we wish to (mildly) discourage childbearing, or at least keep it to one or two children per family." And, that, too resonated with me from a strictly short-term, pragmatic perspective.

As for me, I feel fortunate to have had the time to plan for a child and, with my husband, take matters into our own hands to give her the early childhood we wanted her to have, and that we think is important.

I read a really fascinating review of The Conflict just this morning that touches on an aspect of it I had not yet explored. One part of the review riffs on a 1980 article in which social critic Robert Crawford used the term “healthism” to refer to a new preoccupation of the middle class with personal health and wholesome lifestyles, drawing a connection between healthism and political disengagement. This is done as a parallel to the "naturalist parenting" (or attachment parenting) philosophy that The Conflict is critiquing. The review noted, "A sense of impotence—'I can’t change the world, but at least I can change myself,' as Crawford put it—fed the mania for vitamins, exercise, herbal supplements. And in turn, as people poured more energy into their own health, they had less time and inclination to invest in civic or political involvement. Since 1980 this outlook does not seem to have abated, to say the least, and for parents it applies doubly to their children. In shaping contemporary parenthood, this retreat to the private sphere has been at least as important as a retreat to nature."

And after reading that, the notion of "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world," however patronizing this can sometimes sound, came to mind. Although I think the reviewer might not be on board with this "retreat" into what we can control (more of a refocus, I would say), I do feel somewhat politically disengaged—and confused by my fellow countrymen and women about what the heck they want for their own children anyway. So why wouldn't I retreat (refocus) and just bolster my own child in the way I see fit? I don't feel a connection with many other Americans about raising children based on the majority of comments about attachment parenting and such, and these people don't seem to really want help, so, what can one do but strike out on their own?

The icing on the crappy store-bought, hydrogenated oil and corn syrup laden cake was an article in Mother Jones today (by a man) completely politicizing breastfeeding in the cheapest way, using a false support of this basic human function as a way to slam Mitt Romney. Again, I'm not exactly a Romney fan, but this is garbage.

So, I would tell women who are looking to breastfeed and otherwise parent on the continuum as much as possible—mamas, you are on your own. You and your, hopefully, conscious, enlightened and supportive husband. You're not going to get anything of value from this American society for a damn long time, if ever.

So, what did TIME have in mind?

As a mother and a graphic designer/visual artist, I was very interested in the controversial TIME magazine cover highlighting its feature on Dr. William Sears and the the philosophy he espouses—attachment parenting.

After my initial personal reaction, I thought I'd discuss the chosen cover image and its effectiveness from a communications standpoint.

First, the chosen cover:


Do you think TIME is aiming to portray what this mother is doing as good, or even normal?

Does the child look OK? Is he comfortable, relaxed, happy? (It should be noted that this is an actual mother and child, they are not models, and she actually does still breastfeed him. He is 3.)

In my view, the answers to all of these questions are NO.

The woman’s pose is somewhat defiant, though her stare is one of relative equanimity.

The child has to stand on a chair to reach her, rather than her coming to the child’s level.

Now, a contrasting cover shot that didn’t make the cut:


The child is in arms, eyes closed and the mother is seated.

She is non-combative, still with the look of calm on her face, but with her head tilted toward the child and her arms cradling him. He is in his own, peaceful, private world, unaware of the camera.

In spite of the child’s size, it’s far less jarring than the first photo. It probably still would have raised eyebrows in a culture where most don’t breastfeed past 6–12 months, but not as much as the chosen image.

My thoughts on the imagery and the public reaction:

In reading lots and lots of online comments on the cover—from people who did read the article, but mostly people who apparently did not read it (they didn’t know the mom and son were real, for example)—I found a range of reactions but they generally fell into some main categories.

