Hooray! After months of indecision, consternation and long evening talks, we have decided that now is the time to move out the city and into the country.
I grew up a country girl and although I love the speed and convenience of city life, Martha needs and deserves to have some of the space and greenery that I got to use and enjoy as a child.
And we're very excited for ourselves too!
The English countryside is, in my own small opinion, the most beautiful in the world and once there I can't wait to dive in and partake of some country pleasures and pursuits. Nothing too muddy mind you. I never was one for stomping about in rain and dirt. ;-)
No, my thoughts are turning more towards those lovely cosy projects that lend themselves so well to crisp Autumn evenings and long winter nights.
Here are a few brimming ideas on my country to-do list:
1. Make jam. There's no reason why this can't be done in the city and I have on a few occasions, done so, but home-made jam made with locally grown, organic strawberries is definitely all the sweeter in the country.
2. Learn how to sew - properly. My sewing skills are seriously lacking. But with fewer distractions and hopefully some help with Martha (my family will be living close by) I might just find time to take a sewing class or two and really learn how to make my own clothes.
3. Quilting. My mother is a quilting extraordinaire. She's relatively new to it but has picked it up with ferocious skill and speed. She's gainfully asked if I would like her to make me one. Well, no need to ask! I look forward to many an hour spent watching and learning.
4. Gardening. With any luck, I'll be able to get my mitts just a tad grubby in our very own patch of land. No more will my herbs be confined to pots. It's real soil and earth from now on! And who knows, if I get lucky, I might just get a crop of onions going too.
5. And perhaps best of all, I'll be able to read Country Living, no sense of irony required!
It's back to the country we go!
20 August, 2010
17 August, 2010
A Little Quandary
Since my daughter was born, I have advocated and practised a fairly relaxed style of parenting. We co-sleep. I breastfeed on demand. There have been no routines beyond the absolutely necessary. And in lots of ways it's worked well. I read The Continuum Concept and Three In A Bed when Martha was still only very tiny and I decided then that attachment parenting was the way for us. I have been lucky to have found this way fairly easy.
It is only now, as she approaches her first birthday that I am starting to realise that there may be some difficult choices rapidly coming my way.
Martha and I struggled to establish our nursing relationship. My post birth recovery was long and difficult and it seemed to take months for my milk supply to reach an abundant level. At 8 weeks old, Martha wasn't gaining enough weight and I was advised to supplement with formula. With a heavy heart and a lot of hesitation, I decided against it. There is nothing wrong with supplementing when it's necessary but Martha was active, alert and gaining weight (just not enough) and I was sure that with a bit of time and extra effort I could manage to breastfeed exclusively and keep her weight gain steady. And so I nursed round the clock. Every hour on the hour. I seemed to spend weeks and weeks glued to the couch or the bed. It was difficult, painful and dare I say it, a little boring, but our perseverance paid off and soon Martha was gaining nicely.
So it seems a little ironic and maybe even a little unfair that after all that effort I find that Martha and I now have the opposite problem! Since she began eating solid food at 6 months old, Martha has developed quite the appetite. She can certainly give me a run for my money at the dinner table! Her breastfeeding habits however have remained unchanged. She feeds often, both day and night and is still not sleeping more than 4 hours at a time. And since I feed her to sleep...there is alot of breastfeeding happening in our house!
All this has caused her to fill out a little (ok...a lot!) and last month, after I had taken her to our local baby weigh in clinic, I was told by the resident health visitor that I would have to do something about her rapid weight gain or there was a possibility that I would be asked to take Martha to see a paediatrician. She is not yet overweight, but if she continues in this same pattern, before long she will be. So of course I asked what solution was recommended. It turned out that the only 'something I would have to do' was controlled crying.
Now, I don't intend to pass judgment on anyone who has used, or felt it necessary to try controlled crying. For some parents, sleep deprived, exhausted and frustrated, I imagine it is the only course of action.
But for me, it seems wrong. For Martha, it seems wrong.
So I'm faced with a tricky decision. Do I carry on as we are - allowing Martha to gain more weight than is deemed 'necessary' or do I take some probably drastic steps to reduce her feeds? I know in my heart of hearts what I would rather do and it isn't option B!
But it's more important that I do what is right for Martha.
As I said. It's tricky...
I have no conclusion to this little outpouring. There has been no divine piece of wisdom benevolently bestowed on me yet, providing the solution to my dilemma! I just wanted to send my thoughts out into the cyber-wilderness and say a little wishful prayer that the answer will come to me, right when I need it.
