Love Cake
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
Interesting article about couvade syndrome (sympathetic pregnancy). Did your husband have any symptoms?
As an expecting mom, I’m well aware of my body’s shifting chemistry and physical state. One day, a sudden lower back pain. The next day, a burst of energy and a mission to clear and rearrange every closet in the house. The next, a groggy haze and an overwhelming urge for a tuna sandwich.
We know that motherhood brings real physical changes, but is it true that men undergo some of the same transformations when their wives are pregnant?
Couvade syndrome, otherwise known as a man’s “sympathetic pregnancy,” mirrors the common symptoms of a mom’s gestation: nausea, food cravings, back aches, weight gain, and sleep problems. The condition, the name of which derives from the French verb couver, or “to hatch,” was first mentioned by anthropologists who noted that in many cultures around the world, expecting dads go through certain rituals, mental states, and behaviors that copy those of their pregnant wives.
In our society, although Couvade syndrome isn’t listed in the psychiatric or medical diagnostic manuals, it has caught the eye of several researchers and psychologists. The incidence of male pregnancy symptoms varies from study to study, ranging anywhere from 20 to 80 percent, with the lower number reflecting the percentage of men who actually seek treatment for their condition.
Sound implausible? Or like a whole lot of fuss and drama over dad that takes away from mom’s legitimate with-child status? That may be, but there is some scientific backing to the idea that approaching fatherhood changes a man’s chemistry. For example, one team of researchers found that men with babies on the way have higher levels of prolactin and cortisol in the time just before birth and lower levels of the sex hormones testosterone and estradiol directly after. In the same study, the men with more Couvade symptoms were the ones with the highest levels of prolactin and a greater reduction in testosterone.
And research on other primates certainly suggests that becoming a dad changes the brain. For example, the inherently nurturing and highly involved male marmoset monkey has been found to grow more neurons in areas of the prefrontal cortex that are involved in caretaking and bonding when their infants are born. These primates also seem to have the same prolactin increase as do human dads while their mom monkey counterpart is pregnant.
When I asked my husband about this, he confirmed that yes, he does feel different with me being pregnant – slightly more sensitive and protective. I agree here, since I’ve caught him telling me to fasten my seatbelt, look both ways before crossing the street, and other self-care skills I believe I mastered 25 years ago. Through both pregnancies, he has seemed extra motivated to eat well and exercise, although he recalled gaining weight after my son was born three years ago because we were classically hunkered down in a baby bubble.
So my personal jury is still out on the classic Couvade symptoms of nausea, lower back pain, and pickle and peanut butter cravings, but there is no doubt that nearing fatherhood affects men. It could be the psychological experience of anxiety, uncertainty, or growing responsibility with a baby on the way. Or it could be an evolutionarily adaptive neurochemical mix that keeps fathers involved and bonds strong, so we’re a team when our little ones are born. In the end, of course there’s no linear cause and effect — emotional states change our brain chemistry and vise versa.
And as long as I don’t have to make midnight ice cream runs for my husband or rub his back while he watches TV, I kind of like the idea that while we’re expecting our second child, his brain and body may be going through their own version of a tangible transformation with me.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
- Bleeding Love, Leona Lewis
- Here comes the flood, Peter Gabriel
- Blood, Pearl Jam
- Bloodstream, Stateless
- Warning Signs, Coldplay
- Evenflow, Pearl Jam
- The Cure for Pain, Jon Foreman
- Lady in Red, Chris Deburgh
- Sunday Bloody Sunday, U2
- Not The Red Baron, Tori Amos
- Don't Have To Be Sad, Yo La Tengo
- About A Girl, Nirvana
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
We spend a lot of time as parents (and an awful lot of time on parenting websites) exploring what kind of parents we want to be. The tendency to name "schools" of parenting is new to this generation. Our mothers were just mothers, not Attachment Mothers, or Free-Range Mothers, and, as we discussed yesterday, the name-your-parenting-after-an-animal trend is only about a year old (and, I would politely suggest, has run its course...)
I have been alternately amused and frustrated by this need we seem to have to give our philosophy a label -- or even to have a distinct philosophy at all. The closest I come to a belief system of my own is borrowed from a friend, Donnica Moore, who sums up parenting as: It All Depends On Everything.
Two essays on Huffington Parents today throw out the idea of "one way" or even a "semi-consistent way" and offer up -- actually CELEBRATE -- a view of parenting that is closest to Moore's.
Devon Corneal describes it here as "Sure of Nothing Parenting." She nails it (as usual).
And Patty Onderko calls it "Relativist Parenting." Her essay is below.