Skeeved out

Many, many of the commenters felt this image of a preschool-age child breastfeeding was “gross, sick, repulsive and perverted” and expounded with comments accusing the mother of exploiting the child, saying that he is going to be made fun of when he’s older, saying this is going to make him “go gay,” and so on. Even as a proponent of breastfeeding for as long as is mutually agreeable to mother and child, I can understand how the average joe or jane citizen might find the image at least a little bit off-putting simply because the majority of Americans think breastfeeding is something for infants only and it’s not something they’re used to seeing. Still, I found many of the negative reactions to be needlessly angry and hostile. The jokes at the child’s expense were not funny to me

Pissed off, type A

Another sizable crop of reactions were defensive, likely focusing on the headline, “Are You Mom Enough?” Many women were offended by what they viewed as yet another endorsement of breastfeeding being pushed on them. The über-popular blogger Scary Mommy mocked up the cover expressing this, and her followers on Facebook mostly rallied in agreement. This is an interpretation I didn’t quite understand, admittedly not only because my own experience puts me in a very pro-breastfeeding place, but also because to me it seemed clear that TIME was not trying to present the practice depicted as something necessarily positive. The “Are You Mom Enough?” headline seemed to me to be sarcastic and when coupled with the assertion that “…attachment parenting drives some mothers to extremes…” it is made clearer that TIME was looking at this style of parenting with a critical eye, certainly not endorsing it wholesale (if at all).

Along with this sort of defensiveness, though to a lesser extent, was another, more predictable sort, complaining about the woman’s attractiveness and that she could not possibly be a breastfeeding mother and look like this. I’d say this might have been another strategy choice by TIME to inflict just a little pang of jealously among women, for not only are they competing in the area of “good mothering” but also in “hotness.”

Pissed off, type B

A smaller handful, mostly attachment parenting supporters, felt the cover was sensationalist for their own reasons: it not being representative of the reality of extended breastfeeding—which is usually considered to be breastfeeding for more than one year, but is not usually done quite so…shall we say…flagrantly as is depicted in the cover cover image. Indeed, one of the critical comments from a non-supporter of this kind of parenting snidely questioned whether this mom would pull her son aside for some breast milk after soccer practice if orange wedges weren’t good enough. Realistically, most people who breastfeed, still, at these older ages do it perhaps once or twice a day for bed time or quiet time alone at home.

Also the singular focus on breastfeeding for an article that was supposed to explore attachment parenting overall (of which breastfeeding is an important part, but only one of eight tenets) was puzzling to those who understand AP. This picture didn’t capture the spirit of attachment parenting that parents who practice identify with—mostly that it is very child-centered. (I think most people familiar with and supportive of attachment parenting would have preferred the second photo I show above.) Overall, it seemed to offend attachment parent proponents, though I did see one (and there could likely be more, but this is definitely a minority view) commenter that thought the cover was great in its defiance and her look of just daring someone to give her shit about how she chooses to raise her child.

Generally pissed off and fed up

Perhaps the most common response of all among those identifying as mothers was disgust at a media outlet once again “pitting women against each other” or “fueling the mommy wars.” These comments were often tagged on to those expressed by the previous A and B “pissed” versions, encompassing a range of secondary views on the matter, but generally saying “leave moms alone,” “we’ve had enough” and “we won’t play this game!”

Consensus?

So, what message did the cover convey? TIME skeeved out and pissed off a lot of people!

Obviously, it meant different things to different people—as images often do. But in this case, the meanings seemed particularly disparate.

If TIME sought to critique attachment parenting harshly, I would say it was somewhat effective conveying this with the cover, but not entirely. Many—moms especially—missed that point and were put on the defensive, thinking the question was straightforward and assuming they weren’t “Mom Enough” according to whatever this standard TIME was reporting on was.

If TIME was aiming to bring forth a better understanding of attachment parenting, the cover image was a huge fail, because it’s depicting something with many nuances in an extreme manner. It could be argued that TIME was trying to show one facet of attachment parenting—the so-called extremist—but I’m not sure that its audience is well-versed enough in the subtleties to actually understand that.

Some people chided TIME as a cheap rag scrambling for relevancy that has pulled stunts like this before, with a history of being provocative (Hitler as Man of the Year, 1938). Others reluctantly cheered its business savvy and marketing brilliance for stirring the pot and creating controversy to push sales, regardless of the quality of journalistic integrity.

