Pride, self-esteem, and self-love

Pride and self-esteem are two sides of the same coin, a coin I call "self-love." Self-love can be a synonym for pride, a deadly sin. Or it can be considered a positive thing, as opposed to self-hatred. Some people lump the two together. Either they say, "This stuff about self-esteem is all nonsense. They used to call it pride, and it's a sin!" Or, they say, "Ah, in those terrible old days people considered pride a sin, but really, it's no more than healthy self-esteem!"

I consider pride and self-esteem to be very different. They are both love of self, sure. But pride is an unhealthy, obsessive love, the kind of love that makes you defend someone when you know they're wrong, that closes off your ability to love others. Not a true love, but "love" in quotation marks, perhaps. Self-esteem is a healthy sort of self-love, the love that you have for a good friend that you admire, but can be realistic about their faults as well. You enjoy spending time with them, alone or along with others, but you don't obsess about them.

Pride is definitely bad. Pride leads you to ignore others' needs in favor of your own; to defend your own ideas even after you've been shown the flaws in them; to refuse to improve yourself; to be rude and dismissive. People don't like a proud person. There's no room for love of others (God included) in the heart of someone in love with themselves.

But I argue that self-esteem is good. Knowing that you are good at a subject or a sport isn't "evil pride," it's simply accepting the truth about yourself. And I think it's okay to feel good about the things you're good at. In the same way, we should acknowledge our faults. But we shouldn't be cast down by them, to imagine that those faults make us no good and not worth loving. Instead we should try to see ourselves as we see others -- a person with some bad in them, but lots of good.

Lack of self-esteem leads to problems. Depression is the obvious example, with its relatives anorexia, bulimia, and cutting. Less drastic are problems like defensiveness (a last hold-out of the instinct of self-preservation, when we are convinced we are not worth preserving), an inability to form good relationships (because we are unable to believe that we are lovable, and fail to accept and trust others' love), and a lack of confidence that keeps us from pursuing ideas and opportunities we should.

It's possible to have low self-esteem and pride at the same time. When we fail at a healthy relationship with ourselves, we turn to an unhealthy one. The person in this situation hates himself, obsesses over his faults, and yet turns an even harsher eye to others. He puts down their faults to make himself feel better. Or he has a false humility and claims to be worthless, but holds his own ideas and opinions as gospel because, well, he might be worthless but his ideas are something entirely different, and anyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong.

It's often said that bullies have low self-esteem, and I believe it. What could be more natural for a person fighting the idea that he is worthless than pushing someone else around? It's a nice boost for their miserable ego.

Because, the fact is, self-love of some kind is unavoidable. It's instinct. There's a saying that self-love doesn't die till an hour after you do. You can pray for humility and you can focus on others, but some time in every day, you're going to end up facing yourself in the mirror. Do you zoom in on the zits, the flab, the wrinkles, agonize over how you look as if it mattered to anyone but yourself? Do you spend your time rearranging your hair, fixing your makeup, trying to impress? Or do you give yourself a quick smile, say "Hello, old friend," and keep going? That's the difference between a healthy self-esteem and its many distortions.

I'm not sure what all this means for me, as a parent. How do I raise a child with healthy self-esteem without teaching him an unhealthy pride? How do I show him that his achievements are of value without making him depend on my praise for everything he does? How, in short, do I teach him to be friends with himself?

I do know what doesn't work. When I was in boarding school, I was labeled as proud. The fact is, I talked a good game because I was so unsure of myself. But the treatment was to put me down at every opportunity, to correct me constantly and tell me what was wrong with me. When I accepted this without crying, getting angry, or defending myself, then I would be cured. (It never happened.) But I think I've shown how a person with low self-esteem does become defensive, and I became more and more defensive the longer it went on. A person who humbly accepts criticism is a person with healthy self-esteem, someone who doesn't need to be perfect in the eyes of others to feel he is of value. He knows he has value, he knows what his talents and strengths are, so he doesn't need so much affirmation -- and when a fault is pointed out to him, he can accept that and try to fix it without feeling like he's no good.

