Who rules the roost?

For some reason that has nothing to do with my own life, I've lately been pondering whether parents should make all of their life decisions based on child-centered criteria, or if they should make decisions based on what they, the parents, want and need, and have a parent-centered family.  I'm not talking about spoiling your child, letting him or her run the household, or dictate purchases "Mummy, I want a pony!" I'm talking about big issues, such as divorce, when it's just a matter of vague dissatisfaction, choice of mate, if divorced, major relocation decisions that are based on anything other than absolute necessity, and other big life adult decisions that can affect children.

In times past, parents ruled the roost, and the kids were expected to suck it up and adjust.  Children were not consulted, and often not considered when parents made major life decisions.  This reached an extreme for those of us in Generation X, who saw parents divorcing because they just didn't feel the passion any more, or they just needed to find themselves, or their sex lives weren't fabulous.  I saw children of divorce whose custodial parent would just take off and move out of state for a better job opportunity or for a change of scenery, and the child was then effectively cut off from their other parent. 

Baby boomers began a shift to a child-centered family, and, of course, we now hear constantly about "helicoptered" and pampered kids who often have difficulty severing the umbilical cord and thinking independently.  I reject the idea that the kids should be in charge of the main family decisions, but I also reject the idea that parents need to seek some vague need for fulfillment at all costs.

I tend to see divorce as something that should be reserved for cases where the children are better off with two parents living separately than together. Violence, rampant infidelities, conditions that are so bad that the kids feel the effects of the marital misery, would all be valid reasons to sever a marriage.  There are cases where parents divorce because they have an unrealistic expectation of what a long term marriage will feel like.  They lose their little flutters, and meet someone else who makes them tingle and spark, and off they go.  If there is a good, solid partnership between the parents, and they both genuinely LIKE each other, I believe they should fight tooth and nail to save their marriage and put off the "butterflies" until the kids have left home.  I especially believe this in cases where the parents delayed marriage. Sorry, but if you married at 35, you had plenty of years to begin and end relationships as you pleased.  You can just suck it up for the sake of your kids and make it work, unless your children are traumatized by the atmosphere at home.  Marriage can be excruciatingly hard, but those of us who are married signed up for it and had children under the assuption that we would give our kids a stable, two parent family.  I make some exceptions, of course.  If there is violence in the home, the marriage should be ended immediately.  If one of the partners is heartbroken because they are married to a serial cheater, then it's time to separate.  If the couple can navigate an implictly or explicitly open marriage, more power to them.  But a partner who is devastated by constant infidelity and deception is not likely to be able to parent with a full deck, and that tension will rub off on the kids.  And if one or both parents are so miserable at home that they have essentially checked out, and counseling doesn't help, then I think the kids are better off with divorce.

I wonder often about divorced parents entering the dating field.  Should a parent keep seeing someone that their children abhor? Should they marry someone their children abhor?  Should they even be introducing their children to a new romantic interest until it is looking very serious? To be perfectly honest, were I divorced, I'd probably date discreetly and keep my child out of it until the partner looked like marriage material.  I would not mention anything about dating, nor would I introduce the two.  Children get attached to adults, and how do children feel when they continually bond to partners that then disappear? Would I drop someone that my daughter didn't like?  If she absolutely could not stand a potential mate,  I would not want to deal with the stress that would ensue; nor would I think it fair to subject my daughter to pure misery living in a home with someone she despised.  She comes first, period.  If she tended to not like ANY potential mates?  We'd need to seek counseling, because I'm not sure that is a level of sacrifice that a child should ask a parent to make.

Some people seem to think that giving children a say about your major life choices is inappropriate, and ends up spoiling them.   I would say that I hope I will always give my child a voice- to take her opinion into account, but I would make the final decision, and I would try to always make decisions that were responsible and best for her.

When worlds collide... To post, or not to post?

