Purely Anecdotal

admin March 19th, 2009

I look at your face and wonder
How will you look in 5 years
And how will you look at me?
I am in there, somewhere, but
Will you ever see it?
Are these games we play
The best for you?
Are there other kids, far away
Or down the street, learning more
Learning faster,
Their moms doing the right things
At the right time?
You are so small yet, you break me already.
You strain around me to find something
A bit more appealing.
You stroke my finger in your sleep.
How much is us and what is you only?
You stroke my finger in your sleep.

• Deep Thoughts , Parenting
• Comments(0)

admin March 19th, 2009

I recently responded to a friend’s post saying that she was mulling over the stem cell issue that has been in the news recently. The topic is far too complex to examine in a simple comment, however, so I decided to expand on it a little in a separate space.

Let me start with the disclaimers: I am a scientist but have never worked with cells. I don’t have a strong opinion on the morality of this and am just putting down what I know. I am not an expert and don’t pretend to be. This is a very complex issue. Some points may be incorrect - if you are an expert feel free to correct me or point me to a reputable source. I don’t mean to start any kind of argument, get into heated discussions, or otherwise alienate myself or anyone else due to posting on this sensitive subject.

In light of the Obama administration changing W’s ruling on stem cells, there has been some discussion about the issue. I think that’s great. Here’s my take:

Stem cell research has enormous potential for the treatment and prevention of incredibly debilitating, life altering, and life threatening diseases for which we currently have very few treatments. Two of these off the top of my head are Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Though these diseases commonly afflict older people, this research will potentially also do much to treat diseased children and young people. Millions of fully formed humans are suffering and this research could put this suffering to an end. Right now it is our best shot. This is why there is such a push to do this work.

A stem cell is a cell that has not yet been “told” what kind of cell it is. It could be a bone cell or a muscle cell or a red blood cell. A stem cell has not yet been programmed and this makes it very flexible, and it allows us to study how these things work, and to create treatments.

Under his administration, GW enacted a law stating that the federal government would not fund work with embryonic stem cells created after a certain date. All cells created before this date were fair game, but none of those created afterward. States like CA passed legislation to allow this work to continue there, funded by the state, and private companies could do what they pleased, but federal funds were held back. Obama is working to undo these restrictions and open up the research again. Georgia, by the way, is working to limit such work within the state.

I wrote back to my friend pondering the issue, that fortunately for all, scientists have recently come up with ways to force most any kind of human cell back into the stem cell state, eliminating much of the moral and ethical concerns of embryonic stem cells. And yes, this was in large part to W’s legislation. Why then, would anyone want to start up embryonic stem cell research again?

Scientists are more comfortable with what they know. Using what you know reduces variables and strengthens the results of experiments. What they know are embryonic stem cells. It is likely much quicker, cheaper, and easier to work with these cells. Other cells may have different characteristics that they haven’t yet identified. Money spent on teasing a skin cell to be a stem cell could be spent on something else - say getting the technology to the market. The same goes with the time issue. There may be some other key reasons that I am missing as well. Maybe these other cells don’t work as well, all the time, etc.

Why then can they not just use the ones created before W’s arbitrary date? It seems that in order to do the best research one needs stem cells with different genetic material, and limiting the cells to such a finite pool in some cases limits the research. I’m a little fuzzy on this one, but this is what I gather.

My friend’s actual question was “then why would anyone destroy life…” which opens up the question of what these cells really are, and where they come from.

Some people believe that these embryonic stem cells represent human life. Some people see them (morally) just the same as some cells you might scrape off of your skin or the inside of your mouth. I’m not going to argue with that, but let’s think about what happens to these cells when they are not used for research (research with the goal of saving numerous human lives let’s remember). These cells most often come from IVF clinics. These clinics create and discard numerous “waste” cells in the hopes of getting a very small percentage to be viable enough to make a baby. The fate of the other cells is one of three: disposed of as bio-waste, frozen indefinitely, or research. What to do with these cells really is a problem, and many see important research is the answer. Perhaps destroying or freezing (forever?) is better, I don’t know, but the fact remains that these cells are being created whether or not they are used and something has to be done with them.

(I am not going to judge IVF treatments, but it has always puzzled me how you can be in full support of IVF and against embryonic stem cell research when it is the IVF creating the cells to be destroyed in the first place. )

These new technologies (creating stem cells from adult human cells) also shine a new light on the moral and ethical value of embryonic stem cells in general. If an adult muscle or kidney or blood cell can look and act and *be* exactly the same as an embryonic stem cell, then are these as special as we thought? Are all cells then just as much a potential human life?