I just don't know what I would have done in the same situation. Reassure the high school girl with the issues, help her fit in so she didn't feel so unsure? Or, perhaps, stay the heck out of it and let her find her own way? That doesn't help me know what to do in my real situation, as the mother of a boy who could grow up to be anything.

My parents are a better example. Though they aren't afraid to criticize, I've always known they believed in me. Perhaps I'd better find out their secret before this baby gets any older.

The "good old days"

I am a conservative Catholic. At any rate, I consider myself to be one. But I went to a conservative Catholic college where I found many people much more conservative than I am.

There's the tendency in any conservative group to compare the present to the "good old days." We're sorted into groups based on what we think the "good old days" were. Neoconservatives get wistful about the 1950's. Back then, the Church was respected! Back then, the Mass was in Latin! Back then, all the priests were Irish!

Back then was also when many Catholics thought their duty ended with Mass attendance and a nice tithe in the collection basket. When the going got tough, they were gone. Yes, there were more Catholics then, but if they had had real faith, they wouldn't have packed up and left the second the Church clarified its position on birth control. Not to mention that the fifties and sixties were when all the sex abuse took place that is coming to light now. Are the fifties-fans saying that sex abuse is okay as long as we don't know about it?

Not to bash the fifties; I'm sure in many ways the fifties were quite nice. I also believe that the 2010's are quite nice in their way too.

More radical conservatives harken back, not to the fifties, but to the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The Council of Trent is where it's at. Whatever happened to the good old days when the Pope wore a triple tiara and owned a big chunk of Italy? When just about everyone was Catholic and heretics were burned at the stake? These people literally sigh for the Spanish Inquisition.

Personally, I think the Renaissance was a low point for the Church. I'm not a history buff, but you don't have to be to know about popes fathering children, making those children cardinals, and selling offices in the Church. And as for the burning of heretics, it shocks and offends me that anyone would defend this and call themselves Catholic. Heretics were executed for mainly political reasons, and most frequently by the laity, not the hierarchy. Religion was an excuse to these very unreligious men to allow them to do away with their enemies and appear holy at the same time. Executing heretics purely for religious reasons is manifestly immoral, and was condemned by saints like Augustine and John Chrysostom. Vatican II gets a lot of criticism from conservatives, but the fact is, its declaration of religious freedom was completely in accord with Scripture and the early Church, and it's a Good Thing. God does not force our belief, so man has no right to. God wants us to come to him in total freedom. A forced conversion would be meaningless; the execution of a heretic would likely send him to hell. What a horrible thing to do.

In any event, we don't have to defend the deeds of popes and bishops. They could be horrible people and do horrible things. Acknowledging that they were horrible doesn't make us bad Catholics; it's just the automatic response of a well-formed conscience. The only guarantee we have from Christ is that the Church will not teach false doctrine -- not that all the popes would be saints. Obviously, they haven't been. To claim otherwise is to open the Church to ridicule.

I am tired of hearing about how great things were when the Church had tons of political power and worldly respect. Political power corrupts the Church so easily. When power is to be had within the Church, offices within the Church draw ambitious men, not holy men. When the world respects the Church, it is because the Church is failing to challenge it. I am glad that Paul VI had his triple tiara auctioned off to benefit the poor. I don't miss the Papal States; I think it's easier for the Pope to be believed and respected when he is not also the temporal head of a nation.

There was a time when a man could become a priest out of ambition, to rise in social class and the respect in others, and perhaps to make a bit of money. Nowadays to be a priest is to be disdained by a large portion of society; to work six days a week and sometimes the seventh; to have to live on a small stipend; to be required to rush out to sickbeds at a moment's notice; to be required to hear the confession of anyone who asks, at any time; and, as a reward, be mocked and called a pedophile by people who don't even know him. No one would do this except out of great love for Christ.

The world we live in is flawed in many ways, and the zeitgeist is not much in step with the beliefs of the Church. But it does respect charity, humility, and poverty. The only way we will win hearts in the present age is by exemplifying these virtues, not by striving to return to a time when we possessed temporal power and respect. To most conservatives, the present age is a desert. But it is in the desert that the Israelites were purified, that Christ was tempted, and that our Church is slowly being renewed.

