City Planning and Collective Health

Dear Municipalities and City Planners Everywhere,

As you, no doubt, are aware, the American Medical Association has recently decided to classify obesity, a condition which affects a large and ever increasing segment of the population (approximately 35.7% of adults per the CDC), as a disease. As the vocabulary of being fat in america changes from a health risk or condition, a state or a symptom to a disease, there are a few different ways this can go. One way, the sadly most likely way, is that anyone with a BMI of over 30 gets further stigmatized and hounded for every little decision they make. The other way is that useful policy changes open up the door to treatment options previously unavailable, increase access to the necessary tools for combating the myriad underlying causes of obesity, and, possibly most importantly, a culture of fat shaming begins to trend to a culture of challenge in which an obese person's healthcare professional takes the time to talk to him or her about their predicament and look for the underlying factors potentially complicating reaching or maintaining a "healthier weight*."

Of course, as a municipality/city planner, this has nothing to do with you, right? Wrong.

As a woman who prefers to walk when possible, I am frequently disappointed, disheartened, and disturbed that in many areas that really should be pedestrian-traffic friendly- shopping areas, hotel and food districts, neighborhoods near busy streets- there is no safe means of walking from one place to the next. Sidewalks end before the street, six lane roads lack crosswalks, and pedestrians can either Frogger it across the road (maybe at the stoplight, maybe not- after all, the crosswalkless stoplight also has the turn lanes with which to contend).

Poor municipal planning endangers the people trying to stay active by choosing to walk instead of drive. It also creates a defeatist mentality wherein people who can walk assume that they can't because they don't feel they can trust that the entire way will be safe. So, instead of walking a mile to the post office, unsure if they'll end up dodging cars or not, they hop in the car, pollute the environment, and spend what could be active minutes sitting. But that mentality seeps into daily lives until two block trips are buckle up and go adventures for no reason other than having been trained to think that way.

So let's work on this. Sidewalks. Crosswalks. Ad campaigns to remind people that you've made it safe for pedestrian traffic. Work with your chamber of commerce to promote outdoor walking activities featuring local businesses.  Look at the cities with great public transportation and pedestrian infrastructure and emulate them. Be part of the solution.

Let's get out there and remove one more obstacle to health, because I don't think they're going to really let anyone call in fat to work or take their 10 weeks of  family medical leave to go to fat camp.

I don't agree that obesity is a disease, but if we're going to call it that, then we need to take the initiative as a society to fix it. City planners aren't responsible for the health of individuals, I'm not saying they are, I'm saying municipalities have the opportunity to do something tangible to help.

Sincerely,
An Obese Woman Who Prefers to Walk

*Healthy weight is an altogether complicated notion, because there really is such a thing as a healthy person who is also obese, well, there was until this week. Largeness does not necessarily mean high blood pressure, impaired mobility, cholesterol and blood sugar problems, and the conflation of these ideas is a huge part of the problem with the way in which our culture approaches health conversations.

Color Me Flustered

So, I designed a TARDISy fabric on Spoonflower because I am a big fan of all things TARDIS for my home. Doctor Who, and the lovable TARDIS are probably some of the best things ever developed by the BBC (which owns all of the concepts, I'm just a fan artist who loves creating things that make people's lives a little geekier).

But, here's the problem, I have this The Doctor's Ditsy fabric which I love. It's dark and full of stars, and looks cute as just about everything. My friend over at Brooke Van Gory Designs, who makes super spiffy custom bags, clutches, diaper bags, wet bags, and sundries,  even turned it into a clutch for a really happy owner, but that's when it was brought to my attention that for some prints, Spoonflower's  Old Color Profile and the New Color Profile DO NOT TRANSFER WELL.

I never dreamed that such a simple design with so few colors would have been drastically affected in this manner, but nonetheless, check it out.

The OLD COLOR PROFILE

THE NEW COLOR PROFILE

See the difference? Yep, the background. The one printed in the OLD COLOR PROFILE is a nice strong dark blue, the one printed in the NEW COLOR PROFILE printed up a funky dusty purple color.

So, long story short, I'm working with Spoonflower to find the best replacement colors, and until that date, always pick the OLD COLOR PROFILE until it's all straightened out. 

Dress Code Distress

My daughter's school has a rule that grates on my nerves.
The students aren't allowed to dye their hair any unnatural colors.

NO

Her school even prohibited a girl from attending her after-the-end-of-the-school-year graduation event because she had blue hair. Interestingly, this rule wasn't enforced equally at that event, allowing another girl with pink streaks to participate. Then again, that other girl was popular, and the blue haired girl... not so much.
So why does it bother me?
It bothers me because I don't feel it is the place of any school board or administrative staff to tell me or my kid what color her hair can be. It bothers me because it smacks of rule making for the point of controlling someone, rather than rule making in order to ensure the health, safety, or education of the students.
I have similar problems with other points in the dress code, but this one specifically makes my brain hurt.

At the beginning of the school year, the assistant principal explained in an orientation assembly that it would be a distraction, then went on to joke that we wouldn't want to see him with green hair, and so it's only fair. I had to bite my tongue, because frankly, green might be an improvement.

Personal attacks aside, honestly, I don't understand how the color of any child's hair is going to detract from the learning environment any more than an interesting bow or complicated braiding style or up-do might.  The children are allowed to wear shirts of whatever color, even ones with pictures and writing.  One would think these things are more distracting.