I suppose it matters what your metric is—sales or clear messaging that gets your point across. Not knowing TIME’s aim (though I have my own suspicions) it’s not clear whether its message was conveyed, but if I had to call it, I’d say it’s a win in the attention grabbing/sales side but a lose in the clear messaging side—that much seems obvious.

When normal becomes notable

This week's issue of TIME magazine with its crazy, sensationalist cover of a camo-clad preschooler at the breast, features articles on "attachment parenting" and Dr. William Sears, who they say "has made parenthood more physically and emotionally demanding than ever before." (Great commentary about the visuals on KellyNaturally.com.)

Interesting, but my personal experience was that it was just not all that demanding to breastfeed, carry my baby around or hold her most of the day and sleep with her (what they're describing as 3 tenets of this philosophy—there are 8, actually...). In fact, to me, these things were very simply easier than the alternatives. That these practices are somehow new or revolutionary, or  in need of a scientific basis—some proof of their safety, benefit or efficacy—seems silly to me, also. These are things that human beings naturally do, instinctively, I believe, when they are in touch with their primal humanity and they have the liberty to do so.

Instead of positioning attachment parenting as a "thing," a philosophy with adherents and such, we should recognize it for what it is: normal human parenting. And we should recognize other practices for what they are: accommodating other things—be it parental preferences, corporate/capitalist culture, whatever. I won't even pass judgment and say there's anything wrong with such accommodations. But, let's not paint the normal human way to be as some new-fangled, cultish, out-there hippie trend with a Dr. as the "leader." It's how humans have lived for millennia.

I'm currently reading The Continuum Concept and learned from the TIME Sears feature that one of his early books was based on his reading of this book. It's a rather un-scientific book. There are no references. It's mostly the reflections of a writer, Jean Liedloff, who spent some time living with Stone Age Indians in the South American jungle. But it is very compelling. The book tells of revelations that led her to form a radically different view of what human nature really is, and challenged her Western, industrial preconceptions of how we should live—much of it dealing with how babies and children are handled (literally, handled, as in held in hands and in arms).

In her book, Liedloff observes of the treatment of infants in Western culture that "Babies have, indeed, become a sort of enemy to be vanquished by the mother. Crying must be ignored so as to show the baby who is boss, and a basic premise in the relationship is that every effort should be made to force the baby to conform to the mother's wishes. Displeasure, disapproval, or some other sign of withdrawal of love is shown when the baby's behavior causes 'work,' 'wastes' time, or is otherwise deemed inconvenient. The notion is that catering to the desires of a baby will 'spoil' him and going counter to them will serve to tame, or socialize, him. In reality the opposite effect is obtained in either case."

She explains that humans are evolutionarily programmed for certain expectations, noting that for millions of years newborn babies have been held close to their mothers from the moment of birth and that just because in recent history we've taken this to be optional (or inconvenient), doesn't change the millions of years of programming.

"The period immediately following birth is the most impressive part of life outside the mother's body. What a baby encounters is what he feels the nature of life to be....

...he has come prepared for the great leap from the womb to his place in arms...

What he has not come prepared for is a greater leap of any sort, let alone a leap into nothingness, non-life, a basket with cloth in it, or a plastic box without motion, sound, odor or the feel of life. The violent tearing apart of the mother-child continuum, so strongly established during the phases that took place in the womb may understandably result in depression for the mother, as well as agony for the infant.

Every nerve ending under his newly exposed skin craves the expected embrace, all his being, the character of all he is, leads to his being held in arms."

The TIME article says "Some parents subscribe to [Dr. Sears'] theory that attachment parenting...is the best way to raise confident, secure children. Others think Sears is an anti-feminist tyrant, or that his ideas are just totally unrealistic."But my experience (and those of other mothers I know) was that I really just did what came naturally to me in the early days, weeks and months of motherhood and it just happened to be in line with this stuff. The thing is, it worked. My child was healthy, she ate well and grew and grew. She slept well, curled up with me, and we were very close. Still are. And for me, of course, it was an adjustment, having a baby, but I never felt particularly sleep deprived (thanks to co-sleeping) and was relatively calm, thanks to the hormone flow and baby bonding.

