Is there a downside to breastfeeding? A new report from the New York Times might have you thinking so. In a recent article, several studies monitoring a lack of vitamin D in infants might support that breastmilk is not enough to prevent things like rickets in children. The biggest fear is that the deficiency is more common than previously thought and is going undetected. Breastmilk apparently does not necessarily provide enough of the vitamin to children.

Doctors, of course, are rare to say anything at all negative about breastfeeding. Unlike perhaps even fifty years ago, women are being told that they simply must breastfeed, that they are wrong for not doing so, and that breastmilk is the ultimate wonder food for their infants. This may well be true, but the medical profession that's been pushing breastfeeding down our throats has also admitted to knowing there is a probable link between vitamin D deficiency and diseases like diabetes and cancer.

The answer, of course, is not to stop breastfeeding, but rather to augment a child's nutrition by adding vitamin drops, or, my favorite, cod liver oil (yummy!). The other pretty obvious answer is that if a woman is deficient in something, so, too, will be her breastmilk. Mothers should be getting plenty of vitamin D themselves in order to pass on the right amount to their infants. That should be good news to those of us who are committed to breastfeeding exclusively for as long as possible. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and my own pediatrician recommend supplementing with the vitamin D drops.

Thoughts? I for one drink enough milk while pregnant and nursing to keep a small dairy in business. Is it enough? Who knows. Did you supplement breastfeeding with vitamins for your infants or enjoy a little cod liver oil?

Pic by timtom.ch [surfin' USA].

Source

A new Census Bureau report confirms something most of us already suspected: women are waiting longer to have children than they did 30 years ago. What might be a little surprising is the fact that more women than ever are choosing not to have children at all. In fact, the numbers show that a whopping 20 percent of women ages 40 to 44 have never had children.

"A lot of women are not having any children," said Jane Lawler Dye, a Census Bureau researcher. "It used to be sort of expected that there was a phase of life where you had children, and a lot of women aren't doing that now,"she said.

The report also reveals that the more education a woman has, the less likely she is to become a mother. Clearly more women are taking advantages of the opportunities available now that didn't exist 30 years ago. But these numbers suggest - at least to me - that women may be giving up on the idea of 'having it all'. Sure, the big job can be managed at the same time as a full family life. But it isn't easy and eventually something has to give. It would seem that for many women, what gives is motherhood.

Source

Is there a link between having an aboriton and depression, or other psychological maladies? According to the American Psychological Association, not if a woman has only had one abortion. In a report that came out last Wednesday, women who have one abortion are no more likely to suffer depression or other mental health problems than women who go on to have their babies.

To be clear, the abortions in question were those that were elective and in the first trimester. Prior mental health as well as self-esteem issues and the fear of stigma were the main factors in post-abortion health, according to the study. Also according to the report, which I find really hard to believe, is that half--HALF!--of American women will experience an unwanted pregnancy and that about half of those--a quarter, for those of you doing the math--will get an abortion. That's a LOT of people.

I also think that it's one thing to look at a hundred studies, but it's another to talk to the women who've made this choice themselves. And yet another for those women to feel like they can be honest with their responses and reasoning behind getting an abortion. I've never had to make that choice, but I know people who have. And let me tell you something--they come from all different backgrounds, are different ages, etc. And each of those women has had to deal with the decision she made for the rest of her life. I am all for women being in charge of their bodies and strongly support the pro-choice movement, but to say that having an abortion doesn't affect a woman's mental health (for better or worse), at least for some period of time, might be a little misleading.

Source

It seems like it should be common sense. Don't diet while pregnant. Yet for many moms these days that seems to be the trend. Many of them are successful at it--but at what cost to their unborn children? In the United States as well as in the UK, pregnant women are succumbing to what is being termed "pregorexia," wherein the consume as little as possible during pregnancy to avoid weight gain. Experts agree this is harmful to both mother and unborn child. Fetuses get their nutrients straight from mommy; when she doesn't supply enough, like with calcium, they get it from her bones. If they can't get the nutrient from the mother, they suffer--kids are born prematurely, with a low birth weight and an increased risk of spina bifida all from mothers being underweight during pregnancy.

In Hollywood, the recent barrage of women giving birth would have have us think they were barely pregnant at all. Most of them gain hardly and weight and sport only the tell-tale bump. Almost as soon as they've given birth, they return to their pre-pregnancy weight, which was scandalously low in the first place. Some, like Nicole Kidman, have even drawn harsh rumors that she was never even pregnant at all--after seeing her less than a month post-baby her body was scarily small, prompting the media to generate the notion that her sister, who'd basically remained under cover during the pregnancy, was the one actually carrying the baby.

