Elmo and the Tramp
10:08 AM - Posted by Shelly - 0 comments
I am so excited because now that I have a child who watches some children's programming, I have a legitimate opinion on the whole Katy Perry/Sesame Street controversy.

I watched the clip (you can see it below) and I have to say that I am offended, but not only because of her dress. I am offended because her music is not appropriate for children, and I would be concerned that this would set up younger kids to seek out more of her music because she is a friend of Elmo. (Which, on a side note that has got to become a euphemism for something because "friend of Elmo" is just too rich a phrase to not mean something else off-color.) But, if I am monitoring what my child sees and hears, I would most likely be able to subtly steer her from any pop music that I didn't think she was ready for.

Anyway, her music aside, I do think her outfit was inappropriate for Sesame Street. She has other cute outfits that are not quite as baring. However, for the demographic, I suspect the cleavage would be lost on them. I heard recently a DJ say something to the effect of "for kids under 4, breasts are just food and for kids over 4, breasts are like, 'ew, gross!'" And, I have to keep in mind that if I want my children to be comfortable with the sight of breastfeeding, and ultimately breasts, I can't make a big deal in front of them about someone showing a bit more cleavage than I'd like.

The other thing is Katy Perry really sold me on wanting to play dress-up with Elmo. She acted very well for the skit/song and I think it was a very cute idea.

So, my overall opinion is that Katy Perry could have made a much better clothing choice, even just adding a wider strap at the top of her dress, and there probably wouldn't have been as much of an issue. Candidly, I might let my 9-month-old watch it simply because it is a very colorful video and plus, she does love music.

Here's the video:


Road Trip
8:39 AM - Posted by Shelly - 0 comments
Things I learned on my first road trip with the baby:
  • There is a nerve in your shoulder that, when pressed against the front seat while reaching into the back seat, will make your fingers tingle. And not in a good way.
  • Two stressed out parents do not make a bad situation better. Surprisingly, neither does a Dairy Queen Blizzard.
  • Babies pee A LOT when you really wouldn't expect them to.
  • The person who swears that there is no need for anyone to sit in the back seat with the baby will end up sitting in the back seat with the baby.
  • The blood eventually flows back into your finger after the frantic baby stops sucking it for comfort once he/she is finally asleep.
  • Bored drivers will hum entire musicals to themselves when there's no one in the front seat to talk to.
  • You can breastfeed a baby that is safely and securely fastened in their car seat. Not easily, not comfortably, but you can do it.
  • Don't panic when the mechanic says that your alternator needs to be replaced. It could just be a loose connection.


Breastfeeding in Public
9:20 AM - Posted by Shelly - 0 comments
From the "Mama is..." blog.
http://www.mama-is.com/very-crafty/





























Homophobic
10:25 PM - Posted by Shelly - 1 comments
I heard the term "homophobic" the other day. I am familiar with the term and what it means, but it got me to thinking... if someone doesn't like gay people, they are considered homophobic. Is that grammatically correct? Does that imply that they are scared of gay people? Racists don't like, for example, black people. A lot of racists I have encountered are also scared of black people. But they are not called blackaphobic; they are called racist. So shouldn't we have a more accurate term for people who don't like gay people? Shouldn't it be an -ism or an -ist? Is there such a thing as homoists? That sounds like a medical term.

On a side note, I do think that blackaphobic is probably a pretty accurate term because it reminds me of a little old Southern woman who locks her car doors when she sees a black man on the street. That sounds like a blackaphobe...


My Year in Review
11:51 AM - Posted by Shelly - 0 comments
I was laying in bed the other night and thinking about all that happened in 2009. I decided to review it just for fun...

