Do you know what I'm talking about?
I get really frustrated with religious people sometimes. I'm sure I fall into the category of those who think they got it right as opposed to x, y and z, who got it aaaaalll wrong, which I'm not proud of, but some things just leave me really frustrated.
I don't understand people who are not satisfied with the 10 commandments, the few dogmas and the catechism. They need more, more rules, more structure. The part that I find essential to religion, which is a personal relationship with God, always new, never really explainable, always incomplete and a little scary, but as necessary as air to breathe - that is the part that seems to scare them. Like you can't really rely on "faith". They need rules, or at least strong recommendations in all areas of life, like clothes, hobbies, media,... well, whatever people have different preferences or tastes for. They long for stricter rules, so everything can be measured, classified and put into neat little drawers, so everybody knows who's good, who's bad, or well, at least "very unwise".
This attitude makes my hair stand up. It feels like looking at Van Gogh's sunflowers and judging their beauty by how many inches the petals are and whether he stayed "inside the lines" when he applied the color. I can not imagine a greater misunderstanding. They see people dancing happily and all they look for is if someone is implying some sort of dirty sexual connotation when moving their hips, they see someone enjoying their body, their talent, their freedom and they smell sin - anything that seems exhuberant, out of control is a threat, it has to be measured, judged and rejected. Let's just make clear rules for EVERYTHING so we can finally sit down, relax and stop figuring things out. Instead we just follow the rules and KNOW we are good people.
The worst part about this attitude is that these people actually spend their day having dirty thoughts. Their focus is on the bad, on watching out for it, expecting it, anticipating it. They look at the world through their dark dark glasses, trying to live a good life by emphasizing the worst of the worst.
I knew a priest once who was amazingly informed about anything political or cultural in the world. He pointed out things to me about the value of human self-expression whether they belonged to the "right faith" or not. He appreciated what was divine about humans, acknowledging that it was always there, even if the person was far away from God in the classical sense. At first I was surprised... and then: what a relief. So many things fell into place for me. I didn't have to judge ALL the time. I didn't have to have negative feelings towards everyone who seemed to "get it wrong". It shouldn't destroy one's enjoyment of Mozart's music when one finds out his life was less than perfect. It shouldn't even include a "but". Yeah, his music is great, BUT...
I mean, let's be honest. What do we really know about God and his plans? Who are we to try to classify HIS work? We have a hard time understanding a person from another culture, yet they are as much created by him as we are. How would we ever comprehend the whole world? I can not stand this narrow view of "I know what I've seen and I'm pretty darn sure my personal experience is definitely the first to consult when it comes to judging the lives of the remaining 6 billion people on this earth!". All you have to do is label your fear and your scrupulosity as good ol' christian righteousness and you're good to go.
I guess what calms me down is that I haven't yet met one of these religious "tape measures" who produced any kind of memorable piece of art or inspired any generosity of heart in anyone.
Plus those people are not fun to be with. You end up thinking: "Sir, even if you were really right...I mean, you might be, I don't know. Maybe a skirt shorter than an inch above the knee really IS a threat to the sanctity of the family. So even, if you do have a valid point... you are not much fun to hang out with. You make me feel miserable. I'd listen to you, but I have a hard time hearing what you're saying because you look so unhappy, so tense and angry. You are such a pain to be with. After talking to you, I just want to cry and spit at everyone. I'd rather go and enjoy 5 minutes of silence while I wear my short skirt, read the liberal newspaper and listen to music by a homosexual composer."
If you want to be pretty, don't have kids.
I've been on the lookout for some nursing clothes lately. I'm told they are very useful for nursing in public, so it's important to get a few tops and maybe a nice outfit for church where one has to nurse discreetly. Little did I know that only women with bad taste in clothes nurse! Now, I hope nobody gets offended but what is offered as nursing wear is just plain hideous. I told Lincoln, the dresses look like something out of "Our house on the prairie" but with a heavy 70ies accent. Frumpy shapeless stuff, with lots of flowers or polka dots... see for yourself.
