I recently had an idea that I wish I had come up with a month ago. I assume most children (like mine) enjoy looking at bring colors and lights. Fireworks, therefore, are ideal--they are exciting, sparkly, colorful, and--let's just be honest--they are FIRE in the SKY. This fireworks season, I didn't bring my son to watch any of the action, because I assumed the noises would be scary to a 6 month old (plus, he is well into dreamland by dark!).
Then I thought of this (which other people may have already come up with): headphones. When the next fireworks opportunity arises, I will put headphones on the kid and play some music he enjoys loud enough to distract from the explosions.
Has anyone else beat me to this and actually tried it? I would like to know how well (or poorly) it worked.
29.7.07
25.7.07
On Beyond Potter: life after harry
I am going to skip the part where I lecture about how and why it is important to read. We've all heard it. But I will say that it is important for parents to read to, with, and in front of their kids to set a good example.
A woman I work with was telling me about how her family "only" has two copies of the new Harry Potter book. Her daughter had finished it already, her sons and husband were in the middle somewhere, and she was only on around 30 because she was graciously letting others read it first. As I listened, I thought enviously how great it would be to have something the whole family was so into. My husband and I tend to have different preferences for books. I hope, as our children grow, we can find things that attract us all, so we can eagerly read and discuss as a group.
A lot of people (adults and children) are mourning the end of the Harry Potter series. What next? I also am greiving on behalf of my son and unborn children; though they will probably (hopefully) read the books, they will most likely know the basic plot and maybe have seen the films ahead of time. They won't know the fun and excitement of waiting and waiting for the next book's release. They won't have the option of NOT having the ending spoiled for them. It's like Star Wars. There was never a time when I didn't know Vader was Luke's father--how cool would it have been to be in a theatre on opening night and hear that line? Dang.
Sad though it may be, we do have to move on beyond the Harry Potter series. Fortunately, there are lots of great books available that parents and kids together can read, or that can be read by either adults or grown ups alone. This is a great time for adolescent literature.
My suggestion, if you have kids you want to get (or keep) engaged in reading, is to hook them on a series. One reason Harry Potter was such a phenomenon was because readers got involved with the characters and the quest. There are loads of fantasy series people can use to fill the void. My personal favorite is the Alvin Maker series by Orson Scott Card. The first book, Seventh Son, is one of the best books I've read EVER--and I've read a lot of books. The books do not come off as childish or adolescent, but they are something young people could read and understand well, if they were able to handle the later Harry Potter books (which were pretty complicated, actually).
If you google "What to read after Harry Potter," you will find that there are lots of experts trying to help readers cope. For example, you could check here and here and here. Good luck, and keep reading!! It is good for you, your kids, and the world in general.
A woman I work with was telling me about how her family "only" has two copies of the new Harry Potter book. Her daughter had finished it already, her sons and husband were in the middle somewhere, and she was only on around 30 because she was graciously letting others read it first. As I listened, I thought enviously how great it would be to have something the whole family was so into. My husband and I tend to have different preferences for books. I hope, as our children grow, we can find things that attract us all, so we can eagerly read and discuss as a group.
A lot of people (adults and children) are mourning the end of the Harry Potter series. What next? I also am greiving on behalf of my son and unborn children; though they will probably (hopefully) read the books, they will most likely know the basic plot and maybe have seen the films ahead of time. They won't know the fun and excitement of waiting and waiting for the next book's release. They won't have the option of NOT having the ending spoiled for them. It's like Star Wars. There was never a time when I didn't know Vader was Luke's father--how cool would it have been to be in a theatre on opening night and hear that line? Dang.
Sad though it may be, we do have to move on beyond the Harry Potter series. Fortunately, there are lots of great books available that parents and kids together can read, or that can be read by either adults or grown ups alone. This is a great time for adolescent literature.
My suggestion, if you have kids you want to get (or keep) engaged in reading, is to hook them on a series. One reason Harry Potter was such a phenomenon was because readers got involved with the characters and the quest. There are loads of fantasy series people can use to fill the void. My personal favorite is the Alvin Maker series by Orson Scott Card. The first book, Seventh Son, is one of the best books I've read EVER--and I've read a lot of books. The books do not come off as childish or adolescent, but they are something young people could read and understand well, if they were able to handle the later Harry Potter books (which were pretty complicated, actually).