  • January: I can't remember anything that happened.
  • February: Anniversary dinner at the Melting Pot; Dad's heart surgery; getting vertigo
  • March: FreshStart Retreat; New Kids concert at the Sommet with Anna (!); getting pregnant (all three happened in the span of three days LOL)
  • April: Finding out I was pregnant and telling the family... they were all so happy!
  • May: Still trying to keep pregnancy a secret from everyone except family; the baby's first ultrasound
  • June: 34th birthday
  • July: 4th of July fireworks in Smyrna; going all out with Nathan and buying our own fun fireworks to shoot at home; finding out we were having a girl; deciding on her name
  • August: Convention at work and trying to make a decent maternity shirt to wear for it.
  • September: Nathan's 38th birthday
  • October: Designing and painting the baby's room
  • November: Starting to get antsy and impatient about birth
  • December: Getting a virus that caused dehydration and contractions; Coraline's birth


Gone With the Wind
2:46 PM - Posted by Shelly - 0 comments
Yesterday marked the 70th anniversary of the film Gone With the Wind (GWTW). This is one of my all-time favorite movies, and my sister and I can not only quote, but act out a good chunk of the movie for you, if you asked.

In an effort to kill time until my baby is born, I have been reading quite a few recent articles on GWTW, and have been particularly interested in the ones regarding Hattie McDaniel's role and subsequent Oscar win as Mammy.

How Hattie made history with a racist role

McDaniel's Mammy role helped birth modern black Hollywood

The reason that I find those articles interesting is because of the author's thoughts on the issue of race and racism in the movie and the portrayal of the slaves and other black characters. I have to admit, I hadn't given this much thought. Being white, I don't know if the characters are a racist portrayal or a somewhat realistic reflection of the 1860's.

Articles like this cause me to examine my own prejudices and thoughts on race. While my family is entirely from the South, specifically the racially-charged areas around Birmingham, I was raised near Nashville, where the racial dynamic seemed more balanced to me. My father worked in the area of discrimination investigation, and I think he was my biggest influence on seeing everyone as the same. Growing up in the suburbs I knew factually that we had less black families than white families in the neighborhood, but that wasn't something that I thought about. The first time it occurred to me that there was something different about that were my grandmother’s negative comments about me wanting to marry Michael Jackson (back when he was alive, popular and sane). My grandmother also would not allow me to ask my best friend LaTrece to visit her with me because "they would come and burn crosses in her front yard." Not knowing anything about race relations in Birmingham, I had to ask why in the world someone would want to burn crosses because my friend was there.

Sadly, I have come to realize how much of an issue race still is in some places. And how much of a hot button issue it still is with regards to things like GWTW. The statement of "black women and men in the film are loyal, simple folk who wish little more from life than to take care of nuanced, needy white people" really struck a chord with me. The only character (besides Prissy, who I took to be an idiot just because she was an idiot) that seemed "simple" to me was Gerald O'Hara's butler, Pork. But Mammy, she was not simple at all. She seemed to be the wisest of all the characters. Yes, she was very loyal to Scarlett, but I saw that loyalty as noble. Scarlett needed Mammy because Scarlett was selfish and unwise. She may have been a good businesswoman, but she knew nothing of people and relationships. Mammy did.

I also found fault with the article saying "The depictions of African-Americans presented here are ludicrously narrow." I thought about that statement for a while, and honestly, I don't agree. I see the author's point, there really isn't a huge range for any of the black characters, but I also think that narrow doesn't necessarily mean lacking in depth. If you are looking for depth in a character, you will really only find it in Rhett, and maybe Scarlett. EVERYONE is a shallow character. Take Melanie, for example: she was sweet, kind to everyone and loved most everyone. That was it. We don't know why... she just was. Talk about no depth. We don't know anything about her family (other than Ashley and Charles) and we don't know what she really thinks of those surrounding her, other than she loves them. So I would say that Mammy was a deeper character than Melanie, and she wasn't even one of the four major stars of the movie

I could go on and on, but this would end up as the longest blog. Suffice it to say that I think the two biggest points to be made are that it would be fair to compare the portrayal of characters in the movie with each other, not with our standards of today; and that I believe that Hattie McDaniel made great strides for her race in her portrayal of Mammy and in winning the Oscar. I remember her quote "I'd rather play a maid than be one." and I have a lot of respect for that.

I am curious as to what others, especially black people, think of Hattie McDaniel, her role in GWTW and if the movie does come across as racist. If you think so, why?


Why I Chose a Midwife, Part 3
9:00 PM - Posted by Shelly - 0 comments
Continuing my story...