Now, don't take this to be an implication that people who may not have done these things do not have healthy children or are not close to them—this seems to be a common response. I am only sharing my experience. I will observe, though, that I have seen many complaints of sleeplessness, frequent wakings and such, and about how difficult life with an infant is, among those who don't likely understand instinctual human parenting, and it seems they're having a harder time of it than I did.

In The Conflict, Elisabeth Badinter cites anthropologist Sarah Hrdy's work on maternal instinct. Badinter seeks to make some negative point about the tyranny of breastfeeding, but instead reveals the powerful chemical bonding that occurs between a mother and child during the earliest days of breastfeeding. Hrdy speaks of a "cascade of physiological consequences in the mother, suffusing her body with a sense of wellbeing...within moments of nursing the mother's cortisol levels subside; oxytocin courses through her veins. As if she were getting a masage, the mother's blood pressure drops, oxytocin suffuses her in a beatific calm...the mother is endocrinologically, sensually and neurologically transformed...it will be a long time before she is again emotionally and physiologically so at liberty to cut bait..." If a mother doesn't experience that, or is too weighed down by baggage about the  difficulties of breastfeeding or how it might be interfering with other (arguably less important) aspects of her life, she is not going to reap those same benefits as the mother who can get high on it, let go and float in that magical place of being with her child in such a special way.

None of this means that people who don't do these things aren't necessarily loving parents or aren't close to their children. It's just a vastly different experience. And many who haven't had that experience become very defensive when discussing it, and it seems they just don't get it. If you don't do the instinctual things, it's likely you wouldn't understand them. You're just not operating in that way on these kinds of things.

I've seen comments already from people regarding the TIME story that focus on defensive cries about how they tried to breastfeed and it didn't work and it reflects such a massive lack of understanding about breastfeeding, both culturally and biologically. For those who might stumble upon this blog and may be in search of quality information on the mechanics of breastfeeding, I highly recommend kellymom.com and for less on the mechanics, but more on social and cutlural matters, Ph.D. in Parenting has a lot to offer on this issue (and others).
I think it's odd that we've come to a place where what's normal has become something of note. In the way TIME—and mainstream folk in general nowadays—seem to consider Dr. Sears' advice and the "attachment parenting" movement, or philosophy, some extreme departure from sanity. I personally don't like to say I follow AP, really, because I don't think of my parenting as something from a book. Sure, I have learned things from books and books are great for reference, but the basics of eating, sleeping and being close, well, you shouldn't need a book to confirm those things. That we do says something about how far we as a society have drifted off the course. "Attachment parenting," if we must call it something, shouldn't need  explaining—it's the cribs, baby buckets and bottles that do.

On this 'Conflict' thing

My husband is great. He brought home this Marie Claire article (ripped from a gym mag) because he knew it would be right up my alley. I hadn't talked with him about the Badinter book which asserts that certain aspects of motherhood are oppressive and lower the status of women, but he knows how I feel about this stuff. I won't bother discussing too much of the overarching concepts, it's been done, and done well, already. One of the best discussions I've seen has been between Katie Allison Granju (of whom I'm not exactly a fan, but somewhat indifferent) and the notorious (to me) Hannah Rosin on Slate (it's a six-part thing, as of now). I'm just going to ramble a little about my personal thoughts and feelings on this thing.

I just have to say, I really, really don't care what other people do. I might used to have an axe to grind, but I am over that now. There have got to be little minor sparks of light that make people different and these things can just be more of those. What I do care about is when people sniff and snuff at the things I choose to do that are actually quite normal and suggest I am oppressed or brainwashed. I'm not. And I am certainly put off by the idea that as an "educated" woman, I have a responsibility to all of womankind to express my privilege and "liberation" in the manner prescribed by the leading feminist voices of the time, so as not to, you know, lower the status of women. Sorry, I'm more interested in the status of my daughter. Call me selfish.