And until then, I'll do the only thing I can think to do. Be a mother to my daughter.
"A mother's treasure is her daughter".
Catherine Pulsifer
It is only now, as she approaches her first birthday that I am starting to realise that there may be some difficult choices rapidly coming my way.
Martha and I struggled to establish our nursing relationship. My post birth recovery was long and difficult and it seemed to take months for my milk supply to reach an abundant level. At 8 weeks old, Martha wasn't gaining enough weight and I was advised to supplement with formula. With a heavy heart and a lot of hesitation, I decided against it. There is nothing wrong with supplementing when it's necessary but Martha was active, alert and gaining weight (just not enough) and I was sure that with a bit of time and extra effort I could manage to breastfeed exclusively and keep her weight gain steady. And so I nursed round the clock. Every hour on the hour. I seemed to spend weeks and weeks glued to the couch or the bed. It was difficult, painful and dare I say it, a little boring, but our perseverance paid off and soon Martha was gaining nicely.
So it seems a little ironic and maybe even a little unfair that after all that effort I find that Martha and I now have the opposite problem! Since she began eating solid food at 6 months old, Martha has developed quite the appetite. She can certainly give me a run for my money at the dinner table! Her breastfeeding habits however have remained unchanged. She feeds often, both day and night and is still not sleeping more than 4 hours at a time. And since I feed her to sleep...there is alot of breastfeeding happening in our house!
All this has caused her to fill out a little (ok...a lot!) and last month, after I had taken her to our local baby weigh in clinic, I was told by the resident health visitor that I would have to do something about her rapid weight gain or there was a possibility that I would be asked to take Martha to see a paediatrician. She is not yet overweight, but if she continues in this same pattern, before long she will be. So of course I asked what solution was recommended. It turned out that the only 'something I would have to do' was controlled crying.
Now, I don't intend to pass judgment on anyone who has used, or felt it necessary to try controlled crying. For some parents, sleep deprived, exhausted and frustrated, I imagine it is the only course of action.
But for me, it seems wrong. For Martha, it seems wrong.
So I'm faced with a tricky decision. Do I carry on as we are - allowing Martha to gain more weight than is deemed 'necessary' or do I take some probably drastic steps to reduce her feeds? I know in my heart of hearts what I would rather do and it isn't option B!
But it's more important that I do what is right for Martha.
As I said. It's tricky...
I have no conclusion to this little outpouring. There has been no divine piece of wisdom benevolently bestowed on me yet, providing the solution to my dilemma! I just wanted to send my thoughts out into the cyber-wilderness and say a little wishful prayer that the answer will come to me, right when I need it.
And until then, I'll do the only thing I can think to do. Be a mother to my daughter.
"A mother's treasure is her daughter".
Catherine Pulsifer
11 August, 2010
Rat Race
A man I have never heard of died today. I only discovered the news when my husband sent me a news article detailing this man's life and works. His name was Jimmy Reid. He was a trade unionist leader in Scotland during the difficult days of the early 1970's. And together with a man named Bobby Dickie, he led a successful protest against the closure of a shipyard on the river Clyde. There was no violence. No picketing. No strike. He persuaded his colleagues to simply stay in their factory, to complete their work and, if it came to it, to put up no resistance to police efforts to remove them. It worked. And to this day the shipyard on the Clyde remains in use and profitable.
All of this information is hardly news. It happened last century. But Jimmy Reid became a hero. And he is still considered a hero by many today. His career following his life as an engineering shop steward was rather glittering. He became a journalist; writing columns, hosting television programmes and even making a documentary. And in 1972, in recognition of all he had achieved, he was made rector of Glasgow university and at his inauguration he gave a speech.
Whether you love or loathe the politics of Jimmy Reid, or even if you've never heard of him until today, there is no doubting the beauty and the power of the words he spoke on that day.
I often think about the nature of the workplace. How corrupt it can be. How often it forces those in it to spend a life in vicious pursuit of either survival or materialism. How it flies in the face of so many of the teachings of a humble carpenter from Galilee. What does it mean to be a Christian in the world of big business and mass consumerism?
On that day way back in 1972, Jimmy Reid summed up what I and many millions of other people feel when faced with the reality of working life in our modern, developed, civilised country.
I have nothing left to add here. His words produce something more powerful than I ever could.
“A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings.