Whatever you call it (because, after all, names can change, and everything is relative...) these two women sum up the on-the-fly, never-the-same-river-twice, doing-the-best-you-can feeling of this thing we do -- whatever it is called -- that differs from child to child, day to day, and moment to moment. --Lisa Belkin, Parentlode
I could be the worst parent in the history of the world. Or I could be the best. It's all relative. And that's my problem. Being a relativist and being a parent are hard ways of life to reconcile. Most likely, I'm a middle-of-the-road parent, but what's the middle of the road when it's relative to the relative best and the relative worst?
An example: I was crossing the actual (not proverbial) road with my 4-year-old twin boys the other morning when a turning car began honking at us. Here's a secret: I've long ago stopped forcing one of my sons to hold my hand while crossing streets. He rebelled so forcefully that our struggle actually put us at greater risk in the middle of the crosswalk. So I relented, and instead stood right next to him against oncoming traffic until we were safely to the other side. But the woman driving this car made it clear that I had made the wrong decision. She rolled down her window and screamed, "Hold his hand!!!" at me as she pointed emphatically to my unattached son. I was angry and defensive at the time, but later: Am I pansy parent who can't even uphold the supposed "non-negotiable" rules of childcare? Or am I a sensitive mom who wisely knows how to pick her battles? Honestly, I could go either way on that one. I flip-flop as of writing this.
Another example: I tell my other son (the one who does hold my hand crossing the street) one evening that it's time to put down the iPad. He whines convincingly and tells me that he's not done with his game yet and why does he have to turn it off now? I don't know really, I think. I don't want him to have too much of the notorious "screen time," but at the same time, I wonder, "Who am I? He's only been playing Angry Birds for 20 minutes and while 20 minutes is a lot more than, say, five, it's also a lot less than 60." Still, I enforce the power down, since I'm supposed to be consistent. But did I lose his trust as a reasonable parent who values his independent thinking? Again I think, "Who am I?"
I know, I'm his parent. And I need to step up and set boundaries. Kids feel more secure when there are rules and guidelines. Or do they? Isn't it relative to the child, the rules, and the person enforcing them? My kids seem to be relatively secure in their lives. But who am I to judge? My sense of comfortable and secure could be wildly different from theirs.
This second-guessing makes parenting, as you can see, a daily guessing game. One twin seems ready for a talk about the birds and the bees, but the other seems -- relative to his brother -- not. But how do I know if the first twin is really ready for the discussion, relative to his peers? It's a twisted rabbit hole of right and wrong, sensible and foolish, kind and cruel.
Where do I find my bearings, my parenting absolutes when I kinda, I'll admit, don't believe in anything for sure? Dr. Bill Sears is smart about nutrition, but I couldn't do attachment parenting with twins. The SuperNanny seems sensible, but that's probably because she doesn't have any kids. The American Academy of Pediatrics is authoritative, but definitely stuffy.
The term "expert" is completely relative. To wit, as a career parenting writer, I've been called an expert.
Do I even need to mention that I'm not sure whether or not I believe in a God?
It would be easy to say that what I believe in, ultimately, is my own love for my kids and my good intentions towards them. But I bet those parents who read To Train Up a Child and switch their infants feel they too have only the best intentions. And, of course, you may love your kids more than I love mine. How would I know?
But if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that I love my own kids more than anyone else loves them (in the future, when they meet life partners, I'll duke that issue out -- internally, of course -- with their respective choices), save their other mother. And I love them more than I have ever loved anyone before, save their other mother. I know this. And it's this I have to trust. That's where my parenting rabbit hole lands with a happy thud. I love my kids relative to nothing. And I do my relative best.
Sure, that doesn't help me when I'm trying to figure out how to discipline one when he nearly strangles the other for wrecking his block castle (he worked on it for so long!). But still.
You may think, or be enviably certain, that despite my love (doesn't everyone love their children?), I'm a lousy mother.
But who are you? Your opinion is...well, you know.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
But like I said, when life throws coconut at you, you dodge and try to make sense of it. Then, you seek for ways to exploit those coconuts. I found some cracked coconuts and realized not only hard and violent things can come out of this painful experience. Once I dig deep into the fruit, I found strength. I pride myself in my strength to overcome this journey. And I got to clearly see how wonderful my family was, how united and loving they are. Those coconuts turned from being missiles to being food for the soul. We can do so much with coconuts once we learn how to prepare it, cook with it, or even pamper yourself with it. I believe I grew stronger from this and I have much greater respect for anyone who has been hospitalized. Any life experience is only understood once we live it, just like driving and parenting I guess....
