Nightstand (June 2014)

I’ve been returning books to the library once I’m done reading them (a good habit, you know) – and therefore hadn’t been noticing that I’ve actually done a decent bit of reading this month. However, I’ve got a whole slew of books due (without renewals) the first of July, so I’m still cutting it close with plenty!

Books Read

Books Read this Month (the ones that I hadn’t already returned)

This month, I read:

  • Bottled Up by Suzanne Barston
    A treatise from the “fearless formula feeder” arguing that breastmilk isn’t the best option for every mother and child. A valuable look into the psyche of those who “failed” at breastfeeding – but her arguments against breastfeeding are less than stellar. Read my full review here.
  • The Heart’s Frontier by Lori Copeland and Virginia Smith
    Amish romance meets Wild West, set right here in Kansas. This was a rather fun version of the standard Amish romance, since the primary differences between the plain way of life and the cowpoke’s life wasn’t technology but…well…other things. I enjoyed this book far more than I’ve enjoyed most of the Copeland novels I’ve read recently, but I’m not sure exactly why – it was still nominally Christian fiction, a relatively sappy romance with little character development. But, I enjoyed it. So there you have it.
  • King Solomon’s Mines by H. Rader Haggard
    Adventure is not my usual genre, but I’ve read along with all of the Reading to Know Classics Bookclub so far this year and I don’t intend to stop now. I’m awfully glad I did read this one, which was a gripping tale of a 1800s elephant hunter who is hired by two English gentlemen to lead them to the (generally presumed to be mythical) mines of King Solomon, in search of one gentleman’s brother, who set off on an expedition to the same locale and was never heard from again. I thoroughly enjoyed this novel!
  • Cotillion by Georgette Heyer
    When a rich uncle tries to convince his grand-nephews to marry his ward, things don’t exactly turn out how anyone expect. This is an absolutely delightful romp through Regency England – and officially my favorite book by Heyer. Check out my full review here.
  • The Upside-Down Christmas Tree by Delilah Scott and Emma Troy
    A collection of various families’ strange holiday traditions – many of which entail avoiding family functions, thumbing their noses at “Christmas culture”, or celebrating personal obsessions. It kept me moderately entertained during our wait at urgent care when Daniel had pneumonia, but, as a Christmas lover myself, I wasn’t too impressed.
  • The Man Who Loved Jane Austen by Sally Smith O’Rourke
    Eliza (quite unwisely per her investment banker boyfriend) buys an antique writing desk on a whim. She isn’t expecting anything spectacular of it, but finds herself on a grand adventure after she finds a couple letters hidden within – an open one from an F. Darcy, addressing himself to Jane Austen, and a sealed one addressed in Austen’s own handwriting to Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy. Thus begins a lighthearted and fantastical tale of a modern day man (whose family was not Austen fans, thanks to her strange co-option of their family name and the name of their American state) who fell in love with Austen. This was a fluffy read, but enjoyable – it reminded me a little of “You’ve Got Mail” meets “Kate and Leopold”. There is a bit of potentially objectionable content – premarital sex (in the modern day) is considered the norm and there’s also some language – but it wasn’t racy like I feared it might be. I’m glad this caught my eye during a recent library trip because I enjoyed it rather a lot.
  • Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan
    A very nice basic introduction to economics – without the math. It’s supposed to make economics interesting for people whose eyes glaze over when they start hearing economic talk, but since I’m not one of those, I don’t know how well it succeeds at it’s goal. Nevertheless, it is an engaging overview of economic principles. Read my full review here.
  • Christmas in Colonial and Early America and Christmas in Finland by World Book
    I love Christmas and I love reading about how other cultures celebrate it. These two books from World Book’s extensive Christmas around the world collection were fascinating and managed to transport me back to my childhood, where I took copious notes on worldwide Christmas traditions and tried my hardest to incorporate them into my family’s Christmases.

Books in Progress

Books in Progress

In Progress:

  • Beginning Life by Miriam Boleyn-Firtzgerald
    One of those books that tries to shed light on controversial subjects by excerpting articles from a variety of sources. This one deals with assisted reproductive technologies as well as abortion and emergency contraception.
  • Behold Williamsburg by Samuel Chamberlain
    A photograph-filled tour of Colonial Williamsburg as of the forties, when restoration was still in full swing. Reading in preparation for our Garcia family trip to Williamsburg in October.
  • Gilgamesh: a new English version translated by Stephen Mitchell
    It’s been a long time since I last read the Epic of Gilgamesh – and I’ve forgotten how racy it is. This is, however, shaping up to be an excellent and readable translation (I might have to remember Mitchell’s name and put this translation up with Seamus Heaney’s Beowulf as favorite renderings of ancient mythologies.)
  • The Maidenstone Lighthouse by Sally Smith O’Rourke
    I checked this out when I realized that I could close out O’Rourke with just two books if I jumped on it now. This one is not anywhere as interesting as The Man who Loved Jane Austen. It’s told in first person from the heroine’s point of view and if she mentions making love one more time… She hasn’t been explicit, which is the only reason I’ve kept reading, but I’m considering calling it quits on this one anyway. I only have so much reading time, and this does not seem worthy of my time.
  • When We Were On Fire by Addie Zierman
    A memoir of belonging to the nineties teen evangelical culture, of falling away from the faith, and of returning. My sister-in-law asked me if I’d read it because she wanted someone to discuss it with. And there is definitely discussion to be had here. While I have not had a falling away or returning, I identified strongly with Addie’s experiences as a teen in the nineties. This has been a tough book to read, inducing bits of nostalgia combined with equal parts distaste for the “on fire”, revival-happy, experience-seeking evangelicalism of my youth.

