Preparing sibling for birth process?

On Mar 24, 11:59*am, Beliavsky wrote:
On Mar 17, 12:20*pm, Akuvikate wrote:





Replying to my own post, probably bad manners, but...

Since all of the sudden this thread has become really active (though
mostly about agsf) I figured I'd post an update. *I got the Lennart
Nilson photographic book (that classic from the 70s about in utero
development) and started talking with the Bug about childbirth.
Doctor's daughter to the end, she's more interested in the picture of
the C-section than the those of the "regular way". *The moment of
truth of course has not yet arrived, but at least the discussion went
better than I could have hoped. *For one, when I started thinking
about the nitty gritty, I realized I couldn't get either of our hopes
too pinned on her being there (it's a hospital birth, and what if
things go quickly in the middle of the night?). *I've told her I may
be hooting and hollering, it kind of hurts, there may be blood, the
baby comes out goopy, but all of that's OK. *She doesn't seem to be in
the least phased by any of it. *She knows that mommy will be busy
getting the baby born, and daddy will be busy taking care of mommy, so
she asks grandma for anything she needs. *And of course if she starts
to get freaked out, she and my mom go play somewhere else in the
hospital where she spent 3 years visiting me on call nights during my
residency.

I don't see the point of needlessly exposing children to stressful
situations where their parents are suffering. Heck, I don't see why
fathers need to be in the delivery room. It wasn't that long ago that
they usually were not. You can say a little kid is choosing to be
there, but I would not let a 4yo choose to see a movie with blood and
gore.- Hide quoted text -


Well put. No need to expose the children to the ordeal. I can't think
of a positive aspect of having small children present during child
birth as well.

Regards...

On Mar 31, 7:33 pm, "
Well put. No need to expose the children to the ordeal. I can't think
of a positive aspect of having small children present during child
birth as well.

Some small children find the separation from their mothers traumatic,
but do not find being present at a birth traumatic. Just because you
find
being present at a birth traumatic does not mean that they do.

My oldest still remembers the trauma of being separated from me for
the
birth of her brother six years ago. While she just missed the birth
itself, she loved seeing the umbilical cord pulsating when her sister
was born 3
years ago. All the blood did not bother her a bit, since she knew it
was
part of a natural process and expected it. I think that she would
have
had a much easier time emotionally if she had been able to be present
at
her brother's birth.

--Betsy

wrote:
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.
[...]
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.

When they're young, yes. That doesn't mean the entire job should fall
to a single person within the marriage. For many marriages, it might
work very well for both partners to work part-time so that they can
split childcare between them. Or for the two to alternate the time they
take off so that first one person takes a career break of a couple of
years, then the other.

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.

Not sure what modern technology has to do with it (beyond the fact that
it's made it easier to keep a baby on breast milk even if its mother
isn't staying home full-time), but I agree entirely with the rest of
your statement. The point I was making was that the traditional 50s
marriage model was for the woman always to be the one who stayed home.
You may have meant the phrase 'traditional marriage of the 50s' in a
looser sense, in which case we may be talking at cross-purposes.

[...]
Again, it is because of modern technology that women can and want to
go out and work.

Not sure where you're getting that from.

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.

Not quite clear on what you mean by this?

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.

shrug I don't think there's such a thing as *the* feminist doctrine.
Feminism is a pretty loose and widespread set of beliefs (I know one
feminist who defined her own feminism beliefs simply as "the belief that
women are fully human"). I think there are beliefs on feminist,
anti-feminist, and couldn't-care-less-about-feminism sides that can
potentially pervert and attack marriage.


Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

On Apr 6, 1:45 pm, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
wrote:
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.
[...]
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.

When they're young, yes. That doesn't mean the entire job should fall
to a single person within the marriage. For many marriages, it might
work very well for both partners to work part-time so that they can
split childcare between them. Or for the two to alternate the time they
take off so that first one person takes a career break of a couple of
years, then the other.

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.

Not sure what modern technology has to do with it (beyond the fact that
it's made it easier to keep a baby on breast milk even if its mother
isn't staying home full-time),

I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which
men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The
jobs of the past women did not want to do and they still do not want
to do jobs of physical labor. However, if there ever becomes a day
where a person can construct a building or home with a push of a
button, women will jump on that opportunity.

but I agree entirely with the rest of
your statement. The point I was making was that the traditional 50s
marriage model was for the woman always to be the one who stayed home.
You may have meant the phrase 'traditional marriage of the 50s' in a
looser sense, in which case we may be talking at cross-purposes.

[...]