So, I am a conservative Catholic, if by "conservative" is meant that I accept all the teachings of the Church and acknowledge them as unchanging. But I'm not conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the trappings of the "old days," in the sense of power, worldly respect, and wealth. The "old days" have passed away, but our Church is always new. It is never "in step with the times," because the world is never in step with the Church. But it is always the preacher of truth and the bride of Christ. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Links

A couple of interesting links I found recently:

The Over-Parenting Crisis (Kate Ganju)

A lot of people assume that "attachment parenting" means following our kids around and doing everything for them. Ganju argues that attachment parenting is about responding to your kids' needs, not obsessively training them to excel. I completely agree -- for me, responding to my kid's needs has meant letting him play a lot on the floor, right from infancy, because that's what he wanted. I have a very independent and curious son -- and the credit for all his accomplishments goes to him, not me!

A Baby's Best Start (Faith & Family)

So I wasn't the only one who thought it was a little contradictory to be pro-choice and anti-spanking or circumcision. True "gentle parenting" means respecting the rights of children from the very beginning.

The Grand Rapids Fluoride Study (Hartke Is Online)

I don't know if our water is fluorinated, but after reading this, I hope it isn't. The evidence just doesn't support mass supplementation through the water supply.

Well, I *blank* and My Kids Are Just Fine (Guggie Daily)

The author makes a good point -- that we, as a nation, are not "just fine," and we need to change what we're doing instead of assuming that what we've done in the past is working.

Happy reading!

My past, part II

Previous post here.

I arrived in Rhode Island for the summer program and found it just as I'd expected it -- like a much bigger version of the camps and retreats I'd enjoyed. Everyone was really nice, and the schedule was nonstop fun.

There was a little bump the first week where I didn't think to call home and my mom kept calling me. But instead of getting me, they would give me these little phone messages that said she had called. I didn't know what I was supposed to do about them so I did what I generally did about homework assignments I didn't understand or instructions I couldn't follow ... kept quiet and hoped the problem would solve itself. Luckily it eventually did, as one of the consecrated came and got me, saying my mom was going to call back and she was going to stand there until I answered it. Everyone seemed so upset with me, but I just felt sheepish. No one ever told me how I was supposed to deal with the situation.

Other than that, everything was sweetness and light. We were a group of about 60 girls or so divided into teams. Each team had maybe eight girls, two team leaders -- who were junior or senior precandidates (students) -- and a consecrated woman. We slept in the same section of the two giant dorm rooms, ate at the same tables, and played sports together. We really bonded a lot, and I loved those girls. It was like having instant friends, which, for a girl who had tried all her life to make friends and only succeeded with difficulty, was like a miracle.

Many other things seemed just perfect, too. The performance choir sang a really pretty polyphonic piece that made me cry. We went to Narragansett Beach at least once a week and would swim and get ice cream. The chapel was lovely, and the girls were all trained to sing in three-part harmony for every song -- so every single daily Mass was this huge rush of loveliness and emotion. One night we had all-night adoration in turns, and everyone got their chance to spend fifteen minutes in the chapel, lit only by candles. The only thing I didn't care for was sports -- we played a ton of basketball and Ultimate Frisbee. But I mostly just hung to one side and tried to learn the rules. (Yes, I reached 14 years old without ever learning the rules of basketball. I think I've mentioned how uncool I was?)

During the day, we followed a schedule posted on the bulletin board, from waking up to prayers to breakfast to courses like public speaking and etiquette. We were constantly doing team-building activities, and we got to do some apostolic work, too -- running a kids' carnival at a parish picnic is the one I most remember. I couldn't figure out when I was supposed to do anything not on the schedule, though. We kept being told "wash your stockings in your free time," "write letters in your free time," but I didn't know when they meant. We never had more than ten or fifteen minutes of free time at once, and that was how long it took to get from one activity to the next. (Later I found that was when I was supposed to do things. Just none of us summer program girls had developed that kind of efficiency.)

Near the end we had a silent retreat. That is -- as silent as we could manage. We still whispered to one another from time to time, but we were trying. We wanted to pray. So that was what we did. I wrote a ton in my journal (in secret code because I'm silly that way) and pretty much ignored the impassioned meditations given by the Spanish priest. It was always my way when around adults -- say yes to everything, but do my own thing whenever I had the opportunity. My whole school career, I had daydreamed and doodled away all the class time, and it never occurred to me that there was anything wrong with this.