If you google "What to read after Harry Potter," you will find that there are lots of experts trying to help readers cope. For example, you could check here and here and here. Good luck, and keep reading!! It is good for you, your kids, and the world in general.
18.7.07
Lying to Children
(This is a guest post by Pacifist Viking)
Are you aware that millions of adults are consistently, repeatedly lying to children? That there is a massive conspiracy among adults to convince kids to believe lies that adults themselves do not believe? This conspiracy of serial dishonesty and deception against our children is largely accepted by the mass media, corporations, consumers, and parents. In fact, many parents are participating in this conspiracy of spreading lies used to manipulate the behavior of children.
If you feel children are not ready to be exposed to the sinister reality of this conspiracy, this is the time to make sure no children are looking at the screen. I am now ready to expose these lies.
There is no Santa Claus.
There is no Easter Bunny.
There is no Tooth Fairy.
No reasonable adult believes in a fat man living at the North Pole with a team of elves and reindeer helping him fly around the world to break into our homes. No reasonable adult believes there are rabbits that lay eggs and bring candy to children. And while some reasonable adults do believe in fairies, I am aware of no reasonable adult that believes in a fairy that pays children for their teeth.
And yet many people considered good parents do tell their children these lies. And if I attempted to tell children the truth about the non-existence of Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, parents would be incredibly angry at me. Even as we teach our children the virtue of honesty, even as we teach them to tell the truth, parents lie to them about the existence of these beings that parents themselves do not believe in. This isn't a lie of omission either (we don't have to explain the realities of sex to children, and we should probably wait until they are older before allowing them to understand the realities of atrocities like genocide or war); it's a deliberate, active lie.
I don't wish to ask my son to believe in anything that I know not to be true. This doesn't mean his life will not be filled with wonder (the world is full of amazing phenomena). This doesn't mean I'll discourage belief in the supernatural (indeed, as I want to believe in the supernatural, I don't see anything wrong with teaching children to believe). We'll still have Santa et al., but as a game that we talk about as pretend.
Is it cruel to abstain from teaching our child to believe in Santa? We're not preventing him from fun, gifts, or wonder: we will do everything we can to make Christmas a special and mystical experience for him. Perhaps we're saving him from existential doubt in the future ("If there's no Santa, does that mean there's no God, either?").
At any rate, he doesn't seem to mind. Today I explained to our six-month old that there's no Santa, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy, and he laughed at me. He seemed to take the news very well.
But this is a chance for discussion. My tone through most of this post was intended to be playful satire, not judgmental lecture. What do you think? Are there good reasons for teaching children to believe in mystical creatures we know don't exist? I would like to hear different opinions on why children should or should not grow up believing in Santa.
Are you aware that millions of adults are consistently, repeatedly lying to children? That there is a massive conspiracy among adults to convince kids to believe lies that adults themselves do not believe? This conspiracy of serial dishonesty and deception against our children is largely accepted by the mass media, corporations, consumers, and parents. In fact, many parents are participating in this conspiracy of spreading lies used to manipulate the behavior of children.
If you feel children are not ready to be exposed to the sinister reality of this conspiracy, this is the time to make sure no children are looking at the screen. I am now ready to expose these lies.
There is no Santa Claus.
There is no Easter Bunny.
There is no Tooth Fairy.
No reasonable adult believes in a fat man living at the North Pole with a team of elves and reindeer helping him fly around the world to break into our homes. No reasonable adult believes there are rabbits that lay eggs and bring candy to children. And while some reasonable adults do believe in fairies, I am aware of no reasonable adult that believes in a fairy that pays children for their teeth.
And yet many people considered good parents do tell their children these lies. And if I attempted to tell children the truth about the non-existence of Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, parents would be incredibly angry at me. Even as we teach our children the virtue of honesty, even as we teach them to tell the truth, parents lie to them about the existence of these beings that parents themselves do not believe in. This isn't a lie of omission either (we don't have to explain the realities of sex to children, and we should probably wait until they are older before allowing them to understand the realities of atrocities like genocide or war); it's a deliberate, active lie.