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
500 Days of Summer & Pancake Break-Up
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
A great article by Sarah Fernandez
Wedding season is upon us and it seems that every bride, new and old, has a horror story to tell about people's children at their weddings. While some people happily include children in their big day, others choose not to, and it's important as parents that we all remember that it's the bride and groom's day. Here are a few etiquette tips to remember when it comes to children and weddings.
- Who's invited?
When your invitation arrives, look at who it is addressed to. This may seem obvious, but many people don't really look at the address and what it means. If your children are included on the guest list, the envelope will either be addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith and Family" or "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith, Daughter Smith and Son Smith." If your children are not included on the envelope, they are not invited to the wedding. - Step away from the phone.
Do not. I repeat, do not call the bride, groom, mother of the bride, mother of the groom, wedding planner or anyone else and ask if your children can come or complain that they were not invited. The guest list is one of the most agonized over items on a wedding to do list. It is very likely that the couple has co-workers, family friends, and even family members that they would love to have at their wedding, but that they couldn't include due to budgetary reasons. The thing that makes weddings expensive is the number of people attending, and you can be sure that the couple and their parents are already pushing their budget limits, and have debated a million times about who should be included. That is the nature of the beast.
For my own wedding, we had to have an age cut off of 15 years old for my first cousins because there are more than 20 of them and the 15 year old (also my god-daughter) was in my bridal party. When my husband's cousins called to see if they could bring their teenage children to the wedding because they were making a family trip of the event, the answer had to be no. We weren't including my cousins who I had a relationship with. We certainly weren't going to be including his cousins' kids who lived halfway across the country and neither of us had ever met. If you are bringing your children to an out of town wedding, feel free to ask the bride if she can recommend a good sitter should you need one. Most are happy to help. Just make sure you don't wait until the last minute to do so. - Let the party be a grown-up party.
There is also the possibility that the bride and groom didn't include your children on the guest list because they are looking to have an adult party and don't want to hear any crying or see any pouty faces on their happy day. Yes, it's true that your children are adorable, but all children are unpredictable and their behavior can't be guaranteed. Actually, at many weddings the quality of adult behavior can't be guaranteed either, and you might not want your kids around it anyway. - An exception to the rule. (With its own exceptions.)
In my book, the one exception to asking if you can bring your child to a wedding is if the child is under six months old and the wedding involves travel. But even still, do everything you can to try and arrange a sitter. No matter what, if your children start to act up, remove them from the ceremony or reception immediately. I was in a bridal party once where the bride really didn't want children at the wedding, but her new brother-in-law and his wife insisted that their children be there. After finally winning out, the kids made a giant scene in the middle of the ceremony and really created a distraction during a beautiful moment. You really don't want to be the one whose kids detract from a once in a lifetime moment. - When the kids are a go.
If your kids are included on the invite and you choose to bring them, be sure you have a bag of tricks that are appropriate to keep them entertained. Many brides are savvy enough to have kids activities all lined up for the reception, but you know your child best so have a few things to keep them entertained that are appropriate for the venue. And get them out on the dance floor to participate in the celebration rather than letting them sit in the corner playing a game on your phone all night.
Everyone has their own vision for their wedding, and it's important to remember that we are their guests. It is an honor to be invited to be a part of their special day, and the bride and groom have a right to set the terms of their wedding. It may be a giant family affair with many generations or an elegant black tie event, but it's not our decision. As parents, we often have to make tough choices, and sometimes that choice will have to be to skip a wedding if we aren't comfortable leaving our children home, or have one parent stay home. But our burden should not be put back onto the bride and groom. I like to think of weddings as a good excuse for a date night. And even when we were recently invited as an entire family to one of my best friend's weddings, we left the kids at home and took our first vacation without them. I didn't have to worry about anything but having a good time and it was bliss.
Monday, July 11, 2011
When you walk by a newsstand, you can see hot topics such as "50 ways to turn your man on", " how to make him fall for you" etc...but very rarely do you see "What men truly need in a relationship" (without the obvious sex aspect). After discovering for myself, from hearing guy friends and my own honey what they truly need to feel loved in a relationship, I came across this list that covers the main needs that our dear men want:
Need #1: Respect his judgment.
A man deeply needs the woman in his life to respect his knowledge, opinions and decisions. Show you respect him by calling on his knowledge in a given subject.
Need #2: Respect his abilities.
Men often need to figure things out for themselves and if they can, they feel like they’ve conquered something and are affirmed as men. So… next time he is trying to put together the new shelf from IKEA… don’t try to help him (unless he asks)!
Need #3: Respect in communication.