A few rumors drifted among the summer program girls that the life of the precandidates was not exactly like what we had been experiencing. There were more rules. I heard that the "PC's" were not allowed to talk in the dorms, that they weren't allowed to talk in the halls, that they often weren't allowed to talk at meals, that the underclassmen couldn't talk to the upperclassmen, that their spiritual directors read all their mail. But I staunchly defended the PC's from these rumors. "No way any of that is true," I said. "That would be crazy!" There weren't many PC's around to verify these rumors, except for the team leaders -- most of the others were either at camps around the country or working like crazy to keep the school running in everyone's absence.

At the end of the silent retreat, we went down to see the candidates -- the women who had spent the summer directly discerning consecrated life -- make their consecration. After the 8 week program, they made temporary promises; two years later they made permanent promises. I didn't know at the time that most religious congregations have discernment periods measured in years rather than weeks. In any event, it was very exciting and we all couldn't wait. I was very moved seeing these women promise away their whole lives. At the same time, though, I was a little disappointed by the lack of ceremony. I knew that many religious orders have an individual ceremony for each nun, with a wedding dress, a habit, cutting of hair, and many other rituals. For the first time, I felt a little doubt that this is what I was called to.

As all this went on, there was a moment where I imagined God asked me to be his bride. I can't tell you exactly how I knew it was God or not. I didn't have the kind of total certainty that some people say they do. It could have been God or my own head. But I decided it was God, and that to doubt this would be to hesitate to fulfill God's will! I also felt very sure that, rather than being consecrated with these people, I was going to be a real nun. A Poor Clare, because I had read about them and was very impressed. But, since Poor Clares don't take 14-year-olds, I was going to stay the precandidacy for now and develop my vocation there. After all, the consecrated had said that we would be prepared for all vocations, not just the consecrated life, so we would be prepared for whatever God called us to.

Afterward, in the parking lot, I had five minutes to talk to my spiritual director. She'd been supposed to fit me in during the retreat, but hadn't had time. "So what do you think?" she asked. "Do you think God is calling you to stay?"

"Yes," I said, "and I really really want to."

"Then I think you should stay," she answered, "and also, I don't think you should go home before the school year starts. You should change your ticket to visit at Thanksgiving or Christmas, because if you go home in between you might lose your vocation." I knew there wasn't a chance of that, but it was exactly what my parents wanted me to do anyway, so I agreed.

Those five days while everyone else went home and I stayed at the school were really weird. I got to meet a lot more "real" PC's, people more my age rather than the older team leaders. That was when I discovered -- not by being told officially, complete with explanations, but from my peers -- that every single rumor I'd heard about the PC's was true. Later I heard the explanations, but I still felt a little miffed that no one had told us. I was walking down the stairs once and cheerily greeted one of my favorite consecrated, only to be told, "If you don't need something, be quiet." It was kind of a shock. Not to mention that all the "discernment" everyone had done had been without much knowledge of what our life would be like.

Still, I had no regrets, because I wanted things to be harder. That would make me holier faster. I was so excited for the year to begin so I could get going on it all.

Continue the story here.

Lactational amenorrhea

There are two myths floating around about nursing and pregnancy. One of them is, "Breastfeeding is not a reliable method of delaying pregnancy," and the other is, "You can't get pregnant while your baby is still nursing." Both are false. On the one hand, everyone knows someone who got pregnant while their baby was still nursing, even exclusively. On the other, the average experience is that most women remain infertile for a year or more while nursing their babies.

This makes sense, if you think about it. Doctors mostly agree that it's good for a woman's body to get a chance to recover from pregnancy before getting pregnant again. And yet many cultures throughout history have used no birth control at all, while still having healthy children. For instance, the !Kung tribe of Africa and the Gainj tribe of New Guinea have children spaced about four years apart, despite their lack of birth control, and they don't (as some cultures do) practice abstinence while breastfeeding.

