The Grandad Twinkle

Snuffly loves cuddles.  He's quite happy, most of the time, to be cuddled by anyone who is gentle and loving, and everyone is when faced with teh cuteness he brings.  Maybe one day soon he'll start to get that clinginess that sometimes sets in after six months, but Wriggly didn't get it, so maybe not.

I've got quite adept at picking when someone would love to have a cuddle, and offering.  I have no qualms about Snuffly being held by others, even complete strangers, although I know not every parent feels this way and I respect that it's not for everyone.  Often once I've passed him to one person I find he gets shared around a little, as people steal him off each other.  It's nice to share him around like that, for me as well as him, and the cuddlers too.

However I've noticed that men rarely ask.  In fact I can only think of one who has in all this time.  Often they're looking wistfully, with what I call the Grandad Twinkle, and so I'll offer, with no pressure, and hardly anyone says no. 

It makes me a bit sad though that so many men are afraid to show they love babies.  I think they fear judgements that they are perverts, because why would any man want to cuddle a baby that isn't their own?  Probably for the same reasons some women do - because they are lovely joyful things that snuggle into you and make you smile. 

I'll keep looking out for the Grandad Twinkle, and keep offering cuddles, as long as Snuffly's ok with it and small enough to be the right size for those snuggly hugs.  I hope that we build a future where men can cuddle too.

commercial surrogacy

on international women's day, radio nz ran a piece about commercial surrogacy (nine to noon, 8 march 2011, 9.36am). apparently, there's a move to ban it in new south wales.

the had on a man who had paid a woman in india to be a surrogate for his son. this man kept reiterating that he wasn't exploiting the woman, that he had taken particular care in selecting the agency he used, he had spoken to the woman several times himself. what he actually meant was that he had made sure that the woman wasn't being forced to go through this process.

i'm not sure that he could ever be entirely sure of that. if she was under any kind of threat, it would obviously be in her best interest to assure him that no force was involved, and she would, of course, do that repeatedly. with a smile on her face.

but even if he was right, her poverty was very clearly being exploited. the man made it clear that he was helping her financially, the money given to her was the equivalent of ten years of income and would allow her to educate her other children and buy a house. in other words, there was economic pressure and the woman felt this was something she had to do to improve the condition of her family.

again, we come back to the question of choice. yes, it was her choice to be a surrogate, but to have to make that choice under such circumstances is a pretty crappy kind of choice. it's exactly the same "choice" argument that was being used by the supporters of the win-a-wife campaign: that the ukranian women were choosing to undertake their involvement with an agency, and were choosing to better their circumstances by entering a marraige with a (comparatively) rich foreigner.

in both cases, it is a clear exploitation of poverty and i was really disappointed that kathryn ryan only touched on this lightly, as did the medical-legal specialist. it was pretty much brushed over. when the man was asked why he didn't choose an australian surrogate, he brushed over the issue by saying there were no appropriate avenues for him to have a family, but he only talked about adoption and foster parenting. he didn't say why he didn't look for an australian surrogate, or if he did, why he couldn't come to an arrangement with one.

again, similar to the evasiveness of the win-a-wife supporters when asked why the competition hadn't involved a woman from an economically prosperous western country. i would also have liked ms ryan to have found out the difference in cost of getting a surrogate mother in australia or america as opposed to one in a developing country. and i'd like to know the demographics of the women in western countries who choose to do this, in places where it is legal.

to me commercial surrogacy is absolutely akin to the sale of human organs, which is against the law. similar reasons could be put forward for the sale of organs: the donor knows he/she is saving a life, and the money will improve the lives of his/her family. in the case of surrogacy, a woman is selling use of her womb and the rest of her body, she is going through a process that can have a significant impact on her health.

she shouldn't have to make that choice because the world is ordered in such a way that she doesn't have enough money to house and educate her children. good quality education is the right of every child, and shouldn't have to be bought with a pregnancy. ditto for good quality housing.

if this man really cared about the welfare of the surrogate mother, if he was really interested in improving her life, he would give her the money without requiring her to go through a pregnancy and give up her child. if he was really interested in making sure he wasn't exploiting a woman in a developing country, he could have made sure that he selected an upper class woman who already had a house and whose children were already going to the best school. but i bet the agencies who organise this kind of thing don't approach those women.

i don't mind the law in nz, where a woman can be a surrogate for family or friends, but without any commercial payment for the pregnancy. and i think it's extremely important that the birth mother lives in the same country as the child, so that she can be a part of the child's life if she so chooses. but the commercialisation of this process is wrong, on so many levels.