Books that are coming up

Books I plan to read next month

On the docket for next month:

  • New Mercies by Sandra Dallas
    For my in-real-life book club.
  • The Ruins of Gorlan by John Flanagan
    Because my sister-in-law (a different one than above) recommended it.
  • Prince Caspian by C.S. Lewis
    For Carrie’s Chronicles of Narnia Reading Challenge.
  • 101 Dalmatians by Dodie Smith
    For the Reading to Know Classics Bookclub.

Don’t forget to drop by 5 Minutes 4 Books to see what others are reading this month!

What's on Your Nightstand?


Book Review: Bottled Up by Suzanne Barston

Of course, Suzanne Barston intended to breastfeed. She intended to be a good mom – and, as the subject of internet-based reality show hosted by Pampers.com, she had incentive to do everything right.

When breastfeeding went poorly and she started supplementing, eventually giving up on breastfeeding entirely, she spent months ashamed over her “failure” before deciding to embrace her ultimate decision as “The Fearless Formula Feeder” (the blog where she can now be found.

Bottled Up follows some of Suzanne’s journey, but it goes far beyond a memoir. Barston argues that breastfeeding is not a good option for many women, does not live up to its extravagant health claims, and is overly politicized.

As an avid breastfeeding promoter (a good portion of my job is helping women understand the benefits of breastfeeding and helping them to successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding), this book was frustrating, challenging, and sometimes painful – but in a good way.

Barston begins by arguing that breastfeeding promotion is all about fear and guilt: fear that you’ll be perceived as a bad mother (which makes you choose to breastfeed in the first place) and guilt that you weren’t able or willing to breastfeed (when you choose not to breastfeed or end up quitting.) I do not doubt that there is plenty of fear and guilt wrapped up in breastfeeding. There is a lot of fear and guilt wrapped up in parenting in general. But I wonder if this is how the women who enter my office perceive me to be operating. Do they feel that I am trying to use fear to induce them to breastfeed when I tell them about the marvelous immunological benefits of breastmilk and the many childhood ailments that breastfed babies have reduced risk for? Does the suggestion of risk reduction mean fear mongering? Many of these women have no reason to fear postpartum hemorrhage, yet I might still tell them that breastfeeding in the immediate postpartum reduces risk of postpartum hemorrhage. Does this produce fear for an adverse event (hemorrhage) rather than wonder at the marvels of our bodies (what I experience when I think about the effects of the hormone milieu of early postpartum breastfeeeding)? Do the women who didn’t breastfeed or didn’t breastfeed for long with their earlier children feel guilt when I encourage them that every breastfeeding experience is different and that just because they had some difficulties with one child does’t mean they’ll have those same difficulties with the next? Or do they understand that information as I intend it – to empower them to make a decision now unbounded by the fear of past experiences?

Next Barston discusses “lactation failures”, giving herself as a prime example. She started supplementing at two days when her infant had lost 10% of his body weight and was experiencing jaundice from AB-O blood incompatibility. The hospital pediatrician had offered Barston an option: “waiting it out” or supplementing with formula – and Barston chose supplementing, hoping to get herself and her baby out of the hospital as quickly as possible. Based on this experience, and a review of the many medical conditions for which the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine does not feel supplementation is warranted, Barston believes that the today’s medical community is inappropriately disinclined to supplement and does so at the expense of infants – and their mothers. She argues that the common medical belief that only 1-5% of women experience primary lactation failure is scientifically baseless and that a much greater proportion of women are physically unable to breastfeed.

As a breastfeeding advocate, I frequently remind women that most women can successfully produce sufficient milk for their babies. I believe the 1-5% number, despite it being, yes, just an estimate. The simple fact is that there is no way for us to know, of those women who give up breastfeeding or supplement on day 2, how many of those women were incapable of producing sufficient milk and how many simply hadn’t had their milk “come in” yet (It’s a rare woman who has mature and voluminous milk on the second day postpartum – a more typical timeline is 3-5 days postpartum.) The number of women who enter my office complaining of engorgement after quitting breastfeeding because they “didn’t make enough” is astounding. I believe that there is true primary lactation failure. It exists. Other women (like my sister-in-law) experience secondary lactation failure, where their milk supply suddenly disappears due to extreme stress or starting a breastfeeding incompatible form of birth control. But the majority of women, including the ones who come into my office saying they quit because they weren’t making enough, are physiologically capable of producing breastmilk (and in sufficient quantities to meet their infant’s needs.)

