Preparing sibling for birth process?

"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...

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.