"We're Pregnant"

No, no we're not. Or, rather, no I'm not. Because, see, despite the fact that we have three children together, my husband has never been pregnant. Not once. He never will be. He's, ahem, a man. And men do. not. get. pregnant.

I know it might seem silly. I also realize it's a petty thing to let bother me. But I just can't help it, people...

It drives me batty when couples announce, "We're pregnant!"

Yes, I am fully aware that the man was involved in the process and is, hopefully, very excited about the bundle-of-joy on the way. I'm really not trying to deny him any of the credit he so richly deserves...

But I'm thinking...

Do you think maybe all you glowing parents-to-be could perhaps change your lingo to the more accurate...

"We're going to have a baby!"

or

"We're expecting a baby!"

...at least when you're talking to me? :) That's all I ask. Oh, and by the way...

Congratulations.


(Isn't it convenient how this post ended up being on April Fool's Day? Hadn't even planned it!)

Is It Time to Let Your Toddler Take Care of Herself?

I am seeing red.

I thought about not writing this post. I almost didn't. I certainly hesitated before publishing it. Because, you see, I like the folks at Parenting magazine. They do some really great stuff. They share some interesting information and links on Twitter. They publish some valuable articles. I am glad that there are publications like this out there.

But I. Am. Mad.

The February edition of Parenting landed in my mailbox over the weekend. There are some good articles in there. I especially liked 5 Big Decisions, a great article with a lot of emphasis on making choices that work for your family. It's a good read and would be especially reassuring to a first-time parent.

But then I stumbled upon this gem:

"yes, you can sleep in!"

(Parenting, February 2010, pp 80-84)

I am not sure why I even read this article. I'm an early bird. I'm not looking to get more sleep. My children wake up at sensible, kid-appropriate hours (sometime between 6:45 and 7:15 am, usually) and I'm not looking to change anything.

But I read it.

The gist? Once your children turn three (or, in some cases, even while they're still two!), you can train them to get up by themselves and let you, Queen Mama, remain blissfully asleep.

Mmm hmm. That's right. No need to drag your precious self out of bed to do something so mundane as, say, parent your children. Why not let them take care of all their pesky needs all on their own? The article goes on to provide an opinion from a child psychologist (Lawrence Shapiro-- from MY state!) who asserts:

The benefits won't only be yours. This is not just about Mom and Dad sleeping for another hour. It's about giving your child a chance to learn how to entertain himself, how to make breakfast. That's good for him.

Listen. I'm all about teaching our children to have some independence. Is it good for me to let my five-year old help me scramble the eggs for our breakfast? Yes. Does my four-year old feel like a big girl when I let her help pour her own cereal? Yep. Do I feel comfortable sending both my preschoolers off to a quiet nook to play or read while I accomplish another task? Absolutely.

But this broke my heart...

My sister-in-law, who has four children, has done just that. Her littles ones, ages 4 and 2, know they can't leave their rooms until there's a 7 on the clock. Then they find bowls of dry cereal waiting on the kitchen table. Tiny stickers show them which buttons to press on the remote control to fire up their favorite movie. And Mom, blissfully, sleeps until 8 a.m.

In all fairness, I do not know the woman about whom this is written and she may be a truly wonderful mom. I wouldn't dream of suggesting otherwise. But this morning routine is just, well, sad to me. Who thinks that's a warm, loving way to kick off your child's day? I really can't even fathom sending my 4-year old, let alone a 2-year old, out to face her day alone.

The article does provide a chart to help you determine if your child is "ready" for "morning 'alone' time". This basically helps you determine if you have a quiet, rule-following kind of a kid. If so, feel free to let him fend for himself. (Okay, not in so many words, but that's the overall message here... let me know if you interpret it a different way.)

Perhaps the most depressing part of the whole thing, for me, came at the end of the article. It's the segment entitled, "Step 3 > Start the day (without you)"

This portion of the article talks about how to "train" your little one to take care of her basic needs without your help. From setting out outfit choices (and letting her know she is not permitted to wake you until she is dressed) to leaving dry cereal and a juice box in her room (so she can feed herself without bothering you), this segment extols the virtues of these tricks as helping to make mornings less hectic. You know what would make morning less hectic? GETTING UP AND GETTING SOMETHING DONE. If all else fails, the paragraph goes on to say, let your child hang out in your bed and watch T.V. while you continue to snooze.

I'm sorry, Parenting, but I am mortified. Are there mornings when I'd enjoy catching a few more zzzz's? Of course. I'm a mom. I'm one of a notoriously sleep-deprived breed. I'd also love to run my errands without having to corral three little ones sometimes but that doesn't mean I just leave them in the house or car. They are MY children. I CHOSE to have them. More than that, I am BLESSED to have them. I cannot even imagine feeling the kind of selfish entitlement that is shown in this article... as if my desire to sleep in should come before my precious children's need for my time and attention. I'm not saying that their suggestions necessarily put these children in danger or that their physical needs are not being met...