I don't wish to ask my son to believe in anything that I know not to be true. This doesn't mean his life will not be filled with wonder (the world is full of amazing phenomena). This doesn't mean I'll discourage belief in the supernatural (indeed, as I want to believe in the supernatural, I don't see anything wrong with teaching children to believe). We'll still have Santa et al., but as a game that we talk about as pretend.
Is it cruel to abstain from teaching our child to believe in Santa? We're not preventing him from fun, gifts, or wonder: we will do everything we can to make Christmas a special and mystical experience for him. Perhaps we're saving him from existential doubt in the future ("If there's no Santa, does that mean there's no God, either?").
At any rate, he doesn't seem to mind. Today I explained to our six-month old that there's no Santa, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy, and he laughed at me. He seemed to take the news very well.
But this is a chance for discussion. My tone through most of this post was intended to be playful satire, not judgmental lecture. What do you think? Are there good reasons for teaching children to believe in mystical creatures we know don't exist? I would like to hear different opinions on why children should or should not grow up believing in Santa.
14.7.07
Gender Identity
When my husband and I first got pregnant, we both said we didn't want to know the gender of the baby. Mainly, we wanted the excitement throughout the pregnancy (and even into the delivery room) of not knowing. But another reason we didn't want to find out the sex was to avoid getting all blue or pink clothing and toys as gifts. It is important that children be given wiggle room so that they can decide how to express their personality in a way that suits them. So, we went neutral, painted the room yellow, and registered for things of all colors.
I know I am not the first mother to try and go gender neutral. But I am surprised that people have given me a hard time about it. Not a lot of people, but enough to bother me. When I told a bunch of friends that I planned to continue gender neutral clothing as my child grew, they asked, "How much green and yellow can you handle?" I said we would buy all colors, from red to tan to purple. I was asked, "But what if it's a boy? Boys can't wear purple!" I got irritated and mentioned something about not saying such things around the Vikings, and about my baby being able to wear any color he wanted. One woman shut me up with the condescending, "When you actually have a boy, you will understand."
I really hate when people who disagree with me blame it on my lack of experience, as though the only way I could have a different opinion would be out of ignorance. So, I made a personal vow to stay gender neutral. And it lasted--all the way through the newborn sized clothes. Now that my son is 6 months, he is on his third set of clothes. Granted, I did not purchase any of the clothes myself, because we have been lucky enough to have gotten lots of hand-me-downs and gifts. But even if I had, it is hard to find things that don't either come with ruffles or little sayings like, "Daddy's favorite little quarterback." Don't get me wrong: ruffles and quarterbacks are cute, but it's frustrated to have such limited choices. So, probably half of the time I dress him in blue.
Why do I do this? Have I already abandoned my moral stance on forcing gender roles on infants? I like to think not. My son has light skin, blond hair, and bright blue eyes. The truth is, he looks amazing in blue. However, it is important to me to maintain an openness about gender identity in the house. I suppose I can continue to try to find other colors I like on him as much as blue (red is also a good match, but there aren't as many red clothes out there, and since I rely on others to provide the wardrobe, I have to take what I can get). I can also consider the fact that gender identity is shaped by much more than the color of his outfits; toys, games, books, and even the adjectives I use to describe him will all make an impact as well. I can make a choice to call him my gentle, sweet little boy rather than my strong, big boy.
In the meantime, I will make an effort to dress him in more 'feminine' colors when I know I will be seeing the people who gave me a hard time, just to make a statement.
I know I am not the first mother to try and go gender neutral. But I am surprised that people have given me a hard time about it. Not a lot of people, but enough to bother me. When I told a bunch of friends that I planned to continue gender neutral clothing as my child grew, they asked, "How much green and yellow can you handle?" I said we would buy all colors, from red to tan to purple. I was asked, "But what if it's a boy? Boys can't wear purple!" I got irritated and mentioned something about not saying such things around the Vikings, and about my baby being able to wear any color he wanted. One woman shut me up with the condescending, "When you actually have a boy, you will understand."