Further, if the color of a student's *anything* is going to detract from the learning environment, perhaps one needs to address the real problem. If what is going on in the classroom is less engaging than the hair color little Melanie or Stanley have been rocking for a week, then the kids wouldn't be learning, even if Melanie kept her ginger and Stanley kept his brown.

Rules for the sake of squashing creativity have no place in schools, and I'm embarrassed that our local schools enjoy creating rules for the sake of exercising power.

What do you think, would purple hair make it impossible for learning to take place?

ABC Fail.

Having written earlier to ABC, via their contact form, to inquire as to why V is not available for streaming, I was directed to read a blurb which they have posted on their site in which they say that they're sorry that they are unable to offer said content online via ABC.com or Hulu anymore and wish they could.

Let me quote the email I recieved.
"Thank you for your feedback regarding the ABC TV network show, “V.”

For more information on watching full episodes, please read the notes on ABC.com:

Go to ABC.com
Go to the top of the screen and click on SHOWS
Go down the page to “V”
Click on that show.
Go down the page to the “V Extras Section”
Read the article titled:  “A note from ABC.com” 

So, I just sent this reply. It's possibly a bit more hostile than it should be.

"In writing to ask why there were no episodes available for watching online I received a response to read the note from ABC on the V site.
I have read said note, and now I ask, again, why are they not available?
It is disheartening that other content is available, but the meaningful content is not, and lack of a public reason for this decision reflect a disdain and disrespect for the loyal viewers.
I am very disappointed."

I don't know how to say this without anger.
I get that three and four years ago, I wouldn't have been able to watch any shows online, and the notion of not being able to stream television episodes the next day would have seemed like the farthest thing from an actual irritation.  I get that this is, in the grand scheme of things, not a big deal.
But to me, it is important.  It's important because I can watch bad low budget programming like "The Bachelor," on their site, or any of the increasingly sexually charged medical dramas like Grey's Anatomy or The Practice on their website, but programming which challenges us to ask questions about the soul, humanity, and what "the greater good" actually means, get relegated to "after school special" status in that you catch it or not, but can't expect to have a second chance.

I'm insulted that they gave us the classic deflection response.  We ask why? They say "Because." Maybe I'm overreacting, but I don't like to treated like someone who isn't smart enough to know that she hasn't received an answer.

So, I am up in the air as to whether or not I will watch the rest of the series. If I can't go back and catch what I missed, I don't see a point.  I'm the type who will wait and watch online or at a re-airing if I miss the first 15 minutes, because I want to understand what is going on and I respect the writers' and directors' work enough to want to enjoy the bits and pieces of foreshadowing and excellent storytelling they've put together.  No, reading a synopsis isn't enough, nor is trying to fill in the blanks and move on.

I don't want to say "I won't watch it anymore because it's not available on the internet" because I want the show to succeed.  But I don't see myself watching it anymore because I won't be able to fill in the blanks and at that point, a serial show with this much detail and subtlety loses much of it's appeal, whereas an episodic series wouldn't suffer so greatly by the break in storyline. I am not going to say that I won't watch it.

But I will say that I'm not going to watch anything else on ABC. Sure, I like to catch Desperate Housewives. Yes, I adore Nathan Fillion and love watching Castle. I also enjoy some medical drama, even though they dramatize pregnancy and birth and further contribute to the notion that these are life threatening conditions which helps create the environment in which women find it acceptable that 1 in 3 births in the United States occurs via cesarean section.

I won't be watching the Oscars.

Here's what I will be doing instead- I will be watching their competing networks and learning to like programming I can catch up on, delivered by networks which don't treat me like a 2 year old.

So Angry

I have been taking Flintstones Plus Iron vitamins for the last 27 years.  As my iron levels run low, even on a supplement, and most vitamins containing iron make me really sick to my stomach, I've found it's pretty much the only one I can take without becoming ill.  Of course, I couldn't take their Complete vitamin, because Flintstones Complete used Aspartame as a sweetener, and seeing as aspartame is a vile toxin to which I am highly sensitive, to the point of nearly instant migraines upon exposure, violent vomiting, and then diarrhea, I avoid the stuff like the plague.  
Sadly, today when I realized I was out of vitamins we ran to the store, I grabbed my trusty dark pink box of Flintstones, bought them, went home, and quickly popped one in my mouth. As I was breaking down the box while chewing I thought, "man, that tastes wrong."  And I was right. It was wrong.
It was still my once trusty Flintstones Plus Iron, but alas, they've ADDED ASPARTAME.
That's right, in 2011, fully aware of the toxicity of Aspartame, and having ready access to information showing that the information used to get it through FDA regulation some 30 years ago was fraudulent, Bayer chose to add Aspartame to a product.  Not just any product, but one that customers purchased specifically because it did not contain Aspartame. Maybe the three or four people I've had conversations about it's lack of Aspartame being a reason for buying it (in the past) and I are the only ones, but I figure, if I've actually had this conversation with strangers in the store, then there were probably other people out there with the same motivations.
So angry.
So Bayer, I just want you to know that I've lost my trust in you.  You basically just tried to poison me with a chemical I absolutely can't have, and one which could prove seriously damaging those living with Phenylketonuria.   Sure, you printed a warning on the product's back, but the fact is, after years of buying the same product in the same packaging, people quit reading the ingredient list.  Most companies would have had the good graces to at least change the packaging's color.
As I said, I've lost my trust in you.  And it goes farther than just your Flintstones Vitamins.  I don't trust your asprin, becuase you've shown that you change your formulation without properly warning your consumers. I don't trust anything you make and sell. 
I'm angry. 
I'm also looking for safe and healthy alternatives, because you, Bayer, no longer make my "safe and healthy" shortlist.