Stepmothering research

From the Herald this morning:

Portrayed as evil and wicked, the poor old stepmother has never had a good reputation - in fairytales or real life.

She's usually seen as mean and manipulative, determined to steal a father from his children and the creator of much conflict.

But one Auckland stepmother is hoping to change that with a project that will shed light on the difficulties the "evil stepmother" encounters in adapting to her new role.

Researcher Adrienne Bartle, who is doing a doctorate in clinical psychology at Auckland University, said the role of stepmother was one of the hardest within today's family unit - and yet there was little help available.

"When I became a stepmother, there was very, very limited - in fact almost no - resources at all, so I pretty much mucked and bumbled my way through, doing almost everything that was wrong."

Ms Bartle is interviewing 20 stepmothers and families to try to find out more about the areas of conflict and agreement, the quality of relationships and communication strategies used to work through problems.

She hopes her three-year research project, which is part of the ongoing Families in Transition study, will generate better insights into stepfamilies and what works in successful families.

Click through for the rest of the article.

Politically incorrect gone mad?

Because of this.

How dare Nigel Latta use his critical faculties and his clinical psychology expertise to come to a rational decision!

I'm pretty much assuming anyone interested in this story will already be sick of the nitty gritty because it is getting saturation coverage.

So instead I wanted to draw attention to the End of the Affair between Latta and Family First.

In the beginning it appears Latta could be the saviour of the smackers, flawed only by his refusal to meet with Family First Bob McCoskrie:

Family First NZ is welcoming the appointment of Nigel Latta to the s59 Review Process but is concerned by his comments that he will not be meeting with any lobby groups.

“Nigel Latta has said ‘I did not agree with the original law change. I also voted no in the referendum. I do not believe that a parent smacking their child, in the ‘common sense’ understanding of what that means, should be subject to criminal prosecution or investigation’. That is a breath of fresh air, completely politically incorrect, and suggests that he will represent the concerns of NZ parents when he reviews the effect of the law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

...Family First is inviting Nigel Latta to meet parents negatively impacted by the anti-smacking law. [my emphasis]

Oh the irony - Latta, the independent reviewer on the panel, with Family First's backing, looked at all the evidence around the cases Family First highlighted and found Bob's version lacking in the critical area of veracity. The results are damning for McCoskrie, and I would hope fatally undermine any credibility he still had with the media.

Yesterday Bob said this about the final report from Latta's review:

Family First NZ is dismissing yet another report on the anti-smacking law which fails to address the real issues and concerns over the law change.

“This is the eighth report in just over two years on the law change. There have never been so many reports in such a short time frame on a law change in an attempt to sell it,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The police have done six reports, a report from the ministry of Social Development, and now this report commissioned by the Prime Minister in response to the overwhelming rejection of the law in the recent Referendum.”

So Family First are the Way, the Truth and the Light, and everyone else, including zillions of people with everyday practical knowledge of child abuse and parenting, is clearly Wrong.

Nigel Latta certainly won't be getting a Chrissie card from Bob McCoskrie anytime soon.

Mum vs mum

Deborah Hill Cone has been going through the process of becoming a solo mum lately, and last week she wrote about motherhood along these lines:

...Girl two: "My daddy helps people. He's a lawyer." "What does your mummy do?" "My mummy makes the dinner."

Is Devonport the suburb that feminism forgot? I have been wondering about that since my marriage split up. I seem to be the only solo parent in this suburb of shiny, happy people. Certainly I'm the only one who lets her kids draw on the walls with impunity and considers Banana Up & Go a vegetable. I have always felt simpatico with Devonport but now I am not in a pristine nuclear family I feel a bit of a freak. I didn't realise separation still had such a stigma...

New blogger (but not new writer) and fellow Devonportian Cath responds, including:

...I know I will return to work at some point. I like it. But I’ve learned a bit from this year about having one parent around the home. It’s good. And I don’t think people who choose this as a full time occupation should be sneezed at, DHC. Many people make huge sacrifices to keep one partner, male or female, in the home. Weighing up working in an interesting job with the regular drudgery of making dinner is hardly fair. It isn’t about picture perfect families, or perfect 1950s marriages with 1950s division of labour, it’s about people making choices that work for them...

Both are well worth a read and a mull. For the record I agree with Cath.*

I tend to think the Mommy Wars are something of a myth, encouraged by a media that prefers to paint in black and white than those pesky shades of grey. In everyday life most mothers in Camp A also know mums in Camp B, and get along ok much of the time. When we dislike each other I venture to suggest that it's not because one person is in a full-time job and the other is not, but actually it's because we don't like each other as individuals, and probably wouldn't if our lives were identical. Just because we are mothers doesn't mean we've signed up to love and befriend all other mothers for everymore.