One reason for such varying results is that amenorrhea (the absence of cycles) depends on the level of prolactin, the milk-producing hormone, in the mother. And the level of prolactin depends mainly on how often she nurses her baby, as well as how much time she spends close to and touching her baby. So a mother who pumps milk and feeds in a bottle, four times a day, is in a very different boat from the mother who holds her baby in a sling where he can nurse as often as he likes.

My source for all this information is the book The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding by Sheila Kippley. (Mrs. Kippley is a very nice lady who taught my online NFP course, and was very understanding of the fact that I was only taking it because my marriage prep required it -- you can find her and her organization here. (She also cofounded the Couple to Couple League, but is no longer affiliated with them.)) Two helpful online sources are Wikipedia and this page from Kellymom.

Mrs. Kippley describes seven rules that will encourage the mother to remain in lactational amenorrhea. As an added bonus, they also are good parenting tips. The seven standards are:

1. Breastfeed exclusively for the first six months of life; don't use other liquids or solids, not even water. Solids should be introduced gradually after six months so that they don't take the place of nursing.

2. Pacify or comfort your baby at your breasts. In other words, don't wait till you believe the baby is hungry; nurse him whenever he wants, even if you know it's just for comfort. Babies nurse when they're hurt, scared, lonely, or bored as well as just hungry. You can't always tell which is which, but nursing is a safe bet!

3. Don't use bottles and don't use pacifiers. Mothers are told they must pump milk for an occasional bottle, "just to keep the baby used to it" or "just to give dad a turn." That's not really necessary, and will reduce the mother's prolactin. Pacifiers get babies to nurse less frequently by fulfilling his need to suck. My baby so preferred a pacifier he was losing weight at four months old. Very scary -- much better to avoid where possible.

4. Sleep with your baby for night feedings. Being in close contact with your baby increases prolactin levels dramatically, even if he's not nursing much at night. If he is, it's an added bonus. Some mothers will remain in amenorrhea without this rule; some won't.

5. Sleep with your baby for a daily-nap feeding. This one is the hardest for many mothers, who wait for naptime to get things done. But taking a nap with the baby, which I've done a lot recently, really helps to make up for all the nighttime sleep you miss and all the energy baby takes up. It's also really cozy. You don't actually have to sleep for this one, but you should rest for at least half an hour, Mrs. Kippley says.

6. Nurse frequently day and night, and avoid schedules. So the once-every-three-hours or once-every-four-hours schedule is just not going to do the trick. Preferably you should be nursing every two hours or less, but it does depend on what the baby wants. Nursing sessions don't have to be long at all; traditional peoples studied nursed every half hour, with nursing sessions of a minute or so long!

7. Avoid any practice that restricts nursing or separates you from your baby. Working moms do not usually have a very long period of amenorrhea. Neither do moms who are in a hurry to leave their baby with a babysitter at a young age. Obviously, if you're not giving a bottle, you won't be leaving your baby for long anyway. Now that Marko's nine months old, I leave him for short periods pretty readily, but if he starts calling for Mama or nurse, I hurry straight back.

People are different, and so some people will experience a long period of amenorrhea with only some of the seven standards. Others have to follow them slavishly to get the same result. Even with strict adherence, some will have 9-12 months of infertility and some will have two years, three years, or even more. A few will have to wean completely before they are able to achieve pregnancy again.

Because of this uncertainty, I'd stop short of calling breastfeeding a "form of birth control." Because control is the one thing you haven't got. You might have nine months between pregnancies, or you might have two years. You might be surprised to get pregnant before you feel ready, and you might be impatient for your next child and be unable to conceive for awhile. It's pretty much out of your hands!

A baby who is very needy will usually nurse a lot, providing a longer period of infertility than an "easy" baby. When the baby starts sleeping through the night, fertility is encouraged to return. So the spacing will turn out to be what the baby needs, and he'll get your undivided attention for the amount of time he needs it.

Adding to the lack of control you have is the fact that you may not know fertility is returning before conception happens. This happens in about 6% of cases. If you really need to know, some method of natural family planning or fertility awareness should be used.

I'm not doing that, though, because I like not being in control. I believe that deciding when babies come is God's job, not mine, and unless some catastrophe were to make childbearing truly imprudent, I want to allow my children to be born in the timing planned by God and nature.