With all these Hollywood celebrities maintaining tiny frames while they attempt to bring another human being into the world, it's hard to not feel the pressure to be thin in our own lives. Forget the fact that it's pure misogyny at work, isn't it also the worst thing in the world to deprive not only yourself but your unborn child of vital nutrients and sustenance? Experts suggest that women of normal weight (meaning not underweight nor overweight) gain between 20-25 pounds during a pregnancy. That number was recently lowered from the old notion of anywhere from 25-35 pounds (and in some cases 40). instead of worrying about gaining too much weight, shouldn't we be more focused on getting our children--and ourselves--the nutrition needed to be happy and healthy?

Source

As many of you may know, I have a sixteen-month-old-son. When I first became pregnant I never thought whether I wanted a boy or a girl. I was simply thrilled to be having a child at all, and wanted only a happy, healthy child--the sex of the baby was inconsequential. Then, at one point I found out I would be having a son. I was an only child and a girl and knew not the first thing about having, and raising, a little boy. Now I'm on track with my second child, a little girl. I'm nervous and flustered and wondering just how different raising a child of the opposite sex will be. After all, I've had experience raising a baby, but he is all boy, all the time.

Is there such a difference in raising children of the opposite sex? Ask anyone, whether or not they're parents, and they'll have a pretty strong opinion about the world of boys vs girls. For example, when I found out I was having a girl, the pink clothing literally started pouring in. Everything is pink! When I was pregnant with my son I received clothes in all manner of colors, but not with my daughter. People also always comment that boys are much more rambunctious than girls in the beginning, but that girls are ever so much harder to deal with as teenagers--and that as the would-be mother of a teenage girl I have a lot of drama to look forward to.

The only real difference I've come across in my research is how you change a diaper. For girls you simply wipe in a different direction than with boys. Perhaps there's a little more clean-up involved as you're dealing with internal parts as opposed to external parts, but really that's the only difference I can discern. All of my friends who have two children, oddly enough, started out with a boy and then followed up with a girl. They all say that there is a real difference, even if it can't be defined in words, to raising a boy vs a girl.

Thoughts? Is there any real difference? Is it just society straining its concept of norms over us? Or is there more to raising girls than pink clothing that makes them intrinsically different than boys? After all, aren't little boys made of snails and puppy dog tails and such, while girls are made of sugar and spice?

Did you ever play with paper dolls? Perhaps you did when you were young. Perhaps, even now, you continue to collect them for nostalgia's sake, or to refrain back to your old days when you didn't have kids and were one yourself. Well, in the world of paper dolls comes along a set that is fun and humorous and possibly just a wee bit controversial: The pregnant paper doll.

The pregnant paper doll is intended as a gift for the mother-to-be who has a sense of humor and doesn't mind yet one more reminder that her waist is about to become a thing of the past. There's a doll and requisite set of clothes for each trimester, including what some women call the "fourth" trimester--you know, the one after the baby is born but you still feel and look ginormous? The first trimester offers a few tummy-bearing options and some strategic layering, while the third trimester offers sweatpants, a mu mu, and, oddly, a wedding dress.

Not sure what comment the creators of the paper dolls had in mind when they decided to add that garb to the mix. Are they secretly (or not so much) hinting that pregnant women ought to get married? Maybe I'm just being overly analytical; after all they are just paper dolls. The only other thing I think is worth mentioning is that this is a kitchshy item that, while fun, will most likely just sit on the shelf. No mom-to-be is going to take time out of her busy nesting schedule to cut these out.

Source

Actress and break-out movie sensation Katherine Heigl is too busy for children. The Grey's Anatomy star, whose recent silver screen hits include 27 Dresses and Knocked Up, says she is far too busy to consider having kids.

The newlywed's husband, musician Josh Kelley, basically couldn't agree more. According to him he's even taken some time off touring to focus more on music. Once you're married, though, inevitably comes all the questions about when you'll be starting a family.

Like many, many women before her, famous and not, Heigl is spurring on the trend of having a baby later in life (if indeed she wants kids at all). With a career as full and successful as Katherine's, I can certainly understand putting off motherhood for a while. Or, maybe the experiences she had while playing a pregnant woman in Knocked Up scared her!!!

Source

Is natural childbirth going the way of the dinosaur? Ask many new moms and a lot of doctors and midwives, and you may be surprised to find the answer is yes. Between increasing costs at hospitals, liability and the demand by insurance companies for medical professionals to take on more and more patients each year, thereby limiting the amount of time one can spend on an individual labor, the option for a natural childbirth seems to lessen by the day.