I encourage women not to supplement – especially not in the first two weeks. I discuss what they can expect in those first two weeks. Baby might be really drowsy in the hospital and then “suddenly” be hungry all the time once you get home. That’s normal and not a sign that you don’t have enough milk. Normal babies have tiny stomachs that can’t stretch – they need to eat 8-12 times a day in those early days. Normal babies lose weight in their first few days of life. This is because they started out with a lot of fluid (even more if you had an IV during delivery), it doesn’t mean you don’t have enough milk. Your milk will start out yellowish and if you tried pumping it, you might only see a few drops in the bottle because the rest is stuck in the tubing. This is colostrum, it’s wonderful and he doesn’t need large amounts at a time (remember how little his tummy is?) What’s more, baby is better at getting milk from your breasts than the pump – don’t try to pump to figure out how much you’re making. Etc, etc, etc. I repeat it at least a dozen times in my “what to expect” speech: “That doesn’t mean you’re not making enough milk.” What does mean you’re not making enough milk? I educate them on that too – and I encourage them to let that be a sign for them to drop by the breastfeeding clinic at the hospital where they delivered. Most of the time, I explain, insufficient milk supply at the beginning is correctable. A lactation consultant (free at the hospital you delivered at in Wichita) can help you troubleshoot what’s going on with yours – they can evaluate latch and see if baby has a tongue tie or is pulling his lower lip in; they can do before and after weights to see how much transfer is actually taking place, they can walk through your breastfeeding routine and help you learn how to increase your supply. If your baby is showing some of the warning signs of not enough milk, don’t supplement, instead get yourself over to a lactation consultant!

In other words, I spout the stuff Barston complains about.

At the end of the second chapter, Barston explains how the seventh lactation consultant she and her son saw finally discovered the cause for the pain she had been experiencing while breastfeeding. Her son was tongue-tied. Barston describes how common this situation is and takes it as another proof that breastfeeding advocates are lying when they say that most women are able to breastfeed.

My chest aches and my eyes fill with tears.

I pray that I am not one of the six lactation consultants who offered ineffective advice without truly discovering the cause of breastfeeding difficulties. I pray I’m not one who tells women to just try harder, just keep going, it’ll get better without addressing their real needs.

Tongue tie is a true breastfeeding complication – but it doesn’t make breastfeeding impossible. A skilled lactation consultant can help the mother of many tongue-tied babies to find a position that allows for sufficient breastmilk transfer and avoids pain for the mother and the child. If the first consultant had discovered the tongue-tie, had helped Barston find a good position that worked for her and her child, would this book exist? Probably not.

Like I said, this book was frustrating, challenging, and sometimes painful.

I’m glad I read it. I feel it has given me much more perspective into how women who have “failed” at breastfeeding perceive our current breastfeeding culture – and how the breastfeeding community has let down some vulnerable mothers. Reading this enhanced my belief that most women know that breastfeeding is good for their babies – they don’t need to be convinced of breastfeeding’s benefits. Instead, they need to be educated regarding how to breastfeed, what to expect, how to know if something’s going well or poorly, and how to get help. And they need to receive careful individualized help when they ask for it. As breastfeeding support people, we need to ask questions, listen to mothers, and determine root causes of breastfeeding difficulties before we start handing out prescriptive advice (breastfeed more, put some lanolin on it, eat oatmeal). And we need to stop making the ideal the enemy of the good. We need to admit that many women are going to supplement even though we know exclusive breastfeeding is the best route – and we need to help them give baby as much breastmilk as they are willing or able to give.

I think this is a valuable book for all of us in breastfeeding support professions.

I do not think it’s a good book for mothers in general. Barston swings so far from the “breast is best” that she calls into question pretty much every bit of breastfeeding research that’s ever been done. Now, it’s true that breastfeeding research (like all research, but especially that sort that deals with human choices) is far from perfect, but the bulk of the evidence supports breastfeeding as the optimal feeding choice for both mothers and infants. The undecided reader of this book (or maybe the one who only knows from her friends who latched their baby on once that breastfeeding hurts) might get the impression that breastmilk substitutes are basically as good as breastmilk. And that just isn’t true. Breastmilk substitutes have been a lifesaver to infants whose mothers have been unable to breastfeed for all sorts of reasons. They are designed by scientists to meet an infant’s needs the best we know how. But breastmilk substitutes are to breastmilk what vegan bacon is to real bacon – an awfully poor substitute. If you can give your child breastmilk, it’s by far the better option.