All of this information is hardly news. It happened last century. But Jimmy Reid became a hero. And he is still considered a hero by many today. His career following his life as an engineering shop steward was rather glittering. He became a journalist; writing columns, hosting television programmes and even making a documentary. And in 1972, in recognition of all he had achieved, he was made rector of Glasgow university and at his inauguration he gave a speech.
Whether you love or loathe the politics of Jimmy Reid, or even if you've never heard of him until today, there is no doubting the beauty and the power of the words he spoke on that day.
I often think about the nature of the workplace. How corrupt it can be. How often it forces those in it to spend a life in vicious pursuit of either survival or materialism. How it flies in the face of so many of the teachings of a humble carpenter from Galilee. What does it mean to be a Christian in the world of big business and mass consumerism?
On that day way back in 1972, Jimmy Reid summed up what I and many millions of other people feel when faced with the reality of working life in our modern, developed, civilised country.
I have nothing left to add here. His words produce something more powerful than I ever could.
“A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings.
“Reject the insidious pressures in society that would blunt your critical faculties to all that is happening around you, that would caution silence in the face of injustice lest you jeopardise your chances of self promotion and self advancement.
“This is how it starts and, before you know where you are, you’re a fully paid up member of the rat pack.
“The price is too high. It entails the loss of your dignity and human spirit.
“Or as Christ puts it ‘What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?’”.
Jimmy Reid RIP
04 August, 2010
03 August, 2010
Ending The Mummy Wars
Hold the presses! And don your hard hats. For there has been yet another study released, all about us modern mothers and the myriad ways we damage our children through the choices we make.
Except, this one comes with a difference. The results of a recent American study by The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care has demonstrated that on balance, babies and young children do not suffer when their mothers go back to work within 1 year of giving birth and that, taking into account all factors (such as lifestyle, health of the mother, financial stability and child-care choices) the effect of having a working mother on a child is no different than the effect on a child when it's mother remains at home.
"The good news is that we can see no adverse effects," said American academic Jane Waldfogel, currently a visiting professor at the London School of Economics. "This research is unique because the question we have always asked in the past has been: 'If everything else remains constant, what is the effect of a mum going off to work?' But of course everything else doesn't stay constant, so it's an artificial way of looking at things.
I suppose my point is this: Positive encouragement of mothers and the tasks that they face is only ever a good thing. The founders of this study rightly sought to comfort the anxieties that working mothers feel and they did just that. The 'Mummy wars' and the insults and judgement that goes with it has go on too long and I for one welcome the findings of this study as demonstration that most mothers simply do the best that they can, for their families and themselves. But as well as encouragement and comfort, society should be seeking ways to help all families achieve a life that they feel is right for them, rather than relying on a promise that the life that they have probably isn't going to hurt them in the end.
Except, this one comes with a difference. The results of a recent American study by The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care has demonstrated that on balance, babies and young children do not suffer when their mothers go back to work within 1 year of giving birth and that, taking into account all factors (such as lifestyle, health of the mother, financial stability and child-care choices) the effect of having a working mother on a child is no different than the effect on a child when it's mother remains at home.
"The good news is that we can see no adverse effects," said American academic Jane Waldfogel, currently a visiting professor at the London School of Economics. "This research is unique because the question we have always asked in the past has been: 'If everything else remains constant, what is the effect of a mum going off to work?' But of course everything else doesn't stay constant, so it's an artificial way of looking at things.
"Family relationships, family income, the mental health of the mother all change when a mother is working and so what we did was to look at the full impact, taking all of these things into account."
Now, this is of course good news in many ways. Working mothers are frequently berated for their decision to work, despite the fact that many women not only need to work to make ends meet but are happier and healthier when given the opportunity to work outside of the home. And taking an over-simplistic view of things, happy mum = happy baby.
Except that it just isn't that simple. The findings of this study do indeed disprove, or at least throw into debate, countless other investigations done. But on closer inspection, the conclusions found seem to apply to only a small sub-set of working mothers. The study listed some advantages that children enjoy when Mummy goes out to work. Greater financial stability. Excellent child-care. An increase in quality of life and lifestyle.
Again, all good.
But is this really the reality for most working mothers? Waldfogel tells us, "This is especially good news for US mothers, who typically go back to work after three months because of the lack of maternity leave, but it equally will apply to the typical British family."
Hmmm...most mothers in the US return to work at 3 months post-partum because of a lack of maternity leave? This doesn't sound like choice to me. This sounds like institutionalised expectation. It sounds as though perhaps, there is a pressure placed upon these women to go back out to work, to earn some money, to do some 'real' work. Where is the happy mum = happy baby equation in this?