Another advantage of this method is that a period of amenorrhea is beneficial to a woman's body. This is why breastfeeding reduces the risk, not only of breast cancer, but of uterine, cervical, and other cancers. (source) Not to mention the infertile period is a time to bounce back from birth and renew vitamin and mineral stores. Clearly a pause in fertility is just what nature intended.

So, when I tell people I am not using any form of birth control to prevent pregnancy, I'm not being irresponsible, nor am I likely to have 19 children like Michelle Duggar. (Though she can have 19 if she wants to -- no skin off my nose!) Instead, I'm following the natural course of human reproduction that my body is designed for. I trust that it will return to normal fertility when it's recovered and ready to support another child. Yes, it's an exercise in trust because I have no idea when that will be -- but that's okay. I like it better this way.

Note: The methods outlined above are useful for increasing prolactin for any reason, not just child spacing -- so mothers who need to increase milk supply, for instance, should try some of the seven standards.

Things babies don't need

I keep being told about how expensive babies are. BabyCenter tells me my baby's first year will cost us around $9,000. Apparently it costs $250,000 to raise a child to adulthood. I'm not sure who comes up with these numbers.

We've spent maybe a couple of hundred dollars directly on the baby since he was born, and much of that wasn't necessary. Of course, we were lucky to have a lot of gifts from friends and family, but hand-me-downs are pretty easy to find. Even if you don't have friends with older babies, there are tons of listings on Craigslist for baby clothes for a couple of dollars a bag -- or cribs and carseats for less than half retail price. Everyone wants new -- so if used is good enough, it's easy to save a ton.

This isn't, however, a post on how to save money with a baby. Even if you're being frugal, babies do have costs -- like the upgrade from insurance for a couple to a family plan, or the out-of-pocket costs at the hospital. Not $9,000, but there are expenses.

I'm talking about stuff babies don't need at all. Stuff that you might want to say no to, even if it's offered for free.

Infant carseat: You know how you always see moms lugging around those gigantic bucket seats with babies in them? It's our culture's image of how you carry a baby. But those aren't necessary. I have never had one, and though getting the baby in and out of his carseat at every stop can be a pain, it's forced me to actually hold my child. This means that when we're out and about, he's able to look around and interact with his environment (something he loves to do), stay warm in someone's arms, and strengthen his body. Plus, no chance of developing positional plagiocephaly, or flat head, like many "carseat babies" do.

Swing: These have always struck me as just one more way to ignore your baby. Yes, babies love movement. But allowing them to zone out in a swaying seat for hours while they stare at the wall -- it just doesn't strike me as necessary. Most babies would far and away prefer a little holding, perhaps in a cloth carrier. And when swings are used for naps, you're left in a bind when they get too big for the swing but can't sleep without motion. For those few very needy babies that you just can't seem to hold as much as they want, you can always buy a swing after the baby's born. Otherwise, it's likely to be just one more place to put a baby that would rather be with you.

A ton of clothes: When Marko was a newborn, I had a hard time making sure he even wore all his clothes at least once! Now that he's growing out of his 6-9 month clothes, he has hardly anything that fits -- perhaps four or five day outfits and three sets of footie pajamas. And yet, with our tiny washer, that actually turns out to be about right. Also, a baby doesn't need to be wrapped in a million blankets either. As a rule of thumb, if you're wearing shorts, the baby can be wearing something equivalent. If you need a sweater, put him in a sweater or long sleeves. If his cheeks are flushed, he's wearing too much; if his hands are blue, purple, or mottled, he needs more. It's okay for babies to be barefoot. I get scolded almost daily about my kid's bare feet, but he doesn't want to wear socks -- they get in the way of his cruising and crawling. Unless we're outside on a cold day, I leave his feet bare (except for footie pajamas at night).

Shoes: I've just been reading up on how much better kids' feet develop without shoes. In fact, we'd all do better to go barefoot a bit more often: fewer corns, hammertoes, and cases of athlete's foot. Unless the ground is very cold or covered with sharp objects, we don't really need to be wearing shoes or put them on our kids. Obviously non-walking babies don't need shoes at all! It might be handy to have one pair for dressy events and cold days, but other than that, you don't need baby shoes.