I realize that this is an emotionally charged issue – and that my unapologetic preference for breastmilk over breastmilk substitutes makes me subject to accusations of insensitivity. Please believe me that I am not judging the women who don’t breastfeed or feel that they can’t breastfeed (and I certainly hope you don’t believe I’m judging the women who actually can’t breastfeed despite their desire to do so!) In fact, I frequently find myself reminding women that every drop of breastmilk their babies did get made a difference – and that they can wear their two weeks of breastfeeding proudly. I cheer for the women whose babies get formula during the day but who breastfeed at night because it’s easier than getting up to make a bottle – Good for them! I sympathize with the women who were told by a doctor or someone else that they needed to start supplementing or else and who found their supply dwindling as a result. And I try to make sure that every pregnant woman who comes into my office has more than just information about the benefits of breastfeeding but the practical help she needs to be successful at breastfeeding – whether that be for the three days she’s in the hospital, for the six weeks she’s at home with baby before returning to work, for six months combined with formula, or for two years with never a bottle to be found.


Rating: 3 stars
Category: Breastfeeding – social aspects
Synopsis: Barston argues against the current breastfeeding culture and argues that breastfeeding is not necessarily the best choice for moms and babies.
Recommendation: Recommended for breastfeeding support people as a call to compassionate care, but not really recommended otherwise.


Book Notes: Paranoid Parenting (Part 4)

I’m mostly writing notes to evaluate Furedi’s arguments and add my own thoughts. If you’re interested, you can check out Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Chapter 4: Parenting on Demand

Chapter 4 starts with a complaint about some of the hallmarks of attachment parenting (feeding on demand, cosleeping, baby wearing, and avoiding “crying it out”) – but quickly morphs into something else entirely. The bulk of the chapter deals with what Furedi perceives as new roles of parents: parents as “full-time lovers” of their children, parents as therapists and healers, and parents as teachers. In each of these roles, Furedi explains how the definition of parenting has changed in recent years. Yes, parents have always been expected to love their children, but love has been redefined into emotional attentiveness, seen especially in play and separate from caring for a child’s physical needs. Furedi speaks of the role of parents in developing a child’s “emotional intelligence” and disparages the modern trend for constant attentiveness to a child’s emotional state, which he sees as complicating a child’s feelings. He also talks about a new role of parents in “supporting a child’s learning”, looking at how much time the average parent spends helping their children with homework (which Furedi purports is more time than the official guidelines suggest children should be spending on homework.)

This chapter was difficult for me to read and analyze. Furedi’s initial complaints about attachment parenting and his later complaints about new roles of parents seem disconnected – the only similarity between attachment parenting and the other complaints is the idea that a parent should be constantly attentive to a child’s needs. At the same time, I see a distinct difference between feeding “on demand” (a philosophy that I very much espouse-although I tend to call it “per infant hunger/fullness cues”) and spending large amounts of energy trying to decode your preschooler’s emotions. Telling parents to feed their infants when they are hungry is different than telling parents that they must always be on alert lest they emotionally damage their child.

Another difficulty for me was Furedi’s discussion of parents as teachers. I was homeschooled. My parents were my teachers. I intend to homeschool my own children. I feel strongly that parents ARE teachers, regardless of whether they take on that mantle or not. That said, I have my doubts about the homework little ones are sent home with – and about how much time parents are spending doing it. What on earth are kids doing in school all day that they need to be doing 5-10 hours of homework at home on top of it? I think I spent ten hours a week doing school, period. By the time I was in third grade, I needed only minimal direction from my mom. She certainly wasn’t spending 10 hours a week helping me with schoolwork (and remember, she was my only teacher.) I think parents should be teachers, are teachers. But I wonder if maybe parents and school systems are getting a little too caught up on “schoolwork” and “learning activities” (possibly at the expense of actual learning – and to the stress of parents everywhere.)


Thankful Thursday: Children

Thankful Thursday banner

One of the things I miss most about Nebraska is families. I grew up in a small church in which everyone was family – and I had plenty of interactions with people of all ages. Once I moved to Columbus, it took a while, but I got acquainted with families fairly quickly and spent time with people of all ages.

It’s been harder here in Wichita, where most of our friends are single or married young adults without children and where our churches have been big and relatively age-segregated. It’s been harder to get to know families, to interact with children. But we’re gaining traction, slowly – and this week has been particularly full of fulfilling interactions with children.

This week I’m thankful…

…for for an invitation to a picnic
He gathered all the fruits from the puzzle on the table, placed them in the shape sorting basket, and handed the basket to me. “We’re going on a picnic to the Indian. Do you wanna come?” Of course I wanted to come.

While I have children in my office most of the day, I mostly interact with their parents. This little boy provided a delightful change of pace, telling me about the helicopter that was by the river during this year’s Riverfest, inviting me on his picnic (to see the “Keeper”-a large statue that stands where the Arkansas and the Little Arkansas rivers combine), and telling me about how he *couldn’t* see the fishes in the river because it was too muddy.

…for a little girl who hasn’t learned to keep her mouth shut
I descended the stairs after getting some lab work done, my keys already in my hand for my return to work, when her exclamation pealed through the waiting room. “Look at that girl’s pretty dress!” Her embarrassed father grabbed her hand, turned to her, undoubtedly to shush her. I smiled at her and left the office.

In time, she will learn to keep such comments to herself. She will learn that such things are to be whispered instead of shouted. But for now, I rejoice in a child’s voice proclaiming my outfit “pretty” (and me a girl, but that’s neither here nor there!)