When I first joined Facebook in 2007, my friends list was rather small.  Though I wasn't an "early" adopter, the "old folks" had not yet discovered Facebook, and most people I knew were still heavily using Myspace and perfecting fake names, the duck-faced selfie, and using lime green fonts over yellow backgrounds.  As more people from my present and past joined, there was a constant flurry of friend requests.  Old high school buddies, college buddies, professional associates, and, eventually, my older relatives became friends.  I am one to always keep people compartmentalized.  I like my worlds to NOT collide, thank you very much. It's not that I am phony to any group of people. I never present a side of me that isn't authentic.  But my recreational self communicates a little differently than my professional self, as well as the part of me that communicates with aunts and uncles.  Context is everything.  The kinds of links that my old, often delightfully skewed high school and college friends would find hilarious might evoke crickets or even raised eyebrows from my parents or from people with whom I serve on professional committees.  And posts about my profession will just cause my outside work friends to yawn.  Additionally, I have some passionate political causes that probably make some of my more conservative relatives gnash their teeth.  I don't apologize for my beliefs, but I have no desire to create rifts with people about whom I care deeply.

There are workarounds for this, of course.  One can create an endless number of groups and exclude this group and that group from various and sundry posts, but I hate having to think every time I post as to whom might be offended by what.  It's exhausting, and it has made my Facebook life a bit of a drag.  I feel that I have to constantly censor myself.

In the beginning, I didn't turn down anyone's friend requests.  I was new to Facebook, and I didn't really think through the implications of having people from so many areas in my life all thrown into one big stew.

I know some people who have had to deal with the fallout of having bosses and co-workers see some of their posts.  One friend was called on the carpet after posting some not-so-glowing things about her job and co-workers.  Her boss had been handed a printout anonymously.  While I am adamant about never complaining about work on FB, she tends to be an open book and had whittled many co-workers from her friends list already.  Whomever handed over her post was someone she apparently trusted. I've had other friends who have had fallouts with relatives and close friends over politics.  At some point, I fear my FB activity may be limited to results to quizzes such as "Which Barney character are you?" and pictures of cute kittehs. This makes me a little sad, as I have rebuilt many friendships with people with whom I had lost touch, and have enjoyed interacting with a diverse group of friends for 6 years now.

I am aware that many people now have a blanket policy of not friending co-workers.  I started a new job in August, and thought a good bit about how I would approach the "Facebook dilemma" in a new position. I decided that I would let people decide whether or not they wanted to shoot me friend requests.  As they come in, I accept these requests, but I don't want to make anyone uncomfortable by forcing them to have to tell me they just don't friend co-workers.  Additionally, my position is tenure track, and involves a significant amount of peer review. I am a wee bit hesitant for someone who is called upon to review my effectiveness to have seen pictures of me drinking a beer at a caching event where a couple of the guys are randomly sporting tutus.  As I have accepted my co-workers friend requests, more people with whom I work will stumble onto my profile.  If they want to extend an invite, that's great, but I am just going to allow this to work itself out organically.  Because I don't trash my workplace, over-emote, or use "colorful language" on Facebook, there really isn't anything  I post that is truly damaging.  I guess I am beginning to adjust to the fact that all of our worlds collide in the 21st century.  I am learning to present a public face that is appropriate for all areas of my life.  There is always FB Messenger, gchat, and e-mail for having private conversations, and drama does NOT belong on social media anyway. Just because something passes through my head does not mean it needs to be posted for the world to see. 

I still refuse to keep politics off Facebook.  My belief system is part of who I am, and I believe I need to publicly stand for what I believe is right. I support basic human rights for all, and can get pretty worked up over gender equality, sexual orientation equality, and compassionate treatment for the poor. Luckily, I work in a profession that is predominantly made up of progressives, and I've finally decided that if conservative friends and relatives cannot accept me for who I am, I don't need to have them in my lives.  They certainly tend to not tone their beliefs down, and I have always been able to find things I share in common with people, rather than to focus on our differences. 