I didn't even know about "attachment parenting" (AP) or that the things I would do quite naturally out of the box as a new mother were part of a philosophy. I did them mostly because they seemed like obvious choices (to me) and were easy (for me). Or, easier than the alternatives. (I recall a quick past post, Crunchy by Convenience...) Using formula and not being able to breastfeed just never even occurred to me. I don't remember my mom breastfeeding, though I know she did. I remember giving a baby I babysat bottles, but I guess I was kind of clueless about the formula versus breastmilk thing. I hate having to have a bunch of very specific supplies for things (I use wine bottle as a rolling pin and have minimal kitchen gadgets, for example, I like running because all you need is shoes, you get the idea) and I hate cleaning, so bottles, for me, would have been a nightmare. Easier to just whip out my breast as needed! It was no problem having to be with the baby all the time because I wanted to be with the baby all the time. I'd gone out partying for, like, at least 15 years before having a baby at 35, so I wasn't really itching for that. I was, you know, a grown up with a baby!

As far as co-sleeping, quite frankly, it was the best way I could actually get sleep while my kid was a baby and it rolled into an arrangement I'm quite comfortable with still to this day. I lay down with her and read my Kindle (or pass out) while I cuddle her and she falls asleep. Then after a while I break out and enjoy the rest of my night, if I'm not too tired. She can go to sleep on her own, of course, it comes with some argument when it must happen, because who wouldn't prefer to be cuddled to sleep? Oh right...my husband! Which is why not sleeping in bed with him when I don't feel like it doesn't matter. Sex and sleep are two very different things, which many co-sleeping critics just can't seem to get their heads around. And they must be very unimaginative. 

This is one of Badinter's gripes, that co-sleeping and such creates a rift between husband and wife. It doesn't have to, though. After skimming the article and homing in on Badinter's emphasis on the importance of not letting sex fall to the wayside after becoming a mother, I asked my husband if he thought breastfeeding and co-sleeping, or having a kid in general has affected our sex life. He said, "Well it's more vanilla..." I argued that the frequency was about the same (and better than most from statistics I read) and that I am not willing to pay a babysitter for us to go "swing" (haha). So we'll have to be like those 60-year-olds we saw on our honeymoon when we went to Cap D'Adge. But, I digress, quite frankly, it's not the childcare that saps my sex drive, its the vicissitudes of life and my own head. Nothing about the logistics of where people sleep.

And, more about husbands and AP. All I have seen from the culture, now that I am aware of it, has been really involved dads who babywear, et cetera, and are on-board with it all. My personal take is that early infancy is largely the domain of the mom, and for me there was little escaping that and I didn't want to. As my child started getting older, though, and certainly now, my husband plays a huge role, especially for someone who works full time outside of the home. He often spends whole Saturday afternoons with her while I read or do some other stuff I want to do and have "me" time.

As far as diapering, I did use disposable for about 9 months. I felt like I didn't want to be bothered with diapers til I had the mothering thing down. Then my baby got so deliciously fat from all the breastmilk she was drinking around the clock that the disposables didn't fit her chubby little legs right so I explored cloth and fell in love with the cute styles and that was it. It was no big deal to wash them either. Really, no big deal. 

I could go into the same boring details about making my own baby food. I mean, why shouldn't babies, when they're ready to eat, just eat mashed up versions of real food anyway? And how hard is it to mash up an avocado, a banana or a baked sweet potato? Uhm, not hard.

When it was time for my maternity leave to be over (16 weeks where I live, which I funded through acquired sick leave over the course of my 7 years with the organization), I decided she was too precious and I couldn't leave her. Thus began my lovely now nearly 5-year sabbatical from full-time office drudgery, including the hour commute, and my foray into independent consulting. I fear (fear is not the right word, but am not exactly chomping at the bit to...) going back to the grind one day, actually, as inevitable as it seems as my kid gets older and goes on her way through school.

So, I don't get the oppression. It's "oppressive" to have to work for a living, but most adults accept that.