I really hate when people who disagree with me blame it on my lack of experience, as though the only way I could have a different opinion would be out of ignorance. So, I made a personal vow to stay gender neutral. And it lasted--all the way through the newborn sized clothes. Now that my son is 6 months, he is on his third set of clothes. Granted, I did not purchase any of the clothes myself, because we have been lucky enough to have gotten lots of hand-me-downs and gifts. But even if I had, it is hard to find things that don't either come with ruffles or little sayings like, "Daddy's favorite little quarterback." Don't get me wrong: ruffles and quarterbacks are cute, but it's frustrated to have such limited choices. So, probably half of the time I dress him in blue.
Why do I do this? Have I already abandoned my moral stance on forcing gender roles on infants? I like to think not. My son has light skin, blond hair, and bright blue eyes. The truth is, he looks amazing in blue. However, it is important to me to maintain an openness about gender identity in the house. I suppose I can continue to try to find other colors I like on him as much as blue (red is also a good match, but there aren't as many red clothes out there, and since I rely on others to provide the wardrobe, I have to take what I can get). I can also consider the fact that gender identity is shaped by much more than the color of his outfits; toys, games, books, and even the adjectives I use to describe him will all make an impact as well. I can make a choice to call him my gentle, sweet little boy rather than my strong, big boy.
In the meantime, I will make an effort to dress him in more 'feminine' colors when I know I will be seeing the people who gave me a hard time, just to make a statement.
Eating Solids
This week we began feeding our baby cereal. There are good and bad side effects of Fox eating more than just milk.
The Goods:
-It's cute to watch him get all covered with sticky food stuffs
-He seems to enjoy biting on the rubber tip of his spoons
-It makes me proud to see him acting more and more like a little person
-Supposedly, this will help him sleep longer/better during the night
The Bads:
-It's messy
-The process of cleaning up after the meal takes around 20 minutes
-This will lead to peas, carrots, bananas, and other nonsense
-Poop will start to smell like poop before long
-I have to mix the cereal with breastmilk, which means extra pumping (blah)
-It's proof he is growing up, and I explicitly told him he wasn't supposed to do that. He is breaking rules.
The Goods:
-It's cute to watch him get all covered with sticky food stuffs
-He seems to enjoy biting on the rubber tip of his spoons
-It makes me proud to see him acting more and more like a little person
-Supposedly, this will help him sleep longer/better during the night
The Bads:
-It's messy
-The process of cleaning up after the meal takes around 20 minutes
-This will lead to peas, carrots, bananas, and other nonsense
-Poop will start to smell like poop before long
-I have to mix the cereal with breastmilk, which means extra pumping (blah)
-It's proof he is growing up, and I explicitly told him he wasn't supposed to do that. He is breaking rules.
9.7.07
More Advice, Please
Lately, my husband and I have been having some trouble with our son. He's almost 6 months old, and he has mastered rolling over from back to tummy. He can't roll from tummy to back (which is supposed to be easier); I don't mind, because he's an individual. That's cool. But the past couple weeks, we haven't been able to let him sleep in the crib. He gets himself onto his tummy and can't roll back over.
The concern isn't so much the SIDS risk (although I still worry about that all the time). Experts say once they are strong enough to roll over, they are pretty much not a SIDS risk anymore. The real issue is that after he rolls, he always manages to get an arm, a leg, or both stuck through the bars of his crib, and then he cries like a maniac. I don't know if it hurts him or if he is just scared or what. But there is no helping it.
In order to avoid this terrible fiasco, we have been having the baby sleep in his car seat--a method we used when his crib was still too big for him to feel comfortable in. But I really like him sleeping in his crib, where he belongs. It is true that in the car seat he sleeps much longer and much more soundly than the crib (even more than he did before the rolling/stuck leg phase hit).
I don't know what to do: should I continue to let him sleep in the car seat, at least until he figures out how to roll back over from tummy to back? Or should I just be tough and push through the crying and rolling and getting stuck?