Questionable Service

I used to be a waitress.
I was, I like to think, a good waitress. I made the occasional mistake, annoyed the occasional customer, but the mistake I ran into last night,which seems to be the most common one, I made a point of not making, so no one is getting sympathy from me on this one. Especially considering how slow business was while were there.
Drinks.
At a table of 6, you'd think at some point, the waitress would check back to see how the food was and whether or not anyone needed a refil. But no, we were there nearly two hours of eating and not a single glass of water was refilled. No one was asked if they'd like another glass of wine. No one was asked if everything was good, but I was mistly irritated about the water, since I go through a lot of water and left the dining establishment full yet parched.
Had I been paying, it would have affected the tip. My brother was paying, so I have no idea. Nonetheless, it's not that hard to offer more water to a table of people eating salty restaurant food.

Eyes and Es

Sometimes I get up on my soapbox. This is one of those times. Spouse frequently asks me to spell words with an I and an e in them. I usually say something like "don't you remember the I and e mneumonic device?" Then he's all "I don't have time for a spelling rhyme." Which is funny, because he has the time to ask me. So here it is, the rhyme to remember whether e or I comes first.
"I before E, except after C, or when sounding like A as in neighbor or Weigh."
Doint it any other way, well, that'd be *weird*- yeah, weird you just need to remember.

Oh noes!

So it turns out I've been emailing some of my blog posts for the last couple weeks, okay, nearly all of them, and I just got them all returned undeliverable.
(yeah, I didn't have the presence of mind to check since I didn't expect a ton of replies) so um... yeah. they got eaten.
Now it's off to try to determine just why they got eaten.

Things that irritate me.

In both my writing and my speech, I frequently make grammatical errors.
I do not believe that perfect grammar should necessarily be anyone's goal, but there are a few things I keep hearing misused.  So please, STOP IT.

Item One

To WHOM it may concern:
There is a difference between who and whom.  I promise.
Example.

WRONG Who did you give it to?
RIGHT To whom did you give it?

Whom is an object, who is a subject. Not that hard to remember.
When in doubt, answer the question in the masculine. If you would answer "him" then you should be saying "whom," and if you would answer "he," you should be saying "who."

As above, you probably gave it to "him." If you gave it to "he," this blog post should be meant for you, but there are a lot of things you need to brush up on before worrying about who and whom.


Item Two

I could care less.

Really? You could?  Well then that means you care.
Repeat after me, "I couldn't care less."

Item Three

You don't got it.
You have it.

WRONG What's he got in his mouth?
RIGHT What does he have in his mouth?

There are times when "got" is appropriate.
Example:

Lex Luther "Where did you get that spandex suit anyway?"
Superman "I got it from Santa."
Lex Luther "You still believe in Santa?"
Superman "Yeah, I fly up to visit him weekly, just because you never got anything from him doesn't mean he's not real.
Lex Luther "Have you been drinking the kryptonite kool-aid?"
Superman "What does the kool-aid have in it?"
Lex Luther "I forgot."

Now tell me what people say that bothers you, then go forth in confidence without saying silly things which make you sound like the previous president.

That Darn TV

The other day I was asked how much television my toddler watches.
The short answer? He loves to turn the TV on, change the channels, play with the volume, and wander off.  The TV is on a lot, but he doesn't really watch it.
I joked that it was okay since he probably shouldn't be watching Caprica with me.
What I didn't realize that tonight, after looking forward to watching Caprica with a toddler climbing all over me, that it would, in fact, have been suddenly cancelled, mid-season.
Apparently SyFy felt that well written science fiction wasn't worth continued support on the basis that ratings were down.
I understand that ratings determine how much advertisers are willing to pay for air time during a particular program, however, might not a better solution have been to switch it to a time slot where it might have performed better than a Tuesday night?  It did well enough on Friday nights for them to bring it back this fall, so why bury it on Tuesdays and then cancel the show outright when the time slot and the audience don't perfectly mesh.
Don't even get me started on the fact that *my* viewing choices aren't reflected in ratings, nor are most of yours.  Don't get me started on the fact that great shows are regularly cancelled because the people whose viewing habits are monitored don't have the same tastes.

TV execs? There has to be a better way.  First Firefly, and now this?  Not to mention the long litany of excellently written shows which have been canned in the interim.

So if you're in Canada, where you get to finish out the last filmed episodes, you're lucky and probably think I'm rattling on about nothing, but if you're here, pining for your complex plot science fiction hit, you're not alone.

Caprica- toddler and I missed you tonight.

Back to School Supplies. A Rant.

If you have children in school, you've likely spent much of the last month or so listening to "when are we going to go school supply shopping?" You might know just how grating that question can get.  Well, we still haven't, even though it's less than three weeks until school starts and the question is posed multiple times per day.
So here's my hang up.
My child's school district is STUPID.
Well, I take that back. The people who compile the list of school supplies are collectively stupid.  I'll rant about the part where the kids have to supply basic supplies for the teachers which should be the school's responsibility later. This is about the overly specific list.

First of all, they separate out the supplies needed for basic classes, Life Studies, Spanish, and Art.  So she needs a total of 3 packages of #2 pencils, but they're listed in different places, because gods forbid someone look at their supplies list and actually see the pertinent number associated with the supply.  No, the parents have to get halfway through the supplies section only to find they have to turn around and get another package of pencils, or another spiral, because the list compiler couldn't be bothered to actually compile a list.

