One of the more bizarre things about being pregnant is the unsolicited commentary other folks like to bestow upon you. Here are some top things you might want to steer clear from saying:
1. "You don't look so bad."
2. "How's the weight gain?"
3. "You're going to be miserable this summer, trust me."
4. "I know someone who (insert horror story here)."
Conversely, things that sound wonderful to a mama-to-be:
1. "You look beautiful!" - especially when I don't feel it.
2. "(anything at all that has nothing to do with the belly or being pregnant, like, "Nice day, huh?)"
3. "Can I get you a homemade mango smoothie? Ice cream? Del's Frozen Lemonade?" *
* for non-Rhode Islanders, Del's Frozen Lemonade is AMAZING. I also recommend their frozen pink grapefruit juice. There's real rind in these ices, no colorings, and they have a cultlike following among my kids. Sour, cold, and quenching! Ahhhh.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Reading to the Baby
You know how they say you should read to the baby in utero? I'm not sure this is what they meant.
Talk about being a feminist from the get-go!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Memorial Day, 2009
The parade goes right by our front door. This year, we watched with our upstairs neighbors, which just made it that much more fun.
"Look, Bean, antique cars!"
This one we just can't explain, but without pictures, no one would believe us.
Nothin' says patriotism like Storm Troopers... ?Tuesday, May 26, 2009
California.
I want to send support to all the folks in CA who are dealing with today's diappointing State Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8.
I am hopeful, perhaps naively, that complete equal marriage for all is not unattainable in CA. Time will tell. In the meantime, know that we are sighing for you over here in New England, and hurt with you, too.
I am hopeful, perhaps naively, that complete equal marriage for all is not unattainable in CA. Time will tell. In the meantime, know that we are sighing for you over here in New England, and hurt with you, too.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
College Reunion
M.'s, not mine, so this'll be a post of few words from me. She may add more later, we'll see.
For now, suffice to say that it was a lovely day of seeing old friends...
For now, suffice to say that it was a lovely day of seeing old friends...
...and making new ones (girls and ducks both)...
...taking pictures...
...taking pictures...
...revisiting old memories, in old haunts...
...while never quite forgetting either present or future, both of which are growing almost before our eyes.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
The Best Compliment Ever.
We have a sweet birthing coach who comes to the house once a week now, with her giant chart paper, markers, and thermos of hot tea. We try to be good students, and laugh almost as much as we get to the business of relaxation techniques. It's a time I look forward to after long days of teaching spring fever-ed kids.
Last week, after going over our thoughts on a possible birth plan to use at the hospital, our teacher paused thoughtfully and said, "Make sure that you tell the nursing staff at that hospital your relationship to each other. You get along so well, people won't think you're married!"
Awww, shucks. The bean kicked in approval, right on cue. Yes, we might be nutty composting New England mamas, totally winging it, but we got us. And us feels like a whole lot.
-
Friday, May 15, 2009
Saved from the Pink!
From Uncle Jeremie, earlier:
Saved from the pink! I just went ahead and ordered the blue one, so you can take the pink off the registry. Of course, with our luck, the box will arrive with a pink teether inside.
Quite possible. But thanks for trying!
Saved from the pink! I just went ahead and ordered the blue one, so you can take the pink off the registry. Of course, with our luck, the box will arrive with a pink teether inside.
Quite possible. But thanks for trying!
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Registry is laughing at me.
I swear it is.
It knows about my anti-pink rants. It must read the blog, too - after all, they are linked. Because we registered for a very nice, aqua-blue chewy teether:
Nice, no? Like with nearly everything else, we found it on the website, and clicked the little button next to it that said "add to registry". Then I checked the registry, and there it was, about halfway down the page. Nice, bright blue teether.
The next day, the teether was.... pink. Ummm... okay... perhaps a trick played by a sneaky wife? She swore, with a straight face, that she had nothing to do with it, and given her propensity for giggling when trying to pull one over on me, I believed her. And switched the teether on the registry back to blue (a process that involves several steps, I might add.)