It confirms my theory again, that the term "attractive woman" never ever encompasses one with child. I guess the ladies that find up-to-date clothes important just don't nurse. Maybe because they're too busy shopping or dieting? I don't know. It's very frustrating. "Motherwear" has a few cute dresses and tops, but their prices are a little scary. So I went on EBay and that was just a big disappointment. How about a terrible big print all over a weirdly shaped dress that will visually add 30lbs and make you look about 10 years older?
I know this is not a big deal, but it is somehow frustrating to think, that by choosing to breastfeed I can ONLY wear frumpy stuff. What does that say about society, the world, the universe!? ;)
I guess I won't be nursing in public then, 'cause I'm not going to turn into "Laura Ingalls meets Dynasty, the Denver Clan" anytime soon!
Sinverguenza
I know this might be a little inappropriate, but hey, since when am I nice and proper??
Anyway, I am planning to finish my baby-purchases sometime in the next 2-3 weeks. If you are/were planning to get me something from the registry, please do so... soon. Otherwise it will be gone and you will have missed an incredible opportunity to get me something! :)
Ok, not really true. There are always plenty of incredible opportunities to buy me a gift - if you don't think so, call me, so I can convince you.
Counting down
Well, I'm at 35 (or 36) weeks today and the books say pregnancy usually lasts 40 weeks, so that means in about a month there is a good chance I might have given birth to a child.
If the above sounds a little removed and technical - well, that's because it's really hard to believe. Looking at my belly (how much can skin actually stretch?!) and at the dresser full of baby stuff, the big box with the stroller in it and my (almost) finished crib bedding, it seems the baby is very real but in my head the whole idea is still very new. Maybe not new, maybe more like impossible.. yeah, impossible is the word. I don't want to get too impatient, but it seems inevitable. Even if I can't imagine what it's' going to feel like. I guess that makes it even more exciting.
The doctor issues seem resolved at the moment. I spoke to my actual doctor and she promised to deliver my baby (on paper even) without making any comments about her partner. What a relief. I appreciate the silence about the person in question as well. You don't want to hear your doctor pulling the other one through the cocoa (Ok, only German-speaking readers will understand the last one, but I couldn't resist. It's an expression, which implies badmouthing someone.)
After that successful visit last week we also toured the hospital we deem to be the best choice at the moment. It's located in the neighboring town and is quite small... and empty! We didn't meet a soul from the time we entered the building until speaking to the maternity nurse. It seems like a great place to have a baby - very quiet, brand new and so friendly. I really hope the staff lives up to the image the building projects.
Sooo... we are set I guess. We are taking a weekend vacation from today on, as recommended by all essential baby magazines: "Take a vacation before the baby is here - the last one you can enjoy without a crying toddler".
Ok, that was not our primary motivation, but it is a good occasion to take a few days and remove yourself from the daily frenzy and just think about the baby - ok and maybe be lazy as well.
Misconceptions... and a bad doctor's visit.
By now I'm sure most of you know, that Lincoln and I are learning the Bradley method of labor and childbirth to prepare for the upcoming event. It promotes unmedicated and intervention-free birth unless there is an emergency for either mom or baby. We've enjoyed it so far and although we are by far not "granola", we do like the concept that the female body knows how to birth babies well and that medicine should be there to step in in case of complications but not take over the whole birth process.
My doctor is supportive of this, so we've been quite confident. Until last week, when it was time to see the "other" doctor again. They share their practice, so although one might have "one" doctor, you still have to see both, in case you go into labor when yours is not on call. Turns out the "other" doctor thinks natural childbirth is a myth and after a few prodding questions on our part he offered his view of the ideal birth, which went something like this:
"Well, I like to start out with an ENEMA...blablabla...constant monitoring...otherwise high probability of FATAL complications such as blablabla (insert a few horror scenarios of baby strangling itself in the womb)...then, EPIDURAL... if contractions slow down, a little PIT(ocin)....blablabla...if labor stalls...C-SECTION....blabla.. tune up epidural... otherwise....blablabla... VACCUUM EXTRACTOR....no food during labor...blabla.. danger of choking... potatoes over lungs... blabla.. labor should not be longer than 24 hours....blabla.. but infant MORTALITY has not changed in the past few decades..."