Complex. I told you.

The reason why Obama is opening up this research again is that whether or not you agree with it, federally funding embryonic stem cell research is, right now, the most direct route to treating and preventing diseases that (fully formed human) people have and are dying from every day. Maybe this is morally wrong. I don’t know and am not going to weigh in on that, but this fact remains.

Please don’t flame me.

• Deep Thoughts
• Comments(1)

admin March 18th, 2009

In my normal life I try to keep an open mind, not judge, and live with a “to each his own” philosophy. Such an attitude, however, is cultivated, and not my true nature. Since I am anon here, I think I will vent a little about those things that really are just wrong.

1. Saving the placenta. I just found out today that one of the girls in my playgroup has the placenta from the birth of her child tucked away in the freezer. As in, it almost got made into hamburgers the other night. Now that is just nasty. I’m sorry. Gross.

2. Breast feeding grown children. I am all about breastfeeding, but please, if a kid can walk up to you and ask for it, you’ve gone too far. That child is no longer a baby. Part of your job as a parent is helping that child to become independent and grow into their role as a young person. Pull them off your boob and teach them how to make a sandwich. (Thanks, MetroDad for this one)

3. Naming a child “Bubba.” Really. Do you really want to limit your child’s career choices to stunt rider, truck salesman, or prisoner? I didn’t think so.

4. Naming a child any of those other horrible names. You know the ones I mean. Airplane, Version 2.0, Stuffbutt, Wayway, and Dick Johnson, I feel your pain. This one’s for you.

5. Sending out Christmas letters written “in the voice of” your dog. I have dogs. I love them dearly. They are part of the family. My husband has standing orders to shoot me in the foot if I ever suggest sending out one of these gag inducing letters. They are not adorable people; they just make you seem lame.

Feel free to add your own list of things that you try to understand, but never really do.

• Parenting
• Comments(0)

admin March 8th, 2009

Inspired in part by the frank talk on this issue over at Motherhood Uncensored, I am writing today about something that it seems even the most open and honest mothers don’t talk about: Post Partum Sex. I don’t know why we don’t talk about it, but we don’t. And we should.

Case in point: me. I am not a modest person. I don’t care who knows about what surgery or procedure I have or haven’t had done. I heard and told others all about the myriad of scary and disgusting things that could or would happen to my body during pregnancy and birth. I love talking about boobs. My son’s poop schedule is definitely fair game. And before having a kid, sex, and even more intimately, the sex I was having, was not an infrequent topic. But for some reason sex after kids just seems taboo. Maybe for me it was because there was an issue where there never was one before, and it was well, embarrassing, and worrying and just so personal. But mothers need to know these things and hidden as I am in my anonymity, I think its time for me to share.

At one point I was worried that I would never enjoy sex with my husband again. This terrified me. It was awful. And by the way, now it is better than ever – if that’s possible. Come along for the ride.

My son’s birth was necessarily quick, but not hugely traumatic. I was glad for the epidural when stitched up, told I had first to second degree tears, and that I could resume sex again after the traditional 6 weeks. Being young and therefore resilient, I healed fairly quickly and looked forward with my husband to that important date. At around 4-5 weeks we tested the waters, but some pain convinced us that we should wait until my check-up to avoid any re-injury. We were right on track. We were playing by the rules. We were going to win. Yay.

I went in for my checkup and was told that I had “perfect vagina.” I have to admit that the declaration did quite a bit to stoke my ego. How many other people are told that their junk is perfect, by someone well qualified to know? Apparently I had healed so well that my OBGYN mistakenly thought that there hadn’t been any tearing at all during the birth. If crowns were awarded to vaginas, I’m sure mine would have gotten one. A big sparkly golden 1st place one. And so I took my “perfect” vagina home.

But something was wrong. Sex hurt. No, that’s not accurate, because sex didn’t happen. Any entry hurt. A lot. It was horrible. It was like re-virgination – but worse. Some looking around online told me that I perhaps did have a little scarring, and that this was causing some entry pain. We waited two weeks, and it didn’t improve. So we waited another week. Still pain. At around three months post partum I was prepared to call my OBGYN for an appointment. Sex, I had decided, was an important part of my life and relationship and I was not about to give it up. I wanted good sex back. I needed it. Finally we decided to wait another few weeks, and try some tips I found, if only to convince my OB that this was serious.