The one thing I cannot control is what others post on my wall.  I could lock it down, but I would miss so much in the process.  Sometimes, people post graphics with which I essentially agree, but that contain words that would be offensive to people like my parents. I wish people could understand the importance of context.  I may use the "F" word around my friends and a few of my family members, but it is not part of my work vocabulary, nor do I use it at family reunions.  I have started deleting any wall posts that I think might cause me problems.  I don't need co-workers bumping into overtly sexual content or potentially offensive language on my wall. I will usually message the person who made the post in question and say, "I love ya, and I thought it was hilarious, but I had to delete it. I just have too many people as FB friends who might take offense."

So, I have this constant struggle of deciding whether "to friend or not to friend" and how authentic and open I want to be on social media. I know it's an extreme "First World Problem", but we're all grappling with this right now.  What we post takes on a life of its own.  People have been fired for their FB posts, and sometimes, posts go viral.  There is no such thing as "privacy" on the Internet. I have seen friends take posts from other friends and send them to people who are not friends of the original poster.  Don't think that anything you post online will remain secret.  Use your brain and post sensibly.

Sunday adventure- no devices

This weekend, my 8 year old daughter surprised me by stepping away from Minecraft, taking my hand, and asking me if I would go explore with her in the woods. I have been trying to get all of us to put our ever-present devices down for months, and I have sorely missed the adventures we used to have more frequently before she discovered games and before my husband and I stared at our phones so often.  I was feeling a little lazy and unfocused, and at first, I balked. I confess that, at times, I am so worn out at the end of the week that I take the path of least resistance.  But, I knew I couldn't let her down, and I put on my hiking clothes and set out with her.  My husband came along, but stayed near the house and focused on trail clearing so that we could have some Mommy/daughter bonding time.

Our home is on 2 acres in a wooded setting. Behind the house, behind our land, are hundreds of uncleared, undeveloped acres.  If you traverse this land out to the main road and cross it, there are probably at least a thousand more acres of woods.  There is a good deal of land in our part of the county that does not perc, and, given we have no city water, the land cannot be developed.  I could probably construct a 5 mile hike that only crosses our small road once, though most of this hike would be bushwhacking.  In fact, I have been disoriented and lost more than a couple of times, once approaching dusk.  I almost cried with relief when I finally saw a road in the distance. This time, given that I had an 8 year old in tow, I stuffed my phone in my pocket.  I figured that the GPS and maps function on my phone would be a safe last resort.  We followed the trail system that my husband and other neighbors have created, and soon stepped off into a deep grove of hardwood trees, followed by piney scrub. My daughter brought along her binoculars, and we occasionally sat on logs and looked for birds.  There were several climbing trees, and we both challenged ourselves by scaling them.  We found small quartz rocks and slipped some into our backpacks.

I asked her, "How would you like to get lost and try to find our way out?" She was thrilled by the prospect of being lost explorers.  I decided to not let her know I had GPS technology tucked away.  We forged on, deeper into the woods, far away from the trail system.  We crossed several streams. Occasionally, I could hear the sound of a car in the distance, but as we pushed further into undeveloped land, these sounds became faint and muffled.

We rested on a fallen log. I slipped a package of cheese crackers into her hand.  Crumbs spilled for the birds.  After another half hour, we reached the end of Hawk Ridge Road.  We crossed the road and entered the woods on the other side.  The trees grew larger, the streams wider, the thorns sharper.  I knew that, eventually, if we walked roughly parallel to the road that approaches our neighborhood, we'd bump into my mother's property in another half mile or so. It must have taken 45 minutes to bushwhack through that half mile, and we both had thorn cuts when we saw her backyard fence in the distance.  We walked through the back gate and let ourselves in.  I called my husband, who had no idea why we had been gone so long, and he drove over to pick us up.  We returned home, made hot chocolate and snacks, and snuggled on the sofa.  She asked me, "Aren't you glad we put our devices down and went on an adventure?"  I gave her a hug and a kiss and put my feet up, as she rested her head on my shoulder.

