Why I don't make my kids say...anything!

Hey, folks! I'm back. Admit it. You missed me. :)

So here's the thing. I REALLY don't want to be one of those moms who doesn't want anyone else to discipline her child...but I am. I mean, if everyone approached discipline the way I do, it would be a different story; however, they don't. And since I'm pretty particular about it, it bothers me to see other adults talking in a demeaning way to my kids. Mamma Bear breaks loose. There's blood. It's not pretty.

The sad thing is that most of these parents do not realize that the way they are talking to my children is something that I (and they) would term "demeaning." So there's the problem. How do you say, "Hey, stop treating my kid the same way you treat your kid because I think it's disrespectful and mean," without implying that the way they raise their own kids is disrespectful and mean? Well, you can't. So when this happens, I admit. I freeze. You've heard of "flight or fight"? Well, there's another "f" - freeze. That's what I do. Yep, I'd be dinner in the jungle, for sure. But I really am at a loss at times. Torn between not wanting to make enemies of the other parents in the playgroup or at the park, etc., and not wanting my kids to be treated like crap...I know, it shouldn't even be a question, right? Wrong. Either way, someone is getting hurt. But here's where I differ from most...

I HATE... I mean I really, really HATE the idea of telling kids to say...ANYTHING. "Say sorry", "say please", "say thank you", "say hello", "say bye-bye"..."what do we say?" Makes me cringe. Here's why. First of all, children don't take orders well. It's just not our nature. It's not how we learn best. We learn best by imitation. We learn LEAST through direct orders and "teaching." Telling a child to "say thank you" is far less effective than simply saying "thank you" yourself whenever you are thankful for something. That way, the phrase does not just become a mash of empty words. It has meaning. Children WILL begin to say "thank you", "please", and "I'm sorry", when they reach a developmental stage of being able to be truly thankful, pleased, or sorry for something. Is a child truly sorry if forced to say it? Probably not. That is called LYING. I will not teach my children to lie. It does NOT teach them to be polite, courteous people. It teaches them that (a) empty words fix things, (b) it is ok to lie if it gets you out of trouble or pleases someone else, and (c) these adults do not respect you because they are forcing you to say something you do not want to say. Want your kids to be polite? Be polite to them. Ask them to do things, rather than telling them. Say "please", "thank you", and "excuse me"...and mean it. It's not difficult. Stop over-thinking it. You have better things to do, I'm sure.

So no, you will never hear me tell my child to apologize for hitting, stealing from, yelling at, kicking, or stabbing your child. Get over that. If my child is truly sorry for his/her actions, he/she will show it. If not, well, guess what - "sorry" won't make your kid's knee stop hurting or put his toy back together again, nor will it make my child remorseful. Believe it or not, it is completely NORMAL for a child of 1, 2, 3, 4...even 5 or 6 years old to NOT feel remorse over every little wrong doing. Hell, most adults aren't "sorry" about half the things they do "wrong", for that matter. So if my three-year-old gets mad at your kid for telling him that he can't play with her, and he hauls off and hits her in the face in anger and doesn't feel sorry about it...that's normal. But, in many parents' minds I guess that makes my kid an asshole.

Sorry. :/

All You Need is Love (dun da da da da)...

I just want to say that WHOEVER is reading this blog is my FAVORITE person on Earth. I think you are the absolute BEST parent, BEST son or daughter, and overall BEST person who ever existed. I am but dirt at your feet, unworthy of your greatness, and I scourge myself 3 times a day simply because I FAIL at being YOU. Thank you SO much for reading my lowly blog and bestowing your time and attention, however fleeting, upon me and my humble existence, O Great One. You can do or say no wrong, and I bow to your greatness.






















Argue with THAT, motherfuckers.