But it wouldn't stay blue! By the next time I looked, it was pink again. With M. next to me (so I know she wasn't messing with me), I tried to add the blue teether to the registry. I didn't take the pink one off, just tried to add the blue, thinking that perhaps we could at least end up with one of each? Went to the blue teether, clicked "add to registry", and got the message "this item has been added to your registry." Cool. Looked at the registry.
Nothing.
Tried again. Got the same message.
Nothing.
Nothing, that is, except a pink, chewy, gum-massaging teether.
I knew God had a sense of humor... who would have guessed that the internet would, too?
It knows about my anti-pink rants. It must read the blog, too - after all, they are linked. Because we registered for a very nice, aqua-blue chewy teether:
Nice, no? Like with nearly everything else, we found it on the website, and clicked the little button next to it that said "add to registry". Then I checked the registry, and there it was, about halfway down the page. Nice, bright blue teether.The next day, the teether was.... pink. Ummm... okay... perhaps a trick played by a sneaky wife? She swore, with a straight face, that she had nothing to do with it, and given her propensity for giggling when trying to pull one over on me, I believed her. And switched the teether on the registry back to blue (a process that involves several steps, I might add.)
But it wouldn't stay blue! By the next time I looked, it was pink again. With M. next to me (so I know she wasn't messing with me), I tried to add the blue teether to the registry. I didn't take the pink one off, just tried to add the blue, thinking that perhaps we could at least end up with one of each? Went to the blue teether, clicked "add to registry", and got the message "this item has been added to your registry." Cool. Looked at the registry.
Nothing.
Tried again. Got the same message.
Nothing.
Nothing, that is, except a pink, chewy, gum-massaging teether.
I knew God had a sense of humor... who would have guessed that the internet would, too?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Journalism and minorities
Okay, so less relevant to the Bean, but entirely relevant to the world in which we would like the Bean to grow up...
Friday night, a Green Line trolley in Boston rear-ended the trolley ahead of it on the tracks. The driver admitted almost immediately that he had been texting his girlfriend. This, just about a year after a head-on collision on the same line killed the trolley operator, who had also been texting at the time of the accident.
This incident, of course, has been all over the Boston-area news. But what are local media focusing on? The age of the driver (24)? The question of texting or using other electronic devices while operating a public transit vehicle? The question of training vehicle operators?
To a certain extent, yes. But garnering as much attention as these oh-so-relevant questions is the fact that the driver in question is transgender. And I, for one, would greatly appreciate it if someone would tell me how this is relevant?
The Boston Globe incorporated the comment into reporting on the trolley operator's driving record, although the legal gender change had no bearing on hiring and did not cloud or confuse the driving record in any way. But the Boston Herald, admittedly the more sensational paper in the area, devoted a whole article to it, even though the operator's entire record was available when he was hired. Ditto Fox News this morning, where the anchor emphasized the gender change (to the point of redundance) and waved about the court records for that name change - not the driving record.
And it's not just the sensationalists that are in on it: ABC - not the Boston affiliate, but the national news source - suggests that the operator was only hired because of his minority status, as though the hiring requirements would be somehow looser. Given all of the other reports that the four infractions on his driving record were known to the MBTA, and had no impact on his hiring, I still do not see the relevance of this aspect of the story.
Except, perhaps, in the maintenance of gender norms and minority stereotypes. To quote Uncle Jeremie:
"In none of the articles I've read has there been any accompanying information to suggest why this is relevant... There are certainly situations where I might be convinced of its relevance (if his driving records hadn't been merged, so the old name 'hid' infractions so he could get the job, etc). However, that doesn't seem to be the case.
"In the report that 'broke' the story, Quinn's transgender status is included with information about poor driving, implying that it is relevant to why he crashed. Including it gives faux relevance where there was none, implying that somehow his poor judgment (and clearly, there's plenty of that) and his gender history are linked. It also implies that Quinn's life as a man is a lie that needs to be revealed. Morning show DJs have now picked this up and using it to both joke about Quinn but also the community as a whole. The entire situation contributes to a growing tendency to imply that we are liars out to trick normal people and pretending to be something we're not."
You know, I am usually very pro-journalism. I would personally hate to see the Boston Globe go bankrupt, as has been threatened. Usually, I worry about getting all of our news from untrained bloggers and pundits with no professional credentials and no journalistic standards - no requirement to separate fact from opinion. Usually. But not today.