We left the office in a daze. He basically said we could have whatever we wanted, but that we'd fare best with lots of artificial help, otherwise it's very likely our baby will end up dead. Although it might end up dead even anyway because after all nothing has changed in the last 100 years. It's just the kind of encouraging talk new parents-to-be need to hear. It is amazing to me that a doctor of around 70 years seems so stuck in his ways that he will defend his methods against all obvious proof of its failures. Unfortunately it really does seem that when it comes to birth in particular one has to guard oneself from attempts of the medical community to just take over and push, suck or cut the baby out of you. Mostly because you didn't produce the baby fast enough, or you wanted to do it in a way it was not convenient for the medical staff. After all time is money and interventions are far more lucrative than a natural childbirth. And in case of a lawsuit the doctor has to show he "did" everything he could - so, what is there to present to the jury if he let nature take its course?
And I thought the book I was currently reading was just exaggerating. I highly recommend "Misconceptions" (Naomi Wolf) - not because I share all her views, but because it's an honest account and because Naomi Wolf is a feminist and it's interesting to see what a feminist has to say about childbirth and motherhood. I stopped at many passages thinking: Exactly! That's how it is! I was also going to post about each one of those, but you'll have to forgive my pregnant laziness, I just didn't take the time to bookmark all those pages. Plus, you might've been bored with a detailed critique of something you haven't read.
To sum it up though, she talks about the unfriendly environment the US is today for mothers - beginning from doctors who speed up labors for their own convenience to employers and government who pressure women into leaving their babies to come back to work and husbands who are unwilling to share the burden of having children. Ok, she's a feminist, what did you expect? I must admit I don't recognize myself in the women and families she offers as examples, but there is some truth to all of it.
I didn't know the US was the only industrialized country that does not have paid maternity leave. I've always wondered about that but I guess I didn't realize its unique stance on this. I also didn't realize that many modern, feminist men (as she calls them) don't think that ultimately they should sacrifice their own careers in order to spend more time with their children.
I did like seeing my view confirmed, that many stay-at-home-moms are totally left to their own devices, that motherhood is seen as something biological that happens (or should happen) on the sidelines of your life. It's a little of a nuisance, that takes away from the woman's availability as an employee, which is very inconvenient, so she should make sure she somehow successfully pushes that child on the sideline of her life - as it is appropriate.
Yeah, this sounds a little bitter, but I must admit I am disappointed with the choices society presents you with: either you're a stay-at-home-mom, which socially means you're dumb or didn't manage to have a "real career"; or you're the "career woman", the socially far more acceptable option, but you'll sacrifice a little in your womanlyness as you will also be judged for being cold and heartless.
From what I've seen at work, many women are neither. They need to have a job and they like it but they miss their kids. They talk about them, they have their pictures all over their cubicle... I don't have the answer when it comes to this dilemma. I don't see staying at home as the ideal solution for everyone. Being a SAHM is very isolating nowadays. It's not like it used to be, with grandma, aunt and neighbor close by. It's you and the kid all day long in a small apartment or house. I can see why women would like to have a job as well, but Naomi Wolf is right when she says the working world is just not made for women and that's not the case because there's not other or better way. It's just because it's convenient the way it is. Because raising children is not seen as something valuable. If it was, there would be a way of adapting the working world to the mother's needs. Maybe the nursery could be in the same building as your job - and your employer would encourage you to go nurse your baby every two hours. Maybe employers would be willing to offer more part-time jobs or install work stations at home. Oh but it's such a hassle. Yeah, that's true. It's just a kid. He'll grow on hiw own, as long as you feed him - and what does it matters who hands him the spoon? Instead we need to generate more business. Now THAT's a cause worth sacrificing for! We need to make more stuff, so people can buy it. More stuff will make everybody more happy and fulfilled. We don't have enough STUFF in this world, who needs children?
No, there's only one in there!
I'm sorry for the delay, but in this part of the world it's still the weekend. You are free to make comments about my size. I might get upset though ;) You deal with it!
Posted at 04:22 PM on June 01, 2003 | Comments (11)