The Process of De-Parent-Ing

Yeah, so I totally made that word up. It's the only way I can describe what I see as a necessary process in raising our culture's kids. In an era of convenience and efficiency, children have become, according to most in our culture, a "difficulty." Wander through a bookstore and you will see dozens of titles related to methods of either controlling or fixing our children. Coupled with a misconstrued interpretation of religious values in a largely Christian culture, we seem to have the idea that children somehow start off damaged in some way, and nearly every parenting choice we make is some kind of effort to solve the problem of children. From birth, we are told to "encourage" our children to develop properly - tummy time, classical music, baby Einstein; black and white contrasting circles and stripes for newborns to stimulate their senses, bright, primary colors for infants and toddlers, tactile stimulation...only use certain words, foods, and activities to mimic their developmental stages...as if by NOT doing these things our children will fail to develop and remain perpetual infants! We are told how to teach them to roll over, crawl, walk, talk, read, write, and count to 10 - and we are offered a number of educational toys to help us do so. We are (unintentionally?) brainwashed to think that kids need us to make them develop normally. We are told that Mother Nature has no idea what she is doing, and that we must take over, for the good of our children.

This...is...bullshit.

There are a number of things that children will do, all on their own. With absolutely no prompting from us, children will:

1. Grow
2. Develop
3. Learn
4. Play
5. Eat
6. Sleep
7. Heal
8. Reproduce (eventually)
9. Empathize
10. Love

I promise.


We are a society that values individuality, efficiency, and competition. I'm not saying that these are bad qualities - but unchecked and unbalanced, they simply do not allow for children. We are a society focused on "getting things done" - getting to the end product - with, all-too-often, complete disregard for the method we use for doing so, when, in fact, this method is every bit as important as the final result. We have lost the value of leisure, pleasure, and even simple existence itself. We push our children aside and say, "Here, let me do that for you," instead of saying things like, "Please help me do this." The problem is NOT that our children want to help us wash the dishes, even though we are apparently (for some unknown reason other than the importance of washing dishes) in a terrible hurry; the problem is that we place too much value in breakable dishes.

When my child has a tantrum, it is not my job to put an end to it. He will not tantrum forever. He WILL (as long as I don't interfere with the process) learn to regulate his emotions through social learning and the natural development of brain cells. It is my job to see him through it. It is my job to find out why he is upset (because there is ALWAYS a reason) and it is my job to either help him accept the problem, help him find a solution to the problem, or just let him be upset about the problem for as long as he needs to. It is NOT my job, as a parent, to try and distract him, pacify him, discipline him, train him, or otherwise shut him up for the sake of not disturbing other people (who probably could do with a little more patience and self-regulation themselves) or in order to produce "well-behaved" children (which is something that has become a bragging right - a way to showcase your little pets to all your family and friends and say, "Look what a good parent I am - I've trained me a kid!").

Of course, our culture does not value intangibles. Not really. We spout Romantic ideals of love, happiness, and other equally bohemian scapegoats, but our actions speak much louder than words. We only value honesty because it keeps crime rates down and boosts public morale, which ups production. We value self-esteem because confident workers are hard workers. We value love and happiness - but only if we can squeeze them in while earning a good living so as not to depend on anyone besides ourselves for food and shelter. All children have physical needs and non-physical needs. The physical needs are things like food, shelter, clothing; the non-physical needs are things such as parental attachment, bonding, socialization, trust, love, emotional reciprocity, and security. We have become such a materialistic society that we place the highest value on the physical needs of the child, and neglect everything else. Don't believe me? Which do most Americans think is worse: A parent who works hard 40+ hours a week to feed and clothe their children, but has to send them to daycare and/or school to do so; or a parent who stays home or works minimal hours so they can be with their children, but has to depend on government aid for food and housing? Most people would tell the second parent to get off their ass and go to work. How many would tell the first parent to stay home? Why? The working parent is filling their child's physical needs, but - due to the completely backwards nature of our culture which forces parents to work without their children present - they are often forced to leave the bulk of non-physical needs in the hands of others. The second parent is filling their child's non-physical needs, but leaving the physical needs to be filled by someone else. Our society tells us that one is better than the other, but this is FALSE. ANYONE can give a kid food and a place to stay. Anyone. So why is it that we hold up the working parents who "sacrifice everything" for their kids - who work hard to give them food and shelter, which anyone can theoretically provide, but who are either forced to or choose to allow others to handle education and social development? And why do we condemn "lazy" parents who choose to stay home with their children, even if it means they have to depend on other people to help provide something as trivial as food? If, for example, I pay taxes and do not send my kids to public school, am I not in the same position as someone whose taxes go to another's food stamps? Sure, maybe parent A cannot afford to feed his/her kids. Maybe he/she chooses to earn less income. Maybe the cost of childcare would be more than that parent could earn at a full-time job. What if parent B works full-time and sends his/her kids to public school. Isn't parent B using government money to partially "raise" their kids just as much as parent A? One uses public funds to provide food, while the other uses them to provide education. I don't see people ranting about that - not that they should. Apparently most people in this country think that education is so important that it needs to be provided for by the government...but food doesn't? Is feeding a child less important than educating one? Now, don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying that we should take away public schooling. And I am not - repeat NNNNOOOOTTTT saying anything negative about working parents who send their kids to daycare and/or public school. What I AM saying is that people who send their kids to glass elementary schools shouldn't throw stones at the starving kids down the street. I am a big fan of the village it take to raise a kid, but when most of the people in that village are not interested in raising children, that becomes a problem. The process of de-parenting has to occur on a national scale, because unfortunately, our society, as it stands, is NOT kid-friendly, and whether we like it or not, kids will rule the world someday.