Changing table: I have always changed Marko on the floor. As he gets older and more squirmy, I sure am glad I do. Because he would have pitched to the floor a half-dozen times if he were on a table. They're just not very safe. I find it quite comfortable to kneel down and change him, but you can also change a baby on the bed if you'd rather (though you need a plastic pad underneath the baby .... believe me).

Plates, bowls, sippy cups, utensils: Personally, I think the existence of special baby dishes must be a marketing ploy. Marko's never had the slightest patience for a sippy cup. And it's just as well, because they're not as good for developing teeth! He drinks out of my cup and eats with his hands off his clean high chair tray. No flinging of bowls or spoons that way. (Spoon-feeding a baby at all isn't necessary -- just wait till the baby's ready to feed himself with his hands, and give him small soft bits!)

Baby bath tub: It's hard to hold a wet, floppy baby at arms length in a tub. Much better to hold him on your lap in the big tub with you. It's what I do. Now that he can sit up, he sometimes gets baths by himself, but I generally get in with him because it's my only chance to get clean on a busy day!

So what do babies need? It depends. We got ours a crib (Craigslist, $40) because he preferred to sleep in his own space, but many babies sleep much better in mom and dad's bed. Expensive cribs can end up being a $300 storage space for stuffed animals. To be legal to go places, we needed a carseat, but we have a convertible one that switches to forward-facing when the baby's old enough. It will last him till he's out of carseats altogether. A high chair was handy ($15 at Goodwill) so he had someplace to eat, as well as get a good view of things while I was cooking. We did end up buying one "baby-minder," a bouncy seat, because Marko loved being upright so much. He had a lot of floor time as a tiny baby, but his favorite thing in the world was to look around. And we got a Moby Wrap ($40 new) to carry him around in. That thing has been worth its weight in gold, and I've made two more carriers too. (He's sleeping right now in the mei tai. Just wouldn't nap no matter what I did, so I popped him in there -- out in five minutes.)

Other than that, a couple dozen cloth diapers, some clothes (mostly gifts and hand-me-downs), bites of whatever food we happen to be eating, and a lot of toys -- most of which were never meant as toys, like my whisk that he seems to have appropriated -- fulfill his needs pretty well. The main thing he needs is two loving parents, which he has. I shy away from anything that tries to replace those.

Cod liver oil

Yes, I'm talking about that traditional health tonic no kid ever wants to take.

When I was in college (as well as before then) I had crippling headaches. They lasted for days and were really, really bad. At one point I talked to a friend's mom who was a nurse and into natural healing, and she suggested I take a bunch of different vitamins. That did seem to help, unless it was the coming of spring that helped. (I only get these headaches in the winter, pretty much, and only on the East Coast. The cold triggers them.) But after awhile I stopped taking them and didn't notice any particular difference. When the headaches came back, I'd take them for awhile and then forget about them.

After graduation, my first winter on my own, I was sick all the time. First off, I was teaching, and being a teacher must be the most disease-prone career ever. You always get everything the kids have. Then I was cold all the time, because I didn't have a car and was walking everywhere ... and the cold set off those nasty headaches. I didn't get much sleep either, I didn't eat right, and I was under a ton of stress. So, small wonder I got pharyngitis and cold after cold. I also had bad skin and overall felt lousy even the few times I wasn't sick.

I couldn't afford to improve my diet much, and the stress and lack of sleep were inevitable for a new teacher with 120 students I saw every day. The one thing I could change was to add a supplement. I had read recently that vitamin supplements aren't really so great, because the vitamins in them are artificially derived and therefore not used as well by the body. I have no source for that, but I have noticed food does tend to work for me a little better than tablets.

I was looking mainly to improve my skin, and wanted vitamin A for that. A friend told me she'd cured her acne with it. But I wanted something naturally derived. My mom suggested cod liver oil, so I picked it a bottle of tiny capsules the next time I was at the store and started taking them every night along with the multivitamin I was taking already.