Friday night, a Green Line trolley in Boston rear-ended the trolley ahead of it on the tracks. The driver admitted almost immediately that he had been texting his girlfriend. This, just about a year after a head-on collision on the same line killed the trolley operator, who had also been texting at the time of the accident.
This incident, of course, has been all over the Boston-area news. But what are local media focusing on? The age of the driver (24)? The question of texting or using other electronic devices while operating a public transit vehicle? The question of training vehicle operators?
To a certain extent, yes. But garnering as much attention as these oh-so-relevant questions is the fact that the driver in question is transgender. And I, for one, would greatly appreciate it if someone would tell me how this is relevant?
The Boston Globe incorporated the comment into reporting on the trolley operator's driving record, although the legal gender change had no bearing on hiring and did not cloud or confuse the driving record in any way. But the Boston Herald, admittedly the more sensational paper in the area, devoted a whole article to it, even though the operator's entire record was available when he was hired. Ditto Fox News this morning, where the anchor emphasized the gender change (to the point of redundance) and waved about the court records for that name change - not the driving record.
And it's not just the sensationalists that are in on it: ABC - not the Boston affiliate, but the national news source - suggests that the operator was only hired because of his minority status, as though the hiring requirements would be somehow looser. Given all of the other reports that the four infractions on his driving record were known to the MBTA, and had no impact on his hiring, I still do not see the relevance of this aspect of the story.
Except, perhaps, in the maintenance of gender norms and minority stereotypes. To quote Uncle Jeremie:
"In none of the articles I've read has there been any accompanying information to suggest why this is relevant... There are certainly situations where I might be convinced of its relevance (if his driving records hadn't been merged, so the old name 'hid' infractions so he could get the job, etc). However, that doesn't seem to be the case.
"In the report that 'broke' the story, Quinn's transgender status is included with information about poor driving, implying that it is relevant to why he crashed. Including it gives faux relevance where there was none, implying that somehow his poor judgment (and clearly, there's plenty of that) and his gender history are linked. It also implies that Quinn's life as a man is a lie that needs to be revealed. Morning show DJs have now picked this up and using it to both joke about Quinn but also the community as a whole. The entire situation contributes to a growing tendency to imply that we are liars out to trick normal people and pretending to be something we're not."
You know, I am usually very pro-journalism. I would personally hate to see the Boston Globe go bankrupt, as has been threatened. Usually, I worry about getting all of our news from untrained bloggers and pundits with no professional credentials and no journalistic standards - no requirement to separate fact from opinion. Usually. But not today.
The Hundred-Acre Wood
Has, apparently, given way to a law school. Harvard Law, to be specific. How do I know this? Well, that's where I was walking when I saw this:
Pooh was not in when I stopped by; the little girl (probably about two) who arrived just before I did suggested that he was quite likely visiting Piglet. Next time, I'll bring Hunny.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Happy Mothers' Day!
Happy Mothers' Day! And a beautiful day it is to give a shout-out to all of the fabulous mothers in our lives, beginning with our own, who are such great role models for us.
I don't think M. is going to let me take another posed picture of us anytime soon.
And I really hope that you like this picture of the two of us, because between setting up the tripod, jumping over the garden to get into position, and being frequently distracted:
I don't think M. is going to let me take another posed picture of us anytime soon.Just a hunch.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Music for the Bean
Because the Bean is so responsive to music, M. decided that it was about time she picked up the old guitar that she got second-hand in New York City and learned to actually play it. We got it spruced up at a local music store, and brought it home. So far, it hasn't elicited much reaction from the baby, but the cats are quite delighted with their new bed.
Oliver was the first to discover the joys of fuzzy guitar cases, and I only wish I could have captured video of her chasing her tail in this confined space:
Not to be outdone, of course, Luna had to have her time in the case, too.
Of course, it may be suggested that 5 months into a pregnancy is not the ideal time to try to re-learn an instrument that is meant to be held against the torso. Just a thought. So after all that, who's the one whose fingers are suddenly really sore, as she tries to remember back to guitar lessons in high school?