But... really?

Is that the best we want to do? To say at the end of the day, "I kept my kids safe, clothed, and fed and that's good enough."

It's not good enough for me. I will continue to rise before my family and have their breakfast waiting for them. I will continue to help my preschool daughter with her leggings and buttons and zippers. I will help them become independent, capable children by allowing them to work alongside me... not by expecting them to take care of themselves and relying on the T.V to take care of their entertainment.

My kids need me in the morning. And that's A-OK with me. I'll sleep in when they're teens.

But enough from opinionated me. What do YOU think? Do you let your children take care of themselves so you can get much-needed rest? Am I being too sensitive? Let's discuss it in the comments!

Is It Worth It For A "Restfull" Night?

(All images in this post directly from Enfamil's website.)

Isn't that sleeping baby precious? Doesn't your heart just sigh with peace as you gaze at that picture? What are you willing to do to get your baby to sleep so soundly?

My Twitter friends got an earful from me yesterday. I have a feeling Enfamil will regret ever sending me a coupon for their new Enfamil Lipil Restfull formula...

My four month old is exclusively breastfed, just so you know. That does not mean I don't usually appreciate the coupons. I have a good friend who is currently using formula (Enfamil, to be exact) and I'm happy to pass on the savings so she can continue to buy her preferred formula brand. My first child was exclusively formula-fed (Enfamil again) and my second had a tablespoon of specialty formula (sorry, Enfamil, our NICU used Similac) added to expressed breast milk to up the calories. I am NOT anti-formula. I really want to make that clear. While I am thrilled to be nursing my daughter and it is going beautifully smoothly for us, I believe there are many good reasons to turn to formula too. So this is not, in any way, a "bottle feeding slam" post.

What this is is a criticism of this new "Restfull" formulation.

Here are the high points, according to Enfamil's website:

"Specially designed to help babies feel full longer and sleep better."

-Allow me to just pause and point out that this states "help babies FEEL full longer..." not "help babies BE full longer". This formula is not really filling your baby up- just taking longer to digest so she doesn't bother you with her pesky cries for more nutrition...

"Give your baby a RestFull Night.

Your baby needs a proper amount of sleep to keep her healthy and happy. That's why we created new Enfamil RestFull, the formula specially designed to naturally encourage a good night's sleep."

-Babies DO need sleep, no doubt. So do you. But "tricking" a baby's tummy into feeling full isn't the answer, in my opinion.

The website goes on...

• A natural way to help keep your baby feeling satisfied. (Natural = Rice Starch, just so you know)
  
• Thickens gently in baby's tummy and digests slowly. (Translation- this formula is harder for your baby to digest.)
  

To be fair, the website then lists six tips for a Restfull night, all of which are valid and helpful (well, except perhaps the inevitable formula plug, but you have to expect that). They include:

• 
  

• Try to be consistent with your baby's sleep routine.
• Relax your baby with a warm bath.
• Dim the lights, and create a calm bedtime environment.
• Enjoy the special bonding time of feeding your baby Enfamil Restfull.
• Soothe your baby with a lullaby or a bedtime story.
• Kiss your baby goodnight.

Those are good suggestions.

But this formula? I don't trust it. I think the idea of creating something to "thicken" in a baby's belly just so she'll sleep longer is simply wrong. It's basically just like the previous generations who put rice cereal in the bottle. Did the babies sleep? Yep. But study after study has since shown that it's not what's best for our babies. So why is a formula company, who presumably has many researchers on staff, marketing it to us?

Why?

Because it will sell. Read the comments on the website and you'll see that dozens of parents-even those of newborns- have bought it and tried it. Because they're tired. They're sleep-deprived. They're desperate. And Enfamil, knowing this, lures them in with the promise of more rest. Under the guise that it's also good for their baby. Shameful, if you ask me.

I don't like the idea, period, but I don't have as much issue with marketing it to parents of babies, say 6 months or older. Or even 4 months and older. Babies who are large enough to handle longer stretches of sleep and who may even be eating rice cereal (so the rice starch won't be so new on that little tummy).

I could not find an age guideline anywhere on the website or on the brochure that came with my coupon. The closest you'll see is this disclaimer:

"Ask your baby's doctor if Enfamil Restfull is right for your baby."

That's not enough, in my opinion.

I am cringing at the thought that people are giving this stuff to their 2-week old babies. The way it's labeled, it looks like, if your doctor recommended Enfamil Lipil, then this is the formula you should use at bedtime. I have a feeling very few people are really asking their pediatricians.

I think this is a big fail, Enfamil, and I'm not afraid to tell the world how I feel. You can trust that this coupon will NOT be getting passed on. If you don't want to pull the product (and why would you? I'm sure it sells.), then I urge you to at least use responsible marketing and provide appropriate age recommendations for the consumer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But what do you all think? I'd love to know! Would you buy this product? Recommend it to a friend? Let me have it!

This post included in Real Life's Your Life Your Blog.