Not so boldly going where no one has gone before...

I have been a fan of the Star Trek franchise ever since my husband first introduced me to TNG in the early 90s.  I watched a few episodes of the OS as a child and enjoyed them, but didn't go out of my way to seek them out.  As we did not own a television at the time, we used to watch reruns TNG at our neighbor's apartment in Missoula every day and came over for the weekly show in prime time.  When DS9 started, we watched that as well, and continued through part of Voyager, though the whole "Lost in Space" theme eventually wore on us.  Recently, we have been watching Enterprise, as we missed it when it was on during the early 2000s.  We've seen all the movies, and I would say I am fairly invested in the canon.

Star Trek was ahead of its time, in terms of how minorities were represented.  The Kirk/Uhura kiss was both controversial and groundbreaking.  Many networks in the South refused to air that episode.  Voyager featured a female captain, and DS9's commander was African-American.  Each series had minorities on the crew, and their ethnicity was never a big deal.  They were characters who just happened to be of color, and one assumed that in the future, diversity was a natural part of life. I always appreciated how much of a non-issue race was in Star Trek.

So, given the visionary way that race has been portrayed in Star Trek, it is surprising that the franchise has skirted the issue of homosexuality.  The shows have played it safe.  There have been a few instances where the show flirts with gender norms.  The TNG episode "The Outcast" shows Riker falling in love with an asexual character, though the actor is clearly female, and the character violates its species' social norms by identifying as a woman.  Dax on DS9 has a relationship with a woman, though Dax is a Trill inhabited by a male, and Lenara, her love interest, is inhabited by a female Trill. Dr. Beverly Crusher has a relationship with a Trill whose host is male.  When he dies and is hosted by a female, she cannot continue the relationship.  In the DS9 episode "Crossover", Kira's mirror character in the alternate reality is portrayed as bisexual, though her character is considered "evil".  And I have read that the Enterprise character Malcolm Reed was originally slated to be gay, but that the producers ultimately decided against it.

Why has Star Trek, a franchise generally considered to be progressive, avoided dealing with bisexuality or homosexuality in any meaningful way? Are we to believe that homosexuality does not exist in the future?  Given estimates that up to 10% of the population identifies as gay, there should have been at least a few gay characters in the franchise, even if minor. I have read the reactions and comments of the fans, and they range from a similar concern to false arguments that "a character's sexuality shouldn't be portrayed on this show".

I call this a logical fallacy because, in fact, the sexuality of Star Trek characters have already been portrayed.  We have seen many one-shot hookups between male and female characters on all the shows, and have watched several long term relationships.  Frankly, all the characters are assumed to be straight.  If we are not to see the personal lives of crew members, as the fans have implied when others note that there are no gay and lesbian characters, then we should not have seen Kirk chasing skirts, Worf involved with Troi and later Dax, or any of the other on-screen romances that have been regularly portrayed.  I have also seen fans stating that they don't want to see gay people rubbed into their faces.  Frankly, I am guessing that gay characters would be portrayed just as were minority characters.  If they are on the show, they should just be there.  Their orientation would most likely not be an issue for anyone, and their romantic storylines should be treated just as any other character.  Even the sight of an obviously gay couple in the background in a dining hall would be a welcome step.  It doesn't have to be a BIG ISSUE.

I will give the original series a pass.  Gay characters just weren't shown on TV shows, and the interracial kiss was enough of a big deal at the time.  Even in TNG, I think it might have been an issue with the network to show an openly gay character.  This was before "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", and it was quite rare to see LGBT people on TV.  But for goodness sake, by the time we reached "Enterprise", it was high time to have at least one LGBT character. And there's no excuse for the issue to be avoided in the reboot films.  I don't expect to see flaming gay characters running about the ship yelling "Fabulous!", but I expect that there could be at least one character who just happens to be LGBT.  Heck, start with a hot woman- a Seven of Nine or T'Pol type.  Even homophobic guys could get on board with that.