Why You (Probably) Didn't Really Need a C-Section

Oh yes. I'm going there. Hate me if you will. I know I'm stepping on a lot a toes here, but if only one woman makes a change for the good of her and her baby because of it, it'll be worth it. I'm just so tired of hearing women talk about how they "needed" an "emergency" c-section and how they would not have been able to have their baby vaginally. The truth is, there is absolutely no need for a 30% c-section rate. Most women I know did not choose to have an elective c-section out of convenience; they were told that they needed one. This is a lie. Most "emergencies" are caused by hospital interventions and procedures in the first place. If you honestly couldn't push out your baby (for a number of reasons I'll list below), chances are it had nothing to do with your build, size, or capabilities as a mother, and had everything to do with your environment. Now don't get me wrong - emergencies DO happen - but they are extremely rare. Women tend to get offended when I say something like this, but really, I'm not saying anything negative about the women who have these unnecessary sections. I'm not saying that these women have done anything wrong. I'm saying these women have been lied to.

1. "My baby wouldn't fit." - This is VERY unlikely. The vast majority of women don't have babies that are too big to fit through their pelvis. The reason so many women have the trouble of "fitting" a big (or even not-so-big) baby is because they usually are made to push on their backs, either because of having an epidural, or because that's what they're told they have to do. This is the WORST position to push out a baby! Lying on one's back decreases the pelvic opening by up to 30%! If you were standing, squatting, or on your hands and knees, your 11-lb. baby probably would not have had to be cut out of your body.

2. "My baby was breech." - Vaginal birth is actually much less risky than c-sections in most breech cases (and current research is finally supporting this - something midwives have known all along). One problem is that many OBs are not trained in vaginal breech births anymore. Then there is the looming threat of malpractice suits, a threat which seems to, more often than not, take the decision-making process out of the hands of the patient. C-sections should be the last resort, and since they started out that way, most people (erroneously) assume they still are, so that if something goes wrong during a section (which happens more frequently than during a vaginal birth), people assume the doctors did everything they could, chalk it up to fate or chance, and leave the lawyers out of it. Unless your baby is completely sideways (a rare occurrence), most breech babies CAN be safely born vaginally.

3. "When they finally sectioned me, the baby had the cord wrapped around his neck 435 times!" - It is not uncommon for the baby to be born with the cord around the neck, even several times. It's actually pretty normal. You just slip it off as the baby comes out. No big deal.

4. "My baby was stuck." - This is often what people say when they mean the baby had shoulder dystocia. This is something that can often be remedies using a number of techniques, the most effective being the Gaskin Maneuver, which requires the women to get onto her hands and knees...however, if you've had an epidural (often the first in a long line of mistakes), this may be impractical (but NOT impossible). Of course, if you were allowed to labor in a secure, calm, familiar environment without being attached to machinery, you probably wouldn't have "needed" the epidural anyway, but that's another rant...

5. "My baby was in distress." - Oh really? How do you know that? Heart-rate drop? (a variation of normal in most births, but often misinterpreted thanks to continuous fetal monitoring). Or perhaps the baby was in distress due to the pitocin (the effects of which you can't feel, thanks to the epidural - no such luck for the baby, who feels every single abnormally strong contraction). These are all risks of pitocin and epidurals, by the way (you'll see them on the paper you had to sign). Babies are often thrown into distress because of the interventions they are unwillingly subjected to, leading to a truly unnecessary emergency c-section. Sure, your section may have been an emergency, but there may not have been any emergency at all if you had not been lied to and/or bullied into these interventions in the first place.