Instead of having a regular old labor, complete with the uncertainty of when the baby would arrive and lots of pushing and pain, more and more women--and their care providers--are getting C-sections. Celebrities like Posh Beckham have helped speed the plow in the C-section trend by making no bones about scheduling the birth of her three sons. The woman has a career to think of and I simply can't imagine her having ten extra minutes for her water to break, can you? Celebrities opting for this surgery--and, uhm, yeah, it's considered MAJOR SURGERY--have paved the way for making it a norm for regular folks too. Women are also opting to get epidurals to ease the pain of childbirth as their doctors increase the use of pitocin and other drugs to jump start a labor. Pitocin can increase the pain of childbirth, too, so when the doc gives one more often than not a woman gets an epidural too. Many feel this process causes problems which then leads to more C-sections.

Other celebrities, like Ricky Lake, are spearheading the movement of natural childbirth. Lake had her baby at home with the help of a midwife. And there are many women who prefer to go about it the non-medicalized way, without drugs or a scheduled C. Problem is, they're finding it harder and harder to do so. I don't want to get into a discussion of whether or not it's "right" to have a natural birth, a C-section or an epidural any more than I want to discuss whether expectant mothers should be playing Metallica or Brahms during labor. What I do think warrants discussion is how we as women can preserve the right to have our babies the way we want to have them, and not bowing to the demands of the insurance business or doctors who act out of fear of malpractice suits.

Source

For someone who had little to say about her pregnancy, Minnie Driver is certainly opening up these days. She won't reveal the name of the baby's father and she has no plans on finding out the baby's sex before the big day, but she has a lot to say about the rest of parenting.

The actress recently revealed she has no real plans to stay with the baby's father and is seriously considering single motherhood. Now she admits she is prepared to be a "chubby" mother as well. As opposed to other Hollywood starlets who look like they were never pregnant to begin with (Keri Russell, I'm talking to YOU) or those who hit the gym moments after they shed the placenta and worked out frantically to reduce their size, Minnie has no plans to do anything other than be a mommy! Take that, Kate Hudson! (Hudson gained seventy pounds with son Ryder.)

Driver says to plan on seeing her around Malibu, and to plan on seeing her fat. As most of us realistic gals know, it takes a year to put it on, and heaven knows it can take at least a year to take it back off--if we ever do. Nice to hear someone from tinsel town taking a breath of reality! I doubt Minnie will stay 'chubby' as she likes to call it, given that she gained a ton of weight for her breakout role in Circle of Friends and lost all of it, but only time will tell. I just wish someone would advise Minnie she doesn't look fat now that she's pregnant--she looks fantastic!

Source

Ok, I'm going to ask you a question, and I want you to be totally honest. Recently, a friend of mine revealed that when she went into the hospital to have her first child, wherein she had a Cesarean, she was offered and took advantage of free liposuction while she was in there.

My pal said she figured they were in there already, so why not go for it? Within a month of having her baby, if that, she was back in her regular jeans. Meanwhile, here I am, going about it the regular old way of the vajayjay, and I got nothing but running fourteen miles a day trying to get my butt back to its original, non-Texas size.

My friend said, however, that when she had her second child (also C-section, not VBAC), she was not offered such a thing. When she asked the doctors and nurses looked at her like she was insane. Her first child was born in New York City, her second, upstate. Perhaps it was a city trend. Perhaps it was because she had a rather large baby in there. Perhaps it was because she had a scheduled C-section. Perhaps it was NOT FAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So. Were you offered a free bit of lipo when you went under the knife? 'Cuz if so, it might explain why all those Hollywood moms look pencil thin ten minutes after giving birth. And, it may be reason enough to sign up for an elective C-section!

Source

These days, bringing up the "mommy wars" is as potentially explosive as a faux pas at a Middle East peace negotiation -- except everyone is a lot less diplomatic.

I happened to grow up in a family of political junkies who loved to philosophize and argue at the family dinner table about all the supposedly taboo topics -- politics, religion, the Arab-Israeli conflict. So as a SAHM, the emotional minefield of the so-called "mommy wars" is familiar and fascinating territory and I read just about everything I come across on the subject whether I agree with it or not.

One of the latest releases in this genre is Linda Hirschman's Get to Work...and Get a Life Before It's Too Late. No surprises here. It's standard feminist fare; you know, boomer feminist rails against Ivy educated SAHMs for not taking their rightful positions of power and leadership in politics and commerce, thereby shirking their duty to improve conditions for less fortunate working-class women. With educated women home caring for toddlers instead of working to change the world, who, asks Hirshman, will fight for gender equity? Shame on all you over-educated, ungrateful, Pilates-toned, Starbucks-swilling moms! Now get back to work!

Source

Although it is a decidedly less controversial issue, many people are talking about whether or not have more than one child, especially in this terrible economy. Here in New York City, having more than one child can be such an exorbitant expense it's seen as a luxury and a status symbol to have a child at all!

For actress Kate Beckinsale, however, who is probably not so concerned about money, having more than one child is not in her interest. Kate has a nine-year-old daughter, Lily, who is so well-behaved that Kate thinks she might stop at the magic number of one.