And about that time things started getting better. There was still some pain, but it slowly slowly lessened. Lube helped. Regaining my period at around 6 months helped. My son is now 8 months old, and things are much better. I still need my husband to ease into it a little at the beginning, but I actually enjoy the experience on the whole more than before. I’m tighter, and better than ever. I’d always heard that having a baby stretched a woman out. I asked my husband before the birth whether he’d mind being the “hotdog in the hallway.” I’d never heard of the opposite happening, but it did for me. And it might for you. Maybe some people can resume pansy gentle no orgasm sex in six weeks. In my experience, real sex takes longer, even if you do happen to be perfect.

And that’s my story. Happy humping, all you new mothers.

• Reproduction
• Comments(0)

admin February 19th, 2009

I had always planned to have kids after tenure. It seemed like the ideal plan. I would have plenty of time to cement my career, I would be in good financial shape, and I would be ready to stay in one place for a while. Perfect. That was until I actually counted out the years it would take to make that plan happen. I figured out that if everything went swimmingly, this plan would have me start trying for a baby at 35. 35. The age of the beginning of high risk. A little more research told me that women as young as their upper 20s were starting to have trouble conceiving. This came as a shock. My god, I thought to myself, there is no way that I can wait that long. So, what am I going to do? When should I do this? When is the perfect time?

My research told me that there was no perfect time. Super. Well then, I thought, how about now?

So I went online to try to find stories of other women who had kids in their late 20s, before their careers were cemented, before they had everything completely under control, before they were completely sure that they were ready to settle down. And what I found was horrible. I found statistics on how doing so would almost certainly negatively affect my career. I found stories about how kids had ruined marriages. And most frightening, I found stories, dozens of stories, about how difficult, time consuming, draining, mind-numbing, exhausting, intimacy-killing, and completely unlike the fantasy of being a mother can be. And though I looked, it was very difficult to find out why these woman had kids, often multiple kids, in the first place. Aren’t kids, on some level, supposed to be a good thing?

My research was incredibly depressing. Of course, these are important stories to tell. It would be horrible to begin motherhood only to be sorely disappointed. Women need to hear these stories. Mothers need to tell them. But what people seem to forget or neglect to tell is just how wonderful it is, too.

Sure, I don’t have job right now, but I am working on that. I see great things on the horizon, and for the time being, I am having a blast being a mom. I’ve always been an overgrown kid, so I love that my son gives me an excuse to spend most of my time just playing. I can’t tell you how fun it is to show him things that I have seen over and over again, but for him it is the very first time. OH MY GOD THE SWIFFER – HOW AWESOME! or, THE DOOR, IT OPENS!! AND CLOSES!! SHIT YEAH!! Or DOOOGS I LOVE DOOOOGSS. I’m paraphrasing here.

Another thing is that unlike my last job, every day is different and self-directed. Every day my son is different. Every day there is something new to show him. And there is no one around to tell that it really isn’t what I should be doing.

I loved being pregnant. Seriously. I have never felt sexier or more womanly. And knowing that my body was creating a little person? Just incredible.

Breast feeding for me has been awesome, and not just in that hippie, I am sooo doing what is best for my son, way. It is convenient, it gives me big boobs, and thanks to the calorie output, I am in better shape weight wise than I have probably been in a decade. Diaper changes are not nearly as bad as people will tell you. It’s poop. It happens. Get over it. Plus, when the diaper is off, you can have fun kissing your little tot all over, or letting him get in a little unencumbered (and seriously cute) naked time on the floor. Though I would love a full night’s sleep without interruption, that hasn’t affected me nearly as badly as I thought it would, since really I am only getting up twice a night or so, and am able to sleep in as late as he does. And you want to know a secret? Though many babies are worse than mine when it comes to sleep, many babies are far better as well. Booya.

Because I’m a younger mom, I have more energy to devote to motherhood. I have more time to pursue other things in the years ahead. I have more young friends without kids willing to baby-sit. My pregnancy was easier, and the birth less complicated. Though I’m not employed, I now have a perfectly legitimate reason for my time away. If I decide to have a second child, I will have more time that I feel I can wait to make that decision. I don’t have to worry as much about my ticking clock. I will be younger when my baby moves out of the house. Young enough, my husband and I agree, to do so many things that we will still want to do.