Try your hardest not to continually remind him of something he hasn’t done yet—or something he needs to do. Try to word your sentences in a way that doesn’t express disappointment.
Need #4: Respect in public.
The male ego is the most fragile thing on the planet. Try not to criticize him in public, put him down or even question his judgment in front of others.
Need #5: Respect in our assumptions.
Try not to jump to negative conclusions about him. Don’t assume the worst!
So next time you’re wishing he would tell you how much he loves you—remember that he desires respect equivalent to your desire!
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
By LORI GOTTLIEB
IF THERE’S ONE thing I learned in graduate school, it’s that the poet Philip Larkin was right. (“They fuck you up, your mum and dad, / They may not mean to, but they do.”) At the time, I was a new mom with an infant son, and I’d decided to go back to school for a degree in clinical psychology. With baby on the brain and term papers to write, I couldn’t ignore the barrage of research showing how easy it is to screw up your kids. Of course, everyone knows that growing up with “Mommy Dearest” produces a very different child from one raised by, say, a loving PTA president who has milk and homemade cookies waiting after school. But in that space between Joan Crawford and June Cleaver, where most of us fall, it seemed like a lot could go wrong in the kid-raising department.
As a parent, I wanted to do things right. But what did “right” mean? One look in Barnes & Noble’s parenting section and I was dizzy: child-centered, collaborative, or RIE? Brazelton, Spock, or Sears?
The good news, at least according to Donald Winnicott, the influential English pediatrician and child psychiatrist, was that you didn’t have to be a perfect mother to raise a well-adjusted kid. You just had to be, to use the term Winnicott coined, a “good-enough mother.” I was also relieved to learn that we’d moved beyond the concept of the “schizophrenogenic mother,” who’s solely responsible for making her kid crazy. (The modern literature acknowledges that genetics—not to mention fathers—play a role in determining mental health.) Still, in everything we studied—from John Bowlby’s “attachment theory” to Harry Harlow’s monkeys, who clung desperately to cloth dummies when separated from their mothers—the research was clear: fail to “mirror” your children, or miss their “cues,” or lavish too little affection on them, and a few decades later, if they had the funds and a referral, they would likely end up in one of our psychotherapy offices, on the couch next to a box of tissues, recounting the time Mom did this and Dad didn’t do that, for 50 minutes weekly, sometimes for years.
Our main job as psychotherapists, in fact, was to “re-parent” our patients, to provide a “corrective emotional experience” in which they would unconsciously transfer their early feelings of injury onto us, so we could offer a different response, a more attuned and empathic one than they got in childhood.
At least, that was the theory. Then I started seeing patients.
MY FIRST SEVERAL patients were what you might call textbook. As they shared their histories, I had no trouble making connections between their grievances and their upbringings. But soon I met a patient I’ll call Lizzie. Imagine a bright, attractive 20-something woman with strong friendships, a close family, and a deep sense of emptiness. She had come in, she told me, because she was “just not happy.” And what was so upsetting, she continued, was that she felt she had nothing to be unhappy about. She reported that she had “awesome” parents, two fabulous siblings, supportive friends, an excellent education, a cool job, good health, and a nice apartment. She had no family history of depression or anxiety. So why did she have trouble sleeping at night? Why was she so indecisive, afraid of making a mistake, unable to trust her instincts and stick to her choices? Why did she feel “less amazing” than her parents had always told her she was? Why did she feel “like there’s this hole inside” her? Why did she describe herself as feeling “adrift”?
I was stumped. Where was the distracted father? The critical mother? Where were the abandoning, devaluing, or chaotic caregivers in her life?
As I tried to make sense of this, something surprising began happening: I started getting more patients like her. Sitting on my couch were other adults in their 20s or early 30s who reported that they, too, suffered from depression and anxiety, had difficulty choosing or committing to a satisfying career path, struggled with relationships, and just generally felt a sense of emptiness or lack of purpose—yet they had little to quibble with about Mom or Dad.
Instead, these patients talked about how much they “adored” their parents. Many called their parents their “best friends in the whole world,” and they’d say things like “My parents are always there for me.” Sometimes these same parents would even be funding their psychotherapy (not to mention their rent and car insurance), which left my patients feeling both guilty and utterly confused. After all, their biggest complaint was that they had nothing to complain about!
At first, I’ll admit, I was skeptical of their reports. Childhoods generally aren’t perfect—and if theirs had been, why would these people feel so lost and unsure of themselves? It went against everything I’d learned in my training.