Women dip in and out of paid work as their family and (I hope) personal needs require. Regardless of whether we are engaged full time at home or otherwise, in many homes the adult females pick up most of the unpaid domestic work. The latter is changing (fingers crossed) and the old ideas about women belonging primarily in the home are becoming more fluid too, in more and more places and families across the world.

If I'm being brutally honest I can recall vividly times during pregnancy and motherhood when I felt trapped. Not by Wriggly himself, but by the societal expectations around women who become mums and step-mums, and by the workload of mothering.

For me my paid work is something that usually helps me to be free; it challenges me and extends me in different ways to motherhood. I feel privileged to be able to do both - my day job and my night job, if you will.

I tried staying home for a while, and after a time it didn't suit me well. I don't think it would suit me now either, and luckily I have some choices around that because of my circumstances, in particular the willingness of my partner to command most of the private sphere for a while. But being at home full time may be me again some time, I just don't know. Maybe next time I'm home I'll wonder what mad trance I was in that I ever though working full time was what I wanted to do. Who knows?

In the meantime I do consider my stay home sisters and sometimes look forward to the possibility of being amongst them in the future. That work has its stresses and strains too, and not just dirty nappies either. And it is work. It's all work. In a society that indicates the value of something by its monetary cost it's easy to dismiss the unpaid as without value, to render it invisible. But it's neither; in fact the private sphere work largely carried out by women and girls allows the public sphere work to happen. Without a full belly and a good night's sleep and clean clothes how well would any of us in paid work function in our employment? And without homes and families and friends to come back to at the end of the day and to enjoy our weekends and holidays with, what is the point?

We work together, the paid and the unpaid. I hope I never forget that.


* But then I would say that, given we discussed this obliquely not that long ago at lunch!

Quick hit: Catholic boys' school does good thing

From the North Shore Times, on Stuff, earlier in the week:

Teenage boys are learning a thing or two about fatherhood at Rosmini College.

The year 12 students are taking part in a Plunket tots and toddlers course as part of their NCEA studies.

Director of religious education Steve Mills says it is just as important for boys to learn about parenting as it is for girls. They need to know it is a team effort to raise a child.

"Society to some extent still expects women to be the ones to care for children and that needs to change," says Mr Mills.

Click through for the rest.

Hurrah!

Carnivalling

The Fourth Carnival of Feminist Parenting is up now at Mothers for Women's Lib.

Great reading therein, and big thanks to whoever nominated one of my posts :-)

First Carnival of Feminist Parenting

The first Carnival of Feminist Parenting is up at Mothers For Women's Lib.

The next edition will be published, at Mothers For Women’s Lib, on Sunday 12th July 2009. Deadline for submissions will therefore be Sunday 5th July 2009. I was fairly lax with the deadline this month, next month anything submitted after the deadline will not be published until the August edition. And to answer a question from our lovely Mossy – yes, non-UK submissions are more than welcome!

Submit your blog article to the next edition of carnival of feminist parenting using our Carnival Submission Form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our Blog Carnival Index Page.

(cribbed from the Carnival post itself, which is jam packed with goodies)

What's there to fear?

"Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself."*

Deborah Coddington has gotten all hot under the collar about schools encouraging parents to use correct names for body parts. In this context it was used to teach children about reporting sexual abuse.

My father was really against any type of baby talk insisting that we were talked to in full sentences and learned the correct vocabulary for things including body parts. His view was that using the right words to describe body parts is an essential part of early learning about sex and using nicknames not only teaches children to be embarrassed about their bodies but also destroys the trust and openness that is necessary for the future discussions about sex.

Thus I have little time for baby-talk, one boyfriend used to indulge in it and he was promptly dumped after repeat offenses. However I know many parents feel quite differently about the subject, and prefer to use nicknames to refer to genitals though they would prefer to avoid talking about the subject at all. On the other hand many parents feel quite differently preferring that children not be lumbered by these 'adult' words.

The child has taken to using nicknames, some of them particularly ridiculous, to refer to well anything that might have anything to do with anything reproductively related. The first time she did so I grumbled through gritted teeth to the Suit that just like a hand isn't a "grabber," a finger isn't a "pointer," a vulva isn't a "frontbum."