That's not the most irritating part.  It's the branding.
The list specifies which brand of many items to buy. She needs Post-It notes, not sticky notes.  She needs Scotch tape, not just tape.  She is supposed to have Kleenex (despite Kimberly Clarke's abysmal environmental record, why can't it say facial tissue, preferably with recycled content?)  She's suposed to bring Expo Dry-Erase markers. you know, because they couldn't have saed some ink and left off the brand.

I'll give them a pass on the TI-30XIIS Calculator, because when teaching a classroom to use a calculator there's something to be said for everyone having access to the same functions, but just so we're on the same page, I'm going out of my way this year to not buy the brands specified on the list. I absolutely will not do it.   It's bad enough that her scissors must measure 5", whereas last year they were to measure 5 1/4", bad enough that her sprials must be 70ct, wide ruled, non-perforated.  I will not be mindlessly buying branded materials for no reason other than the fact that some employees of the school district are stupid enough to advertise without compensation.

Let's be real.  If I tell someone I love a brand, I tell them why.  Sometimes I only know about it because I'm reviewing it. Sometimes I write reviews of things that I love because they've been truly helpful for me or because I am excited bout them, but those are recommendations.  I might tell you that I LOVE writing with certain pens but can't stand the crappy Bic pens which never seem to work more than a week out of the box. Hey, I usually buy Uniball when I have a choice.  I personally like to let people know what has worked for me and highlight products made by people whom I want to see succeed because I like who they are, what they make, and what they stand for.  However, when I recommend a product, I'm not doing so with the weight of the school district behind me and the threat of your children having their homework considered late until you procure the items I recommend. This is just laziness and completely uncompensated advertising and it irritates me to no end.

So dear school- unless the company is sponsoring your school year, stop telling me to buy their brand.   Further, stop begging me for money when you're dumb enough to do free advertising for major corporations who already have vast name recognition in the market when you could be hitting them up for sponsorship instead.  "If everyone donates just $30 per student" actually makes a difference in my grocery budget, so learn how to do advertising, or stop it all together.
And as for the overly restrictive (and sometimes nearly impossible to find) supplies?  She's going to have something similar, but if the wide ruled spirals cost more than the college ruled? Guess who's going to be rocking college ruled?  My kid.  If you want to cry about it you can wipe your tears in some ethically manufactured facial tissue, because my daughter won't be bringing you any Kleenex.

Oh, and supply your teaching staff with reasonable supplies.  There's no reason the kids should have to supply the dry erase markers and red pens for the whole school.

A Less Civil Response.

July 9, 2010
Bob McLain
Program Director, 106.3 FM
bmclain@entercom.com

Dear Director McLain,

Recently, my attention was drawn to  a segment that aired on the Russ & Lisa show on Tuesday, July 6, 2010. in which Lisa Rollins, whom you employ as a news anchor and a talk host thought it was an apt idea to question the rights of infants to eat in restaurants and for their mothers to feed them in a safe environment.  I've read some of the other responses you've gotten, ones like the one Dionna Ford wrote, responses which are calm, non-argumentative, and reasonable.  This isn't that response.  I'm too livid.


Can I first state the ridiculousity of saying breastfeeding in a restaurant is disgusting when one is in said restaurant, a Chic Fil-A, most likely eating the breast of another animal, to be offended that woman might be using hers to feed her baby?  Because it is ridiculous. 


Also, I noted from what Ms. Rollins had to say that she was in the Chic Fil-A, not eating in her car.  I presume that since she said it was "100 dadgum degrees," that she would have found it uncomfortable to eat her meal in the car.  Similarly, I would imagine that a baby and mother would rather not be sitting in said uncomfortable environment.  However, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps Ms. Rollins would like to take all of her meal breaks in her car for a while so she can tell me how delightful, uncramped, and cool it is.  That sounds fair.


If in your judgement it is too hot for Ms. Rollins to be expected to eat in her car, preferably with the air off, there is an oil crisis going on right now, as a news anchor could probably tell you, maybe she'd like to eat in the bathroom.  Other than the part where bathrooms are areas set aside for dealing with human waste, I can't imagine she'd have a problem with it, considering that she thinks it's a good place for someone with a still developing immune system to eat.  She also doesn't seem to think that a nursing mom would mind spending her time out of the house in the restroom, so I can't imagine why she would mind spending her off-the-air time in the restroom.


That brings me to my next point. Off the air time.  Maybe she needs some.  She thinks that moms just staying home instead is a reasonable option, so I invite her to do it. As her employer, you could help make that a reality.  The way I look at it, the World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding up to at least two years of age and as long thereafter as it is mutually beneficial to both members of the nursing dyad, so that sounds like a good period of time that she should just stay home. Two years.   You know, stay home, discreetly.


She also implied that perhaps the mother of the nursing infant could have nursed in the car on the way there.  Other than the part where it's illegal to travel in a moving vehicle with an infant who is not properly restrained in their car seat, that's a brilliant idea.  Oh wait, it's a horrible idea because it is a suffocation risk to lean over the carseat to nurse an infant and it's dangerous and illegal to remove said child from said carseat while it is in motion. Further, if the mother was driving, it's a whole new level of irresponsibility, illegality, and danger.   I admit it, I'm disturbed that you have a news anchor and talk show host in your employ who recommends, even jokingly, illegal practices which endanger children.