I could care less who stays home. However, I also think having
predetermined roles in place can avoid arguments and build and
maintain a healthy relationship. It is also important to note that
each role is equally important to the stability of the family. When my
wife stayed home, she wasn't seen as a maid (even though her friends
told her she was) and I didn't consider myself to be a walking ATM
machine. Both her and my role were equally important.


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.

Not quite clear on what you mean by this?

I meant that the traditional marriage model of one parent focusing on
the family while the other parent earning the living is a great model.
What I see in America today is a couple has a baby and immediately
dumps the baby in daycare while they both pursue careers.

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.

shrug I don't think there's such a thing as *the* feminist doctrine.

It exists. It tells women that they are doormats, maids and human
slaves if they stay home and/or take care of their husbands and
children. It also tells women that they are inferior and taken
advantage of when in fact, the realty was that women had/have a better
life and were more respected and valuable prior to and after feminism.

Feminism is a pretty loose and widespread set of beliefs (I know one
feminist who defined her own feminism beliefs simply as "the belief that
women are fully human"). I think there are beliefs on feminist,
anti-feminist, and couldn't-care-less-about-feminism sides that can
potentially pervert and attack marriage.

Know of any that can promote a healthy marriage?

Sarah

Regards...

wrote in message
...

I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which
men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The
jobs of the past women did not want to do and they still do not want
to do jobs of physical labor. However, if there ever becomes a day
where a person can construct a building or home with a push of a
button, women will jump on that opportunity.

And why not? If a woman can do It as well as or better than a man and she
wants to do it, why not?

We are not living In primitive conditions anymore and so we are not
constrained by them.


but I agree entirely with the rest of
your statement. The point I was making was that the traditional 50s
marriage model was for the woman always to be the one who stayed home.
You may have meant the phrase 'traditional marriage of the 50s' in a
looser sense, in which case we may be talking at cross-purposes.

[...]

I could care less who stays home. However, I also think having
predetermined roles in place can avoid arguments and build and
maintain a healthy relationship. It is also important to note that
each role is equally important to the stability of the family. When my
wife stayed home, she wasn't seen as a maid (even though her friends
told her she was) and I didn't consider myself to be a walking ATM
machine. Both her and my role were equally important.

I do agree that someone should stay home with the child, if possible. I
also agree that both the role of provider and SAHP are equally important.

I meant that the traditional marriage model of one parent focusing on
the family while the other parent earning the living is a great model.
What I see in America today is a couple has a baby and immediately
dumps the baby in daycare while they both pursue careers.

I think it's usually because both have to work. When there is a choice,
many times one will stay home, and that is usually the woman. It doesn't
have to be.

I personally prefer that I be home rather than DH. It's sort of a selfish
thing, because I want to see my kids grow up. I'm glad I have that choice.
I wonder if men would like the choice to be home sometimes.

It exists. It tells women that they are doormats, maids and human
slaves if they stay home and/or take care of their husbands and
children. It also tells women that they are inferior and taken
advantage of when in fact, the realty was that women had/have a better
life and were more respected and valuable prior to and after feminism.

All you have to do is look to more traditional societies to see that women
are more often than not viewed as inferior to men. That view didn't begin
with the feminists.

In the gender-defined jobs of the past, women did HUGE amounts of
physical labor. In many parts of the world women still do so today. If
you don't think hauling water from a well or river to your family's home
is physical labor (just one example) then you've clearly never tried it.

The traditional difference has been that women's labor tends to allow
them to also do childcare, and can be shared with other women when
pregnancy interferes with the heaviest jobs. Men's physical labor may
be further from the home.

There are other differences, of course. But the big change in labor
roles in the 20th century came from control over reproduction. Birth
control has changed our society enormously, probably more than any other
single invention.

--Beth Kevles
-THE-COM-HERE
http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the GMAIL one if you would
like me to reply.

In article ,
says...

On Apr 6, 1:45 pm, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
wrote:
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.
[...]
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.

When they're young, yes. That doesn't mean the entire job should fall
to a single person within the marriage. For many marriages, it might
work very well for both partners to work part-time so that they can
split childcare between them. Or for the two to alternate the time they
take off so that first one person takes a career break of a couple of
years, then the other.

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.

Not sure what modern technology has to do with it (beyond the fact that
it's made it easier to keep a baby on breast milk even if its mother
isn't staying home full-time),

I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which
men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The
jobs of the past women did not want to do and they still do not want
to do jobs of physical labor. However, if there ever becomes a day
where a person can construct a building or home with a push of a
button, women will jump on that opportunity.