This is not, as I've seen mentioned, a "quota" issue.  The Star Trek world has been lauded for featuring human diversity ahead of its time, and LGBT people are part of the fabric that makes up the world's diverse populations.

I have read several articles about the lack of LGBT characters on Star Trek, and have been disappointed to see the number of hateful, homophobic responses in the comments section.  Some say that, obviously, in the future, "sicknesses" like homosexuality have been cured.  Others say they would refuse to watch Star Trek if it "gayed itself up" with even one character.  We have a long, long way to go, but I am hoping that if another Star Trek series emerges, it will take a risk and present true diversity.

Please don't "gift" me with your child's giftedness

I have been pondering lately the age-old issue of bragging parents.  I live in an area where people tend to be highly educated, and there is often a sense of competition between parents.  They will either outright inform you as to how brilliant and accomplished their children are, or they will humblebrag "It can be such a challenge to keep up with little Hugo's high IQ.  I am exhausted trying to find appropriately complex literature for him to read, as he is reading at the 12th grade level, though he's only 8." Some parents, within the very first conversation, find crafty ways to leak out that their child is designated "gifted" in school.

Seriously? Knock it the **** off.  If your child is truly gifted, we all are able to tell as soon as we interact with them.  They tend to have impressive vocabularies, and interact with adults more easily than they do other children.  We know if your child is gifted.  And, I'm happy for you, if so.  But when you notify FB that your little one is mastering calculus in 5th grade, it's a ridiculous attention grab, and it just looks like you are living your life through your offspring. It's not as if you need to keep your child's intelligence a sworn secret, but constant bragging turns people off you, and it turns people off your child, and I am sure you don't want people to resent you both.

I was talking to a friend about this recently who really does have a passel of genius children, and she said that she will often brag about acts of kindness or good character, but avoids bragging about their brainpower.  I think telling people about the good choices your child makes is perfectly acceptable, as tje strength of one's character is far more important and bragworthy than their native intelligence.  You see, your kid didn't DO anything to be born brilliant. It was luck of the draw or good genes.  But there are plenty of geniuses who are douchecanoes, so someone's IQ doesn't particularly impress me.

 So, just ratchet it down a notch and let us discover your child's gifts for ourselves.  Please.

Is it high time for high times?

I saw some discussion on Facebook last night regarding the legalization of marijuana.  I was reasonably certain that most of my peers considered legalizing pot a no-brainer, but was surprised to see a friend who is normally like-minded speak against it. 

Note that I am no fan of pot on a personal level. I tried it a few times in high school, and absolutely loathed the physical sensations that occurred in my body and brain.  I became paranoid, ate like there was not enough food in the world, and even had full-blown panic attacks.  By the time I left for college, I decided against further experimentation.  My substance of choice is a good craft beer, and even so, I limit myself to no more than 2 or 3 in a week, if that.  I do not like feeling out of control, and I certainly don't enjoy waking up in the morning with a splitting headache.

That said, I cannot support the criminalization of marijuana when, in fact, alcohol abuse takes a greater toll on Americans.  I have never heard of anyone beating their spouse while high; nor do I read about accidents caused by high drivers to the degree that I read about drunk driving.  Most of the people I know who smoke pot use the substance much as I would enjoy a good beer a couple of times a week.  If someone wants to catch a buzz in moderation, I certainly don't consider it my business to object.  I do have a few friends who have been stoners for years, and some of them seem to have blown out their brain cells.  It's sad to me to talk to friends who have essentially lost memories of our good times as young people.  With a couple, I have served as their institutional memory.  However, I have other old friends who have damaged their liver drinking, abused their bodies with overconsumption of unhealthy foods and are now dealing with many health issues, and I know people who have serious impulse control issues when it comes to sex. I know people who are still smoking well into their 40s and 50s.  Shall the government forbid eating at McDonald's?  Promiscuous sex?  Alcohol? I have no interest in living in a Nanny state; nor do I have any interest in watching my tax dollars fund the police time and inprisonment of people who have been caught possessing a single joint.