As per Ms. Rollins suggesting that nursing in public, which, by the way, is a specifically protected right in the state of South Carolina, as well as in the vast majority of the United States, and is supported in most of the rest of the world, should have legislation enacted to criminalize it just grieves me deeply.  I can't imagine that the majority of your listeners are so against infants being nourished in the most healthy way possible, but I would postulate that if she were saying that drinking beer in public, which, unlike breastfeeding which encourages healthy development, kills brain cells, damages livers, increases the incidence of people making ignorant comments, and leads to deaths, injuries, and property damage via inebriated drivers and needless altercations, should be made illegal, there'd be a bigger uproar.


So if I was being nice, and tactful, and unaggressive, I'd ask that she not only recant but take a class on Women's issues and another on breastfeeding, but I'm not being nice.  I'm being bombastic and disgusted and suggesting that she eat in the car, and in the bathroom, and stay home for the next two years.   And then and only then will I give her or your station any credibility.


I'm usually nicer than this, but this sort of anti-baby, anti-family, anti-woman, anti-health attitude has got to stop.


Have a nice weekend,
Slee

To My British Friends.

So here's the thing.
BP. It's BRITISH Petroleum.
I've made the mistake of reading the darn comments on some pages illustrating the horrors of the Gulf oil spill clusterf*ck catastrophe and have read lots of comments implying that we're blaming the British.
Let me reassure you, we're not. Well, the rational people aren't.
The rational people are blaming the greed and hubris of corporations, in this case BP, but recognizing that Exxon or any other oil company could have just as easily created this problem, which the rational people also recognize has happened elsewhere without nearly as much media attention.  The rational people blame the notion that because one has been generally successful with their drilling that they don't need to have effective plans for solutions for when something goes wrong.  The rational people recognize that things do go wrong and pretending that they won't is irresponsible.  The rational people are angry at corporations which take great risks with the health and welfare of the planet without contingency plans and at the governments which let them get by with it.
So yes, we're angry.  We're angry with British Petroleum, but only the ignorant are actually angry with the British.

Here's the other thing rational people are doing.  They're not boycotting BP, because that's just hurting small business owners, or if they are they're hopefully taking the meaningful step.
The rational people are reducing their oil consumption.
They're walking when it's reasonable instead of gassing up the SUV to make the quick library run.
They're running all their errands at once and in a fuel conserving order so as to not make extra trips.
They're buying more locally produced foods and other items which have therefore not been shipped so far.
They're car pooling.
They're not driving for the sake of driving.
They're simply thinking before getting in their car or choosing to use public transportation.

Why? Because by using less fuel one can reduce the demand, and by reducing demand one reduces the pressure from corporations to pressure drill teams and rig operators to cut corners and take risks with global risks.

So to my British friends- still love ya, just won't be car tripping this summer.

Facts versus Feelings

I have been reading articles lately, such as I Formula Fed, So What? Breastfeeding Sucks, and The Case Against Breastfeeding, since Annie over at PhD in Parenting drew attention to them with her thought provoking response to the most recent, (I Formula Fed, So What?) Society is Creepy (Not Breastfeeding).

I'm a touch conflicted on this one.
On the one hand, I FORMULA FED MY DAUGHTER.
I did. It hurt. I was engorged. I was bleeding. I was tired.  I didn't have a strong support network.  I soldiered through two weeks of a breastfeeding nightmare and then she became another bottle-baby.
Some misguided lactivists *did* say things specifically designed to shame me after the fact, as opposed to offering early help when it might have been useful.  No, instead they made a point of sneering and making hurtful comments every time I went to feed my child, on demand, just like the nursing mother across the room.  Somehow my child's needs being met was some sort of crime because I wasn't doing it the way they thought was best.
You know what? It would have been better, but it wasn't something I was up to.  Does that make me selfish? I don't think so. I don't think so because I was able to hold her and smile at her and sing to her and enjoy her after my milk dried up and every shift of the wind was no longer excruciating.  It was good for our relationship when I no longer cringed when I saw her looking hungry because I knew that it would be all I could do not to scream in pain as we struggled to get a good latch with my engorged breasts.  In that circumstance I made the best choice I could with the resources I had at hand.  I have some anger about the issue and feel that the personal sentiments expressed in those articles are legitimate and that each woman has the right to tell their story and be honest about how they feel, even if they feel formula was "good enough."

On the other hand...
Was formula good enough or just as good? No. It absolutely wasn't, and it absolutely isn't.
No matter how we feel about it, we mustn't confuse facts with feelings.
Formula is NOT as good as breast milk.  And since when do we want "good enough" for our children?