6. "I had complete placenta previa, my placenta had detached and was delivered before the baby, and the baby was sideways, sticking out an arm and waving to everyone in the room." - Ok, you needed a c-section.

Living Dangerously!

Let's play a game. It's called, "How many dangers can you find in this picture?"

Let's see...pant legs that are too long (tripping hazard), long hair obstructing vision, child under the age of two standing above ground level (on one foot, no less), child playing on metal bench not intended for toddler recreation (with wooden, splinter-ridden boards - horror!), muddy play surface (reduced-traction hazard)...

And let's not forget the worst one...trees...

"Wait, wait. Dangers," you may ask, "what dangers? All I see is a child having fun!"

Or at least, this is what you might say if you, like myself, are in the process of raising Free-Range Kids.

On the other hand, you may be one of the "others." You know, the parents who think their kids are living in the next "final Destination" sequel, with random, freak accidents lurking around every corner, lying in wait for your unsuspecting children...

But we all know that isn't reality, right? Right?

...

"But what if..." I know, I know. What if tragedy strikes. Then it would be just that: A tragedy. Indeed, it's something I don't really even want to think of when it comes to my children. In fact, I'll let you in on a little secret...

I used to be one of the "others."

Ok, ok, so it's no secret. Everyone knows I've had my helicopter moments. But I'm changing. Really. In fact, I'm committed to it, wholeheartedly, for the sake of my sanity, for the sake of my marriage, and most of all, for the sake of my children. I don't want them to be afraid of everything outside their front door. I want them to be happy and live fully. I want them to be KIDS while they still can, so they can grow into fine adults. I want to raise children who are rowdy, crazy, a bit spoiled, a bit more spirited, and very well-loved.

So, in the interest of spreading this new-found free-range wisdom, I'd like to demonstrate what "Free-Range Kids" might look like - so you can spot them in a crowd (and inform the proper authorities).















Now here's a child, about 22 month old, about to embark on a bike ride. Note the absence of parental assistance. This is a hallmark feature of the Free-Range Child.

Note that the child has successfully gotten onto the bike and is pedaling away. No intervention needed.
















Oh look, a child going for a walk...in heels...in his pajamas...

We'll just let this one speak for itself...


















This is a toddler in a bath tub. Free-Range Children often bathe in actual water, unassisted, and, in this case, are allowed to use the faucet. Crazy, I know.

















Now here is a picture of my son, almost two, helping me in the kitchen. He is cutting up butter into pieces for use in making a pie crust. Yes, that is an actual knife he is using, and it is sharp. He knows it is sharp, and knows how to use it carefully. He is also standing on a two-step step stool, and has excellent balance. You may be happy to know that he IS wearing a protective apron over his clothes. :)





NAKED BABY ALERT!














Haha, now this, I don't actually recommend, but with Free-Range Kids, this will often happen. Do not be alarmed. Just applaud him for his creativity and encourage some other, equally-fun, yet less dangerous activity such as jumping off the couch or playing with sticks.





















Ahh, now here we see Leonidas doing something else often seen in Free-Range Children: Eating. Note that he is holding his own food and getting incredibly messy...





















Actually, this was a watermelon eating contest. He did not win, but had fun in the attempt!



















Now THAT is satisfaction!


From these pictures, you can clearly see that Free-Range Kids can be found in several different arenas, enjoying several different activities, and worrying several different parents simultaneously. Feel free to point out the "dangers" in these pictures and warn everyone around you of what "could" happen. I probably won't be listening, since I will be beaming from ear to ear, listening to the laughter of babies and watching my children grow up happy, healthy, and FREE!

Have an opinion? Write a blog, but leave me out of it!

I am so sick and tired of everyone telling me that I am doing everything wrong with my child! Everything I do gets some kind of criticism, or at the very least, condescending skepticism. I really don't want to hear it anymore.

I don't keep my baby on a schedule. I know your baby goes to bed at 6:30pm and sleeps until 10:00am. Good for you. As for me, I don't force my baby into a schedule. I like to think his needs come before my comfort, but hey, that's just me.