…for dances and special songs
It’s been a while since we’ve seen some friends of ours from church, what with them going to a different service than us for a month and then us being sick the past couple of weeks (me first with a nasty cold, then Daniel with pneumonia from that cold – Bleh!) But this week, we were back in the same service and chatted for a while before going out to dinner with them afterward.

Their kids know us, have been over at our house, see us in church and so on – but usually they’re pretty shy around us or have grandma and grandpa or aunts nearby to charm, so they don’t pay much attention to us. But this past Sunday, we were just having dinner the six of us. 3-year-old H was his rambunctious self, dancing on the restaurant booth beside me. I asked him if he likes dancing (which, of course, he does) and what kind of dancing he likes best (swinging – which, in this case, means swinging his arms and swaying his body). I informed him that I too enjoyed dancing, which was enough for him to consider me a dance partner. He wrapped his arms around me and started “swinging”, singing a made-up song into my hair.

“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
the fruit of the womb a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
Blessed is the man
who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.”
~Psalm 127:3-5 (ESV)

Thank you, Lord, for the heritage that is children, for the blessing of being able to interact with them.


Book Review: Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan

So, apparently economics is really boring. Or at least, it is if your only exposure is a high school or college Econ 101.

I never had the dubious pleasure of taking Econ 101, so I’ve always considered economics to be fun.

Charles Wheelan’s Naked Economics seeks to undo this apparently common misconception by “undressing” economics from the equations that presumably cause the average economics student to consider economics boring.

Since I’ve never considered economics boring, I don’t know how well this book succeeds at its goal – I do, however, know that I found this to be a simple and fascinating introduction to economics.

Wheelan addresses how markets work, what incentives do, how governments help and hinder things, how to measure economies, what the federal reserve does, and much more.

It’s great. It defines terms, fleshes out principles, and makes economics absolutely simple.

But I like economics. So I really can’t say much.

Except that, if you don’t like economics or have always been intimidated by it, you should probably check this book out.

It might just change your view of the “dismal science”.


Rating: 4 stars
Category: Economics
Synopsis: Wheelan gives a basic no-math introduction to economics.
Recommendation: If you find your eyes glazing over when people start talking economics – or if you enjoy economics – this is a good introduction to the wonderful (actually very interesting) world of economics.


Book Notes: Paranoid Parenting (Part 3)

I’m mostly writing notes to evaluate Furedi’s arguments and add my own thoughts. If you’re interested, you can check out Part 1 and Part 2.

Chapter 3: Parents as Gods
In chapter 3, Furedi goes deeper into a concept he introduced in the previous chapter – infant determinism (also referred to by Furedi as “parental determinism”.) This idea purports that parents are uniquely responsible for all sorts of childhood and adult behavior – and that therefore parents should take a strong role in actively shaping their children’s lives (because if they don’t do it intentionally, they will be sure to mess up their children!)

“Today, parenting has been transformed into an all-purpose independent variable that seems to explain everything about an infant’s development.”

The author goes through a huge list of things that modern science blames on parenting – the terrible twos, school failure, depression, eating disorders, and more. Here’s where he starts talking a bit on my area of expertise: nutrition.

“Nutritionists claim that many parents are mistaken in the belief that a healthy diet for an adult is a healthy diet for children. It is claimed that babies and toddlers who receive normal adult fare are deprived of energy-dense food and therefore lack the right calorie intake….Parents not only have to constantly monitor the food they give to their toddlers, they also have to set the right example during meals.”

Here’s where I wonder if these are the messages parents are really receiving – because they’re certainly not the messages I’m sharing. The truth is that many people are mistaken in their beliefs about what constitutes a healthy diet, period. While extreme low-fat diets were popular, there were indeed parents who mistakenly thought that their infants and toddlers should go low-fat too – and those infants ended up with essential fatty acid deficiencies. But extremely low-fat diets actually aren’t healthy for anyone (and hopefully, no dietitians are spouting that in 2014!) – and children are actually uniquely vulnerable to nutritional deficiencies (as opposed to adults) because they’re still building their bodies (as opposed to maintaining them as adults are.) And setting a good example? Is he really complaining about that advice? It seems like common sense that if you expect your kid to eat vegetables, it helps if they see you eating vegetables too.

The disconnect between what I share as nutritional parenting advice (and really, my job is to give parenting advice) and what Furedi perceives as current nutritional parenting advice makes me wonder where else the messages researchers and educators give are transformed into paranoia.

And then I look at Furedi’s sources: Mother & Baby magazine, Prima Baby magazine, Baby magazine, Parents magazine. These magazines were purportedly quoting experts or giving advice based on research – but I’m not at all confident that journalists have the skills required to give advice based on scientific research. I see it all the time with nutrition. A new study comes out suggesting that high intake of cinnamon increases insulin sensitivity. This is interesting, but hardly something to start giving nutritional advice based upon. Yet Fitness magazine has a big feature full of cinnamon-rich recipes announcing that this is a scientific way to prevent diabetes. The advice, of course, pays no attention to the minimum dose required for response, the magnitude of the response, or the quality of the study. I suspect that much of the “scientific” parenting advice one reads in parenting magazines is similar.