Fast forward ten years to when I was pregnant with my son.  If I remember correctly, I broke the news to my spouse by saying "I'm pregnant, and I'm not breastfeeding."   There might have been a pause. Nonetheless, the reaction in my gut was immediate. The pain associated with it had been worse than the labor and more lingering, and I had no interest in a repeat, and the lactivists of an earlier decade had emotionally scarred me pretty deeply.  I was even becoming something of a formulactivist.
But then I started reading, and the more I read, the more I researched, the more I realized all of the science proves conclusively what I already knew but didn't want to admit.  Breast milk is the perfect food for infant nutrition and formula is simply chemists' failed attempt/s to imitate it.  There is NO comparison.  Formula needs to exist as an intervention but it needs to be just that, an intervention for cases in which breastfeeding, expressed milk, and donor milk are not options.
No, mothers shouldn't be made to feel guilty for having chosen to formula feed, however, I do strongly feel that up until the decision has been made, the baby born and the milk dried up, if we don't attempt to educate mothers as to the benefits of breastfeeding and dispel myths which make breastfeeding look like too hard of a choice, then we are doing a disservice to those women and their offspring. Women need honesty, they need support, and they need to see it.
Women need to know that breastfeeding doesn't mean you can never taste a drop of alcohol until the baby's weaned. They need to know that alcohol works its way out of milk at the same rate it works its way out of one's blood and that so long as they don't nurse the baby when they're drunk, there is no need to wean to occasionally indulge.  (Of course, impaired parenting presents a whole host of it's own problems, so I'll follow the lead of other women whose judgement I trust and suggest getting a sitter if you're planning on getting drunk.)
Women need to know that they can leave the house with a nursling, because breastfeeding is a protected right in most states.  They need to know that it is legal to nurse their babies.  (How can we live in a world where there would even be a question about that?)  Women need to be empowered in knowing that it is okay to nurse a baby wherever that baby is hungry (other than a moving car, there are child seat laws, you know.)  This means a woman can nurse her baby at the library, the doctor's office, the post office, the DMV, the grocery store, the playground, the museum, the mill, the forest preserve, and the bakery.  It's perfectly fine and good to nurse in public.

Women need to know that their boobs won't sag because they nursed their babies.  They need to know that the changes which lead to sagging breasts are a function of pregnancy and not of breastfeeding, and that some women are more disposed to sagging than others.  Breastfeeding will not make your boobs sag.
Women need honesty. They need to know that yes it can be painful to learn to breastfeed.  Not every baby is born with a good latch in mind.  However, the problems of the early weeks can be corrected with a good support system and perseverance.
Women need to be aware that some women find the whole ordeal of breastfeeding unpleasant. Not just the pain but the weird mixed messages that can be sent to your brain when a part of your body which may be one heavily associated with sexuality starts being used for another purpose.  Some women never experience any conflict between the sexualized breast and the functional breast, but some do, and women need to know that if they do have that uncomfortable sensation and have to grit their teeth at the mixed messages going on in their brain, that it doesn't mean there's something wrong with them, but rather that their brain is wired to receive one type of message from that area.  This doesn't mean one can't breastfeed, it simply means that there might be additional complications.*
Women need honesty.
Women need to see it.
I really think there is nothing more beneficial to supporting the healthy development of more and more nursing dyads than getting out with your baby and nursing that baby on demand, in public, without running to the bathroom, dressing room, car, or hiding under a blanket, unless your nursing cover makes you more comfortable.  The more people witness the seemingly rare occurrence of a mother nursing her baby, the more and more women will begin to accept the biological norm as the social norm.

So I'm begging you, when you read an article claiming formula is just as good as breast milk, make sure you do a fact check as well as a gut check, then take a moment to be the good kind of lactivist who offers information and support, and not the kind who inspires the types of articles to which the rest of the lactivist community must respond.



*I am including this because I have read more than one woman say that no one talks about this, that the lactivist community likes to sweep it under the rug because the people who find breastfeeding creepy might use it as an argument that breastfeeding is creepy.  But breastfeeding is feeding a baby. That's not creepy.  What's creepy is shaming a woman for feeding her baby while having to deal with the difficulty of not only a biological response different than the one she'd like, but also the narrow minded views of people who ultimately care more about their sense of having controlled others than the health and wellbeing of women and children.

A Swingin' Time

Snapdragon loves his swing.
He loves his swing a lot.
When first we received his Fischer-Price My Little Lamb papasan cradle swing, I did a little research. Here's what the customer reviews said. Basically, cute, sweet, but the seat tilts a little, and that's a bit, well, weird.
Because I had read this little seat tilting factoid, I was not surprised to find that the seat, indeed, tilted a tiny bit to the right. Maybe a couple degrees, it tilted. No big deal. I figured, its a tiny thing, no one has reported any problems that I've read, and of course I'll use the seatbelt.
Well, I didn't always use the seatbelt, but since he's started being more mobile, I always always buckle the seat belt. I haven't even attached the play tray more than twice because it tempts me to not buckle the seatbelt.
Well, on Wednesday I needed to get the dishes done so we could head to my mom's to do laundry, so I set him down, buckled him in and quickly stepped out to the kitchen. Moments after finishing the dishes I heard a sudden shrill cry. Something about it was different than what I was accustomed to hearing, so I set down what I was holding and immediately stepped back into the room where Snapdragon was wailing.
What did I find? A baby. My baby. My red faced, back arched like a trapeze act, screaming his lungs out, dangling from his seatbelt, upsidedown off the side of his swing baby.
That's right. Snapdragon tipped right out of the side.

No, I didn't get a picture, I grabbed him, not the camera.
Bye bye swing.

Yes, he's fine. He was upsidedown a matter of seconds, but I was fairly traumatized.
So, if you have a papasan/ctadle stule swing, check it to be sure there is no tilt to the seat. Your baby will appreciate it.

World Breastfeeding Week: In a Perfect World

My "twitter pal," as Mongoosine calls them, made a statement that I've read many, many times now. @RadicaLactivist called for "1 policy change. formula available only through prescription, not for sale in any retail outlet anywhere... and then provide free lactation consultants to every single mom and a re-training course to every doctor." She isn't alone in the sentiment that formula should be by perscription only, but her point that it would "rephrase formula as a medical procedure rather than a food choice," was one I' hadn't really considered.

What is the purpose of formula, anyway?