Oliver was the first to discover the joys of fuzzy guitar cases, and I only wish I could have captured video of her chasing her tail in this confined space:
Not to be outdone, of course, Luna had to have her time in the case, too.
Of course, it may be suggested that 5 months into a pregnancy is not the ideal time to try to re-learn an instrument that is meant to be held against the torso. Just a thought. So after all that, who's the one whose fingers are suddenly really sore, as she tries to remember back to guitar lessons in high school?
Yeah.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Just a picture 5/7/09
GO SOX!! (thanks, Auntie Jen!!)
(oh, and as for Manny being Manny... Boston says, "We told you, L.A.")
Spaghetti Squash!
In other words, about 11 inches and about 1lb. Also appropriate for Mommy's recurrent attempts to sleep on her tummy. Bean probably often feels rather squashed.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Something about cold states...
Seriously, every time a new state passes a same-sex marriage bill, M. turns to me and says, "Why all the cold ones?" It's a valid question. My theory is that these folks are either a) too cold to stick their noses into other people's business, or b) very pro-creative-means-of-keeping-warm. Either way, the tide seems to be turning!
THREE CHEERS FOR MAINE!!
Ogunquit, ME, on our honeymoon. February, 2007.
(Okay, New Hampshire - let's get moving.)
**********************THIS JUST IN!!!***********************
Testimony from the hearings in Maine. Thanks, Jeremie, for passing it along.
THREE CHEERS FOR MAINE!!
Ogunquit, ME, on our honeymoon. February, 2007.(Okay, New Hampshire - let's get moving.)
**********************THIS JUST IN!!!***********************
Testimony from the hearings in Maine. Thanks, Jeremie, for passing it along.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
I felt it!
M. is a tummy-sleeper. Which is a little hard about now, but that doesn't keep her from trying. Nor do the various pillows that she uses to prop herself on her side. Last night, as she was trying to get comfortable, she shifted some pillows to see how close she could get to tummy-sleeping, and immediately got kicked. HARD. Bean, it seems, does not appreciate being squished. But this gave M. and idea. She grabbed my hand and pulled it between the belly and the mattress and our little Bean, still protesting the squished-ness...
KICKED ME.
YAHOOOOOO!!!
And then promptly rolled over and went to sleep. Or just gave up on getting Mommy to roll over. There was only one kick, but I felt it!
awesome.
KICKED ME.
YAHOOOOOO!!!
And then promptly rolled over and went to sleep. Or just gave up on getting Mommy to roll over. There was only one kick, but I felt it!
awesome.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Church Ladies on the Move!
From Marcey:
Today we had a great opportunity to speak at a church outside of Boston about "ONA" - this particular church's "Open and Affirming" statement that they're hoping to adopt. ONA is a hopeful thing that asks congregations to consider publicly stating their acceptance of LGBT folks within their faith community.
E preached (can I get an AMEN! Proud does not describe it alone - she was funny, honest, pastoral...but I digress), then both of us got to be part of a discussion group about: our faith, being gay, and the amazing ways that loved ones have shown their support for us.
To all of you reading, know that your love was a huge part of that conversation - from growing up in church communities, reminiscing about our wedding day, and celebrating the Bean's growing presence in our lives.
The folks who took the time to listen today could not have been sweeter. Their questions were rich, and their welcome was beyond warm. We left hearing that the church was one step closer to a commitment to an ONA statement - there were a few eloquent drafts already up on display boards, each with inclusive language, and lots of yellow post-its with commentary.
As a thank you, they gave us the book "Make Way for Ducklings," to welcome our baby into Boston-area history! We went from "gay spokesfolks"to blushing mamas in .2 seconds.
It's the person-by-person conversations like this that really give me hope - safe havens are growing, and so is the spiritual side of accepting diversity. It's just awesome. One might say, Amazing Grace. There it is, the gradual opening of hearts and minds, over coffee hours and folding chairs. Let there be laughing and questions, and the new senses of understanding.
Today we had a great opportunity to speak at a church outside of Boston about "ONA" - this particular church's "Open and Affirming" statement that they're hoping to adopt. ONA is a hopeful thing that asks congregations to consider publicly stating their acceptance of LGBT folks within their faith community.