Legalizing marijuana allows the quality of the substance to be regulated, provides revenue that could be used for substance abuse programs, and saves the taxpayer money on pointless law enforcement. Indeed, many states are already moving in this direction, and, in fact, many have allowed for medical use of marijuana, even if recreational use is still forbidden.  Most of us are aware that pot can ease the pain of cancer, but I also know a few women who swear that a joint or two can relieve pre-menstrual cramps.  I have not known a single person who has declined to use pot merely because it is illegal or have had a difficult time locating a dealer, if they are so motivated.  Yes, there may be young people out there who are afraid to try it for the fear of serving jail time, but I also believe that pot should still be illegal for minors, just as is alcohol.

As cigarette smoking declines, many tobacco farmers are struggling to make a living.  From what I understand, hemp is an easy crop to grow, and is less taxing on the soil than is tobacco.  I know nothing about growing marijuana for smoking purposes, but I have certainly seen my share of plants in peoples' homes.

My one concern about the legalization of marijuana is that I suspect that big business will take control of the industry, and I hope that individuals will be able to grow their own.  I abhor Big Tobacco, and I would certainly hate to see Big Marijuana dominate the industry. 

Some people will make the "slippery slope" argument and ask, "What is next? Legalizing crack? heroin?"  We already have legalized alcohol, and I don't hear anyone begging to make crack legal.  I put marijuana in a much different category than I do hard drugs.  It's really, in my opinion, parallel to wine, beer, or spirits.  I don't know many people who make occasional, recreational use of crack or heroin.  You are either a non-user or an addict.  Marijuana CAN be addictive, just like alcohol or tobacco, but it is not addictive to the same degree as are hard drugs.

The argument about marijuana being a "gateway drug" does not resonate for me either.  If it is, than wouldn't alcohol also be a "gateway drug"? They are both potentially mind-altering substances.  Those who consider pot to be a gateway drug are, in my opinion, confusing correlation with causation.  It is true that many users of hard drugs started with pot, but I would argue that a person who is likely to fall into abuse of hard drugs is also a person who would be likely to use pot, and since pot is usually easier to obtain, it would make sense that their first exploration into drug use would start here.

I suspect that I am preaching to the choir for the vast majority of my friends who may ever stumble upon this blog, but I felt particularly inspired this morning to post about this issue. 

General musings on crunchy parenthood

I am preparing to rant a bit about people with whom I usually identify on so many issues, mainly, the Attachment Parenting/crunchy parent crowd.  Sometimes, I find myself scrutinizing my "own kind" harder than those who are "not my people", because I am trying to find where I fit in this world, philosphically, and it's a given that those families on the opposite end of the spectrum are not my cup of tea, so a rant against these parents is almost a given, and superfluous. 

I have crunchy leanings, and practiced a moderate approach to attachment parenting.  I made a lot of my daughter's baby food, rarely set her down alone on surfaces, wore her around in a carrier, and mostly co-slept.  For the first few months of her life, as she was a preemie and my spouse and I are not exactly reed-like, she slept in a travel crib next to the bed. When she reached about 6 months, we moved her into the middle of the bed, where she stayed until an age I am almost embarrassed to divulge.  We still occasionally wake up and find her wedged between us, and she's 8 years old!  We are very much hands-on, and we play with her much more than most parents played with their children when I was growing up.  I believe in extended nursing, though I was, sadly, unable to do this myself.  So, I am am a vaguely "crunchy" parent, and I am certainly closer to the parenting style I find around Carrboro, NC than I would find in, say, conservative Clayton, NC.