If even the packaging it comes in grudginly admits that breastfeeding is the healthiest and best way for an infant to recieve it's nutrition, then why are they marketing it? The World Health Organization and UNICEF reccommend breastfeeding within the first hour of life, and doing so exclusively, no bottles of formula or water, no pacifiers, nothing that might hinder the baby's adaption to breastfeeding. The WHO also promotes breastfeeding children until they are at least 2 years of age ,and for as long as it is mutually beneficial and desirable thereafter. So again, why on earth is formula being marketed to mothers?

Did you know that there are actually laws against this sort of profit-minded guerilla warfar against beastfeeding in some countries? Why? Because of the World Health Organization's directives.

So if formula is clearly second rate, then why is it allowed to be marketed to new mothers? Why is it touted as just another food option so that the differences between breastfeeding and formula feeding get blurred like the difference between organic and non-organic produce?

Is it really that big a deal?

Yes.

The fact is, infant mortality rates are invariably higher in formula fed populations. You want a source? Fine. I'll go hunt one up, but I've read it often enough that I shouldn't have to go find this. Here a reputable SOURCE, and ANOTHER and ANOTHER- and mind you, since there's no money in making formula out to be the bad guy, I'm going to go with most sources on this front being more reliable than say a cloth diapers study done by Huggies. Especially that last one which sites the CDC.

So whether or not a child is breastfed does make a difference. It is more than a feeding choice. Formula should be used as an intervention when breastfeeding isn't possible, and it should only be used with medical supervision and with a good lactation consultant helping the mother to solve the problem that is making the formula necessary in the first place.

Yes, feed your children.

Yes, supplement if your milk hasn't come in.

Yes, supplement if you have another reason to NEED to.

I certainly don't propose making single fathers lactate to meet the nutritional needs of their infants, but I do think that we live in a culture where people are told that formula is just as good if not better, only giving lipservice to breastfeeding. We are taught to expect a baby to be formula fed and that breastfeeding is the extra-credit, gold star, extra effort some martyred woman is putting in because her baby runs her life.

That isn't the case.

It's not just a feeding choice, it is a decision which affects a child's health, as well as their statistical probability of survival.

So should formula be by perscription only?

I'm not going to call that a bad idea.

I'm also going to not call promoting the normalization of breastfeeding a bad idea, because lets face it, the fact that you don't see a lot of breastfeeding in the media or in public reduces the liklihood of a new mother thinking, on her own, "of course I'm going to breastfeed my baby. It's the way it's done."

It'd also be "not a bad idea" if maternity leave was better legislated in this country (and others) to allow for the needs of an infant to be exclusively breastfed for the first six months to better be met. Just sayin'.

So yeah, perscription formula, why not?

It'd certainly give insurance companies a vested interest in good lactation consultants.

"Because" Healthcare

Do you remember being young and full of questions? Remember pestering your parents with them until they turned to the answer "Because I said so," and then you'd be like "by why?"
I kinda feel that way about our children's healthcare.
We're living in a day and age of "because I said so" treatments, procedures, and medications. When was the last time your doctor explained just what the exact reason your blood pressure was high and just how that pricey perscription (whose name also happens to be on the pen she signed said perscription with) works?
No. Your blood pressure is high, so take this. Why? Because.
And when did they ever sit you down to explain just why that medication your on says to avoid prolonged sun exposure? They just expect you to accept that you have to, because. No, they can't inform you as to whether it causes rashes, increased intensity of sunburn, or as in some cases, magnifies the effects of the medication much like alcohol. By treating health decisions on a "because" basis, patients are robbed of their own ability to make rational decisions for themselves. Its degrading, because it assumes we are stupid.
Its the same way with vaccinations.
When was the last time your conversation with your child's pediatrician was more than "looks like Millicent's due for her next round of shots." And if you ask why, you get the medical version of "because."
Show me the studies which prove its safe, don't just brush me off with "school system requirements." That, my friends, is a load of bull.
Show me, through unbiased studies with clear and unquestionable results, that I need to subject my child to injections of toxins. Don"t brush me off like an over-inquisitive five year old who wants to know why you're shining that light in his ears.
If everything the medical world is pushing on us is so very beneficial, then why don't they go out of their way to educate us? Why do they not supply us with information, accessible, easy to comprehend information, until we're begging them to say "because?" Because they don't think we'll like the answers.
As always, if I'm wrong, then please, please, please prove me wrong.
Educate people so they can make informed decisions, not just about vaccines, but about medicines, tests, procedures, and even multi vitamins. A school requirement is not a reason to make a health decision. Health is a reason to make a health decision.

We Want You to Breastfeed, Honestly, We Do.

What's the old truism? If someone uses words like "honestly" a lot, than they're probably being anything but.

Well, that's kind of how I'm feeling about the very helpful people from the WIC office.

Oh, yeah, by the way, we're broke. I get WIC, and no, this isn't an invitation to lecture me about your tax dollars. We've paid quite a few of those ourselves before health!fail coupled with economy!fail put us in this position.

So the kindly helpful people at the WIC office.

Their literature says things like "Breast is Best" and all other sorts of glib pro-breastfeeding mantras decorate their walls. They even make a point of saying "feel free to nurse him" when a baby starts fussing during an appointment or in the lobby. They even give nursing moms food so that they can keep on eating, which is kinda crucial to the whole making milk for babies thing.

BUT, I walked out of my last WIC appointment kinda flabergasted at the anti-breastfeeding message they were accidentally sending.

They make it easy to quit.

Too easy.

