Preparing sibling for birth process?

Nan wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:24:03 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

toypup wrote:


It just occurs to me that if it can be
traumatic for a grown man, it can be traumatic to a young child who
doesn't quite comprehend everything that is going on. Yes, it could be
that it is not a traumatic but a very enriching experience; but if it is
a traumatic experience, that experience cannot be erased.
But it's very rare that the situation flips instantaneously
from fine to traumatic. There's usually plenty of warning for
the responsible adult to take the child off somewhere else. Also,
people self-select into this situation. The parent of a child
likely to struggle with a normal birth isn't likely to look into
this option.

I'm not toypup and I could be wrong, but I'm reading her post to say
that even a "normal" birth can be a traumatic experience for the
child. In my situation I knew E was pretty sensitive so we decided
not to include her. To this day she still says she has no intention
of ever having a baby and she didn't see the birth. Although she knew
what happened to me a week later when my wound eviscerated and she's
afraid of that.

My point was that a child was only likely to be traumatized
by a normal birth if there was inadequate planning/preparation
(something under the parents' control) or if the mother or child
was uncomfortable with it (typically ascertained in advance, and
easily dealt with in the moment via the assigned adult caretaker
removing the child if things start getting uncomfortable, which
they would long before they reached the traumatic stage).
Again, I wasn't arguing that everyone should choose this
option or that it's a good option for every mother or every child.
I'm arguing that it's not inappropriate in all cases (as some would
have it).

Best wishes,
Ericka

On Mar 25, 9:53*am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Nan wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:24:03 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

toypup wrote:

*It just occurs to me that if it can be
traumatic for a grown man, it can be traumatic to a young child who
doesn't quite comprehend everything that is going on. *Yes, it could be
that it is not a traumatic but a very enriching experience; but if it is
a traumatic experience, that experience cannot be erased.
* * * *But it's very rare that the situation flips instantaneously
from fine to traumatic. *There's usually plenty of warning for
the responsible adult to take the child off somewhere else. *Also,
people self-select into this situation. *The parent of a child
likely to struggle with a normal birth isn't likely to look into
this option.

I'm not toypup and I could be wrong, but I'm reading her post to say
that even a "normal" birth can be a traumatic experience for the
child. *In my situation I knew E was pretty sensitive so we decided
not to include her. *To this day she still says she has no intention
of ever having a baby and she didn't see the birth. *Although she knew
what happened to me a week later when my wound eviscerated and she's
afraid of that.

* * * * My point was that a child was only likely to be traumatized
by a normal birth if there was inadequate planning/preparation
(something under the parents' control) or if the mother or child
was uncomfortable with it (typically ascertained in advance, and
easily dealt with in the moment via the assigned adult caretaker
removing the child if things start getting uncomfortable, which
they would long before they reached the traumatic stage).
* * * * Again, I wasn't arguing that everyone should choose this
option or that it's a good option for every mother or every child.
I'm arguing that it's not inappropriate in all cases (as some would
have it).

Agreed. It's probably not a good option for most families. Many
adults are very uneasy themselves about birth, and particularly about
the accompanying blood and pain. The child would pick up on that
unease and it wouldn't go well. Many children are too sensitive, or
too needy, or too whatever for their presence to even be discussed as
an option. But it's all about the right family, the right kid, and
the right presentation and preparation. I presented to the Bug in a
matter of fact way that there would probably be blood, but it's extra
for the baby that I won't need anymore. I don't think she sees blood
as something inherently scary. I might be hooting and hollering
(though in the end I did more grunting) but that's OK too, as it's a
lot of hard work that can hurt but in a different way than most
owies. Had she reacted to any of this news with any apprehension I
would have cut things off right there. But she didn't. And I would
have had complete confidence in my mom to get her out and smooth
things over if she started to react badly. It's amazing what little
kids can understand and accept if it's presented at their level
without giving them a lot of emotional overtones. Her understanding
of why Little Dude has to stay at the hospital is every bit as
medically accurate as an adult's, it's just expressed in the language
of a 4 year old. I'll never know how she would have handled it if she
were actually there, and in the end I liked having it be just me and
DH, but I really don't worry that she would have been traumatized.

Kate, ignorant foot soldier of the medical cartel
and the Bug, four and a half and three quarters
and Little Dude, 3/19/08

Akuvikate wrote:

Agreed. It's probably not a good option for most families. Many
adults are very uneasy themselves about birth, and particularly about
the accompanying blood and pain. The child would pick up on that
unease and it wouldn't go well.

Totally agree. In fact, I think that's the biggest factor.
Kids are so very sensitive to their parents' emotions! If the
mother and father are calm and comfortable (emotionally), the child is
very likely to cope very well even with the effort involved. If the
parents are uncomfortable, it almost doesn't matter the objective
circumstances because the kids will be traumatized by picking up on the
parents' discomfort with the situation.

Now, I'd say that as a society we generally have such weird
notions about birth that there are a whole lot of folks who would
find it a very uphill struggle to be comfortable enough with birth
to make it a good place for their children. That's ok--I doubt many
of those folks are even asking themselves whether they should have
their kids at the birth ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:24:03 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

toypup wrote:



It just occurs to me that if it can be
traumatic for a grown man, it can be traumatic to a young child who
doesn't quite comprehend everything that is going on. Yes, it could be
that it is not a traumatic but a very enriching experience; but if it is
a traumatic experience, that experience cannot be erased.