I patiently explained that knowing the proper name was important for the child's emotional well-being and for her physical safety. Just like it is important that a child know to point to their knee or wrist when it hurts, it is also important that a child can do the same for their sexual body parts in case of sickness, injury, or abuse.

I'm generally of the belief that kids from about 4 or 5 should be able to use the correct terms for all of the sexual body parts of both male and female and the only barrier to that happening are parents who are too embarrassed to talk about it.

Do you teach your children the names for their body parts using the proper names or do you use cute words to describe basic anatomy?

*A cyber-chocolate fish to anyone who can source the quote without the aid of google.

Thursdays in Black: Roots of Empathy needs volunteers!

Back in February I wrote about the Roots of Empathy programme which encourages school children to interact with young babies and thus learn empathy and a bit about parenting.

Sadly they are currently a bit short of parents and progeny, in particular in Central Auckland. This is part of an article in the Central Leader:

The award-winning programme requires a parent with a two to four-month old infant who can visit Grey Lynn School for at least half an hour every three weeks throughout the year.

I suspect even if they have already filled the Grey Lynn spot they'd be keen to hear from those interested in helping out at other schools too.

For more information or to register your interest you can contact Rachel Turner at the Peace Foundation on 09 373 2379 during work hours.

Labels aren't just for clothes

'Are you The Child's, ummm aunty?'

I've got to hand it to my young cousin, despite only being four at the time she had the streets smart of someone far beyond her years. My cousin's parents had been separated for years and her mum happily re-partnered with man that my cousin now refers to as her stepdad despite no formal marriage taking place. Along the way my cousin had a few 'uncles' and knew playmates who often had their parents significant others masquerading as 'aunties' and 'uncles.'

But right now I was at a complete loss to answer my cousin's question so went for the factual one, umm no The Child already has an aunty, two in fact if you count The Suit's sister-in-law.

'Well are you The Child's stepmum?'

Fuck. How the hell do I answer that kind of question within earshot of The Child who I only met a few months ago? The answer was a Dora the Explorer DVD and hope that my cousin will be distracted long enough to drop the topic.


The truth was I wasn't and still don't really know how to put into words my relationship with The child.Because let’s face it, once you put a label on someone you assign a whole bunch of emotions and associations to the person or thing you are labeling. Like for instance, the child's mother.

When I use the term 'the ex wife' it conjures up all the negative and sometimes hateful emotions one might expect. The ex wife label defines her in relation to The Suit and their fucked up marriage. However when I call her the Child's Mother it almost humanizes her and softens the imagery a bit, a more delicate label evokes a more positive emotional response.

But what about me? The term stepmother comes with so many negative connotations. It’s true that as I hone in on 30 I do have more facial hair than I’d like to admit but I do not in anyway resemble the stereotypical wicked stepmother depicted in those fairy tales. You will not find a single wart on my nose and despite the state of the garage I'm pretty sure that there are no dungeons or spinning wheels to be found around my home. Moreover anything term that uses the term 'mum' is likely to further piss off the Child's mother who is already feeling a bit jealous and threatened by my existence.

The only person who didn't seem to give rat's ass about the whole situation was The Child. She knew daddy loved me and I loved Daddy and we both cared for her which was really the most important bit. An extra person meant an extra present at Christmas and Birthday time for the Child, plus someone with another set of interests and hobbies to keep her entertained. She has always referred to me as ex-expat, and truth be told we didn't really need a label because I had always just been 'her' ex-expat. Secretly I worried that if we didn't attempt to label our relationship someone else would do so for us and seek to define my relationship with the child from their own perspective but in the end we decided to let the issue lie until the child raised it.

Sure enough a week or so ago the child came over demanding to know if I was indeed Daddy's girlfriend. I had wondered if we should try and come up with a label for me before she started school since she'd inevitably have other kids asking her who 'ex-expat' was. But of course my label didn't come from school, it came from her mother's house along with a steady stream of insults designed to make me out to be the wicked witch who has Daddy under a spell. But I'm not bitter.

In the meantime, I continue to search for an appropriate nickname – one that satisfies the child's need to solidify my place in her life while not causing confusion or conflict with her biological mother. The only label I've come up with is 'ex-expat' because that's who I am.

Clucky

What the hell's wrong with me?

I've got two children - a perfectly respectable family size - whom I love to bits. I feel more or less fulfilled in life, and even if I didn't, I realistically couldn't afford any more kids or fit them into my busy existence. So why do I have these terrible pangs of cluckiness? Pangs that make me forget two hideous, sickly pregnancies, followed by two dreadfully traumatic births? And the stress, the mess, the never having a moment's time to myself?

