do people not like holding their babies?

On 8 Sep 2003 21:11:36 -0700, (Anonymommmy)
wrote:

What DH and I think is strange is "very old" children, like maybe 5
years old or older, in strollers.

I don't get that either. DD is over 2 and she can walk. She is
usually well behaved, but she has her moments. We generally don't use
a stroller anymore. I feel sorry for those older children in
strollers.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004
See Jayan: http://jayan.topcities.com/

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 10:09:19 -0400, Bruce and Jeanne
wrote:

Anonymommmy wrote:

What DH and I think is strange is "very old" children, like maybe 5
years old or older, in strollers.

Sure it may seem weird but I'd rather seem weird to a stranger than
carry my 45 lb (or more) child for an half hour or so and kill my back.

But your 5 year old can walk. Why not just make your child walk?

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004
See Jayan: http://jayan.topcities.com/

Daye wrote,

Is it because the bad parents are out at 10:30 at night? Or is it
because the child is out at 10:30 at night, the parents must be bad?


School age children have no business being out at 10:30 PM on a school night,
and parents ought not to be swearing at their children. I've seen both. And
lots of those school agers were out with *both* parents. Why couldn't one have
stayed home with children in bed?

Mary Ellen
William (8)
Matthew (6)
Margaret (2)

"Daye" wrote in message
...

We went, and I got the remover. DD was on my hip the whole time, and
she loved being out. She was also well behaved. When I went to the
checkout counter, the check out chick said to my DD (NOT to me),
"Well, shouldn't you be in bed?" Then she looked at me like I was the
worst mother in the world. I said very curtly, "She just woke up, and
she will be going back to bed once we get home."

This is a good example of how we all need to remember that we don't know the
whole story. I'm sorry you had that allergic reaction, but thank you for
sharing. I think we could all use the reminder.
--
JennP.

mom to Matthew 10/11/00
remove "no........spam" to reply

Daye wrote:

It still ****ed me off because the check out chick made an
assumption because my DD was awake and out at 2am.

That story reminded me of my 4am trip to the Walmart for
Benadryl when I woke up covered in hives. If Caterpillar
had woken up as I was going out, I'd have likely taken her, too.

Phoebe

Dawn Lawson wrote

Let's not pretend that babies in slings are never cranky or that if
you're out doing stuff with your baby in a sling and she starts
crying, you are always able to make her happy immediately.

Actually, he rarely cries if we're out and he's in the sling, and is
easily soothed.

My DD also very rarely cries when we're out, regardless of whether
she's in a sling or the stroller. She loves being out and about, as is
true of most older babies. Some are happier in slings; others are just
as happy in strollers.


I take ALL
my baby's cries seriously, but not all crying can be avoided.

I'm not saying that. Mind you, I do have a very happy little soul here.
To what that can be attributed, I'm not saying.

Well, a number of posters on this thread have clearly attempted to
make a connection between their babies not being put into strollers
and their babies being happy. However, my baby is quite happy too, and
she is quite often in a stroller.

Remember that a baby crying is not like an adult crying. I only
cry when really really upet, whereas babies cry for the equivalent of
"I think I'll have a glass of water now."

Which they cannot do anything about themselves.

....needless to say. What I'm getting at with the above statement,
though, is that these "I saw a baby CRYING today -- yes CRYING. And
she was in a STROLLER" type statements are sort of silly if we keep in
mind that a baby crying is really not such a strange thing, since
about the only way they can express most desires is to cry. That a
baby cries does not mean she is being neglected. it means she wants
something and her caregiver hasn't gotten it for her -- yet.


AND the poor
unfortunate person trying to navigate AROUND one of those monstrous
blockages.

Whatever. You sound like a CFer with that.

Stop one day and notice how obstructive and massive they are.

As are cars, to a bike messenger. As are groups of people on city
street corners, to a jogger. Lots of stuff gets in our way. We only
complain about those we consider illegitimate. I don't consider
strollers illegitmate. I consider them an acceptable way for people to
transport their children around, and as children have as much right to
be in the world as the rest of the people, then strollers and the
occasional reasonable, unavoidable, and brief blockages they cause
simply are part of the landscape that people in general need to deal
with.

I tend
to assume militant APers are "persons of leisure" who can stand or sit
around holding babies all day long. I am most definitely not.


Silly.
I have two gardens, am a single mum, keep a tidy house, cook meals, do
the shopping, maintain my yard, have begun school, and rarely spend a
day in the house. We go to heavy horse pulls, the zoo, botanical
gardens, the lake, you name it.