But it's very rare that the situation flips instantaneously
from fine to traumatic. There's usually plenty of warning for
the responsible adult to take the child off somewhere else. Also,
people self-select into this situation. The parent of a child
likely to struggle with a normal birth isn't likely to look into
this option.

I'm not toypup and I could be wrong, but I'm reading her post to say
that even a "normal" birth can be a traumatic experience for the
child. In my situation I knew E was pretty sensitive so we decided
not to include her. To this day she still says she has no intention
of ever having a baby and she didn't see the birth. Although she knew
what happened to me a week later when my wound eviscerated and she's
afraid of that.

Yes. That's what I meant.

wrote:

I'm pretty sure your grandfather wasn't in the delivery room when your
parent was born and I am sure he had a great and healthy marriage.

That an interesting set of assumptions there. My grandfather was not in
the delivery room when my mother was born. He also left my grandmother
and mother when my mom was 18 months old.

Michelle
Flutist

"Michelle J. Haines" wrote in
:

wrote:

I'm pretty sure your grandfather wasn't in the delivery
room when your parent was born and I am sure he had a
great and healthy marriage.

That an interesting set of assumptions there. My
grandfather was not in the delivery room when my mother was
born. He also left my grandmother and mother when my mom
was 18 months old.

are you related to me? that's what my grandfather did too...
took *his* mother & sister and went off to the west coast,
leaving my grandmother & 18 month old mother in PA.
lee yeah, it was the Depression, but...
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

On Mar 24, 1:57 pm, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

You can't guarantee that there won't
be anything scary, but then again, you can't guarantee that
at any point in time. There's always the possibility of
your kids witnessing a miscarriage or a premature precipitate
birth or goodness knows what else, unless you send them away
as soon as you know you're pregnant.

And what occured to me later -- I'm so glad DH and the Bug had gone to
get lunch when Little Dude had his blue spell, as I think it would
have been far more traumatic for both of them than it was for me. I
doubt anyone would find it inappropriate to have the sibling visit the
hospital several hours after the baby was born. But in this case
seeing her blue floppy baby brother thrown into the bassinet and
rushed off by a nurse with a whole bunch of adults freaking out (none
of whom could have made tending to her their top priority) would have
likely been harder on her than being at the birth. So indeed, no
guarantees in life.

Kate, ignorant foot soldier of the medical cartel
and the Bug, four and a half and three quarters
and Little Dude, 3/19/08 (and finally home, doing great!)

Akuvikate wrote:

And what occured to me later -- I'm so glad DH and the Bug had gone to
get lunch when Little Dude had his blue spell, as I think it would
have been far more traumatic for both of them than it was for me. I
doubt anyone would find it inappropriate to have the sibling visit the
hospital several hours after the baby was born. But in this case
seeing her blue floppy baby brother thrown into the bassinet and
rushed off by a nurse with a whole bunch of adults freaking out (none
of whom could have made tending to her their top priority) would have
likely been harder on her than being at the birth. So indeed, no
guarantees in life.

Yeah, it would be great to be able to protect children
from anything ever happening like this, but there's just no way
to guarantee it short of refusing to allow them to experience
life. Our first midwives had a saying that you couldn't make
birth safer than life, and I think it's so very true. Of course
we all take sensible precautions and do our best to minimize
potential trauma, but when that's not enough, thank goodness
that kids are resilient and generally take their cues from
(hopefully fairly calm) parents.

Best wishes,
Ericka

On Mar 24, 9:09 am, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
wrote:

[...] So yes, a traditional
marriage of the "50's" where a woman is not selfish and is supportive
of her husband is much better than a modern marriage with a high
divorce rate.

[...]

The question is, though - better for whom?

For the family.

As I understand it, the traditional marriages to which you refer have
two salient features:

1. One partner gives up their career, or their chance at having a
career, in order to take care of all the cleaning, cooking, and
childcare needs of the couple.

Ideally, one person should stay home with the children.

2. The decision as to which partner does this is made not on the basis
of ability or desire but on the basis of gender.

With modern technology, either parent can now stay home with the
child.

Now, I can see why this would be better for most men. It's pretty
self-evident that having someone in your life who'll do all your
housework, cook all your meals, and sort out all your childcare issues,
all totally reliably and for minimal cost, is an improvement over not
having said someone. I can also see how it would be better for some
women - if bringing up your children and maintaining a household is what
you want to do with the rest of your life, then obviously the best thing
for you is to be able to do it.

Again, it is because of modern technology that women can and want to
go out and work. Even today, the hardest and physically demanding jobs
are still held by men.

However, lots of women did, and do, want careers either after or instead
of bringing up children. In addition, some men rather like the idea of
staying at home with children full time for at least some years. For
people who feel that way, traditional marriages really aren't better.

I don't see how having two parents play a certain role defies a
traditional marriage.

The problem with one-size-fits-all solutions is that generally they don't.

Generally they do. It's the feminist doctrine that perverts and
attacks the marriage model.

All the best,

Sarah

Regards...

On Mar 30, 11:10*am, "Michelle J. Haines" wrote:
wrote:

I'm pretty sure your grandfather wasn't in the delivery room when your
parent was born and I am sure he had a great and healthy marriage.

That an interesting set of assumptions there. *My grandfather was not in
the delivery room when my mother was born. *He also left my grandmother
and mother when my mom was 18 months old.

Michelle
Flutist

The actions of your grandfather did not fit the norm of society of
that time. Men were responsible for their families.

Regards...