Most of the time I'm reasonably sensible about such things, but I have phases where the sight or sound of babies make me melt. I want to pick up other people's infants and subject them to extensive bouts of senseless smooching. I wonder if, in my case, coming from a Catholic family of five kids is a factor. Being from a big family is, for me at least, a blessing, and something I would have liked my own children to share. Is my cluckiness just my subconscious telling me I've chickened out - failed to complete my breeding mission? Will I eventually turn into one of those parents who nags their kids to provide me with grandchildren?

Sometimes, I have vague, compensatory ideas that I'll offer my home to foster kids when I'm more financially settled, older, wiser, and generally have my shit together. But I believe it takes a very special kind of person to care for these kids, and much as I'd like to believe otherwise, I'm not sure I'm up to the task.

Of course, I'm hardly alone in my bouts of cluckiness. For some women, it can actually be quite upsetting - I know women who've realised that the reproductive part of their lives is coming to an end, and have felt quite distressed that more kids is no longer an option. But I don't for a moment think cluckiness is an inevitable part of being female. Plenty of women I know don't experience it at all. And I know the odd bloke who's even more hopelessly clucky than I am.

How many THM readers share this strange affliction? Can anyone recommend an effective treatment? (And don't suggest having more babies!)

Thursdays in Black: Roots of Empathy - Puna Atawhai

I've heard about Roots of Empathy - Puna Atawhai on and off for the last few years. My father gave me a brochure on it while I was pregnant with Wriggly, thinking it might be something I'd like to do with my baby if circumstances allowed, but I lost it in the midst of that brain fog that seemed to descend every night at about 7.30pm for some months. When I started doing these regular Thursdays in Black posts, about local initiatives aiming to prevent rape and other forms of violence, I had a little memory of this programme calling at me for attention, but it's taken a few weeks for me to hear it properly.

Roots of Empathy - Puna Atawhai is an international programme, which is run in New Zealand through The Peace Foundation. It started in Toronto, Canada, and The Peace Foundation started investigating piloting it here in 2001. With the support of various organisations, including Plunket and the Children's Commisioner, a three year pilot started in 2007. By the end of 2009 they hope to have delivered Roots of Empathy - Puna Atawhai to 100 classes, which is about 3000 students.

So what is it? I'll borrow from their website to explain:

Roots of Empathy (ROE) is an award winning programme that has shown dramatic effects in reducing levels of aggression and violence among school children while raising social/emotional competence and increasing empathy. It also provides these children with a clear understanding of the needs of a baby and what it is to be a good parent, thus offering the potential to break intergenerational cycles of family abuse....

At the heart of the programme is a neighbourhood infant and parent who visit the classroom every three weeks over the school year. A trained ROE Instructor coaches students to observe the baby’s development and to label the baby’s feelings. In this experiential learning, the baby is the “Teacher” and a lever, which the instructor uses to help children identify and reflect on their own feelings and the feelings of others. This Emotional literacy taught in the programme lays the foundation for more safe and caring classrooms, where children are the “Changers”. They are more competent in understanding their own feelings and the feelings of others (empathy) and are therefore less likely to physically, psychologically and emotionally hurt each other through bullying and other behaviours. In the ROE programme children learn how to challenge cruelty and injustice. Messages of social inclusion and activities that are consensus building contribute to a culture of caring that changes the tone of the classroom...

Empathy is a key ingredient to responsible citizenship and responsive parenting. Information on infant safety and development helps children to be more aware of issues of infant vulnerability such as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), Shaken Baby Syndrome, Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) and second hand smoke. Observations of a loving parent-child relationship give children a model of responsible parenting.

Awww, doesn't that sound awesome?!

You can find out more by contacting the Peace Foundation, checking out the Roots of Empathy - Puna Atawhai information on their site, or looking up the Canadian programme's website.

Quick hit: Parenting programmes for all!

Who knew the University of Auckland has a Professor of Parenting Studies and Family Psychology? Here's the column he's written for the NZ Herald on the role of parenting classes.

A whole-of-community approach to supporting parenting can be contrasted with the traditional "clinical" approach of targeting only the most troubled parents with the most difficult children. We stand a better chance of reducing child abuse and preventing behavioural or emotional problems if parenting programmes known to work are available to all parents.

I was particular struck by Saunders' inclusiveness - he refers to "parents" throughout, which makes a refreshing change from "mothers should do this, that and the other."

I did a parenting course through Plunket when Wriggly was four months old and it was very useful indeed, not least for helping me realise that parenting is hard work for everyone, not just for me.