They worked well enough to clear up my skin in time for my wedding. My sicknesses also got better, but then, it was spring. I kept taking the cod liver oil until I ran out of the bottle -- by which point I was pregnant. I mentioned it to my mom and she said, "Make sure you get more -- you have to take it every day when you're pregnant, because it's good for baby's brain." So I took it every day, along with my prenatal vitamin.

That winter, I was sick once. For one day. I credited this to being pregnant, but I've since heard others say they were sick more often during pregnancy. And, definitely, the kids I taught, being younger, weren't sick any less often. The swine flu went through and gave us 50% absentee rates for awhile. All I got was a sinus thing that lasted 24 hours, with a slight fever.

I now know that cod liver oil is rich in vitamin D as well as vitamin A, and that vitamin D is an extremely important nutrient for the immune system. I have no doubt that this is one of the reasons why sickness is so rampant in the wintertime. Besides those two vitamins, it also has high levels of DHA and EPA, two omega-3 fatty acids that are essential for the brain and vision as well as other areas of the body. (source)

The problem is, I can no longer find it at the grocery store in capsules. And I recently discovered that almost all commercially-available brands are heat-processed, and the heat processing destroys some of the vitamins. The stuff to get, say real-food advocates, is the fermented stuff, made the way the Vikings and ancient Romans used to. They would mix fish livers with seawater in a barrel and leave it for as much as a year. The fermenting process breaks down the livers and releases the oil, which they would then take as a health tonic and a seasoning. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one brand in the US that makes it the old-fashioned way. I was reduced to buying it off the internet in liquid form at a higher price than I used to.

To mitigate the price factor, I got some on sale because they were discontinuing the "Mediterranean" flavor. The stuff is heavy on the basil, but also contains garlic and salt, all to mask the natural flavor, which I've heard from numerous bloggers is pretty nasty.

Okay, so the stuff arrived and I've started taking it. The first time, I loaded in a medicine syringe and shot it to the back of my throat, which is a technique others have recommended. It kind of made me gag having it way in the back of my throat there, but it didn't taste that bad. Just like basil, with maybe a hint of something else, not distinctly fishy, just unfamiliar. So the next time I just took it with a spoon. This turned out to be a BAD CHOICE. It tasted like spaghetti gone horribly, horribly wrong. I can't describe it. It's just a nasty, nasty taste that isn't like anything else I know of. Not much like fish, and not like liver either. (Let it be known, though, that I am picky about fish and detest all liver.)

My current routine is to take it before bed, about a half teaspoon (I'm working up to a teaspoon) out of the syringe. It has to be before bed, because if I take it in the morning, I have to deal with the smell of it in my nose for some time, and I find myself eating all kinds of things trying to forget about that smell. But if I take it really quickly at night, and then follow with my bedtime snack (a piece of bread and jam and a glass of milk), it really isn't that bad. I can hardly taste the cod liver itself, and the oiliness and basil-y-ness is easily washed away after a bite of bread and jam.

So, would I recommend it? You notice I didn't give the brand name, mainly because I don't want you to think I'm trying to sell the stuff to you. I'm not, because I don't use this blog to make money and the company doesn't know I exist. However, I think I would recommend it. I've only been taking it for a few days, but already John's had a truly wretched cold. The baby had it too when I started taking the oil, but I hadn't had it yet. The day after my first dose, I had a scratchy throat and a bit of congestion, and I thought "Here it comes!" But the next day, all that was gone, and the baby was also much better. John's the only one still hacking. True, it may be totally unrelated, or it may be a placebo effect. But the one undeniable fact is that it contains some really good vitamins. In the wintertime, it's hard to get any sunshine to make vitamin D, and there are few foods that have it. Nursing and pregnant moms are recommended to take vitamin D anyway, but I prefer to find naturally occurring vitamins as opposed to artificial ones. Cod liver oil fits the bill for that.

So, if you can find cod liver oil, it's a great supplement for the wintertime. You will probably have to go online or to a health food store, though, since it's hard to find lately. If you want the fermented stuff, follow this link. The Mediterranean flavor's discontinued now, but I have heard the cinnamon tingle recommended. Or, if you don't mind the extra price (and I totally wouldn't, if I had the money at all, which I don't), get the capsules and you won't have to taste it at all.