But don’t blame it on the experts, this time. If you want someone to tar and feather, tar and feather the journalists who prey on parent’s fears and inappropriately translate research into guidelines.

That said, Furedi does have a good point to make: children tend to be remarkably resilient. The magnitude of these parenting effects is nowhere near as large as the popular media would have you think. My parents didn’t follow all the nutritional advice I give my clients (and I actually give them good advice :-P) – and I’m not a fatso with an eating disorder. It’s okay to relax – you don’t have to follow every new fad the parenting magazines tout in order to not mess up your child.


Narratives, Nature, and Nurture

The United States has traditionally been considered a land of opportunity. Here a man can make something of himself, regardless of his background, provided he works hard. America is the land of the self-made man. Our ancestors were persecuted peasants who fled to America and became land-owners. One of our most famous presidents was born in a log cabin. We love rags to riches stories – stories of people who through hard work, pluck, and determination made something of awful circumstances. For generations, we have told our children that they can do anything – provided they work hard enough.

Increasingly, though, a new narrative has entered into American consciousness – a new narrative that is actually quite old. According to this narrative, we are a product of our birth. Born into poverty, we are destined to live in poverty, unless some benevolent rich person brings us out. We are not the actors in our stories – others are. We are victims of the fates.

The changing narrative has had a great impact on how people perceive themselves – and on the actions they take. Those who perceive themselves as successful tend to believe that their actions have power to effect change – but they frequently feel that they obtained this power unfairly. They feel a great guilt for the accidents of birth and rearing that have made them successful – and try to assuage that guilt by becoming patrons. Those who perceive themselves as unsuccessful tend to have low self-efficacy. They believe that their actions have no effect, that they are destined for the life they have – and so the best they can do is rail against the circumstances of their lives and insist that the fortunate successful work to raise their lot.

Self-efficacy. It’s an interesting word – and an interesting concept. Self-efficacy is simply ones belief that one is able to accomplish goals. Self-efficacy is strongly linked to having an internal locus of control – that is, believing that you are the primary actor in your life (as opposed to you being one who is acted upon.)

Yet I would argue that, in general, Americans are moving toward an external locus of control. Neither the successful nor the unsuccessful consider their station to be a result of their own actions. Neither the successful nor the unsuccessful have much hope for changing themselves – they consider their own lives to be determined by their pasts. But the successful and the unsuccessful tend to have vastly different ideas about their ability to change others. If we are a product of our pasts, we cannot change ourselves – but the successful may be able to use their success to change others.

Enter nature versus nurture.

Even as I think about phrase, I realize how deterministic it is. If “nature” is all there is, if genetics are fate – then we are programmed by our genes. If “nurture” is all there is, if how we are raised is fate – then we are programmed by our parents. Either way, we’re programmed. We have no control over our own lives.

Is it any surprise, then, that the parents who consider themselves successful invest so much in trying to alter the fates of their children? This is their one chance to control something about themselves. They overparent.

On the other hand, the unsuccessful parents throw their hands up. They don’t believe they have the power to affect their children, so they do nothing. They don’t believe they have anything to invest, don’t believe it’s possible to alter the fates of their children. They fail to parent.

So we end up with opposite ends of the parenting spectrum – neither of which do children any advantages.

What if, instead of being the product of nature or nurture, children were simply themselves?

Selves, capable of writing their own stories?

What if instead of trying to write our children’s stories, we tried to teach them what makes for good stories? What if instead of consigning them to the life their circumstances gave them, we tried to give them the skills – diligence and self-discipline – that help them to rise above their circumstances?

What if we taught our children that they can be successful – provided they work hard enough?


Thankful Thursday: Plants and People

Thankful Thursday banner

Some weeks themes come easily, other weeks not so much. This week is the latter. But I am indeed thankful for plants and people.

This week I’m thankful…

…for mulberries
About a month ago, I realized how much I missed mulberries. Back when we were kids, we walked to the empty field at the end of our street and pillaged its mulberry trees regularly. I hadn’t seen a mulberry since I moved to Wichita. So, imagine my surprise when my brother and sister-in-law were in town over Memorial Day and we were doing some yardwork (pulling out a fence, digging up thistles, and reorganizing bricks and stuff from one side of the garage to the other) and discovered… a mulberry tree. In my yard. Since that point, I’ve been eating mulberries morning, noon, and night – straight from the tree (it’s the best way). I’m limited because there are only a few branches that are within arms reach and the ground’s too soft (and too muddy from digging up fence posts) to use a ladder – but mulberries ripen quickly and there’s usually a new couple dozen ripe berries within reach each time I go out.