All the stuff in the last sentence are fun things to do that you can
do while holding a baby. Those are, in fact, leisure activities. How
do you cook meals while holding a baby? How do you garden while
holding a baby? How do you go to school and do research while holding
a baby?

Although the question may be "loaded" it certainly seems a valid
question if you look about and notice how very very few people really DO
hold their infants/children for any appreciable length of time.


Oh, please -- how could you possibly know that this is true?

obsevation?!

But you aren't around a sizable enough number of them for long enough
to know and to able to then make pronouncements about society as a
whole. Like the OP -- she based her complaint on, what, 15 minutes in
a doc's office and extrapolated from there.

People's reaction to ME wanting to hold DS. etc

What, they complain about you holding him? Why would they care?
Busybodies of the world, unite!

and
really, those that reply that they use a stroller or seat say they do so
because they do NOT like holding their baby during a meal or to go for
walks, or whatever. (Not to say they don't like their baby)


Who on earth would hold a baby during a meal if she didn't have to
(that is, if the baby was happy in a chair)?

Why do we live in a society that needs to ASK what to do with a baby
that ISN'T in a chair when out??

Huh? If I understand this question correctly (which it isn't easy to
do), then you have *willfully* misread my statement, which gives good
clues as to why you get so upset about seeing babies in strollers and
such. I wasn't asking, in general, who on earth would hold a baby if
the baby didn't appear to need to be held. I was asking who would do
so *while trying to eat her meal*! That is not an easy thing to do
with an active, curious, healthy baby of a certain age, so insisting
on doing it is forced.

Anne Rogers wrote
I think not carrying a child is a psycological thing in some ways, our son
was very small, initially his car seat drowned him so we only could use it
for short essential trips in the car, it was also the only way for our
buggy at that age, he was too small for our carrier (we didn't have a
sling then), we wanted to take him out to introduce him to some friends
who lived just round the corner, we really weren't sure whether we should
just carry him in our arms, in the end we did, but we did get some funny
looks.

Are you sure you're not being a bit paranoid with this? Who would look
funny at a person holding a very small baby? My middle child needed to
be held all the time, and I'm sure I never got any "looks" while doing
so. Maybe I live in some kind of alternate universe, or maybe this is
proof that people see what they expect to see, but I don't agree that
babies are never held out in public. And I *rarely* see babies crying
without their parents either (1) quickly picking them up or otherwise
making them happy or (2) making every reasonable attempt to finish
what they must do so they can pick them up.

In general, I guess I just find that in my little corner of the world,
most parents appear to adore and dote upon their babies. This is NOT
to say, though, that these babies never cry or never have to go
without direct parental attention for certain periods of time.

"Michelle Podnar" wrote in message ...
That actually weighs heavily on when we have a second. I always wanted more
that 2 children, but I am not sure I have enough attention to give to DD and
to a new baby, not to mention more.... Don't get me wrong, DD is a
wonderful child, and I love the person she is becoming, but she is a handful
(attention wise, and she is a daredevil!!).

Well, my own "velcro baby" came out of her shell at about 3, and by 4,
people were acting surprised when I mentioned that she was shy. I do
suspect that giving her all the closeness she needed early on, as hard
as it sometimes was for me, helped her feel safe enough to separate as
she got older. If you can give it a couple of years, you may find that
you have a pretty "average" kid (need-for-closeness-wise) and so
you'll be ready to start over again. And, of course, what are the
chances of having 2 such babies in a row?

Daye wrote in message
I don't get that either. DD is over 2 and she can walk. She is
usually well behaved, but she has her moments. We generally don't use
a stroller anymore. I feel sorry for those older children in
strollers.

Why would you feel sorry for an older child that got tired and needed a
break? Do you think that since they can walk, they will never get tired? I
feel sorry for your children then if you expect them to walk on an all day
outing without some place for them to have a break.
--
Sue
mom to three girls

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 08:11:39 +1000, Daye wrote:

I don't get that either. DD is over 2 and she can walk. She is
usually well behaved, but she has her moments. We generally don't use
a stroller anymore. I feel sorry for those older children in
strollers.

Consider the possibility that the child can't walk. Kyle can't, at
three, and may not be able to do so by the time he's five. Since it's
smaller than his wheelchair, we use his stroller for excursions, so it's
not obvious to observers that he's got a disability.

In addition, on a lengthier walking excursion, keeping some means for
resting with you is good planning.

Basically, beware the knee jerking assumptions.