My part-time hobby has been hate-reading (I've really got to stop, but...) and so I would actually love to read The Conflict, but I refuse to give this bitch any of my money, and it doesn't appear to be in the library system, yet. I've purchased other books of people I don't particularly care for, but I can't do it for this one. As Granju points out in her Slate posts, Badinter is a billionaire executive of a PR company representing some of the biggest formula interests out there. And while I am not as much a formula/big business hater as some, I do think they push the envelope when it comes to being the ones who truly pressure women, so it is more than a little disingenuous for Badinter to come out with these high-minded views about pressure on mothers today.

It seems to me the AP contingent is pretty limited and it's still looked on as "funny" (or quaint, or "isn't she a cute little hippie) to do a lot of the things we do, like extended breastfeeding especially and the co-sleeping. So I would hardly say there's this huge pressure. Also, most moms, whether they want to or not, do go back to work after six months probably at the longest. I'm the one that feels a little like the freakish weirdo here—not that I don't secretly like that a little bit!

On a broader scale policy level (because I guess I just do have to go there) I think that denying women's biology—we have babies, we lactate, most of us actually want to be with the babies for at least a good number of months probably beyond six when they're first born—and forcing them into the mold of maleness in the name of equality is not the answer. Setting up state-run creches, having moms strap machines to their breasts while they're working, or manufacturing faux milk so they can work (work, work, work—how some idolize work) seems all like trying to jam square pegs in round holes to me. I think a truly progressive society allows for different types of people to contribute and does best to be innovative in coming up with ways to enhance what people naturally want to do instead of patchworking or slapping band-aids on reality to make a woman match up perfectly with a man.

What I learned from my long European vacation with a one-year old

Last month we took a long trip to France by way of Belgium, my husband, my one-year old, and I. Oddly enough, I have so many happy memories from the trip, but during our 17 days of travel, there were many times I wanted to yell or wanted to cry—and did.

Our friends and family thought we were crazy for even trying, although some expressed admiration. The fact is, it is a challenge to travel to a foreign country with a baby or toddler, even if it is a Western European, industrialized country with most of the comforts of home readily available. You still are in unfamiliar territory, the rooms aren't childproof, you don't get the breaks you might get at home when the child can just kind of safely play on their own for a bit. You want to make the most of the trip, go on outings, see some sites, but the baby wants to be a baby and do the stuff she usually does. You worry about the baby, but the baby is fine. In fact, in my case, it was really me who had the most melt downs.

The biggest thing I want to remember for next time, which applies to travel in general, not just travel with children, is to let go. My character flaw of "control freak" is a bad mix with travel. You will get lost in a 800-year-old cities with Rick Steves' sketched out maps. There will be long lines. If you don't know the language, you will face some awkward moments and have to make an effort to communicate sometimes when you don't want to. Even though I have come to this conclusion before after trips, I never seem to remember to live by the rule of "letting go" when I go on the next trip. I just can't emphasize this enough.

It would have been so much better if I had been able to embrace my lack of control over the outside world and better control my own emotions. It would even have given me a window on my child's world, perhaps. When you travel to a foreign country, everything is new and different, you are out of your element, and you can't control any of it. Welcome to the world of your baby! How cool is that? If only I would have realized it at the time—that I could get a better understanding of what my daughter might be going through at this time of her life by embracing the challenges of travel instead of just getting frustrated!

A really positive thing the trip brought to light was how there are alot of things we are doing right as parents. Three major tenets of attachment parenting—breastfeeding, baby-wearing and co-sleeping—proved to be very convenient and helpful practices while traveling.

I can't imagine how one would make a trip like this without breastfeeding a child this age. It provided food for her whenever she was hungry. Sometimes, when you're on the go, its not easy to get food suitable for a one-year-old on demand. But, she is always happy to get the breast. In addition to providing nutrients, it provided comfort for her on the go as well. As our little family made our way through bustling streets of Brussels and Paris, and the promenades of Cannes, Nice, Antibes, Avignon, Arles and Nimes—with new sights and sounds whirling all around us—the baby could nuzzle in close for a little milk when it all became too much.