When you’re a mom and you’re in trouble, nothing is more important than letting people know, and having others rally around to support you. I should know. I’ve done it. But for those girls desperately searching somewhere, anywhere, for a few reasons why having a kid might not be so bad, might be fun, might just be something she would like to do, I think we need to write just a little bit more about how incredible the experience is too.

• Reproduction , Parenting
• Comments(0)

admin February 11th, 2009

Today, I would like to bring your attention to a well written and very true op-ed from the New York Times.

http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/guest-column-letting-scientists-off-the-leash/?ref=science

“It’s almost like a small business — each faculty member is essentially running an enterprise for which he or she must find revenue (grants), manage finances, balance the books and pay expenses like salaries, tuition, rent and even taxes to the university for the space used.

Such a system does not come without its own perils. It is not so easy to ask our young scientists to think out of the box when a significant portion of their salary (and mortgage payments) depends on guaranteeing a steady source of funding. Consequently, professors become highly attuned to the institutional priorities of various funding agencies — often at a cost to their own creativity and desired research direction”

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)

admin February 9th, 2009

A friend of mine just wrote me asking if I had my son on a regular vaccination schedule. She has read all kinds of scary things about vaccines, and as she knows I tend to do exhaustive research when it comes to important parenting decisions, she wanted my opinion. My answer to her, was yes yes yes! I have my son on a full, non-delayed vaccination schedule. Why? Because my research demonstrated to me that the risks of not vaccinating were far greater for my child, and others, than the potential risks of the vaccines.

Short version:
Vaccination is a parent’s choice, but it is also the parent’s responsibility to learn the risks involved. There is absolutely no good evidence to show that vaccinations are more harmful than the risk of disease if not administered. Please follow the links at the end – these are truly excellent resources.

Long Version:
Every (normal) parent wants to do what is best for their child. I fully support the right of a parent to decide what exactly “best” means for them. I certainly don’t want anyone yanking my child away when I let him play in the dirt, or stand outside in the rain, or don’t always put his socks on. I fully plan in the future to let my son (gasp!) go outside to play unsupervised. Shoot, I might even let him have an occasional sip of wine at Christmas as he ages, just to prove to him that he doesn’t yet like it. I will fight for you as a parent to parent as long as 1. This decision does not unduly harm your child and 2. This decision does not put me and my child at significant risk.

Those people who fed their kid nothing but fish oil, nuts, and parsley (or whatever it was) despite the child’s evident malnutrition do not deserve to be left alone to parent how they see fit. People who teach their kids to shoot other people, well, they don’t really deserve the right to parent either. But I support a parent’s right to decide what medications their child receives, especially since all medications come with inherent risk. What many parents don’t understand however is that not medicating is also a risk.

There has been a general trend lately to trust that which is “natural.” I can understand this. In fact, I am part of this trend. Too many times have we been mislead by government and industry to trust that the things available to us as medication, food, etc. are necessarily safe. I buy organic. I buy free range. I use vinegar and lemon and soapy water instead of manufactured cleaners. But “natural” isn’t ALWAYS better.

Back when things were much more natural, people died. A lot. They died horrible deaths, in pain, in vomit and feces, delirious, emaciated, with weeping sores and draining eyes. These formerly healthy people died, and this happened all the time. The reason why we don’t realize how bad many “natural” diseases are is because we don’t see them any more. Because of vaccines. If you really want an idea of what you are risking when you don’t vaccinate your child, go to a hospital where someone is dealing with measles, or mumps, or whooping cough. Believe me, it looks much much worse than the low grade fever or other side effects commonly associated with vaccinations.

Now ask yourself, if you would support the right of a parent to purposely give their child one of these life-threatening diseases. Of course you wouldn’t. But it’s not so easy. No one wants the vaccinations they give to their child to end up in harm. Many parents will delay vaccination schedules with no long term ill effects, but delaying a vaccine creates the risk that the child will develop the disease before the shot is delivered. Let me make myself clear. I have friends with kids on delayed schedules. I support their right to do this; I just don’t think that it is the best decision.

And here is my support:

Article: parenting magazine - a wonderful synopsis of fears and facts
http://www.parenting.com/article/Baby/Health/Vaccines-Fact-and-Fiction/1

Skeptic Dad – A really excellent blog chronicling vaccine fearmongers and the actual facts (and more)
http://skepticdad.wordpress.com/vaccines/

Autism Myths – Everything you ever wanted to know about autism (that is actually true)
http://autism-myths.org/

Science-Based Medicine – A site maintained by MDs and PhDs, good for vaccine info and much, much more
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

These links will provide you with some excellent resources on the real science behind vaccination risks. I could re-hash this here, but these really do a wonderful job. There is so much misinformation on the web. Let scientifically based, accurately reported resources inform your decision.