Makes some sense, right? Well, it's not that simple, easy or accurate. First, a woman doesn't always ovulate exactly 14 days after her period begins. Just like you don't always get hungry two hours and 15 minutes after you eat, every time you eat, ovulation is based on different factors. Hormones dictate ovulation and many, many things can affect hormones. Medications, stress, diet, etc. And, no two women are alike, so why should it be assumed that in this one respect we are all EXACTLY the same? It makes no sense. Our periods are all different, so why should our ovulation all be the same?

Second, while most women don't know (or keep track of) when they ovulated, that doesn't mean that all women don't know. Some women keep track of their menstrual cycle. Some women have such a regular cycle that it makes it easy to keep track of. Some women know their body well enough to tell when they can expect their period or ovulation.

With all that in mind, I go into my appointment knowing that the due date formula is not going to apply to me. As my cycle is so irregular, I keep track of it very closely. Because of this, I know exactly the day I ovulated and got pregnant. Prepared with an answer when asked "When was the first day of your last period?" I tell the nurse that it was Feb. 2, but that I ovulated and conceived on March 17. She tells me my due date is Nov. 9. I tell her that it should be in December because I conceived in March. She then tells me that the "conception date doesn't matter" and that my due date is calculated solely on my period and that the due date is Nov. 9. The appointment went downhill from there.

I won't go into the details of the rest of my appointment simply because they are only vague in my memory. I mentally checked out after the due date discussion. The nurse did make a negative comment about Nathan emptying the litter box and then something else about their office having the "Cadillac way of giving birth" but I didn't care. My decision to see a midwife was solid at that point. Incidentally, my midwife believed me when I told her the conception date. Also, the "dating" ultrasound I had later the same week confirmed my conception date, putting my due date in early December... the same date that I had told the OB/GYN nurse.

In the next few months, I did a lot of reading and watched a few documentaries on childbirth. I educated myself on what the options are for childbirth, and what I wanted out of my child's birth. I learned about the intervention cascade effect, and the dangers of commonly used drugs in childbirth.

Still, the thing is, so many people have negative comments about natural childbirth, and specifically how I will handle my own child's birth. I have gotten to the point where I simply don't honestly or completely answer questions that people ask about my child's upcoming birth. I often hear the "what if something goes wrong" question when voicing my desires for a home birth. The immediate reaction is that childbirth is a traumatic medical time bomb waiting to explode and kill everybody. It's a natural bodily function, not a disease.

Another response I get to my birth choices is the "you'll want that epidural when you feel the pain" kind of statement. This is frustrating because not only is it discouraging, but it is insulting as well. Not only do you not know how I will handle labor, I don't know how I will handle labor. I've never given birth before and my labor may be very, very different from yours. Just like our menstrual cycles are not the same, our labors will most likely not be the same, either. It is because of statements like that that I am much more private with those who say discouraging things to me (or about me) regarding my choice for a natural childbirth.

So, the long answer to the question of why I chose a midwife is this: I have done research and have come to the conclusion that mine and my child's health and well-being are of the utmost importance to me. To compromise either of our health and well-being for the sake of some pain relief is not something I want to do. God designed my body to conceive, grow, birth and feed a child. I believe that the ability to move freely during labor, along with supportive people in attendance, will help with pain management in labor and delivery. I am accepting the pain involved in the process in order for my child to be alert, healthy and responsive. I believe that the fewer interventions performed during labor and birth, the less chance of complications happening.

I believe that my daughter will be able to breastfeed sooner and with less complications, and that she will bond with both her father and me more easily than if she and I were medicated. I believe that her transition from the safe environment of my womb to the more harsh outside world will be more peaceful and less traumatic if all three of us are aware of our surroundings and have the ability to feel and move.

While I understand that many people do not think that my choices are good, wise or healthy choices, I have since given up on changing people's minds. However, I do wish that those who do not agree with my choices respect the fact that these are my choices to make. Negative comments and discouraging words aren't good for anybody.

The impetus for this long blog entry was this article on the Vanderbilt Nurse Midwives: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/magazines/vanderbilt-magazine/2009/11/rebirth-of-the-midwife/. If you are interested in learning more about midwifery or the women who will be attending the birth of my daughter, please have a look at the article.

And hopefully my next blog entry will be a birth announcement!