Carrying my baby in the Ergo carrier was a better choice for me than using a stroller—even with my little one weighing in at 26 lbs. I must admit, I did enjoy the couple times we used the stroller, but I found it to be more of a hassle than a help as we negotiated our way via trains, narrow crowded sidewalks and bumble cobble-stone streets. She was raised more as a carried baby than a stroller baby, also, so she preferred the carrier most of the time. It was nice because when you are on the move, especially in busy cities like Paris, there are lots of people on the street, it can be crowded in some places and hard to maneuver the stroller. Also, being low to the ground while bodies shuffle by all around is probably more disconcerting to a baby than being held close to their mama up at chest level. Here, they are more a part of it all, a part of your world, and can feel so much more secure. She was even able to nap on the go in the carrier. We went about our business throughout the day and she fell asleep when she was tired, comfortable in her Ergo close to mama.

That being said, it was a little tiring walking for four or more hours a day carrying 26 lbs. You really need to be in shape to go on a trip like this with a baby or toddler. In addition to carrying her, I had to be ready to chase her! I think my commitment to working out paid off by providing me with helpful strength and stamina. I don't regret the choice I often made, when faced with a time crunch, to work out instead of do my French lesson. The workouts were more helpful!

Finally, co-sleeping, even in the transitional way we currently do it, makes sleeping arrangements easier to handle when you're traveling. If you're already used to sleeping with your baby, it won't come as that much of an inconvenience when you're forced to do it on vacation. Some hotels offer cribs, many smaller or budget ones don't. And, many babies are not likely to easily fall asleep in an unfamiliar crib in an unfamiliar room. How much cozier is it to curl up with mom and dad in their bed and feel safe and secure by their side?

Did we give up sex, with the co-sleeping? No way! Of course, if we were traveling just as a couple, it would have been easier to get romantic and no doubt we would have been more active in this arena. But, as with home life, a little creativity and timing allowed us to enjoy some breaks for sex. When a child is this young, they can sleep in one corner of the bed while mom and dad do their thing in another corner or on the floor. You get the idea.

OK, on to things we can get real clear about. Here are my overall tips for traveling with a toddler:

1. Take overnight flights, if possible—My child slept most of the plane ride over. We are lucky. She is a good sleeper who can sleep wherever as long as she's tired and mama is close.

2. Have new toys on hand for the plane and train rides—We got about $30 worth of new stuff for her that was compact enough to fit in a back pack with other carry on items. I also brought some stickers and cool stuff that I probably wouldn't let her play with unsupervised on her own (magnadoodle, stickers with beads that could be a choke hazard) but on my lap on the plane they were fine and oh so cool to her.

3. Breastfeed! But pack snacks—It is so awesome and easy to be able to just whip out your boob and make your kid happy. Bananas and crackers and stuff help, too, but nothing beats the boob in a pinch.

4. Carry your baby—A stroller can come in handy, sure, but I found our Ergo carrier to be indispensible. If I had to choose between stroller or carrier, I'd choose the carrier.

5. Co-sleep—You don't need to worry if the hotel has a crib, the baby will sleep more easily in an unfamiliar place with mom and dad close by. This one is more optional, I guess, for the sleep-trainers out there and those who are really cranky about getting lots of uninterrupted sleep, but for me, it was really good and made me glad we are transitional, semi-co-sleepers.

6. Dine at outdoor cafes or have picnics when you can—Mom and Dad can take turns rambling around with the baby so they don't get too cooped up in the highchair (which aren't always available) or on your lap—especially active walkers. European meals tend to take a long time, so it's nice to be able to let the baby take a stroll and blow off some steam so they don't fuss and go crazy at the restaurant.

7. Take your baby to playgrounds and parks—It's a family vacation. They're part of the family. Do stuff they like!

And of course, the unquantifiable—let go! Don't be upset if things don't go as planned. Be flexible. Embrace chance. Try to take it as an opportunity to see the world through a different perspective. And have fun. As hard as it may be traveling with a young toddler, the memories will so precious.

Coming soon: Notes from Seattle--Taking a One-Year-Old to a Music Festival

Don’t buy crib company spin on recall—babies are OK in bed

Crib manufacturer Simplicity, recently tried to spin news about a crib recall to take a jab at co-sleeping—a healthy and safe practice done by millions of families around the world every night, and done in our house.