…for spinach
I am a dismal gardener, mostly because I garden (like I do almost anything) in fits and spurts. Gardens don’t take too kindly to not being watered or weeded for long spells, and container gardens (which I had when I was renting) like it even less. But I put in a nice big raised bed last year and this year I planted it with spinach and beets and onions and tomatoes and peppers and broccoli and summer squash. And yesterday I enjoyed a lovely spinach salad grown in my own garden. It’s still early in the year and I definitely could still kill the rest – but this taste of success is bolstering my resolve that I *will* see this gardening thing out.

…for sisters
My sister-in-law (and brother) came to visit over Memorial Day weekend and insisted on being put to work. My other sister-in-law texted me on Memorial Day (after her sister had left) and asked how I was doing, said she was thinking of me. I had to reply that I was feeling a bit emotional and mopey – and we arranged a Skype date to talk, which was just the thing to lift my spirits. My sister and I had a nice long text exchange yesterday, part silliness, part seriousness. Having such wonderful sisters and sisters-in-law is a blessing that can only come from God.

…for my husband
I’ve been tired, have been barely keeping up with the housework (Remember when I lost my homemaking mojo? I’m doing a bit better but it’s still struggling.) Then I got a massive cold from a client and was pretty much out of it for three days. Daniel has fed me, made me orange juice, done dishes, done laundry, and generally babied me. I’ve given him rather a lot of worse since the day he pledged “for better or worse”, but he’s faithfully kept that vow. God has blessed me again and again with a husband who faithfully models Christ’s love for the church by loving me as his own body, regularly sacrificing his own comfort for mine, his own rights for my privilege.

…for the Vine
Frequently, I feel like a dead branch, with little life in me. I fail at so many of the good things I intend to do. I would be a dead branch, incapable of accomplishing any good thing of myself. But God has made this dead branch live, not because I conjured up life in myself, but because He has grafted me into the Vine. As I remain in Him, and He in me, He causes this dead branch to bear fruit. And whether I see fruit or not, I cling to Him and to His word. I cannot bear fruit, but cling to His promise that as I hold fast to Him, He will bear fruit in me.

Thank You, Lord, for making provision for my deadness by granting me life through Your Son. Thank you, Lord, for making provision for my barreness by providing fruit through Your work. Help me ever to abide in You.

“Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.”
~John 15:4-10 (ESV)


Book Notes: Paranoid Parenting by Frank Furedi (Part 2)

I’m mostly writing notes to evaluate Furedi’s arguments and add my own thoughts. If you’re interested, you can check out my introductory comments here.

Chapter 2:The Myth of the Vulnerable Child
Furedi argues that today’s children are regarded as uniquely vulnerable to outside forces (almost all of which are considered risks) and NOT resilient to manage such outside forces. As a result, parents seek to minimize all risks, not considering any potential benefits of risk. Furedi points to the modern playground as an example of the outerworking of this fear of exposing children to risk.

“It is easy to overlook the fact that the concept of children at risk is a relatively recent invention. As I argue elswewhere, this way of imagining childhood involves a redefinition both of risk and of childhood. Until recently, risks were not interpreted by definition as bad things. We used to talk about good, worthwhile risks as well as bad, foolish ones. Risks were seen as a challenging aspect of children’s lives. Today, we are so afraid of risk that we have invented the concept of children at risk. A child that is at risk requires constant vigilance and adult supervision.”

But the myth of childhood vulnerability is not limited to physical vulnerability to danger. Today’s parenting culture considers children to be emotionally and developmentally at risk, subject to what one psychologist calls “infant determinism”. Without just the right childhood circumstances, a child could be scarred for life – destined to be a psychopath or mentally ill. Yet this concept, while popular, is largely ungrounded in empirical evidence. Yes, infants in third world orphanages who are never touched or held are more likely to experience psychological difficulties – but these extreme examples do not prove that children in general are at risk of developmental and psychological issues if they are not held or watched every moment. Children are much more resilient, both physically and psychologically, than current parenting culture wants to admit.

Furedi’s playground argument hits home with me. The modern playground is so far removed from the playground of my childhood that I reflected to my husband (and to Facebook) that the modern playground seems designed to eliminate all risks, including the risk of gross motor development.

While we were dating, Daniel and I took my niece to one of the old playgrounds in my parent’s neighborhood. She was maybe 18 months and I stood a step behind her, terrified, as I let her climb the slide’s steps all by herself. I was fully aware of the risks, of the rails that were simply something for her to grab to help her climb, not something that would keep her from falling 10 or more feet to the ground if she slipped. I was aware that, if the weather were warmer, the metal of the slide could get hot and burn her. My heart was in my chest. But I value learning and independence. I think that’s important. I took the precaution of being a step behind her so she was within hands reach if she faltered. But I let her climb by herself.

Last year, a whole group of our family went to another of my parents’ old playgrounds (they have three old playgrounds within walking distance!) My sister Anna got on the merry-go-round (yes, it actually has one of those) with the Little Miss (who was now two and half) and Daniel pushed them. He went faster and faster and faster while I bit my fingernails watching them turn. I felt sure that Anna was about to throw up and feared that the Little Miss would emerge from the experience terrified of her uncle Daniel. Anna cried uncle and Daniel stopped them. They stepped off the merry-go-round and the Little Miss slowly reoriented to the world. When she found her bearings, she turned towards Daniel and demanded “Again.”