That said, I find that the "crunchy" parents in my area often seem to march in lockstep, go out of their way to choose the absolutely hardest, most work-intensive methods of parenting, and are as dogmatic as those they often criticize.  I remember telling a mother that my child slept next to our bed in a travel crib. She actually told me I had lost "Attachment Parenting" cred, and that our infant should be in the family bed.  At this time, I had not yet lost weight, weighed 240 pounds, and my husband weighed even more.  In fact, we were advised, because of our weight, to NOT co-sleep until our infant was larger and sturdier. I also found that, after I could no longer nurse, I felt the eyes of judgment upon me while I sat in our local crunchy coffeehouse clutching a bottle.  Perhaps this was just projection, but my inability to nurse was already a source of grief for me, and feeling judged absolutely did not help.

Additionally, I am rather disturbed by the vaccine refusal bandwagon.  There are many authors with far more credentials than I who write about vaccine refusal and the public health dangers of such, so I won't dwell on my philosophy here, but I sense that some who have made the decision to withhold all vaccines are doing so because it's part of the litany of "crunchy" parenting decisions they are expected to make by their crunchy friends. I am NOT saying that all parents who refuse vaccinations are trying to be trendy and haven't carefully researched the risks of vaccines, but I AM saying that there are an awful lot of parents who seem to be versed in the dogma of their circles.  I am concerned for those children who, because of immunity disorders, absolutely cannot vaccinate, and are now at increasing risk of developing diseases and dangerous illnesses because people are increasingly refusing mostly safe vaccines for their children.  These parents are only able to make the decision to not vaccinate because the rest of us do.

The anti-vaccine crowd particularly disturbs me because it is part of an overall distrust of "experts".  Somehow, propaganda bandied around via the internet is considered more authoritative than the careful findings of medical researchers who have conducted clinical trials.  And, this impulse seems to be found on both the extreme left and the extreme right. The extreme left, at least, will produce opposing research from a few credible resources, but the extreme right will forward anonymous e-mails and quotes from people who do not have scientific or medical backgrounds (I trust my doctor before I trust a Playboy bunny, thanks), or random Biblical interpretations to justify vaccine refusal.  For the right, distrusting medical research falls in line with a general distrust of intellectuals and "pointy-headed liberals".  I can respect the decision to delay a few vaccines, or to skip those that researchers consider "optional", but a blanket decision to refuse all vaccines because they are "not natural", or could lead to autism, is rather bothersome.  Polio is "natural".  Would you rather your child have it? And, if I were the parent of a child with autism, I would be thoroughly insulted that my child's condition might be considered worse than death or Polio. Not to mention that the link between modern vaccines and autism has been thoroughly debunked.

As I evaluate the kind of parenting I did when my daughter was young, I am struck at the pressure and guilt I heaped upon myself unnecessarily.  I did not drop dead because my mother had to stop breastfeeding early, nor did I fall apart because I ate Gerber's.  In fact, I was a healthy child.  I feel properly "attached" to my parents even though they did not sling me, and, gasp, occasionally set me down on surfaces other than my skin. I was not traumatized by sleeping in my crib in my own room and being sleep trained.  The AP choices I made were exhausting, isolated me from my own spouse at times, and contributed to my feeling overwhelmed and incompetent.  Incompetent, because I often resented the difficulty of such high energy parenting.  I struggled with PPD, and choosing such a work-intensive parenting style absolutely did not help. And, anecdotally, one of the side effects we have experienced from the co-sleeping and "intense" parenting is that we have a daughter who could probably stand a little "detachment".  She cannot bear to be alone, and squawks at going upstairs to get something out of her room without us accompanying her. She still wants to sleep in our bed.  She often would rather play with us than with children her own age.  How much of this is temperament and being an only child, and how much of this is a result of what I now consider overparenting is unclear.   I tended to helicopter the crap out of this child, and I am now seeing the results.