I use cloth diapers and elimination communication. No, it's not a hassle to wash them, and at least I'm not polluting the world with human feces in landfills and chemicals used to manufacture disposable diapers. In addition, elimination communication is not really infant potty training, but that's apparently all anyone understands so I bill it as such. I am not training my baby to go to the bathroom through EC any more than I am "training" him to eat by breastfeeding. He just does it naturally. Really. I'm just not "diaper-training" him like most people in this country do, and then wonder why they have such a hard time "potty training" when they've constantly reinforced elimination in a diaper for two years. Yes, it's a commitment. Yes, they DO have some control over their bladder and bowels from birth. No, it is not "mommy training". It is simply communicating a need and fulfilling it. You can laugh and call me ridiculous all you want, but I don't remember the last time I changed a poopy diaper and my 3-month-old has not worn a diaper in three days. How much money have YOU spent on diapers this week? Yeah, so shut up.

I breastfeed my kid. I breastfeed in public without a cover, because I don't think it is obscene, and neither does the state of California. If this offends you, stop staring. I shall continue to breastfeed him until he weans himself, whenever that may be. I will not force him to wean by any means. If that means that I will be nursing a 5-year-old then so be it. He's not gonna be chewing on your tit, so what do you care? Back off.

I intend to practice baby-led weaning. I will not be giving my baby cereal or pureed "baby food." He can eat regular solid food like everyone else. That's what he was intended to do. That's what God made teeth for. Babies can't move food from the front of their mouths to the back before they can chew, and they can't chew before they can pick the food up and put it into their mouths themselves, so if I allow him to naturally follow his own development, there should be no problems. I happen to think that letting him control what goes into his mouth is better and safer than shoving pureed foods down his throat and teaching him that he does not have to chew his food.

And since he is breastfed, he DOES have to be fed more often. Babies are actually efficient at digesting breast milk, so no, it doesn't last long. The fact that he is eating every hour or so does not mean he is not getting enough from the milk!. He has been gaining weight at a rate of almost 1 lb. per week. Trust me, he's getting PLENTY of food. I don't need to supplement with cereal early just because he's frequently hungry. He is hungry because he's growing. That's what most babies tend to do. He will not die without cereal. I promise.

I don't carry my baby around in a car seat everywhere. I wear him or carry him in my arms, because I realize that wearing or carrying your baby has tremendous benefits on his cognitive and psychological development. Not only does it assist him in forming proper attachments, it also helps him learn balance and movement, which drastically improves physical and cognitive development. I know it's inconvenient at times, and he is getting heavier, but at least I'm getting a workout and losing that baby weight. Besides, his brain and muscle function are a little more important than my convenience anyway. I'm not asking you to carry him, so leave me alone.

I do vaccinate my baby, but I do not intend to give him all the vaccines recommended, and I delay many vaccinations. He's not going to die from any STDs as a baby and he's not going to give your child some deadly illness just because he hasn't been vaccinated for it. Measles doesn't just appear out of thin air - it has to be contracted from someone, and when was the last time you saw a kid with measles? I've researched the risks, and by "research" I don't mean talking to my pediatrician about it. I'm not going to explain my reasoning to you. If you think my kid is gonna give your kid diptheria then stay away from him. It's probably for the best anyway.

I co-sleep with my baby. Lordy, Lordy, God save her soul! Don't go preaching to me about how "dangerous" that is. If anyone cares to actually READ the studies, rather than just quote what they've heard, they will see that bed-sharing is only dangerous if one does not take the same precautions one would take under ANY sleeping conditions. If you are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and make sure your baby can't be strangled by loose bedding or wedged in between pillows or mattresses and headboards, co-sleeping actually DECREASES the risk of SIDS. Bed-sharing helps to regulate an infant's heart rate and respiration and allows the mother to wake more easily if something is wrong with the child, in addition to facilitating breastfeeding and reinforcing good sleeping habits. So wipe that shocked look off your face and let me sleep!

Of course, I AM planning to have my next child at home as well. Don't even approach me on this one. You will not win. That's a whole 'nother blog. Go read it.

So yeah, just stop condemning me and let me raise my child. I have enough stress trying to take care of a baby - I don't need your constant bitchy comments as well.

Thanks.