We use an Arm’s Reach Co-sleeper next to our bed, and also have a crib in a separate room for her (maybe someday) but in reality, our baby ends up in bed with us most nights after her first waking. I usually pick her up out of the co-sleeper and place her next to me to nurse lying down and we both fall asleep. It’s a wonderful feeling and it’s just so easy. Sometimes I will lean over the co-sleeper and nurse her there, but honestly, it's so much more comfortable to have her right by my side. I can’t imagine how parents who have their babies sleeping in another room manage when they wake at night and cry out for them, which most babies just naturally do when they are very young. It’s much more tiring, I think, to have to get out of bed and go to the crying baby than to be gently woken by the baby’s persistent stirring and then be able to tend to her before she gets worked up.

According to Attachment Parenting International (API), there are many benefits to co-sleeping. Co-sleeping helps babies regulate some of their bodies’ functions. The API website cites studies showing that parents being so close by may help the infant’s immature nervous system learn to self-regulate during sleep and that it may also help prevent SIDS by preventing the infant from entering into sleep states that are too deep.

Babies get more care with the co-sleeping arrangement, as well. Co-sleeping increases breastfeeding, and in addition to the known benefits of breast milk itself, the act of sucking increases oxygen flow, which is beneficial for both growth and immune functions.
Long-term benefits include higher self-esteem, less discomfort about physical contact and affection as adults and general improved adjustment to life. Another study showed co-sleeping children received higher evaluations from their teachers than did solitary sleeping children. Furthermore, a large, cross-cultural study conducted on five different ethnic groups in large U.S. cities found that, across all groups, co-sleepers exhibited a general feeling of satisfaction with life.

Some critics say children will never want to leave the bed, but according to API, many co-sleeping parents report that their children become willing to leave, with little or no persuasion, on their own around age two or three, as they mature physically, emotionally and cognitively.

With regard to safety, the API site explains that existing studies do not prove that co-sleeping is inherently hazardous. Rather, certain characteristics of the sleeping environment that can contribute to danger—smoking, drugs, alcohol, and unsuitable bedding, for example. Basically, you have to actually pay attention and be aware of your baby, even through the night, rather than setting her aside "safely" (or not) in her separate space.

One of the biggest problems with the perception of co-sleeping probably stems from a cultural bias. America's emphasis on independence, technology, and consumerism, as well as parents’ needs for time and privacy, may as contribute to the bias against co-sleeping.

Simplicity, the company that manufactured the recalled cribs, played on this bias in their statement about the recall. Seemingly trying to temper the bad news about their cribs, they called upon “child advocate” Nancy A. Cowles to express her concern that, “the recall could lead parents to let their children sleep in less safe environments, such in the parents’ bed.” Riiiiiight.

This statement comes straight from the crib company’s press release, but at least most news outlets had the sense not to use the following bit of misinformation on co-sleeping the company slipped in: "According to First Candle, a leading promoter of infant health, infants who sleep in an adult bed with their parents are up to 40 times more likely to die through suffocation or other means than infants who sleep in a crib," the company president is quoted. "Parents need to know that babies are safest in a separate sleeping space designed for them." Mmmm-kay.

So why do the crib makers try to scare parents into thinking their babies aren’t safe in bed with them? To sell cribs, of course. Yay, America!

I don't have anything against cribs, and some day we may even use ours. What I do have something against is misinformation being used to scare parents into thinking they have to buy and use certain products, especially in the wake of news of problems with these products.

Looking into the recall and into facts about co-sleeping did prompt me to do a check of how I arranged my baby's bedding, both in the sleeper and in our bed (in addition to checking our crib). The API site notes the following basic guidelines: infants should sleep on firm surfaces, clean surfaces, in the absence of smoke, under light a blanket; their heads should never be covered; the bed should not have any stuffed animals or pillows around the infant; and the infant should never be placed to sleep on top of a pillow. Sheepskins or other fluffy material and especially beanbag mattresses should never be used.