Children are resilient. Yes, risks exist – but so do opportunities that can’t be obtained without risk.

A child broke her arm after falling out of a tree. Her father contemplated banning tree-climbing. I broke my collar bone at age 2 falling out of bed. Perhaps we should also ban bed-sleeping. I say it ironically, but take a look at parenting literature and you’ll read of the advantages of toddler beds set close to the floor, maybe even with a soft mat alongside to break a child’s fall. You can add a mesh rail to your child’s bed to prevent falling entirely, but you must be careful lest your child get stuck between the bed and the rail – another risk.

All of us have stories of risks we took as children. We have stories of risky behavior that didn’t result in damage and risky behavior that did actually hurt us. Most of not only survived but thrived despite (or even because of) these experiences.

But it doesn’t stop with physical risks. We have emotionally “traumatic” experiences in our memories too. I slept in my closet on a pile of dirty clothes for weeks at a time because I got tired of having my sister tickle me in the bed we shared. One of my siblings grabbed a knife from the kitchen and threatened me with it. A drunk man got too close for comfort when I was waiting for my mom after ballet class when I was nine or ten. I experienced fear and anger as a child – but I also experienced love and safety and comradery. Today, I laugh at those “traumatic” stories and have great relationships with my siblings.

Ironically, the “traumatic” experience from my childhood that still has the power to excite me to anger is of an overprotective cop who got angry with my mother for leaving six of her children (with their eleven year old sister- me) in their wrecked van by the side of the highway while she called for help from the car of a Good Samaritan who stopped a hundred feet or less ahead of us. I still become angry when I think of someone daring to disapprove of my mom’s sensible action in the face of our accident.

So there you have it. Kids are resilient – physically and emotionally. Risks exists, but are not always bad. Parents need not be paralyzed with fear of risk – instead, they should consider which risks are truly problematic and how to wisely manage risk while maximizing childhood.


Book Review: Cotillion by Georgette Heyer

I’ve been reading and enjoying Georgette Heyer since my early teenage years, but until this month, I could not have pointed out a particular Heyer book as my favorite. I am now happy to announce that Cotillion has filled that long open spot.

The rich but notoriously tight-fisted Matthew Penicuik has summoned his four grandnephews to his country home, declaring that he intends to settle his will. Almost everyone understands what this means. Penicuik intends to settle his fortune on his ward, Miss Kitty Charing – and intends that one of his grandnephews marry her. In fact, he so intends that one of his grandnephews marry her that he makes her inheriting conditional upon this term. If she does not marry one of the four, Uncle Matthew will leave his fortune to charity, leaving Kitty penniless and his nephews without any portion of his estate.

After Uncle Matthew announces his intentions to the two of his four nephews who answered the summons, he leaves his nephews with Kitty in the drawing room. Dim-witted Lord Dolphinton, at his mother’s behest, announces to Kitty that he is an earl and therefore a desirable match. Kitty clearly sees the designs of Lady Dolphinton behind this proposal and graciously declines Dolph’s offer – much to his delight. At this, the Reverend Hugh Rattray announces his own suit. He, of course, has no desire for the money, but does not wish for Kitty to end up penniless – and since neither Freddy nor Jack have shown up to press their own suits, he shall do the honors. Kitty summarily rejects this offer too and decides to run away, so humiliating is this whole situation.

But in the course of her running away, she happens upon “Cousin Freddy” who is a bit late in coming to hear his uncle’s announcement. He received the message late and hadn’t intended to go anyway since he had no interest in his great-uncle’s fortune (and no thought that the way of obtaining it would be to marry Kitty.) Yet when Cousin Freddy ran into Cousin Jack at a club, Jack had convinced Freddy that he really ought to go. When Kitty runs into Freddy, she at first berates him for coming – she had thought better of him than to angle after her for money – and then begs him to become engaged to her once she realizes that he had no intention of offering for her.

Her would be her chance, she thought. If she were betrothed to Freddy, she could go to London to visit his mother and enjoy a month-long reprieve from her tiresome life in the country. She could at last see the town – and perhaps, well, see… But no, of course, she had no desire to see Jack. That was not at all the plan. Although…betrothed to Freddy, she could perhaps prove to Jack that she wasn’t just waiting for him to offer for her in his own sweet time.

Thus begins a delightful romp of sham engagements and secret engagements and attractions that can never turn into engagements. That said, it’s not a super-sappy romance full of long speeches and loverly looks. Instead, it’s like watching a complicated country dance, in which partners are always switching and the usual comedies of unmatched partners arise.

I highly recommend this particular Heyer title.


Rating: 5 stars
Category: Regency Romance
Synopsis: Country-bred orphaned Kitty embarks upon a month in London under the watchful eye of her faux-fiance
Recommendation: If you like romances or Heyer or comedy – or if you’ve been told you should read Heyer at some point – this is the book for you.