But after working with these patients over time, I came to believe that no florid denial or distortion was going on. They truly did seem to have caring and loving parents, parents who gave them the freedom to “find themselves” and the encouragement to do anything they wanted in life. Parents who had driven carpools, and helped with homework each night, and intervened when there was a bully at school or a birthday invitation not received, and had gotten them tutors when they struggled in math, and music lessons when they expressed an interest in guitar (but let them quit when they lost that interest), and talked through their feelings when they broke the rules, instead of punishing them (“logical consequences” always stood in for punishment). In short, these were parents who had always been “attuned,” as we therapists like to say, and had made sure to guide my patients through any and all trials and tribulations of childhood. As an overwhelmed parent myself, I’d sit in session and secretly wonder how these fabulous parents had done it all.
Until, one day, another question occurred to me: Was it possible these parents had done too much?
Here I was, seeing the flesh-and-blood results of the kind of parenting that my peers and I were trying to practice with our own kids, precisely so that they wouldn’t end up on a therapist’s couch one day. We were running ourselves ragged in a herculean effort to do right by our kids—yet what seemed like grown-up versions of them were sitting in our offices, saying they felt empty, confused, and anxious. Back in graduate school, the clinical focus had always been on how the lack of parental attunement affects the child. It never occurred to any of us to ask, what if the parents are too attuned? What happens to those kids?
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Species: Labroides dimidiatus
Habitat: laying down the law on coral reefs throughout the Indo-Pacific
If someone has committed a serious crime, most people agree that they should be punished more harshly than if they had committed only a minor misdemeanour. That way, people will be deterred from doing anything really heinous, like molesting children or talking at the theatre.
But this idea that the punishment should fit the crime isn't universal. Humans practise it, and some other animals also punish their fellows for bad behaviour, but until now none has ever been seen systematically varying the severity of the punishment.
Now it turns out that one animal does punish just like a human: the bluestreak cleaner wrasse. But their carefully nuanced punishment of "cheats" is really an elaborate plot to oppress their females.
Reef salon
These tropical fish are one of many species of cleaner fish that remove parasites such as lice from much larger fish. The clients get a valuable service and the cleaner fish get food. Local fish may visit the cleaners every day, and even wide-ranging beasts like sharks will occasionally drop in.
Bluestreak cleaner wrasse have small home territories called cleaning stations. Each male maintains a harem of around 16 females dotted around his territory, who help him service his clients.
These clients recognise cleaner wrasse by their small size and the blue stripe running along their sides. The cleaner wrasse stroke their clients to cement the relationship and ensure that they don't attack them.
Mmmm, mucus
But the wrasse have a serious conflict of interest. Although they will eat parasites off their clients, they actually prefer to eat the clients' mucus. As a result, they are tempted to take a bite out of the client – despite the risk oflosing its custom, or even being attacked.
Nichola Raihani of the ZSL Institute of Zoology in London and colleagues reported last year that male bluestreaks punish their females if they bite a client. Deprived of future foraging opportunities, the males chase the females around and try to bite them. In response, the females refrain from further misbehaviour.
Raihani has now found that the males chase offending females for longer when their crime is more serious. She presented captive pairs with artificial "clients" – actually plexiglas plates – that carried two pieces of prawn, which the wrasse love, and either four or eight fish flakes, which they don't like as much. If either fish ate the prawn the plate was taken away, but they could eat as much fish flake as they pleased.
When the female ate a piece of prawn from a plate that had eight fish flakes – thereby depriving the pair of all those fish flakes – the male chased her more than if the plate had only four fish flakes. When a second eight-fish-flake plate was offered, females who had experienced this severe punishment were less likely to eat the prawn.
"Harsher punishment makes them cooperate more," Raihani says. The males must somehow be judging the seriousness of the females' crimes and punishing accordingly, something no other non-human animal has ever been seen doing.
The system may sound just, but it is actually systematic sexual oppression.
Feminism for fish
All bluestreak cleaner wrasse are born female. The largest individual in a given area changes into a male and dominates the remaining females.
That means each male is under constant threat from his attendant females. If one of them manages to grow bigger than him, she can change sex in just two days and potentially take over his territory.
For a female to grow bigger than her male, she needs to eat more than him. So taking chunks out of client fish could work well for her: she gets a particularly nutritious meal, but her partner gets nothing because the client fish leaves in disgust.
Accordingly, Raihani found that males were more likely to dole out harsh punishments if their partners were a similar size to them. Such large females would have been on the cusp of changing sex, so the males controlled their behaviour more strictly.
For bluestreak cleaner wrasse, fish mucus – the illicit eating thereof – is a feminist issue.
Happy Again. --This song I wrote with Komar after I lost a friend
Vocals: Davine
Guitar: Komar