E preached (can I get an AMEN! Proud does not describe it alone - she was funny, honest, pastoral...but I digress), then both of us got to be part of a discussion group about: our faith, being gay, and the amazing ways that loved ones have shown their support for us.
To all of you reading, know that your love was a huge part of that conversation - from growing up in church communities, reminiscing about our wedding day, and celebrating the Bean's growing presence in our lives.
The folks who took the time to listen today could not have been sweeter. Their questions were rich, and their welcome was beyond warm. We left hearing that the church was one step closer to a commitment to an ONA statement - there were a few eloquent drafts already up on display boards, each with inclusive language, and lots of yellow post-its with commentary.
As a thank you, they gave us the book "Make Way for Ducklings," to welcome our baby into Boston-area history! We went from "gay spokesfolks"to blushing mamas in .2 seconds.
It's the person-by-person conversations like this that really give me hope - safe havens are growing, and so is the spiritual side of accepting diversity. It's just awesome. One might say, Amazing Grace. There it is, the gradual opening of hearts and minds, over coffee hours and folding chairs. Let there be laughing and questions, and the new senses of understanding.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
A Peek Inside: Week 20
Not really photos of the Bean, of course, but I'm guessing that most fetuses at week 20 look reasonably similar. Thanks to the book "A Child is Born" for the images, via fetoscopy.
There, now, isn't that better than static-y pictures of King Tut or the Bog Man?
Friday, May 1, 2009
Girls vs. Boys
In an elevator, in line at the grocery store, waiting for the bus, it always goes like this: Strangers' eyes zero in on my belly first. Then they dart furtively to my face, as if to make sure I'm not a mutant, just visibly pregnant. After this, they ask, "Is this your first?"
"My third," I answer. "I have two boys at home."
And for the kicker, they unfailingly give me a sideways grin, and say: "Going for your girl?"
"Nooo, just going for a baby," I reply, gritting my teeth a little. "Another boy would be fine with us."
It's the truth. I love what I have, and I have what I love: boys. I understand them. I understand the clothes, the toys, and the Matchbox-car skids on my wallpaper.
Even before I had sons, I worried about having a daughter. I could handle boys, with their cut-and-dried needs, but girls were so much more complicated. Girls have elaborate hairstyling requirements. They whine and mope, manipulate and triangulate. How was I going to deal with that?
My sons sneer at all things princess, and so do I. We love to pore over the Birthday Express catalog so the boys can plan the themes of their parties through 2013. My role in this is to gasp, "Oh, I think you should have a pink-poodle party!" "YUCK!! That's for GIRLS!!" they shriek, and I laugh along with them. What will I do when I have someone who wants a pink-poodle party?
So it's up to me to psych myself up for this one's arrival. I figured one distinct advantage to knowing ahead of time that she was a girl was that she wouldn't have to wear yellow and green for the first six months like her mystery brothers had. I went shopping recently to stock up on girlie sleepers, Onesies, and Trumpette socks. But I was immediately overwhelmed. With boys, there are two racks to choose from. With girls, it's the rest of the store: a staggering array of ruffly, rosy frills. I couldn't breathe. I grabbed a pink sweater and two pairs of pink socks, got out of there as quick as I could, and buried my purchases in the back of the guest closet. (read the full article)
I just got this, via e-mail, from a friend. And I do understand a lot of what the author is saying. But mostly it just made my stomach hurt. And people wonder why I go on gender rants? The gender typing here is astounding, all the more for the fact that the author absolutely expects her readers to nod assent. The author doesn't seem to realize the extent to which she is creating and enforcing the gender roles among her children:
Girls are whiny and manipulative; so when her daughter whines and manipulates, is the author going to nip it in the bud as unacceptable behavior, or is she going to say, in a resigned sort of way, "See? It's just how girls are."
The author states that she doesn't like the Princess thing, but then goes out to buy "girlie sleepers and socks" for her unborn daughter. What's up with that?