I should have counted, but failed to, the numerous instances in which they pointed out that even though I'd made the desicion to breastfeed and things were going smoothly, should I decide to change my mind at any time, I just needed to bring in the vouchers printed "Congratulations on your continued breastfeeding success" and exchange them for formula coupons.

What?

I get that its wonderful that for women who for one reason or another feel they can't continue to breastfeed, or breastfeed exclusively, that there is an option available which insures that their infants won't starve, but come on!

First of all, the wording on the vouchers implies that breastfeeding is some sort of extra-credit activity and it's pat on the back worthy. It implies that success at breastfeeding is extraordinary and unusual. It implies that success is something special and therefore not the norm. Instead of encouraging and supporting, it reads like "you're doing well, and we're surprised." It almost reads like the sort of slogan you'd expect to hear at a meeting aimed at helping people overcome their addictions. "Congratulations on your continued sobriety success," as though holding one's breath against a relapse.

Further, these vouchers make it so simple. All you have to do is go back, without an appointment, and exchange them. Why not make it a little harder? I don't want it to be impossible or so complicated that mothers would rather starve their children until the next appointment than go to the hassle of utilizing the formula if they really do hit a wall, but if it were just a touch more labor intensive to quit, maybe women would try harder not to.

I can't tell you how many times they pointed this out to me, but after about five times, it began to feel like the kind woman behind the desk wanted me to cave and say "yes, already, it really is too much for me, please give us some formula!"

Maybe it was just the way she kept referencing reasons a person might want to switch to formula. "If it gets to be too much," "If you have any troubles like sorenes." I wanted to scream "STOP GIVING ME REASONS TO WANT TO QUIT!"

I was most disturbed because, having been the woman who did quit breastfeeding my first, I remember how comforting it was that everyone around me made it too easy to stop. I wasn't as committed last time as I am this time, and so I embraced their reassurances that it was okay, and I held tight to the belief that the support network around me would have made it harder to quit if quitting was really a bad idea.

Well, guess what, folks, quitting is and was a bad idea.

The human animal was intended to be raised on human milk. In much the same way that baby mice do not drink cat milk, and puppies do not drink gorilla milk, humans were not meant to drink cows milk, and were certainly not intended to drink a chemical soup designed in a laboratory and mass produced in China for convenience sake.

No. Humans were made to drink human milk. Studies have time and time shown that being breastfed, and not just drinking breast milk, is the best and healthiest way for an infant to feed. So why then do doctors offices and the WIC office go out of their way to make it so damned easy to quit?

Because, honestly, for one reason or another, they'd prefer it if you didn't. If that's not the case, then please, oh please, let them prove me wrong through their actions, and not their lofty protestations.

The Shy Milch Cow

You may remember this, but I'm not too bashful about nursing in public. Whether I'm stretching the plunging V neck of a summer dress to feed Snapdragon while walking around a mall in Chicago or pulling my shirt up at the fireworks in small town Wisconsin, I don't have a problem with nursing in public. I could be a touch more discrete at times, I will give you that. I even have a gorgeous nursing cover for when I don't feel like getting a sunburn on the tatas or when I'm feeling like the creepy guy in the corner of the restaurant is enjoying watching Snapdragon eat far too much.
Sorry buddy, the girls are a bowl of porridge, so you can stop leering. Creep.
So why oh WHY is it that there is one very specific person it bothers me to nurse in front of? Why on gods green earth am I too shy to nurse Snapdragon in front of my MIL?
She nursed her first four children, so why wouldn't I feel like this is some common bond between us?
But no. I'd much rather snatch Snapdragon up and take him in my bedroom to feed him than be told that I should let him cry.
I think that's what it is.
Spoiled.
So tired of that word. Spoiled. Like a baby can go bad. Like loving your child, feeding your child, making sure their needs are met *before* the meltdown is a bad thing. Like kids are overripe pears and if we squeeze them too often they'll bruise and spoil.
So instead I get shy. I get behind-closed-doorsy about feeding times when she's around. I let him get a little more upset before I sneak off to nestle skin to skin and nurse him into that delightful milk-drunk bliss that looks so perfect and endearing on him.
I go from self assured and confident supermom with the power to make milk and satisfy small ones with the touch of my hand or a nosey nuzzle to the shy milch cow who has to hide out and worry about just how many square inches of skin might be peeking.

So here's an idea. Support the shy milch cow in your life so she doesn't feel like she has to retreat. Tell the friend of yours who is still nursing, or yourself if it's you that it's great she's feeding her baby, and wonderful that she respects her baby's needs while he's still learning to trust and doesn't quite understand yet that the discomfort and even fear will eventually end. Help her be the not-shy milch cow.

Be her own special nursing bra and support support support.

So any day now I'm going to be double dutying the whole mom thing, and here's one of my pet peeves.
Everytime someone asks me questions about the upcoming baby, when I tell them we're going to be using cloth diapers, they're nearly all inclined to say to me "it won't last," or "you don't want to do that."
Granted, most of these women diapered their kids a loooong time ago, but why the negativity ladies?
First of all, its not just flatfolds and prefolds, its contours, fitteds, AIOs and one size pockets. Yes, right now my stash is 99% the good old fashioned Gerber flatfolds and plastic pants , with one spectacular One Size pocket, but that's not necessarily the way its going to stay.
More importantly, where exactly do these women think sposies end up? And how many resources go into making them?
I know that I'm still fairly young. The way I look at it, I have a lot of time left on this planet, and little boy who's a comin' has a lot longer.
So, when a mom 2 be says she wants to use cloth, really ladies, don't discourage her.