I simply don't see it.
The examples quoted are very telling also.
"Julie Wilson, 43, returned to work full time when her first son, James, was six months old. "We had a really good nursery nearby and it was absolutely fine. I really enjoyed my job and never considered changing my hours. I don't feel he missed me – he was happy at nursery. He was occupied all the time… Later on it was really educational."
When her second son, Ben, was born, she returned to work again, but went part-time. Wilson, who now works as a freelance, thinks the decision to work had no negative impact on the boys, now 12 and eight. "Looking at James now, he is a very rounded individual."
There is no single mother here, living in council housing or with her parents, desperately trying to forge a decent career and working at McDonalds to fund her education. There is no married women whose husband has been made redundant, forcing her to go back to the office job she hated Monday - Friday while her children stay at home with Daddy.
No, the women quoted in this study are the fortunate ones. They are the those women who have already dedicated time to their careers prior to having children. They are the women who need rely on no-one for financial support since they are successful, independently wealthy and able to afford the best child-care money can buy.
The conclusion that mothers should not feel guilty for the choices they make is valid and noble. Of course women should have the choice to work, just as men should have the choice to stay at home if they wish.
But there is a baffling display of confusion here, the assumption that a women who goes out to work is a woman who has chosen to go out to work. It's no doubt a huge relief for all working women, whatever their circumstances, to read that their working life is probably doing no damage to their children, but wouldn't studies such as this and the institutions that fund them better serve the women they are seeking to help by researching ways to enable more women to have the choice to stay home, if they wish?
I suppose my point is this: Positive encouragement of mothers and the tasks that they face is only ever a good thing. The founders of this study rightly sought to comfort the anxieties that working mothers feel and they did just that. The 'Mummy wars' and the insults and judgement that goes with it has go on too long and I for one welcome the findings of this study as demonstration that most mothers simply do the best that they can, for their families and themselves. But as well as encouragement and comfort, society should be seeking ways to help all families achieve a life that they feel is right for them, rather than relying on a promise that the life that they have probably isn't going to hurt them in the end.
29 July, 2010
Advice To A Girl
No one worth possessing
Can be quite possessed;
Lay that on your heart,
My young angry dear;
This truth, this hard and precious stone,
Lay it on your hot cheek.
Let it hide your tear.
Hold it like a crystal
When you are alone
And gaze in the depths of the icy stone.
Long, look long and you will be blessed:
No one worth possessing
Can be quite possessed.
-Sara Teasdale (1884 - 1933)
No one worth possessing
Can be quite possessed;
Lay that on your heart,
My young angry dear;
This truth, this hard and precious stone,
Lay it on your hot cheek.
Let it hide your tear.
Hold it like a crystal
When you are alone
And gaze in the depths of the icy stone.
Long, look long and you will be blessed:
No one worth possessing
Can be quite possessed.
-Sara Teasdale (1884 - 1933)
26 July, 2010
Oh, fudge!
I'm always more than a little surprised when I try out a new recipe and find that it actually works. I'm 'blessed' with such a lot of clumsiness and impatience that it's a miracle that some of my cooking attempts make it out of the kitchen and into people's mouths.But there is always an exception to the rule and I'm really chuffed that my fudge-making efforts last week passed muster. It felt really nice to be able to give some delicious sugary treats to family and friends at the weekend.
Whoever said food is meant to be shared definitely knew what they were talking about!
Fudge Recipe: Makes A LOT!
410g (1 tin) evaporated milk
170g butter (I used salted, but unsalted will work just as well)
1/4 pint of milk (I used semi-skimmed)
1kg white granulated sugar
1. Melt the butter in a very large saucepan.
2. Add the sugar, milk and evaporated milk.
3. Turn the heat up high and whilst stirring continuously, boil the mixture rapidly until it becomes thick and syrup-ey. This can take up to 30 minutes (or longer if you have a crawling baby to keep an eye on!).
4. Drop half a teaspoon of the syrup into a glass of cold water. If the syrup holds it's shape and looks and feels like chewy toffee, it is ready to be removed from the heat.
5. Once removed from the heat, continue to stir vigourously while the mixture cools for 2-3 minutes.
6. Scrape the mixture into a large greased and lined cake or casserole dish.
7. Leave to cool for 2-3 hours, then cut into chunks, squares or cubes.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)