If I could start over again with another baby, would I do things differently?  Probably some, yes. I'm still not completely against co-sleeping, but I would probably move my child into his or her own room once a toddler. I would do the best I could, but would not torment myself into believing I had permanently ruined my child if things didn't work out the way I wanted, or if I needed to adapt a slightly less exhaustive parenting style.  I would free myself of the expectation that I should be a perfect mother.  And I would probably encourage a bit more independence this time around.  I am working now with a generation of college students who were helicoptered, and I see their struggles in working independently.  They are terrified of making mistakes, and often approach us for hand-holding that I did not require when I was in college. I enjoyed independent problem solving, and I work with kids every day who cannot write up a simple bibliography without asking for help with every single reference.  I am afraid that I have inadvertently created a child who will ask for our help in everything she is asked to do, and I fear for these young people as they get out into the work world and are suddenly asked to take initiative.  I am currently trying to hover a bit less, and to practice a bit of "free range parenting", but I will admit that it's a struggle.

I will add that so many crunchy families I see have almost retreated into a regressive, pre-feminist world.  Women who are highly educated and had some level of career success are retreating to a world of baking (organic) cookies, homeschooling, and taking on an exhaustive parental style that pretty well requires them to completely subsume their individual identities into their children.  They are almost like a very crunchy version of Stepford Wives.  While I will fight for a woman's right to be a SAHM mom, and for it to be a valid choice for feminists. I hope these women have thought through what they may do if they become widowed or divorced, or if they try to re-enter the work world years later, only to find themselves made irrelevant.  By all means, enjoy those early childhood years at home, if you can swing it financially, as you can never get them back.  But it behooves you to keep up with professional organization, stay abreast of trends in your profession, and continue to network and keep those connections.  If possible, pick up some part time work when your child is older, or volunteer.  I read an article recently on the "opt out" generation of mothers who are struggling to "opt back in".  One woman with an Ivy League background was abandoned by her husband and was having a difficult time re-entering the workplace.  Many of them eventually found that their formerly egalitarian husbands were beginning to take advantage of the power imbalance in their marriage.  I can only hope that women who take a break from lucrative careers to stay at home keep abreast of trends in their profession, in case they decide to re-enter the workforce.  Honestly, I would have loved to have stayed out of work for a few years, but I can look back and see that my daughter has not suffered.  I make sure that our time together counts, and we spend so much of my off-time together.  Additionally, my daughter has a chance to see her mother as a whole person with a whole identity outside of motherhood.  I have hobbies, we each take one night off a week, and I would like her to grow up believing she still has the right to have some life outside of family.

In general, I am finding myself now to be a parent whose philosphy is moderation and common sense.  Too much screen time can be harmful and the typical American diet is crap, but a little TV and the occasional sugary treat will not kill your child. It didn't kill you.  I fear that if I am too extreme with such things my kid will fetishize junk food and TV, and will mainline this stuff as soon as they are old enough to leave the house and play with friends. I am a big fan of the 80/20 rule.  If you practice healthy habits 80% of the time, you can enjoy a little indulgence 20% of the time.  I will opt for the vaccination schedule my doctor and NIH recommends, but will keep myself open to reading about side effects, and will evaluate as the evidence comes in.  I will keep a close eye on my child and try to keep her safe as best I can, but I will also let her explore and find a little autonomy.

This is probably the last "parenting wars" judgmental rant I'll ever post, and in fact, I feel some guilt for writing this at all.  Most parents truly want the best for their children, but just have different ideas of what that means. Crunchy parents are highly principled,  care deeply for the well-being of their children, and I agree with them on so many issues.  I think, so often, that it's a temperament issue.  Crunchy parents were usually crunchy pre-parents, and have probably tended to choose lifestyles that are a bit more extreme and rigid than my own.  And maybe my reaction is correlated to my general discomfort when I encounter extremes.