Also, does anyone have experience with the whole 'putting baby down to sleep while he is awake and letting him cry it out' philosophy? We have been doing that for the past few months, and he still cries a lot each night (unless he falls asleep while eating). So, I don't know if I should keep trying it, or if I should just give up. He cries for as little as five minutes and as long as an hour. I feel like he is learning to self-soothe, because I see him finding his thumb and calming down in other situations. But he still does cry a lot at night, so I don't know for sure. Any input will really help us. Thanks!
The concern isn't so much the SIDS risk (although I still worry about that all the time). Experts say once they are strong enough to roll over, they are pretty much not a SIDS risk anymore. The real issue is that after he rolls, he always manages to get an arm, a leg, or both stuck through the bars of his crib, and then he cries like a maniac. I don't know if it hurts him or if he is just scared or what. But there is no helping it.
In order to avoid this terrible fiasco, we have been having the baby sleep in his car seat--a method we used when his crib was still too big for him to feel comfortable in. But I really like him sleeping in his crib, where he belongs. It is true that in the car seat he sleeps much longer and much more soundly than the crib (even more than he did before the rolling/stuck leg phase hit).
I don't know what to do: should I continue to let him sleep in the car seat, at least until he figures out how to roll back over from tummy to back? Or should I just be tough and push through the crying and rolling and getting stuck?
Also, does anyone have experience with the whole 'putting baby down to sleep while he is awake and letting him cry it out' philosophy? We have been doing that for the past few months, and he still cries a lot each night (unless he falls asleep while eating). So, I don't know if I should keep trying it, or if I should just give up. He cries for as little as five minutes and as long as an hour. I feel like he is learning to self-soothe, because I see him finding his thumb and calming down in other situations. But he still does cry a lot at night, so I don't know for sure. Any input will really help us. Thanks!
5.7.07
Picture Perfect
I need advice from as many people (parents or not) as possible to help me make an important decision. Yesterday, at the 4th of July parade, a politician came over to talk to us (thanks again, Abe). While there, he picked up my baby and I took a picture. We had a good chuckle together, and then he asked me to email him the photo. I promised him I would.
Today, I was about to send him to picture, but I googled him first to learn more about him. I was not very happy with what I found out. I am sure he is a great guy, but he's a republican. Which isn't such an issue--almost half of politicians in America are. I looked through his info, and he seems to be a supporter of the environment. So, that's good.
However, he is also on the Game, Fish, and Forestry Division committee, which I assume means he is a supporter of hunting and fishing (and that may be a faulty assumption, but who knows). But the biggest thing for me was that he voted against the smoking ban. Who would vote against the smoking ban? Are you kidding me? Seriously. The health of future generations depends on it--not only are kids not exposed to secondhand smoke in public, but they also aren't seeing adults everywhere they go lighting up.
So, now I am faced with a dilemma. Should I keep my promise and send the picture of the politician with my baby? Or should I just forget it? It isn't that the guy is bad or that anyone who has his views is bad, but since I don't support much of what he stands for, I would hate to see the picture used to further his political agenda. I mean, I doubt he just wanted the picture to put in a frame at his house. It must be for the whole baby-kissing image politicians love.
So, should I exploit my baby/beliefs or become a promise-breaker?
Today, I was about to send him to picture, but I googled him first to learn more about him. I was not very happy with what I found out. I am sure he is a great guy, but he's a republican. Which isn't such an issue--almost half of politicians in America are. I looked through his info, and he seems to be a supporter of the environment. So, that's good.
However, he is also on the Game, Fish, and Forestry Division committee, which I assume means he is a supporter of hunting and fishing (and that may be a faulty assumption, but who knows). But the biggest thing for me was that he voted against the smoking ban. Who would vote against the smoking ban? Are you kidding me? Seriously. The health of future generations depends on it--not only are kids not exposed to secondhand smoke in public, but they also aren't seeing adults everywhere they go lighting up.
So, now I am faced with a dilemma. Should I keep my promise and send the picture of the politician with my baby? Or should I just forget it? It isn't that the guy is bad or that anyone who has his views is bad, but since I don't support much of what he stands for, I would hate to see the picture used to further his political agenda. I mean, I doubt he just wanted the picture to put in a frame at his house. It must be for the whole baby-kissing image politicians love.
So, should I exploit my baby/beliefs or become a promise-breaker?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)