Kate also comments that she was an only child so having only one child would suit her just fine. As an only child myself, I was always lonely and looking for someone to play with, so I made every effort to make sure my son would have a sibling. If we're all lucky, he'll have one in October. Is it better to have one or two--or eight!--children? Who can say. I think it's up to the parents and their desires. According to Kate, her little family is "a merry little bunch," so it sounds like she's found the perfect number.

Source

Many celebrities, it seems, don't believe in natural childbirth (and by that I mean through the vajayjay, not without drugs). Many women don't either, and they schedule c-sections (or their doctors do it for them). While I agree there is a real need at times, especially in emergency situations, for a Cesarean, I don't agree at all with the elective kind. It seems like a waste of money and resources, and could lead to other potential dangers associated specifically with having a C. Maybe I feel this way because my mother, who had to have one, got such a bad infection in hers she couldn't take care of me when I was born! Maybe I also feel this way because I've come in contact with doctors who feel their dinner reservations are more important than a woman having her baby, so they just schedule the woman in rather than take a chance on her interrupting them!

Angelina Jolie, who had her daughter Shiloh, now two, via Cesarean, is now keen to have her twins the old school way. Set to bear the babies in her mother's native France, Ms. Jolie has confided to a "source" that she was disappointed she had to have Shiloh via C-section and is really hoping she'll be able to give birth to the twins the old-fashioned way. Given our recent discussion about VBACs, vaginal birth after Cesarean, I wonder if her doctors will even let her! In France she may have more of a choice than a woman might here.

The source, who blabbed everything to OK Magazine, also claims Ange won't go full-term with the babies. I seem to recall reading that multiples tend to come early, but that's probably just heresay! According to the source, the prospect of early delivery is what sent Ange and her brood to France earlier. Only time will tell when those babies are born and how it happens. Either way, let's hope for a safe and speedy delivery! Good luck, Ange!

Source

Mona Ackerman, contributor to Huffington Post and "shrink" as she calls herself, has a few choice things to say about breastfeeding. Ms. Ackerman is also a grandmother. Recently another grandmother wrote to Mona in dismay over her daughter-in-law's "incessant breastfeeding" of her nine-month-old grandchild.

The new grandmother couldn't understand why this was necessary all the time. The grandmother also wondered if the "marathon" breastfeeding wasn't taking away from the daughter-in-law's other priorities such as the household duties.

I'm sorry, but is this woman for real? What century does she think this is? The grandmother admitted to being perplexed and at least had the courage to ask if she was in the outer corners for feeling these things. I also agree it was a good thing to be able to admit such hesitations. Still, what business of it is hers whether or not her grandchild is breastfed? She had her children, and made her choices at that time based on social norms, the wisdom of the day, and what her doctor told her to do. A woman's choice to breastfeed or not is her own business, not anyone else's.

Source

I usually love to play with my 3 year old. I love taking walks that slow to the pace of a snail so that he collect a pocket full of pebbles or jump in puddles. I love listening to his stories and hearing him giggle when he catches a ball.

But there are also days when I don't love it quite so much. Days where I've worked long hours and come home exhausted. Days where all I want are twenty uninterrupted minutes to check my email and get caught up on my favorite blogs. Days where the minute he sees me settling down with my lap top he starts to whine. "Play with me mommy! When are you going to play with me?"

"In a minute," I say, trying desperately to stretch that minute to five. "Go see how tall you can build a tower with your blocks."

But the guilt that creeps up then is made only worse by the fact that like so many others, I am a full time working mom, and my time with my son (who spends his days with my in laws) is curtailed during the week to an hour in the morning and a few at night. Because I work, feel like when I'm home I should always be engaged, involved, hands-on, actively seeking out learning with my little boy.

And the expectation for parents to spend more quality time with their kids is pervasive. According Elizabeth Cooksy, a sociology professor at Ohio State University, "Parents are feeling peer pressure to spend more time with their kids, and guilt when they do not,"

"We've really moved into this cultural expectation that this is what good parents do," Cooksey said. "It's more a cultural consensus, that if we are going to be parents, we are going to have to put time into it."

And 2006 study found that both single and married parents are spending more time with their kids. Which means that in spite of the fact that there aren't miraculously more hours in the day, working moms are spending at least as much quality time with their kids now as mothers did forty years ago. (Incidentally, this also means working moms are insanely busy. All the time.)

But really is all that hands-on playtime a good thing? Maybe at the end of the day everyone is better off when mom (or dad) insists on some downtime and kids are left to their own devices for a while. Perhaps I'm actually encouraging creativity and self-reliance when I tell him to bug-off and go build with blocks? One thing I know for sure: when I've had some downtime, I'm that much more likely to fully engage him in his request to "pretend we're baby sharks!"