My foremothers pioneering in the American Northwest and dairy farming in
Wisconsin would be very amused by this.



but I agree entirely with the rest of
your statement. The point I was making was that the traditional 50s
marriage model was for the woman always to be the one who stayed home.
You may have meant the phrase 'traditional marriage of the 50s' in a
looser sense, in which case we may be talking at cross-purposes.

[...]

I could care less who stays home. However, I also think having
predetermined roles in place can avoid arguments and build and
maintain a healthy relationship. It is also important to note that
each role is equally important to the stability of the family. When my
wife stayed home, she wasn't seen as a maid (even though her friends
told her she was) and I didn't consider myself to be a walking ATM
machine. Both her and my role were equally important.

As long as the predetermined role *you* get is the one that gives you the
earning power and therefore the most options. I can assure you that it does
*not* mean less strife to have roles so defined.

How about taking in account that people have differing needs and desires, and
how to make the best lives together?



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.

Not quite clear on what you mean by this?

I meant that the traditional marriage model of one parent focusing on
the family while the other parent earning the living is a great model.
What I see in America today is a couple has a baby and immediately
dumps the baby in daycare while they both pursue careers.

The parent-earning and parent-caretending is indeed model that works for a lot
of people. But not all or even most.

Even in my parents' generation (and I'm 53), mixing roles were becoming more and
more common. Mostly in women taking on some work.


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.

shrug I don't think there's such a thing as *the* feminist doctrine.

It exists. It tells women that they are doormats, maids and human
slaves if they stay home and/or take care of their husbands and
children. It also tells women that they are inferior and taken
advantage of when in fact, the realty was that women had/have a better
life and were more respected and valuable prior to and after feminism.

*Valued* (not necessarily respected) if they fulfilled a role of doing for
others, by said others.

Having you define what feminism means is like having Putin define what America
means. You're way, way off.

Banty

In article , toypup says...



wrote in message
...

I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which
men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The
jobs of the past women did not want to do and they still do not want
to do jobs of physical labor. However, if there ever becomes a day
where a person can construct a building or home with a push of a
button, women will jump on that opportunity.

And why not? If a woman can do It as well as or better than a man and she
wants to do it, why not?


This air conditioned office thing is just plain silly. There are female
soldiers, female firefighters, female ironworkers, female atheletes. Never mind
recent examples, we have Clara Barton working in hot battlefields, Jane Goodall
working and living in jungles.

I guess he imagines it's the women shouldn't swe..., um, perspire.

It's the woman-on-pedestal thing. It's the old expectation that she be an
object of admiration for physical looks, while fulfilling a limited set of
roles. That's long been confused with 'respect'.

Banty

On Apr 6, 4:45*pm, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
wrote:
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.
[...]
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.

When they're young, yes. *That doesn't mean the entire job should fall
to a single person within the marriage. *For many marriages, it might
work very well for both partners to work part-time so that they can
split childcare between them. *Or for the two to alternate the time they
take off so that first one person takes a career break of a couple of
years, then the other.

The obvious problem is that working half the hours often means earning
less than 50% of the original income, because part-timers are much
less likely to progress within their organizations to positions of
greater responsibility and pay. It also shuts you out of certain high-
paying careers, such as investment banking or management consulting.
Often, a couple can maximize its income by having one spouse work full
time, and almost always that spouse is the husband, in part because
few men want to be full-time dads.

A woman can stay at home for a few years when the children are young
and resume her career later. I believe that's what, for example, Nancy
Pelosi (speaker of the House), mother of five, did. It's easier to do
if the educational system does not retard one's progress, as it can in
the U.S. For example, a doctor here will attend a four-year college
and then go to medical school for another 4 years, maybe graduating at
26. My wife tells me that in India, aspiring doctors are effectively
taking pre-med classes in what would be 10th to 12th grade here, and
one graduates from medical school at 23. In both countries, there is
still a residency to do, but finishing earlier makes a family,
especially a large family, more feasible.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , toypup says...



wrote in message
...

I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which
men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The
jobs of the past women did not want to do and they still do not want
to do jobs of physical labor. However, if there ever becomes a day
where a person can construct a building or home with a push of a
button, women will jump on that opportunity.

And why not? If a woman can do It as well as or better than a man and she
wants to do it, why not?


This air conditioned office thing is just plain silly. There are female
soldiers, female firefighters, female ironworkers, female atheletes.
Never mind
recent examples, we have Clara Barton working in hot battlefields, Jane
Goodall
working and living in jungles.

I guess he imagines it's the women shouldn't swe..., um, perspire.


No, ladies merely glow surely?
Debbie
It's the woman-on-pedestal thing. It's the old expectation that she be an
object of admiration for physical looks, while fulfilling a limited set of
roles. That's long been confused with 'respect'.

Banty