• Reproduction
• Comments(0)

admin January 30th, 2009

Well, not really. Or at least I don’t think so. But sometimes …

Let me explain. Way back before a sperm fertilized an egg in my uterus , I heard about how competitive moms can be, how they are always comparing every tiny milestone, how annoying it is, and how mostly these things have no correlation to later performance. How petty, no? So, I thought to myself, well, I won’t be like that. I won’t go around comparing my kid to anyone else’s. Those moms are nuts. I am totally better than that. And I am, I mean, was.

What I didn’t realize at the time was that I had meant that I wouldn’t go around making other parents feel bad when their kid wasn’t as smart and talented as mine. I mean, I have some pretty good genetic material floating around in here. It’s not the other kids’ fault that their parents didn’t set them up as well. Not everyone can be above average.

What I didn’t consider, not for a second, was that I might be the one whose kid seemed a little slow. He’s six and a half months, and I think, probably doing just fine. But it is hard to go to playgroup and see the 7 month old who has been crawling for 3 months, and the 7.5 month old pulling up when we’re still working on unassisted sitting. Even the kid who refused to grab at things for like 5 months now seems to be on track to surpass my son. Also, he babbles, but I’ve yet to hear anything that sounds remotely like “mamma.” How did this happen?

I have interject here that playgroup may be a skewed sample set. Yes, I have a PhD, but let’s see, two moms’ husbands are currently working on their doctorate, one is a lawyer, one works for a prestigious management consulting firm, etc. etc. So, if it were just playgroup, well then I could console myself with the fact that we’re hanging out with little geniuses. But it’s not just playgroup. Even the dumb relative’s kids are outpacing him. That’s right. Dweedle and Deedle’s son is totally crawling, and cousin Cletis is mamamama-ing up a storm. Urrghhg!

Aside from the fact that I have been completely blindsided not only by my son’s slower development, but also how much it is affecting me, others feel the need to speculate on how these events might be connected to my mothering decisions. Maybe I should have given him formula. Maybe I should have had him start foods sooner. Maybe if we hadn’t swaddled him so long.. Maybe if we let him watch some TV…maybe maybe maybe.

So I am trying just to make sure that he is in the normal RANGE and am waiting until his perfect SAT scores, or his winning orchestral compositions, or his Pulitzer-prize winning novel produce that luxuriously fulfilling feeling of vindication. Until then, well honey, I’ll still love you, even if you are retarded.

• Reproduction
• Comments(0)

admin January 11th, 2009

The below paragraph is an excerpt from a paper I wrote several years ago (therefore the older statistics), but after digging it up and re-reading it, I find it still quite relevant. Around election time, opponents of the Obama administration frequently spoke to me of their fear that his policies would set an uncomfortable precedent towards socialism. In every great civilization, one of the key indicators of internal weakness cited by historians is a large gulf between the wealthy and the poor. Though I don’t have the most recent statistics, I do not think that these numbers have changed much since the study dates.

“In the meritocracy of the US, we value not necessarily social equality, but social mobility. Although not everyone can be president, anyone can, or so the thinking goes. In actuality, both social equality and social mobility are declining in the US. The past several presidents have been the progeny of elite families and Ivy League schools. Economist Magazine cites the Economic Policy Institute’s figures that while between the years 1979 and 2000, the income of households in the lowest fifth of earners increased by 6.4%, that of households in the top fifth grew by70%, with those in the top 1% growing by an astounding 184%. A later study found that from 1979-1998 70% of bottom tier sons moved up the ladder more often than their fathers had. As reasons for these statistics, many point to our stratified and struggling education system. Public school funds are often tied to property taxes, hitting those in lower income areas the most, and government funds once aimed at these students are now getting converted into loans. Even affirmative action dollars are now decreasingly reasonable proxies for social disadvantage.”

• Deep Thoughts
• Comments(0)

admin January 8th, 2009

To say to all of you who read this, and all of you who will read this.

IT DOES GET BETTER!

Dude. This Mom gig is so much fun. I “almost” think that I could do this full time. Just wish the pay was better.

• Reproduction
• Comments(0)