What really gets me is the active gender-policing of her boys. Her "role" in the birthday party selections is to reinforce a stereotypical masculinity that heaps scorn on the feminine. Heaven help one of her sons if he decides he does want something deemed too "girlie": his mother has already made it patently clear that that sort of party is beneath him.
The author talks about how her children are "hardwired". I do agree that there is a certain innate sense of self that will manifest itself no matter what. But I wonder how much of her children's behavior is the way it is because of what she expects: if her daughter was playing shoot-em-up with the remote, would she just accept it? (On a side note: how is portraying violence with a remote control better than portraying it with a toy gun? A different plastic mold makes that much difference?)
There has been much written recently about gender-typing in the rash of gay-related teasing and its effects, particularly on boys. So I wonder why precisely it is that the author thinks boys are so much easier to raise? Girls can be tomboys, can be athletes, can be princesses - or can be all at once. Boys have less cultural permission to transgress their assigned gender, to be gentle and quiet and artistic. How exactly are they easier to raise?
"My third," I answer. "I have two boys at home."
And for the kicker, they unfailingly give me a sideways grin, and say: "Going for your girl?"
"Nooo, just going for a baby," I reply, gritting my teeth a little. "Another boy would be fine with us."
It's the truth. I love what I have, and I have what I love: boys. I understand them. I understand the clothes, the toys, and the Matchbox-car skids on my wallpaper.
Even before I had sons, I worried about having a daughter. I could handle boys, with their cut-and-dried needs, but girls were so much more complicated. Girls have elaborate hairstyling requirements. They whine and mope, manipulate and triangulate. How was I going to deal with that?
My sons sneer at all things princess, and so do I. We love to pore over the Birthday Express catalog so the boys can plan the themes of their parties through 2013. My role in this is to gasp, "Oh, I think you should have a pink-poodle party!" "YUCK!! That's for GIRLS!!" they shriek, and I laugh along with them. What will I do when I have someone who wants a pink-poodle party?
So it's up to me to psych myself up for this one's arrival. I figured one distinct advantage to knowing ahead of time that she was a girl was that she wouldn't have to wear yellow and green for the first six months like her mystery brothers had. I went shopping recently to stock up on girlie sleepers, Onesies, and Trumpette socks. But I was immediately overwhelmed. With boys, there are two racks to choose from. With girls, it's the rest of the store: a staggering array of ruffly, rosy frills. I couldn't breathe. I grabbed a pink sweater and two pairs of pink socks, got out of there as quick as I could, and buried my purchases in the back of the guest closet. (read the full article)
I just got this, via e-mail, from a friend. And I do understand a lot of what the author is saying. But mostly it just made my stomach hurt. And people wonder why I go on gender rants? The gender typing here is astounding, all the more for the fact that the author absolutely expects her readers to nod assent. The author doesn't seem to realize the extent to which she is creating and enforcing the gender roles among her children:
Girls are whiny and manipulative; so when her daughter whines and manipulates, is the author going to nip it in the bud as unacceptable behavior, or is she going to say, in a resigned sort of way, "See? It's just how girls are."
The author states that she doesn't like the Princess thing, but then goes out to buy "girlie sleepers and socks" for her unborn daughter. What's up with that?
What really gets me is the active gender-policing of her boys. Her "role" in the birthday party selections is to reinforce a stereotypical masculinity that heaps scorn on the feminine. Heaven help one of her sons if he decides he does want something deemed too "girlie": his mother has already made it patently clear that that sort of party is beneath him.
The author talks about how her children are "hardwired". I do agree that there is a certain innate sense of self that will manifest itself no matter what. But I wonder how much of her children's behavior is the way it is because of what she expects: if her daughter was playing shoot-em-up with the remote, would she just accept it? (On a side note: how is portraying violence with a remote control better than portraying it with a toy gun? A different plastic mold makes that much difference?)
There has been much written recently about gender-typing in the rash of gay-related teasing and its effects, particularly on boys. So I wonder why precisely it is that the author thinks boys are so much easier to raise? Girls can be tomboys, can be athletes, can be princesses - or can be all at once. Boys have less cultural permission to transgress their assigned gender, to be gentle and quiet and artistic. How exactly are they easier to raise?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)